-
What a bunch of dumbasses, that the New York Times only interviews one mildly challenging source and barely manages research is an embarrassment. This is very nearly a press release under a reporters byline and a case study for how not to cover tech. nyti.ms/2EeITEa
-
Following these idiots down their shitty path is dangerous, on the same level as uncritically reporting on the bullshit conspiracies of suburban anti vaccine parents.
-
Also worth noting: the government has many regulations that deal with air quality.
-
There are 9 pro "raw water" sources and 1 scientist explaining why it is a bad idea, who barely is given the space to directly challenge the assertions of the crazy millionaires.
-
Also, since half of the article is people saying the water "tastes better" somehow, perhaps the reporter should report on how it tastes, or why they chose not to taste it?
-
This is bad journalism.
-
How to cover the water thing properly theverge.com/2018/1/1/16839092/raw-water-unfiltered-untreated-disease-toxins-microbes-minerals-cholera-new-york-times
-
Also a way better way to cover the stupidity of 'raw water': washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2018/01/03/raw-water-is-the-latest-health-craze-heres-why-drinking-it-may-be-a-bad-idea/?tid=sm_tw&utm_term=.5c2a266ed516