I too found these article titles unnerving when I first heard you talk about them. But I think you're missing the forest for the trees here.
The central argument of the Slate article is that the media's obsession with "fact-checking" isn't going to change anyone's beliefs. Appealing to shared values, however, is more likely to do so. Zimmerman gives the example of someone who believes that "all terrorists are Muslim." Pointing out the many examples of terrorism conducted by people of other religions isn't that helpful if the person's fear of Muslims runs deeper than that. But having a conversation about the deeper issues at heart (i.e., subjective things like what makes a person feel safe, etc.) is more likely to leave the anti-Muslim person with a more open and nuanced perspective, and also help them find common ground with others who they may otherwise disagree with. And btw, Zimmerman's article is categorized as "Science" because there's credible academic research showing that this "feelings-based" method of persuasion works: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282668982_From_Gulf_to_Bridge_When_Do_Moral_Arguments_Facilitate_Political_Influence
The point is that judging the articles by their titles alone isn't really helpful. I don't appreciate Slate's use of overly-provocative clickbait as a headline either, but these articles are worthy of more thoughtful discussion than just "see how ridiculous the MSM is being".
Nevertheless, your poem was amusing.