This is an incredibly interesting article. I had no idea that this went on. I had to read it more than once, just because I didn't pay much attention to anything (meaning journalistic techniques) but the content the first time (since it was so new to me).
The article does seem pretty balanced, with both the side of the Jews and of the Mormons represented. It also answered my questions as they came up, although not all of them. What is the "International Genealogical Index"? I'm assuming it's the records the Mormons keep, but is it strictly for those who have been baptized? Is it for all the names they have? What goes in this record?
I feel like "In May, the Vatican ordered Catholic dioceses worldwide to withhold member registries from Mormons so that Catholics could not be baptized," was a kind of random interjection. This is about the disagreement between the Mormons and Jews. Where and why do Catholics come in?
I was glad to see they specifically said that their authority on whether or not the Jewish names were re-entered didn't have complete access to the records -- "said Radkey, who acknowledges that she has limited access to the records."
This is a very well written piece. It's quite possibly the best piece I've read so far, and I find the topic it specifically addresses very interesting. I really enjoyed it, although I would like to see more religion pieces done by non AP reporters.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2008-11-10-jewish-baptisms_N.htm
Monday, November 17, 2008
Saturday, November 8, 2008
"American Muslims relieved, hopeful at Obama's election" by Nicole Neroulias
Overall, this article is quite well done. The timeliness factor is incredibly easy to locate: Obama just won the presidency. And this article was actually not an AP article, it was done by someone with the Religion News Service.
There are great uses of statistics throughout the piece, such as "70,000 Muslims voted in Virginia, a state that had not backed a Democratic president in more than 40 years, and which Barack Obama won by fewer than 160,000 votes," or "Early estimates indicate that between 70 and 90% of Muslim voters supported Obama this year."
I found it interesting that Judaism came up in an article about Muslims supporting Obama, shown here: "about 78% of Jews supported Obama." I feel like that whole paragraph is unnecessary. Why are Jews being talked about, and why does it talk about their support for John Kerry? What does this have to do with the piece? Is it just showing minority support for Obama in general? If so, the title should indicate that. I feel like the 10-12 paragraph are unimportant, and like they had to be specifically tied in to the rest of the piece (instead of just flowing).
"After months of balancing their support for the presidential candidate with concerns that their allegiance could do more harm than good, millions of relieved American Muslims cheered the election of the son of a Muslim immigrant whose middle name is Hussein." Who is saying this? How does she know this? I want attribution or something to back up this claim... it seems opinionated to me. How does she know it was a balancing act? How does she know what the concerns were? And how does she know they were relieved?
I found it interesting that although there was overwhelming Muslim support (70-90%) for Obama, they were still frustrated by parts of his campaign, such as removing two woman with head scarves from the background of a picture of a rally. I didn't know that that had happened. And I had never thought about the fact that while Obama said he was a Christian, he never said there was nothing wrong with being Muslim.
I really liked the ending, "There's an emerging coalition within the Muslim community that will have significant impact in the years to come."
http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2008-11-06-obama-muslims_N.htm
There are great uses of statistics throughout the piece, such as "70,000 Muslims voted in Virginia, a state that had not backed a Democratic president in more than 40 years, and which Barack Obama won by fewer than 160,000 votes," or "Early estimates indicate that between 70 and 90% of Muslim voters supported Obama this year."
I found it interesting that Judaism came up in an article about Muslims supporting Obama, shown here: "about 78% of Jews supported Obama." I feel like that whole paragraph is unnecessary. Why are Jews being talked about, and why does it talk about their support for John Kerry? What does this have to do with the piece? Is it just showing minority support for Obama in general? If so, the title should indicate that. I feel like the 10-12 paragraph are unimportant, and like they had to be specifically tied in to the rest of the piece (instead of just flowing).
"After months of balancing their support for the presidential candidate with concerns that their allegiance could do more harm than good, millions of relieved American Muslims cheered the election of the son of a Muslim immigrant whose middle name is Hussein." Who is saying this? How does she know this? I want attribution or something to back up this claim... it seems opinionated to me. How does she know it was a balancing act? How does she know what the concerns were? And how does she know they were relieved?
I found it interesting that although there was overwhelming Muslim support (70-90%) for Obama, they were still frustrated by parts of his campaign, such as removing two woman with head scarves from the background of a picture of a rally. I didn't know that that had happened. And I had never thought about the fact that while Obama said he was a Christian, he never said there was nothing wrong with being Muslim.
I really liked the ending, "There's an emerging coalition within the Muslim community that will have significant impact in the years to come."
http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2008-11-06-obama-muslims_N.htm
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)