… innovative lead headline! I really love the way you’ve done the hammer head ‘Light of Hope’ and then made the subhead a more traditional style. Very effective!
… Aliya’s vigil coverage! Her story really gets specific details from cancer survivors and patients about the toll the disease and treatment takes on people. She really focuses on the impact of cancer, and not just the “event.” Well done!
… the Gen Ed story by Michael! This story is fantastically informative and he deserves a sparkler for his consistent and insightful coverage of this ongoing process.
… very nicely written story on the personal hygiene products charity drive by Phillip! He introduces us to a student who got involved with the effort, and then expounds on the Networks project (which deserves a larger feature, in my opinion). Excellent job, Phillip! Also, kudos to Heidi for donating her own hygiene products to the cause of photo illustration…
… Heidi’s diversity officer story! She does a couple of really great things in this story. First, she makes clear how the position came to be. And, she cites a specific example of an issue a diversity officer might deal with: white attendance at African American-organized events, and vice-versa. Great job, Heidi!
… an excellent piece on Steve Raymer’s photo presentation by Nick! I think this story should have run on the front page. It is a lively account of what a photojournalist’s job is like. And Nick does a good job with the difficult task of describing powerful photo content (in less than 1,000 words!).
… MVP-level contributions by Ben Corn on sports! He shoots, he writes, he editorializes — he’s a triple threat! Ben’s work on the sports page consistently provides solid game coverage and lively photos. That’s worthy of a sparkler, in my book. Thanks, Ben.
Light a fire under…
… breakouts. The cancer vigil story really needed to break out the last graf about the Monday event, so that it wouldn’t get buried at the end. Similarly, the piece on the diversity officer references a student forum on Sunday in the last graf.
Any event details or numbers that speak to future events or add important context should be considered for breakout information.
… choosing the best art. I’m glad we teased the Raymer photo story with one of his photos. But we needed to credit the teased photo. And, we really needed to photograph some of his photos to run inside, instead of focusing on him. I’m sure Mr. Raymer would agree with that.
Also, our lead art was dull. It needed a human touch. It’s difficult to tell how big or small the bags are on the stage in the lead shot. And the secondary shot is out-of-focus. In my opinion, we should have used shots of the Raymer photo presentation as lead photos and run a vigil photo (just one) inside.
… boiling it down. The Gen Ed story is unweildy and needs a bit more getting-to-the-point. When we cover really in-depth processes or issues, it’s important to make the writing as concise and sharp as possible, otherwise readers get lost in the weeds of jargon, minor details and bureaucracy.
… story packaging. Nick’s Black History Month piece and Heidi’s diversity officer piece should have been packaged together, or at least refered from one to the other.
… we change the way we write about “tolerance”? One of the issues that comes up when talking about diversity, as we have been for the past few weeks in our paper, is the idea of “tolerating” others.
It seems to me that the whole point of efforts to diversify the university and institutions across America is to benefit from diversity — to appreciate or accept diversity.
If we change our language to reflect “appreciation” or “acceptance” of other cultures, races and identity groups, we shift the focus toward recognizing what these groups contribute to a complex and multicultural society.
If we focus on “tolerance,” the emphasis is on grudgingly putting up with the frustration of people who are different. It’s true that not every group will get along in our society. Some religious groups just won’t like gay people. Some urban sophisticants will always see “the Red States” as backward.
But if we change our language, we might get some people (many, in fact) to change their minds a bit. In our own newsroom, appreciating the diversity of our campus leads to great story ideas; while “tolerance” seems to be a dead end.
What do you think?