When I first read the title to this article I thought it was going in a slightly different direction. The title makes it extremely clear that the subject matter covers women who have been sexually assaulted and why they would wait, or even not say anything at all about it, but I still found the article lacking.
Sexual assault, thanks to a certain presidential candidate, has been even more in the news lately than when that waste of space, Brock Turner, was in the spotlight. The article began with mentioning the very women who have accused said candidate with such allegations. It went on to comment why some victims will wait to speak out about their invasion, if ever, and it provided okay information.
However, if an article is going to directly reference extremely current people with current events, then it needs to be mentioned in more than two sentences, especially since they are setting the foundation for the entire article.
This article cried out for lists of these women who have allegedly been assaulted. They’ve done multiple interviews, I’ve heard them myself. Where were the quotes? Where were the testimonies? Where was the video? Providing links in articles is great for additional, supplemental information, but you can’t count on your readership to do all the work your article should be doing.
Additionally, this article provided nothing new. All of the reasons listed for not reporting sexual assault have been written about many, many times before. If you are going to write an article about something that is prevalent, but has also been aggressively studied, you better be bringing something new to the table.
It should’ve been called Another Boring Article You’ve Already Read 1,000 Times Before.
The New York Times did a much better job. Even though it was more focused on a singular person as a topic, it still provided necessary information to get the full idea across without leaving the reader feeling like they’d wasted their time.