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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I understand where you're coming from Dana. I get that this is an editorial piece, and I understand that implies that the person wrriting it is going to interject their opinions/personality into the piece, but the way this editorial was written made me feel like it was a failed attempt at writing a story.
The writer seems to have tried to use facts to support their claims, but they didn't attribute at all like you said, and this small fact would have helped their case immensely.
I agree with you also in that I think this is a topic that deserves to be covered. Stores like JCPenny and Walmart are even offering cloth bags at their check-outs, among others, but the author did a poor job at getting the reader to feel anything for the topic. After reading it I was left with a feeling of, "Ok, now what?"
This was a dissapointing article.
That's editorials for you. They're full of spice and low on content. They rarely attribute anything, and they usually fail to put anything in context. I usually leave the editorial section for last because it's such a throw away section--just another mouthpiece for the inept.
Post a Comment