In an article about interfaith relationships, Cassandra Spratling, reporter for the Chicago Tribune, opened by highlighted a Detroit family. She describes their home of Arnie and Andrea D’Amore-Braver and their two sons as they decorates for both Christmas and Hanukkah with beautiful detail of the “blue-and-white tablecloth imprinted with menorahs” and the “sparkling Christmas lights”, presenting the border between religious faiths which the family straddles through vivid imagery.
Spratling continues to describe the family’s religious situation. She does so, however, with no direct quotes from any one of the four family members, though they are the main sources featured in the article. The fact that not one of them had something newsworthy to say or was willing to speak on the record raises suspicions.
The story has a certain charm to it, emphasizing families, holidays, and a sense of togetherness. The story could have been enhanced by focusing on a family from the Chicago area, making the piece more relatable to Tribune readers. This would be especially effective considering the lack of good journalistic coverage of the D’Amore-Braver family from Michigan. In fact, near the end of the piece another interfaith family, the Chandra’s, is mentioned, using direct quotes, from the surrounding Chicago area. The article could have easily begun with the Chandra’s and lead into the statistics presented about interfaith couples as a whole, rather than begin with a narrow focus which widens to a national scope only to be narrowed again.
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
A Parodoxal Debate
Like its title, Chicago Tribune reporter Steve Schmadeke’s article, Giant Downstate cross at a crossroads, is full of carefully presented paradoxes. The restoration process of the ten story cross atop Bald Knob Mountain, understood for decades as a symbol of unity, has caused dissention within the surrounding faith community.
Schmadeke highlights the debate, emphasizing the existence of two clear-cut sides: “the founders' descendants—who sold cross-themed goods and held turkey-dinner fundraisers to help pay for the site—against new board members who saw those activities as profane profiteering.” A court settlement reached on Christmas Eve disintegrated the board completely. One the eve of a holiday celebrating unity as made possible by communion with Jesus, a community was dissolved.
Allegations of fraud in fundraising for the restoration of the cross were voiced by new members of the now non-existent board. It is once again ironic that those trying to preserve a universal symbol of truth are being accused of dishonest practices. Schmadeke selects his quotes carefully and intentionally to provide an underlying sense of irony.
Schmadeke also plays up the controversy, using figurative imagery such as “Battles lines were drawn” and “the fight” in reference to the dispute taking place on paper. Whether or not the disagreeing members of the community are as whole-heartedly opposed to each other as Schmadke suggests with his narration is unknown. However, what is obvious is that Schmadke successfully conveys the tension and anxiety presented by the situation.
Schmadeke highlights the debate, emphasizing the existence of two clear-cut sides: “the founders' descendants—who sold cross-themed goods and held turkey-dinner fundraisers to help pay for the site—against new board members who saw those activities as profane profiteering.” A court settlement reached on Christmas Eve disintegrated the board completely. One the eve of a holiday celebrating unity as made possible by communion with Jesus, a community was dissolved.
Allegations of fraud in fundraising for the restoration of the cross were voiced by new members of the now non-existent board. It is once again ironic that those trying to preserve a universal symbol of truth are being accused of dishonest practices. Schmadeke selects his quotes carefully and intentionally to provide an underlying sense of irony.
Schmadeke also plays up the controversy, using figurative imagery such as “Battles lines were drawn” and “the fight” in reference to the dispute taking place on paper. Whether or not the disagreeing members of the community are as whole-heartedly opposed to each other as Schmadke suggests with his narration is unknown. However, what is obvious is that Schmadke successfully conveys the tension and anxiety presented by the situation.
Day of Prayer: A day of Inclusion or Exclusion?
Manya Brachear, writer for the Chicago Tribune’s online religious blog called The Seeker, invited readers to voice their opinions about the National Day of Prayer. Is President Obama breaking the tradition of recognizing this lawfully instituted holiday?
According to well-known Evangelical Christians Shirley and James Dobson, President Obama is selling out those who follow the Christian faith, the same faith he claims to follow by not inviting figures of faith and religious communities to pray at the White House this year. However, Brachear presents another perspective in the words of an unnamed White House official, who says that the president will recognize the holiday, but will focus his attention on improving the nation by working with faith communities and furthering his individual spiritual faith.
Although both sides of the debate about President Obama’s intentions regarding the National Day of Prayer, the sources conspicuously lean to the side of the Evangelical Christians. Representing the National Day of Prayer Task force, Brachear spoke with Shirley Dobson, married to one of the most renowned and influential figures of the Christian faith in contemporary religious society. On the other hand is a single anonymous white house official. The term official is broad and can mean a number of positions, ranging in access to information pertinent to this article.
The article diverges into various opinions, both past and present, about the purpose and dangers of a National Day of Prayer. While the blend of opinions is somewhat unorganized and dizzying, Brachear succeeds in giving the reader a sense of the possibilites that could be reached by recognizing or rejecting the Day of Prayer.
If President Obama were to embrace the holiday whole-heartedly he risks marginalizing religious, non-Chrisitian faithful citizens as James Madison, who is quoted in teh article, foresaw. However, the Interfaith Alliance asserts that if he extends the holiday to followers of all faiths as an interfaith celebration and plea for prayer for our country he could promote unity in diversity, a trend in our society.
According to well-known Evangelical Christians Shirley and James Dobson, President Obama is selling out those who follow the Christian faith, the same faith he claims to follow by not inviting figures of faith and religious communities to pray at the White House this year. However, Brachear presents another perspective in the words of an unnamed White House official, who says that the president will recognize the holiday, but will focus his attention on improving the nation by working with faith communities and furthering his individual spiritual faith.
Although both sides of the debate about President Obama’s intentions regarding the National Day of Prayer, the sources conspicuously lean to the side of the Evangelical Christians. Representing the National Day of Prayer Task force, Brachear spoke with Shirley Dobson, married to one of the most renowned and influential figures of the Christian faith in contemporary religious society. On the other hand is a single anonymous white house official. The term official is broad and can mean a number of positions, ranging in access to information pertinent to this article.
The article diverges into various opinions, both past and present, about the purpose and dangers of a National Day of Prayer. While the blend of opinions is somewhat unorganized and dizzying, Brachear succeeds in giving the reader a sense of the possibilites that could be reached by recognizing or rejecting the Day of Prayer.
If President Obama were to embrace the holiday whole-heartedly he risks marginalizing religious, non-Chrisitian faithful citizens as James Madison, who is quoted in teh article, foresaw. However, the Interfaith Alliance asserts that if he extends the holiday to followers of all faiths as an interfaith celebration and plea for prayer for our country he could promote unity in diversity, a trend in our society.
The First Family's Search for a Spiritual Connection
Tribune reporter Mark Silva reported that the Obamas attended St. John’s Episcopal Church on Easter Sunday. While he reports that this was the first step in the first family’s search for a new church home, the article does not go much deeper than simply repeating the fact that the Obama’s attended church on Easter Sunday.
The article could have benefitted from a deeper look into the history of the Church, although it is understandable that a full profile would not be appropriate because the Obamas’ have nowhere near settled on a permanent church home. However, Silva says that St. John’s Episcopal has been a place of worship for many past presidential families. A closer look into which presidents attended the church could allow for a deeper look into the church itself, avoiding the lack of a new peg.
The article obviously has a religious peg, but strays towards a political piece halfway through the article as Silva diverges from president’s church attendance to talk about the first family’s new dog and a private dinner with Valerie Jarrett, a senior advisor to the president. The remainder of the article returns to the original topic presented in the lead, outlining the Obamas’ trip to St. John’s Episcopal with meticulous detail.
The format of the article takes the shape of an hourglass, with the most significant news-related information at the beginning and end of the piece with timely, but unrelated details filling the gap. The traditional inverted pyramid format may have been a better choice for this piece, putting the headlining facts at the beginning and then going into details about the Church and the attendance of former presidents, rather than attempting to fill the space between the most relevant and more news-worthy information.
The article could have benefitted from a deeper look into the history of the Church, although it is understandable that a full profile would not be appropriate because the Obamas’ have nowhere near settled on a permanent church home. However, Silva says that St. John’s Episcopal has been a place of worship for many past presidential families. A closer look into which presidents attended the church could allow for a deeper look into the church itself, avoiding the lack of a new peg.
The article obviously has a religious peg, but strays towards a political piece halfway through the article as Silva diverges from president’s church attendance to talk about the first family’s new dog and a private dinner with Valerie Jarrett, a senior advisor to the president. The remainder of the article returns to the original topic presented in the lead, outlining the Obamas’ trip to St. John’s Episcopal with meticulous detail.
The format of the article takes the shape of an hourglass, with the most significant news-related information at the beginning and end of the piece with timely, but unrelated details filling the gap. The traditional inverted pyramid format may have been a better choice for this piece, putting the headlining facts at the beginning and then going into details about the Church and the attendance of former presidents, rather than attempting to fill the space between the most relevant and more news-worthy information.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
