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.
[6]: http://www.latimes.com/local/abcarian/la-me-ra-self-inflicte...
[7]: http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/nov/18/uber-worst...
[8]: http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/nov/18/uber-exec-...
[9]: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/making-sense/ubers-boys-club-wha...
[10]: http://www.businessinsider.com/uber-avions-de-chasse-promoti...
[11]: http://www.fastcompany.com/3037552/uber-cancels-sexist-hot-c...
[12]: http://www.newsweek.com/uber-taxi-e-hailing-riding-app-travi...
[13]: http://www.gq.com/story/uber-cab-confessions?currentPage=1
[14]: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/08/opinion/we-cant-trust-uber...
[15]: http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/11/18/emil-michael-of-ube...
[16]: http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/11/acting-like-jer...
[17]: http://www.alternet.org/7-evil-things-uber-did-2014-you-shou...
[18]: http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2014/12/uber-travis-kalanick-...
[19]: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/uber-scandals-timeline-michiga...
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.