2011 Newspaper Pacemaker Winners

Four-year Daily Newspaper

Four-year Non-daily Newspaper

Two-year College Newspaper


2011 ACP Newspaper Pacemaker Finalists

Four-year Daily Newspaper

Four-year Non-daily Newspaper

Two-year College Newspaper


Judges’ comments

Four-year Daily

Summary comments on winning entries:

  • A good mix of stories, including in-depth news and fun features
  • Professional design with a voice
  • Attention to detail
  • Accurately reflected their communities and towns with story choice and presentation
  • A diversity of stories – profiles, campus, community, world, sports
  • Looked beyond the surface reporting
  • Good storytelling – visual and written

Summary comments on non-winning entries:

  • Inconsistent layout, random type faces
  • Failure to set boundaries with writers (not every story is worth 40”)
  • Inattention to inside pages
  • Pointless editorials
  • Poor and inconsistent news judgment, knowing what is and what is not a good story
  • Photos didn’t do enough to convey story, poor basics (out of focus, bad cropping)
  • Bad editing (AP style, grammar)

Four-year non-daily

Summary comments on winning entries:

  • They used different fonts sparingly. However, when they were used, they enhanced coverage and had impact.
  • Stories, especially news stories, were clear and concise.
  • Feature stories were compelling and a good read and written from interesting angles.
  • They covered issues that were important to students, such as safety on campus, parking, budget cuts (impact on available courses and services, etc…) and included lots of student voices.
  • They tried to do innovative things, such as alternative forms of storytelling
  • They used graphics that were clear and readable and not oversized

Summary comments on non-winning entries:

  • Broaden event coverage beyond the event itself – make it less about the event (especially since many of the papers were weeklies and the even was already old news)
  • Use less reverse type
  • Make better use of alternative forms of storytelling
  • Offer a better balance of stories between campus events, university announcements, faculty news, campus issues, student features, national news, etc…
  • Reduced the amount of spacing (leading) in stories.
  • Headlines were frequently too big or small (most small), and therefore not proportional to stories.
  • Eliminate or cut down on the use of static photos, instead using photos that help to tell the story and enhanced the design.

Two-year

Summary comments on winning entries:

  • Clearly masterd the balance between visual presentation and reporting/editing quality.
  • Reporting was local and original. Exceleltn job of localizing national and community news. Reporting was high quality.
  • Visuals enhanced content, photography was sharp, well cropped, enhanced reader’s understanding of story.
  • Layout-design consistent, reader friendly, inviting

Summary comments on non-winning entries:

  • Lack of attention to headlines and subheads, too often repetitive and rewording of article lead.
  • Lack of attention to cutlines, editing of both content and photos (selection and cropping)
  • Clearly there was too often an imbalance between visual presentation/design and written content.
  • Limited number of contributors sometimes results in less insightful reporting and coverage