A key component of sensationalism is inaccuracy. What's inaccurate? What's being hyped? They admit their assumption. The questions propose the possibility of de

A key component of sensationalism is inaccuracy. What's inaccurate? What's being hyped? They admit their assumption. The questions propose the possibility of deception, "what are they hiding here?" but this isn't inaccurate or hype. It's a question, not a statement, and not misleading supposition or speculation. If you're going to presuppose the piece is sensationalism, the speculative explanations are themselves sensationalist, because you're making value judgements: the explanations are reasonable, and some assumptions should be off the table. These are misdirection. Instead come in the form of additional questions. I think it goes without saying there could be reasonable explanations, but why speculate or assume? If they exist, and it's a simple matter, then Google could simply answer. But they haven't. Why not is a completely reasonable question, even if it's a valid opinion to consider it boring and a waste of time.