The article is indeed very unfair in numerous respects. One pet peeve of mine is when the media reports duelling quotes from the two "sides" of an issue, and leaves it at that, when one of the sides is verifiably correct, for example:

It's true that Florida allows up to 70 percent of title insurance premiums to be paid to a title agent, but that isn't pure profit, said Alan Fields, executive director of the Florida Land Title Association. His group represents title insurers and agents.

That's sloppy reporting that is bound to leave the false impression that it is only biased advocates of title insurers that are claiming that the 70% title agent cut isn't "pure profit". The reporter, at the very least, could have easily independently verified that the agent cut of the premium was indeed not "pure profit."