How many other statements in it were chosen for rhetorical flourish, because they appealed to readers biases, rather than being grounded on some rigorous resear

How many other statements in it were chosen for rhetorical flourish, because they appealed to readers biases, rather than being grounded on some rigorous researched basis? It's impossible to tell without far more work than the article justified. The history of pirate labour isn't particularly obscure. So either the article wasn't reviewed by someone with more than a passing interest in labour relations or it was and they just didn't care that they used probably one of the worst historical examples they could have used just because it made for good imagery.