Eastern Orthodox Easter celebration getting under way

This article is filled with interesting information, but this story was very poorly written. Let’s start at the beginning. We find out that holiday observances are taking place—at church, nonetheless. What’s the difference between this situation and every other Sunday of the week? There is none. Author Lynda Zimmer mentions a Julian calendar, which means nothing to me, and most likely nothing to the rest of her audience either.

Moving on, Zimmer mentions plates of vegetarian foods and an assortment of meats. If there are meat plates, then it really does not matter that there are non-meat plates, since the meal is not really vegetarian. She also makes a point to describe the scene above, along with colored eggs, and says that it looks likes an Eastern Orthodox Easter. However, this scene is absolutely no different that Easter celebrated by western Christians. The one helpful point in this paragraph is that it tells readers that different calendars are used to determine Easter for Eastern Orthodox and Christians.

Zimmer uses a pastor of an Orthodox church as a source, which is finally something she’s done right. But she awkwardly follows that quote with the address of another church. Shortly after, she’s giving the address of the church she mentioned for the quoted pastor. It’s good to include location if people are looking to celebrate Easter this weekend, but it would have been more suitable if the addresses were placed at the bottom of the article.

She follows up the awkwardness with another tradition—fasting—and how it differs from other religions. She uses a quote from a parishioner, which would be helpful if the source actually answered her question. Instead, she tells us what we can already assume—fasting is not fun.
At this point the story completely falls apart. We have a quote from Nancy smith (mentioned above) then we learn that Smith was the first to organize her church. Immediately after this sentence, Zimmer switches over to tell readers that Easter eggs will be passed out at the service. The eggs should be mentioned much higher in the article, along with other traditions, or the above traditions should be lowered to match this paragraph. Zimmer should not have mentioned Smith unless she planned on going in-depth as to what Smith did to get the church started (which would be another story, and thus more appropriate in another article). And since we only have one useful source, it would be better to include more sources, such as church members who answer the questions asked.

Eventually Zimmer gets back on track and describes a typical Eastern Orthodox service. It’s a little choppy, but it does tell the readers what happens. We finally get to the much anticipated ending, and even that didn’t go so well. She ends with a Greek work and its meaning, and the fact that they celebrate by having a party and eating food. I could do without the Greek word, since it looks like it was thrown in at the last minute. Also, what’s so important about eating? Nothing. Everyone eats after a religious celebration, which makes this aspect of Eastern Orthodox no different than any other religion. Again, I think it would have been better to say something about service times and addresses at the end, in case any readers are interested in attending a service. It’s much easier than looking throughout the piece and trying to match which address with which church.

This article can be found at: http://www.news-gazette.com/news/religion/2009/04/18/eastern_orthodox_easter_celebration_getting_under_way

English filmmaker's recruiting effort upsets Amish

This article is definitely unique. Not everyday do you read about the Amish society, let alone about the Amish society in movies. This piece was about a British filmmaker who wanted Amish families to let their children travel to Europe for a film. This is relevant because the filmmaker came to Arthur, Illinois, a city nearby Champaign. The filmmaker, Forrester-Patton cleverly called this process a cultural exchange.

The article starts with a summary lead. It states the who, what and where, but it leaves the filmmaker anonymous for now. This was a smart choice by the author, since Forrester-Patton is not well known. However, I would put this name in the second paragraph as opposed to the third, since the journalist used a new source in the second paragraph.
I think Rebecca Mabry did an excellent job of explaining why the filmmaker’s presence is controversial. Many readers are not very knowledgeable about the Amish lifestyle. Mabry explains why children are technically able to be filmed, while adults are not. She also explains that they cannot film adults because they are not allowed to ride in planes.

Mabry chose good sources to interview. She has quotes from the filmmaker, the director of the Amish Interpretive Center, and an Amish mother. The author relies a little bit too much on the director, but this is because she speaks for the Amish community. I thought it was interesting that the mother was an anonymous source. It shows how private the Amish prefer to be. I think it would have been cool if Mabry got a quote from a child or teen that could have the chance of being in the film. However, the society seems very protective, thus making the film an impossible feat.

As interesting as the piece is, I find the ending a little confusing. The whole article is about the problems Forrester-Patton is having with his film, but it ends with a quote saying that the film most likely will not be produced. To me, it’s similar to watching Fourth of July fireworks and having the show end before the finale. Ok, so the Amish community is up in arms. I could have guessed that just from the title. I wish Mabry took a different angle on the story, or found some striking information to end the piece on. Maybe another Amish community embraced the opportunity? It just feels like the story is not quite over.

This article can be found at: http://www.news-gazette.com/news/religion/2009/04/09/english_filmmakers_recruiting_effort_upsets_amish

Area Jews begin preparing for Passover observances

I thoroughly enjoyed reading Lynda Zimmer’s article about Passover. The article uses a single-item lead, which forces the audience to wonder why Jewish families are getting rid of chometz. It was very timely, since Passover starts next Wednesday. For those readers who do not know what chometz is, Zimmer tells us in the following paragraph. The nut graph comes shortly after, addressing the who, what, when and why.

She then gives us a brief history of Passover, even explaining how it got its name. By doing so, she refuses to alienate her readers. Even an uninformed audience can understands the basics of Passover and why it is important to Judaism. She explains the types of food eaten over Passover and what they symbolize.

Zimmer then switches over to why it is important to the local community: many U of I students will not make it home for the traditionally familial holiday. The following paragraphs let the readers know where they can find special dining areas on campus that follow the “rules” of Passover. She tells the readers the where and when they can find these meals, and even how much they cost. More importantly, any information she did not mention in the article could be found by visiting the listed Web site or calling the given phone number to make reservations.

I think the article’s strongest points involved describing Passover. Zimmer gave us just enough information, but readers were not overwhelmed with a history lesson. The weakest point of the article was the lack of focus. It begins with a specific type of food, continues to the history of the observance, goes back to food and what it symbolizes, and then continues to places on campus, with about half of the article telling readers the price of meals at various places. I think parts of the article were well-written, but more focus would better the article.


This article can be found at: http://www.news-gazette.com/news/religion/2009/04/03/area_jews_begin_preparing_for_passover_observances

Vatican reiterates support for theory of evolution

This article describes the Vatican accepting evolution as a complementary idea to creationism. The summary lead was a good choice to use, but it was a little too wordy for me. It could easily have been broken into two or three sentences, which would be much easier to read. The author mentioned Charles Darwin in the first sentence, which is OK, since Darwin is well known. However, it seems a little redundant to me to mention evolutionary theory and Darwin, since they are so closely related in the reader’s mind.

The article is newsworthy because of timeliness. It celebrates the 150th anniversary of Darwin’s “The Origin of Species.” It mentions the various professionals participating in the conference. To me, this is completely unnecessary, since the author does not say how these people relate to the conference. What do paleontologists and molecular geneticists have to do with creationism?

The article also has a source issue; there is only one source. For starters, the author started out by mentioning the source, and then quoting him. The source is unknown to nearly all people, so the person should really follow the important information given in the quote itself. Also, Cardinals William Levada’s credentials should be placed in front of his name. If we knew that he was head of the Doctrine of Faith for the Vatican, we would place more value on his quote.

The author briefly mentions why the church does not accept the theory of Richard Dawkins, but it does not say what his theory was. It seems like a last minute addition to the article. Levada says that the theory is “absurd and not at all proven.” Religion is not something you can prove to be true or false, thus contradicting all that was previously said. All in all, I think this poorly-written article gave the reader the basic facts, but nothing more.

This article appeared in The News-Gazette on March 4, 2009.

Ruling favors city in rejection of religious marker

This article is about the Supreme Court's ruling in a case involving religious displays in public parks. A religious group, the Summum, gave a granite marker to a Utah park. This park is already home to a Ten Commandments monument. The park refused to put up the Summum's marker, a permanent addition to the park. The court unanimously decided that the park's refusal to display the marker does not limit the Summum's right to free speech. In essence, public parks do not have to accept every gift they receive.

The article begins with the ruling, the most important aspect of the piece. It covers the who, what, when, and where. The why is somewhat covered in the remaining paragraphs.

Justice Samuel Alito is the only quoted source. He is, arguably, one of the most conservative justices the court has ever had. To make the article less biased, it would have helped to include a quote from a more liberal justice or from a member from the Summum group. The justices may have made their decision based on different facts, and knowing the reasons behind their decision will help the audience better understand the issue. Summum members are obviously hurt by the decision, and their insight on the case could shed new light on the situation. Alito’s quote used did not particularly address why the court made their decision. It meanders around the legalities of the topic and discusses the obvious: no one wants public parks flooded with religious advertisements.

For me, the article is missing why this case is so different from others involving freedom of speech and religion. The author mentioned that this instance would be a First Amendment case, had the park suppressed the Summum’s public speeches. But to me, this case is a lot deeper. Christians have their monument at the park (which has been there for 38 years). Yet, another religious sect cannot display their marker. This seemes unconstitutional to me, yet all justices agreed that public parks “are not compelled to take everything they are offered.” The author should better explain why this case is not discrimination based on one’s religious sect and it’s acceptance in America.

In general, I think the article should be more unbiased. It was clearly written for conservative readers, without allowing one liberal voice to make a statement. The government was the only side with a say in the matter; the Summums were not even given the chance to express their thoughts about the issue or the verdict of the case. A good article would have presented the reader with facts, allowing one to decide for him or herself if the decision was correctly made. This article only gave readers one side of the story, presumable the “right” side, and forced the audience to agree with it.

This article appeared in The News-Gazette on Feb. 26, 2009.