Rachel King's job involves covering cisco.

https://www.wsj.com/news/author/8500

I don't think it would be ethical of her to accept direction from a company involved with them on what the subject of her piece should be.

Agreed, I hope that isn't the case here. Thanks for pointing out Cisco is part of her beat.

In the past several years I've become increasingly skeptical of news, particularly personal stories where the evidence seems slanted in a certain direction. There's usually another untold side to the story that remains untold as soon as the general narrative is established.

Ecuador "respects the principle of non-intervention in the internal affairs of other states."

But they are willing to intervene to give Assange refuge?

You can't tell the difference between a sort of asylum for one person and the tampering of an election for an entire country?