You mean apart from their financial and personal incentives? No, not much else. I'm sorry, at some part you draw a line. My line is disparaging the clock that's not even right twice a day isn't considered ad hominem.
Same reason my source about racial discrimination isn't Stormfront, and my source about startups isn't Vox.
Also I wouldn't take what Breitbart has to say about sexist issues at face value either. I'm expecting you to be able to learn that soon enough, I mean you'd give me the same treatment if I shoved a bunch of Daily Mail articles at you. And rightly so.
I'd not give you the same treatment, I would discuss the facts (if there is any). For example, is the uber street campaign to destroy Lyft talked in the Gawker article [5] real or not ? (I have no context and no opinion on the issue, so I was genuinely interested)
Not sure why I'm bothering to respond, but here are the same stories from a bunch of other publications. My initial comment was just a quick Google search, so the originals and highest SEO'd articles win out. Feel free to accept whichever one you deem a "good enough" source:
It's trivial to verify that a source has the right story, so once verified then conversations should shift from debating the accuracy of the source to the consequences of the story itself.
