Except your example also involves significant geopolitical factors that contributed to it (i.e., Russia probably made it that guy's job to print their version of events). Are you suggesting that this particular investigative journalist is being paid by some foreign government to smear... Kim Mulkey?
You are judging someone for writing something that you don't know the content of based off of events they had nothing to do with. So far, many of us are judging Kim by what we know she's done in the past in combination with her behavior regarding this upcoming, uncertain but evidently serious, allegation. Unless you can give a specific example of this journalist being untruthful/misleading or the WP doing so, I don't see why we should be skeptical of them when they haven't even published anything yet.
Like there aren't "political factors" that influence writing about women's sports in 2024...
You're trying to introduce a bunch of unrelated complications.
Which is this -- newspapers can and do get thing wrong. Even huge stories. They're run by and staffed by human beings. And history shows we're profoundly capable of getting things wrong.
I'll just concentrate on your last line...
"I don't see why we should be skeptical of them when they haven't even published anything yet."
You should always be skeptical... OF EVERYTHING. Especially when nobody has read this article!
I'm perfectly willing to believe 'em if they've got the goods.
They just ain't shown 'em yet. They might. They very well might.
I have no love for Mulkey (though probably not the burning hatred for her that some of you do... just not that level of WBB fan). I'm sure some of you are receptive to prestige journalism saying she's a jerk (or worse) when you already think she's a jerk for her various sideline antics. You might get your wish.
I just don't presume any article I haven't read is true/false without seeing it.