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!