I had a feeling this would get voted down on the basis of it being ad hominem, but in the context of journalism, an author's history of editorial bias is important.
If there's some other reason you think my comment should be voted down, I'm open to hearing it. I enjoy hearing contrary opinions.
When I see "ad hominem" hauled out on HN, I always think of the following from Daniel Davies: "There is much made by people who long for the days of their fourth form debating society about the fallacy of "argumentum ad hominem". There is, as I have mentioned in the past, no fancy Latin term for the fallacy of "giving known liars the benefit of the doubt", but it is in my view a much greater source of avoidable error in the world."
If there's some other reason you think my comment should be voted down, I'm open to hearing it. I enjoy hearing contrary opinions.