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

Supreme Court to hear Mojave Cross Case

http://www.latimes.com/features/religion/la-na-supreme-court-cross24-2009feb24,0,4711867.story
"Supreme Court to hear Mojave Cross Case" by David G. Savage

Alright! So, i wanted to share the summary lead...

"In a case that could reshape the doctrine of separation of church and state, the Supreme Court agreed Monday to decide whether a cross to honor fallen soldiers can stand in a national preserve in California."

What a sweet lead...honestly, it gives all the necessary information, ties it to the true news...seperation of church and state...and it is interesting. The article does a good job of explaining the background and history of such issues, mentioning previous cases and supreme court justices.

The true news is the fact that the case will be heard by the supreme court. The article presents a few different perspectives...the cross is a breach of the first amendment because it is considered an "establishment of religion," by the government. The article also presents a counter point, saying that it would be a shame to remove a 70 year old war memorial.

I don't think the article covers all the different perspectives with enough detail.
There is a grand total of one sentence devoted to each of these perspectives, and no other perspectives are mentioned. Although it mentions a handful of complications, there are hardly any quotes used. I believe the arguments aren't presented in enough detail...

BUT on the other hand, the article has a very broad scope of all of the issues/complications associated with this particular case (I won't mention all of them, they're in the article). I guess it's kind of a catch 22...because if you focus on the alternating perspectives, you lose out on the opportunity to present the broad scope of problems associated with the cross, but if you don't mention enough about the dissenting views, your reader may leave feeling not as informed.

So, I read up on the issue a little more, from a law blog a friend recommended to me. (http://www.volokh.com/ you'll have to scroll down to "Salazar v. Buono") This blog mentions the Establishment Clause and endorsement test, both are standards used by the government to determine if something really is endorsing religion. The blog mentions that there are possibly five supreme court justices that are rejecting the current endorsement test. So not only is this an issue of separation of church and state, it could possibly lead to a reworking of the endorsement test. The article briefly mentions that the cross could or could not be an "establishment of religion," but it does not mention the endorsement test or Establishment Clause, both of which are really newsworthy and critical.

So, I think the article does a good job of focusing (a problem I have been having when writing articles) it's focus? the fact that the Supreme Court is going to hear the case. However some facets of the issue were left out.

Alright, so, wrapping up here...

Towards the end of the article, the author starts talking about different supreme court issues, and it never really wraps up the key point. It just goes right into talking about 2 different issues. Do articles typically do this? Maybe I just haven't seen enough to know...any thoughts guys?

SOOO...in conclusion:

this article does a good job of...
- being concise
- being focused
- summary lead
- presenting balancing arguments

I think it could...
-improve the detail regarding opposing viewpoints
- mention the Establishment Clause/endorsement test
- conclude a little stronger

Have a happy Saturday guys!

Peace :)