[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.
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.