The New York Times
Author unknown
March 24, 2008
"Nobody was greatly surprised last week when Stephen Johnson, the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, proposed new limits on smog-forming pollutants that were weaker than those his scientists had recommended — and more to the liking of industry." This article is about Mr. Johnsons proposol to rewrite the clean air act to allow regulators to take costs into mind when setting air quality standards. The author explains that the proposal does not have a chance to succeed in Democratic Congress because it devalues the role of science and strengthens the hand of industry. The author puts many points of fact and important names in this article that makes every word believable. He goes beyond research and reminds the reader that the act imposes an obligation of the E.P.A. administrator. This article is all fact and expresses no emotion, but it is interesting and well written. This author does not have a biased opinion to what he is writing about. He just wants to remind the reader of earlier events that lead up to this act that may make a difference in the opinion of the reader. He does a very good job of secretly making the reader view his article in the same way that he does. I really enjoyed reading it, the author has a very unique style of making the reader think.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
To keep an article based solely on fact interesting is hard to do. Articles that are able to do this are very important because they keep out biased opinions and leave only facts. However, if the facts are all one-sided that can be a bad thing. This article seems to have done a good job with research and using reliable resources.
I often find that articles based solely on fact are boring. All though this way of writing leaves out bias it becomes uninteresting and not at all fun to read. It is important to add things othere than a list of facts to keep the reader on their toes and interested. I thinik while this is a good article it could have been written better and funner to read.
Post a Comment