In this example it sounds like there are multiple sides, just that one is baseless. Even these though I have found come from somewhere, maybe a misunderstanding or a conflation of unrelated topics. While not unlikely intentional on the author's side, the readers are not so sinister I think. Being able to read this while grounded with the other more factual side helps when discussing with those I may otherwise generally disagree with. It has felt somewhat like language learning, understanding it helps with communication with people with a very different background.

Admittedly it takes more time to do this, and I can see not being able to invest that in a general sense. I personally think it's worth it.

That's rarely the case with science reporting. The subjects that are sufficiently rigorous to allow no reasonable debate (the physical sciences) are rarely political enough to inspire unreasonable debate.

On the other hand, the subjects that are politically contentious are not rigorous and leave plenty of room for reasonable debate.

If anything, science reporting tends to err the other way, uncritically reporting sensational results that contradict one other, have not been confirmed, or fail to replicate.

I rarely see a popular science article that doesn't report the results of a single experiment as if they were instantly established fact.