You didn't make any substantive critiques about the journalism, so why would anyone be responding to that? All you've said is that you "don't care about ffmpeg", which is dismissive of the software itself, so yeah obviously people are going to be responding about the software.

Alright, lemme try to explain this:

1. You stated you don't care about FFmpeg.
2. Someone asked why and stated it was useful.
3. You brought up "bad journalism" in response, implying your lack of care for FFmpeg was due to the article not describing why it was useful.
4. To refute your accusation of bad journalism, I pointed out the first paragraph of the article, which directly makes a case for FFmpeg and which you seemed to have missed.
5. You somehow seem to think I'm defending FFmpeg in some fashion, thus missing my point. (Also, you seem to be calling FFmpeg a "format," presumably because it has "mpeg" in the name? FFmpeg handles a litany of formats.)

The author has not done bad journalism. You just missed stuff while reading. That's fine so long as you address it. I would ask you not insult me for pointing this out, though.