There Might Be Less Plastic in the Sea Than We Thought. But Read On.
By: Holly Lawson
News article:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1GEg4GR4fcxvONFa5EjMj8WQ2DEJ_9shK/view?usp=sharing
Journal article:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-023-01216-0
Background:
In the early 1970s, the first reports of plastic pollution in marine environments appeared. Yet, for the next four decades, estimations of the total amount of plastic in the oceans remained unknown. In 1975, an estimation of the net annual flux of all materials in the ocean was found to be 5.8 million metric tons (MT), but this only focused on discharges from oceanic vessels, military operations, and ship casualties (1). Since then, ocean dumping has become largely regulated, and as a result, it is now widely reported that 80% of marine plastics originate from land (2).
Efforts to estimate the "mass budget" of marine plastics - the total amount entering and remaining in the ocean - have revealed significant discrepancies. Specifically, there is a mismatch between the volume of plastic inputs and the smaller amount observed at the ocean's surface, with differences spanning 1–2 orders of magnitude (3,4). This gap may result from various factors, including overestimated plastic inputs and underestimations of the processes that remove plastic from the surface (5). These processes include sinking, fragmentation into smaller particles, and degradation.
Understanding the mass budget of oceanic plastics has become increasingly important due to their long-term environmental persistence and harmful effects on marine ecosystems, wildlife, and potentially human health. Addressing this issue requires more accurate models and data to improve estimates and to better inform policies aimed at mitigating plastic pollution.
Peer-Reviewed Article:
The paper “Global mass of buoyant marine plastics dominated by large long-lived debris” by Kaandorp et al. in Nature Geoscience provides an estimation of marine plastics using a much more complex model to bridge the gap between oceanic plastic inputs and the amount at the surface. To do this, they collected an unprecedented amount of observational data from 14,977 measurements of surface water, 7,114 from beaches, and 120 from the deep ocean over four decades and input this into a 3D model for the global transport of marine plastics.
To expand upon the state of knowledge, they increased the complexity of their model by incorporating data that includes processes affecting marine plastic transport, such as sinking, biofouling (the accumulation of organisms on a surface that can cause otherwise buoyant plastics to sink), beaching, resuspension of plastics into the ocean, vertical mixing of the water column, degradation, and fragmentation. Additionally, their model incorporates a wide size range of 0.1–1,600 mm, which improves the fragmentation model and allows for estimates of plastics smaller than typically measured sizes.
One limitation of their model is that they focus only on plastics that were initially buoyant, which have been found to make up most of the plastic at the ocean’s surface, on beaches, and in deeper layers but comprise only 35–40% of the plastic mass entering the marine environment. This means their estimation is not fully encompassing and could underestimate the total number of all plastics.
Fig. 1 | a,b, The predicted concentrations (g m–2) of plastic items (0.1–1,600.0 mm) are shown for the most likely parameter estimates in the ocean surface (0–5 m depth) (a) and below the ocean surface (b). Predicted plastic concentrations on beaches (in purple to red in a, white delineation) are shown in terms of g m−1. The estimated concentrations are shown for the year 2020.
The paper estimated 3.2 million MT of initially buoyant plastics in the ocean in 2020. Of this, 59–62% is at the surface, 36–39% resides deeper in the ocean, and the remaining 1.5–1.9% is on beaches. This estimate is quite larger than the 250,000 MT previously reported. Additionally, they estimated a total marine plastic input of 500,000 MT per year, with 39–42% originating from coastlines, 45–48% from fishing, and 12–13% from rivers. These estimates are a magnitude of order lower than previous estimates of marine plastic input but align with other recent models and observational studies. Their estimations of fishing debris match well with observed studies and show that a lot of open ocean plastic originates from the ocean rather than mismanaged waste on land. A key finding of the article is that most of the plastic mass is contained in large plastic items (>25 mm; 90–98%). While large plastics account for a significant portion of the mass, they are relatively rare in number compared to much smaller particles with negligible mass.
In conclusion, this paper found that the total amount of buoyant marine plastics is much higher than previous estimates. This can largely be explained through better representation of larger plastics. The paper also found that the annual input of marine plastics is at least an order of magnitude lower than previous studies, proving there is no "missing sink" for marine plastic as recently proposed by numerous studies.
News Article:
The New York Times article “There might be less plastic in the sea than we initially thought. But read on” by Delger Erdenesanaa reflects on the results of Kaandorp et al. Erdenesanaa contextualizes the findings by comparing them to a study from 2015, which estimated that 4.8 to 12.7 million MT of plastic enters the ocean each year. A large percentage of this comes from mismanaged waste, which has the potential to enter the marine environment.
This paper by Jambeck et al. is widely publicized, and I appreciated that Erdenesanaa included it since Kaandorp directly cites it when discussing estimates of plastics entering marine environments annually. However, I felt she misreported its results. It is not 8 million MT from rivers alone but rather from 192 coastal countries worldwide. She also included a comment from Marcus Eriksen, whose group found a similar estimate of oceanic plastics and a trend of increasing annual input.
Additionally, I found the title to be misleading because Kaandorp’s study actually found that the estimated amount of plastic currently in the ocean is higher than previous estimates, not lower—meaning there is actually more plastic in the sea than we initially thought. What was previously overestimated is the amount of plastic input into the ocean each year, a figure that Erdenesanaa correctly reports is increasing by 4% annually.
Overall, I liked the New York Times article layout. I thought the reporter provided a good background, a decent overview of the methods, I liked the other papers she referenced, and she even included a call to action, which I think is important for papers like this. However, I feel like the title and misrepresentation of the 2015 paper might make a reader believe that oceanic plastic is not a big deal or cause doubt in scientists by making the previous results seem so far off.
The reality of Kaandorp’s paper is that there is a higher amount of plastic than previously thought. While annual inputs were initially overestimated, the number is growing. Additionally, I thought she could have included a figure from the Science article because I thought the majority of them were accessible, like the one I have above, instead of a photo of someone dumping plastic on the beach. For these reasons, I would give the article a 6.5/10.
Citations:
1. National Research Council (U.S.) Study Panel on Assessing Potential Ocean Pollutants. (1975). Assessing potential ocean pollutants: A report of the study panel on assessing potential ocean pollutants to the Ocean Affairs Board, Commission on Natural Resources, National Research Council. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences.
2. Clean Water Action. (n.d.). The problem of marine plastic pollution. Retrieved December 1, 2024, from https://cleanwater.org/problem-marine-plastic-pollution
3. Jambeck, J. R., Geyer, R., Wilcox, C., Siegler, T. R., Perryman, M., Andrady, A., Narayan, R., & Law, K. L. (2015). Plastic waste inputs from land into the ocean. Science, 347(6223), 768–771. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1260352
4. Eriksen, M., Lebreton, L. C. M., Carson, H. S., Thiel, M., Moore, C. J., Borerro, J. C., ... & Reisser, J. (2014). Plastic pollution in the world’s oceans: More than 5 trillion plastic pieces weighing over 250,000 tons afloat at sea. PLoS ONE, 9(12), e111913. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0111913
5. Kaandorp, M. L. A., Dijkstra, H. A., & Van Sebille, E. (2020). Closing the Mediterranean marine floating plastic mass budget: Inverse modeling of sources and sinks. Environmental Science & Technology, 54(19), 11980–11989. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.0c01984
I think you are completely right that the news article title is misleading and doesn't actually summarize the science articles key findings, and considering the use of popular media, some people may only read the title and have the wrong takeaway. I agree that the news article does reference a lot of other good sources, and I agree that the article might benefit from including a figure (Specifically Fig. 1 a,b which you included here). You also made note that you appreciated the call to action, but I feel that Erdenesanaa's call to action is somewhat lackluster. There is mention (Not covered super in depth) of policy in place, but it is mainly just that people are trying, which I wouldn't fully call a "call to action." Did you feel that the call to action was sufficient? Or would you have liked to see more?
ReplyDeleteHi Theo! Thank you for your comment. I agree that the call to action is bare, and I would have definitely liked to see more from Erdenesanaa. I think, generally, the bones of the article are good, but on a deeper level, I am left unsatisfied, and I do think the call to action is a prime example of this. I think she marks all the boxes of things a paper like this should include – background, key findings, quotes from others in the field, and a mention of policy. I feel very strongly, though, that for a topic such as this one, there is so much people can do from their own homes to help solve the issue. From the papers that I read, it is an undeniable fact that of the plastics entering the ocean from land, a bulk percentage of them are mismanaged waste. I think raising awareness of oceanic garbage, promoting recycling, encouraging reduced use of plastic, and discussing the harmful consequences of littering are all very simple things that could have been included in the call to action. Additionally Erdenesanaa could have dived deeper into the policy or provided other avenues for readers to get involved.
DeleteGreat analysis, Holly. I agree that the article was partially misleading and deserves the 6.5/10 rating. I also agree with you that the NYT article was aided by its call to action/ reference to future policy being written by the UN (which I would have appreciated some link to this proposal). Although it is comforting to know that the UN is appearing to tackle this issue, I am a little hesitant to believe in how it can lead to any real outcome. If we compare this to the ban on CFCs, we were able to dramatically decrease its impact by halting its production and using alternatives instead. Over time, CFCs are being destroyed in the atmosphere by natural processes on reasonable timescales. In my opinion, the plastics issue is significantly different. We use plastics in almost everything (whereas CFCs were limited to particular industries) and there is no alternative to plastics that are as cheap, flexible, and durable. As the paper estimates, we input 500 KT per year into the oceans and we have 3.2 million MT already at the ocean's surface. If there were to be a UN proposal, I imagine an effective one would be very strict on plastics production and strict in its removal. Do you believe that these two goals are achievable? If not, how should we address the issue?
ReplyDeleteHolly, great blog post! Like what you and others have said, the article's title is misleading. To critique to writing and structure of the news article a bit, I don't like the order of statements of the background section of the news article. The structure of the argument in the news article mirrors the way the abstract in the journal article is written, but since the news article is for a very different audience, I wonder if the news article could be more impactful by starting with the major findings of the journal article (higher residence times of plastics, 4% annual increase, etc.) then transitioning to the "less than previous estimates" statement. I feel like this modified structure gives an opportunity to transition into a call for action or an explanation as to why plastic pollution is still a problem by emphasizing that while plastic in the ocean is less than estimated, there is still a lot (500 kilotonnes per year!!!) and it is still a continuous problem. What do you think about this suggestion in changing the structure?
ReplyDeleteHi Gigi!! This is an interesting point. I felt my biggest issue with the article, more than anything else, was how it made plastic in the ocean seem like an unimportant issue. I think some of this could be addressed by restructuring the article, as you suggested. I think Erdenesanaa's spin on the subject makes it seem like, because the amount of oceanic plastic was previously overestimated, it is now something we don't need to be concerned about. Of course, the reality is that Kaandorp's results are still far from positive. I believe discussing the results of this new research first, then comparing them to previous studies, would be a better approach than the reverse. I also agree that the Times article should have emphasized that the amount of plastic entering the ocean increases every year, which would have been the perfect segue into a call to action.
DeleteGreat analysis, Holly. yay. I agree with you regarding the misleading title and thought the news article glossed over a lot of important facts from the peer-reviewed article. I would also give this news article a 6/5/10. Given it is a New York Times article, a known reliable and impactful newspaper, I am slightly disappointed in the journalism. I also agree with you regarding the layout of the news article and thought the author wrote the article in a natural order (easy to follow), included general background information as well as a call to action towards the end; I mostly really appreciated the headers bolded in black and thought that helped me stay on track with the story as well as organize the sections in my head.
ReplyDeleteIn comparison to the axios article (bullet point news article form), do you think the way the New York Times article did a better job at helping the news article more aesthetic/easier to read and follow? What other header/sections could the news article included to more accurately represent the science from the peer-reviewed article.
MIAAA! I completely agree! I was disappointed with the journalism in this article because it seems typically, NYT science articles are pretty decent. I personally like the style of NYT or other similar newspapers of having headings and paragraphs. I think this allows the paper to go more in detail in topics compared with Axios. I remember the Axios paper, and I didn’t really like the bullet points because I feel they often fall short of providing the detail and context of the science. In terms of this article, I think the subheadings the writer wrote were pretty good, if anything, maybe a short bullet point of the main takeaways could benefit the reader as long as the information therein is correct.
DeleteGreat job breaking down the key points of the New York Times article and Kaandorp et al.’s study! I agree that the title was misleading and could confuse readers about the true findings. I also agree with your suggestion to include a figure from the study instead of the beach photo because it would have made the article more informative. Do you think the article’s simplification, despite its flaws, might still help raise awareness about ocean plastic pollution? Overall, I really liked your critique and the balance you found between highlighting strengths and weaknesses.
ReplyDeleteHi Holly, great job on this blog post. I agree with you that the article is misleading in saying that the research paper predicted less plastic in the ocean than previously thought. I think the NYT article attempts to provide a nuanced perspective by discussing how the amount of plastic entering the ocean is still increasing, but it is most important to first clearly present accurate information. Furthermore, I wish the NYT article had put more emphasis on the paper’s finding that plastics have much longer residence times in the ocean than previously thought. This could highlight the NYT article’s point about how important it is to decrease plastic pollution as cleaning it from the ocean is very challenging.
ReplyDeleteGreat work, Holly! I think you bring up some great points regarding the weaknesses of this article and gave it a fair rating. I was similarly disappointed by the rather misleading title. It even feels like they knew the title wasn't accurate, so they added on "But read on." To me, this seems like a clear case of phishing for article views, which I had hoped the NYT wouldn't fall victim to. At the end of the article PDF that you attached, I noticed that there was a note saying that this article had appeared previously in print under the headline "Previous Study Overestimated Level of Plastic in Oceans." What do you think of this original title? Is it better or worse than the title that they ended up posting this article under?
ReplyDeleteHi Bestie Baker! I think the original title is worse than the title the article was published with here. Both of these options leave out the takeaway from this article, which is that there is actually more plastic than we thought in the ocean, what was overestimated is the annual input of plastic into marine environments. The title of an article is very important because it ultimately is the first thing the reader sees before deciding to read the article or not, so for it to be incorrect/misleading is a huge error on the journalist’s part. I think, if anything, the title should have included something about how annual inputs were overestimated, or the amount at the surface is greater than previous estimates, as it is now, it seems the amount of plastic is grossly overestimated and shouldn’t be something the reader should be concerned with which is not true.
DeleteHi Holly, I liked your thoughts on this article and from what I know about plastics, this article seems to greatly represent a lot of what is wrong with the research world surrounding plastics. I found the misrepresentation of the research article to be something that happens quite often in plastic research which is quite sad. Do you think there needs to be a larger crackdown on good science communication and research in the plastic area, or what can be done to address all these inaccuracies? I also was quite disappointed as the writer of the news article commonly writes about climate change and issues with the environment, so to see a review out of her like this is surprising. She is no longer with NYT, so I'm wondering if she was fired...
ReplyDeleteGreat job presenting the facts of the peer reviewed article and the misrepresentation in the news article. At first, I thought the title was a great title. It gave a good idea about the future, but still enticed the reader to interact more with the new article. However, upon further analysis of the peer reviewed study, I realized this title is a large misrepresentation. I felt that you did a very good job addressing this misrepresentation in your blog post.
ReplyDeleteI found the photo that was used in the article interesting. I do not know the background of this image, but it appears to me that there is a man dumping plastics and trash onto the beach. I wonder if this is some sort of effort to help clean up the beach or if he is simply disposing trash onto the beach. Nevertheless, I felt that this image is loosely related to the article and only serves to break up the text. Did you feel the same way about this photo, or do you think it may serve a better purpose? Do you think in news articles like these it is better to include descriptive figures, that deepen understanding of the material, or related photos that look nice?
Hi Nico! I agree completely. When I first picked up the NYT, I thought it wasn't bad, but after reading the Nature article, I found it very misleading and incorrect in its reporting. I felt the same way about the picture—it seems that a photo of plastics being dumped into the ocean is counterproductive to the point that should be made. I think it is captioned as a volunteer dumping plastic onto a tarp, so I can see that it's probably linked to cleanup efforts, but I really felt it could have been replaced with something better.
DeleteRegarding your questions about whether descriptive figures or related images should be shown, I think it varies from article to article. For this particular paper, I felt many of the figures were pretty accessible, such as the one I included in the post. I think an average reader would be able to recognize where areas of more plastic typically are, and I think that is much more helpful. For some papers, the figures are not accessible, and in these instances, I think a related image is sufficient.
Good job on the analysis and summary! I would give a lower score to the article just for the misleading title, as it completely undermined one of the conclusions that the readers could get out of this publication. Other than that, I also like how the article is structured, providing a good background and relevant paper that supplements the discussion. I also noticed the original title that this article used, "Previous Study Overestimated Level of Plastic in Oceans," and see Baker has talked about it. I think although the two titles convey the exact message, the current title is better, with a more casual style, and also invites the reader to read the article. I also think the use of "might" is good since the studies and the data only suggest changes and the results are all estimated, and it is more suitable for a scientific piece.
ReplyDeleteYour article review was concise and thorough! You made great points about the click-bait article title and the data inaccuracies. For me, the title would act as a deterrent from reading the article. Maybe it's just me, but I don't like being told to read an article in the article's title. The title should be strong enough on its own to compel me to read.
ReplyDeleteIf I was a reader who didn't know much about science or who didn't care to read the Nature publication, I would have given this a much higher score. I liked how Erdenesanaa included sections like "why it matters," "background," and future policy changes. The language used was easy to digest and was straight to the point. One thing I would have liked more information on in the New York Times article was another sentence or two about the plastic size distributions. Erdenesanaa mentioned plastic size as a variable in modeling, but didn't elaborate on it in terms of the paper's results. A key finding was that most of the plastic (90-98%) on the ocean surface is larger than 25 mm. This might seem obvious to us that microplastics make up a smaller percentage of the total plastic mass balance, but it would have been worth mentioning since Erdenesanaa discussed the negative impacts of both macro and microplastics.
I totally agree with what you’ve said, and it seems like a lot of people in the comments share the same opinion. The title of this article is definitely misleading and could give readers the wrong impression that plastic pollution isn't a big issue. That’s really concerning because when people see a headline like that, it might make them think it's okay to keep using plastic without worrying about the environmental impact. If the title is already sending out the wrong message, it could make people feel like plastic pollution isn't something to take seriously.
ReplyDeleteI do think the study in the Nature article is important and should be shared, but I feel it would have been better represented with a more balanced and accurate title. The way the headline frames the issue doesn’t do justice to the severity of the problem, and it risks misinforming the public.
That said, if I set aside the title for a moment, I do appreciate the rest of the article. It does a good job of explaining the background and stressing the importance of controlling pollution. That’s the message which is important, even though the headline suggests otherwise.
Overall, great job on the blog post and analysis. I’d rate the article a 4 out of 10, mainly because the title is so misleading. The title should really reflect the urgency and seriousness of the issue so that readers can get the right message from the very start.
Great post! I think you made some really good points in your analysis of the NYT article. I believe this is certainly one of the worst articles we've seen from the NYT this semester. It is misleading for what is likely a non-expert audience and misrepresents some of the findings from the Nature paper. However, one thing I was interested in from the NYT article was the U.N. treaty the author mentions at the end. I'm curious if you looked further into it? And what your thoughts are on the statement about moderating what types of plastics can be made to help curb plastic pollution? Do you think this will be an effective strategy given the findings from the Nature paper?
ReplyDeleteNice analysis! I would agree with a lot of the comments here about the misleading title but that aside, the way she opens with the article makes it seem as if she didn't completely understand the Nature paper, even if she was going for a more nuanced take by addressing the 2015 study with the recent work done. I would've liked a clarification in the article on the type of polymers that the study considered given that the researchers didn't consider denser polymers like PVC. Though they don't make up the majority (~35-40%) of plastics entering the marine environment, I think that it's a relatively non significant value that should be clarified. She kind of addresses the relative limitations of this study this when she mentions that "most of the total plastic pollution in the ocean is floating plastic" but do you think addressing the point of heavier polymers would be beneficial to a general audience or would it confound the overall narrative?
ReplyDeleteGreat analysis! Like how many others have said already, I found the title of the article quite misrepresenting considering what the paper is actually about. Narrowing in on the 8 million MT data point Erdenesanaa mentions, I am really curious how she made that error., especially considering her background in science. Do you have any ideas as to why? Do you think it is just a careless error? I know the nature paper stated that plastic enters the oceans on an order of 800 kilotonnes from rivers (which is from a 2021 study I believe) so I wonder if she was trying to mention that piece of data but miscalculated? Even then, that was from a 2021 study and not the 2015 study. I also don’t think the 2015 study really talks about rivers either (if I’m looking at the right 2015 study that is)… I’m curious to hear more of your thoughts on this 8 million MT error.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you on the score you provided. I feel that the news paper article causes more confusion for lay readers than it should, especially with the title, trying to understand the topic at hand is very difficult without searching out and reading the papers mentioned in this article. I don't like the layout of the article that much myself, it feels too much like its flipping between different topics too much without tying them together. I also don't like how they represent the old research, as it is hard to tell when they are talking about the amount of plastic inflow and when they are talking about amount of plastic present in the ocean, making it hard to contextualize the more recent study.
ReplyDeleteGreat analysis, Holly! I totally agree that the title was incredibly misleading - The actual text of the news article acknowledges the 4% increase per year, and is generally strongly ordered and written, but the misleading title is a huge problem. I expected better from the New York Times - they're a more reputable source than we tend to read in this class. I wonder why Erdenesanna decided to represent the study that way. Her article could certainly get clicks without misrepresenting the facts, as the publication was widely publicized and very important. Why do you think there was this discrepancy? Additionally, what do you think of Erdenesanna's call to action at the end of the article?
ReplyDeleteGreat job Holly! I was shocked to learn about this discrepancy in plastics reporting. I agree that the title could be a little misleading. But I do think it drew me in as a scientist to understand how they were going to disprove their article title. But as a layperson I can understand how that title would be very misleading and I totally agree with your statement. I really liked the bolded headings in the NYT article that really helped me to focus in on the main points in the section and how the pieces of information fit together. To me that made the article work better and I would actually give it a little higher of a rating because of that. I am curious to see what others do with this information and how we can actually remove plastics from our waters in addition to removing plastics at the sources. Are there any novel ideas for how to get rid of current plastics in the waters?
ReplyDeleteNice job, Holly! Since the misleading title has been criticized extensively already by others, I will try to offer some defense for it. I believe earlier in the semester we discussed how news authors may not always have control over the title of their article or the images featured within it. If that is the case with this article, it's possible that an editor skimmed the first portion of the article and titled it without a more in depth read. Certainly the title is ineffective, but this may not be the fault of the reporter. On another note, this is a very short article that covers quite a few topics - the main paper, the second paper, and some background information. With the limited word count and broad scope, do you feel that this article devoted enough attention to the journal article that was its main topic?
ReplyDeleteGreat analysis! Aside from agreeing with the many comments about the title being misleading, I think the NYT article could've also included more from the Nature paper. One thing that was discussed a decent amount in the study was the effect of biofouling and its effects on plastic particle density, and thus where the plastic ends up in the ocean. I think including a bit of this discussion would tie in well with the "why it matters" section, and help readers visualize the broader impacts of plastic interactions with the environment. I did really like that they included a call to action and described the limitations of policy action; like others have mentioned, it would be nice to see some additional action items for readers themselves, even if they won't be as significant as legislation.
ReplyDeleteGreat analysis Holly! I agree that the title of this article is very misleading and potentially harmful, especially as a title like this may interfere with efforts to raise public awareness about environmental concerns such as plastic in the ocean. It is especially frustrating to me how the title implies the exact opposite of the paper's findings. This would make me want to give this article a lower rating than a 6.5, but as others have mentioned, the title of this article was likely written by someone other than the primary journalist. I also appreciated that the author mentioned an important previous study in this field, though the efficacy of this is impeded by misrepresenting the statistic reported in that paper. However, I did appreciate how the article was structured, as I felt it made this easy to read. As for the issue raised in this paper, how do you feel this issue can be most effectively addressed? What kind of policies do you think would be best implemented to mitigate the amount of plastic ending up in the ocean?
ReplyDeleteGood reading! I agree with others in that the pacing of the article is really its strong suit, and I think I am a little more sympathetic to its bold title. It is catchy, and though perhaps somewhat misleading, it surely gets people reading! I think the rest of the article, even outside of that title, does a good job exploring the paper. I think the NYT, due to the slightly longer format of its articles, is somewhat better suited for exploring details of the paper. There's some slightly poor readings of data from the 2015 paper, and plastic size distributions would also have been really helpful to hear more about from the article. Overall though, I agree with your analysis, and the article does a generally good job with the research.
ReplyDeleteI agree, the title is quite misleading! I know we've talked about how these click-baity titles are often not appointed by the writer, but I still can never get over how harmful they are. I appreciate that the pop media author cited a few academic sources, had a clear flow to their writing, and gave a call to action at the end. But, I don't think that smooth writing exactly makes for a good article here. There needs to be more meat on the bones; I wish they included a figure, a more clear analysis of the academic paper, and also a more informative call to action. With all of these concerns in mind, I agree with your rating the article 6.5/10. It's fine to a pop media standard, but not great by any means.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your imput and summary of this news article. To start I think the way they introduce the topic is quite nice as they provide key background imformation and set up why these microplastics and plastics entering the ocean is important. I think it is a little silly how they title the article and go into some detail about the issue of plastic pollution decreasing due to statistical analysis, when like you stated it is only from the amount entering annually not the actual amount. I think it could of been better to perhaps just compare the two studys out right and show how the data compares over time. Overall the article is decent as the call to action is nice. I would give it a 6/10 just due to the confusion the reader is handed by this title. Good job!
ReplyDelete