it isn't the neti pots that are dangerous, it is some water.
The point of the article is that water that meets normal municipal standards and may be safe for drinking, cooking, and any external uses still may present a slight risk when used in a neti pot, or for other purposes where it may be more intimately in contact with "internal tissues" that lack the resistance that casual assessment might expect them to have to invasion by bacteria .
Because of the seriousness of the isolated cases cited, a review of public water supplies in the area where the incidents occured is appropriate; but there's no real expectation that the water supplies fail to meet the usual applicable standards, or are in any way more infectious than most puplic utility supplies or most private wells and other sources. Simple fact: Tap water is not sterile.
It's not the water instead of the neti pot that's a hazard. It's the inappropriate use of water perfectly suitable for most uses, for a purpose where it would be a little more appropriate to use something else. The problem exists only when the "wrong water" is used with the neti pot or for some other reason is put in contact with places where it shouldn't be. The water is only a risk when used inappropriately, and the neti pot is a most common use of that kind.
Just as you shouldn't put water in your gas tank, but you really should put it in the radiator, it's the combination of the materials used and the applications in which they're used, and the danger appears only when both, material and process, occur together.
I'm sure most here noted that swimming in "natural waters" is a much greater risk than the neti pot, although both are the same kind of infection. And there are appropriate measures one can take to minimize the risks in both cases.
As to the "disingenuous headline," as usual I found it difficult to put the whole article in the thread title, but attempted to suggest reading the linked article. or at least the part posted, before leaping to hysteria. I believe the posted material satisfactorily explained the risk. Sorry if that failed (for any of you).