It's kind of weird to say that a news article discussing different perspectives should not mention a well-sourced article that has gathered 3888 citations, on the basis of "qualifications". For the pop-sci "new study finds X" pieces the bar is basically "published in a journal", which of course Hacking's paper satisfies. I did a brief search and there aren't any obvious modifications to his work. Sure, there are papers like https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychiatry/articles/10.... and https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09687599.2020.1..., but nothing with thousands of citations, and these more recent papers build on Hacking's theory rather than attacking it. Uncritically accepting Hacking's theory is not "begging the question", it is more like "if the shoe fits, wear it". And in this case there are not any obviously better shoes.
It's kind of weird to say that a news article discussing different perspectives should not mention a well-sourced article that has gathered 3888 citations, on the basis of "qualifications". For the pop-sci "new study finds X" pieces the bar is basically "published in a journal", which of course Hacking's paper satisfies. I did a brief search and there aren't any obvious modifications to his work. Sure, there are papers like https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychiatry/articles/10.... and https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09687599.2020.1..., but nothing with thousands of citations, and these more recent papers build on Hacking's theory rather than attacking it. Uncritically accepting Hacking's theory is not "begging the question", it is more like "if the shoe fits, wear it". And in this case there are not any obviously better shoes.