Just by looking at the text, it looks like 40% of the text deals with JPay's specific business details (pricing for its services), and 30% of background info (e.g. a description of the contract, services rendered, the specific government dept.). And 30% rhetoric, arguing that this is an exploitative deal and that lawmakers have not performed due diligence in considering the long-term impact of this revenue model. Not sure what the right proportion of content mix is needed to make this a legitimate article in your eyes, but consider that not everyone feels the immediate need to argue the public policy position.
