... there's actually some kind of reasonable point being camouflaged by the stupidity.
I completely agree with El Reg that the bulk of the tech press is, basically, lazy. That is to say, they're quite willing to publish dross that's actually written by someone else's marketing or sales department, lightly edited, and then pretend it's their own findings/opinions. I have no doubt that happens a lot. Always has.
But on the other hand, as well as being lazy, journalists are also stupid. (I'm talking about the aggregate here. Obviously some journalists are brilliant. But remember, the most inexperienced and cheapest journalists have to go somewhere.) Those ones tend to go with the herd, so the herd mood/instinct is a thing that matters.
This is a real problem in the media, caused - like most online problems - by overcapacity. Simply put: the number of stories that the world's journalists (in aggregate) are required to file every week, massively exceeds the number of stories that actually need to be written. This is a hangover from the days when every newspaper/channel had its own coverage, for its own readers; the industry hasn't caught up to the point that on the Internet, a story only has to be published once, then it can be linked from anywhere.
And that herd instinct, for the last ten years or so, has been increasingly technophobic. Some luddism, as always, comes from people who feel their jobs are threatened. Some is actually well founded (think IoT security, punitive EULAs, licensing terms). But a whole lot more comes either from people who've only recently become aware of what's been going on since long before they were born (government spying), or from those who just plain don't know what they're talking about, but instinctively distrust those newfangled Things. And let's face it, if you want to rubbish a new Thing it's not hard to come up with arguments that look plausible to an uninformed eye. (Look at any online forum touching on climate change, for instance.)
This leads to a lot of hacks who don't have any better ideas - basically, rehashing FUD, because if you're a journalist you gotta write something. And most of the time, these hacks know nothing about the subject - they're literally just paraphrasing what they've read elsewhere. So these "stories" become memetic, repeating the same tired old talking points (and if they were paying any kind of attention they'd know most of them were debunked decades ago, but even if they do know that they choose to ignore it because it would spoil their "story").