"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