I do agree with you about the MSM spinning things for its ideological purposes. But the fact that the large majority of the TRex proteins identified so far match up to those of a probable 'living dinosaur' ie; a bird, IS significant. The fact that a couple match up to other critters is unremarkable (see my initial sentence above).
That is a distortion of the information listed in the article. There were seven samples. Three matched chickens. Two matched "several species" including chickens (and who knows what else). And two matched creatures that couldn't be much different than chickens. Three samples out of seven matched a bird. Two were apparently inconclusive (or completely inclusive) and two certainly did not match a bird. That does not equal "a large majority" for any category. The fact that four out of seven samples were either inconclusive or pointed to something other than a bird cannot be considered insignificant by anyone not striving to support only one conclusion.
Significant is a good word. Idiological......dunno; but
words mean things these MSM writers seem to have forgotten.