The key to being a better writer is to read, right? Well that is doubly true in journalism. Good journalism is a alchemy of singular ideas, never-say-die persistent reporting and the hard earned mechanics of compelling, clear writing.
So along with the story above from the New York Times, here’s another piece of solid feature writing from a big time daily newspaper, the Washington Post. Read it and notice the idea behind it. Think about how the journalist came up with the idea. Then describe some of the reporting techniques you think the reporter used. Be specfic. Also come up with at least one question you wish the reporter had asked/pursued.
Oh yeah, read this for fun.
You may have to sign up for the Post and the LA Times to read these. It’s easy and free. And we’ll be reading more as the term goes on.
12 responses so far ↓
Mitch // February 21, 2008 at 11:19 pm
This was a really interesting piece. I think Segal wanted to find out about college students and their religious beliefs and practices in a place where morals and ethics seem to have been stripped away. In terms of techniques used, he definitely sat in on one of the meetings at the college, asked citizens around the institution their opinions, and “spent a day in their shoes” by following them around the campus (in the building), asking about past experiences and basic beliefs. I wish he would have asked about the effect and views people had of their beliefs in their hometowns. Was Manhattan a safe haven for these Children of God? Overall, this was a story that hit home for me considering I went to Catholic schools for 13 years. Having an open forum to discuss issues such as abortion as mentioned in the article is something that I was glad to have in high school.
shane ersland // February 22, 2008 at 1:25 am
This article reminded me of a documentary I watched called Jesus Camp. Only, in Jesus Camp they portrayed young kids who were being trained in the severe-right folds of Christianity. I feel sorry for these young adults. They are very sheltered. The worst part, is that the school they go to is so limited. You can choose from only two majors. I’ve never heard of anything so ridiculous. I thought the journalist did a good job of portraying the whole awkwardness of the situation. These small-town kids must be shocked by what they see in NY. He got really good quotes from the kids. They tell us the story of how surprised these kids are at what they see and hear. Good piece.
Shane
Sam Blickhan // February 22, 2008 at 5:13 pm
It’s too bad that Segal opened with such a sweeping generalization. I admit it makes the contrast of these kids effective, but he spends the rest of the piece trashing the people of Manhattan, save these “polite, untattooed lads and lasses.”
Yes, Segal at times seems to shed light on how this may not be the most educationally well-rounded of institutions (i.e. no science classes), and how the students may be less than world-savvy (the girl “cowering” in the elevator? Laughable.), but overall it feels like he’s doing his best to portray these students as a Utopian community surrounded by citizens who would as soon rape them as look at them .
I really wish Segal would have broadened his reporting field. It’s obvious he talked to students and faculty, and spent time in the institution. While I agree that he got good quotes from the people he did choose to talk to, I would have really liked to see some input from people who aren’t affiliated with the school – it could have made this piece a lot less one-sided.
Sara Jones // February 23, 2008 at 2:01 am
This was an interesting piece. One technique that Segal used is the comparison of these religious college students to the cliche what, I guess, the rest of us are portrayed as, with his comments about bongs and raves and whatnot.
I also wish this piece would have been less one-sided, giving some opinions from people who don’t go to this school. I’m sure there would have been a lot of people, like myself, who think that this college is, well, kind of a joke.
Probably the thing that I found most interesting about this article is the description of the school, with it’s two majors, and anti-biology beleifs. I honestly never knew people had beliefs about the credibility of biology, enough so to refuse to teach it, anyway…I find that really strange.
I did enjoy that Segal really got in there and spent some time with these kids to find out what they were like, but again, someone else’s point of view would have been nice.
Eric Van Dril // February 23, 2008 at 5:28 am
The idea for this piece is one of contrast. Segal does this by showing a wholesome school teaching -and believing – a set of wholistic values in a rather unwholesome city. It’s different to see a set of evangelical college kids, especially in my case living here in Iowa City, have theological debates with a moderator on a Friday/Saturday night. So, in this, I think that is why the author chose this story idea, and also why he wrote it in the contrasting way that he did.
A question I would pursue would be: “What are some of the benefits/disadvantages of attending such a religious school in New York City?” I think this would allow the story to dive deeper into the students’ mindsets and motives, which could add a dimension to this piece.
I would also like to pursue some of the drop-outs from the school to try to understand their reasoning for leaving and to see if NYC had anything to do with this.
I think Segal probably just heard about the idea from someone, or maybe saw a directory for Empire State Building, and then, being a good journalist, checked into it.
Reporting methods that Segal used were conducting many interviews (mostly with the students, but others as well), lots of research (specifically about the school, philosophers discussed in debates, etc.), and gathering a great deal of background from, what I imagine, include many sources. The background includes the history of the school and details of that nature.
Caroline Stedman // February 23, 2008 at 4:46 pm
I think Segal came up with this story idea after he heard about this campus. I think he was probably amused and curious about the student body – because why any one would sign up to go to school there intrigues me and is almost beyond me.
Part of me wishes that he had talked to some of the NYU students about their opinions on this “other” college, or perhaps the NYU students that the student David Lapp engaged in conversation. However, Segal gets to the point of what I really want to know. I want to know about the kids that go there. I want to know what they believe and why they would choose to go to such a small school. By covering that angle, I think it flows better if he doesn’t get a second opinion from people outside of the school because the piece isn’t about them. It’s about the student body of King’s college.
Alissa Langford // February 25, 2008 at 5:09 am
The way the journalist mentioned the Empire State Building as the campus, I feel as if he stumbled upon this story after seeing there was a college within this tall building–that, or he happened to be asked by a student if he would like to talk about “big ideas” as he says many of them ask New Yorkers.
The techniques he used were countless interviews with students, as well as following and observing a day in the shoes of a student from the King’s College. David Segal attended meetings as well as activities outside campus with these students.
A few things bothered me about this story. If this story was about students at our university, I highly doubt he would refer to us as “youngsters, lads, etc.” he used these references for his opinion of lack of real world experience the students had. I was unable to figure out if these were just students from a bible school with good morals, or if they were the “bible-belt Christians” like the lady who stands in the Pentacrest telling us we’re all going to hell. I wish Segal would have had an interview with persons not affiliated with King’s College (from NY and others possibly from the Midwest since it is mentioned), so we could see a view that was more understood and grounded.
John Brenner // February 25, 2008 at 6:23 am
I think the author’s main source of information was interviews. He kind of led readers to think that all of the students were good and innocent people. Yeah, I’m sure none of them do anything other college students do, just because they go to a religious college. It seemed to me that the author was truely facinated that the college was in the Empire State Building. I think the piece could have been a lot more entertaining if Segal would have arranged a debate for the students with Satanists, since they love to debate. He made New York out to be a bad place for these students, so maybe he should have asked if they like New York.
Sarah Van // February 25, 2008 at 3:55 pm
The first thing I though about this piece was about the lede. I thought we weren’t suppose to use cliche’s in ledes, which I think this is kindof doing- but I think the lede here works very well.
I liked the details he used in interviewing specific students. However, I thought that his sources were biased- they were all at the school. Maybe it would have worked to have some non-affiliated sources critiquing the school.
I also thought he used quite a few stereotyping words and phrases that could have been left out.
Amanda Bailey // February 25, 2008 at 5:59 pm
Although I thought that the beginning of the article was a little stereotypical (when the reporter mentioned how on a typical Saturday night, college students are druggies and alcoholics), I liked the personal approach Segal uses with this article. I think the only way he was able to get all of this information about the group was to probably follow this group continuously for a period of time, attending their meetings and spending a few days in the life of God-loving college students. I also noticed that Segal provided some historical background in the article about King’s College, including how it started out, and he must have met with University officials to learn more about the college itself. But more than anything, it seems that Segal listened to the people he interviewed in order to get their stories.
One thing I wish Segal would have considered in his article is, like everyone else said, how others in the area feel about the college. The interview seems a little one sided.
Sarah Raaii // February 27, 2008 at 5:44 am
As I read the story, I got the impression that the reporter knew of King’s College and decided to investigate the school further, stumbling on this wonderfully colorful story.
Clearly, Segal had to do plenty of on-location reporting for this story. He attended a Saturday-night party at a student’s apartment and interviewed individual students about their experiences. The interviews contain the detailed stories that seem to come only from a sit-down situation that feels more like a conversation than a barrage of questions. Segal vividly describes the college’s administrative offices, the location of one of his student interviews. Segal had to have spent at least a full day on campus observing and following students to gather stories that emphasized his focus on saintly students in a harshly urban backdrop.
While this is a very effective piece, I agree that Segal’s story would have been more balanced had he asked New Yorkers about their reaction to the students. For instance, do they really all consider college Republicans an oxymoron? What do they think of the idealistic, religious students who have set up camp in the Empire State Building? By focusing on only the students’ perspective, Segal establishes himself as the outside narrator looking in, instead of consulting the actual outsiders who surround the students every day.
Haley Metcalf // March 1, 2008 at 10:53 pm
I think the author found out about college courses being held in the Empire State Building and decided to investigate further. It seems as though most of his research was done through interviews. The article seemed a little cliche at the beginning, talking about evangelical Christians and not partying on Saturday nights. I think the story could have benefited by getting more of an outsiders perspective. Maybe asking people who work at the Empire State building what their take on the campus and student life was.