Secrets are no fun

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.