In the stillness, space for a rebellious spirit

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-beliefs4-2009may04,0,5633757.story

Another good story! I really enjoyed reading this one. It definitely covered a lot of the news values, especially oddity: punk rock + buddhism = woaaaah. One thing I've noticed through out my reading of LA Times religion is that they definitely cover a lot of ground. I've read about religions from Wicca to Buddhism to Judaism to Catholicism, etc. I definitely think that LA Times covers all the bases fairly.

One thing that this story does really well is the "flow." It was incredibly easy to read and follow. The transitions from paragraph to paragraph and all of the information included fit together really well...I can't quite put my finger on why, but this story seems a lot less choppy then some of the other stories i have read. I think it might have something to do with the placement of quotes...A few pieces I have read from LA Times have a LOT of quotes, which is good, but not all of them fit with the flow of the piece and it can be a little bit jarring. (Like the piece on the survey a couple posts ago). But this piece only includes relevant, interesting quotes and their placement is logical.

In addition to the structure of the piece, the news is definitely covered from a lot of different angles, making it a very well-rounded piece. We hear not only the basics of who is a part of the group and how the group was formed, but also Levine's life story and training. This piece seems like it has a split focus: half of it is about Levine and the other half is about the group itself. I think this gives the piece an extra interesting dimension.

That being said, this story started off a little slow/repetitive. The picture caption, deck and third paragraph say virtually the same thing word for word. I know that the picture caption and deck aren't a part of the meat of the story, but it would still be nice to have some variety. The piece also goes into a lot of depth about Noah Levine, his life story and how he got to where he was, but it doesn't go into as much detail about the actual group, who is a part of it, the formation...it definitely includes details, but I think some more information about the group itself could be added. Also, it would be really interesting to hear about what the more traditional Buddhists think about this group, i think that that is pretty pertinent information that is missing.

Overall i thought this story was really well written and interesting. It had a few holes, but nothing that distracted from "the heart," of the piece (if you know what i mean).

I think I enjoyed this story the most out of all the ones I've read so far!

Study delves into why Americans change religions

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-religion-churn28-2009apr28,0,689954.story

Okay, in contrast to my last piece, this story really bored me. The title and lead seemed interesting, but the article read more like a statistical report than journalism. I understand that the article is focusing on a study of facts, but that doesn't mean that the human aspect of the piece should be completely missing.

The story had 4 direct quotes in total. Including quotes like: "Adolescence is a critical time in religious development," (Woah...really?) The 4 quotes the piece did have were not original. Another such quote: "Many times, changing religions is a gradual process rather than a decision or event that takes place at a particular moment,"

The quotes didn't really add anything to the story. In my opinion, direct quotes should either be extra little ingredients or not used at all. All of the information was relayed in a concise, factual manner, which is important and beneficial to a story. However, the story never really "focused in," most stories that I've read start out with a more generalized focus, then "zoom in" to more specific people/cases. If there is no human connection to the piece, what is the point of reading it? I could sum this story up in two sentences:

- people switch religions a lot.
- people do it for different reasons.

This is not news. If the study is the news, give me more specifics from the study and quotes from participants in the study. Talk about how the study was done, maybe? I think there were many different ways to approach this study.

This piece was just a bunch of boring, generalized facts. boo.

Field trip of world religions doesn't go far

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-beliefs27-2009apr27,0,2546661.story

lead: "In his quest to have students experience firsthand how people around the world worship, Varun Soni, the dean of religious life at USC, did not start up some expensive study-abroad program. He just ventured a few blocks from campus."

The lead and title were definitely very captivating.

the news was odd, timely and prominent. It covered basically all of the news values.

My favorite part of this piece was the number and variety of sources. Since the piece was about so many different religions and experiencing other religions, it's only appropriate that there were so many different sources. I definitely don't think there was any information that could have been added or anything that was left out. The sources were of varying age, status and cultural/religious background.

Also, the quotes were chosen so well! I feel like this piece could have been a bust or the journalist could have spent all of his time writing about the background of each religion, but instead he got to the point, got the reactions and moved on.

One paragraph that I particularly liked was the fourth paragraph. It was a descriptive scene. I've mentioned this before, but I have tried to put scene-setter leads and other scenes in my stories, but they always either turn out to be heavily descriptive or not informative enough.

What was interesting about this story is that it is hard to identify one single lead and nutgraf. I think the first 4 paragraphs provide all the information you need and are very captivating...it is almost as if they work together to be a giant lead/nutgraf chunk. It seems like the first and fourth paragraphs are leads, and the second and third paragraphs together are the nutgraf.

this story definitely does it's job. it's entertaining, informative and newsworthy. I was so blinded by its awesomeness, that I can't even find anything else it needs.'

One thing I did want to mention, is that the title is a little misleading (until you read the piece). The title reads, "Field trip of world religions doesn't go far," the wording, "doesn't go far," makes it seem like the field trip was a flop. Or at least that's what I thought. I'm not suggesting a different title, just making an observation.

Also, I've noticed with a lot of LA Times pieces, and other news papers i've read, especially online, that the structure is a little more scattered than what we've been taught. I think this is necessary. I think the basic structures we've been taught are a good starting point, but in order to fit all of the necessary information, the structure won't always be as clear cut. (This is kind of obvious and goes without saying, but hey, i said it anyway). I think the key is finding a structure that fits, is easy to follow and not jarring. This piece definitely did that.

If I were a journalist, this is the kind of news I would want to find. A+ LA Times!

Catholic students learn about Passover

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-beliefs6-2009apr06,0,5830365.story

First of all, how cool! I think it's awesome that people of different faiths can connect in this way.

anyway, Back to the piece.

I really liked the lead, it was startling and captured my attention. I also liked the diversity of sources that the journalist found. He interviewed everyone from leaders in the Jewish and Catholic faith communities to students. There were also a lot of interesting details included in the story. I don't think there were any holes...everything was pretty much covered.

That being said, I think this story had a problem with being concise. Some details were included where they didn't need to be, as well as some unnecessary details. For example, telling us in the 5th paragraph that Jeret and Smith sat next to each other was unnecessary. I understand that it is a good image that represents the two faiths coexisting, but it was in a random place in the middle of the paragraph. Also, we don't need to know that Smith has gray hair.

Another example where the piece could have been more concise was the quote, "The history between Catholics and Jews has not always been pleasant." After the journalist spent a paragraph taking about the holocaust and other such horrible events. This quote doesn't really add anything to the story that hasn't already been said. A lot of the quotes were bland, unnecessary or redundant. Sentences like: "Elsewhere, Catholic students also are attending Seders. This year, for example, all 1,200..." Are wordy. The piece could definitely be more concise/less wordy. There is also a definite lack of attribution aside from direct quotes.

In addition, the piece jumped around a lot. It was hard to follow in places.

Also, I really liked the ending quote. I thought it tied everything together and made the topic universal.

So while I thought this piece covered all the ground really well, it could have definitely had some spicier quotes and been more concise.

Happy Monday!

PS, I stumbled on this and thought it was funny:

An artistic tradition flourishes for Palm Sunday

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-palm-sunday-art4-2009apr04,0,5597153.story

Okay...so my first thought...

Most of LA Times stories have a couple bold lines at the beginning of their stories that is kind of like a pre-lead summary. Is that what a deck is? These are always super helpful, when I'm going through a story to see if it's something i wanna read. I read the title, the little blurb, look at the pictures and maybe read the lead. I think that's what makes the lead so important. Anyway...

So, I wanted to do an experiment with this piece. Because I think the structure of a story is one of the hardest aspects of journalism. So, I copy & pasted the story into a word document and highlighted each logical section with a different color. Here's what I came up with:

- "deck" (if that's what it is)
- The first three paragraphs are specific history on Torres, the subject of our story
- the next two paragraphs read like an explanatory piece, explaining how the palms are put together
- The next blurb & quote are misc. details
- the next two big paragraphs are background information on Palm Sunday
- the next three paragraphs zoom out to Palm art across cultures & around the world
- the next three paragraphs are more specific history on Torres
- the next seven mini-paragraphs explain specifically how the weaving is done.
- The last paragraph is a kicker which sets the scene of where the palms end up

so it goes: scene-setting lead --> Torres' history --> Palm art process --> misc. details --> Palm Sunday --> Palm sunday around the world --> Torres' history --> Palm art process --> scene-setting Kicker

Okay, so when I first read this piece I was trying to pay close attention to the structure, because it really seemed like it was all over the place. Parts of it read like an explanatory story, parts of it read like a profile of Torres, but i felt like the structure was scattered... When I did my little color-coded break down, I saw that the story definitely has a structure because it comes full circle. The focus is, at its narrowest, on Torres' Palm Art business, then it zooms out to Palm art in general, then to Palm Sunday in general, then back to Torres' Palm Art.

This doesn't necessarily fit any of the structures we've learned in class (maybe a "kabob"?) but I think it's okay because it has a structure of its own. I also like that the piece started with a scene setter lead and then ended with a scene-setting kicker.

Alright, now that I am done micro-analyzing the structure...on to some other stuffs.

First off, the picture was so cool! The caption & the picture were what drew me in and made me decide to read this piece. It's cool to think about all the work that probably went into selecting that particular picture...

I also really liked the scene setter lead. I attempted one of those for my last piece and I had trouble because every time I reworked it, it was either too detailed or too bland...but the journalist definitely found a happy medium. The lead was interesting, concise and not overly-descriptive.

One thing I did notice was that there was not much attribution. There were only 3 direct quotes in the whole piece, and only one from Torres, (who most of the piece was focused on.)

Also, I feel like part of the job of a reporter is to make sure to explain things, because you don't know how much your audience knows about the topic. That being said, I had no idea what the, "Roman Catholic Diocese of Orange," was...I'm protestant, so I'm not familiar with the catholic institutional structure. I don't think that journalists should talk to their audience as if they were stupid, but I do think it's necessary to explain more obscure things.

The piece was pretty good overall. It definitely has a sweet lead, a functional and different structure, it comes full circle, it is interesting, timely and it explains on many different levels.

It could have a little more attribution, and it could also do with a little more explanation.


p.s. this has nothing to do with anything, but it is my favorite quote and i wanted to share it...

“The only people for me are the mad ones, the ones who are mad to live, mad to talk, mad to be saved, desirous of everything at the same time, the ones who never yawn or say a commonplace thing, but burn, burn, burn, like fabulous yellow roman candles exploding like spiders across the stars"

night! Happy Palm Sunday!

Northern Ireland unites in mourning Catholic police officer

http://www.latimes.com/features/religion/la-fg-ireland-police14-2009mar14,0,758972.story

Northern Ireland unites in mourning Catholic police officer

First off. This story is really disheartening :( I feel for the people of Northern Ireland.

That being said, I really appreciate the lead here. This story has two key aspects that it bounces back and forth between: The actual death of Carroll and what it means for the police force and Northern Ireland as a whole. I can tell for sure that this is an effective lead because when I read the lead, I knew all the W's...the lead was well-written and it captures both the levels that this story works on. Last semester? I probably would have read this and not thought twice about it. But now that I have tried to write my own leads...i really appreciate what a thorough lead this is.

The following three paragraphs are a perfect example of the "inverted pyramid" explained in Harrower's book...The first paragraph of the story is an overview of the conflict in Northern Ireland, the next paragraph focuses the story further by explaining the police situation. The third paragraph focuses the story even further by explaining the murder, and then the fourth paragraph specifically addresses Carroll. The rest of the story is mostly details, and is a lot less organized then the first few paragraphs. In fact, I feel like it jumps around too much in some places and can be hard for the readers to follow.

Also, the most prominent piece of news is Carroll's murder, yet the murder itself wasn't explained until 2/3 of the way through the article. I feel like the writer could have focused more on Carroll's murder and then moved to the effects of it, so the reader is not wondering what happened to Carroll.

A few things I really appreciated were: first, the quotes. The quotes were meaningful and effective, and the sources were worthwhile. I don't feel like any quotes were wasted. Also, I don't think the story has any holes. It definitely covers a wide range of subject matter in such a concise story.

A few things that i think could have been done better include: run-ons. I know it sounds stupid, and that it's hard to cram everything into a sentence without creating run-ons, but sentences, like:

“So it was that hundreds of mourners from across the political and religious divide filled a church Friday in the town of Banbridge to pay their last respects to the first officer of the revamped force to be gunned down by a republican splinter group opposed to Northern Ireland's peace process.”

are hard to follow. Reading this in one foul swoop, without any breaks? My brain needs a rest to handle all this! can I get a period somewhere?

There are a lot of complicated, compound sentences like this in the article. In my opinion, it makes it seem rushed and cluttered. But at the same time, how do you include all the information in the article in a concise manner without these compound run-ons? Any ideas?

Overall, I thought it was a well-written piece, but could have been focused a little more.

Hope you all had a great weekend!

Peace

oh… and some inspiration for you all: “if you don’t become the ocean you’ll be seasick every day,” Leonard Cohen

Lawsuit over gay-marriage speech at L.A. City College spurs reactions

http://www.latimes.com/features/religion/la-me-speech3-2009mar03,0,1664982.story

Yo yo. Okay, so I've read this article three times. I even printed it out to make notes, but I am STILL having trouble piecing it altogether. I think the main problem comes from a lack of focus if you're not sure what i mean, here's a subheading from the article,

"protestors back the student who claims his professor reacted badly to his religion-related stance against same-sex unions; a gay unity club forms; a New York man gets misdirected death threats."

Already, in that one sentence is three different (yet related topics) The article jumps back and forth between these topics sporadically. Almost as sporadically as the sources. Although relevant, diverse sources were used, there were a total of eight different sources! And the article jumped back and forth between these sources. while I appreciate the large range of sources, it got super confusing to keep track of who was who. For example, Carl Friedlander, president of the L.A. City College faculty union, was mentioned once in the middle of the article briefly, then was mentioned again briefly five paragraphs later. When I got to that point I was like...wait, who's Friedlander? I had forgotten all about him and had to look back.

I feel like this article needed a glossary of sources at the back! It got so confusing, one source was mentioned, then another, then two pages later it would go back to a random source. Yikes.

And the lead was as follows:

"Los Angeles City College student Ruben Rivera started a campus group last month called Rainbow Alliance, a gay unity club he hopes will be a haven for anybody who feels different."

That would have been a perfect lead if it were about his club, but the article is about Jonathan Lopez's law suit, so it was kind of misleading.

Another point worth mentioning:

"Lopez turned down an interview request, Matteson did not respond to e-mails, and French said he did not know enough about the speech to detail it."

So, basically, the three key players in the article did not have much say.

Finally, I feel like the article paints a very sour picture of Christians. Although the hate speech from Lopez was unwarranted and uncalled for, not all Christians hate gays...As a Christian who supports gay marriage, I think it would have been nice to have a source or two in there who were Christian but were against the hateful protesting.

So, quick summary!

What was pretty sweet...
- A lot of diverse, reliable sources
- A lot of different perspectives
- A lot of interesting, colorful details to the story

What was pretty sour...
- lead was weak and ineffective
- sources were scattered
- not very good focus through out the paper
- Attempts to present balanced view, but doesn't quite do it.

I feel like I had a lot of negative things to say about this particular article...
I'd appreciate any additional feedback: Did anyone feel the same about it? Anyone found some more good stuff in there?

SO I've decided now that I'm going to end each of my posts with a joke/quote...(I tend to blabber a lot...so if you make it to the end, you get a reward!) So, even though the code of ethics would disagree, I think its funny, and I love Oscar Wilde. So here's my quote for you:

"Bad manners make a journalist" -Oscar Wilde

Have a grooooovy day!

Peace