Which style of feature writing is better?

I feel that the best examples of feature writing can be found in magazines. It's not just because you are free to splatter photographs of the subject all over, or even use funky layouts. It is mostly because you are free to speak of and describe the subject.

Coldplay has been on the cover of a lot of music-based magazines. So I thought that it would be interesting to compare feature articles between Rolling Stone Magazine and SPIN Magazine. And what I found out made me feel a little confused about style.

In Rolling Stone, Brian Hiatt had some description of the environment and of the musicians. But the general format of the interview was the question, followed by an unquoted paragraph of the band's response.

In SPIN Magazine, Michael Joseph Gross relied on description; while at the same time incorporating quotes from the band.

So now I am stuck!

Which style is the best style? Does it even matter? What grabs the reader? Are the straight answers from a question most important? Do people really care about full detailed descriptions?

I'm just hoping that I will get to learn soon enough...

The Best and the worst political stories

One article that was interesting came from the NY Times.  The organizers of Netroots Nation, an event that will have a gathering of liberal bloggers,   have decided to make their own protest against FOX News.  While other publications and networks that wish to cover the event will receive a regular press pass, Netroots has decided to give FOX News a special pass.  FOX News would get an "Opinion News" pass. 

I just feel that this an interesting article because it just shows how many people are getting fed up with the quality of coverage that FOX News provides.  My only problem is that no one should think that EVERY FOX station is the same.  For example, the FOX station in Boston is very different from the FOX station in Binghamton, NY.  But nonetheless, I still find this article interesting and kind of funny.

Otherwise, at least from what I read, there was no other stories that interested me.  I feel that it is hard for political writers to make political matters sound interesting.  And that is the main reason why I depend on television for political coverage.  Because I don't have have to read political jargon and the news is short, quick, and concise.

How a simple question can pull you into an article...

On July 6th, 2008, The New York Times published an article about Mormons witnessing to the deaf.  I feel that they did a good job using a quote to open up the story.  You can get to the article by clicking here.  

The story opens up with a young man asking, "Do you know anyone that deaf?"  For me this quote immediately made me wonder, why is he asking that?  That's such a weird question to ask a random person.

I feel that this article allows for me to remember why I love to read feature stories.  It creates a storybook out of reality.  I love to be set up for something.  And this story helped to set me up to discover witnessing in the Mormon church-on another level.  I found it so interesting how they are able to train these young guys to learn sign language- just to go out and find the deaf so they can share "the word" with them.  And I feel that I wouldn't have gone into the article if it wasn't for the interesting use of a quote.

Playing the "religion card" may help Obama

The New York Times published a story today about Obama supporting religious groups.  Obama is now expressing the need for the White House to work together with religious groups.

Even though one of the major philosophies of the U.S. is that church and state should be separate, what Obama is doing now may play an important role in this upcoming election.

The Republican Party is known for having the support of christian voters.  But it seems that Obama is now trying to reach out to all types of religious groups.  and most importantly-he wants to give money.  

If McCain doesn't follow in his lead in supporting other religious groups (and not just Christians), then he might have to fight a tougher battle for this election.

What's wrong with Journalism? Well it's not technology....

When it comes to journalism, the blame can be put on corporations or even the editors and news directors.  For me personally, I feel that it is the people that are entering into the field.  I have nothing bad to say about newspapers.  The reporters that right for papers are responsible for finding stories.  However, when you start talking about television...it's gets a little hazy....

This is because in most newsrooms, assignment editors and reporters seem to depend on getting stories from the newspaper.  Now this can be a good thing and a bad.  It's a good thing because it saves time in some way.  But what makes it bad is that our broadcast journalist are not as investigative as they use to be.

Now when you go to any journalism school, it is almost a guarantee that you will find a bunch of girls that want to be reporters for the glam and popularity(and that can be the same for the men, I just never met any guy like that yet).  

Now, some may argue against this, but I know 3 women that are hoping that their looks and their voice will get them far.  So as long as there are not enough serious journalist entering the field, stories will continue to be generic.  I just feel that there needs to be more journalists with an investigative edge.  I just feel that any news medium shouldn't primarily depend on others for news.