The Post often does pretty good journalism! However, I really don't know if I trust the Post's sports page to be doing hard-hitting science journalism. I mean, the title says that he "built a career on distorted science" which is a completely explosive statement that isn't at all backed up by the relatively tame academic disagreements about images selected for an academic study in the body and the consensus about the existence of CTE and its association with playing football among all researchers interviewed therein. It's, like, interesting and weird that Omalu doesn't use the NIH definition of CTE, and yeah maybe that's a problem, but there's also very little meat about what that actually means for his research (except in the context of this Webster study, which nobody really seems to have any real issues with), and instead we get these weird musings about his supposed interest in celebrity and his role as an expert witness for Ford that has nothing to do with anything.
Rather, to someone who's dealt with this kind of thing, this seems to be pretty routine as such things go. Without the whole book and movie angle, this is at its heart relatively boring and honestly by the standards of academic stuff not even particularly acrimonious quibbles over scientific methodology... which is the heart of the scientific process! Not only is this not necessarily a bad thing, it's the way it's supposed to work.
Only here the author (and the editor, presumably, who's responsible for the misleading headline) chose to sensationalize it and, so far as I can tell, failed to ask Omalu his side of the story in a story specifically framed as an attack on his scientific integrity. And presumably there are also academics who would take the other side, that Omalu's methods are sound or whatever, but here we have just one side. To me that's really ugly journalism.