What really bothers me about this is a) The editorial board, when writing such an important piece, is not identified on the actual article other than 'the edito

What really bothers me about this is a) The editorial board, when writing such an important piece, is not identified on the actual article other than 'the editorial board'. Sure you can find out who is on the board but you don't know what parts they played in the write up. I hate this convention. b) Chain of information custody issue. They cite this organization with a link to the page but there is nothing easily apparent on that page that would lead you to know how legit the actual underlying data (which they are quoting) is. At least on a quick check. https://www.icij.org/investigations/implant-files/ https://www.icij.org/investigations/implant-files/ It's almost as if it's a 'well we are the NY Times the paper of record so you can trust that we have thoroughly vetted all of this as well as how the actual data was compiled'. This is not to say there isn't an issue. But it's easy for a writer to sit back and take pot shots (and find something to support that pot shot) w/o the scope of the problem other than 'and big number of people are impacted'.