Why not look into the articles yourself?
It's pretty clear from your tone that you haven't actually been following the Caldera (since renamed "SCO" to confuse the inattentive) story in depth from the beginning.
I'd suggest going back and reviewing the early Groklaw articles: you'll see a very balanced approach, mainly focused on "where is the evidence?".
As to Maureen O'Gara, well... how long would a reporter last on your staff if she published personal contact info of a private person only obliquely involved in a controversy?
And what exactly is suspicious about having a "fully formed open-source philosophy" in 2003? Sure, not everyone did, but it's hardly unusual among people with an interest in the area. That's just distraction and doesn't bear scrutiny. "A mission to try the case before it's even been heard"? This is also a bizarre accusation. Even if the accusation were accurate, it's a normal human tendency, if you'll recall any famous court case. In this case, though, the focus has not been on *trying* the case, but *understanding* it.
Given the baseless, scurrilous attacks and unethical behavior that have characterized Caldera/SCO's approach to this case, I can hardly blame anyone for wanting to maintain their privacy.
A more interesting question might be: why have Maureen O'Gara and Dan Lyons (from Forbes) had such consistently pro-SCO (pro-MS, anti-Linux) viewpoints on the case, even when the facts go against them?
That's one thing you can say about Groklaw. It may have evolved to where it has an anti-SCO attitude, but that's always been based in the facts of the case, the law, and the behavior of SCO and associates. It may not be "balanced" in the superficial sense used in U.S. "journalism", but that doesn't mean it's unfair.
Say, here's an idea for a story: all SCO has to do to counterbalance what Groklaw's been doing is to indicate exactly what lines of code it owns have made their way into Linux. Despite their claims of "mountains" of such code, it's been three years and they have produced zilch.