3 ms·

Anand Ranganathan wrote a good response to this article [1]. The TL;DR of it all was that the NTY article is too alarmist, and cites scant and old data, and tha

by lake99 11y ago

Anand Ranganathan wrote a good response to this article [1]. The TL;DR of it all was that the NTY article is too alarmist, and cites scant and old data, and that India still needs to needs to conduct more research on this issue. Edit: for bonus points, read the comments below, and you'll see why the problem is unlikely to be fixed. [1] http://www.newslaundry.com/2015/06/03/hold-your-breath-and-cut-the-hyperbole-mr-new-york-times-reporter/ http://www.newslaundry.com/2015/06/03/hold-your-breath-and-c...

addicted 11y ago
How is that a good response? His argument basically is that an article in a general-news newspaper is not meeting the same standards as a peer reviewed paper? Well, duh. Or him dismissing the study Harris does mention because it was conducted 10 years ago? Never mind that since Delhi's pollution has only gotten a lot worse since then, the research probably UNDERSTATES the negative effects of Delhi's pollution. And anyways, at the end he basically eviscerates his own response, by rebranding his article as not dismissing Harris's concern, but rather as a complaint against the lack of data India is collecting. I guess even he realized he really wasn't negating anything Harris was saying, and if anything was providing evidence that would suggest that Harris may even be understating the issue.
- lake99 11y ago
  > His argument basically is that an article in a general-news newspaper is not meeting the same standards as a peer reviewed paper? Are you assuming that not meeting the standards of peer reviewed journals means not meeting good journalistic standards either? In any case, Anand Ranganathan has written for peer reviewed journals[1], and he has written for this general-news outlet [2]. He's usually very good at knowing where to draw the line with citations and details. > And anyways, at the end he basically eviscerates his own response He does no such thing. His main point is up there, under the title, "For an article that talks in excruciating detail of the cataclysmic effect of Delhi’s air, Harris Gardiner quotes but a single scientific study." [1] http://www.icgeb.org/anand-ranganathan-lab.html http://www.icgeb.org/anand-ranganathan-lab.html [2] http://www.newslaundry.com/author/anand-ranganathan/ http://www.newslaundry.com/author/anand-ranganathan/
  - moultano 11y ago
    And yet, for all that bluster, he seems not to disagree with any of the conclusions.

by lake99 11y ago

addicted 11y ago

How is that a good response? His argument basically is that an article in a general-news newspaper is not meeting the same standards as a peer reviewed paper? Well, duh. Or him dismissing the study Harris does mention because it was conducted 10 years ago? Never mind that since Delhi's pollution has only gotten a lot worse since then, the research probably UNDERSTATES the negative effects of Delhi's pollution. And anyways, at the end he basically eviscerates his own response, by rebranding his article as not dismissing Harris's concern, but rather as a complaint against the lack of data India is collecting. I guess even he realized he really wasn't negating anything Harris was saying, and if anything was providing evidence that would suggest that Harris may even be understating the issue.

lake99 11y ago
> His argument basically is that an article in a general-news newspaper is not meeting the same standards as a peer reviewed paper? Are you assuming that not meeting the standards of peer reviewed journals means not meeting good journalistic standards either? In any case, Anand Ranganathan has written for peer reviewed journals[1], and he has written for this general-news outlet [2]. He's usually very good at knowing where to draw the line with citations and details. > And anyways, at the end he basically eviscerates his own response He does no such thing. His main point is up there, under the title, "For an article that talks in excruciating detail of the cataclysmic effect of Delhi’s air, Harris Gardiner quotes but a single scientific study." [1] http://www.icgeb.org/anand-ranganathan-lab.html http://www.icgeb.org/anand-ranganathan-lab.html [2] http://www.newslaundry.com/author/anand-ranganathan/ http://www.newslaundry.com/author/anand-ranganathan/
- moultano 11y ago
  And yet, for all that bluster, he seems not to disagree with any of the conclusions.