Evaluation of New York Times Stories

Stachowiak, Kai "Newspaper Paper Newsprint" 9/24/2015 via Pixabay Public Domain Distribution License

Being tasked with the assignment to write reports on any two articles from arguably one of the most important newspapers in modern America, I decided to choose two topics that seemed irreplaceable to modern society: hoverboards and parrots.

M.T.A. Bans Hoverboards on Public Transit System

1: There are two "characters" in this scenario (they are actually groups of people): the M.T.A., or Metropolitan Transportation Authority, and people who use hoverboards. The M.T,A. is definitely the "main character" in this article, considering that they are the harbinger for this new addition to the list of places where hoverboard technology is banned (University of Arizona was recently added to this list). From this article, we only see the issue from the perspective of the M.T.A., who only see hoverboards as a potential health hazard to the other passengers of the transit. The only issue with this article is that the perspective of the M.T.A. is the only "center" of the story. No insight on how people who use hoverboards feel is given in the article.

2: This story takes place in New York City, the place where the M.T.A. is situated. Specifically, the trains, buses, and subways in New York City are our setting of choice, considering these are the spots where hoverboards have been banned. The main conflict that provoked the M.T.A. to create the ban against hoverboards was how these devices could pose a threat to the passengers if their batteries malfunction, so removes these devices from the setting and the problem is solved, right? Well, the final results of this ban have yet to be seen since the rule has been enforced very recently, but time may cause these settings to change drastically. Who knows, we may see people revolting against the ban by being the Rosa Parks of hoverboards and roll up onto the subway on their swagmobile.

3: There is an obvious disagreement between the M.T.A. and the people who would ride their hoverboards to buses, trains, and subways. This argument is present, but is not mentioned in the article, but rather assumed. The article mentions that the M.T.A is starting an ad-campaign that intends to discourage the use of hoverboards on public transportation. The M.T.A. is creating this campaign since their pride is on the line if the ban is challenged; they intend to defend their name. There is no outcry against the ban so far, but the introduction of a public ad-campaign may brew up some sort of disagreement from the hoverboard enthusiasts of the world.

What Does a Parrot Know about PTSD?

1: Much like the previous article, this paper has two "main characters", represented by two different species: abandoned parrots and war veterans. What's fascinating about these two groups is how similar they are to each when it comes to their individual outlook on the world (even more so considering that the article gives a very good argument on why animals like parrots can have an outlook on their surrounding society). Much like how veterans are traumatized by their experiences from the terrors of war, scientists state that abandoned parrots are traumatized not only by their isolation from the intrinsic characteristic of being in a flock, but also being isolated from all contact of life. These feelings of abandonment are what build the bond between the veterans and birds in the article.

2: The veterans and parrots come together at Serenity Park, a quasi-therapy house that doubles as a housing for abandoned parrots. Serenity Park is quite a niche facility, but it serves a single, important role in the story since it's the place where the mutualistic relationship between PTSD victims and abandoned parrots can take place. It can be argued that Serenity Park is so important to the PTSD victims and the birds that their lives would feel empty without it; the park is the only string of hope left in the veterans. Serenity Park is just that important to these people and the animals it houses.

3: There is no debate occurring between any of the characters; however, the characters involved are the remnants of previous encounters from the worst kind of hatred and oppression the world has to offer. The article is stating the aftermath of such occurrences, and how people and animals alike cope with their existences after their wounds from time and anguish keep on bleeding. I believe it can be argued that the only conflict in the article is the fight for the will to survive; perseverance and selfless desires for their comrades compel both humans and animals alike to keep moving forward against the tides and storms that life brings.