The annoying tendency to rail against phantom arguments

A particularly annoying style of non journalism is captured nicely in the above headline.  

Unless I'm mistaken, unlikely in this case, there is nobody of sound mind who has ever claimed that "technology alone will improve health in Africa". I say this as someone who has spent a long period of time working in Africa — Rwanda, specifically — where health improvements were a daily topic of conversations. I am grateful to have been exposed to a vast array of disparate opinions on the subject — some upbeat and optimistic about the role of technology, some less so. On no occasion did I hear anyone make the claim implied in the headline and article above. It is a straw man argument, and straw man argumentation is a peculiar bugbear of mine.  

It is far easier to juxtapose a demonstrably fallacious argument against one's own, but it is also intellectually disingenuous in the extreme. 

To use this example, there is a valuable argument to be had about over-reliance on technology as opposed to, say, grassroots capacity building or public health education, when it comes to tackling health challenges in sub-Saharan Africa. But this debate is not advanced by misrepresenting the claims of technology evangelists, none of whom would suggest that technology on its own to improve health outcomes in the developing world. 

An indispensable starting point for any productive debate is having the integrity to endeavour to understand and then present arguments with which you disagree as honestly as possible. It is an all too common hallmark of intellectual dishonesty to do otherwise.