unimportant omission?

my attention was just drawn to this article on CNA.

the article was about a recent email exchange between Mr Philip Yeo and a blogger, and Mr Yeo invited the blogger to tea. the blogger agreed but wanted another party to be present and also wanted to record their conversation and put it up on his blog. Mr Yeo refused, saying he did not want to be "interrogated" in presence of a "witness". the article also mentioned about the issue of "how the young should speak to an older person", and the article concluded with Mr Yeo's views about the young generation perhaps not having a value system and if so, that will spell "no future".

this is not news for those of us who have been following this, this and this. i have nothing to say regarding Elia's conditions for Mr Yeo's invitation to tea. i also have nothing to say about Mr Yeo's reasons to decline, or even Mr Yeo's comments in the article. [although i suspect some other bloggers might find Mr Yeo's comment about young people being "worse than mercenaries" somewhat ironic in light of the recent debate on ministerial salaries]

i do, however, have something to say about the fact that CNA failed to mention that the blogger mentioned in the article is the exact same blogger who was threatened a lawsuit for defamation by Mr Philip Yeo in 2005. did CNA think this was unimportant and irrelevant information in the context of the article, and hence okay to omit? [did CNA think this wouldn't be noticed?] would all the insinuations about the above mentioned blogger (and all young people) being disrespectful and lacking values still be the same, if such information was given in the article?

somewhat disappointing journalistic standards, to say the least.

[related: the recent Sunday Times also published an article on the "spat" between Elia and Mr Yeo (including details about the 2005 issue). see here and here.]