From the way I see it, each of these stories report on issues that one could very well see be reported in bigger, more professional publications. Their use of detailed writing and the strengths that each story carries in its reporting are all potentially professional publication worthy. The difference is, these stories take a more specific, local approach to their reporting, such as the Clarke Case story. This story is reporting on a topic that could potentially happen at any school and is definitely a widespread issue. However, the reporter stuck to their own domain in terms of location.
The story that took the most reporting seems to be “In the Dark.’ That story had several different interviews and statistics related to the state schools it was reporting on. The story that took the least seems to be ‘Feminine products kept hidden.’ That story relied more on personal accounts and standard statistics about the topic. I believe that ‘more reporting equaling a better story’ can go either way. It’s better to have three powerful, eye opening accounts than six ‘meh’ quotes. Quality over quantity.
My favorite story was ‘In the Dark.’ The inclusion of official documents, in addition to its extensive reporting and very effective quotes, all worked together to create a near seamless story based on its rather hot button topic.
It would be rather easy to take almost any of these stories and give it “The Roar” treatment. For example, the ‘Academic Success for Sale’ story. While I’ve never actually done this, nor been told about it at Piedmont, there’s a pretty high chance that students from both the past and present have had impersonators take classes for them. For this story, I’d interview professors, namely those who teach a mix of in person and online classes. I’d also interview current students and alumni about this.
Piedmont College Writers 