Just what specifically do you think the headlines are missing here?
The full context.
Headlines are artfully crafted. They know what they're doing, and what reactions and conclusions they're trying to provoke. They can make you believe something that isn't true, or that's only half-true, without telling an outright lie.
"Celebrity gets married after all-night bender" might be factually true, but it might make you think that the person got married because of the bender, and that's what they're betting on. They want you to think that the person met someone while in a stupor and married them on the spot.
The bender in question is really just be the bachelor party, and he's known the woman for months.
So if a shit person makes a shit argument why is it wrong to point out the person is shit?
As I said:
If Hitler says "The sky is blue and the grass is green", would you say "No, you're wrong because you're a bad person!"?
Anybody can make a good argument or a bad argument. You'll only find out which is which if you actually evaluate the argument itself.
There is no logical reason why a "bad person" cannot make a logically valid and sound statement, or why a "good person" cannot make a logically invalid or unsound statement.