Publications by the Editorial board of The New York Times announce the opinions of the board itself, the editor, and the publisher. One of the recent editorials published online on May 25 presets an opinion on the problem of the people’s beach at Rockaway. The issue is that there appeared announcements about the part of the beach closing for summer 2018 due to erosion. Nevertheless, the community and the local businesses do not support this idea. The editorial board of The New York Times provides arguments of inefficient policies and the lack of action from the city officials who could have prevented the problem or eliminate it.
Rockaway Beach is a favorite place of rest for many New Yorkers who come there tired of the city heat. However, due to constant erosion and the lack of any protective measures, much sand is washed with water, which makes it impossible to use the beach any longer. The editorial board uses epithets to attract attention to the beauty of the place and its importance to the citizens, such as “a beautiful expanse of white sand,” “one of the crown jewels of New York City,” “a breezy bit of heaven for the thousands of New Yorkers,” etc. (The Editorial Board, 2018, para. 2-3).
One of the implicit arguments provided by the editorial board is that the city officials are trying to put the responsibility for the situation on the Army Corps: “Mayor Bill de Blasio said that the city had waited until the last minute to make the announcement to see if the Army Corps of Engineers could do something to fix the erosion” (The Editorial Board, 2018, para. 6). Some evidence of arguments between the Army Corps that were supposed to build jetties to protect the beach and the city officials are provided. The editorial presents arguments of both parties, thus contributing to the objectivity of this dispute. Thus, the mayor claims that “the only way we’re going to solve the underlying problem is with the Army Corps,” while the Army Corps justify the delay by the fact that the project has not been approved (The Editorial Board, 2018, para. 7). The argumentation provided in this editorial is deductive.
One of the possible logical fallacies found in the arguments presented in the editorial is that of false cause. The city officials tend to accuse the Army Corps of failing to build jetties while, in fact, the officials themselves did not act effectively to solve the problem. Nevertheless, the editorial itself does not contain any significant logical fallacies. The arguments are supported by numeric data, which helps readers make their own conclusions. Moreover, this editorial does not contain much of the author’s thoughts and opinions. It uses data, citations from the interviews with officials, the ideas of other stakeholders such as small business representatives involved in this issue.
On the whole, the editorial is well-structured and supported by high-quality, reliable arguments. It does not only present the causes of the problem but also outlines the possible consequences. Thus, in case of actions are not taken to protect the beach, the whole Rockaway Peninsula can be in danger because the erosion that threatens the beach can harm the barriers created to protect the constructions on the peninsular. Although the editorial does not provide explicit conclusions about the effectiveness of the city officials, the lack of trust in the elected people in power is evident.
References
The Editorial Board. (2018). Save the people’s beach at Rockaway.The New York Times. Web.