Day 1

Alright everyone, we’ve got to get to the bottom of this. We have a nice bit of information so far, but a lot of it isn’t 100% certain, and there is a still a long way to go. I want you guys to go out and talk to a few key people. I want you to talk to a firefighter to get more information about the fire- what they think might have caused it, what kind of damage they encountered, and what condition the women may be in. Then talk to some medical staff- find out what hospital the woman was taken to, her current condition, and if there was any evidence of injuries not related to the fire. Don’t get too excited though. Before we explore any leads regarding her history with being abused, we need to get some more information. Don’t take anything at face value. Ask around a little more about the abusing, but do not push it. This could be an interesting angle, but we can’t report on it unless we’re absolutely certain it’s true.

As for my photographer, I want you to get a picture of the house in ruins. Something powerful, and attention grabbing. For the rest of you, I want some information on this kid. Talk to the police and see if they have any inclinations as to how the fire started, and if it was intentional or accidental. Ask around a little more about Jake Mohoney, and see if he might be the same kid who ran from the scene once the fire started.

My concerns with this article involve jumping on information too quickly without getting our facts right. There are a lot of sketchy and skeptical things going on with this situation, and we want to be absolutely sure before we report on them. Lighting a house on fire is a serious crime to accuse someone of, as well as wife-beating. I want all these allegations checked, and rechecked, so if we decide to report on them, we can be 100% sure that we are reporting something accurate.

Let's go do some reporting!!!

Pulitzer Prize Winner "The Wreck of the Lady Mary"

The 2011 Pulitzer Prize winner for Feature Writing went to Amy Ellis Nutt of the star-Ledger, Newark N.J., for “her deeply probing story of the mysterious sinking of a commercial fishing boat in the Atlantic Ocean that drowned six men.”

Her five-chapter series, titled “The Wreck of the Lady Mary” went above and beyond a normal level of reporting and writing. There is a level of detail that is not normally found in a news story, with active descriptions that make it seem like the reporter was actually there. Even though five out of the six fishermen died, Nutt managed to find sources in their wives, men on nearby ships, mothers, fathers, girlfriends, and other people that managed to paint the picture of what these men’s lives were like and how the event transpired.

I think this project was worth spending so much time, money, and care on because this tragedy must have fascinated many people, and my guess is that the tragedy was surrounded by many rumors as to why and how this happened, and by having an extensive story like this, it must have clear breakdown of how this happened. I think that this project goes beyond a typical news story and brings its readers into the moments that are not typically reported on. It goes beyond a news story describing the who, what, when, where, and why of a story. It takes each of these aspects and expands in every way possible, drawing its readers in completely and giving them the whole story. This article goes beyond what is expected with reporting and benefits its readers by giving them insight into this tragedy, and allowing them to understand everything.

I think this series of paragraphs captures the cosmic moment in the project because it explains that there is a larger force that is affecting the safety and rights of fishermen that was at the bottom of why this tragedy happened:

“This story is about a tragedy no one lived to tell — except Arias, the only crewman plucked from the ocean alive, but who was asleep below decks when the sea suddenly began to swallow the boat. But from the tormented memories of its sole survivor, hundreds of pages of Coast Guard documents, the analyses of more than a dozen marine experts and the Lady Mary’s own ghostly remains, a picture has slowly emerged.
No single event doomed the six fishermen, rather a cascade of circumstances set in motion years earlier by a slip in penmanship on a vessel safety form, compounded by a clerical error. Darkness, deteriorating weather, a tired crew and an open hatch contributed to the vessel’s vulnerability. Then, a floating behemoth 10 times the size of the little scalloper came plowing through the fishing ground at nearly full throttle.

The men of the Lady Mary were like thousands of others who earn their living from fishing, toiling in a Wild West sort of world, in hazardous, ever-changing conditions with scant safeguards and few legal protections.

On today’s oceans, endangered whales have more protection than fishermen, though scores are killed each year.

And when fishermen die at sea, their deaths often remain unexplained, their bodies never found and their lives soon forgotten by the public.

As one mariner said, "There are no skid marks on the ocean."

I think what sets these stories apart from other ones in terms of success is the level of reporting and the creative way that the reporters display their ideas. The way that the story is reported makes it seem like the reporter was actually there, and the delve into the most personal and intimate of feelings to round out the story. The writing is beautiful, descriptive, and captivating. The story’s opening is an example of this, reading:

“Riotous waves pummel José Arias. In the frantic scramble to abandon ship, he zipped his survival suit only to his throat and now the freezing Atlantic is seeping in, stealing his body’s heat.

The cold hammers him, a fist inside his head.

Seesawing across the ocean, he cannot tell east from west, up from down. At the top of a wave the night sky spins open, then slides away. Buckets of stars spill into the sea.

"Sálvame, por favor. Sálvame."

Save me. Please save me, he prays to Our Lady of Guadalupe.

This kind of writing is beyond the normal lead. It is descriptive, and terrifyingly so; it gives us images that are hard to be imagined. It puts you right in the moment and I think that is the best part about these stories. We get to know the men who died, their stories, their families, and a chilling account of how they died.

Writing Buddy Meeting #3

I had my third meeting with my writing buddy, Faris, last Thursday. After a long discussion trying to figure out when to meet, we realized that I would be reading his story anyway for The New Hampshire, and that he usually came in so that his editors could go over the story with him. We figured that this would be the perfect opportunity to meet up and discuss his story. For the paper, he wrote about a UNH professor who had recently received a grant that would allow him to travel to Alaska with a team to research the effect of global warming on the Arctic rivers and oceans. I thought that the story was very well done. He had a good blend of quotes and news, and did a good job of making a confusing topic understandable. Faris is a fantastic writer and has a very good voice that comes through with his stories. It is very authoritative, and he sounds like an expert with most topics he covers. His lead was particularly strong. It conveyed the hard news side of the story, yet in a creative way that attracted readers. If I recall correctly, he wrote "This summer, somewhere in the northern reaches of Alaska, UNH scientist Will Wollheim will wade through rivers, thanks to funding from politicians in Washington D.C."

I did have some advice to give to Faris regarding his story. He had some very confusing phrases and statistics that did not make sense or fit into the context. He got some of these facts and figures from wikipedia, which I initially told him wasn't a reliable source, but he confirmed them on other, more reputable sites. He had three sources in total, however, only one was a quotable source that he had talked to. Although technically, his websites counted as sources, I told him that he should get more people to quote since the quotes were only from one person and made the story appear to be one sided. I asked him who he would have liked to talk to to bolster his story, and he mentioned that he might want to find an expert on global warming or fish. He didn't know about the UNH Experts list, so I pulled it up on the computer and showed him some people he could talk to in the future when he was looking for local experts.

I think that this experience has been beneficial for both Faris and me. It helps him put together better stories, and it has given me good experience with the other side of editing: talking to the reporter. I think it is easy to assume that editing will just be going through a story with a red pen and marking off all the stuff that you deem wrong, but it's easy to forget that the other half of the job is defending your choices, explaining your choices, and working with the reporter to come to a compromise between the two opinions.