I won't argue that the article wasn't comparitively reasonable (at least when stacked against the normal fare of science journalism), It just makes me sad when

I won't argue that the article wasn't comparitively reasonable (at least when stacked against the normal fare of science journalism), It just makes me sad when publications (perhaps rightfully so) assume that they need to craft their headlines and spin articles around sensationalistic conjecture or speculation in order for the public to be interested. I would have preferred an article in the form of "these interesting/anomalous things were noticed, here are some possible explanations from various members of the astronomical community" as opposed to "there may be a new planet! here's the new anomalous things that may support it, oh by the way most people in the astronomical community are skeptical about the new planet thing until we get more data."