There is some truth to what you are saying however I think one could easily be just as "astounded and disamyed" at your comment's lack of social conscience. Th

There is some truth to what you are saying however I think one could easily be just as "astounded and disamyed" at your comment's lack of social conscience. There is a legtimate legal question over the valuation of some of the shares held in Thiel's Roth IRA. If they were sold to Thiel at less than FMV then there is a potential legal issue. Even if we put that aside, if everything Thiel has done is "legal" then how can a "hit piece"1 recounting inculpable actions succeed in swaying public opinion toward a negative view of the subject. No one should care. The truth however is that legality and morality are two different things. If we live our lives doing only what is "legal" and ignore doing what is "right", then what sort of behaviour does that allow for, what sort of "character" does that build. The question readers are implicitly presented with is not only whether what he has done is "legal", it is whether what he has done is "right". Thiel can do whatever he wants with his money, including "legally" avoiding taxes, but by the same token, ProPublica can opine on that in any way they see fit. If there are factual inaccuracies in the article, then that is a different matter; they should be corrected. However, your comment does not appear to contest the facts presented, it only contests the author's apparent opinion on them. 1 https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/hit_piece https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/hit_piece According to this definition, the ProPublica is not a "hit piece" because it neither presents false information nor tries to appear objective. The bias is very clear.