I get what you're saying. However, the article having a high degree of brevity isn't really cause to shoot the messenger in this case.
What was reported was factually correct. Bloomberg isn't obligated to provide in-depth context and analysis of the issue.
If people want to take interest in the underlying science, they can. If people want to be stupid and jump to conclusions to support whatever biased position they hold, they can do that too.
I disagree. The job of the press is - or should be - to inform people. It's not about "in-depth context and analysis"; what bundling everything under "causes cancer" does is provide negative information.
> If people want to be stupid and jump to conclusions to support whatever biased position they hold, they can do that too.
I understand that you can't be responsible for people being randomly stupid, but if the stupidity is systematic and predictable, then indeed it becomes your responsibilty if you know about it and play into it for profit.
>I understand that you can't be responsible for people being randomly stupid, but if the stupidity is systematic and predictable, then indeed it becomes your responsibilty if you know about it and play into it for profit.
Though I tend to agree, it's a bit of a stretch to conclude that an article, due to its brevity, was intentionally written that way for the sake of profit.
I wouldn't be surprised if it was written this way only because it's just how everyone writes such things these days (i.e. "it's cancer!!!1111") - but not having malicious intent doesn't change the fact it's harmful.
It is the article's problem. A ballpark range of the risk is necessary to even get close to understanding the issue. Reporting without that is worse than nothing. It leaves people further from informed than they previously were.
Imagine if we were talking about a tweet, and that tweet simply mentioned the existence of the WHO report in question. I highly doubt it would be subject to the same level of condemnation.
The article may as well be the journalistic equivalent of that. Its purpose isn't to provide an in-depth understanding of the issue, it's simply saying an event occurred that is notable.
People give different weight to tweets and articles, in a similar way they do to a HN comment and a blog post. In both cases, the former is less "official" than the latter. I agree that the line between these two types of responses can be blurred at times.
What was reported was factually correct. Bloomberg isn't obligated to provide in-depth context and analysis of the issue.
If people want to take interest in the underlying science, they can. If people want to be stupid and jump to conclusions to support whatever biased position they hold, they can do that too.
Either way, it's not the article's problem.