Had the author said “All reporters should disclose their education, interests, biases etc” I might say “Well, interesting idea. How do you do it? What’s the process? Won't it be gamed no matter what you do?"
Of course one could further ask "Why just journalists? Why not commenters on blogs and people who write letters to the editor? Maybe no one should be allowed to speak unless they have a resume posted? In fact maybe anonymity should be banned entirely so we can see what people 'are really up to?' ”
So yes I am especially interested in the subject of anonymous commenting. I usually don't like it; it's a good rein on loose words.
But yes, too, one should examine the ideas in an article, on their merits and without reference to the personality. Then again, doesn't the author of an article influence the wieght? With good reason? Consider Brent Scowcroft advocating against Iraq War 2. Certainly influenced me. So yes, the background of the speaker is certainly something we like to know.
But phrased as an inquiry into "Zionist" belief, as Weiss does, is not writing in good faith to elevate all public discourse on all issues. It only concerns Israel. It's like asking Zionists to wear a yellow star. In parallel, shouldn't we find out about the background in detail about anti-Israel speakers? Weiss himself, for example? What is his real motivation? Where does he get his money?