The point of the article is that this is a specific example of a larger trend. Have you ever noticed that when the mainstream media covers some science or technology field you happen to have expertise in the coverage is always incredibly shallow and contains several glaring errors? You perhaps labor under the assumption that all of the rest of the media's coverage of subjects you have less independent knowledge of is unbiased, accurate, and thorough. What evidence do you have to support that assumption?

In truth there is very little reporting in the mainstream media these days. Most media conglomerates rest on the advantages of access and consumer inertia. The big papers would rather "report" on their content-free, uncritical exclusive interview with a major figure than actually do the grubby, uninteresting behind the scenes grunt work to break legitimate news.

I would like to take the No Politics rule in response to that question, because my answer would tend to incriminate me.