Well, I don't confuse the two issues. I'm glad that is out of the way.
Let me try a different tactic: what is your specific problem with this article? Do you object out of hand to non-peer reviewed science articles regardless of quality? Do you have specific objections to the quality of this article?
From my point of view, there has been a long standing public health problem in the US with obesity and related pathologies. The public has been understandably interested in the outcome, and so there is demand for press coverage. The scientific progress in identifying the cause of the problem has been uneven and there have been some incorrect conclusions about the root cause, even among experts in the field. As a result, the media coverage has also been incorrect. However, this article seems reasonable. It makes clear references to current scientific work, presents the subject evenly (barring the title), and the author makes efforts to explain to an educated but non-scientific audience.
"Do you object out of hand to non-peer reviewed science articles regardless of quality?"
In general? I find it distasteful but I don't really give that much of a shit.
Topics like nutrition or medicine have a large potential to cause bodily harm however, and I firmly believe that non-rigorous studies should not be shared with populations that don't have the capacity to understand the limitations present.
Example: Shoddy studies about vaccines and the general public mix with disastrous results.
All so this journalist can make a quick buck, instead of finding something more appropriate to "report" on.
Let me try a different tactic: what is your specific problem with this article? Do you object out of hand to non-peer reviewed science articles regardless of quality? Do you have specific objections to the quality of this article?
From my point of view, there has been a long standing public health problem in the US with obesity and related pathologies. The public has been understandably interested in the outcome, and so there is demand for press coverage. The scientific progress in identifying the cause of the problem has been uneven and there have been some incorrect conclusions about the root cause, even among experts in the field. As a result, the media coverage has also been incorrect. However, this article seems reasonable. It makes clear references to current scientific work, presents the subject evenly (barring the title), and the author makes efforts to explain to an educated but non-scientific audience.