Sam did a great job with the vice presidential advance story. She only had one day to work on it but she pulled together interesting information on the candidate’s bios and their stances on major issues. She also worked in student commentary as well. Good work to the editors for kicking off their election plan with an advance story that provides students with important context and specific issues that matter to them. This serves the readers well.
Kudos to the News desk for jumping on two daily stories: the fundraising effort for the injured UTA alumna and the clown-sighting phenomenon (eek!).
Zahraa got some fun quotes out of this week’s Ransacked subject. Further proof that this feature is as much about psychology as anything else. And it’s a testament to keep asking questions about pressing for more detail in any of our reporting. Good work!
Our online output today looks a little lean. Are we making the minimums? I know we’re planning for print, but there are a lot of things going on that we could be covering and should be covering, especially for the beginning of a busy fall week.
Where is a story about midterms? How about a piece about the two-week wait at the health center? I still want to see something photographed and written about the asbestos abatement and systematic dismantling of the old student housing north of the UC. These stories are timely and students are curious about them. These are the kinds of stories that get us through lean weeks and serve the reader.
We have three news ledes that needed more substance: the African-American studies lecture advance (we never did say when it was); the injured alumna story and the clown plague piece. All three needed overview or more comprehensive, substantial introductions. All three needed a discussion between reporter and editor: is this what we need to say to enter the story? They just don’t give me enough context or even a hint of why I want to read the story. Please see individual critiques. And then come see me.