> The mental image this headline creates is pollution by burning fossil fuels outdoor due to which air quality worsens. Yes, that's the mental image. That's wh

> The mental image this headline creates is pollution by burning fossil fuels outdoor due to which air quality worsens. Yes, that's the mental image. That's what they're going for. It's not terribly controversial, I don't think: fuels burn, bad stuff goes into air. > true to an extent, but there is indoor polluton, then natural causes like dust, fires, pollen, volcanic eruption, agriculture too. What's your point? The article's about air pollution, and the author wants to do something about that. That's what he cares about right now. Those other things? Very bad. But: this article's about this specific thing. There are always lots of things in the world, but we can train our attention on only so many at once. > Problem is articles like these serve to create panic more than educate people. Create panic in who, exactly? I'm trying to figure out how you can speak for other people on this. Personally, I'm not panicked by the headline or the article. More sad, maybe, and curious about how I might be able to affect the problem positively. I'm not even sure what exactly it is about the article that's so manipulative to you. I read a lot of systematic reviews in my research, and the tone of this article is pretty similar to many of those. Just because the article's scary for you doesn't mean someone's out to manipulate you. Emotional responses between people "take two to tango": there's as much work being done by the reader as the writer, in this instance.