Yes, but this begs the question of why this particular article merits our attention. Biologists have been complaining for years, maybe decades, about the overuse of antibiotics. Any of thousands of publications on the subject could have been selected, yet this one carries with it an especially attention-grabbing headline. My objection is not with calling attention to the issue, only the way in which the writer went about it. Antibiotic resistance is a problem for the species as a whole, not just innocent children who need our protection.
I think you'll enjoy reading [0]. It's long, but very much worth the time. It tries to answer exactly the question you asked - why this particular article, instead of any of thousands of others that prove their points better and without controversy.
I did enjoy it. It was worthwhile, and not so long (for anyone else reading this).
I'm aware of the role of propaganda in society. Just yesterday I recommended to you and others Edward Bernays' Propaganda and a good post by Paul Graham on the same subject.
As I wrote then, I haven't formed a strong belief on Bernays' normative assertions on the value of propaganda to society. Either way, the fact that Bernays' wrote what he did is evidence that he didn't see anything wrong with pointing out propaganda when it is presented. My 'objection' would perhaps have been better characterized as identifying this article as a work intended to direct public opinion, rather than provide factual information.
