I don’t know if this is entirely correct for all circumstances. It’s possible that a source known for complete fabrication of facts may display a very unbiased looking content; it’s just that none of the content is real. Like The Onion. It’s also important to note sources for their biases so you may be able to discern what facts are being intentionally left out of an otherwise comprehensive content.
I am willing to believe that football causes head injuries for other reasons. I am generally against this. So I let a few people know about the piece. I'd also give them a warning: Malcolm Gladwell generally doesn't know what he's talking about, and it's a bad idea to pay attention to what he says. That said, this is an interesting piece by Malcolm Gladwell.
I know this is the wrong thing to do. You can use Malcolm Gladwell's piece to make arguments against football because every argument is more persuasive when Malcolm Gladwell makes it. That's his only skill, but it is very highly developed. The problem is that that's a terrible reason to believe an argument. The Malcolm-Gladwell-sounds-convincing argument can prove anything at all, as long as Malcolm Gladwell wants it to. The correct thing to do as the person being argued at is to completely dismiss whatever he says, because it will sound convincing regardless of whether it's true.
Perhaps some mix of both is necessary?