Also, maybe, if you don't want your behavior published in the Post, maybe don't behave that way in the first place.
I'm not a journalist, by my understanding is that journalism uses an inverted pyramid rhetorical structure. You put the gist of the article first so people can quickly judge if they want to continue reading. Then you have the details. The disclaimer is after the condensed intro and immediately before this sentence, which begins their detailed reporting: "This account is based on interviews with more than 20 current and former Blue Origin employees and industry officials with close ties to the firm, who spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of reprisal."
Generally it's in good taste to declare ones business and ownership ties. For respected journalism this is not an obvious problem.
This is pretty much the story that's been going around in space news circles. It's not "news" news, just rehash of more or less "well known" facts. Mainstream media has not kept up that much with BO so that makes this article more poignant.
Sorry you felt mislead that they included it in a place you didn't appreciate, but so far it doesn't seem like they are treating him with gloves.
I like how they hide this statement several paragraphs into the article. Suddenly I have to ask if I am getting the entire story. Surely there is a better source for this story?