Online story critique. Print notes to follow and deeper discussion at Friday’s staff meeting.
Good work to the reporters and editors who stayed on top of the vice presidential debate last night. The story from Brittany and Taylor was substantive and used good quotes from both the candidates and the students. The live-Tweeting team of Dylan and Sam did outstanding work staying on top of the back and forth between the two candidates. Though not as well attended as the presidential debate watch party, it’s important that we covered it. And it was good practice for the team that gets us prepared for the next presidential debate and election night coverage.
Jeff did a nice job following up on the Graduate Student Senate finally getting its own office space. He kept on them until he got some movement. This is good beat coverage.
Duy scored a nice shot from National Night Out last evening. It’s an engaging, warm moment between a University Police officer and some kids. It’s the very definition of Community Policing in one image. Good work!
Renee’s event coverage of National Night Out also was solid. Written on deadline, it wrapped in all the elements.
This was impressive work last night from the editing team that juggled these live stories with the print production as well. It’s a testament to our team when we can turn out print stories as well as online coverage without duplicating.
We need to work to get the words “community” and “opportunity” out of so many of our stories. We use them way too much. And we often don’t need to. Find another word or another way to approach the sentence. It’s lazy writing.
I really liked Isabel’s column about tolerance. It needed to say from the start, though, that her lede was about her internal thoughts and that she used to feel less tolerant. I understand why we’d use this approach, but it comes off a bit intolerant at first until we explain why. Not everyone will stay with it that long and could misunderstand the intent, which would be a shame. Let’s communicate with the reader.