While this article deals with a more serious topic than the last one, meaning it wasn't as "fun" to read, I felt it was much better written. While it had its problems, I wasn't left with as many questions and complaints. I guess that's something. It had to do with the pope planning a visit to the Holy Land and why that's important.
For the most part, the reporter was very good at getting both sides of the story. For a statement made by one party, the reporter had a comment from the other party. For example, the second paragraph has both the Vatican spokesman and the Israeli ambassador confirming that a visit by the pope is being discussed. This shows that a visit is most likely actually being discussed, and both sides are involved. Also, in the fourth paragraph, the reporter included both what the Jews and Pope Benedict XVI have to say about Pope Pius and his actions or lack of actions during the Holocaust. There is also a random claim made by Father Gumpel, who talked about some plaque, but it is refuted by Vatican officials. I guess the priest's comment was just included because it was kind of interesting, but in the end, it had no real substance. It was good that the reporter looked into it. However, in the paragraph following this comment, the reporter talks about other problems between the Vatican and Israel. It includes a comment from Mr. Lewy, the Israeli ambassador, but nothing from the Vatican. This is the only instance I found where the reporter did not include the other side as well.
One problem I had with the article is that just like another story I read about the beatification of Pope Pius XII, "beatification" is not explained. While it wasn't as necessary in this article as it was in the other one, an explanation still would have been nice. I'm sure there are many non-Catholics and even some Catholics who have no idea what the articles are talking about when they say beatification.
When the article says "Benedict has chosen to wait and consider the matter," it doesn't attribute this statement to anyone. It includes what "some familiar with the process" have to say about this decision, but it doesn't include anyone saying that he did choose to wait and consider the matter. This may sound trivial, but how easy would it have been to say, for example, "Vatican officials have said Benedict has chosen to wait and consider the matter?" Right now, it's just a claim being made by the reporter without any clear basis. I felt it should have been attributed because the information must have come from somewhere.
The last two paragraphs are important because the quote states the importance of the visit and clarifies the "so what," and the last paragraph puts the visit into historical context with respect to past popes.
Overall, while the material was pretty dry, this article dealt clearly and fairly with its subject.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/28/world/europe/28pope.html?_r=1
Sunday, November 30, 2008
Saturday, November 29, 2008
"Food Fights on Friday, Salvation on Sunday" By Katherine Bindley
This article had some good points and bad points. It was about an entertaining topic, which made it more fun to read. However, as I read it, I found I had many questions left unanswered, which is never a good thing when reading a newspaper article.
First of all, why doesn't the community have a permanent home? This is a pretty basic question, and yet, it wasn't answered. The reporter talks about how the pastor isn't trying to be a traditional church and how the church goes about renting other spaces but never answers the question of "why?" Is it just because the pastor doesn't care about having a building? Is it because this is a new church community? Is it because they just can't afford one? Your guess is as good as mine.
Also, I thought the lead was a good scene-setter, but it put me under the initial impression that the church used the school as rehearsal space. It wasn't until I kept reading that I learned they actually use the school for their services and everything. While the lead was good, the reporter could have set the scene using an actual service, which would have made a bigger impact than just talking about the choir rehearsing.
I think the reporter could have talked to more parishioners. She talked to the pastor, a band member and one parishioner. I would have liked to hear more from parishioners about why they are a part of the church and what they think about not having an actual church building. Do they want the pastor to look into getting them one? Or does the fact that this church is different make them want to be a part of it?
When Mr. Cunningham, the pastor, talks about how "the focus is not on the building...but on confronting social injustice through advocacy and crossing boundaries of class, race, sexual orientation and age," I was left wondering how the church does that. I'm sorry, but that comment was just too vague. He doesn't go into details, and apparently, the reporter didn't push. So, basically, by not having an actual building, this church is accomplishing all of this? Because, to be perfectly honest, that's pretty much the only thing the church seems to be doing, according to this article. The only other things mentioned are how the congregation sings "I Believe I Can Fly" and listens to the pastor's daughter read poetry. Once again, nothing that sounds like it's fixing social injustice. While R. Kelly might have been someone who "crossed boundaries" when it came to age, I don't think this is what the pastor meant when he said that.
I liked that the second to last paragraph talked about the future of the church. The pastor is looking into other areas where the congregation can meet. This gave me the impression that they don't have a church because they don't want one, but I would have liked an explanation that just came right out and said it instead of leaving it open. After all, there could be more to the story.
The article ended with a good kicker. I thought it was a cute quote that reflected the feelings of not caring about where the congregation meets as long as it does.
Overall, I felt the article could have gone into more depth about the actual church rather than basically stating that it had no building to call its own.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/30/nyregion/thecity/30chur.html
First of all, why doesn't the community have a permanent home? This is a pretty basic question, and yet, it wasn't answered. The reporter talks about how the pastor isn't trying to be a traditional church and how the church goes about renting other spaces but never answers the question of "why?" Is it just because the pastor doesn't care about having a building? Is it because this is a new church community? Is it because they just can't afford one? Your guess is as good as mine.
Also, I thought the lead was a good scene-setter, but it put me under the initial impression that the church used the school as rehearsal space. It wasn't until I kept reading that I learned they actually use the school for their services and everything. While the lead was good, the reporter could have set the scene using an actual service, which would have made a bigger impact than just talking about the choir rehearsing.
I think the reporter could have talked to more parishioners. She talked to the pastor, a band member and one parishioner. I would have liked to hear more from parishioners about why they are a part of the church and what they think about not having an actual church building. Do they want the pastor to look into getting them one? Or does the fact that this church is different make them want to be a part of it?
When Mr. Cunningham, the pastor, talks about how "the focus is not on the building...but on confronting social injustice through advocacy and crossing boundaries of class, race, sexual orientation and age," I was left wondering how the church does that. I'm sorry, but that comment was just too vague. He doesn't go into details, and apparently, the reporter didn't push. So, basically, by not having an actual building, this church is accomplishing all of this? Because, to be perfectly honest, that's pretty much the only thing the church seems to be doing, according to this article. The only other things mentioned are how the congregation sings "I Believe I Can Fly" and listens to the pastor's daughter read poetry. Once again, nothing that sounds like it's fixing social injustice. While R. Kelly might have been someone who "crossed boundaries" when it came to age, I don't think this is what the pastor meant when he said that.
I liked that the second to last paragraph talked about the future of the church. The pastor is looking into other areas where the congregation can meet. This gave me the impression that they don't have a church because they don't want one, but I would have liked an explanation that just came right out and said it instead of leaving it open. After all, there could be more to the story.
The article ended with a good kicker. I thought it was a cute quote that reflected the feelings of not caring about where the congregation meets as long as it does.
Overall, I felt the article could have gone into more depth about the actual church rather than basically stating that it had no building to call its own.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/30/nyregion/thecity/30chur.html
Sunday, November 16, 2008
"U.S. Bishops Urged to Challenge Obama" By Laurie Goodstein
Like the last one I read, this article also deals with what Obama's election means for different groups of people. While the other story discussed the meaning of Obama's victory in terms of black Christian ministers, this one focuses on Catholic bishops and Catholics as a whole. The article said that Catholic bishops plan to discuss the issues of stem cell research and abortion with the new president-elect.
I felt the writer did a good job of attributing in some parts and a poor job in others. For example, when she says that abortion "has polarized the American electorate for decades," is this her own observation, or did someone say this? I wasn't sure because she's talking about what advocates of the "common good" say, but she offsets this statement with hyphens. It made it seem more like her own personal aside rather than something the advocates actually said. She also says that "several Catholic bishops skirted close to endorsing the Republican candidate for president" without attributing the statement to anyone. She explains why it could be believed that the bishops did come close ("by proclaiming that Catholics could not in good conscience vote..."), but she never says who believed that. It seems that this is only her personal observation, but how is she qualified to be the judge?
However, there were many statements that the writer did attribute to bishops and once to a different reverend who "chronicles" the bishops. At the end of the article, she provides differing opinions between bishops. This helps the article to avoid being one-sided. One bishop said that the "Faithful Citizenship" document did not work, while another said it did what it was supposed to do. I think it was good that she provided two opinions, but she probably could have included more from the bishop who felt the document didn't work. His opinion isn't really explained in the article. I did like that the other bishop was able to explain his opinions. He also shed some light on the actual purpose of the document.
The issue of denying Communion to Catholic politicians who support abortion rights was also brought up at the end. I think this is an interesting topic, but since it's not really the main issue of the article, I understand why it was just put in at the end. This story also ended with a good quote.
Now, this is just a question I have: how accurate are exit polls really? This article says that 54% of Catholics voted for Obama according to exit polls. The way the reporter says this makes it seem like that's the final word. It is absolutely definite that 54% of Catholics voted this way. While she's not lying when she says exit polls said this, I think there could have been some clarification on the accuracy of exit polls. Just because an exit poll says Catholics or Muslims or blacks or Asians voted a certain way, doesn't mean that the total population actually reflected that measurement. Not every voter is polled as they exit a booth. I know that the voting locations I covered for The Daily Illini here at the university did not involve exit polls. I'm just not sure how reliable exit polls are.
Also, I thought it was interesting that the article used the phrase "anti-abortion." I think the terms "anti-abortion" and "pro-abortion" are much more biased than "pro-choice" and "pro-life." In fact, when I went on the Planned Parenthood Web site for the feature story I'm working on right now for this class, the site referred to the group as "pro-choice." This made me think that those terms are acceptable. For that reason, I was surprised this article chose to say "anti-abortion" rather than "pro-life."
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/11/us/politics/11bishops.html?ref=opinion
I felt the writer did a good job of attributing in some parts and a poor job in others. For example, when she says that abortion "has polarized the American electorate for decades," is this her own observation, or did someone say this? I wasn't sure because she's talking about what advocates of the "common good" say, but she offsets this statement with hyphens. It made it seem more like her own personal aside rather than something the advocates actually said. She also says that "several Catholic bishops skirted close to endorsing the Republican candidate for president" without attributing the statement to anyone. She explains why it could be believed that the bishops did come close ("by proclaiming that Catholics could not in good conscience vote..."), but she never says who believed that. It seems that this is only her personal observation, but how is she qualified to be the judge?
However, there were many statements that the writer did attribute to bishops and once to a different reverend who "chronicles" the bishops. At the end of the article, she provides differing opinions between bishops. This helps the article to avoid being one-sided. One bishop said that the "Faithful Citizenship" document did not work, while another said it did what it was supposed to do. I think it was good that she provided two opinions, but she probably could have included more from the bishop who felt the document didn't work. His opinion isn't really explained in the article. I did like that the other bishop was able to explain his opinions. He also shed some light on the actual purpose of the document.
The issue of denying Communion to Catholic politicians who support abortion rights was also brought up at the end. I think this is an interesting topic, but since it's not really the main issue of the article, I understand why it was just put in at the end. This story also ended with a good quote.
Now, this is just a question I have: how accurate are exit polls really? This article says that 54% of Catholics voted for Obama according to exit polls. The way the reporter says this makes it seem like that's the final word. It is absolutely definite that 54% of Catholics voted this way. While she's not lying when she says exit polls said this, I think there could have been some clarification on the accuracy of exit polls. Just because an exit poll says Catholics or Muslims or blacks or Asians voted a certain way, doesn't mean that the total population actually reflected that measurement. Not every voter is polled as they exit a booth. I know that the voting locations I covered for The Daily Illini here at the university did not involve exit polls. I'm just not sure how reliable exit polls are.
Also, I thought it was interesting that the article used the phrase "anti-abortion." I think the terms "anti-abortion" and "pro-abortion" are much more biased than "pro-choice" and "pro-life." In fact, when I went on the Planned Parenthood Web site for the feature story I'm working on right now for this class, the site referred to the group as "pro-choice." This made me think that those terms are acceptable. For that reason, I was surprised this article chose to say "anti-abortion" rather than "pro-life."
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/11/us/politics/11bishops.html?ref=opinion
"After Obama Victory, Test for the Black Clergy" By Samuel J. Freedman
Obama's victory meant many different things for many different people. This article discusses the challlenges his victory presents to black clergy. While Obama presents hope for their community, the older clergy is facing the challenge of relating to a younger generation and using the opportunities Obama's election has given them.
I am not very familiar with black Christianity, as the article calls it. I found this all very interesting. The older clergy come from times of segregation and the Civil Rights Movement while younger people like Obama grew up when the world presented many more opportunities to blacks. They are from two different times. Younger generations like Obama see the world differently from their elders. Younger ministers also see the world differently from their older counterparts. According to the story, this has presented the black churches "with both an opportunity and a challenge."
While I never thought about any of this before, it makes sense. The older ministers have seen things the younger ones would have a diffcult time imagining. I'm not saying younger blacks have no idea what generations before them have gone through, I'm just agreeing with the article's point that these younger people see America differently. Now all the clergy are presented with the challenge of holding onto their heritage while still moving into the future. I think this is a struggle encountered by all religions, as society becomes more and more secular.
The reporter talked to both young and old clergy, which helped to provide different voices. It showed, however, that the generations both agree that there is a need to carry the past with them as they journey into the future.
One thing that I found very surprising was that in the Democratic primaries, many leaders of black Christianity either supported Clinton or remained neutral. I did not remember this. I just thought it was strange that these leaders would not put generational differences aside, but they now obviously have.
The kicker quote at the end was great. It questions whether they'll be able to present the hope exuded by Obama to their congregations. It sums up the entire story with a powerful question right at the end. The question is especially appropriate because the entire story was about the questions older clergy is asking themselves.
Overall, I really liked this story. I hadn't read about anything addressing this issue before, but I thought it was very pertinent right now. Obama's election affects all Americans, and this story showed how he influences one group of Americans specifically.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/15/us/15religion.html
I am not very familiar with black Christianity, as the article calls it. I found this all very interesting. The older clergy come from times of segregation and the Civil Rights Movement while younger people like Obama grew up when the world presented many more opportunities to blacks. They are from two different times. Younger generations like Obama see the world differently from their elders. Younger ministers also see the world differently from their older counterparts. According to the story, this has presented the black churches "with both an opportunity and a challenge."
While I never thought about any of this before, it makes sense. The older ministers have seen things the younger ones would have a diffcult time imagining. I'm not saying younger blacks have no idea what generations before them have gone through, I'm just agreeing with the article's point that these younger people see America differently. Now all the clergy are presented with the challenge of holding onto their heritage while still moving into the future. I think this is a struggle encountered by all religions, as society becomes more and more secular.
The reporter talked to both young and old clergy, which helped to provide different voices. It showed, however, that the generations both agree that there is a need to carry the past with them as they journey into the future.
One thing that I found very surprising was that in the Democratic primaries, many leaders of black Christianity either supported Clinton or remained neutral. I did not remember this. I just thought it was strange that these leaders would not put generational differences aside, but they now obviously have.
The kicker quote at the end was great. It questions whether they'll be able to present the hope exuded by Obama to their congregations. It sums up the entire story with a powerful question right at the end. The question is especially appropriate because the entire story was about the questions older clergy is asking themselves.
Overall, I really liked this story. I hadn't read about anything addressing this issue before, but I thought it was very pertinent right now. Obama's election affects all Americans, and this story showed how he influences one group of Americans specifically.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/15/us/15religion.html
"Settlers Who Long to Leave the West Bank" By Ethan Bronner
The struggle between Palestinians and Jews has been going on for a very long time. Who owns the land on which they're both living? Who has a right to it? I have heard so many different opinions on the matter that it's almost ridiculous. We all just have to hope that the two groups of people can put their differences aside and make a real decision. This article I read was interesting because it discussed Jewish people who want there to be two states; they want Palestinians to have their own land. This is something I haven't really heard before. It seemed to me in the past that everyone was just out for themselves and their own "people." This difference in itself makes the story newsworthy.
I felt that this article was very well-written. It gave a lot of background information and explanations. That was definitely necessary because the whole issue of the Middle East can be very confusing, especially for the average reader. The story explained why some of the Jews want to leave the land in the West Bank. Understanding their reasoning is essential to understanding the issue at hand.
I thought that the reporter made very good use of the average people as sources. Talking to those actually affected by this issue makes it so much more relatable and real. Hearing from real people dealing with whether to leave their homes or not makes the readers care a lot more. We like to be able to relate to those we read about. We are given the opportunity to better understand what the people are actually going through. they want to leave their homes, but there is no way for them to sell their homes. The Jewish people living outside the borders believe they are in the land of the Palestinians. They think there should be two separate states, and this land should be part of Palestine. This information could not be better explained coming from experts than from the mouths of those living it.
I also really like that the reporter talked to the other side. He didn't just let this be a story about how the government should allow the Jewish people to move out of the West Bank. He investigated both sides of the story. I thought it was especially good when he talked to the mayor who rebuked the statements made by Mr. Raz. He said that Mr. Raz was fired for incompetence and his wife's sandwich stand had hygiene problems. In this way, the writer allows us to make the choice of who we believe rather than making that decision for us. He included both sides as options for us.
The reporter also included the mayor's take on the bill that would have the government buy the homes of the Jewish settlers in the West Bank so that they can move. I felt this was very important to do because he provides both sides to the main issue of the article.
Finally, I felt the ending quote was a good one. It presented the problems faced by both Jews and Palestinians straight from the mouth of a Jewish woman. It showed that this issue is causing problems for both groups of people, and in at least this thing, the two groups share something in common.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/14/world/middleeast/14settlers.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
I felt that this article was very well-written. It gave a lot of background information and explanations. That was definitely necessary because the whole issue of the Middle East can be very confusing, especially for the average reader. The story explained why some of the Jews want to leave the land in the West Bank. Understanding their reasoning is essential to understanding the issue at hand.
I thought that the reporter made very good use of the average people as sources. Talking to those actually affected by this issue makes it so much more relatable and real. Hearing from real people dealing with whether to leave their homes or not makes the readers care a lot more. We like to be able to relate to those we read about. We are given the opportunity to better understand what the people are actually going through. they want to leave their homes, but there is no way for them to sell their homes. The Jewish people living outside the borders believe they are in the land of the Palestinians. They think there should be two separate states, and this land should be part of Palestine. This information could not be better explained coming from experts than from the mouths of those living it.
I also really like that the reporter talked to the other side. He didn't just let this be a story about how the government should allow the Jewish people to move out of the West Bank. He investigated both sides of the story. I thought it was especially good when he talked to the mayor who rebuked the statements made by Mr. Raz. He said that Mr. Raz was fired for incompetence and his wife's sandwich stand had hygiene problems. In this way, the writer allows us to make the choice of who we believe rather than making that decision for us. He included both sides as options for us.
The reporter also included the mayor's take on the bill that would have the government buy the homes of the Jewish settlers in the West Bank so that they can move. I felt this was very important to do because he provides both sides to the main issue of the article.
Finally, I felt the ending quote was a good one. It presented the problems faced by both Jews and Palestinians straight from the mouth of a Jewish woman. It showed that this issue is causing problems for both groups of people, and in at least this thing, the two groups share something in common.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/14/world/middleeast/14settlers.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
Sunday, November 2, 2008
"Find of Ancient City Could Alter Notions of Biblical David" By Ethan Bronner
This article was not a typical news story. I felt it was more explanatory than news breaking. This made me read it differently and judge it according to different rules.
There were many parts of the story that weren't attributed, but I guess that can be considered okay for explanatory stories. I just remember the example we read in class about french fries because that had a lot of information that wasn't attributed.
Even if it wasn't always attributed, this article had a lot of really interesting information. It was well explained to an audience who probably wouldn't understand what the story was about otherwise. I felt the reporter did a good job of describing the city and what its discovery meant. The reporter talked to experts who helped to clarify different aspects of the discovery. There were a lot of dates included in the story, which provided a time frame for readers. This probably helped to further the readers' understanding.
The story also presented two different viewpoints of the discovery of the city. This ensured that the article wasn't biased and didn't explain the discovery in terms of only one side's point-of-view. It showed how this could prove or disprove that the kingdom of David and Solomon was vast and powerful.
The reporter also talked about how more information is needed before any conclusion about the site can be made. More testing needs to be done so that nothing is decided based only on a few tests of olive pits found at the site.
This article was very informative, but it didn't try to know more than it did. It included a lot of information without trying to draw any weak conclusions. It was written in a way most people could understand, which would hopefully lead those people to want to know more about this subject as more information becomes available.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/30/world/middleeast/30david.html
There were many parts of the story that weren't attributed, but I guess that can be considered okay for explanatory stories. I just remember the example we read in class about french fries because that had a lot of information that wasn't attributed.
Even if it wasn't always attributed, this article had a lot of really interesting information. It was well explained to an audience who probably wouldn't understand what the story was about otherwise. I felt the reporter did a good job of describing the city and what its discovery meant. The reporter talked to experts who helped to clarify different aspects of the discovery. There were a lot of dates included in the story, which provided a time frame for readers. This probably helped to further the readers' understanding.
The story also presented two different viewpoints of the discovery of the city. This ensured that the article wasn't biased and didn't explain the discovery in terms of only one side's point-of-view. It showed how this could prove or disprove that the kingdom of David and Solomon was vast and powerful.
The reporter also talked about how more information is needed before any conclusion about the site can be made. More testing needs to be done so that nothing is decided based only on a few tests of olive pits found at the site.
This article was very informative, but it didn't try to know more than it did. It included a lot of information without trying to draw any weak conclusions. It was written in a way most people could understand, which would hopefully lead those people to want to know more about this subject as more information becomes available.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/30/world/middleeast/30david.html
"Group Says Pope Will Weigh Delay of Pius's Beatification" By Rachel Donadio
This article was fairly short and straightforward. It talked about the possibility that the beatification of Pius XII will be delayed. For those who don't know what that means, "beatification" is one of the steps toward being canonized a saint in the Catholic Church. A Jewish group has asked Pope Benedict XVI to open and review the archives of Pius' papacy before he is beatified because they believe he did not do enough to stop the deportation of Jews during WWII. Pope Benedict XVI is considering their request.
First of all, I felt this article left a lot unexplained. There was quite a bit of jargon present in the article. It didn't explain what beatification is, and I would venture to guess most people don't even know what that means. Without knowing the importance of beatification, readers can't understand that it's a big deal the pope is considering delaying the process.
Also, the reporter was a big fan of partial quotes. While I think it is definitely okay to use them, it eventually started to feel kind of awkward because there were only two full quotes and many more partial ones. It just seemed unnecessary to have a partial quote in almost every paragraph. While some were colorful, others could have been taken out, and the writer could have used that as an opportunity to explain what the partial quotes would have meant. For example, there are two partial quotes that were said by a Vatican official, "technical challenges" and "for at least another five years," that I did not really understand. I obviously know what the second quote means, but I don't understand the first. I guess it may be the point that the quote itself was unclear, but there are no comments from anyone saying that waiting five years is ridiculous. Are the technical challenges that prevent the cataloging of materials from Pius' papacy for five years hurting the efforts of the Jewish group or those pushing for the beatification?
The article also quoted The Associated Press. I thought the quoting of other news sources was generally frowned upon in journalism. The reporter should have gotten that information for herself rather than just taking it from the other source.
The article also contained some editorializing. The reporter makes the assertion that "many consider Benedict's delay in signing the decree indicative of internal and external diplomatic considerations" without supporting this claim. She doesn't attribute it to anyone. She also said at the end of the article that Father Lombardi "made a rare, forceful statement." I felt this was her opinion, and it was unnecessary in the story.
Overall, this article got the main point across, but I felt it could have actually explained so much more.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/31/world/europe/31pius.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
First of all, I felt this article left a lot unexplained. There was quite a bit of jargon present in the article. It didn't explain what beatification is, and I would venture to guess most people don't even know what that means. Without knowing the importance of beatification, readers can't understand that it's a big deal the pope is considering delaying the process.
Also, the reporter was a big fan of partial quotes. While I think it is definitely okay to use them, it eventually started to feel kind of awkward because there were only two full quotes and many more partial ones. It just seemed unnecessary to have a partial quote in almost every paragraph. While some were colorful, others could have been taken out, and the writer could have used that as an opportunity to explain what the partial quotes would have meant. For example, there are two partial quotes that were said by a Vatican official, "technical challenges" and "for at least another five years," that I did not really understand. I obviously know what the second quote means, but I don't understand the first. I guess it may be the point that the quote itself was unclear, but there are no comments from anyone saying that waiting five years is ridiculous. Are the technical challenges that prevent the cataloging of materials from Pius' papacy for five years hurting the efforts of the Jewish group or those pushing for the beatification?
The article also quoted The Associated Press. I thought the quoting of other news sources was generally frowned upon in journalism. The reporter should have gotten that information for herself rather than just taking it from the other source.
The article also contained some editorializing. The reporter makes the assertion that "many consider Benedict's delay in signing the decree indicative of internal and external diplomatic considerations" without supporting this claim. She doesn't attribute it to anyone. She also said at the end of the article that Father Lombardi "made a rare, forceful statement." I felt this was her opinion, and it was unnecessary in the story.
Overall, this article got the main point across, but I felt it could have actually explained so much more.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/31/world/europe/31pius.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)