Sarah Stillman's exploration of the dangers of using young offenders as
confidential informants is far more detailed than any Buzzfeed or Press
Republican story.
Writing for The New Yorker allows Stillman to delve into
various incidents to bring forth the issue at hand. Stories written for
Buzzfeed or local newspapers are intended to get to the point about one single
incident and nothing more. If a Plattsburgh teenager met the same fate as
Rachel Hoffman, the main victim in Stillman’s article, or LeBron Gaither, an
article in the Press Republican would quickly detail who, what, where, when,
how and why with a few police and family quotes thrown in. The story shows one
case. There is no comparison to other victims; newspaper stories aren’t
designed that way.
Magazine writing allows writers to effectively demonstrate a
problem. Stillman does it by weaving the story of Hoffman with accounts of
other confidential informant stings gone wrong. With each case, Stillman further
establishes the theme.
Stillman’s use of “I” is rare and
advances the story. “I” is not allowed in newspaper writing. Writers cannot put
themselves in the story. However, magazines allow this personal touch if the
narrative warrants it.
“I heard some version of Taylor’s statement dozens of times in the course of more than seventy interviews with people whose lives have been shaped by America’s growing reliance on young drug informants—narcotics officers, prosecutors, defense attorneys, and the friends and families of murdered C.I.s, as well as some former informants.”
To me, “I” provides credibility here. Stillman lists the varying people
she has interviewed for the story. As a reader, it’s obvious Stillman has gone
beyond basic reporting for a rich and emotional story.
Throughout the article, a large, single bold-faced letter crops up at
the beginning of a paragraph. It visually signals a change is coming. In some
instances, Stillman switches to a new victim and case. In others, Stillman
remains with the previous victim but takes a different direction in the case.
The contrast stands out and is easily understood.
During my initial read, I got confused. While the weaving in of other
victims helps establish the theme, it also throws me off when Stillman revisits
various cases. I found myself wondering, “Wait, who is that again?” But the
confusion also hammered in the message: the use of confidential informants is
so risky and unregulated that I can’t keep track of all the examples given.
The kicker kicked me right in the feelings. Slow clap for Stillman
because that was heavy. You read about the different incidents and return to
the main one with an emotional narrative of the father. The kicker would not
work without the emotional detail, which wouldn’t have come out had Stillman
not put in the time.
