If the misdeed is done by a non-public or poor company there is no money to be made so they would never even investigate it. And not accepting a payoff that returns more than the short position would be ignoring fiduciary responsibility, so some investigations could disappear.
As honest goes: "We are an op-ed oriented information sharing site. We do not adhere to normal journalistic standard."
The disclaimer amounts to "we're not insider trading and we really believe this stuff" many different ways. Insider trading is illegal so they are scrupulously careful to stay away from MNPI (and want you to know that). Really believing this stuff is important because if they turn out to be wrong, it's sort of ok to be honestly wrong, it's not okay to be knowingly wrong and put out the report anyway to manipulate the stock.
And so paragraphs and paragraphs of
>"Reports are based on generally available information, field research, inferences and deductions"
We're not insider trading
>"Our opinions are held in good faith, and we have based them upon publicly available facts and evidence"
We really believe this stuff, also we're really not insider trading.
> "We conducted research and analysis based on public information in a manner that any person could have done if they had been interested in doing so."
Did we mention we're not insider trading?
How is this insider trading? Do they have access to material non-public information?