3 ms·

How is pointing out that fact poor writing? It's a fact. Environmentalists and weed scientists are worried that it will increase the use of pesticides... The a

How is pointing out that fact poor writing? It's a fact. Environmentalists and weed scientists are worried that it will increase the use of pesticides... The article then goes on to do just as you say, which allows the reader to make the conclusion about whether those environmentalists concerns are valid. Since this is a newspaper article, it would be improper style to directly make the implication on the part of the author over whether those concerns are valid. It's simply their job to report such concerns exist. Some people just love to criticize the NYT.

sampo 9y ago
> How is pointing out that fact poor writing? While it is a fact that some vaccines contain tiny amounts of mercury [1], when anti-vaxxers try to make a sensation of "vaccines contain poisonous mercury!", it is nothing but misleading with ill intentions. Although that sentence is also true and fact, that doesn't make its writer's intentions any less sinister. [1] https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/patient-ed/conversations/downloads/vacsafe-thimerosal-color-office.pdf https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/patient-ed/conversations/do...
- spaceseaman 9y ago
  So? An equivalent line in such an article might say "Anti-vaxxers claim that vaccines contain poisonous amounts of the chemical mercury" then if we continue analogizing it to the article at hand, the NYT would go on to show how the amount is in fact not dangerous (like they've actually done). It doesn't change the fact that they said it. You have to report on the facts, and the fact is they said it contains a dangerous amount. The report can then go on to show how that's a false premise, but newspaper writing purposely doesn't make bold claims like "ANTI-VAXXERS LIE ABOUT POISONOUS AMOUNTS OF MERCURY IN VACCINES" because people call that sensationalist and biased. They assume their readers are smart enough to connect the dots. If the writer's intentions were truly "sinister" as you say, then they would manipulate the facts into an argument that supported the idea that vaccines have a dangerous amount. The analogy also fails because it truly is a fact that this would increase the amount of pesticides used. Whether that is a bad thing or not is entirely up to the readers to decide. Again you just seem to be spinning some narrative about the NYT having malicious intent here (especially by analogizing it to vaccines) without anything but a sly deferral to "poor writing". It's just an excuse for you and others to confirm your dislike of the NYT when they're writing in the same style every newspaper reporter is taught.
jMyles 9y ago
It gives the impression that only some people project that more pesticides will be the result. But that's not so - the ability to freely apply pesticides is the whole point of this product. And it's also what makes the product sordid and controversial in the first place. The sentence before the one I quoted is "But weeds are becoming more resistant to Roundup, so the industry is developing seeds that are tolerant to more herbicides." Here's an example of a better and more professional way to follow that sentence in order to make reference to these concerns: 'This application of a larger volume of pesticides - including those designed to eliminate these newly Roundup-resistant plants, has caused concern among some environmentalists and weed scientists.' So the difference? That structure follows directly from the rest of the article and doesn't leave any impression that there's controversy over whether there will be more pesticides.
- cmrdporcupine 9y ago
  The concern is more than from environmentalists and weed scientists. It is from other farmers who are growing things other than the target crop. In some places it is in an urgent crisis for them.
  - jMyles 9y ago
    Right - that too. That's another reason that this sentence is bizarre.
- grasshopperpurp 9y ago
  I can't read the article, but is 'more herbicides' referring to a larger quantity of the existing herbicides or a greater variety of herbicides? If it's the latter, the author's sentence is fine. If it's the former, I agree that the redundancy is unhelpful. Also, you should not bracket parenthetical statements with dissimilar punctuation marks.

sampo 9y ago

> How is pointing out that fact poor writing? While it is a fact that some vaccines contain tiny amounts of mercury [1], when anti-vaxxers try to make a sensation of "vaccines contain poisonous mercury!", it is nothing but misleading with ill intentions. Although that sentence is also true and fact, that doesn't make its writer's intentions any less sinister. [1] https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/patient-ed/conversations/downloads/vacsafe-thimerosal-color-office.pdf https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/patient-ed/conversations/do...

spaceseaman 9y ago
So? An equivalent line in such an article might say "Anti-vaxxers claim that vaccines contain poisonous amounts of the chemical mercury" then if we continue analogizing it to the article at hand, the NYT would go on to show how the amount is in fact not dangerous (like they've actually done). It doesn't change the fact that they said it. You have to report on the facts, and the fact is they said it contains a dangerous amount. The report can then go on to show how that's a false premise, but newspaper writing purposely doesn't make bold claims like "ANTI-VAXXERS LIE ABOUT POISONOUS AMOUNTS OF MERCURY IN VACCINES" because people call that sensationalist and biased. They assume their readers are smart enough to connect the dots. If the writer's intentions were truly "sinister" as you say, then they would manipulate the facts into an argument that supported the idea that vaccines have a dangerous amount. The analogy also fails because it truly is a fact that this would increase the amount of pesticides used. Whether that is a bad thing or not is entirely up to the readers to decide. Again you just seem to be spinning some narrative about the NYT having malicious intent here (especially by analogizing it to vaccines) without anything but a sly deferral to "poor writing". It's just an excuse for you and others to confirm your dislike of the NYT when they're writing in the same style every newspaper reporter is taught.

jMyles 9y ago

It gives the impression that only some people project that more pesticides will be the result. But that's not so - the ability to freely apply pesticides is the whole point of this product. And it's also what makes the product sordid and controversial in the first place. The sentence before the one I quoted is "But weeds are becoming more resistant to Roundup, so the industry is developing seeds that are tolerant to more herbicides." Here's an example of a better and more professional way to follow that sentence in order to make reference to these concerns: 'This application of a larger volume of pesticides - including those designed to eliminate these newly Roundup-resistant plants, has caused concern among some environmentalists and weed scientists.' So the difference? That structure follows directly from the rest of the article and doesn't leave any impression that there's controversy over whether there will be more pesticides.

cmrdporcupine 9y ago
The concern is more than from environmentalists and weed scientists. It is from other farmers who are growing things other than the target crop. In some places it is in an urgent crisis for them.
- jMyles 9y ago
  Right - that too. That's another reason that this sentence is bizarre.
grasshopperpurp 9y ago
I can't read the article, but is 'more herbicides' referring to a larger quantity of the existing herbicides or a greater variety of herbicides? If it's the latter, the author's sentence is fine. If it's the former, I agree that the redundancy is unhelpful. Also, you should not bracket parenthetical statements with dissimilar punctuation marks.