Oh, I think that's just how Gkadwell is. He's much less interested in making sure the examples he's using to make a point are valid and correct than he is in using powerful examples for the sake of them being interesting themselves.

I live the series, but it became clear to me in the first season you can't rely on him to explore all aspects of something,or be unbiased. He's not presenting a thesis (as much as he loves to present his work in this fashion), he is editorializing. His threshold for how important some mitigating evidence must be to be considered is much higher than I would expect any actual news service to be, so he leaves a lot of avenues unexplored that are inconvenient to his point.

But, as I said, I love the series. I view it like talking to that friend who will come up with an idea and immediately passionately defend it, even when you suspect they aren't that tied to it, but just love arguing the point. Fun to partake, can be thought provoking, but don't expect anything to be fully thought out and explored, that's homework for you if you're inclined. :)