It's sad some scientists go to far in manipulating data to fit their model, but that doesn't mean every scientist is crooked.
Anecdotal fallacy – using a personal experience or examples to extrapolate without a statistically significant number of cases that could form scientifically compelling evidence.
There's a wide variety of views among HN members. Reading a variety of sources, including those you may not agree with, is a good way to understand issues from different perspectives.
If you believe a submission is inappropriate for HN, flag it and move on.
That sort of depends on believing that all publications are of equal quality, or that there is no universal measure of quality in journalism and science.
While there are a range of perfectly good publications from across the political spectrum (well, probably not right across it but the fringes rarely produce well researched pieces), it is not true to say that any publication / PoV is of equal validity / newsworthiness as any other. The Daily Mail (in the UK) is a good example of a publication with |editorial value| < ε.
Sure, there's crap journalism all over the spectrum, some of it barely worthy of the name. The National Review is hardly the Daily Mail. While you may not agree with the opinions of its commentators, it's far from a tabloid. Over the years it's consistently valued and published high quality commentary and political opinion.
Anecdotal fallacy – using a personal experience or examples to extrapolate without a statistically significant number of cases that could form scientifically compelling evidence.