University of Minnesota Evacuated Due to Bomb Hoax
Classes in 8 buildings at the University of Minnesota Twin Cities campus were evacuated Wednesday afternoon after a threat was found in a bathroom on campus, according to an article published in today's Minneapolis Star Tribune. The threat turned out to be a hoax, and classes will resume today. The threat was a sheet of paper found in a bathroom listing specific buildings, and in light of Monday's tragedy authorities were not taking chances. The school sent out emails to around 80,000 students, and evacuated the 8 buildings. A search by a bomb squad with dogs did not turn up any results.
The article focuses on getting reactions and responses from students at the university. Students on the campus are interviewed and their reactions and thoughts on the incident are given. It's a long article, describing the resulting events caused by the threat and giving faculty action and reaction as well. There's almost a type of narrative, and also space for the article to provide peoples' critiques on the action the university took. It's pretty much divided into two sections, that of the main event summary and that of the reactions. Direct attribution is used for authority figures like the police chief and for students, and the lead focuses on today, saying that "classes resume after a threat shut down the school yesterday," giving the article a sense of immediacy from the beginning even if the event is over and done and ultimately may not have done anything significant.
The Pioneer Press' coverage of the event adds the human element even more specifically even earlier on, mentioning the specific student's name who found the bomb note, and describing in detail the actions he took, and quoting him, the same quote used in the Tribune's article. They also mention the specific buildings earlier on, including the detail that one of the threatened buildings contained the university president's office. Similar to the Star Tribune's article, the latter half seems to be focused largely on student reactions to the threats.
I prefer the Star Tribune's coverage because although it doesn't lisat some important details later on, the idea of focusing for so long on the student who seemingly innocuously found the note and casually reported it seems like a waste when there's actually a lot more that could be reported on. The Star Tribune article is also longer and has a larger reaction section, which isn't entirely necessary but shows that more reporting was done for their piece, I think.