This article is a study in the death of old news. It leads the reader towards a simple clickbaity conclusion "Sinclair bad, meteorologists good" but it doesn't

This article is a study in the death of old news. It leads the reader towards a simple clickbaity conclusion "Sinclair bad, meteorologists good" but it doesn't come close to providing enough information to the reader or show any sign of independent investigation. Basic facts that would inform the reader, like "how many days a year are 'code red'?" are missing. On one of the core points of contention - does corporation decide when a day is code red or do the meteorologists decide - we hear from a single meteorologist and a single corporate spokesperson who give opposite answers, but the reporter (Matthew Cappucci) apparently couldn't be bothered to call a few more Sinclair meteorologists (off the record) and figure out who was telling the truth and who was lying. Instead, readers are left to infer based on their previous biases - which, if you look at the comment section on WaPo's website - they have no problem doing. Does this even count as journalism?