4 ms·
I think they are though. If someone says in succession: "While X has been a known issue, we now know about Y making things worse" "What was [a little bad] in
by simonsarris 7y ago
I think they are though. If someone says in succession:
"While X has been a known issue, we now know about Y making things worse"
"What was [a little bad] in the 1960's is now [really super bad]"
The implicit finger is pointed at Y, I think. I sincerely think that's the takeaway most audiences would get from a setup like this.
Maybe I'm being too hard on the article. But the really damning thing (700 dead zones) seems way too context-free for me.
- NeedMoreTea 7y agoWell if you read it in isolation, perhaps so. in context, the three sentences taken together, the last closing with "and still remains the primary factor, especially closer to coasts." seems to point to the correct main cause. Sure it's sloppily written, but so is nearly every article on astronomy or medicine etc. But I'd generally like more science in my science reporting than I'm ever going to get. And as it's a longer one, I wonder how much time they get to boil down a 500 page report to 1 page pop-science piece.