NYT article contextualizes climate change discussion within wider partisan disconnect

This was a very interesting article, because the journalist does a lot of analysis rather than news delivery. The lede sets the premise of the piece, which is that climate change is both a crucial issue and a crucial political issue as well (“President Obama hailed the landmark climate accord reached this weekend as ‘the best chance we’ve had to save the one planet that we’ve got.’).

He does a good job of contextualizing the discussion about climate change within a wider commentary about the state of partisan politics in the United States, noting how democrats stress the importance about creating comprehensive climate change policy whereas Republicans barely mention it—either from a rejection of the science outright (Ted Cruz) or believing it to be secondary to other concerns facing America.

I think this article could have very easily strayed into too much opinion, but the author does a good job of providing evidence and not drawing too much of a strong conclusion from his own analysis. He also raises the question of what implication this disconnect between the parties will have when a president is elected, and how varying approaches to climate change policy could be.


3 Responses to “NYT article contextualizes climate change discussion within wider partisan disconnect”

  1. I agree that the author does an excellent job not showing outright bias towards either political party or toward any particular candidate. He simply uses the candidates own statements to create a clear picture of the growing divide in the different party’s positions on climate change. The quotes he uses from all of the candidates are very effective, and let readers make their own opinions.

    I think the author could have increased the depth and the reach of the article by including interviews with voters from both parties to gauge average peoples opinions on climate change. The article was still good on it’s own, but it would have been interesting to see how normal people from the two parties feel about climate change.

  2. I think the quotes that were chosen in this piece were very effective. I think they clearly communicated the candidates’ positions on climate change and the Paris Agreement in a unique and memorable way.

    I also think the links included in this article were useful and relevant. For example, the link about the Paris Agreement led to a great summary of the agreement that had quotes from the official document and commentary from reporters.

    Finally, I agree with Katie and Grace that the author does a good job of simply reporting statistics and quotes without inserting personal opinions. It allowed me to form my own opinions about each candidate based on what they have actually said instead of based on what has been written about them.

  3. I think this article does a good job of remaining unbiased from the author’s viewpoint. He does a good job of using others’ opinions to put forth both sides of the argument. He does a good job of portraying how much of an issue, or non-issue, climate change is for both parties.

    I agree that the author’s use of statistics and quotes was well done, and if I didn’t already have strong opinions on climate change it would have allowed for me to form independent opinions.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s