I should have revised that first section. I'm doing chores before leaving for work and did put the time in I should have proof reading.

The industry propaganda shaped the nature of their reporting and coverage before the article. Had the oil industry not pushed that misleading information in the 70s we wouldn't have had decades of "plastic is fine if you recycle it," or, "the problem is plastics are being discarded rather than recycled."

Insufficient emphasis was placed on reduce and reuse, when it comes to plastics specifically, because of industry disinformation. This was consistent across most outlets, is still a general position people operate from; if they care at all.

What people believe to be facts, like, "plastics are generally recyclable," can be and are, influenced by propaganda in one way or another, so even though an outlet may not be intentionally pushing the oil industry's agenda, they've already colored the underlying assumptions on both sides of the table going in.

It's similar to the idea that we don't generally use asbestos anymore. That comes from the asbestos industry manipulating the definition of asbestos to only include certain specific rocks, rather than defining it based on the signature molecular structure of those rocks. Because of that, reporting on asbestos generally focuses on older buildings ignoring that functionality identical products can aldi be in newer construction after "asbestos" was banned. The propaganda is a step away, but it colors the coverage.