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?
2 comments:
Fascinating article that--I agree--was a refreshing change of pace for the NYTimes. I think this serves as a great news feature. Feinstein's company represents a bigger issue: dealing with waste and recycling.
This "zero-landfill policy" was interesting and showed how companies are making big time $ from others' waste.
I think the language in this article fit it very nicely. I agree that it was a good change of pace. While more descriptive language usually doesn't seem all that appropriate in news articles, the adjectives just added to the bigger picture of this story.
Post a Comment