And what better way to find out who wrote it than to scan the comments after reading the article? In all seriousness, I don't see how wilful ignorance on the first-read through is some ideal analytic strategy.
Double blind studies help with biases during data collection, not during analysis. It doesn't matter if you have the perfect double blind clinical trial for diabetes medication if you measure efficacy using body thetans as a proxy when you get the results back.
Reading news articles or analyses is in effect a metastudy and doing it double blind is pointless - a metastudy requires an analysis of the provenance of the information in order to weigh the results from multiple sources.
Reading an article is different than a double blind test. Reputation exists because it is critical shorthand when dealing with other humans. It's not always right. It's not always useful. But it shortcuts a lot of preamble.
Also, most geopolitical problems aren't simple analytical problems. There isn't a 'right answer' that one can divine by approaching the space with an emotionless evaluation.
Especially in complex "human" problems like geopolitics where every action has 5 re-actions, some of which are only apparent 5 years later. When there aren't scientifically right answers then deceit can become an important part of the field. See - all politics.
Pretending that there is no deceit in political writing and that it's in any way objective seems completely naive.
