I thought this was a good piece of journalism from someone who hadn't had time to look in detail at all the issues, but was trying to be fair and balanced. Overall, I thought he was rather too fair to PACE/Bishop/Lewandowsky considering their positions, but then I would think that. Also, it takes time to appreciate the details that undermine some of their points. It looked like maybe he hadn't reached out to any PACE critics, and it would have been nice to get their responses, and then see if PACE/Bishop/Lewandowsky had anything to say to that. But that could have gone on for quite a few rounds.
Overall: good introductory piece... I'd have been over-joyed to have seen this a year ago, but Tuller/Coyne, etc have now raised my standards! Also, with the open data people, it doesn't matter so much if they do not understand all the issues so long as they want to make the data available to those who do.