Effectively went through four interviews. The first was with HR and the second was with one of the editors; both of which were lovely women to speak with. Then I had to undergo a "writing test," which consisted of writing a 600-800 word article based on a data report they had sent me with two days' notice to complete (I wasn't put off that I had to do this, since this was standard for other reporting jobs I had in the past, but I was annoyed I that the team did not compensate me for this work. I had always been paid for writing an article during the application process for my previous roles, then again that's probably why Crain's refers to this part of the interview as a "writing test"). Finally, I met with the Editor-in-Chief and managing editor, and that's really where it all fell apart. I got the sense that none of these departments spoke to each other, because I was asked again to go through my resume and ask introductory questions. I had prepped for a completely different type of interview so things fell apart. After two weeks I was disappointed to see that they re-posted the role. At the very least I would've appreciated some modicum of feedback of what I could have improved upon during the process (which was lengthy and time-consuming one) but I only heard crickets when I reached out.