Here's the problem the commentor is probably getting at: people won't believe the narrative.
It's not hard to convince me that any type of plastic is bad. I dont use plastic containers for food. Only wood, metal and glass are in my kitchen when it contacts food. I dont even like plastic for anything else. If I can opt for something that's not made of plastic, I'd rather pay a premium than have it all if I can (obviously what I'm holding to type this flies in my belief's face, but right now the anti-plastic war I wage is a hill I will die on and it'll be a brutal death). Yet, after reading the article, I have doubts on what he's claiming.
Journalism used to be emotional only at very key, important points. The deadpan nature allowed for disciplined emotional tones to have extreme, nearly atomic impact on a subject. That used to move people. Now, everything is a life or death struggle. For fucks sake, figuring out what bathroom to use was and still is a "heated debate". 99% of people have zero issues figuring this out. Less than 1% are arguing yet everyone has to feel like THIS is what will collapse society if we dont fix it. The constant barrage of outlandish "passionate" claims to "save the world" along with the deep dark shady underworld of business, after a while, "yup, whatever". While I will always err on the side of "fuck plastic", I will also admit that I'm a casualty of the current "journalism" climate of ever increasing sense of doom around every corner. I dont believe the author even though I philosophically should knee jerk to being a cheerleader all because of the tone of the article. And given some other comments, I'm not alone.
And yes, my word choice is relevant to the theme I'm discussing.
I also agree that plastic is probably bad, but it's everywhere though and I've kind of resigned myself to the fact that it's become unavoidable.
With respect to the article, it's an opinion piece and clearly marked as such. I'm not sure if this is a difference between US and UK papers, but in papers that still try to have some journalistic integrity in the UK there is, by convention, a difference between articles marked as 'Opinion' and news articles. The writers of opinion pieces are invited to submit articles on a one-off basis and are not necessarily journalists, they can be anyone and the articles they write are expected to hold an opinion so when you read one the understanding is that it will be biased towards a particular viewpoint. So the Guardian frequently has opinion pieces written by politicians (generally centrist but from the left and right of politics), activists, scientists, etc. These opinion pieces typically lean leftish on average, because its The Guardian, but individually they are not always left leaning.
Do newspapers from other countries have a similar convention?
Defining activists as hopelessly biased due to their commitment is nothing but blanket immunity for corruption. The corrupt have no commitments to anyone but themselves.
Becoming passionate about something is generally a result of the interpretation of facts, not the cause. It's very difficult to become passionate about plastic pollution without any knowledge of plastic pollution. The only people that can maintain this fantasy libertarian opinion without enthusiasm are people who support plastic pollution because it makes them money, and pay people to come up with arguments to continue doing it - hence all people without a financial stake are hopelessly biased activists.
If they're not making money, what could they possibly be getting out of it? They're obviously insane and feeding their own egos through heroism, and therefore can't be believed.
I started reading this comment about your doubts with interest, thinking it would eventually lead to some concrete reasons that you doubt the evidence on PFOA/PFOS. But it turned out to be an opinion piece on why you reflexively disbelieve news about chemical contamination of the environment. Whatever you might say about the article at the top of this post, itβs written by someone who has done research and has concrete arguments. Why not hold your own beliefs and commentary to at least that standard?
It's not hard to convince me that any type of plastic is bad. I dont use plastic containers for food. Only wood, metal and glass are in my kitchen when it contacts food. I dont even like plastic for anything else. If I can opt for something that's not made of plastic, I'd rather pay a premium than have it all if I can (obviously what I'm holding to type this flies in my belief's face, but right now the anti-plastic war I wage is a hill I will die on and it'll be a brutal death). Yet, after reading the article, I have doubts on what he's claiming.
Journalism used to be emotional only at very key, important points. The deadpan nature allowed for disciplined emotional tones to have extreme, nearly atomic impact on a subject. That used to move people. Now, everything is a life or death struggle. For fucks sake, figuring out what bathroom to use was and still is a "heated debate". 99% of people have zero issues figuring this out. Less than 1% are arguing yet everyone has to feel like THIS is what will collapse society if we dont fix it. The constant barrage of outlandish "passionate" claims to "save the world" along with the deep dark shady underworld of business, after a while, "yup, whatever". While I will always err on the side of "fuck plastic", I will also admit that I'm a casualty of the current "journalism" climate of ever increasing sense of doom around every corner. I dont believe the author even though I philosophically should knee jerk to being a cheerleader all because of the tone of the article. And given some other comments, I'm not alone.
And yes, my word choice is relevant to the theme I'm discussing.