I applaud your skepticism of the journalist's biases, but you should usually follow that up with an analysis how they could have possibly twisted the sources to

I applaud your skepticism of the journalist's biases, but you should usually follow that up with an analysis how they could have possibly twisted the sources to fit their agenda. Since Glasgow's article is a collection of interviews, do you claim that: - he has skipped interviewing dissenting voices - do you have evidence of this(interviewed by other media) or do you think they have been neglected by everyone? - he has twisted the interviews to fit the agenda - do you have evidence of the interviewees objecting to their representation, or do you think they are scared/don't care to speak up? I don't find any of these scenarios plausible or likely, but perhaps you have more evidence than me to demonstrate that Glasgow was spinning a narrative?