While I agree on your basic premise, this might be one of those times where a horrible article makes valid points and is correct in its assessment of the situation.

I think this is one of the greatest flaws of current journalism: By increasing the "feel good value" for its intended audience and confirming their respective biases, an author can completely disenfranchise readers coming from a different point of view.

You and me were both repulsed by the sweeping statements and lack of nuance and, since time is precious and the article looked like yet another propaganda tool, you rejected its value. Rightly so.

Yet in it where description that were correct and pointed to a deeper issue of whom we believe and why.

So by writing for just a section of a possible audience any discussion is impossible.

I won't read the National Review (just this article) and thus their content will be irrelevant to any good discussion I'll have in the future.

You are not wrong that its over the top to use that kind of language, but if you don't actually read the article to see if the author indeed making an argument without any established facts, you aren't making any more of an attempt at objectivity as a reader than the author is.