A lot of research went into this piece, a lot of sound gathering. It could go with any crazy Californians story, or any look at taxes.

I think the most interesting thing about the piece was the attribution and the reporter's subjective view, which came across in the voicing.

The piece focuses on a myriad of methods for lowering taxes -- the commitment of some grassroots level people to cut taxes at all costs. To me, the piece came across as very subjective. While I think that some producers can steer a piece one way or another through choosing their talking heads or including certain information, this reporter seemed to include all sides fairly, but then subjectively jumped to one side. I'm not sure this is entirely bad. It was interesting, her voicing parts with what sounded like incredulity. To offset, the piece interviewed quite a lot with the opposite opinion from what the reporter had to say.

I think a few technical issues could be smoothed out, with better mixing of the backgrounds of the heads with the reporter in the studio, and better identification, too... maybe. Twice she introduced two people and they alternated back and forth and it became a little confusing. I sort of liked that method, though. I'm torn. The two speakers had similar opinions, so confusion wouldn't hurt too much. Maybe if it were obviously two different people, a male and female, an older voice and a younger, etc. Interesting technique, though. I'll give it stars for trying that, at least. If they had polar opposite opinions, it would backfire.