Evaluation of New York Times Stories

"California Said to target Exxon in Climate Inquiry" by John Schwartz

1. In this article, the main character, or the protagonist, is California's attorney general, Kamala Harris. Harris has been the attorney general since 2011. Harris is the "main character" of this story, because after following the example of the New York attorney general, Eric Schneiderman, she has been called upon to investigate ExxonMobil for lying to the public and deceiving shareholders about their predictions for climate change. 
2. This story is currently taking place in Los Angeles County, California after the Democratic Party called on Harris to begin an investigation. ExxonMobil is located in Irving, Texas. Harris was called to investigate on January 13, 2016, making this a very recent issue. Because this investigation is happening solely in California, lawmakers and politicians in California are hoping that other states will use them as an example and start their own investigations. 



Tattersfield, Minale. "Exxon" 01/29/2013 vi flickr. Attribution License

3. The disagreement in this specific story is the fact that California politicians are accusing a giant corporation, ExxonMobil, of lying to the public and shareholders about how their business affects climate change. On one side of the argument, we have the state of California and their attorney general, and against them, defending their reputation, we have ExxonMobil.

• The people of California are so invested in this argument because of how important climate change is to our future. ExxonMobil is invested in this argument because the state of California has accused them of something horrible, and they want to defend themselves and prove that they are not in the wrong. 
• If ExxonMobil were to be found guilty, their entire reputation and business could be at stake. If the state of California was wrong, they would potentially be accused of harassing the company with a lack of evidence. 

"Panel Calls for Depression Screenings During and After Pregnancy" by Pam Belluck

1. The main characters of this story are a panel of independent experts appointed by the Department of Health and Human Services who have been called to issue an updated version of depression screenings guidelines. They have called for doctors of pregnant, and recently pregnant women to screen and to help these women if they notice that they shows symptoms of depression. 
2. This story largely takes place throughout the whole United States where these new guidelines are being set. Throughout the entire United states, doctors and physicians are being called to screen pregnant women and women who have just given birth, regardless of whether or not the physician has the staff to help women with mental illness. A specific example of a woman who has suffered due to lack of screening and care takes place in The Dalles, OR. 
3. The debate that is addressed in this article is the fact that doctors are resistant to diagnose depression issues in new or expecting mothers because of the lack of psychiatric staff that they may have. The panel appointed by the Department of Health and Human Services says, in contradiction, that doctors, whether it is your OB-GYN or newborn's pediatrician should take note of all symptoms of depression and use them to either treat the mother, or in a case where they do not have proper staff, should refer the mother to a psychiatric specialist. 

• Most is at stake for the women who suffer from postpartum depression if this care and screening is not provided. In serious cases, it can cause a mother to harm herself or her child. All that the doctors have at stake is the effort and time it would take to screen women for signs of depression, and the money that it would take to employ a specialist if they chose to do that rather than to refer patients to another health care specialist.

Pohorecki, Roman. "Untitled" 05/03/2013 via Pexels. Creative Commons Zero license.