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
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I think the best way to describe this story would be a news breaking piece written in an explanatory manner. It flowed well and, you're right, it made the reader feel like they were being explained a story. I felt like I was being walked through all the things that were happening, without which I probably wouldn't have understood the piece. What I liked most is just what you mentioned Mary Beth, it seemed this story had the potential to become quite biased, but the writer did not allow that to happen. As a result we got a story that wasn't one sided and was organized well.
Why is Foundation Stone mentioned so low in the article? The entire dig is financially supported by a biased philanthropist! This is a pretty important piece of information. In fact, I question the intent of the entire archeological endeavor. Is it really to illuminate ancient history or to espouse an ideology?
Post a Comment