"For the Digitally Deceased, a Profitable Graveyard"

This article about the destruction of scrap computer parts was a surprisingly eloquent addition to the New York Times's typically stoic approach to writing. The author provided description and a deeper level of construction than is typically found in the news with sections like:

There is something poignant about the process, the systematic destruction of
these unwanted, in some cases never used, components. One more reminder of our
disposable society.

Rarely are adjectives thrown into news stories and less often are they used to facilitate a poignant observation about the nature of society. Although it is debatable whether this style of writing belongs in a newspaper, I found it refreshing (though I am also not a very big fan of writing concisely in general). Not only did the author get the point across, but he interjected an interesting point of view - another point of contention. I suppose then that this article presents an interesting object for argument. Should a reporter be able to use a more descriptive writing style when writing news? Should an author be allowed to offer observations or points of view? Or should a news piece remain purely factual and straight-forward?

Article

"In Fighting Wildfires, Concerns About Chemicals"

This article was a fairly simple outline of a relatively controversial issue in the United States - the use of retardant in fighting wildfires. It had the generic "these people like it, these people don't" set up and explained why with the typical back-up quotes to support the positions. There really was nothing special about it. Just a run-of-the-mill news story about an issue. Nothing that points to the New York Times brand stands out.

Article

"At Exxon, Making the Case for Oil"

This story was an in-depth feature about Exxon's identity as a company and its future with the nation's concern about global warming and oil independence. It was very thoroughly and appropriately researched, with several distinguished sources from all sides of the issue. A source list is as follows:

-Rex W. Tillerson, Chairman and Chief Executive of Exxon Mobil
-Kert Davies, research director of Greenpeace
-Arjun N. Murti, oil analyst, Goldman Sachs
-Joseph Allen Pratt, history and management professor, University of Houston
-Jeroen van der Veer, CEO of Royal Dutch Shell
-an anonymous "top oil executive"
-Neva Rockefeller Goodwin, economist, Tufts University
-Fadel Gheit, oil analyst, Oppenheimer & Company
-Henry Lee, lecturer on energy policy, Harvard University
-Lou Noto, former chairman of Mobil
-Andy Stevenson, energy analyst, Natural Resources Defense Council
-Neil McMahon, analyst, Bernstein Research
-Amy Myers Jaffe, associate professor of Rice University's energy program
-an anonymous "rival executive"
-Michelle Michot Foss, head of the Center for Energy Economics, University of Texas at Austin

Obviously, the reporter spent a lot of time consulting very diverse authorities in order to get the whole story, something that is especially important when writing a story on such a large and prominent company. Exxon has a lot of power and the last thing a reporter wants to do is get on its bad side, so diligent and accurate reporting is vital. The author of this piece did a very good job of creating a genuine profile of the company while balancing opposing opinions. He established the perspective of environmentalists and maintained Exxon's reputation as a highly respected institution. It seemed to fit the exact definition of a quality news piece - fair, balanced, informative, and as entertaining as an article about hydrocarbons can be. The reporter never editorialized, allowing the experts and statistics to progress the story, and every fact or claim was backed up with a source. This article was unmistakably a product of a lot of time, exhaustive research and devoted interviewing. I found it to be a prime example of very good journalism. Give yourself a pat on the back, New York Times.

Article

"Maldives Considers Buying Dry Land if Seas Rise"

I found this article to be spectacularly interesting and was sad to see that it was so short. It addressed the concerns of small island states with the onsetting of global warming, focusing on Maldives, "a nation of 1,200 low islands in the Indian Ocean." I had never considered what a rise in sea level due to global warming would do to anyplace but Florida or California and this article really brought a truly global perspective to the issue. I was so surprised about everything I found out and was very impressed that the New York Times would take the time to run a story on a tiny island country. However, it brought a unique perspective and taught me a lot. I suggest checking out the link for AOSIS. I never knew it existed and it's fascinating that small islands are joining together to work in response to global warming.

Links:
Article
Alliance of Small Island States - AOSIS

"Unveiling a Museum, a Pennsylvania Town Remembers the Smog That Killed 20"

Once again, the New York Times is utilizing a small town story to relate to a larger issue. This article highlights the opening of the Donora Smog Museum in Donora, Pa. on the 60th anniversary of a deadly 5-day smog that killed 20 people in the city in 1948. It then attempts to go into a broader environmental problem with air pollution, but it fell a little short. The author stayed too contained within the Donora sphere, interviewing residents and getting their perspectives, to create an entirely relevant tie to a wider spectrum. It briefly mentions that the Donora incident could perhaps be linked to worldwide issues, but it didn't go any farther than such empty speculation. This, I suppose, is appropriate for an article that is in fact centering on a museum opening, but it was a lost opportunity to make a big connection.

Article

Donora Smog Info

"Thoreau Is Rediscovered as a Climatologist"

This article was basically a feature story. It centered around Richard B. Primack, a conservation biologist from Boston University, and Charles C. Davis, an evolutionary biologist from Harvard University, and their quest to track trends in the New England climate by coupling modern data and environmental records of the past. This article was very interesting since it tied a timely and relevant topic, global warming, into the distant past, bringing forth names like Thoreau and others from as far back as the 1800s. The author picked the scientists' brains and used the sources of their historical data to build a larger, more dynamic story. I doubt that a feature about two scientists who are tracking thousands of plants in Concord, Mass., trying to determine if climate change is occuring would make it past any newspaper editor, much less onto the website with a two page story. The idea of tying in botanists of the past created an entirely new angle that I found very intriguing.

Additionally, the New York Times website added a multimedia feature that showed pictures and text not in the article itself. This aspect provided a unique way of viewing the story and I found myself much more intrigued. There were pictures of the actual manuscripts used by the scientists, Walden Pond, Thoreau's cottage, even some species of flowers that are endangered by the observed climate change. It was very multidimensional and offered a pleasant balance to the relatively scientific article.

Overall, I enjoyed this very much. It was fun to read about a blast from the past in such a relevant way.

Article

"In Defense of That Daily Visitor, Unsolicited Mail"

Synopsis: A brief Q-and-A style interview with Michael J. Critelli, 59, executive chairman of the mailing company Pitney Bowes concerning the environmental impact of unsolicited mail.

As a high-ranking executive for a mail company, I don't know if Mr. Critelli is the most reliable source for environmental statistics. Sure, he has the mail part down. He knows how much mail is sent out and what the logistics are for unsolicited mail, but he cannot really be trusted to tell the unskewed truth about its environmental impact. It is his job. Why would he tell a national newspaper that his company is having a negative effect on the environment? Especially with the "going green" mania of the US right now, any whisper of environmental irresponsibility could seriously damage a company. So, I don't know why the New York Times chose Mr. Critelli to interview about the environment. I do understand that he knows a lot about the postal system, but they should have coupled this interview with another one from an environmental agency or some other source with environmental clout. Overall, it was one-sided. Mr. Critelli spoke of statistics, but I couldn't really buy anything he was saying. Why would he know those numbers anyways? It all just seemed a little biased and unsupported.

Links:
Article
Direct Marketing Association - Issue: Do Not Mail
Pitney Bowes

"Movement Against Bottled Water Gains Municipal Adherents"

This article serves as one of the few instances where I have witnessed The New York Times actually acting as a New York paper. I know it has a New York section, but rarely is that relevant to my life, so rarely do I take the time to read it. This article, however, did a very good job of connecting a smaller New York issue to the entire country. The author's use of varying sources, from small Suffolk County organizations to nationally acclaimed environmental agencies, provided a large perspective on the issue. Also, the reporter clearly identified that the issue about which she was writing "represents a trend across America" and made an effort to broaden the story to the national spectrum. It was very well done and did accurately get the point across.

Links:
Article
Food & Water Watch - Bottled Water
Environmental Working Group - Report on Bottled Water
American Beverage Associaton
Long Island Neighborhood Network - Bottle-less Water Campaign
Pacific Institute - Water Program

"Pint-Size Eco-Police, Making Parents Proud and Sometimes Crazy"

By Lisa W. Foderaro
Published: October 9, 2008

Taking an interesting spin on the environmental issue of "going green," Foderaro focused on children and their up-and-coming roles as activists. I have never before seen this global topic portrayed in such a way and it seemed very humanizing. The article gave a very fair representation of all opinions about this new generation of "eco-police" and covered every aspect of the issue. Foderaro discussed everything from how the environment is impacting schools to the psychology of a child with this newly discovered environmental obsession. She also detailed the different child-friendly forums that have been established to discuss going green, such as Nickelodeon's "Big Green Help" and Scholastic's "Save the Planet" message board.

This article was very well thought out and clearly written. There was no political bias and Foderaro made no judgment call about whether children should be concerned with this issue. The article remained at a respectful distance and simply observed the phenomenon without personal opinion or political agenda. I doubt I have ever seen a more fairly written article concerning such a controversial topic. Perhaps children can bring that out in a reporter?

Links:
Article
The Big Green Help
Scholastic's Saving the Planet (I would suggest checking this out. You would be surprised at the issues that kids bring up and how passionate they can be.)

"One in 4 Mammals Threatened With Extinction, Group Finds"

This article gave a nice, broad overview of a very small aspect of a huge environmental event - the World Conservation Congress. The article touched on the International Union for the Conservation of Nature's Red List of Threatened Species that was revealed at the congress and did a good job of incorporating portions from all aspects of the list, not just focusing on mammals, but also amphibians and even arachnids. However, I hope this article is just one of many about the WCC. According to the IUCN website, the World Conservation Congress is:

More than 8,000 of the world’s leading decision makers in sustainable
development: from governments, NGOs, business, the UN and
academia. Together in one place for 10 days: to debate, share, network,
learn, commit, vote and decide. The objective: ideas, action and solutions for a
diverse and sustainable world.

This event is epic for the environment. It is extremely significant. More than 8,000 leaders! Together for 10 days! And they're all hoping to make proactive decisions to help save our environment and all of the creatures in it.

The article was nice. It did a good job of overviewing the IUCN's Red List, but I sincerely hope that the WCC gets more attention in the newspapers. The congress doesn't end until October 14, so there is time for the New York Times to pull some fantastic reporting together for such an important issue.

Links:
Article
International Union for the Conservation of Nature - Congress

"Lawmakers at Impasse on Incentives for Renewable Energy"

Author: Robert Pear

Published: Sept. 29, 2008 with a print version in the Times on Sept. 30

The article covered the controversy between the House and Senate over a proposal to offer tax incentives for using renewable energy. With its large number of sources and quotes, it would seem that the article is relatively unbiased, presenting the partisan sides of the story equally. However, upon investigating the sources from which Pear pulled, this article takes on an undeniably liberal spin. His sources are as follows:

-Rhone Resch, President of the Solar Energy Industries Association

-Gregory S. Wetstone, director of government affairs at the American Wind Energy Association

-Jerry M. Howard, executive Vice President of the National Association of Home Builders

-Representative Mike Ross, democrat

-Senator Charles E. Grassley, senior Republican of the Finance Committee

-Steny H. Hoyer, House Democratic leader

-Max Baucus, Democratic chairman of the Finance Committee



Pear also mentioned the Sierra Club, National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, and Harry Reid, the Democratic Senator Majority leader. The average reader would take no notice of Pear's sources since the seems to pull from both sides of the fence, however further reasearch demonstrates otherwise. Considering their ties to environmental issues, organizations such as the AWEA and SEIA obviously lean to the left and support the liberal side of the issue, however their partisan nature is muted and generally harmless. The Sierra Club, on the other hand, is so blatantly liberal that it tags John McCain as a "bad guy" on their website and promotes Barrack Obama as his "good guy" counterpart. Additionally, the article cites four Democratic politicians and only one Republican. Although the environment tends to be a Democratic subject, this article was not fair or balanced in its representation of the issue at hand. By favoring liberal points of view and mentioning almost solely liberal companies and associations, Pear created a clear bias.

Although I would like to mention that the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association clearly noted on its website that it will "support congressional candidates regardless of party." So, Pear got at least one bipartisan point of view.

Links:
American Wind Energy Association - http://www.awea.org/
Solar Energy Industries Association - http://www.seia.org/
National Association of Home Builders - http://www.nahb.org/
National Rural Electric Cooperative Association - http://www.nreca.org/
Sierra Club - http://www.sierraclub.org/
Article - http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/30/washington/30energy.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

"No More Plastic Bags" - Editorial

The New York Times published the editorial entitled "No More Plastic Bags" on Sept. 29 on the internet and on Sept. 30 in the actual paper. The article's main focus is a movement in Connecticut to ban some plastic bags due to their environmental unfriendliness and ability to last forever in landfills. Although this is an important topic that I believe has a significant impact on the environment, the author's scope was far too narrow. Additionally, the evidence in the editorial was backed up with no concrete facts. For example, the article states, "Although the plastics industry points out that plastic grocery bags are made more from natural gas than petroleum, natural gas is not a renewable resource and contributes to global warming." Where is the factual evidence behind this claim? What source ensures that natural gas is a contributing factor to global warming? No matter how simple the fact, it should be backed up with a reliable source and this article gave no attribution to any of its claims.

Overall, I am disappointed in the New York Times for allowing this editorial to run in its current state. To view the article, go to http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/30/opinion/30tue4.html?th&emc=th.