[dgottlieb]

I think there's a meta argument encoded in the sampling bias discussion. That being: some people want to expose NPR as just another media center that produces watered down content labeled as science with a complete lack of journalistic integrity. Other people want to believe NPR and perhaps a few other select content producers are publishing articles such as this with the utmost respect to the material. I.e. Things like page views are not considered when it comes to telling a somewhat complete version of the story.

I think this case falls under the lack of journalistic integrity, regardless of whether the overall claim is right or wrong. My view is that when a science article wants introduce the idea that reality may be different than conventionally believed, the goal should be to write an (at least mildly) well rounded, informative piece, not a strictly persuasive piece. When the first response in hundreds of armchair physicists' minds around the world is surprise that selection bias wasn't even mentioned (mine included), I think it's fair to say the article falls more into the persuasive category.