They should, but I'm not sure that they are.

DWA: The eager reporting sycophants have specifically blurred the tyrannosaurus rex with dinosaurs in general, it seems. Could a 6 year old catch this? Yeah, probably.

Hey, it sells papers. That's what counts for journalists, after all. It is unfortunate when the scientists get giddy about their fifteen minutes of fame.

DWA: It is flawed, then, to say that a chicken is evolved from "dinosaurs", it would be better to try to say that "it" evolved from some particular branch of "dinosaurs".

Well, that takes too much time to write. Besides, don't forget that Feduccia, Martin and some other paleontologists think that a lot of what are identified as dinosaurs are actually secondarily flightless birds. They need more bones and more DNA would be nice. Either way, birds and dinosaurs are closely related and the article gives additional weight to that idea.

DWA: If dinosaurs were at least as uniform in form as "humans", then this might be excusable. The academic/theoretical problem there probably (?) is that that individual ancestor of all barnyard cacklers isn't even known with any degree of defensible certainty. The poor ole too-handy famous tyrannosaurus rex was framed with paternity of a bunch of chickens, for the job.

Well, at least in the popular media she was. But hey, it sells ad space.

DWA: A strict modern judge would be entitled to throw this case out of court, IMO, because of sloppy "witnesses", and further, any jury member would be entitled to reject the "evidence" due to inconsistency and conflict in the "evolution court".