Critiquing the Best

The New York Times provides news reports to millions of readers across the country, and across the world. It is looked upon as one of the top news sources globally. This, however, does not mean that every report printed by journalists on the New York Times’ payroll is perfect. No one is immune to mistakes. If reviewed, it is easy to say that every article in the publication has at least one error, major or minor. There are so many different standards journalists have to meet when writing an article; it is easy for a few blunders to fall through the cracks.
In his January 20, 2010 article, Marc Lacey wrote a world news piece discussing the current health concerns facing the nation of Haiti after the devastating earthquake. The article contains many positive qualities, but there are also a few areas that could be improved. The article is quite focused, centering solely on the issue of health in Haiti. Lacey does not stray away from the topics of illness and disease throughout his piece, which is a positive journalistic quality. Lacey is also objective in his article, reporting not only on the issue at hand, but also on what is being done to help remedy the situation. He also includes what still areas still need work in the recovering country. For example, in the middle of the article, Lacey states, “Still, health experts were arriving in Haiti from Israel, Cuba, Portugal and other countries, many with stocks of medicine and supplies as well as extensive experience in disaster conditions,” (Lacey). He quickly follows that by claiming a health care agency in Haiti “estimated that 20,000 Haitians were dying daily from lack of surgery”, (Lacey). By juxtaposing these concepts, Lacy shows the issue at hand as well as what problems still remain, all the while removing his personal opinion from the situation.
While the report is fair, balanced, and well researched, Marc Lacey missed out in a few areas. He included some extra information to emphasize points, however the comments are unnecessary. After clearly making the point that the conditions in Haiti are as basic as can be, Lacey said, "At some of the hospitals and clinics now treating survivors, the conditions are as basic as can be, with vodka to sterilize instruments and health workers going to the market to buy hacksaws for amputations," (Lacey). This paragraph is graphic, a bit gruesome, and takes away from the brevity of the story. The article would not lose any power without this paragraph. Overall the piece could use some editing, as it carries on a bit too long. Also, his writing structure is lengthy. He does a great job integrating sources into the piece, and attributing them appropriately, but throughout the article his sentences seem a bit long winded. Journalists strive for short, snappy sentences, getting the point across in as few words as possible. March Lacey could improve on that in his New York Times article.
The “Nightmare in Haiti” article demonstrates disaster and hope intertwined in one region of the world. In its entirety, Marc Lacey did an excellent job reporting on this sensitive subject. With a few minor edits, this piece could be top notch.

Lacey, Mark. "Nightmare in Haiti: Untreated Illness and Injury."New York Times. 21 January 2010: A1.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/21/world/americas/21haiti.html?ref=todayspaper