It's true that reading the detracting article with argumentative responses that support what the article detracts is a more effective prompt for challenging assumptions, for some people and in some circumstances. At some times and with some people, however, it's less effective. I doubt it's as easy to call one more effective than the other as you appear to be saying.

It's still true, though, that minds are more likely to be changed with the existence of the critique than without it. You're very much on the money, there, I believe. Part of the reason for that is that while one approach or the other to changing minds will work well on some people and not so well on others, the existence of both is likely to result in a net increase in the number of people influenced by it.

Still, I'm not so much concerned with the persuasive power of articles and responses to them as I am with the informative power of them. If you throw enough (true) information at someone, he's likely to incorporate much of that information into his worldview and persuade himself of what is increasingly indisputable as he learns more. Data is unbiased.