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
Sunday, October 26, 2008
"The Love That Shines Through" By Michael Winerip
Every once in a while, you read a very "feel good" article. This was definitely one of those. It told the story of a boy with disabilities who was going to have a bar mitzvah. The article did a very good job of showing that people with disabilites are just as important as everyone else. I really liked this story.
I felt the lead was effective. When many parents have a child with disabilites, it's so easy to focus on what their child cannot do. It's important to realize that their child is smart and special and can do so much. I felt that was the overall message of the article, and it came out very clearly.
By talking to the parents, the reporter had real insight into the family. It made the story personal, and it made the readers care. It also showed everything that Jarrett can do. He can communicate; he can love. Those are two very important things that could just be overlooked because maybe Jarrett can't multiply or divide numbers.
There did seem to be editorializing and a lack of attribution, but this was the type of article where that was okay. If absolutely everything was attributed, it would have taken away from the intimate, story-like quality of the article.
The story had an emotional ending, which was very sweet. It showed that while this story wasn't exactly news-breaking, it was important all the same. It was important because it concerned real people, dealing with real problems. The media always puts so much focus on all the huge problems of the world today. Sometimes those problems seem so distant, which makes the media appear detached from the actual community. This story was about the little things that affect people's lives so much more.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/26/nyregion/long-island/26Rparent.html
I felt the lead was effective. When many parents have a child with disabilites, it's so easy to focus on what their child cannot do. It's important to realize that their child is smart and special and can do so much. I felt that was the overall message of the article, and it came out very clearly.
By talking to the parents, the reporter had real insight into the family. It made the story personal, and it made the readers care. It also showed everything that Jarrett can do. He can communicate; he can love. Those are two very important things that could just be overlooked because maybe Jarrett can't multiply or divide numbers.
There did seem to be editorializing and a lack of attribution, but this was the type of article where that was okay. If absolutely everything was attributed, it would have taken away from the intimate, story-like quality of the article.
The story had an emotional ending, which was very sweet. It showed that while this story wasn't exactly news-breaking, it was important all the same. It was important because it concerned real people, dealing with real problems. The media always puts so much focus on all the huge problems of the world today. Sometimes those problems seem so distant, which makes the media appear detached from the actual community. This story was about the little things that affect people's lives so much more.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/26/nyregion/long-island/26Rparent.html
"Finding Jesus on Facebook, and Checking Podcasts for a Pew That Fits" By April Dembosky
We live in a world of technology. Teens today stay connected by texting and "facebook stalking" each other. We probably all know how tempting it is to go onto facebook when we should be doing our homework. The next thing we know we've just spent two hours looking at who's dating who and what people are doing over the weekend instead of writing our term paper. When we're not on facebook, we're busy texting our friends, rather than being old-fashioned and just calling them. I am as guilty of this as anyone, but I do believe that something gets lost in translation when it comes to texting. I always feel like I need to add a smiley face at the end of a short text because it might sound angry without me actually saying it. The article I read was about churches reaching out to our generation via facebook and other technology. The main concern I have is: what if God and religion get lost in translation as well? No smiley face can fix that.
I did find this article interesting. It shows how religion has become secondary to young people's more "pressing" concerns. Churches have to scramble to find a way to get us in their pews every week. They've begun using video clips, slide shows and musical groups to attract a younger audience. They also make podcasts of sermons that they broadcast online. They've set up blogs as a way for us to communicate with each other in a relaxed environment.
While I think this is great that churches are finding ways to relate to younger people, I'm not sure that everything they're doing will turn out for the best in the long run. For example, a teacher in the article says that "a two-minute movie clip can do so much more than two minutes of sermon." While I'm not trying to say that sermons are always the most exciting things to listen to, I am saying that the overall message can be lost by just showing movie clips. I'm sorry, but I don't think watching a clip of "Shallow Hal" really cuts it when I want to learn more about my faith and God. That just dumbs down religion way too much. I think what churches need to remember is that yes, maybe they should find a way to present religion that is more fun, but that doesn't mean that the way needs to make religion simpler. While we may not always use complete sentences or even complete words in our texts, we're not stupid, and we deserve to actually be taught religion rather than just shown movies, which we can do in our own time.
Now I'm sure a lot of people would tell me that I'm being too hard on these churches and that what they're doing is great; as long as the kids are coming to church, then it can't be that bad, right? I think it is awesome that this could bring more people to church. I really do. However, I have another quote from the story for you: "he mentioned Jesus occasionally, and tossed in a Bible verse here and there, but he really kept eyes focused and heads nodding with a series of clips on the screens." The clips were from movies and also the church's summer baptism. How can that be considered church when the pastor rarely mentions Jesus? That doesn't sound like church to me. Religion takes time and effort; watching "Braveheart" does not bring us closer to God. I think in the churches' efforts to attract the young people, they're forgetting what they're actually supposed to be doing once those young people are in the pews. These churches aren't making our generation care any more about God; they're just shifting the focus away from Him. After all, the pastor "really kept eyes focused" when he showed movie clips, not when he mentioned Jesus or the Bible. To me, that means there is a lot being lost in translation.
I thought the story itself was written fairly well, but I think the reporter could have shown the side that I mentioned above. I'm sure she could have found people who didn't like what these churches were doing. There are always two sides to a story. By just quoting the pastors and congregation members who like what their churches are doing, the reporter makes it seem as if there's no other way to view this topic. No one can think it's bad because obviously no one does or else they would have been included in the article.
Also, I think it was sometimes unclear what churches the writer was talking about. In the beginning, she discussed "Journey," but then she just kept saying "church" or "churches" over and over again. I wasn't sure if she meant Journey or not. Later on, she gave more specific examples, which I thought was good. Readers need to know that there are actually multiple churches doing this; it shows the relevance. Otherwise it seems as if maybe there's only one church doing all of this, which wouldn't really be all that news-worthy.
While I may not completely agree with what these churches are doing, I'm glad I read the article. It was good to know that churches are trying to appeal to our younger generation, but I just believe they need to re-think their tactics to ensure that we're actually deepening our faith rather than splashing around in the kiddie pool.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/26/nyregion/26journey.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
I did find this article interesting. It shows how religion has become secondary to young people's more "pressing" concerns. Churches have to scramble to find a way to get us in their pews every week. They've begun using video clips, slide shows and musical groups to attract a younger audience. They also make podcasts of sermons that they broadcast online. They've set up blogs as a way for us to communicate with each other in a relaxed environment.
While I think this is great that churches are finding ways to relate to younger people, I'm not sure that everything they're doing will turn out for the best in the long run. For example, a teacher in the article says that "a two-minute movie clip can do so much more than two minutes of sermon." While I'm not trying to say that sermons are always the most exciting things to listen to, I am saying that the overall message can be lost by just showing movie clips. I'm sorry, but I don't think watching a clip of "Shallow Hal" really cuts it when I want to learn more about my faith and God. That just dumbs down religion way too much. I think what churches need to remember is that yes, maybe they should find a way to present religion that is more fun, but that doesn't mean that the way needs to make religion simpler. While we may not always use complete sentences or even complete words in our texts, we're not stupid, and we deserve to actually be taught religion rather than just shown movies, which we can do in our own time.
Now I'm sure a lot of people would tell me that I'm being too hard on these churches and that what they're doing is great; as long as the kids are coming to church, then it can't be that bad, right? I think it is awesome that this could bring more people to church. I really do. However, I have another quote from the story for you: "he mentioned Jesus occasionally, and tossed in a Bible verse here and there, but he really kept eyes focused and heads nodding with a series of clips on the screens." The clips were from movies and also the church's summer baptism. How can that be considered church when the pastor rarely mentions Jesus? That doesn't sound like church to me. Religion takes time and effort; watching "Braveheart" does not bring us closer to God. I think in the churches' efforts to attract the young people, they're forgetting what they're actually supposed to be doing once those young people are in the pews. These churches aren't making our generation care any more about God; they're just shifting the focus away from Him. After all, the pastor "really kept eyes focused" when he showed movie clips, not when he mentioned Jesus or the Bible. To me, that means there is a lot being lost in translation.
I thought the story itself was written fairly well, but I think the reporter could have shown the side that I mentioned above. I'm sure she could have found people who didn't like what these churches were doing. There are always two sides to a story. By just quoting the pastors and congregation members who like what their churches are doing, the reporter makes it seem as if there's no other way to view this topic. No one can think it's bad because obviously no one does or else they would have been included in the article.
Also, I think it was sometimes unclear what churches the writer was talking about. In the beginning, she discussed "Journey," but then she just kept saying "church" or "churches" over and over again. I wasn't sure if she meant Journey or not. Later on, she gave more specific examples, which I thought was good. Readers need to know that there are actually multiple churches doing this; it shows the relevance. Otherwise it seems as if maybe there's only one church doing all of this, which wouldn't really be all that news-worthy.
While I may not completely agree with what these churches are doing, I'm glad I read the article. It was good to know that churches are trying to appeal to our younger generation, but I just believe they need to re-think their tactics to ensure that we're actually deepening our faith rather than splashing around in the kiddie pool.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/26/nyregion/26journey.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
Sunday, October 19, 2008
"Youthful Voice Stirs Challenge to Secular Turks" By Sabrina Tavernise
When we look at the Middle East, what do we see? I think for a lot of Americans that answer would be one giant mass of countries that are all basically the same. I don't think there are many of us who really differentiate between the nations that make up the Middle East. We don't know that much about them. We think all Middle Easterners are strict Muslims, forced by their governments to practice everything according to the law. We see the women as being repressed by the men, forced to cover their heads with scarves. But what if this wasn't always the case? What if it was the opposite? What if women were forbidden to wear their scarves? This is the situation in Turkey, and until I read this article, I had absolutely no idea.
Turkey is a secular country. Religion has no influence over law there. Since the 1920s, Turkey has separated itself from the East and encouraged the incorporation of Western culture into its society. Unlike in most Muslim countries, women are banned from wearing head scarves in schools. There is now a religious revival occurring in Turkey, making many young people more religiously observant than their parents.
This story focused on the efforts of one young woman Havva Yilmaz to get a law passed that would allow women to wear head scarves in universities. I thought it was a very good idea to center the story around one individual. It made it much more personal. It showed how the issue affects actual women in Turkey. It also gave more insight into why women would actually want to wear scarves. For Western women, the idea of having to cover our heads seems cruel and old-fashioned. For Yilmaz, it's a way for her to practice her religion. She said it helped her discover who she was. This shows that the scarf can be just as much of a good thing as a bad thing. It depends on each individual person. By showing Yilmaz's side so thoroughly, her cause gains support because government should not have a right to say someone can or can't wear a head scarf.
I thought this article was well-written for the most part, but I felt there was a lot of editorializing. The writer uses a lot of adjectives and adverbs such as "lively," "eloquent," "staunchly," "funny", and "irreverent." She also said that certain Turks opposed broader freedoms for Islam because they did not trust one politician. She gives no foundation for this claim. There is no quote attributed to anyone that says this. However, she does present both sides of the story to a certain degree because she mentions what other women's complaints were against passing a law that would allow the scarves.
There was one specific part of the story that I found confusing. It involved a quote from Yilmaz. Yilmaz says something in the story about how when you wear a scarf, you're expected to act and think in a certain way, and you're stripped of your personality. Isn't that a bad thing about the scarf? I figured she meant you're expected to act that way, but it isn't true. However, nothing says that it isn't ture. The quote is just left as it is, with no further explanation. I think what she meant by that quote should have been made clearer in the article.
Also, there was one part that involved a comment by a journalist about Yilmaz's support for gays. I don't really see how this was relevant to the article. I guess it showed more about Yilmaz's beliefs. I also don't see how it was relevant for the journalist to bring that up with Yilmaz in the first place when she's fighting to wear head scarves. I can see that it brings up the issue of expression, but I just felt that the interview with the journalist and now this article lost a little bit of focus.
My final comment is just that as always, I learned a lot from the story. It was definitely interesting for me to see a very different side of the Middle East. I've never really thought of head scarves as a particularly good thing, but now I can see that wearing them is really important to some women. A government should not have the power to take that away from anyone.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/14/world/europe/14turkey.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
Turkey is a secular country. Religion has no influence over law there. Since the 1920s, Turkey has separated itself from the East and encouraged the incorporation of Western culture into its society. Unlike in most Muslim countries, women are banned from wearing head scarves in schools. There is now a religious revival occurring in Turkey, making many young people more religiously observant than their parents.
This story focused on the efforts of one young woman Havva Yilmaz to get a law passed that would allow women to wear head scarves in universities. I thought it was a very good idea to center the story around one individual. It made it much more personal. It showed how the issue affects actual women in Turkey. It also gave more insight into why women would actually want to wear scarves. For Western women, the idea of having to cover our heads seems cruel and old-fashioned. For Yilmaz, it's a way for her to practice her religion. She said it helped her discover who she was. This shows that the scarf can be just as much of a good thing as a bad thing. It depends on each individual person. By showing Yilmaz's side so thoroughly, her cause gains support because government should not have a right to say someone can or can't wear a head scarf.
I thought this article was well-written for the most part, but I felt there was a lot of editorializing. The writer uses a lot of adjectives and adverbs such as "lively," "eloquent," "staunchly," "funny", and "irreverent." She also said that certain Turks opposed broader freedoms for Islam because they did not trust one politician. She gives no foundation for this claim. There is no quote attributed to anyone that says this. However, she does present both sides of the story to a certain degree because she mentions what other women's complaints were against passing a law that would allow the scarves.
There was one specific part of the story that I found confusing. It involved a quote from Yilmaz. Yilmaz says something in the story about how when you wear a scarf, you're expected to act and think in a certain way, and you're stripped of your personality. Isn't that a bad thing about the scarf? I figured she meant you're expected to act that way, but it isn't true. However, nothing says that it isn't ture. The quote is just left as it is, with no further explanation. I think what she meant by that quote should have been made clearer in the article.
Also, there was one part that involved a comment by a journalist about Yilmaz's support for gays. I don't really see how this was relevant to the article. I guess it showed more about Yilmaz's beliefs. I also don't see how it was relevant for the journalist to bring that up with Yilmaz in the first place when she's fighting to wear head scarves. I can see that it brings up the issue of expression, but I just felt that the interview with the journalist and now this article lost a little bit of focus.
My final comment is just that as always, I learned a lot from the story. It was definitely interesting for me to see a very different side of the Middle East. I've never really thought of head scarves as a particularly good thing, but now I can see that wearing them is really important to some women. A government should not have the power to take that away from anyone.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/14/world/europe/14turkey.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
Friday, October 17, 2008
My Take On: "Laugh at a Campaign Pitch? Sure. Visit the Grandparents? Not So Much." By Damien Cave
It always seems as Election Day looms closer, candidates and their campaigns rush to gain the votes of certain groups. Obviously, they want the votes of the "undecided." Gaining these votes is the key to winning the election. However, there always is an effort to appeal to religious groups. Religion affects the way people vote. That's all there is to it. This means that candidates have to relate to the religious whether they themselves share the same religious views or not. I wrote before about the campaigns trying to gain Catholic votes. This article deals with the efforts of younger Jews to convince the older Jewish community to vote for Obama. Sometimes, having the support of at least a section of a religious community can help to sway the rest of the group to a candidate' s side.
The article I read discussed a Web video made by Sarah Silverman telling young Jews to go to Florida to tell their grandparents to vote for Obama. The question now was whether or not anyone would actually go to Florida. Some did, but many did not. However, other young people who could not make the trip still contacted family members by phone to tell them to cast their ballots in favor of Obama.
I thought this story was fun and lighthearted, but it had an important message at its core. Young people have a lot of influence in the world. I know it doesn't always seem this way, but it's true. We have the potential to greatly influence the election if we would just take the time to vote. Why do you think there are Web videos posted telling young voters to talk to their grandparents? Why do you think teen clothing stores sell t-shirts telling us "to vote or die?" I thought this article did a very good job of presenting a larger issue in a way that was more digestible for its readers.
This article was actually pretty funny. Because the movement to get the younger Jews to talk to the older Jews was called the "Great Schlep," the writer frequently used the word "schlep" throughout the story. It spiced up the language a bit. There were other funny parts involving voters with "nipple rings." My only complaint about the comments about nipple rings is that the reporter said "many of those without nipple rings seem resistant to the youthful charms of Mr. Obama and their own grandchildren." I didn't think this comment was necessary. The quote about nipple rings that was said by one of the people in charge of the Great Schlep was colorful, but I thought this comment by the writer was too editorial.
The reporter mostly talked to people in favor of Obama or those involved with the Great Schlep. I think it was important that the article at least had one person who was not in favor of Obama or the effort. The reporter probably could have talked to even more people who shared this viewpoint, but at least the article did say that the effort has made a good start, without having accomplished a lot. I felt it was pretty clear that the article supported the effort, but at least it didn't bend the truth about its success.
Overall, I did really like reading this article. It was entertaining but informative at the same time, which is basically what I would want from any article I read.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/14/us/politics/14schlep.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
The article I read discussed a Web video made by Sarah Silverman telling young Jews to go to Florida to tell their grandparents to vote for Obama. The question now was whether or not anyone would actually go to Florida. Some did, but many did not. However, other young people who could not make the trip still contacted family members by phone to tell them to cast their ballots in favor of Obama.
I thought this story was fun and lighthearted, but it had an important message at its core. Young people have a lot of influence in the world. I know it doesn't always seem this way, but it's true. We have the potential to greatly influence the election if we would just take the time to vote. Why do you think there are Web videos posted telling young voters to talk to their grandparents? Why do you think teen clothing stores sell t-shirts telling us "to vote or die?" I thought this article did a very good job of presenting a larger issue in a way that was more digestible for its readers.
This article was actually pretty funny. Because the movement to get the younger Jews to talk to the older Jews was called the "Great Schlep," the writer frequently used the word "schlep" throughout the story. It spiced up the language a bit. There were other funny parts involving voters with "nipple rings." My only complaint about the comments about nipple rings is that the reporter said "many of those without nipple rings seem resistant to the youthful charms of Mr. Obama and their own grandchildren." I didn't think this comment was necessary. The quote about nipple rings that was said by one of the people in charge of the Great Schlep was colorful, but I thought this comment by the writer was too editorial.
The reporter mostly talked to people in favor of Obama or those involved with the Great Schlep. I think it was important that the article at least had one person who was not in favor of Obama or the effort. The reporter probably could have talked to even more people who shared this viewpoint, but at least the article did say that the effort has made a good start, without having accomplished a lot. I felt it was pretty clear that the article supported the effort, but at least it didn't bend the truth about its success.
Overall, I did really like reading this article. It was entertaining but informative at the same time, which is basically what I would want from any article I read.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/14/us/politics/14schlep.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
Sunday, October 12, 2008
On a lighter note, my take on: "In Buddha's Path on the Streets of San Francisco" By Perry Garfinkel
The last time I read anything about Buddhism was probably in middle school when I still had a class called "social studies." I don't know much about it. What I do know is that Buddhists are supposed to be very peaceful, and they meditate a lot. I'm not positive, but I think they may also be the religion that talks about yin and yang. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. So, clearly, I do not know a lot. However, that only made this article all the more interesting. Oftentimes, we are stuck in our own religious worlds, and we never want to venture outside the box. We have the tendency to believe other religions are crazy and to just leave it at that. I read this article because I never really hear about the Buddhist population in the U.S. I only ever hear about Jews, Christians and Muslims. I thought I'd mix it up a little with this article.
First off, I think this story was an explanatory story. I'm definitely unsure of this evaluation, but from what I could see, there were very little quotations and a lot of explaining, which was characteristic of the example we read in class. On that note, I felt the reporter did a very good job of explaining. He gave readers a timeline of the history of Buddhism in California, which I'm sure most readers did not know about. It helped to set up why this area is such a prominent Buddhist community in the U.S.
He also discusses the role of Buddhism now in that area. Buddhists have made efforts to help others in the community. This shows readers a clearer reason why they should care. Buddhists are trying to help others in the community, and the readers could be these others, or they could at least relate to them. At any rate, it shows that Buddhists are taking an active role in society, and people would most likely respect them for doing something. Their actionsmake them relevant to the rest of the community; they are not an ancient, dead culture.
As I said before, this article was very interesting. It taught me a lot, which in my opinion, is the most important part of jounalism. We need to tell people what they don't already know. The article ends with a listing of all the places readers can visit, which was a nice touch because it allows readers a way to experience what the article just described.
I do have one complaint I found. The writer says that a tourist can find inspiration or even enlightenment by "following in the footsteps of American Buddhism." While this goes along with the overall message of the piece, I thought that was a pretty big assumption for the writer to make. I don't know if some people would find that acceptable, but I did not.
Overall, this story was definitely worth reading. It was a nice break from reading about all the violence in the Middle East.
http://travel.nytimes.com/2008/10/10/travel/escapes/10buddhism.html
First off, I think this story was an explanatory story. I'm definitely unsure of this evaluation, but from what I could see, there were very little quotations and a lot of explaining, which was characteristic of the example we read in class. On that note, I felt the reporter did a very good job of explaining. He gave readers a timeline of the history of Buddhism in California, which I'm sure most readers did not know about. It helped to set up why this area is such a prominent Buddhist community in the U.S.
He also discusses the role of Buddhism now in that area. Buddhists have made efforts to help others in the community. This shows readers a clearer reason why they should care. Buddhists are trying to help others in the community, and the readers could be these others, or they could at least relate to them. At any rate, it shows that Buddhists are taking an active role in society, and people would most likely respect them for doing something. Their actionsmake them relevant to the rest of the community; they are not an ancient, dead culture.
As I said before, this article was very interesting. It taught me a lot, which in my opinion, is the most important part of jounalism. We need to tell people what they don't already know. The article ends with a listing of all the places readers can visit, which was a nice touch because it allows readers a way to experience what the article just described.
I do have one complaint I found. The writer says that a tourist can find inspiration or even enlightenment by "following in the footsteps of American Buddhism." While this goes along with the overall message of the piece, I thought that was a pretty big assumption for the writer to make. I don't know if some people would find that acceptable, but I did not.
Overall, this story was definitely worth reading. It was a nice break from reading about all the violence in the Middle East.
http://travel.nytimes.com/2008/10/10/travel/escapes/10buddhism.html
Saturday, October 11, 2008
A Follow-up to the Last Blog: "Violence in Mosul Forces Iraqi Christians to Flee" By Erica Goode and Suadad Al-Salhy
My last blog discussed an article about the Iraqi Parliament's decision to drop a provision ensuring political representation for minorities. This new article I read was about the depressing aftermath of that decision. I don't know how else to introduce this article; just read it, and you'll see why. It's so much harder to write some lengthy introduction to a topic that's just plain sad.
So, anyway, violence has increased in Mosul, Iraq, and it seems that the killers are particularly targeting Christians. Mosul had been a kind-of refuge for Christians; in the past, they had fled there from other parts of Iraq. The article says that many Iraqi Christian leaders believe that the increased violence is due to the protests led by Christians against the decision to remove the provision.
This article contains a lot of information. It does a very good job of describing the situation in Iraq. It gives the background that sets the scene of the current state of the country. As a reader, I, for one, appreciated how the writers explained where Christians typically live in Iraq and why. The writers treat their readers like they don't know anything, which they probably don't. This is not a negative thing; it's important for everyone to be capable of understanding the content of a story. For example, the article discusses the Nineveh Plain, where many Christians have taken refuge because the towns there are mainly Christian. It goes on to say violence is down in other parts of the country because it has moved to this area where more Christians live. The article tells where Christians have now moved to and their reasons why. I thought it was important that the article gave examples of hostility encountered by Christians, including threats and obviously, direct violence. The writers included past violence as well, which added to the background information.
The article had a good variety of sources. It included information from a few "experts," but what was best of all was the personal anecdote from a resident of Mosul. This story was also probably the most depressing part of the piece, which was why it was so necessary. It gave readers a reason to care. Readers can only stand to be fed information from "experts" so much. They want to be given the chance to relate to people on a personal level. The story was about how the man's brother was killed in front of his own son. In any normal person, this should incite sadness and anger. Who could imagine watching their father die? Who would want to imagine something as awful and terrifying as that? No person should have to go through that. No person should have to lose a sibling that way either. I have two brothers and two sisters, and I can truthfully say that the bond between siblings is probably one of the strongest in the world. Readers can see how wrong all of this is because they are seeing it through the man's eyes. As people, we are capable of seeing the world from another person's perspective when we really try. We're all united by our common human condition. It was definitely a good choice for the reporters to talk to an everyday person to get his perspective.
But, of course, this blog would not be complete if I didn't find something wrong with this article. Once again, I have to say that I thought the article was very good until I got to the part that said "in other developments." NOT AGAIN! I don't understand why these articles suddenly start talking about something different when they reach a certain point. For those of you that are reading this blog but didn't read the last, that article did the exact same thing. Is this common practice when the story is about the Middle East or Iraq? I know there's a lot going on there, but I don't think it all needs to be jam-packed into one article. It shifts the focus. In this article, it goes from talking about the plight of Iraqi Christians to Iraqi-U.S. relations. I think these relations are probably enough to warrant their own article. All of that is an issue in-and-of itself.
My final comment is that the article ends with one sentence discussing the subject of the picture that accompanies the story. One sentence. At the end of the piece. If it's the picture that goes with the story, shouldn't the story actually be about the picture? That just didn't cut it for me.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/11/world/middleeast/11iraq.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
So, anyway, violence has increased in Mosul, Iraq, and it seems that the killers are particularly targeting Christians. Mosul had been a kind-of refuge for Christians; in the past, they had fled there from other parts of Iraq. The article says that many Iraqi Christian leaders believe that the increased violence is due to the protests led by Christians against the decision to remove the provision.
This article contains a lot of information. It does a very good job of describing the situation in Iraq. It gives the background that sets the scene of the current state of the country. As a reader, I, for one, appreciated how the writers explained where Christians typically live in Iraq and why. The writers treat their readers like they don't know anything, which they probably don't. This is not a negative thing; it's important for everyone to be capable of understanding the content of a story. For example, the article discusses the Nineveh Plain, where many Christians have taken refuge because the towns there are mainly Christian. It goes on to say violence is down in other parts of the country because it has moved to this area where more Christians live. The article tells where Christians have now moved to and their reasons why. I thought it was important that the article gave examples of hostility encountered by Christians, including threats and obviously, direct violence. The writers included past violence as well, which added to the background information.
The article had a good variety of sources. It included information from a few "experts," but what was best of all was the personal anecdote from a resident of Mosul. This story was also probably the most depressing part of the piece, which was why it was so necessary. It gave readers a reason to care. Readers can only stand to be fed information from "experts" so much. They want to be given the chance to relate to people on a personal level. The story was about how the man's brother was killed in front of his own son. In any normal person, this should incite sadness and anger. Who could imagine watching their father die? Who would want to imagine something as awful and terrifying as that? No person should have to go through that. No person should have to lose a sibling that way either. I have two brothers and two sisters, and I can truthfully say that the bond between siblings is probably one of the strongest in the world. Readers can see how wrong all of this is because they are seeing it through the man's eyes. As people, we are capable of seeing the world from another person's perspective when we really try. We're all united by our common human condition. It was definitely a good choice for the reporters to talk to an everyday person to get his perspective.
But, of course, this blog would not be complete if I didn't find something wrong with this article. Once again, I have to say that I thought the article was very good until I got to the part that said "in other developments." NOT AGAIN! I don't understand why these articles suddenly start talking about something different when they reach a certain point. For those of you that are reading this blog but didn't read the last, that article did the exact same thing. Is this common practice when the story is about the Middle East or Iraq? I know there's a lot going on there, but I don't think it all needs to be jam-packed into one article. It shifts the focus. In this article, it goes from talking about the plight of Iraqi Christians to Iraqi-U.S. relations. I think these relations are probably enough to warrant their own article. All of that is an issue in-and-of itself.
My final comment is that the article ends with one sentence discussing the subject of the picture that accompanies the story. One sentence. At the end of the piece. If it's the picture that goes with the story, shouldn't the story actually be about the picture? That just didn't cut it for me.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/11/world/middleeast/11iraq.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
My Take On: "Iraqis Unite to Restore Minority Representation Law" By Erica Goode and Stephen Farrell
The Middle East has been a focal point in American news for some time now. I feel like I am constantly hearing or reading about the Middle East, and this is rightfully so. That area of the world is in constant tumult, and America is smack-dab in the middle of it. However, I think most of us can get sick of hearing about all the terrible events that occur there. In general, people like to be happy (I can't think of anyone who doesn't enjoy being in that state), so news of the Middle East doesn't really help people continue their existence in happy little bubbles. This latest article I read was a very straightforward piece about a protest that occurred in the Middle East. While the reason for the protest is saddening, there were certain circumstances surrounding it that actually rang with a little hope.
In Baghdad, a group of Christians and others gathered to protest a decision of the Iraqi Parliament. It had decided to remove a provision that set aside a certain number of seats in Parliament for Christians and two other minorities. It's sad that a government could be so against diversity. However, the article showed that Iraqi Muslims joined with the Christians to protest the removal of the provision. Iraq is desperately in need of unity among its people, and this protest is a positive example of the steps some are taking to form some sort of union.
In my opinion, there weren't many ways the writers could have gone wrong with this story. Like I said before, it was very straightforward. I thought they did a good job of showing the position of the minorities who were being left out. They also talked to the speaker of Parliament to get Parliament's side of the story. I thought it was really funny that the speaker could somehow claim that the removal was "an unintentional mistake." Yeah, I am so sure. How do you accidentally remove an article that encourages diversity within government? that prevents a monopoly by one group of people? Oh yeah, that's right: you don't. The choice was very intentional, but it was good reporting to represent the voice of Parliament within the article anyway.
Also, I felt the article was set up really well. The writers started with the most newsworthy details first, the details that everyday readers would relate to and care about. They then moved onto the more intricate details of everything that happened in order to add some more meat to the story.
So, this was what I was thinking until I reached the point in the article when it says "also on Monday." I'm sorry, but was it really necessary to add in all this other news at the end of an article? I know that everything concerned Baghdad, but that doesn't mean these other tidbits should be randomly shoved at the end of this otherwise focused story. I'm not sure if this is some accepted practice in reporting that I didn't know about, but I found it incredibly distracting. The story was really interesting, but the whole end section made me seriously question what was going on. The headline did not cover the random news at the end. I think all of those mini-stories could have been placed into a separate article titled "Random News From Iraq." Or maybe those mini-stories could have been further explored in order to create full stories so that there was no need for them to tag along at the end of a completely separate story. I just found it all very strange, and it definitely hurt my opinion of the article.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/07/world/middleeast/07iraq.html?pagewanted=print
In Baghdad, a group of Christians and others gathered to protest a decision of the Iraqi Parliament. It had decided to remove a provision that set aside a certain number of seats in Parliament for Christians and two other minorities. It's sad that a government could be so against diversity. However, the article showed that Iraqi Muslims joined with the Christians to protest the removal of the provision. Iraq is desperately in need of unity among its people, and this protest is a positive example of the steps some are taking to form some sort of union.
In my opinion, there weren't many ways the writers could have gone wrong with this story. Like I said before, it was very straightforward. I thought they did a good job of showing the position of the minorities who were being left out. They also talked to the speaker of Parliament to get Parliament's side of the story. I thought it was really funny that the speaker could somehow claim that the removal was "an unintentional mistake." Yeah, I am so sure. How do you accidentally remove an article that encourages diversity within government? that prevents a monopoly by one group of people? Oh yeah, that's right: you don't. The choice was very intentional, but it was good reporting to represent the voice of Parliament within the article anyway.
Also, I felt the article was set up really well. The writers started with the most newsworthy details first, the details that everyday readers would relate to and care about. They then moved onto the more intricate details of everything that happened in order to add some more meat to the story.
So, this was what I was thinking until I reached the point in the article when it says "also on Monday." I'm sorry, but was it really necessary to add in all this other news at the end of an article? I know that everything concerned Baghdad, but that doesn't mean these other tidbits should be randomly shoved at the end of this otherwise focused story. I'm not sure if this is some accepted practice in reporting that I didn't know about, but I found it incredibly distracting. The story was really interesting, but the whole end section made me seriously question what was going on. The headline did not cover the random news at the end. I think all of those mini-stories could have been placed into a separate article titled "Random News From Iraq." Or maybe those mini-stories could have been further explored in order to create full stories so that there was no need for them to tag along at the end of a completely separate story. I just found it all very strange, and it definitely hurt my opinion of the article.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/07/world/middleeast/07iraq.html?pagewanted=print
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Would You Like a Little Faith with Your Frappuccino? My Take on: "Synagogue, and 'Spiritual Starbucks'" by Paul Vitello
We live in a secular society. As the years have passed, religion has slowly faded into the background. Many people aren't all that interested in going to church or synagogue or mosque or their designated place of worship anymore. Religion has lost major popularity points, and that is evident in the world around us. This story, "Synagogue and 'Spiritual Starbucks'," deals with the apparent loss of faith in the Jewish community particularly. It discusses a Jewish neighborhood in NYC where the synagogues are struggling. Amidst the dwindling numbers of regulars at the synagogues, Rabbi Simon Jacobson uses unconventional methods to summon stragglers into his synagogue's services.
This story contains a lot of information. Vitello used many sources, including several "experts." The only complaint I have regarding sources is that I think he could have contacted more common people, members of the synagogue. He only spoke to two, and one was a former president of the synagogue, and the other was ninety years old. Vitello should have talked to more young people since many of Jacobson's efforts are aimed at the young Jewish community.
Vitello did an excellent job of backing up his information. He did not trust what sources told him at face value; he looked into the information. There were two specific times in the article when he did this that really stood out. One was when he asked Rabbi Jacobson to respond to an evaluation made by the chairman of the Jewish studies program at Queens College regarding the beliefs at the core of Jacobson's program. Jacobson confirmed what the chairman said but was also given the chance to explain the true purpose of his program. Also, Jacobson told a story about a former student, and Vitello contacted the student to verify the story and to see what the student was doing now. This had the added benefit of showing how these programs could potentially change lives.
This story also had some colorful quotes. Rabbi Jacobson described an event the synagogue held as "Spiritually elevating. A transportation for the soul." I thought this quote was entertaining because Jacobson sounded like he was reviewing a movie. "Fun for the whole family! A rollicking good time!" Also, in regards to Jewish practice in the community, Jacobson said that "It is a kind of tundra, and we are trying to figure out how to resettle it." This quote provided for vivid imagery, bringing the state of faith in the Jewish community to life.
However, at times, the story lost focus. The lead was good, but it could have been better if it were more personal. It was a general example of a rabbi, rather than a specific anecdote of one of the rabbis mentioned in the story. Also, it seemed a little irrelevant because none of the rabbis in the actual body of the story had to do what the rabbi in the lead did. In fact, Vitello specifically mentioned that the main rabbi at the synagogue didn't have to. Also, I thought Vitello meant to focus on the spiritual decline in the synagogue, but he interjected little sections into the story about its physical state instead. I think it would have been a stronger story if he just focused on one form of deterioration or the other, preferably the spiritual.
Overall, this story was solid; Vitello checked his facts and used plenty of sources. I just think he could have varied those sources a little bit more, rather than varying the focus of his story.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/29/nyregion/29synagogue.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
This story contains a lot of information. Vitello used many sources, including several "experts." The only complaint I have regarding sources is that I think he could have contacted more common people, members of the synagogue. He only spoke to two, and one was a former president of the synagogue, and the other was ninety years old. Vitello should have talked to more young people since many of Jacobson's efforts are aimed at the young Jewish community.
Vitello did an excellent job of backing up his information. He did not trust what sources told him at face value; he looked into the information. There were two specific times in the article when he did this that really stood out. One was when he asked Rabbi Jacobson to respond to an evaluation made by the chairman of the Jewish studies program at Queens College regarding the beliefs at the core of Jacobson's program. Jacobson confirmed what the chairman said but was also given the chance to explain the true purpose of his program. Also, Jacobson told a story about a former student, and Vitello contacted the student to verify the story and to see what the student was doing now. This had the added benefit of showing how these programs could potentially change lives.
This story also had some colorful quotes. Rabbi Jacobson described an event the synagogue held as "Spiritually elevating. A transportation for the soul." I thought this quote was entertaining because Jacobson sounded like he was reviewing a movie. "Fun for the whole family! A rollicking good time!" Also, in regards to Jewish practice in the community, Jacobson said that "It is a kind of tundra, and we are trying to figure out how to resettle it." This quote provided for vivid imagery, bringing the state of faith in the Jewish community to life.
However, at times, the story lost focus. The lead was good, but it could have been better if it were more personal. It was a general example of a rabbi, rather than a specific anecdote of one of the rabbis mentioned in the story. Also, it seemed a little irrelevant because none of the rabbis in the actual body of the story had to do what the rabbi in the lead did. In fact, Vitello specifically mentioned that the main rabbi at the synagogue didn't have to. Also, I thought Vitello meant to focus on the spiritual decline in the synagogue, but he interjected little sections into the story about its physical state instead. I think it would have been a stronger story if he just focused on one form of deterioration or the other, preferably the spiritual.
Overall, this story was solid; Vitello checked his facts and used plenty of sources. I just think he could have varied those sources a little bit more, rather than varying the focus of his story.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/29/nyregion/29synagogue.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
My Take on: "Abortion Issue Again Dividing Catholic Votes" By David D. Kirkpatrick
Abortion. It is a taboo subject in classrooms, at dinner tables, even in political campaigns. People don't like to talk about it because they know that it will bring up fiery arguments on both the pro-choice and pro-life sides. They'd rather just let the issue fester until there's no avoiding bringing it up. However, we all know it's a major issue in both the religious and political worlds. It has the potential to greatly influence the upcoming presidential election. Both McCain and Obama have now addressed the issue of abortion, and the time has come for the campaigns to convince Catholic voters to see things their way.
As a Catholic myself, I've grown up with the issue of abortion all around me. I read this article thinking it would definitely be a one-sided slam on the Catholics who cling hard to their pro-life beliefs. However, for the most part, I was pleasantly surprised. David Kirkpatrick presented the case of both the "progressive" and "conservative" Catholics. While he did show that most of the Catholics he talked to would be voting for McCain, he showed the strong efforts made by the grass-roots campaign of Obama to swing voters to their side. He interviewed both Catholics who vote based on the issue of abortion, and Catholics who look at other issues, rather than voting according to a candidate's stance on abortion. I thought it was fair of him to show how important the issue of abortion is to Catholics, while still presenting the fact that there are other issues that affect Catholic voters.
However, there were some instances when I was confused while reading Kirkpatrick's article. For example, he says that the theological dispute of abortion is "playing out in weekly homilies." He doesn't attribute this claim to anyone. Unless he himself is at Mass every week, how does he know this? I felt that he should have specified where this information came from because it must have come from somewhere.
Also, Kirkpatrick discusses how Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi both brought up different saints without explaining in what context the politicians discussed them. Where and when did they talk about the saints? Most of all, why? Kirkpatrick never explained what significance this information should have. Did those saints teach some doctrine about abortion that would inspire the debates that supposedly arose between the Church hierarchy and Democratic officials as a result of Biden and Pelosi's comments?
Finally, Kirkpatrick included a comment from one parishioner who said that he would not vote for Obama because he is black. While I believe a comment like that is reason for attention and concern, I don't see its relevance in an article about Catholic voters and the issue of abortion. The comment would have been more appropriate if included in an article about race and the presidential election.
One thing I have to add that I thought was funny in a not-really-funny-kind-of-way is that while both parties want Catholics to vote for their candidate, they don't really seem that interested in being associated with Catholics. Kirkpatrick discusses how McCain met with a cardinal and an archbishop, but his campaign called the meetings "strictly ceremonial." However, the campaign welcomed the comments of the two Church leaders about Democrats and abortion and was happy to receive their support. So I guess the message to Catholics is: give us your support, but please, for heaven's sake, keep your distance.
Overall, I thought this article was fair, but its credibilty was weakened by the annoying presence of holes.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/17/us/politics/17catholics.html?ref=opinion
As a Catholic myself, I've grown up with the issue of abortion all around me. I read this article thinking it would definitely be a one-sided slam on the Catholics who cling hard to their pro-life beliefs. However, for the most part, I was pleasantly surprised. David Kirkpatrick presented the case of both the "progressive" and "conservative" Catholics. While he did show that most of the Catholics he talked to would be voting for McCain, he showed the strong efforts made by the grass-roots campaign of Obama to swing voters to their side. He interviewed both Catholics who vote based on the issue of abortion, and Catholics who look at other issues, rather than voting according to a candidate's stance on abortion. I thought it was fair of him to show how important the issue of abortion is to Catholics, while still presenting the fact that there are other issues that affect Catholic voters.
However, there were some instances when I was confused while reading Kirkpatrick's article. For example, he says that the theological dispute of abortion is "playing out in weekly homilies." He doesn't attribute this claim to anyone. Unless he himself is at Mass every week, how does he know this? I felt that he should have specified where this information came from because it must have come from somewhere.
Also, Kirkpatrick discusses how Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi both brought up different saints without explaining in what context the politicians discussed them. Where and when did they talk about the saints? Most of all, why? Kirkpatrick never explained what significance this information should have. Did those saints teach some doctrine about abortion that would inspire the debates that supposedly arose between the Church hierarchy and Democratic officials as a result of Biden and Pelosi's comments?
Finally, Kirkpatrick included a comment from one parishioner who said that he would not vote for Obama because he is black. While I believe a comment like that is reason for attention and concern, I don't see its relevance in an article about Catholic voters and the issue of abortion. The comment would have been more appropriate if included in an article about race and the presidential election.
One thing I have to add that I thought was funny in a not-really-funny-kind-of-way is that while both parties want Catholics to vote for their candidate, they don't really seem that interested in being associated with Catholics. Kirkpatrick discusses how McCain met with a cardinal and an archbishop, but his campaign called the meetings "strictly ceremonial." However, the campaign welcomed the comments of the two Church leaders about Democrats and abortion and was happy to receive their support. So I guess the message to Catholics is: give us your support, but please, for heaven's sake, keep your distance.
Overall, I thought this article was fair, but its credibilty was weakened by the annoying presence of holes.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/17/us/politics/17catholics.html?ref=opinion
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)