And do they all do so, objectively?

It's not that I don't understand

It's that you're insisting I must believe her article but not their attorney.

I have no reason to believe either.

You do because it confirms your confirmation bias. You want to believe what she said is true so you do.

I mean you're holding different sides of the story to different standards.

But, again, the onus to prove a claim rests solely on the one making it

And while the media may protect their source, the attorney will protect his client.

Yet you expect me to believe one over the other.

"He may have. But he provided no proof."

Really? That's literally the same thing I've been saying.

Didn't he refute the idea that there's restrictions on content?

You say it's not of value. That doesn't mean it lacks value.

Im saying that it casts doubt in the claims made.

Of course it isn't novel. That doesn't make it irrelevant