Doesn't seem likely, given what you've posted so far. Do you have anything of substance to contribute aside from the completely unsurprising information that the paper has enemies? Perhaps you could link to any of the unethical hit pieces you say the paper makes a habit of publishing. Or provide a plausible hypothesis for how identity theft and computer hacking could be crimes the paper's involved in committing. Because so far, it's pretty hard to construe this affair as the journalists being the bad guys and the cops being in the right, even if we account for the journalists in question being muckrakers.
I have no motivation to provide evidence to the internet so they can test my sibling's claims - I just wanted to share that the one sided outrage may potentially be unfounded.
Much of HN values hearing from those personally involved in our stories. In this instance, I'm somewhat involved, so I shared some context. I don't know anything beyond what I've shared.
Yes, of course an established newspaper is more credible than an anonymous online user.
But it's also not just about who gets the benefit of the doubt. The facts available so far do not fit easily into a plausible story that would justify the police actions: we would need explanations for why the paper would be committing identity theft and computer hacking crimes to report on matters of public record, why the paper would claim to have reached out to police rather than publish damaging information, why the paper was raided but nobody was arrested or charged with any crimes.
On the other hand, the available facts do fit easily into a plausible story of cronyism and incompetence. It's a lot easier to believe that the local officials were being overzealous in pursuit of someone they perceived to be trying to damage the reputation of someone politically connected. The unanswered questions here are more about which plausible explanation is correct: are the police trying to build a case against the paper, or against the paper's confidential source?