Interesting character + background + conversation = engaging writing

I agree with pixelfishfood that the most engaging part of Michael Chapman's article was his conversation with the hard partyin 48 year old. There were many characters in the story but this street philosopher with a "Rod Stewart" haircut was by far the most interesting. Chapman should have used this foolproof formula with other colorful characters in the article. Instead he used redundant descriptors to validate his self-acknowledged bias (Buckingham's name doesn't appear without the words "oxycontin addicted" before it). Perhaps some background or conversation with Mr. Buckingham would have been more engaging and maybe even supportive of his point. Instead, all we know about Mr. Buckingham is that he is a lying drug addicted fundamentalist. I agree with Chapman's position, but his message is dulled by his bias and insult laced writing. Chapman is so preoccupied with vilifying the creationists that he misses an opportunity to better understand his own views. If he could have focused more on understanding the position of the defense, the article would seem less like propaganda and more like an unbiased pro-evolution piece. I agree with Mr. Chapman's support of evolution but he lost me and I suspect anyone else who is not fiercely pro-evolution or related to Darwin with his clearly biased illustration of the trial.
Chapman's sharply pointed opinions would have likely benefited from a fair depiction the cast of characters on both sides of the argument, but he missed this opportunity. Chapman's article would have also been more engaging had he followed the formula he used at the end of the article. The class blog consensus seems to be that his conversation with the auto mechanic was the most engaging part, and I agree.