This article was an investigative article, and must have taken a fair amount of time to research. It's not breaking news, but I still find it interesting. And while Christians may be interested in this article, it is an article about Jewish relics (very little focuses on Judiasm in USA Today, since they are a minority in the U.S., Christianity being the most dominant religion in the U.S. currently).
The importance of these missing pages was well explained from a Jewish viewpoint. As the article says, "Judaism sanctifies each tiny calligraphic flourish in the Bible as a way of ensuring that communities around the world use precisely the same version of the divine book. That's why the Codex is considered by some to be the most important Jewish text in existence, and why the missing pieces are so coveted."
While overall the piece is good, there seems to be some of the writer's own opinions present. "He divulged few details lest he compromise the effort." Is that really why he didn't say much, or was that a way to embellish the story? "There it was guarded as the Jews' most prized possession and talisman." Who said that it was their most prized possession and talisman? Is that just how the author viewed such close guarding?
The timeline on the side of the article is helpful so one doesn't have to go back and find past dates and what they mean. It helps for understanding of the article.
I really like the way the article ends, "'My guess is that there's a bigger piece somewhere else, waiting to be found,' he said." It just seems to end on a hopeful note, which I personally like.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2008-09-27-jewish-crown-aleppo_N.htm
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
You'll notice that a lot of the national papers (Wall Street Journal, New York Times and U.S.A Today) like to inject opinion into their pieces. It's a slippery slope. Right now, I recommend you error on the side of caution: Attribute everything! Once you've mastered the rules, you'll have a better idea of when it's acceptable to break them.
i definitely noticed that this was written in a sort of personal voice. you would think that writing about subjects so personal like religion would warrant such voices, but this article definitely is a story that could be written completely objectively.
I definitely agree with what you said. The story was filled with personal opinions; the writer editorialized a lot. The story was still interesting, but it was weird to see so many statements without attributions.
Post a Comment