I thought in game comments were always attributed to someone. When you read a section about a place from the point of view of someone there, you get a name and an introduction. So you know who's voice this is and can understand that they only tell one side of the story, or the truth that isn't in the media, or whatever. Motivation, a connection. But I didn't see that mentioned anywhere in the snippets from War! posted around. Some questions on that:
Am I missing something?
No, you're not missing anything, failure to clarify that this is in-game content was a gross oversight on the part of the Design / Editing team. However, the writing style, approach, and content is more consistent with an in-game monologue than an "official omniscient" writeup. Additionally, while providing author information is typical of Shadowrun products, all non-dry, non-rules text being in-game documents is also typical of Shadowrun products. Therefore, lacking a clear in/out context, it seems equally plausible to take either side of the argument.
Furthermore, my entire point has been that the criticism of ghosts as relates to this article hangs on a single word used once in the entire write-up, "dead".
How can the author claim that the information is from a source in game without telling you who the source is? Doesn't the comment loose vital context?
What is the point of not doing that? Doesn't it break consistency and confuse the reader?
As these are re-wordings of the initial statement and question, or are addressed by my previous answer, see above.
On a more general note:
Why should we as consumers put up with it? Why should anyone be expected to buy something with so little care put into making it?
You shouldn't necessarily put up with it. I've already defended a number of criticisms and stated my personal intention not to purchase a hard-copy (I already bought the PDF, for the Bogota story and some of the gear, I'm reasonably happy with the purchase, though 18$ is a bit of a stretch) if Catalyst cannot/will not address the editing/layout/design issues rampant throughout this book. The case of failing to cite an in-game author for the articles in the Global Hotspots chapter would be one of these issues.
I have so far spent most of my time in this thread arguing the "ghost problem" that has been brought up, it's a non-starter as this has been addressed in the history of the game world multiple times, but for one word out of 354. When compared with the legitimate problems that impede War! from being a great book, this is making a mountain out of a molehill.
Why should anyone feel the need to defend it? Because it's official?
I don't defend the book as a whole, I only defend those parts with which I agree and like. I haven't seen anyone defend the whole book, everyone has their gripes, and everyone always will with a published product. I've already given my reasons pointing out the very thin basis for the whole "ghost" criticism.
I am not afraid to walk away from canon in favor of what I prefer, though if it's well written (I'm not saying this is), and logical or reasonable in setting (which most of what I've read in War! is), then I'm not going to argue about it, I will just take my story in a different direction.
I cannot speak for anyone else, but I hope I've offered up reasonable, and clear, answers to your questions, at least as pertains to my own participation in this conversation, Otakusensei.