"To report this story, Tribune reporter Julia Keller interviewed the nine survivors of the Milestone collapse, and their friends, family members, neighbors and colleagues; and the friends, family members, neighbors and colleagues of the victims of the Milestone collapse; over a seven-month period, beginning a week after the tornado."By the end, though, after passages like this...
"Scenes that were not witnessed by the reporter were assembled through multiple interviews with people who were present, both named in the story and not named. When thoughts and emotions are presented, those thoughts and emotions come directly from the reporters' interviews. Descriptions of the activities and thoughts of people who died in the collapse were compiled through interviews with those who were present, or those to whom the deceased had confided their thoughts and emotions."...I was expecting to see a paragraph describing how Keller eventually took all of her notes and sat down at a computer and began to write the stories by interspersing direct quotations with her own narrative of the events to arrive at a rough draft, which she then sent to her editor for editing, after which she had a bagel and a cup of coffee before getting a revised copy of her story back from the editor, etc., etc.
Anyone have any theories about why the Trib would go into such detail about the reporting process in this case? Is this a pre-emptive strike against any criticisms? Is it an attempt to impress readers or potential prize judges gone a few steps too far? Is it there for legal reasons?
No comments:
Post a Comment