Well, there is a difference between not publishing what some interviewee tells you because you fear it would harm your own political goals, and not publishing what some interviewee tells you because you think they are trying to feed you some bullshit to further their own political goals.

More eyebrow raising that she seemingly nonetheless found it worthwhile to bang this guy. The article only mentions his account of their sexual relationship, but isn't it rather hard to imagine that the Guardian wouldn't have asked her about the truth of that matter, and, had she denied it, either print this denial or omit the claim altogether from the story? One wonders how her husband feels about partaking in a polyamorous relationship that embraces diversity to such an extent.