The reporter tries to cover her bases, but in doing so tries to cover *way* too much. This feature, which is too long at 7 minutes, covers a "topic" -- Mental Health and Kids -- but doesn't present a story. The comments from the two experts are generalized to all kids with any mental illness, as if ADHD, autism, and manic depression all present the same issues.
The piece would be much stronger if it examined, in depth, on issue, i.e. the controversy surrounding off-label prescribing of drugs or the controversy around diagnosing mental illness in preschoolers or the tracking program being used in the local school. A more tightly focused story would allow the reporter to really examine an issue from multiple angles.
Also - noticeably missing in this feature are the voices of children and/or their families. The reporter concludes the piece by saying efforts to speak with children or their families were not successful -- but it sounds like a cop-out. If you can't get a source that's crucial to a story (i.e. the people actually affected by the story), then perhaps you shouldn't do the story. Mental health is a very sensitive subject which I've covered at great length in feature and documentary work and even though it is sensitive you can find people willing to be interviewed.
All of the above said, the reporter does make an earnest attempt at covering a complicated issue(s). She has good vocal quality and obviously did some research.
Review of Children and Mental Health
Tanya Ott
Posted on May 23, 2007 at 08:23 AM
The reporter tries to cover her bases, but in doing so tries to cover *way* too much. This feature, which is too long at 7 minutes, covers a "topic" -- Mental Health and Kids -- but doesn't present a story. The comments from the two experts are generalized to all kids with any mental illness, as if ADHD, autism, and manic depression all present the same issues.
The piece would be much stronger if it examined, in depth, on issue, i.e. the controversy surrounding off-label prescribing of drugs or the controversy around diagnosing mental illness in preschoolers or the tracking program being used in the local school. A more tightly focused story would allow the reporter to really examine an issue from multiple angles.
Also - noticeably missing in this feature are the voices of children and/or their families. The reporter concludes the piece by saying efforts to speak with children or their families were not successful -- but it sounds like a cop-out. If you can't get a source that's crucial to a story (i.e. the people actually affected by the story), then perhaps you shouldn't do the story. Mental health is a very sensitive subject which I've covered at great length in feature and documentary work and even though it is sensitive you can find people willing to be interviewed.
All of the above said, the reporter does make an earnest attempt at covering a complicated issue(s). She has good vocal quality and obviously did some research.