"Pope May Make First Trip to Israel and Palestinian Lands in '09" By Rachel Donadio

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