Serious people should have a whole set of interlocking criteria which are used to evaluate what's good, beautiful and true. 

You may want to pick up one point in a narrow fashion, but that's no me.

Here's some broadening criteria for you.
- Does the article pick up a substantial matter?  [YES]
- Does the article appreciably add to the body of facts, insights, perspectives already introduced?  [The report referenced in the article itself adds, but appreciably? not sure.] 
- Does the article recommend a new approach to remediation?  [No, it's simply a news article on a report. ]

- Does the article generate light or just heat? (this is metaphorical language, John, don't respond back that the article isn't about lightning or fire, etc.).    [Little light, typical NCR heat]
- Does the article provide a fair recap of the history of the problem and efforts to reduce it, from both perspectives?  [No].

Net: what does it add?  See my original comment.