I fail to find anything compelling about old newspaper articles. If I produce a clipping that says Hilary Clinton had an alien baby, does that mean it actually happened? Of course not, but that seems to be the position that some people are taking on this issue. It's nothing but tabloid journalism before tabloids were popular and there are countless examples of the practice in old newspapers. If there is a race of giants living in the Solomon Islands, how about bringing one back so we can see them, or how about just a blood sample or a skin scraping for genetic analysis, that will end the debate right there, but of course that will never happen because they don't exist. There are always going to be genetic outliers in every population, but there is no real evidence for a race of giants and there never has been, at least to my knowledge. The Micah Hanks article was pretty good and I would argue that the skeptical response was even better, it's not hard to see where these claims are coming from, conspiracy theorists and biblical literalists who are so disappointed by the lack of evidence for their claims that they've taken to manufacturing "evidence" themselves.
Edited to add: Before anyone pulls the "you're just a close minded agnostic/atheist, blah blah blah" card, realize that I don't have a dog in this hunt. Proving the historical accuracy of biblical accounts does nothing to prove whether or not there's a supreme deity. All it would prove was that the bible was historically accurate, which given the fact that most, if not all, of the events in the bible were written about long after they occurred, wouldn't be that hard to pull off, and certainly doesn't require any type of supernatural intervention. Unfortunately, the writers often had to bend historical truth in order to provide support for their other claims. I'm perfectly willing to acknowledge the fact that there was a race of historical giants IF (and it's a helluva big if...) there is real evidence to support it, that just doesn't seem to be the case.