I actually was not arguing against bias in the article, rather the appeal to emotion and failure to seek a reasonable explanation before directing the reader to

I actually was not arguing against bias in the article, rather the appeal to emotion and failure to seek a reasonable explanation before directing the reader to a conclusion. I wouldn't mind if it had taken a stance. Perhaps out of personal prejudice, I dislike the attempt to influence opinions without providing evidence, especially after the flagrant attempt to elicit empathy before such evidence could even have been presented. Take this tidbit: "Mia Brooks of Salmon Arm, B.C., noticed the seizures in her son more than a month ago." When Mia Brooks of Salmon Arm, B.C. first noticed seizures in her son is completely irrelevant to the subject of the article. I've given my time to read in the hope of forming an educated opinion on a topic of general social interest, and the first thing I encounter after reading a description of the disease is a story meant to induce feelings of sympathy for these unfortunate people. This kind of journalism is, in my opinion, manipulative and socially destructive, no matter how noble its author's intentions. I realize this is a common enough problem, but I don't feel apologetic about pointing out when I see it.