In addition, there is nothing in the article to support the point it's trying to make. Not a single number to compare against. It says "new thing X is bad", whi

In addition, there is nothing in the article to support the point it's trying to make. Not a single number to compare against. It says "new thing X is bad", while it should be saying "New thing X is worse than old thing Y and here is how that was measured". Otherwise how should I know if a similar article could have been written about how "old thing Y is bad". Surely, humans making decisions about welfare is also error prone and much more resource intensive, and the job of a journalist would be to make the comparison. I'm interested in facts, not opinions completely lacking in (and separated from) facts.