NYT's Wirecutter recommendations have been poisoning its readers and the environment General health 

Michael Harrop

Active member
Joined
Jul 6, 2023
Messages
889
Location
USA
Reference: https://web.archive.org/web/20241205222615/https://www.nytimes.com/wirecutter/reviews/best-sleeping-bag-for-car-camping/

I sent them this message:

Your Wirecutter series needs significant improvements to become more ethical, sustainable, environmentally friendly, and health-conscious.

For example, your sleeping bag recommendations indicate that your #1 pick is currently unavailable, with a note at the top of the page that "This may just be the usual seasonal lull". This is incredibly ignorant. The reason it's unavailable is because it contains PFAS and the store it's being sold at (REI) recently banned PFAS products. PFAS are extremely harmful to health and the environment, and have been widely used in outdoor gear for water resistance. Yet there's not a single mention of PFAS on that page.

So your #1 recommendation has been significantly contributing to poisoning your readers and the environment.

References:


I have consistently noticed this type of issue in your Wirecutter series so I made a public post about it to warn your readers, and hopefully nudge you to make changes.

You also frequently link to and recommend shopping at huge companies like Amazon and Walmart, despite how problematic and unethical they are.

https://www.nytimes.com/article/wirecutter-feedback.html
 
Last edited:
Back
Top