First, it's largely unsubstantiated, predicating most of its arguments on insinuations without much substance if any in the entire article. Without the usual navel-gazing about Journalism, it's still worth pointing out I wouldn't associate trustworthiness with any brand willing to publish an article as poorly-sourced as this.
Second, it ascribes to single-minded malice what is much more likely a vast and complex series of behaviors, some of which probably involves spammers but much of which does not. This kind of reductionism is rarely constructive IMO.
Most problematically, it lays the foundation for the delegitimization of dialogue in a community. This kind of paranoid accusation soon empowers folks to stifle dissenting voices as part of this outside group trying to bring down reddit. This kind of paranoia has already infected dialogue on the middle east in reddit, for example.