Here's the key:

• The first source I use is just a scientific article. That's it.
• The third source is just a scientific article. That's it.
• The second source that I use to cite "dozens of extinctions" is quite emotionally charged, but here's where that's different: I could find a billion sources more credible than that NYT article about the dozens upon dozens of species who've met their end thanks to the domestic cat. These sources would give it an unemotional, academic treatment, yet I like how the NYT piece is narratively engaging rather than dry-ass "X et al. reported..."

I used scientific sources for (1) and (3) because those are claims people might actually think to contest. Moreover, the NYT doesn't let itself slip into using garbage sources for the sake of its narrative. I could replace this source in two minutes, and then your argument about emotionally charged imagery would dissolve.

The reason I care so much about King's massive bias in that article is because that bias is reflected in how absolutely egregious her sources are. She seems to genuinely not care how factual what she's saying is as long as it conforms to her personal feelings, and so she turns it into assembling literally every source she can possibly find no matter how obscenely flimsy. She's grasping at straws the entire article.