The fact that it was circulating (back before the election) was news. Should have been reported. Once that fact was out, the whole item should have been available, along with what was known of its provenance.
Real journalism would then have done what the WSJ did and dug up the provenance.
My own suspicion is that this “corporate spy” is/was actually in the business of Hoovering up whatever rumors were floating around then looking for a “source” to confirm them. By hiding his sources, he also hides any way to evaluate their credibility.
My own (admittedly sparse) experience with corporate “consultants” suggests that while an entire organization may pay for them, they are usually sponsored by a small number of people within that organization, intended to provide support for whatever action the sponsors want. They don’t work for the organization that pays them, but for the sponsors who swing the decision to pay them.
So he could have made a profitable business of grabbing up rumors, dummying up “sources” for them in distant countries, and writing up the results for his sponsors to use to influence corporate decisions. (Of course, a quick look at his company’s information suggests it hasn’t been that profitable.)
Where are the journalists who’ll dig up former clients of this “corporate spy”, and document the decisions his previous “work” supported and their outcomes? I would think this is what journalism is really about, not constantly tweeting their own spin on snippets of somebody else’s work taken out of context. (Not aimed at you particularly, MT.)