Here are the winners of the Hearst Awards, the best work produced by college journalists.
http://www.hearstfdn.org/hearst_journalism/competitions.php?year=2010&type=Writing
Read the top 3 in the Features category for 2010? What do you think made these attractive to the judges?
Post your reflection in the comments section before our class meets on Feb. 16 -- hopefully this post will not disappear from the blog. Have a great week.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Awesome! These features are hotter than fire! LoL. No pun, Mr. Humphrey... please excuse my jackassery.
ReplyDeleteAll jokes aside, these features, particularly the first two, I think, are attractive (to judges, that is) for thier depth. Not only are they hefty, but organized as well. I sense that Gartner and Luttrell (not so much Spegele) put a lot of effort into reiterating statements and alluding to afore mentioned themes so that their writings were tidy and cohesive. Brian Spegele's debased story about the "floor dwellers" wasn't as neat, although I did find his wit amusing.
I noticed the first about the coal miner/student, and the second about the Big Burger restaurant shared several elements that may have attracted judges: Both were proximate to their respective locations and addressed current issues that involve their communities. Most importantly, the writers achieved this in style. Their use of language was very elegant, descriptive, and the way they explained the individuals' lives was almost cinematic.
Nate Waters, the mining engineering student from Luttrell's story is equivalent to Dan Wetzig from Lisa Gartner's. As the layers of these people's lives are peeled back, new dimensions are added to the story. These profiles are also tender. Yes, very sweet, touching, peachy stuff, and that's always nice; it engages the reader.
Spegele's "Rising with the pack" made me think of Beavis and Butthead. I imagine that the judges gravitated towards it because it was witty, daring and well-written.
-Tillman
These articles would all be attractive to judges. Each of these articles had a story to tell. Even if the stories were not particularly important, they were well written and captivated the reader into wanting to know more. The stories were charming and brought a sense of humbleness to the reader.
ReplyDeleteThe coal article started off really interesting. The reader didn't know what the article was about, but the way it was written, made the reader want to read more until we knew what he was talking about. The article shows a different--more positive side of the coal mining industry. The article broadens the reader's perspective about coal mining. Instead of all the negative we have heard it shows a different side.
Living the Dream starts with a story. It captures the reader and it is heartwarming and extremely sad at the same time. It is the kind of article that makes the reader root for the main character and want to read on to see what happens in the end.
Rising with the Pack focuses on stories that everyone is familiar with and can relate too. It starts off with a public scandal. The more in depth the reader gets they discover it is actually about college roommates in a dorm. The reader gets to know friends at a more personal level.
-Grace Luoma
This first place winning article written by Brad Luttrell could have potentially put me to sleep. However, the way he approached the story made me more interested than I thought I could have been when discussing coal mining (which would be minimal). He pointed in on a person who had his own eternal conflict going on amongst himself, which would spark an interest in readers. He got very credible sources and used them practically. He also shows a side of the environmental issues that people tend to not see, which is Nate Waters’ story.
ReplyDeleteThe third article, “Rising with the Pack” written by Brian Spegele was interesting to read as well. At first I wasn’t sure what the point of the article was, but in the end he tied it all in together nicely.
-Charlotte Whedon
I really enjoyed reading the feature articles. The writers all did a wonderful job in painting the visual picture for the readers to relate in some form or fashion.
ReplyDeleteBrad Luttrell’s 1st place feature story gave a personal touch on the pro’s and con’s to mining despite what family, locals, and politicians had to say regarding the line of work. I enjoyed the overall story and the picture that was painted in details regarding a student who is following a family legacy and doing what he loves.
The 2nd place writer Lisa Gartner’s article was more of a personal interest story. Gartner did an excellent job penning the love of an elderly couple that put so much into their community until the last days of their lives. Her story painted what a loving community will do for the one(s) that have shared and given so much of themselves for so many. The community has a whole returned the favor through food and a fundraiser.
The 3rd place writer Brian Spegele’s article took the reader back down memory lane into their college days of living in a coed dorm. His article painted the visual of college coed’s living college life in the first stages and obtaining lasting friendships in the end.
-Quinetra Cromuel
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteMy favorite feature is third place "Rising With the Pack" by Brian Spegele. His crudely realistic college imagery gives readers a great sense of student existence. He writes, "Greasy styrofoam plates are strewn about the floor. 'Monday Night Football' commentary drones in the background." At first I thought the article was going to center on ESPN's Erin Andrews, but I was completely off. It was just a clever side story to get the article going. I also like how Spegele describes freshmen year as an "intoxicating sense of freedom". It is clear that Spegele himself lived through this time and captures it with a variety of male and female sources.
ReplyDeleteFirst place winner Brad Luttrell gives many perspectives on the subject of the story. Student peers, professors, activists and UK's Greenthumb club comment on Nate Waters and the coal industry. There is an insight into Waters personality; he doesn't feel responsible for his work in the mines and isn't offended by personal attacks. Luttrell is very descriptive: "Tall brittle grass blows in the wind, still dead from a cold winter."
Lisa Gartner's feature "Living the Dream" also gives an insight into the subjects' lifestyle. "Dan loved to cook and Elaine loved Dan," she expalins. Gartner doesn't begin with Dan's biography - this comes later so that we don't begin the article knowing he passed away.
All three feature stories give the information necessary but do so in creative ways - especially with witty or descriptive one-liners.
-Amanda Price
Brad Luttrell, the first place winner of the Hearst Awards, definitely deserved that prestigious title. A story about growing up coal mining is very hard to keep interesting but, as a reader I was captivated by the story he had to tell. As a writer, Luttrell wrote as if he had a strong connection to the story. It was very passionate and endearing. The quotes he used were very strong and all of them added greatly to his story.
ReplyDeleteSecond place winner Lisa Gartner wrote to appeal to the emotions. After reading her story, I felt like I knew the owners of Big Burger on a personal level. Her story really made you feel like you too grew up interacting with Dan Wetzig.
Lastly, Brian Spegele made his story relatable to his peers. We were all freshman at one point and I think the reason I kept reading through his story was because it made me laugh. The things he wrote about like the rules on the wall that resembled the Constitution really do happen among college students.
Overall I felt that each story was very different from the other but all deserved the award they were given.
-Christal Ceithamer
The Hearst Journalism Awards selected three very different stories to acknowledge for superior college journalism. I found these articles very entertain and well written. I think the first and second place winners’ stories had a much more emotional impact and the third lacked depth.
ReplyDeleteBrad Luttrell wrote, The State of Coal: UK mining engineer finds himself at odds with much of campus. I think this stands out as the winner to the others because of the originality of his topic. Not only did he keep the reader entertained throughout the whole piece, but it was also very informative to a person who does not know anything about the coal mining field. This story focuses on Nat Waters, a very intelligent, non-confrontational person.
Second place winner, Lisa Garter, showed off her writing skills in “Living the Dream.” She successfully gets the reader to feel compassion for Dan and Elaine Wetzig, and their long lasting Big Burger restaurant. This piece really makes you feel the warm good hearted people they are.
I had a difficult time comparing Brian Spegele’s story on college freshman behavior to the first and second place winners. The other stories were compassionate filled with depth, but I felt this piece was a little more shallow and did not understand what Hearst Journalism saw in it.
Overall Hearst Journalism chose three well rounded writers to acknowledge.
-Samantha Cook
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteFor the most part all three stories had excellent leads, especially the first one. The one thing that all three of these stories possessed was incredible detail. Essentially every paragraph or idea had specific detail, which drew out an image for the reader to see. This is what made all of these stories interesting. Exceptional writers use every detail possible to make their ideas compelling and stand out. It really doesn’t matter what the topic being written about is because a good writer can make any story interesting. That’s what separates good writers from mediocre writers, their ability to use detail and make any story appealing. With that being said, it comes as no surprise to me that those three college students won awards for their pieces.
ReplyDeleteThe first story was clearly the best out of them all. Brad Luttrell’s lead was very eye-catching and set the tone for the entire story. A lead like his makes a reader want to read every word of the article. Another element that made his story unique was his use of analogies. His ideas were organized – as were the others – and his credibility was established with quotes from family members and colleagues of Waters.
-Wayne Westerlind
The first and third articles didn't really do anything for me... They both show worlds I am either disinterested by (Coal mining) or am familiar with (college dorms). They were well written and all... Very detailed, just not interesting to me.
ReplyDeleteI liked the second one liked the second one a lot. I thought that feature commanded a lot of human interest. It was just... Nice. I don't know how else to put it.
It was kinda nice to read these articles though, I guess it helps to have something good to model my story after.
David Glenn
I found the articles all to be very interesting. The first one especially drew my attention. I thought the second might be a bit boring but it picked up at the end and delivered a pretty good story.
ReplyDeleteThe traits of these stories that the judges probably liked are fundamental things that make a good journalistic piece. They covered all the facts and usually put them in order of importance. The stories used good quotes that conveyed interesting and differing ideas that worked against each other.
The best story was the first place winner. I agree with it winning. I cant imagine that story not holding any readers attention for the whole time.
-Campo
These were features that didn't only tell a story, but they showed the story. I have always been a fan of writing that explains something so detailed you feel that you could touch it. All three of these stories lead the reader into a world where they felt they knew the people involved. The metaphors and creative style of writing was engaging and interesting.
ReplyDeleteAlso, especially in the second one, the story sets up to tell a story, and then the entire being of it shifts into what you wouldn't expect. Being given a curve ball makes the story intriguing. Gartner begins about a local youth group and turns it into the legend of Dan Wetzig. It's the kind of risk a writer only wishes they could take without failing and throwing the reader off course. The way she wrote this was endearing yet exciting.
All three stories were clearly chosen for their stand out details, and perfect flow. Enjoyed them all thoroughly.
-Daniella Fusari
Coal mining- Represented both sides equally and you got a great sense of who they were and what they’re like. He was able to get some great quotes- especially from Don Gibson- who is a coal company executive in Kentucky who probably isn’t easy to get-ahold of. It was vivid from the very beginning.
ReplyDeleteBig burger- so much narrative- I was surprised. I loved the story telling- the details- the memories- the description. The personal story about the couple meeting and marrying two months later- I live for those personal stories. She did a good job of showing you how the people of Monahans cared about one another. Small towns are magical.
College freshman- I think the guys and girls were described interestingly- but the entire time I read it wondering what it was supposed to be about. I also didn’t understand why it started off the with Erin Andrews reference (though cleverly stated)- it also didn’t “get to know” the guys like it did with the girls. This is one time when I wish the opinion of the writer could be used- if we knew why he was drawn to writing about being a college freshman- or just a bit more in general to fill in the gaps it would be better. Or if he had just focused on one group of friends- or even overlapped them better- I just didn’t see a connection between the two except when he says one of the girls is self-described as “crude” and “one of them”.
I thought the coal mining article was amazing. Not only was it written well and had great interviews and quotes- but it was really informative or the positives and negatives of coal mining which I never thought I’d be taking a look at. This one I believe is the one that’s the most well written. The one about Big Burger painted a beautiful picture of the family and legacy she was focusing on. The thing about the first two is that the whole time I was thinking, “Wow- I don’t know how they organized all of this info. or found all these people to talk to”- they did the interviews and organization so well. You can tell it was a lot of work to do these stories. I don’t feel that way at all for the third one. I have no idea why that one interested the judges. It was mostly crude with a bit of sentiment at the bottom- but I feel like there was no point to it. A film without a plot.
-Gina Moccio
The reason I believe that these features were so well received by the judges is because of the way they were written and the depth that the authors put into their stories. Honestly none of the stories truly interested me much, but the way in which they were written made it so I could not stop reading, these authors have a spectacular talent in making the ordinary extraordinary and that is why I believe they were picked.
ReplyDelete-Matt Brown