There is a very consistent pattern of events with sensitive subjects in the West when dealing with powerful interests. Step #1 - Report on the people who can't

There is a very consistent pattern of events with sensitive subjects in the West when dealing with powerful interests. Step #1 - Report on the people who can't sue you effectively. Step #2 - Verify. Step #3 - Report on what you can verify in regards to people who can sue you. I'd give them a month before crying bias. Gawker exploited this loop to a degree by skipping #2 and we've seen how well that turned out for them. However, it was largely their own hubris that created the problem that might sink them (Hulk Hogan). Most of the rest of the lawsuits they were able to bat away. As much as I'd prefer some actual firebrand journalism which is willing to report with less verification (in regards to the people in power, not the general population), I can understand caution. https://panamapapers.icij.org/20160403-panama-papers-global-overview.html https://panamapapers.icij.org/20160403-panama-papers-global-... HSBC, Credit Suisse, etc. are named so its not like they are completely ignoring the West. It also mentions David Cameron's father: > Ian Cameron, a stockbroker and multimillionaire, was a Mossack Fonseca client who used the law firm to shield his investment fund, Blairmore Holdings, Inc., from U.K. taxes.