The story makes several claims about Justin Bieber's mental health, public behavior, and financial status. These claims are partially supported by external sources but require further verification. For instance, the report of Bieber's concerning mental health and unusual public behavior aligns with other reports, yet the story lacks concrete evidence or direct statements from Bieber himself or his close associates. The claim about his financial debt related to a cancelled tour is denied by his representatives, indicating a need for additional proof or documentation to substantiate such allegations. The denial of substance abuse rumors by Bieber's reps is consistent with previous statements, but the story does not provide independent verification of these denials.

The article presents a mix of perspectives regarding Bieber's current situation, including concerns from unnamed sources and reassurances from insiders. However, the balance is somewhat skewed towards sensationalism, focusing heavily on negative aspects without equally highlighting positive developments or Bieber's own perspective. The story mentions denials from his representatives but does not explore these counterpoints in depth, leading to an imbalance in how differing viewpoints are presented.

The article is generally clear and easy to follow, with a straightforward narrative structure. It effectively communicates the main claims about Bieber's mental health and public behavior. However, the tone occasionally veers towards sensationalism, which could affect the reader's perception of the seriousness of the issues discussed. Despite this, the language used is accessible, and the story is logically organized, making it comprehensible to a wide audience.

The story relies on unnamed sources and indirect quotes, which diminishes the credibility and reliability of the information presented. While it cites statements from Bieber's representatives and known associates like Poo Bear, the lack of direct attribution from primary sources weakens the authority of the claims. The use of anonymous sources without clear identification of their roles or proximity to Bieber raises questions about potential bias and the veracity of their statements.

The article lacks transparency in terms of source attribution and the basis for some of its claims. The identity and credibility of the 'former team member' and other unnamed sources are not disclosed, which obscures the context and reliability of their statements. Additionally, the methodology for gathering these insights is not explained, leaving readers with limited understanding of how the information was obtained or verified.