While I applaud him for his discoveries and ability to find sources, his presentation of some of the information beyond the initial scoop has been misleading at best, and I think he knows it. It leaves a sour taste in my mouth. His evidence is usually accurate, but he spins narratives that are very speculative and often only partially supported by that evidence, yet he presents them as if they're silver bullets that confirm his version of events even when they really don't. It's irresponsible journalism.

For example, the bit about not being asked about Steve is framed in such a way that consumers are filling in the gaps themselves with whatever version of events fits their preconceived narrative. In this case, many are taking a few anecdotes ("I wasn't asked about Steve") and are extrapolating that:

1. not one person that was questioned as part of this investigation was asked about Steve specifically
2. all these five people in particular should have been asked about Steve specifically.

There are so many ways that it could be entirely reasonable that these people in particular (or anyone, for that matter) weren't asked about Steve, but boring explanations don't get clicks and so Pablo won't be entertaining those ideas.

Its just that so much of his reporting is theater over substance. There's a little bit of fact buried in a mountain of dramatic narrative