The information the reporter has is very newsworthy and should have been reported. If he had that info and didn't report it, he would be failing at his job. At

The information the reporter has is very newsworthy and should have been reported. If he had that info and didn't report it, he would be failing at his job. Attacking journalists when the subject of a report doesn't like the news has become almost standard procedure. Look at Trump, Sarah Palin, Hulk Hogan, Harvey Weinstein, much of the GOP, etc. etc. Journalists wouldn't be doing their job if powerful people didn't like what they read. Without more to substantiate them, I don't give much credibility to the attacks. In this case, why should we take the Red Cross at face value? Did they substantiate their claims? How do they know what investigations the journalist did?