Uh, no, it was a rhetorical question. I'm saying that if we want to make some special case that the author must disclose that she knows the subject of her artic

Uh, no, it was a rhetorical question. I'm saying that if we want to make some special case that the author must disclose that she knows the subject of her article before describing what she witnessed first-hand, then we should maybe recognize the fact that all other people reporting on this topic with so much certainty as to what happened weren't actually there. If you read pretty much any Pando article you will find that all citations to past articles seemingly supporting the main thesis are actually other poorly-researched stories written by other Pando authors. After all, how reliable is a source who is a writer for BuzzFeed? Here's one example of sensationalist headlines masquerading as journalism from a cursory scan of the front page (yes, he is citing a BuzzFeed article that is apparently citing an internal memo that despite some crafty sensationalist language, is doing nothing more than outlining plans to hire an internal research department). Is this somebody who has a less-biased view of the situation that the HuffPo author? http://pando.com/news/uber-sought-to-hire-opposition-researcher-to-weaponize-facts/ http://pando.com/news/uber-sought-to-hire-opposition-researc...