A Question of Transparency

I've argued for a long time that journalists should reveal any financial interest in issues they write about.

Here's a good example.

"Hoemopaths (sic) are quacks, homeopathy is uttter (sic) drivel, and those who give in (sic) any credence are utterly misguided."

Now, it may well be true that "homeopathy is uttter (sic) drivel" etc, etc, and that the writer honestly believes the words he has written. But don't you think that in the interests of transparency the person who wrote these lines should, in addition to brushing up on his spelling and grammar, have revealed that he is President of a think tank which is financed by the world's largest research-based drugs corporation?