I agree. This also relates to what I've been thinking about the Planned Parenthood scandals - most of the places reporting it are very fringe; Planned Parenthood itself admits that it's had a (now-fired) manager who went contrary to what she was supposed to do, but they say they reported all the undercover pro-life operatives before the doctored videos came out. And like it says in the article in Time, But it is impossible to know whether Woodruff’s seeming encouragement of the purported sex trafficker was an attempt to coax the victims of abuse into her care, or whether it “proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that Planned Parenthood intentionally breaks state and federal laws and covers up the abuse of the young girls it claims to serve,” as Live Action president Lila Rose has stated. It's also mentioned repeatedly in the comments to this NYT article. It's like the story about the man who submitted Pride & Prejudice to publishing houses and everyone went "oh my gosh! he was turned down! they don't know real literature anymore!" when the truth is that probably all of the slush readers knew he was bullshitting them and sent him the standard rejection letter instead of writing him his own special i c what u did thar note. (I mean, if someone had accepted it, I think that would be a better sign that people don't know literature anymore.) All the anecdata I've heard from people (or read) has been positive.

tl;dr, considering the source and looking for other confirmation and perspectives can be a good thing in many situations, sorry to splooge in your comments