This is directly from a quick blurb on the back on a 1994-1995 RIT calendar:
This weekly magazine, published Fridays during the academic year, is staffed entirely by students. It includes news, features, reviews, and sports, and is a consistent national award winner.
If the Reporter is winning national awards, I don't think that says much for the nation; I personally find it boring. More recently, I have found it to be a truely substandard publication not worth the ink used to print. They have a web site (finially). You can see for yourself what I mean.
Here's an except from an editorial I pulled out of their 12 May, 1995 issue (I think this sums things up nicely):
well, well, well...
Reporter magazine has seen better days. At least that is the impression I have been given lately; at our editorial staff meetings, and by more than one student. It has been brought to my attention that a number of people have complained about the magazine saying it looks horrible. Many have said that the articles are unreadable. One guy came up to me the other day and said that he had a problem with one of the layouts. I'll quote him (I thought this was great)..."[the articles] look like a
n abortion on paper." Sorry, but we don't perform abortions, we design. Suck eggs. Sometimes we may not hit our mark in the design department, but who can blame us for trying? We report news, however, that doesn't mean we have to look like
TIME magazine. Who would want to?