Glad to see one of youze is now a published journalist. Congrats!
Now, you may wonder what sort of extra credit you can get for getting an out-of-class story published by a recognized media source.
FOR GETTING AN OUT-OF-CLASS STORY PUBLISHED, I will replace your lowest test story grade as long as the published story grade is higher. If not, then I will replace your TWO lowest-scoring practice story grades with 4.0s.
For me to count your extra credit, you need to submit to me via email a link to your work, along with a request to have it applied to extra credit.
There will be other extra credit opportunities as the semester progresses. THE COMMON DENOMINATOR IN ALL EXTRA CREDIT ASSIGNMENTS is that you are demonstrating to me that you can now correctly apply skills learned in this class that at one time you did not apply as well; that you went above and beyond what we are learning in this class to further educate yourself in journalism; and/or you are demonstrating ability learned on your own prior to this class but applicable here. You can expect any ad hoc extra credit beyond the assignments listed here to include at least one of those components.
I don't care if you messed up earlier; show me you can get it right now and I'm happy to replace earlier grades with something more accurately reflecting where you are at NOW.
Monday, February 28, 2011
911 -- Identification
Probably the hardest thing about this exercise for you was identification. You had competing interests at work here.
First, you should have been operating under the general journalistic premise that we do NOT name rape victims in almost all cases.
All of you respected that premise. Good job.
Then, there is the concern of making a virtual identification; that is, giving so much other information that it is easy for anybody to identify the victim.
None of you named the victim's daughter. A daughter only has one mother, right? So that would be real easy to narrow down who the victim was if you gave the girl's name. Also, none of you listed the exact home address. Only one family lives in a home, right? Again, you avoided virtually identifying the victim.
Even though an exact address would expose the victim, don't readers still deserve to know where a crime took place? I mean, a story is much more relevant if it happened on your street or in your neighborhood than if it didn't. Some location is necessary to establish relevance.
Many of you handled it in a smart way: you simply said the incident happened on Wilson Avenue. No street address included. That gave readers enough information to better set proximity, without giving away the victim's home and creating a virtual identification.
I also thought important to the story was noting that Caspinwall was a neighbor of the victim. Readers need to know if this crime was totally random or if there was some sort of link between the victim and attacker. Readers have more reason to worry if someone is willy-nilly breaking into random homes, as opposed to attacking a neighbor, right?
But many of you failed to note the link.
Also, there was something else that I think you owed the reader: an explanation of why you weren't naming the girl or listing her exact address.
Even though you're following journalistic rules, your readers probably don't know those rules and may simply be wondering, why the hell aren't there any names or exact addresses in this story? It wouldn't have hurt to have a simple background sentence somewhere in the story, like this:
The names of the girl and victim and the exact address where the crime occurred is being withheld to protect the identity of the victim.
That way, you are being transparent with readers about why they're not getting the level of information that other non-rape stories would include.
Admittedly, this was a confusing exercise. You had many different factors tugging at you. It's really a tough situation for a young reporter to find himself or herself in. In a real-world setting, you'd definitely want to bring an editor in the loop to help make the best judgments that give the readers the most information while at the same time minimizing harm to the victim.
But here, I wanted to test your judgment and see how you responded. And I figured you''d appreciate the lesson much more if we did it this way, as opposed to just lecturing about it.
This is how I would have handled it: I WOULD name the victim or the girl. I WOULD name the suspect and even use HIS home address. I'd say the victim lived nearby, but I wouldn't specifically say they were direct neighbors.
That way, readers know who did this (and know exactly where the sicko lived) and the general area where the crime occurred and that it wasn't a random crime, while at the same time limiting the ability to identify who the victim was.
First, you should have been operating under the general journalistic premise that we do NOT name rape victims in almost all cases.
All of you respected that premise. Good job.
Then, there is the concern of making a virtual identification; that is, giving so much other information that it is easy for anybody to identify the victim.
None of you named the victim's daughter. A daughter only has one mother, right? So that would be real easy to narrow down who the victim was if you gave the girl's name. Also, none of you listed the exact home address. Only one family lives in a home, right? Again, you avoided virtually identifying the victim.
Even though an exact address would expose the victim, don't readers still deserve to know where a crime took place? I mean, a story is much more relevant if it happened on your street or in your neighborhood than if it didn't. Some location is necessary to establish relevance.
Many of you handled it in a smart way: you simply said the incident happened on Wilson Avenue. No street address included. That gave readers enough information to better set proximity, without giving away the victim's home and creating a virtual identification.
I also thought important to the story was noting that Caspinwall was a neighbor of the victim. Readers need to know if this crime was totally random or if there was some sort of link between the victim and attacker. Readers have more reason to worry if someone is willy-nilly breaking into random homes, as opposed to attacking a neighbor, right?
But many of you failed to note the link.
Also, there was something else that I think you owed the reader: an explanation of why you weren't naming the girl or listing her exact address.
Even though you're following journalistic rules, your readers probably don't know those rules and may simply be wondering, why the hell aren't there any names or exact addresses in this story? It wouldn't have hurt to have a simple background sentence somewhere in the story, like this:
The names of the girl and victim and the exact address where the crime occurred is being withheld to protect the identity of the victim.
That way, you are being transparent with readers about why they're not getting the level of information that other non-rape stories would include.
Admittedly, this was a confusing exercise. You had many different factors tugging at you. It's really a tough situation for a young reporter to find himself or herself in. In a real-world setting, you'd definitely want to bring an editor in the loop to help make the best judgments that give the readers the most information while at the same time minimizing harm to the victim.
But here, I wanted to test your judgment and see how you responded. And I figured you''d appreciate the lesson much more if we did it this way, as opposed to just lecturing about it.
This is how I would have handled it: I WOULD name the victim or the girl. I WOULD name the suspect and even use HIS home address. I'd say the victim lived nearby, but I wouldn't specifically say they were direct neighbors.
That way, readers know who did this (and know exactly where the sicko lived) and the general area where the crime occurred and that it wasn't a random crime, while at the same time limiting the ability to identify who the victim was.
911 -- Allegedly
Some confusion on what was alleged here.
Is it alleged that the woman was raped? No. She was raped. Someone broke into her house and raped her. That much was clearly established.
What is alleged is who raped her. A man did, obviously. But it's alleged that it was Andrew Caspinwall.
So you should say Caspinwall allegedly raped the victim. Or the victim was raped, allegedly by Caspinwall. Or that the girl said a man, alleged to be Caspinwall, did this and that.
Is it alleged that the woman was raped? No. She was raped. Someone broke into her house and raped her. That much was clearly established.
What is alleged is who raped her. A man did, obviously. But it's alleged that it was Andrew Caspinwall.
So you should say Caspinwall allegedly raped the victim. Or the victim was raped, allegedly by Caspinwall. Or that the girl said a man, alleged to be Caspinwall, did this and that.
911 -- Quotes
A big part of this story -- if not the central focus of this story -- was the little girl's bravery. And you had some telling quotes in the 911 transcript, like these:
Somebody's hurting my mommy.
Hurry. My mommy's crying.
My mommy. What'll happen to my mommy?
I'm afraid. Will he hurt me, too?
Great quotes. They're telling. They set context in a special way -- they sound like things you'd imagine a 6-year-old girl would say, right?
Yet some of you didn't use any quotes in your articles!
We've talked about the concept of showing and not just telling readers; that is, don't just tell them something happened; show them the proof.
Those quotes are the "show" part. Don't be afraid to use quotes that support and prove your key points.
Also, the quotes also humanize the story. It's not the dry legal jargon of a crime taking place; it's the quivering voice of a scared little girl. It emphasizes people, and when it comes down to it, all stories are not crime stories or business stories or political stories; they are all people stories -- stories about what happened to people, or what people did, or what may affect people.
Let the humanity shine through in your stories, when possible. Such quotes aren't necessary, but they do help.
Somebody's hurting my mommy.
Hurry. My mommy's crying.
My mommy. What'll happen to my mommy?
I'm afraid. Will he hurt me, too?
Great quotes. They're telling. They set context in a special way -- they sound like things you'd imagine a 6-year-old girl would say, right?
Yet some of you didn't use any quotes in your articles!
We've talked about the concept of showing and not just telling readers; that is, don't just tell them something happened; show them the proof.
Those quotes are the "show" part. Don't be afraid to use quotes that support and prove your key points.
Also, the quotes also humanize the story. It's not the dry legal jargon of a crime taking place; it's the quivering voice of a scared little girl. It emphasizes people, and when it comes down to it, all stories are not crime stories or business stories or political stories; they are all people stories -- stories about what happened to people, or what people did, or what may affect people.
Let the humanity shine through in your stories, when possible. Such quotes aren't necessary, but they do help.
Out Of Class Story #2 -- Neutral Experts
Neutral experts are people who have a great deal of knowledge and/or expertise regarding the subject you're wring about, but importantly they don't have an interest in the outcome. It's someone who can offer analysis that helps readers decide which side of an issue is more credible. In a one-sided story, it helps readers evaluate whether the people you're writing about are on the up and up.
Think of it in terms of a game: you normally have one side and the other side, right? How you view the game depends on which side you're on. Unless you have a referee, that is. A neutral expert is sort of a referee, helping point on when one side is telling the truth and the other side is stretching it a bit -- or a lot.
Most news stories at least attempt to include at least one neutral expert. And almost all of your first out-of-class stories would have benefited from having a neutral expert included.
You can find a neutral expert about almost anything, no matter how obscure. Let's look at this example: during the run-up to the 2008 presidential election, a lot was made about how the Obamas would fist-bump each other. The New York Times Sunday Magazine even did a story about it.
Here's how the story started:
Is this the end of high-five?
On the night in June that Barack Obama clinched the Democratic nomination, he and his wife, Michelle, exchanged what was variously described as a “closed-fist high five,” a “fist pound,” a “knuckle buckle” and a “fist jab.” Jonathan Tilove in The New Orleans Times-Picayune called the gesture “the dap heard ’round the world,” which he felt encapsulated “the new cultural trajectory of American politics.”
Believe it or not, they found an expert on fist-bumping. And that expert is right here. Let's continue the story:
Prof. Geneva Smitherman, director of African-American language study at Michigan State University, says: “Pound is when knuckles touch in a horizontal position. That’s the gesture that Michelle and Barack used. Dap is when the knuckles touch in a vertical position. Both gestures can be used as a greeting, to signal respect, agreement, bonding.”
Like many other schools, MSU -- in hopes of getting free publicity -- even makes it easy to find experts. The MSU News Office's Web site has an experts list, which you can link to here: http://news.msu.edu/experts/Results/?
Just looking at the first page, these are just some of the topics for which MSU can find you a neutral expert: wind power, renewable energy, water preservation, breast cancer, breast cancer education, medical education, microfinance, filmmaking, documentary production, sensors and nano-bisensor devices for biodefense, health diagnostics and theraputics, child welfare, biblical references and history, Samartian population, meteorology and climatology, Isreali-Palestinian conflict, Israeli politics, society and culture, international relations, U.S. foreign policy, school funding, school choice, school district building projects, the effects of mass communications, health communications, communications campaigns, international relations, the Middle East, Muslim issues, the early formation of galaxies, tax and expenditure policies, state and local public finance, poverty and income distribution, campus sustainability, Internet governance, new wireless technologies, telecommunications regulation and policy, bone and tissue engineering, labor markets, chaos theory, alternative dispute resolution, primitive stars, galaxy formation, labor unions and collective bargaining, international and domestic labor policy, work and family policy, flexible scheduling policy, tropical diseases, malaria, AIDS/HIV . . .
. . . and those are just a FEW of the subject areas!
You can also search by typing in a topic here: http://news.msu.edu/experts/
I took some general topics and looked for experts. Like Google, sometimes you have to try the same general term in different ways (like if you're searching for an expert in campus safety, you try that term, then campus, then safety, then police, and so on).
Under "campus living" I found one expert. For "transportation" I found two. There were three each for "housing" and "discrimination" and "elections." I found four each for "police" and "campus" and "drug." For "safety" I found 14! And "health" produced 35!
And you can filter by these general topic areas: agriculture and environment; arts and humanities; athletics; board and administration; business, economy, law and communications; education; family and social issues; health, medicine and veterinary medicine; international; science and technology; staff and faculty; students and campus life; tuition, costs and enrollment.
Plus, there's always Google, right? And other schools as well. And think tanks. And private research institutions.
Wherever you find a good one, it's critical that you do. Journalism isn't about just getting both sides of the story. Getting one side and the other side and nothing else is just enabling a fight.
We're about trying to arrive at a verifiable version of the truth based on facts and checking out what people have to say, right? That's the role a neutral expert helps accomplish.
To paraphrase legendary baseball announcer and willful drunk Harry Caray -- and this might be the only smart thing he ever said in his life, God rest his soul -- there are three sides to every story: your side, my side, and the truth.
We need to get more than two out of three. We need all of 'em. And from here on out, each out-of-class story will REQUIRE your citing of at least one neutral expert!
So go find some neutral experts!
Think of it in terms of a game: you normally have one side and the other side, right? How you view the game depends on which side you're on. Unless you have a referee, that is. A neutral expert is sort of a referee, helping point on when one side is telling the truth and the other side is stretching it a bit -- or a lot.
Most news stories at least attempt to include at least one neutral expert. And almost all of your first out-of-class stories would have benefited from having a neutral expert included.
You can find a neutral expert about almost anything, no matter how obscure. Let's look at this example: during the run-up to the 2008 presidential election, a lot was made about how the Obamas would fist-bump each other. The New York Times Sunday Magazine even did a story about it.
Here's how the story started:
Is this the end of high-five?
On the night in June that Barack Obama clinched the Democratic nomination, he and his wife, Michelle, exchanged what was variously described as a “closed-fist high five,” a “fist pound,” a “knuckle buckle” and a “fist jab.” Jonathan Tilove in The New Orleans Times-Picayune called the gesture “the dap heard ’round the world,” which he felt encapsulated “the new cultural trajectory of American politics.”
Believe it or not, they found an expert on fist-bumping. And that expert is right here. Let's continue the story:
Prof. Geneva Smitherman, director of African-American language study at Michigan State University, says: “Pound is when knuckles touch in a horizontal position. That’s the gesture that Michelle and Barack used. Dap is when the knuckles touch in a vertical position. Both gestures can be used as a greeting, to signal respect, agreement, bonding.”
Dap started among black soldiers during the Vietnam War; to give “some dap” (not usually “a” dap) means “to offer kudos, congratulations”; Prof. James Peterson of Bucknell, a hip-hop historian, says he thinks it is rooted in dapper, “neat, fashionably smart.” Pound came out of hip-hop in the late 1980s. Fist bump came later: a 1996 note in the Sports Network wire service reported that Eddie Murray of the Baltimore Orioles was accepting congratulations from baseball teammates with “high-fives, handshakes or fist bumps.” Peterson says the new phrase robs the gesture of its cultural significance, which includes the Obamas’ “quiet but pronounced in-group affiliation with all of black America.”
Hand signals have a checkered history in politics, from Prime Minister Winston Churchill’s V-for-victory sign to the famed photo of Gov. Nelson Rockefeller “giving the finger” to hecklers to the clenched-fist salute of “black power” to Lyndon Johnson’s fondness for “pressing the flesh.”
When Michelle Obama visited Barbara Walters on “The View” on ABC, the candidate’s wife sought to soften her image with “I have to be greeted properly. Fist bump, please. It is now my signature bump. . . . I got it from the young staff. That’s the new high-five.”
Colleges are notorious for being loaded with neutral experts (think of all your profs doing research, and all the TA's working on their thesis papers!) So really, there's no excuse for you NOT to find a neutral expert, especially here or at other schools.Like many other schools, MSU -- in hopes of getting free publicity -- even makes it easy to find experts. The MSU News Office's Web site has an experts list, which you can link to here: http://news.msu.edu/experts/Results/?
Just looking at the first page, these are just some of the topics for which MSU can find you a neutral expert: wind power, renewable energy, water preservation, breast cancer, breast cancer education, medical education, microfinance, filmmaking, documentary production, sensors and nano-bisensor devices for biodefense, health diagnostics and theraputics, child welfare, biblical references and history, Samartian population, meteorology and climatology, Isreali-Palestinian conflict, Israeli politics, society and culture, international relations, U.S. foreign policy, school funding, school choice, school district building projects, the effects of mass communications, health communications, communications campaigns, international relations, the Middle East, Muslim issues, the early formation of galaxies, tax and expenditure policies, state and local public finance, poverty and income distribution, campus sustainability, Internet governance, new wireless technologies, telecommunications regulation and policy, bone and tissue engineering, labor markets, chaos theory, alternative dispute resolution, primitive stars, galaxy formation, labor unions and collective bargaining, international and domestic labor policy, work and family policy, flexible scheduling policy, tropical diseases, malaria, AIDS/HIV . . .
. . . and those are just a FEW of the subject areas!
You can also search by typing in a topic here: http://news.msu.edu/experts/
I took some general topics and looked for experts. Like Google, sometimes you have to try the same general term in different ways (like if you're searching for an expert in campus safety, you try that term, then campus, then safety, then police, and so on).
Under "campus living" I found one expert. For "transportation" I found two. There were three each for "housing" and "discrimination" and "elections." I found four each for "police" and "campus" and "drug." For "safety" I found 14! And "health" produced 35!
And you can filter by these general topic areas: agriculture and environment; arts and humanities; athletics; board and administration; business, economy, law and communications; education; family and social issues; health, medicine and veterinary medicine; international; science and technology; staff and faculty; students and campus life; tuition, costs and enrollment.
Plus, there's always Google, right? And other schools as well. And think tanks. And private research institutions.
Wherever you find a good one, it's critical that you do. Journalism isn't about just getting both sides of the story. Getting one side and the other side and nothing else is just enabling a fight.
We're about trying to arrive at a verifiable version of the truth based on facts and checking out what people have to say, right? That's the role a neutral expert helps accomplish.
To paraphrase legendary baseball announcer and willful drunk Harry Caray -- and this might be the only smart thing he ever said in his life, God rest his soul -- there are three sides to every story: your side, my side, and the truth.
We need to get more than two out of three. We need all of 'em. And from here on out, each out-of-class story will REQUIRE your citing of at least one neutral expert!
So go find some neutral experts!
Neutral Experts -- Imagine This Story . . .
. . . if you didn't have one. Or two. Here's a link, and here's the text:
Copyright © 2010 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
O'Donnell questions separation of church, state
WILMINGTON, Del. – Republican Senate nominee Christine O'Donnell of Delaware on Tuesday questioned whether the U.S. Constitution calls for a separation of church and state, appearing to disagree or not know that the First Amendment bars the government from establishing religion.
The exchange came in a debate before an audience of legal scholars and law students at Widener University Law School, as O'Donnell criticized Democratic nominee Chris Coons' position that teaching creationism in public school would violate the First Amendment by promoting religious doctrine.
Coons said private and parochial schools are free to teach creationism but that "religious doctrine doesn't belong in our public schools."
"Where in the Constitution is the separation of church and state?" O'Donnell asked him.
When Coons responded that the First Amendment bars Congress from making laws respecting the establishment of religion, O'Donnell asked: "You're telling me that's in the First Amendment?"
Her comments, in a debate aired on radio station WDEL, generated a buzz in the audience.
"You actually audibly heard the crowd gasp," Widener University political scientist Wesley Leckrone said after the debate, adding that it raised questions about O'Donnell's grasp of the Constitution.
Erin Daly, a Widener professor who specializes in constitutional law, said that while there are questions about what counts as government promotion of religion, there is little debate over whether the First Amendment prohibits the federal government from making laws establishing religion.
"She seemed genuinely surprised that the principle of separation of church and state derives from the First Amendment, and I think to many of us in the law school that was a surprise," Daly said. "It's one thing to not know the 17th Amendment or some of the others, but most Americans do know the basics of the First Amendment."
O'Donnell didn't respond to reporters who asked her to clarify her views after the debate.
During the exchange, she said Coons' views on creationism showed that he believes in big-government mandates.
"Talk about imposing your beliefs on the local schools," she said. "You've just proved how little you know not just about constitutional law but about the theory of evolution."
Coons said her comments show a "fundamental misunderstanding" of the Constitution.
The debate, their third in the past week, was more testy than earlier ones.
O'Donnell began by defending herself for not being able to name a recent Supreme Court decision with which she disagrees at a debate last week. She said she was stumped because she largely agrees with the court's recent decisions under conservative chief justices John Roberts and William Rehnquist.
"I would say this court is on the right track," she said.
The two candidates repeatedly talked over each other, with O'Donnell accusing Coons of caving at one point when he asked the moderator to move on to a new question after a lengthy argument.
"I guess he can't handle it," she said.
O'Donnell, a tea party favorite who stunned the state by winning the GOP primary last month in her third Senate bid in five years, called Coons a liberal "addicted to a culture of waste, fraud and abuse."
Coons, who has held a double-digit lead in recent polls, urged voters to support him as the candidate of substance, with a track record over six years as executive of the state's most populous county. He said O'Donnell's only experience is in "sharpening the partisan divide but not at bridging it."
Out-Of-Class Reading -- Spring Break
Good news! We will suspend your out-of-class newspaper readings for spring break!
The last set of newspapers you'll have to read pre-break will be TUESDAY, MARCH 1. Then, please resume reading newspapers on MONDAY, MARCH 14.
So that's one less thing to worry about, right?
The last set of newspapers you'll have to read pre-break will be TUESDAY, MARCH 1. Then, please resume reading newspapers on MONDAY, MARCH 14.
So that's one less thing to worry about, right?
Friday, February 25, 2011
Meeting/Speech/Murder -- Overall
Very impressed with your latest round of work, especially regarding the meeting exercise. Lots of well-organized stories, specific ledes, developed nut grafs and liberal use of good supporting quotes throughout.
Not everything was perfect. We had a few fatals. But the rate seems to be going down. Still some AP Style errors, so let's keep noting 'em. Your sentence structures and word uses can be polished a bit, but you're not bad right now. I feel like we're on track to get to where we want to be by the end of the semester.
So let's dive in and see what you did.
Not everything was perfect. We had a few fatals. But the rate seems to be going down. Still some AP Style errors, so let's keep noting 'em. Your sentence structures and word uses can be polished a bit, but you're not bad right now. I feel like we're on track to get to where we want to be by the end of the semester.
So let's dive in and see what you did.
Meeting -- Second References & Acronyms
Many of you referred to the Coalition for the Homeless, Inc. and the Grand Ledge City Council in first reference. And in most first cases, it's best to spell out the full title of an entity.
But how do you handle subsequent references?
You have a few options. One is to refer to the coalition or council in the generic, like I just did: as the coalition and council, lower-cased. Or you can call the former the homeless group, or whatever generic identifier is clearly in reference to such an organization.
A second option would be to consider using an acronym, if there is a common acronym for the group. An acronym is a word formed from the first letter or letters of a series of words, such as MSU (which is the acronym for Michigan State University).
If an acronym is well-known -- like NASA or FBI or USA -- then generally it is acceptable in a second reference, or even in a first reference.
This is where I'm going to refer you back to AP Style. Please carefully read and review the listing for abbreviations and acronyms.
But how do you handle subsequent references?
You have a few options. One is to refer to the coalition or council in the generic, like I just did: as the coalition and council, lower-cased. Or you can call the former the homeless group, or whatever generic identifier is clearly in reference to such an organization.
A second option would be to consider using an acronym, if there is a common acronym for the group. An acronym is a word formed from the first letter or letters of a series of words, such as MSU (which is the acronym for Michigan State University).
If an acronym is well-known -- like NASA or FBI or USA -- then generally it is acceptable in a second reference, or even in a first reference.
This is where I'm going to refer you back to AP Style. Please carefully read and review the listing for abbreviations and acronyms.
Meeting -- Write With (AP) Style
Is it Lieutenant Luis Rafelson or Lt. Luis Rafelson?
It's Lt. AP Style, under "military title," offers a list of such titles that should be abbreviated. Lieutenant is on that list.
Additionally, it offers a subhed of "firefighters, police officers" which says this:
Use the abbreviations listed here when a military-style title is used before the name of a firefighter or police officer outside a direct quotation.
It's Lt. AP Style, under "military title," offers a list of such titles that should be abbreviated. Lieutenant is on that list.
Additionally, it offers a subhed of "firefighters, police officers" which says this:
Use the abbreviations listed here when a military-style title is used before the name of a firefighter or police officer outside a direct quotation.
Meeting -- Be Economical With Words
Look at this lede:
At a meeting held yesterday, the Grand Ledge City Council decided to donate land to Coalition for the Homeless, Inc., to construct a shelter for the city's homeless. The council approved the vote 6-1.
A good lede, right? Still, I think it would have been better -- and more compact.
For example, the lede twice refers to the decision -- first, by saying generically they "decided," then adding "The council approved the vote 6-1." Well, why not replace the generic reference with the specific vote, like this:
At a meeting held yesterday, the Grand Ledge City Council voted 6-1 to donate land to Coalition for the Homeless, Inc., to construct a shelter for the city's homeless.
It's shorter. Its clearer. And there;s absolutely no loss of any information whatsoever.
Look for opportunities to reduce or eliminate unnecessary redundancies.
At a meeting held yesterday, the Grand Ledge City Council decided to donate land to Coalition for the Homeless, Inc., to construct a shelter for the city's homeless. The council approved the vote 6-1.
A good lede, right? Still, I think it would have been better -- and more compact.
For example, the lede twice refers to the decision -- first, by saying generically they "decided," then adding "The council approved the vote 6-1." Well, why not replace the generic reference with the specific vote, like this:
At a meeting held yesterday, the Grand Ledge City Council voted 6-1 to donate land to Coalition for the Homeless, Inc., to construct a shelter for the city's homeless.
It's shorter. Its clearer. And there;s absolutely no loss of any information whatsoever.
Look for opportunities to reduce or eliminate unnecessary redundancies.
Meeting -- You Don't Need "That"
Look at this sentence:
The coalition asked that the site be valued at $500,000 and then they would raise $1.5 million that they needed to construct the shelter.
Now, look at this sentence:
The coalition asked the site be valued at $500,000 and then they would raise $1.5 million they needed to construct the shelter.
Is there any difference, except for the removal of two references to "that"?
Quite often, "that" is unnecessary. Try removing "that" and see if your sentences still read as complete sentences. If so, leave "that" out.
The coalition asked that the site be valued at $500,000 and then they would raise $1.5 million that they needed to construct the shelter.
Now, look at this sentence:
The coalition asked the site be valued at $500,000 and then they would raise $1.5 million they needed to construct the shelter.
Is there any difference, except for the removal of two references to "that"?
Quite often, "that" is unnecessary. Try removing "that" and see if your sentences still read as complete sentences. If so, leave "that" out.
Thursday, February 24, 2011
Meeting/Speech -- Five Fatals? Eff That.
Fatals happen when you least expect 'em, and usually it's not the big things that trip you up; it's the small things that are hidden in plain sight.
Up to now we've had nine people have fact fatals on 19 occasions. That's an average of two fatals per person. So if you're freaking out that you've had a couple of fatals, guess what? You are average.
Plus, typically in my classes the majority of fatals happen in the first half of the semester; the rate goes down as people get more comfortable with balancing speed with accuracy, which you only learn one way: by doing. And making the sort of mistakes you are right now. We're working it out of your system. So even if you've had more than the average, we are identifying where your weak spots are so we can work on fixing those areas.
Let's start by looking at the latest goofs.
In the meeting exercise, there was a case where the name of one of the speakers was misspelled.
The rest of the fatals came in the speech assignment. There was a misspelling that created a new and unintended word that changed meaning. That's something we've seen before.
There was a dropped digit that created a different number than the one you intended to use; a number than you intended to be in the tens of thousands, but instead was in the thousands because you were one zero short.
There was an instance where you misidentified the city where this took place, mistakenly using the city of another assignment. (And that's not a gotcha; in journalism quite often you will be working on multiple stories at once, and will have to keep your facts in the right places.)
Finally, there was one situation where you identified the surgeon general as being from East Lansing. He was from the U.S. Public Health Service, speaking in E.L.
Not good. But here's the good news; in most cases your stories were well-organized with good ledes and developed nut grafs and logical flows of information throughout the story bodies. You're getting the big picture stuff, and that's good.
Still, we need to make sure that we're doing all the small things right, too. Like fact-checking.
So, I'd like to throw this out to you. What are the strategies YOU use in properly vetting a story before you turn it in? What works for you? What techniques have you learned or discarded or modified or built upon?
Let's share some good ideas. If something works for you, it'll probably work for someone else, too.
Up to now we've had nine people have fact fatals on 19 occasions. That's an average of two fatals per person. So if you're freaking out that you've had a couple of fatals, guess what? You are average.
Plus, typically in my classes the majority of fatals happen in the first half of the semester; the rate goes down as people get more comfortable with balancing speed with accuracy, which you only learn one way: by doing. And making the sort of mistakes you are right now. We're working it out of your system. So even if you've had more than the average, we are identifying where your weak spots are so we can work on fixing those areas.
Let's start by looking at the latest goofs.
In the meeting exercise, there was a case where the name of one of the speakers was misspelled.
The rest of the fatals came in the speech assignment. There was a misspelling that created a new and unintended word that changed meaning. That's something we've seen before.
There was a dropped digit that created a different number than the one you intended to use; a number than you intended to be in the tens of thousands, but instead was in the thousands because you were one zero short.
There was an instance where you misidentified the city where this took place, mistakenly using the city of another assignment. (And that's not a gotcha; in journalism quite often you will be working on multiple stories at once, and will have to keep your facts in the right places.)
Finally, there was one situation where you identified the surgeon general as being from East Lansing. He was from the U.S. Public Health Service, speaking in E.L.
Not good. But here's the good news; in most cases your stories were well-organized with good ledes and developed nut grafs and logical flows of information throughout the story bodies. You're getting the big picture stuff, and that's good.
Still, we need to make sure that we're doing all the small things right, too. Like fact-checking.
So, I'd like to throw this out to you. What are the strategies YOU use in properly vetting a story before you turn it in? What works for you? What techniques have you learned or discarded or modified or built upon?
Let's share some good ideas. If something works for you, it'll probably work for someone else, too.
Speech -- Good Quote!
This one was:
"Let us not make this year, the year they robbed the kids of Halloween," Izzo said. "For their sake and our own, let us keep Halloween sane, safe -- and sober."
Telling quote. It really got to the point of what many of you hooked your stories upon.
Then why did so many of you use it late in your stories?
The better a quote and the more it directly supports your central premise of key premises of your story, the more prominent and higher up that quote should be.
Many of you ended your stories with a great quote, like this one. I get the feeling that you're trying to create what in writing is called a satisfying ending; one that offers a conclusion.
In traditional English composition, such a conclusion is necessary. In journalism, since we start with the conclusion it is not. On most regular straight news stories, it's completely fine to simply let the story trail off, even if it seems like the ending is abrupt.
If you're writing in inverted pyramid style, you rank information in the order of importance, so your story should essentially trail off. If you're writing a chronology, you can stop writing just short of the conclusion since your reader will already know how things ended; they learned that in the lede.
The notable exception would be if you were writing some sort of feature narrative, which we really don't get into in this class. So, nyah.
"Let us not make this year, the year they robbed the kids of Halloween," Izzo said. "For their sake and our own, let us keep Halloween sane, safe -- and sober."
Telling quote. It really got to the point of what many of you hooked your stories upon.
Then why did so many of you use it late in your stories?
The better a quote and the more it directly supports your central premise of key premises of your story, the more prominent and higher up that quote should be.
Many of you ended your stories with a great quote, like this one. I get the feeling that you're trying to create what in writing is called a satisfying ending; one that offers a conclusion.
In traditional English composition, such a conclusion is necessary. In journalism, since we start with the conclusion it is not. On most regular straight news stories, it's completely fine to simply let the story trail off, even if it seems like the ending is abrupt.
If you're writing in inverted pyramid style, you rank information in the order of importance, so your story should essentially trail off. If you're writing a chronology, you can stop writing just short of the conclusion since your reader will already know how things ended; they learned that in the lede.
The notable exception would be if you were writing some sort of feature narrative, which we really don't get into in this class. So, nyah.
Speech -- Write With (AP) Style
Is it an eighth-grader or an 8th-grader or an eighth grader?
It's the middle one. AP Style, under grade, grader:
Hyphenate in combining forms: a fourth-grade pupil, a 12th-grade student, first-grader, 10th-grader.
Note there is no exception made from the general AP numbers rule of spell out numbers under 10, and use digits for 10 and above. Also note that the examples given appear to adhere to that rule.
Now, in first reference is it PTA or Parent-Teacher Association? Did anybody look under PTA?
Finally, if the number is at the start of a sentence, do you spell it out regardless? You tell me. We've been over this one time and time again.
Please review AP Style under grade, grader and numerals.
It's the middle one. AP Style, under grade, grader:
Hyphenate in combining forms: a fourth-grade pupil, a 12th-grade student, first-grader, 10th-grader.
Note there is no exception made from the general AP numbers rule of spell out numbers under 10, and use digits for 10 and above. Also note that the examples given appear to adhere to that rule.
Now, in first reference is it PTA or Parent-Teacher Association? Did anybody look under PTA?
Finally, if the number is at the start of a sentence, do you spell it out regardless? You tell me. We've been over this one time and time again.
Please review AP Style under grade, grader and numerals.
Murder -- Sufficient Description
Very nice work overall on this assignment. And no fatals! But I can always find something to nit-pick about. Like this:
This was one of your descriptions of the suspect:
Cortez said the man was about 5 feet 10 inches to maybe 6 feet tall, in his early 20s, and medium build.
Is that sufficient? No. It's too vague to be very useful to readers. Either that, or I'd be looking very carefully at Ryan and Elliott. And backing away verrry slooooowly.
Think about it. How many people in the world fit that description? It's so many that you are not narrowing down suspect possibilities in the mind of the public; you actually are making a whole lot of innocent people look guilty!
It's best to use suspect descriptions when you are so specific that it can narrow down the suspect pool, like here:
The robber was between 5 foot 10 inches and 6 feet tall, in his early 20s, medium build, wearing a floral scarf over his face, blue jeans, a blue plaid button-up shirt and blue tennis shoes, and may have had an accomplice, according to Cortez.
This ID is far more useful. Besides telling readers the killer is color-blind, it's a distinctive description that -- combined with the time and place -- helps readers zero in on a single suspect, or a limited suspect pool.
This was one of your descriptions of the suspect:
Cortez said the man was about 5 feet 10 inches to maybe 6 feet tall, in his early 20s, and medium build.
Is that sufficient? No. It's too vague to be very useful to readers. Either that, or I'd be looking very carefully at Ryan and Elliott. And backing away verrry slooooowly.
Think about it. How many people in the world fit that description? It's so many that you are not narrowing down suspect possibilities in the mind of the public; you actually are making a whole lot of innocent people look guilty!
It's best to use suspect descriptions when you are so specific that it can narrow down the suspect pool, like here:
The robber was between 5 foot 10 inches and 6 feet tall, in his early 20s, medium build, wearing a floral scarf over his face, blue jeans, a blue plaid button-up shirt and blue tennis shoes, and may have had an accomplice, according to Cortez.
This ID is far more useful. Besides telling readers the killer is color-blind, it's a distinctive description that -- combined with the time and place -- helps readers zero in on a single suspect, or a limited suspect pool.
Murder -- Did You Need Quotes . . .
. . . here?
"He was about 5 feet 10, maybe 6 feet tall, in his early 20s, medium build," Cortez said, adding he was wearing "blue jeans, a blue plaid-button-up shirt, and blue tennis shoes."
"He had a scarf, a floral scarf, tied around the lower part of his face, cowboy style. It covered the bottom half of his face," she said.
There really isn't any difference between quoting this or paraphrasing this. As a quote, it really doesn't add a more human tone or voice than it would as a paraphrase.
If a quote is dull, technical or lacks a human-sounding voice, you're probably better off just paraphrasing the person, like this:
The suspect was between 5-feet-10-inches and 6-feet tall, in his early 20s and with a medium build, Cortez said, adding he was wearing blue jeans, a blue plaid-button-up shirt, and blue tennis shoes.
He had a floral scarf tied around the lower part of his face, cowboy style, that covered the bottom half of his face, she said.
"He was about 5 feet 10, maybe 6 feet tall, in his early 20s, medium build," Cortez said, adding he was wearing "blue jeans, a blue plaid-button-up shirt, and blue tennis shoes."
"He had a scarf, a floral scarf, tied around the lower part of his face, cowboy style. It covered the bottom half of his face," she said.
There really isn't any difference between quoting this or paraphrasing this. As a quote, it really doesn't add a more human tone or voice than it would as a paraphrase.
If a quote is dull, technical or lacks a human-sounding voice, you're probably better off just paraphrasing the person, like this:
The suspect was between 5-feet-10-inches and 6-feet tall, in his early 20s and with a medium build, Cortez said, adding he was wearing blue jeans, a blue plaid-button-up shirt, and blue tennis shoes.
He had a floral scarf tied around the lower part of his face, cowboy style, that covered the bottom half of his face, she said.
Out-of-Class Story #1 -- The Rewrite
There is something I forgot to tell you because I am an idiot. And it is this:
If you do a rewrite, your rewrite grade WILL BE NO LOWER THAN YOUR ORIGINAL GRADE.
That's right. Do a rewrite and even if it's worse than your original work, your grade will be no worse than what you had in the first place.
Even if you ADD a fatal in your rewrite that wasn't in your original work, your grade won't be any worse off.
Now, that doesn't mean I won't note whether your rewrite is better or worse than the original, or includes a fatal that your original did not have. It's just that you won't pay a penalty for trying to improve your work.
So, you literally have nothing to lose and everything to gain by doing a rewrite.
If you do a rewrite, your rewrite grade WILL BE NO LOWER THAN YOUR ORIGINAL GRADE.
That's right. Do a rewrite and even if it's worse than your original work, your grade will be no worse than what you had in the first place.
Even if you ADD a fatal in your rewrite that wasn't in your original work, your grade won't be any worse off.
Now, that doesn't mean I won't note whether your rewrite is better or worse than the original, or includes a fatal that your original did not have. It's just that you won't pay a penalty for trying to improve your work.
So, you literally have nothing to lose and everything to gain by doing a rewrite.
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
JRN 200 Coaching Sessions
Instructor Joe Grimm will be hosting three JRN 200/300 coaching sessions next week in CAS 245 (the loab that's down the hall from this classroom).
The labs will be as follows:
Monday, Feb. 28 from 3 to 6 p.m.
Monday, Feb. 28 from 7 to 10 p.m.
Friday, March 4 from 9 a.m. to noon.
Plus, I am available during office hours, as usual.
Hope this helps!
The labs will be as follows:
Monday, Feb. 28 from 3 to 6 p.m.
Monday, Feb. 28 from 7 to 10 p.m.
Friday, March 4 from 9 a.m. to noon.
Plus, I am available during office hours, as usual.
Hope this helps!
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
Out Of Class #1 -- In General . . .
First off, I was out sick Tuesday, so my apologies if you were looking for me. Despite being sick, I did have a chance to go over and grade your first out-of-class story, so the day wasn't a complete loss (though there will be a delay in grading and returning the Monday night homework writing assignment).
Wide range in how people handled the first out-of-class assignment. Everybody did well in something and everybody can do a bit better at something else. Completely expected for a first out-of-class assignment. That's why we do rewrites; so you get a chance to show me your improvement.
One thing that more people missed than made, though, was with a boilerplate thing.
According to the syllabus, you are REQUIRED to submit a word count at the end of your story, along with a source list that includes contact information for those sources. That's so I can (a) see that your story was of a sufficient length, and (b) so I can call upon/check your sources and documentation and make sure you got everything right.
I didn't want to read the entire syllabus line-by-line on the first day of class; I used to do that but I thought we were way beyond hand-holding you guys through required reading. Please make sure you handle assignments as listed in the syllabus, and that you are familiar with the syllabus overall. You will be docked in the future for failing to pay attention to such details.
I encourage everyone to do a rewrite. If you're not exactly sure how to do a rewrite, please see me ASAP!
Wide range in how people handled the first out-of-class assignment. Everybody did well in something and everybody can do a bit better at something else. Completely expected for a first out-of-class assignment. That's why we do rewrites; so you get a chance to show me your improvement.
One thing that more people missed than made, though, was with a boilerplate thing.
According to the syllabus, you are REQUIRED to submit a word count at the end of your story, along with a source list that includes contact information for those sources. That's so I can (a) see that your story was of a sufficient length, and (b) so I can call upon/check your sources and documentation and make sure you got everything right.
I didn't want to read the entire syllabus line-by-line on the first day of class; I used to do that but I thought we were way beyond hand-holding you guys through required reading. Please make sure you handle assignments as listed in the syllabus, and that you are familiar with the syllabus overall. You will be docked in the future for failing to pay attention to such details.
I encourage everyone to do a rewrite. If you're not exactly sure how to do a rewrite, please see me ASAP!
Monday, February 21, 2011
Bicyclist -- In General . . .
After a rough end to last week -- and a snowy start to Monday -- I was happy to see a pretty good job all around on the bicyclist exercise.
Good ledes finding ways to combine the newsiest element (the crash, which happened a long time ago and in one sense was old news) and the latest element (her release from the hospital, which is the latest happening but less interesting than why she was in the hospital), that were also paired with nut grafs that provided just enough background summary information to allow readers to then jump into the narrative, like here:
Marsha Taylor, a competitive bicyclist who was hit by a car and sent flying from her bicycle ion October, was released two days ago from Omar Memorial Hospital.
She said she was hit while riding down 72nd Street around Southland Boulevard. Taylor suffered a mild concussion, a broken neck, six broken ribs, a broken left arm and and a broken pelvis.
. . . and . . .
On Saturday morning, avid bicyclist Marsha L. Taylor was released from Omar Memorial Hospital after suffering physical and internal injuries caused after a car collided with her bike four months ago.
A Holt resident, Taylor said she suffered a mild concussion, a broken left arm, neck , pelvis and six broken ribs after the Oct. 1 accident on 72nd Street.
. . . and . . .
Marsha L. Taylor is still in recovery after being hit from behind while riding her bicycle on 72nd Street on Oct. 1.
Taylor was released from the hospital two days ago after sustaining multiple injuries including multiple broken bones and internal injuries discovered while she was in rehab, she said.
(Note here how the writer took the "broken this and broken that" and simply summed it up as multiple broken bones. Another option would be to list all the breaks together, so you only would have to use the word "broken" once, like this: She broke her neck, six ribs, her left arm and pelvis. The preceding lede's nut graf tried something along these lines.)
Others of you chose to featurize the lede, turning it anecdotal and/or contextual and pairing it with good nut grafs, like here . . .
When you go for a bike ride, you don't expect it to be four months until you return home. But for Marsha L. Taylor, that was just the case.
Four months ago the avid cyclist said she found herself in Omar Memorial Hospital with multiple injuries after she was hit by a car while riding her bike.
. . . and . . .
One doctor said it was a miracle she didn't get paralyzed.
But after months of rehabilitation and treatments for injuries following an accident on 72nd street when a car struck her from behind while she was riding her bike last October, Marsha L. Taylor was released from Omar Memorial Hospital two days ago.
. . . and. . .
Marsha Taylor was taking a typical bike ride down 72nd Street in Hold on Oct. 1. The next thing she remembered was waking up in the hospital.
According to Taylor, a car hit her off her bike from behind, causing her to have a mild concussion, a broken neck, six broken ribs, a broken arm, and a broken pelvis.Taylor was released from the hospital two days ago after a four-month recovery process.
. . . and . . .
What could case a mild concussion, broken neck, six broken ribs, a broken arm, broken pelvis, perforated small intestine and liver and gall bladder injury?
For avid cyclist Marsha L. Taylor, 37, it was an Oct. 1 bicycle accident that kept her in the hospital for four months.
Taylor was released just days ago.
. . . and this was one was especially nice, because it found a larger theme . . .
Marsha L. Taylor, a local bicyclist, said she couldn't imagine her life without bicycling despite being injured in a bicycling accident last year that almost left her paralyzed.
Taylor, 37, was released from the hospital two days ago after being in recovery and rehabilitation since the beginning of October.
Where this lede and nut graf missed an opportunity was with what followed. The writer began with the chronological narrative after the nut graf. But I think that was a sweet spot in which to place a telling quote that supported the lede and nut graf, like this one:
"No, I still want to ride. If I could, I'd be out there right now, but it's hard to ride a bike when you have to use crutches."
Powerful quote, right? And very humanizing, too. It perfectly supports your main point and adds a human voice that underlines context.
Good ledes finding ways to combine the newsiest element (the crash, which happened a long time ago and in one sense was old news) and the latest element (her release from the hospital, which is the latest happening but less interesting than why she was in the hospital), that were also paired with nut grafs that provided just enough background summary information to allow readers to then jump into the narrative, like here:
Marsha Taylor, a competitive bicyclist who was hit by a car and sent flying from her bicycle ion October, was released two days ago from Omar Memorial Hospital.
She said she was hit while riding down 72nd Street around Southland Boulevard. Taylor suffered a mild concussion, a broken neck, six broken ribs, a broken left arm and and a broken pelvis.
. . . and . . .
On Saturday morning, avid bicyclist Marsha L. Taylor was released from Omar Memorial Hospital after suffering physical and internal injuries caused after a car collided with her bike four months ago.
A Holt resident, Taylor said she suffered a mild concussion, a broken left arm, neck , pelvis and six broken ribs after the Oct. 1 accident on 72nd Street.
. . . and . . .
Marsha L. Taylor is still in recovery after being hit from behind while riding her bicycle on 72nd Street on Oct. 1.
Taylor was released from the hospital two days ago after sustaining multiple injuries including multiple broken bones and internal injuries discovered while she was in rehab, she said.
(Note here how the writer took the "broken this and broken that" and simply summed it up as multiple broken bones. Another option would be to list all the breaks together, so you only would have to use the word "broken" once, like this: She broke her neck, six ribs, her left arm and pelvis. The preceding lede's nut graf tried something along these lines.)
Others of you chose to featurize the lede, turning it anecdotal and/or contextual and pairing it with good nut grafs, like here . . .
When you go for a bike ride, you don't expect it to be four months until you return home. But for Marsha L. Taylor, that was just the case.
Four months ago the avid cyclist said she found herself in Omar Memorial Hospital with multiple injuries after she was hit by a car while riding her bike.
. . . and . . .
One doctor said it was a miracle she didn't get paralyzed.
But after months of rehabilitation and treatments for injuries following an accident on 72nd street when a car struck her from behind while she was riding her bike last October, Marsha L. Taylor was released from Omar Memorial Hospital two days ago.
. . . and. . .
Marsha Taylor was taking a typical bike ride down 72nd Street in Hold on Oct. 1. The next thing she remembered was waking up in the hospital.
According to Taylor, a car hit her off her bike from behind, causing her to have a mild concussion, a broken neck, six broken ribs, a broken arm, and a broken pelvis.Taylor was released from the hospital two days ago after a four-month recovery process.
. . . and . . .
What could case a mild concussion, broken neck, six broken ribs, a broken arm, broken pelvis, perforated small intestine and liver and gall bladder injury?
For avid cyclist Marsha L. Taylor, 37, it was an Oct. 1 bicycle accident that kept her in the hospital for four months.
Taylor was released just days ago.
. . . and this was one was especially nice, because it found a larger theme . . .
Marsha L. Taylor, a local bicyclist, said she couldn't imagine her life without bicycling despite being injured in a bicycling accident last year that almost left her paralyzed.
Taylor, 37, was released from the hospital two days ago after being in recovery and rehabilitation since the beginning of October.
Where this lede and nut graf missed an opportunity was with what followed. The writer began with the chronological narrative after the nut graf. But I think that was a sweet spot in which to place a telling quote that supported the lede and nut graf, like this one:
"No, I still want to ride. If I could, I'd be out there right now, but it's hard to ride a bike when you have to use crutches."
Powerful quote, right? And very humanizing, too. It perfectly supports your main point and adds a human voice that underlines context.
Bicyclist -- Attribute!
Some people are getting the hang of attribution; others are not.
It's important to attribute where you got your information throughout your story, and repeatedly if necessary.
How did you know Taylor was riding her bike down 72nd Street? You weren't there, were you? Of course not. She told you she was.
So a paragraph with that bit of info needs a "she said" somewhere.
How do you know she partook in bike tours? Again, it's because she told you. The graf containing that statement needs a "she said."
I'm going to reemphasize a pretty good rule of thumb: pretty much every paragraph should cite a source. Pretty much every fact should have a source citation nearby.
If in any single graf you are using just a single source, a single attribution somewhere in the graf is sufficient.
I know when it's a story where you interviewed just one person, it might seem weird having graf after graf all end in "she said."
But your readers don't know you spoke with just one source. And they do want to know how you know what you know. If you're talking about Taylor's injuries, did you get that from her? Her doctors? Medical records? Don't assume readers know the source simply because Taylor is the only source cited elsewhere in your story.
So be transparent with your readers about how you got your information, and attribute.
It's important to attribute where you got your information throughout your story, and repeatedly if necessary.
How did you know Taylor was riding her bike down 72nd Street? You weren't there, were you? Of course not. She told you she was.
So a paragraph with that bit of info needs a "she said" somewhere.
How do you know she partook in bike tours? Again, it's because she told you. The graf containing that statement needs a "she said."
I'm going to reemphasize a pretty good rule of thumb: pretty much every paragraph should cite a source. Pretty much every fact should have a source citation nearby.
If in any single graf you are using just a single source, a single attribution somewhere in the graf is sufficient.
I know when it's a story where you interviewed just one person, it might seem weird having graf after graf all end in "she said."
But your readers don't know you spoke with just one source. And they do want to know how you know what you know. If you're talking about Taylor's injuries, did you get that from her? Her doctors? Medical records? Don't assume readers know the source simply because Taylor is the only source cited elsewhere in your story.
So be transparent with your readers about how you got your information, and attribute.
Bicyclist -- Write With (AP) Style . . .
Is it October 1 or October 1st or Oct. 1?
In this instance, it's the latter. In AP Style under "dates" . . .
Always use Arabic figures, without st, nd, rd or th. See months for examples . . .
Also, under "months" . . .
Capitalize the names of months in all uses. When a month is used with a specific date, abbreviate only Jan., Feb., Aug., Sept., Oct., Nov. and Dec. Spell out when using alone, or with a year alone.
Also, is it 72nd St. and Southland Blvd.? Or 72nd Street and Southland Boulevard? Or Seventy-Second Street?
In this case, it was 72nd Street and Southland Boulevard. From AP Style, under "addresses":
Use the abbreviations Ave., Blvd. and St. only with a numbered address: 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. Spell them out and capitalize when part of a formal street name without a number: Pennsylvania Avenue. Lowercase and spell out when used alone or with more than one street name: Massachusetts and Pennsylvania avenues.
Spell out and capitalize First through Ninth when used as street names; use figures with two letters for 10th and above: 7 Fifth Ave., 100 21st St.
I strongly suggest you review AP Style information listed under the categories of addresses, dates and months.
In this instance, it's the latter. In AP Style under "dates" . . .
Always use Arabic figures, without st, nd, rd or th. See months for examples . . .
Also, under "months" . . .
Capitalize the names of months in all uses. When a month is used with a specific date, abbreviate only Jan., Feb., Aug., Sept., Oct., Nov. and Dec. Spell out when using alone, or with a year alone.
Also, is it 72nd St. and Southland Blvd.? Or 72nd Street and Southland Boulevard? Or Seventy-Second Street?
In this case, it was 72nd Street and Southland Boulevard. From AP Style, under "addresses":
Use the abbreviations Ave., Blvd. and St. only with a numbered address: 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. Spell them out and capitalize when part of a formal street name without a number: Pennsylvania Avenue. Lowercase and spell out when used alone or with more than one street name: Massachusetts and Pennsylvania avenues.
Spell out and capitalize First through Ninth when used as street names; use figures with two letters for 10th and above: 7 Fifth Ave., 100 21st St.
I strongly suggest you review AP Style information listed under the categories of addresses, dates and months.
Friday, February 18, 2011
Drowning/Robbery -- A Rough Day
Every 200 class I've ever taught has had a day where everybody universally bombed. Where there was a concept or concepts that tripped everybody up at the same time. Generally, an ugly day.
For you guys, Wednesday was that day.
Actually, Thursday was, too. Lots of rough grading. Lots of missteps. Half the class had at least one fact fatal. One person had a time fatal. Out of 20 assignments submitted, only two were graded at 3.0 or higher. Brutal.
But I want to reiterate that days like this happen when you're learning something new. In journalism we learn by doing and then reviewing and then applying those lessons going forward.
If there's anything good to come from last week, it's that I have abetter sense of what we have to work on to get to where you want to be.
So let's start looking at the carnage in hopes of fixing things ASAP.
For you guys, Wednesday was that day.
Actually, Thursday was, too. Lots of rough grading. Lots of missteps. Half the class had at least one fact fatal. One person had a time fatal. Out of 20 assignments submitted, only two were graded at 3.0 or higher. Brutal.
But I want to reiterate that days like this happen when you're learning something new. In journalism we learn by doing and then reviewing and then applying those lessons going forward.
If there's anything good to come from last week, it's that I have abetter sense of what we have to work on to get to where you want to be.
So let's start looking at the carnage in hopes of fixing things ASAP.
Drowning -- Peanut Barrel Rule
This exercise is one that's usually tripped up previous 200 classes.
In my fall class, many people went off the rails was in identifying what was the latest AND biggest news. This class was no different.
Many of your ledes were like this one:
The East Lansing Police Department released the identity of the man who tried to save Edward McGorwan from Nichols Lake.
Let's lean on the Peanut Barrel rule: what are you most likely to say first? That the name of the dead rescuer was released? Or that the boy he was trying to save died today? What do you think?
I'd say the latter is clearly more impactful and newsworthy than the release of a name. The latter (a death) is clearly a more momentous happening than the former (the release of a name of someone we already know is dead and isn't a particularly well-known public figure of any sort).
So I liked this lede much better:
The young man who was saved yesterday after nearly drowning in Nichols Lake in Lakeside Park died today, less than a half-hour after he was taken off a respirator upon his mother's request.
. . . and this one, too:
Ten-year-old Edward McGorwan was pronounced dead this morning after a swim in Nichols Lake yesterday turned deadly.
(I do have a nit-pick with the first of these two ledes, though -- is it right to say the boy was "saved?" After all, he did end up dying. Could you have found a better phrase to replace that word, like "pulled from the water?"
Of course, the best lede would try to incorporate BOTH latest happenings, while giving preference to the death over the naming. That's what this lede did:
A young boy left in critical condition after yesterday's Nichols Lake incident died this morning, and police have identified the man who died while trying to save him.
See how that says everything that needs to be said, and hits ultimate outcome(s) the best?
In my fall class, many people went off the rails was in identifying what was the latest AND biggest news. This class was no different.
Many of your ledes were like this one:
The East Lansing Police Department released the identity of the man who tried to save Edward McGorwan from Nichols Lake.
Let's lean on the Peanut Barrel rule: what are you most likely to say first? That the name of the dead rescuer was released? Or that the boy he was trying to save died today? What do you think?
I'd say the latter is clearly more impactful and newsworthy than the release of a name. The latter (a death) is clearly a more momentous happening than the former (the release of a name of someone we already know is dead and isn't a particularly well-known public figure of any sort).
So I liked this lede much better:
The young man who was saved yesterday after nearly drowning in Nichols Lake in Lakeside Park died today, less than a half-hour after he was taken off a respirator upon his mother's request.
. . . and this one, too:
Ten-year-old Edward McGorwan was pronounced dead this morning after a swim in Nichols Lake yesterday turned deadly.
(I do have a nit-pick with the first of these two ledes, though -- is it right to say the boy was "saved?" After all, he did end up dying. Could you have found a better phrase to replace that word, like "pulled from the water?"
Of course, the best lede would try to incorporate BOTH latest happenings, while giving preference to the death over the naming. That's what this lede did:
A young boy left in critical condition after yesterday's Nichols Lake incident died this morning, and police have identified the man who died while trying to save him.
See how that says everything that needs to be said, and hits ultimate outcome(s) the best?
Drowning -- Quotes
As I said before, many of you led your story with the identity of the would-be hero being released. And many of you used this quote in your stories:
"McDowell risked his life without hesitation to try to save someone in trouble. He was a real hero," said Police Chief Barry Koperud.
But many of you used that quote late in your story, even at the end of your story. If you focused your lede on McDowell, doesn't that quote do the best job of supporting and illustrating your central point?
And if that's the case, why wouldn't it be the FIRST quote you use?
Make sure that quotes are placed where they are most effective in highlighting key points. Quite often, that means pairing the key point being made with the quote that best supports the key point.
"McDowell risked his life without hesitation to try to save someone in trouble. He was a real hero," said Police Chief Barry Koperud.
But many of you used that quote late in your story, even at the end of your story. If you focused your lede on McDowell, doesn't that quote do the best job of supporting and illustrating your central point?
And if that's the case, why wouldn't it be the FIRST quote you use?
Make sure that quotes are placed where they are most effective in highlighting key points. Quite often, that means pairing the key point being made with the quote that best supports the key point.
Drowning -- Write With (AP) Style
Was William McDowell in the navy, or the Navy?
It's the Navy. AP Style, under "Navy" . . .
Capitalize when referring to U.S. forces: the U.S.Navy, the Navy, Navy policy . . . lowercase when referring to the naval forces of other nations: the British navy.
Was 10-year-old Edward McGorwan a boy or a young man?
A boy. AP Style, under "boy" . . .
Applicable until 18th birthday is reached. Use man or young man afterward.
In first reference, is it Dr. Catrina Lowrie or just Dr. Lowrie?
It's Dr. Catrina Lowrie. We always use someone's first and last names in a first reference.
It's the Navy. AP Style, under "Navy" . . .
Capitalize when referring to U.S. forces: the U.S.Navy, the Navy, Navy policy . . . lowercase when referring to the naval forces of other nations: the British navy.
Was 10-year-old Edward McGorwan a boy or a young man?
A boy. AP Style, under "boy" . . .
Applicable until 18th birthday is reached. Use man or young man afterward.
In first reference, is it Dr. Catrina Lowrie or just Dr. Lowrie?
It's Dr. Catrina Lowrie. We always use someone's first and last names in a first reference.
Thursday, February 17, 2011
Robbery -- The Peanut Barrel Rule
There were plenty of decent ledes in the exercise you did Monday. You made some good decisions on how to best use the space you were allotted in creating the highest and best ledes possible.
But some were better than others. Let's look at this one:
Late yesterday, a local convenience store was robbed and the clerk held at gunpoint.
This is factually correct. But does it go to end result and ultimate outcome? It does not. It omits a major conclusion: that the clerk then shot and killed the robber. It's simply not sufficient.
Here was a more acceptable lede:
A man who robbed a convenience store late Tuesday night was found dead by police after being shot by the store clerk.
It gets the basics of the story correct. It's not wrong by any means. But it's missing context.
Think about the Peanut Barrel rule: would you first tell friends that someone working at a store shot someone robbing the store, and leave it at that?
No, I think you'd throw in what made this story unique and different from other robbery stories. You tried that with these two ledes here:
A late-night robbery of the O-Mart convenience store in Haslett last night ended abruptly with the robber getting shot and the shore clerk getting fired.
. . . and . . .
When Michael Layoux was robbed last night at the Haslett O-Mart, he was prepared to defend himself. Unfortunately for Robert Wiess, the armed robber, Layoux succeeded in doing just that.
These are good ledes. Really good ledes. Concise, contextual, the whole shebang. But let's put it up against the Peanut Barrel rule again: is whatever really, really made this story stand out in these ledes? Are these the best ledes you can come up with?
I think you can take it a step better. My gut tells me that what really made this story the most unique is that the clerk legally defended himself -- and lost his job because he acted to save his own life!
This lede hit came close to hitting that sweet spot:
A Lansing Community College student was fired after acting in self-defense against an armed robber late Tuesday night.
Very good. But it's also less than clear. For example, who fired the student? Was it the school? You really need to mention that it was a . . . student working as a convenience store clerk was fired from his job after . . .
Still, I think I could top those ledes. The one point missing was the connection between saving his life and losing his job. If I decided to go straight with little color, I'd do this:
A Haslett convenience store clerk won't face charges for shooting and killing a would-be robber, but he lost his job for violating company rules of possessing handguns on the job.
Or if I wanted to get a bit colorful:
The same actions that allowed Michael Layoux to save his own life also cost him his job.
. . . or . . .
Michael Layoux didn't break the law when he shot and killed a robber last night. But he did break a company rule, and that will cost him his job.
How do my ledes adhere to the Peanut Barrel rule? Which works best, and why? Your turn to critique me.
But some were better than others. Let's look at this one:
Late yesterday, a local convenience store was robbed and the clerk held at gunpoint.
This is factually correct. But does it go to end result and ultimate outcome? It does not. It omits a major conclusion: that the clerk then shot and killed the robber. It's simply not sufficient.
Here was a more acceptable lede:
A man who robbed a convenience store late Tuesday night was found dead by police after being shot by the store clerk.
It gets the basics of the story correct. It's not wrong by any means. But it's missing context.
Think about the Peanut Barrel rule: would you first tell friends that someone working at a store shot someone robbing the store, and leave it at that?
No, I think you'd throw in what made this story unique and different from other robbery stories. You tried that with these two ledes here:
A late-night robbery of the O-Mart convenience store in Haslett last night ended abruptly with the robber getting shot and the shore clerk getting fired.
. . . and . . .
When Michael Layoux was robbed last night at the Haslett O-Mart, he was prepared to defend himself. Unfortunately for Robert Wiess, the armed robber, Layoux succeeded in doing just that.
These are good ledes. Really good ledes. Concise, contextual, the whole shebang. But let's put it up against the Peanut Barrel rule again: is whatever really, really made this story stand out in these ledes? Are these the best ledes you can come up with?
I think you can take it a step better. My gut tells me that what really made this story the most unique is that the clerk legally defended himself -- and lost his job because he acted to save his own life!
This lede hit came close to hitting that sweet spot:
A Lansing Community College student was fired after acting in self-defense against an armed robber late Tuesday night.
Very good. But it's also less than clear. For example, who fired the student? Was it the school? You really need to mention that it was a . . . student working as a convenience store clerk was fired from his job after . . .
Still, I think I could top those ledes. The one point missing was the connection between saving his life and losing his job. If I decided to go straight with little color, I'd do this:
A Haslett convenience store clerk won't face charges for shooting and killing a would-be robber, but he lost his job for violating company rules of possessing handguns on the job.
Or if I wanted to get a bit colorful:
The same actions that allowed Michael Layoux to save his own life also cost him his job.
. . . or . . .
Michael Layoux didn't break the law when he shot and killed a robber last night. But he did break a company rule, and that will cost him his job.
How do my ledes adhere to the Peanut Barrel rule? Which works best, and why? Your turn to critique me.
Robbery -- The Mystery of the Missing Nut Grafs
Nut grafs are important. Nut grafs do two important things: they fill in some of the blanks and details from your lede, and they offer a smooth transition to the body of a story.
In this exercise, many of you had inadequate nut grafs -- or none at all.
What many of you did was write a lede, and then directly go into the chronology of what happened, like here:
When Michal Layoux was robbed last night at the Haslett O-Mart, he was prepared to defend himself. Unfortunately for Robert Wiess, the armed robber, Layoux succeeded in doing just that.
According to Layoux, he was alone in the store when Wiess came in and pulled out a pistol after asking for a pack of cigarettes . . .
Hold on a sec. In the lede, you say Layoux succeeded in defending himself. Then you dive right into the play-by-play. Essentially, you're holding the reader hostage by not making it clear what conclusion they're reading toward. They need to read the entire story to find out what happened.
The body of a story offers details and evidence that supports your lede. Your nut graf offers just enough of the 5 w's -- who, what, when, where, why, plus how -- so that if a redader goes no further than the nut graf and never reads the chronology, they still know what happened and how it ended.
A nut graf would have been a perfect place to say something like this:
Using a contraband pistol, Layoux shot and killed Wiess as the latter man fled the store, located at 1284 E. Forest Blvd., after robbing the register of an estimated $20 in cash around 11 p.m. Wiess' body was found nearby.
Here was a better use of a lede-nut graf sequence by one of youze:
An O-Mart clerk took measures into his own hands during a holdup at the convenience store late yesterday evening.
Michael Layoux, 22, currently a student at Lansing Community College, shot a man three times after he felt threatened by him while he was robbing the store.
Then the story continues with the chronology of how things unfolded, in time order. You get a bit more information in the nut graf to help establish the lede -- and to let people know how things ended up -- before getting a blow-by-blow of how things went down.
One other thing I'd like to note here is that the wording of the nut graf was a bit confusing. When you say "he," do you mean the clerk or the robber? And which he is which? I think you'd have been better off saying he . . . shot a man three times after Layoux felt threatened by the gunman while the latter man was robbing the store.
Make sure you're laying things out clearly for your readers, and that you're not inadvertently confusing them.
After placing that next to the lede, then you can dive into the chronology. Basically, your lede/nut graf combo should read like a mini-story. (And if you ever write for broadcast, that's what they typical 30-second TV news story is: a lede and a nut graf, and maybe one sentence of additional information.)
In this exercise, many of you had inadequate nut grafs -- or none at all.
What many of you did was write a lede, and then directly go into the chronology of what happened, like here:
When Michal Layoux was robbed last night at the Haslett O-Mart, he was prepared to defend himself. Unfortunately for Robert Wiess, the armed robber, Layoux succeeded in doing just that.
According to Layoux, he was alone in the store when Wiess came in and pulled out a pistol after asking for a pack of cigarettes . . .
Hold on a sec. In the lede, you say Layoux succeeded in defending himself. Then you dive right into the play-by-play. Essentially, you're holding the reader hostage by not making it clear what conclusion they're reading toward. They need to read the entire story to find out what happened.
The body of a story offers details and evidence that supports your lede. Your nut graf offers just enough of the 5 w's -- who, what, when, where, why, plus how -- so that if a redader goes no further than the nut graf and never reads the chronology, they still know what happened and how it ended.
A nut graf would have been a perfect place to say something like this:
Using a contraband pistol, Layoux shot and killed Wiess as the latter man fled the store, located at 1284 E. Forest Blvd., after robbing the register of an estimated $20 in cash around 11 p.m. Wiess' body was found nearby.
Here was a better use of a lede-nut graf sequence by one of youze:
An O-Mart clerk took measures into his own hands during a holdup at the convenience store late yesterday evening.
Michael Layoux, 22, currently a student at Lansing Community College, shot a man three times after he felt threatened by him while he was robbing the store.
Then the story continues with the chronology of how things unfolded, in time order. You get a bit more information in the nut graf to help establish the lede -- and to let people know how things ended up -- before getting a blow-by-blow of how things went down.
One other thing I'd like to note here is that the wording of the nut graf was a bit confusing. When you say "he," do you mean the clerk or the robber? And which he is which? I think you'd have been better off saying he . . . shot a man three times after Layoux felt threatened by the gunman while the latter man was robbing the store.
Make sure you're laying things out clearly for your readers, and that you're not inadvertently confusing them.
After placing that next to the lede, then you can dive into the chronology. Basically, your lede/nut graf combo should read like a mini-story. (And if you ever write for broadcast, that's what they typical 30-second TV news story is: a lede and a nut graf, and maybe one sentence of additional information.)
Robbery -- FOUR fatals? F@#k.
We had four people fatal in this exercise, many of whom fataled more than once. Not good. They join a fifth person who fataled on the drowning exercise, by identifying the 10-year-old boy as 11 years old.
Let's go over the goofs.
Three of the fatals revolved around the misspelling of the gunman's last name. It wasn't the common spelling of Weiss, it was Wiess.
First, you should have noticed the different spelling. Second, if you found it odd, you should have double-checked with your sources to see if in fact the name was spelled in an uncommon way.
Really, I was surprised no one asked me about that before turning in your assignments.
One of the fatalers could have caught their fatal before turning in their work, if they had adequately fact-checked their work. That's because they referred to the robber as Wiess and Weiss in the same story! You know both names can't be right.
Same with another fataler who spelled the clerk's last name as Layoux and Layouz in the same story.
The third fataler misidentified the clerk's school as East Lansing Community College, when in fact it was Lansing Community College.
And the fourth fataler offered this quote: "Then he asked me for the money, and I have it to him."
What that writer meant to say was, "gave it to him." But as we've noted many times before, spell check will not catch an incorrect word when it is spelled correctly. Since the word change changes a quote, it is a fatal.
I know when you're on deadline there's this rush to finish. Still, make sure you have adequate time to do a basic fact-check. Some of those who fataled in this assignment finished well ahead of the deadline, and left unused several minutes that could have helped catch their mistakes.
Plus, I'd rather have you write a shorter -- but fact-checked and on-time -- story than a longer one. With these in-class exercises, don't worry about length; worry about getting in the information you need to get in, on time and correct.
For those of you keeping track, we are down to just ONE person in this class who has yet to have a fact fatal this term. Everybody else, welcome to Omar's Fatals Club.
Let's go over the goofs.
Three of the fatals revolved around the misspelling of the gunman's last name. It wasn't the common spelling of Weiss, it was Wiess.
First, you should have noticed the different spelling. Second, if you found it odd, you should have double-checked with your sources to see if in fact the name was spelled in an uncommon way.
Really, I was surprised no one asked me about that before turning in your assignments.
One of the fatalers could have caught their fatal before turning in their work, if they had adequately fact-checked their work. That's because they referred to the robber as Wiess and Weiss in the same story! You know both names can't be right.
Same with another fataler who spelled the clerk's last name as Layoux and Layouz in the same story.
The third fataler misidentified the clerk's school as East Lansing Community College, when in fact it was Lansing Community College.
And the fourth fataler offered this quote: "Then he asked me for the money, and I have it to him."
What that writer meant to say was, "gave it to him." But as we've noted many times before, spell check will not catch an incorrect word when it is spelled correctly. Since the word change changes a quote, it is a fatal.
I know when you're on deadline there's this rush to finish. Still, make sure you have adequate time to do a basic fact-check. Some of those who fataled in this assignment finished well ahead of the deadline, and left unused several minutes that could have helped catch their mistakes.
Plus, I'd rather have you write a shorter -- but fact-checked and on-time -- story than a longer one. With these in-class exercises, don't worry about length; worry about getting in the information you need to get in, on time and correct.
For those of you keeping track, we are down to just ONE person in this class who has yet to have a fact fatal this term. Everybody else, welcome to Omar's Fatals Club.
Robbery -- WHO, what, when, where, why
A few of you never named the robber. Why in earth wouldn't you?
I mean, the name is central to the story: WHO robbed the store. WHO was shot dead. Right?
Don't forget to include all the five W's (who, what, when, where, why) and the one H that accompanies it (how).
I mean, the name is central to the story: WHO robbed the store. WHO was shot dead. Right?
Don't forget to include all the five W's (who, what, when, where, why) and the one H that accompanies it (how).
Robbery -- Did You Say . . .
. . . it was a brand of Winston cigarettes? Or just cigarettes?
Was the particular brand necessary to the story? Or was it unimportant, other than to give the company a free ad?
Specific brands should be cited if important to the story; like if a Ford Focus crashed into a Hummer. Knowing a teeny-car brand hit a monster-tank brand makes a story more understandable, right?
But in this case, the robber could have asked for Winstons or Camels or whatever. It really wouldn't have made any difference.
It's one thing if you were writing some sort of detailed narrative, where small observations mater in setting mood and color. This wasn't one of those cases. You were just writing a plain ol' daily news story.
Unless it was inside of a quote, I would have left out the brand name.
Was the particular brand necessary to the story? Or was it unimportant, other than to give the company a free ad?
Specific brands should be cited if important to the story; like if a Ford Focus crashed into a Hummer. Knowing a teeny-car brand hit a monster-tank brand makes a story more understandable, right?
But in this case, the robber could have asked for Winstons or Camels or whatever. It really wouldn't have made any difference.
It's one thing if you were writing some sort of detailed narrative, where small observations mater in setting mood and color. This wasn't one of those cases. You were just writing a plain ol' daily news story.
Unless it was inside of a quote, I would have left out the brand name.
Robbery -- Did You Need . . .
. . . to use the clerk's full name of Michael Ernest Layoux?
It's not wrong to use middle names or middle initials, but here's a good rule of thumb: if you feel the name is so common where a middle name is needed to distinguish a person from others with a similar name, then you may want to use a middle name or initial. Like with former MSU football coach John L. Smith.
But if you feel the name is fairly unique, it's less necessary. Like with Omar Sofradzija.
BTW, you may have noticed serial killers or mass murderers or criminals of the highest profile are often referred to with a middle name included (like John Wayne Gacy, Lee Harvey Oswald, ect.). That's because with a crime so heinous, you want to go the extra mile to make sure you're identifying the right guy.
It's not wrong to use middle names or middle initials, but here's a good rule of thumb: if you feel the name is so common where a middle name is needed to distinguish a person from others with a similar name, then you may want to use a middle name or initial. Like with former MSU football coach John L. Smith.
But if you feel the name is fairly unique, it's less necessary. Like with Omar Sofradzija.
BTW, you may have noticed serial killers or mass murderers or criminals of the highest profile are often referred to with a middle name included (like John Wayne Gacy, Lee Harvey Oswald, ect.). That's because with a crime so heinous, you want to go the extra mile to make sure you're identifying the right guy.
Robbery -- Who, What, When,WHERE, Why . . .
Did you need to cite the store's street address? Isn't that a basic and helpful identifier of WHERE this happened?
Wouldn't people wonder WHERE? Whether this was near their home? Or was the store they go to?
I'm just sayin'.
Wouldn't people wonder WHERE? Whether this was near their home? Or was the store they go to?
I'm just sayin'.
Robbery -- Write With (AP) Style
Is it 11:00 p.m. or 11 p.m. or 11 pm or 11 o'clock?
It's 11 p.m., or maybe 11 o'clock. Under "times":
Use figures except for noon and midnight. Use a colon to separate hours from minutes: 11 a.m., 1 p.m., 3:30 p.m. . . . The construction 4 o'clock is acceptable, but time listings with a.m. or p.m. are preferred.
In the wake of this exercise,please be sure to review the AP Style listings for times.
It's 11 p.m., or maybe 11 o'clock. Under "times":
Use figures except for noon and midnight. Use a colon to separate hours from minutes: 11 a.m., 1 p.m., 3:30 p.m. . . . The construction 4 o'clock is acceptable, but time listings with a.m. or p.m. are preferred.
In the wake of this exercise,please be sure to review the AP Style listings for times.
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
Missing -- Ethical Dillema
I'm going to throw this one out to you: what was the ethical situation? And what did you do?
Let's talk this one through as a group. Impress me with your judgment, folks!
Let's talk this one through as a group. Impress me with your judgment, folks!
Missing -- Fatals
Sorry to see we had two more fatals. Again, they fell under the whoops-I-goofed category.
One of you identified the police sergeant as being from Lansing. In fact, it was East Lansing.
Another attributed a quote to the college professor, when that quote actually was from the cop.
Again, be sure that you carefully compare what you've written to what you have in your notes to make sure it's consistent and correct.
For those of you keeping score at home, we now have SIX people -- that's more than half this class! -- who have had at least one graded fact fatal sofar. (Plus we have a seventh person who time-fataled.)
Actually, that's not bad for this point in the semester. Combining speed and accuracy comes with making mistakes and learning from those mistakes. In four years of teaching JRN 200, I have had exactly TWO people who never fataled. And I don't know how the hell they did that.
I'd also like to point out the two latest fatals came from two people who have been performing extremely well sofar in this class. It just goes to show you fatals can happen to anyone at any time, if you fail to dot the I's and cross the T's and do your due diligence in fact-checking every time.
It's not whether you fatal in this class; odds are you will. It's whether you learn from your fatals. That's the goal.
So don't freak out. You're working on it, right?
One of you identified the police sergeant as being from Lansing. In fact, it was East Lansing.
Another attributed a quote to the college professor, when that quote actually was from the cop.
Again, be sure that you carefully compare what you've written to what you have in your notes to make sure it's consistent and correct.
For those of you keeping score at home, we now have SIX people -- that's more than half this class! -- who have had at least one graded fact fatal sofar. (Plus we have a seventh person who time-fataled.)
Actually, that's not bad for this point in the semester. Combining speed and accuracy comes with making mistakes and learning from those mistakes. In four years of teaching JRN 200, I have had exactly TWO people who never fataled. And I don't know how the hell they did that.
I'd also like to point out the two latest fatals came from two people who have been performing extremely well sofar in this class. It just goes to show you fatals can happen to anyone at any time, if you fail to dot the I's and cross the T's and do your due diligence in fact-checking every time.
It's not whether you fatal in this class; odds are you will. It's whether you learn from your fatals. That's the goal.
So don't freak out. You're working on it, right?
Missing -- Attribution
How do you know so many people went missing last year? Did you count them yourself? Did you just make it up?
No. You got that from the U.S. Justice Department, right?
Well, how are your readers supposed to know that? Through attribution, of course.
So, offer the data and then attach, according to the U.S. Justice Department.
How do you know Jason Abare was found after a drunk driving arrest to have skipped out on child support? Were you there for the arrest?
Of course not. You know because he told you. So, if you were paraphrasing Abare's situation, you needed to say, Abare said.
Pretty much everything not witnessed by you should have some sort of attribution. He said; she said; according to records; whatever.
Make sure you have properly attributed everything in your story. Basically, every paragraph after the lede and nut graf should have some sort of attribution affixed to it.
I know that's gonna look a bit weird, having graf after graf with so-and-so said this and this other dude said that and so on. But we do it as journalists to make sure that readers know exactly where we got our information. It promotes transparency and illustrates the factual basis for a story.
Over the next few days, when you're doing your daily newspaper readings please note attribution. See how frequent it is. See how writers offer it. Get a sense of how it's supposed to look in a finished product.
No. You got that from the U.S. Justice Department, right?
Well, how are your readers supposed to know that? Through attribution, of course.
So, offer the data and then attach, according to the U.S. Justice Department.
How do you know Jason Abare was found after a drunk driving arrest to have skipped out on child support? Were you there for the arrest?
Of course not. You know because he told you. So, if you were paraphrasing Abare's situation, you needed to say, Abare said.
Pretty much everything not witnessed by you should have some sort of attribution. He said; she said; according to records; whatever.
Make sure you have properly attributed everything in your story. Basically, every paragraph after the lede and nut graf should have some sort of attribution affixed to it.
I know that's gonna look a bit weird, having graf after graf with so-and-so said this and this other dude said that and so on. But we do it as journalists to make sure that readers know exactly where we got our information. It promotes transparency and illustrates the factual basis for a story.
Over the next few days, when you're doing your daily newspaper readings please note attribution. See how frequent it is. See how writers offer it. Get a sense of how it's supposed to look in a finished product.
Missing -- Uh . . .
Many of you used quotes where the interview subject stammered. Like here:
"So, uh, I met this guy who was moving to New York. He didn't want to take me, said I was too young, but I, uh, got him to change his mind."
You may find the information to be useful, but the "uh's" are awkward. You have options on how to handle this.
First, you can translate the quotes into paraphrases, like this:
She said she met a man who was moving to New York City who didn't want to take her because she was too young, but she convinced him to change his mind.
Or, you could use quote fragments to work around the "um's" like this:
She said she "met this guy who was moving to New York. He didn't want to take me, said I was too young," but she "got him to change his mind."
Having a poorly-constructed quote doesn't mean you have to use a poorly-constructed quote. Our goal is to provide clarity to the reader, and the best way to do that is via a quote so the reader can see the subject's actual words. But in lieu of that, making sure the information is clear and concise will suffice, as long as it's contextually correct and factually accurate and properly attributed.
"So, uh, I met this guy who was moving to New York. He didn't want to take me, said I was too young, but I, uh, got him to change his mind."
You may find the information to be useful, but the "uh's" are awkward. You have options on how to handle this.
First, you can translate the quotes into paraphrases, like this:
She said she met a man who was moving to New York City who didn't want to take her because she was too young, but she convinced him to change his mind.
Or, you could use quote fragments to work around the "um's" like this:
She said she "met this guy who was moving to New York. He didn't want to take me, said I was too young," but she "got him to change his mind."
Having a poorly-constructed quote doesn't mean you have to use a poorly-constructed quote. Our goal is to provide clarity to the reader, and the best way to do that is via a quote so the reader can see the subject's actual words. But in lieu of that, making sure the information is clear and concise will suffice, as long as it's contextually correct and factually accurate and properly attributed.
Missing -- Write With (AP) Style
Lots of AP Style clunkers with this assignment. Where do I begin?
On first reference, is it Sergeant Manuel Cortez, or Sgt. Manuel Cortez?
It's Sgt. I know, because I looked in AP Style, under "military titles."
On second reference, is it Sgt. Cortez, or just Cortez?
It's the latter. Under the same:
In subsequent references, do not continue using the title before a name. Use only the last name.
Also, some of you referred to Jason Abare as Jason in second references. Is that okay under AP style rules? No. This is what it says under "names":
In general, use last names only on second reference.
Some of you were all over the board in whether to write a number as a digit or a word. Here's the most basic AP guideline, in your style book under "numerals": In general "Spell out whole numbers below 10, use figures for 10 and above."
So two should be two, not 2. And 10 should be 10, not ten.
So then, is this correct to start a sentence, under AP Style rules?
Twenty-two . . .
Actually, that IS correct number use. This is under the "numerals" heading:
Spell out a numeral at the beginning of a sentence.
Now, there are situations where you have a number that would be very awkward to spell out. Like with very large numbers, like 48,384. I would suggest not using such a number at the start of a sentence. Or start such a sentence with attribution so the number conflict doesn't matter (e.g., "According to the U.S. Justice Department, 48,384 . . . ).
Some of you faced a dilemma here with whether to change 3 to 1 to three to one, if used inside of a quote. Here's the general rule of thumb:
If the quote was spoken to you in an oral interview, then it's perfectly okay to change words to adhere to AP style, since it doesn't change what was spoken. If you are quoting a document, then you need to replicate how the document actually readers, whether it conforms with AP Style or not.
In this instance, since you did not know if the quotes were spoken or written, I noted the AP style rule but did not dock you for it.
Now, when the girl was referring to "my Mom," should "mom" be lower-case or upper-case?
It's lower-case. AP Style, under "mom":
Uppercase only when the noun substitutes for a name as a term of address: Hi, Mom!
Did anyone think to look under "mom"?
Moving on, was it U.S. Justice Department or U.S. Justice Dept.? Did it depend on whether it was a first reference or a second reference? What does it say in AP Style under "department"?
I would strongly suggest you review AP Style headings under titles and numerals and names and department.
On first reference, is it Sergeant Manuel Cortez, or Sgt. Manuel Cortez?
It's Sgt. I know, because I looked in AP Style, under "military titles."
On second reference, is it Sgt. Cortez, or just Cortez?
It's the latter. Under the same:
In subsequent references, do not continue using the title before a name. Use only the last name.
Also, some of you referred to Jason Abare as Jason in second references. Is that okay under AP style rules? No. This is what it says under "names":
In general, use last names only on second reference.
Some of you were all over the board in whether to write a number as a digit or a word. Here's the most basic AP guideline, in your style book under "numerals": In general "Spell out whole numbers below 10, use figures for 10 and above."
So two should be two, not 2. And 10 should be 10, not ten.
So then, is this correct to start a sentence, under AP Style rules?
Twenty-two . . .
Actually, that IS correct number use. This is under the "numerals" heading:
Spell out a numeral at the beginning of a sentence.
Now, there are situations where you have a number that would be very awkward to spell out. Like with very large numbers, like 48,384. I would suggest not using such a number at the start of a sentence. Or start such a sentence with attribution so the number conflict doesn't matter (e.g., "According to the U.S. Justice Department, 48,384 . . . ).
Some of you faced a dilemma here with whether to change 3 to 1 to three to one, if used inside of a quote. Here's the general rule of thumb:
If the quote was spoken to you in an oral interview, then it's perfectly okay to change words to adhere to AP style, since it doesn't change what was spoken. If you are quoting a document, then you need to replicate how the document actually readers, whether it conforms with AP Style or not.
In this instance, since you did not know if the quotes were spoken or written, I noted the AP style rule but did not dock you for it.
Now, when the girl was referring to "my Mom," should "mom" be lower-case or upper-case?
It's lower-case. AP Style, under "mom":
Uppercase only when the noun substitutes for a name as a term of address: Hi, Mom!
Did anyone think to look under "mom"?
Moving on, was it U.S. Justice Department or U.S. Justice Dept.? Did it depend on whether it was a first reference or a second reference? What does it say in AP Style under "department"?
I would strongly suggest you review AP Style headings under titles and numerals and names and department.
Monday, February 14, 2011
Squirrels -- How Do You Know That?
I'm happy with your overall performance on this assignment. Lots of good ledes. Lots of good nut grafs. Lots of strong use of examples and supporting quotes.
One problem area, though, was attribution. Just about everybody failed to have an adequate level of attribution. Not uncommon for a young reporter, but something that needs to be fixed, pronto.
For example, how do you know Brookes spent $184 to get his car's wiring replaced?
Were you there when he had the wiring replaced? No.
Did you pay for the repair bill? No.
So, how do you know?
It's because he said so, right?
So, why not let readers know your sourcing? Brookes said he spent $184 to get his car's wiring replaced?
How do you know Kasparov was driving home one night when her car fritzed out? Because she said! So add "she said" as attribution.
How do you know how her mechanic found squirrels under the hood? Because she said!
Pretty much everything not witnessed by you should have some sort of attribution. He said; she said; according to records; whatever.
Make sure you have properly attributed everything in your story. Basically, every paragraph after the lede and nut graf should have some sort of attribution affixed to it.
I know that's gonna look a bit weird, having graf after graf with so-and-so said this and this other dude said that and so on. But we do it as journalists to make sure that readers know exactly where we got our information. It promotes transparency and illustrates the factual basis for a story.
Over the next few days, when you're doing your daily newspaper readings please note attribution. See how frequent it is. See how writers offer it. Get a sense of how it's supposed to look in a finished product.
One problem area, though, was attribution. Just about everybody failed to have an adequate level of attribution. Not uncommon for a young reporter, but something that needs to be fixed, pronto.
For example, how do you know Brookes spent $184 to get his car's wiring replaced?
Were you there when he had the wiring replaced? No.
Did you pay for the repair bill? No.
So, how do you know?
It's because he said so, right?
So, why not let readers know your sourcing? Brookes said he spent $184 to get his car's wiring replaced?
How do you know Kasparov was driving home one night when her car fritzed out? Because she said! So add "she said" as attribution.
How do you know how her mechanic found squirrels under the hood? Because she said!
Pretty much everything not witnessed by you should have some sort of attribution. He said; she said; according to records; whatever.
Make sure you have properly attributed everything in your story. Basically, every paragraph after the lede and nut graf should have some sort of attribution affixed to it.
I know that's gonna look a bit weird, having graf after graf with so-and-so said this and this other dude said that and so on. But we do it as journalists to make sure that readers know exactly where we got our information. It promotes transparency and illustrates the factual basis for a story.
Over the next few days, when you're doing your daily newspaper readings please note attribution. See how frequent it is. See how writers offer it. Get a sense of how it's supposed to look in a finished product.
Friday, February 11, 2011
Controversial -- Overall
Your first chance to write a graded story in its entirety ended up pretty much the way first assignments have usually ended up in my previous JRN 200 classes: people were all over the board. Some did well, some came close to doing real well, and others struggled a bit.
And that's okay. First assignments are always the toughest, because you don't have anything to compare them to.
You're not exactly sure how to lay out a story and organize facts. You've had only theoretical discussions to date.
But in journalism, we learn by doing. And then having that work critiqued, so I can highlight what you did well,and what could be improved upon, and how to do better the next time around.
The sort of mistakes I saw this time around are on par for what trips up a young journalist: your paragraphs are too big. Attribution is lacking. Fatals creep up here and there.
No one loves seeing a lot of red ink on their papers. But red ink, right now, is a good thing. It means we're finding out what we need to work on, and we're working on solutions to those issues.
So don't fret, no matter how you did on our first few assignments. We have a long way to go, and you'll have plenty of opportunities to show me your improvement in the coming weeks.
And that's okay. First assignments are always the toughest, because you don't have anything to compare them to.
You're not exactly sure how to lay out a story and organize facts. You've had only theoretical discussions to date.
But in journalism, we learn by doing. And then having that work critiqued, so I can highlight what you did well,and what could be improved upon, and how to do better the next time around.
The sort of mistakes I saw this time around are on par for what trips up a young journalist: your paragraphs are too big. Attribution is lacking. Fatals creep up here and there.
No one loves seeing a lot of red ink on their papers. But red ink, right now, is a good thing. It means we're finding out what we need to work on, and we're working on solutions to those issues.
So don't fret, no matter how you did on our first few assignments. We have a long way to go, and you'll have plenty of opportunities to show me your improvement in the coming weeks.
Controversial -- Streamlining
Don't waste words in making your point, like with this lede:
A unanimous vote by East Lansing's school board on Tuesday will implement a policy banning boys from playing on the girls' field hockey, volleyball and softball teams.
Fine lede, but I'd argue it's a bit unnecessarily wordy. I'm honing in on "implement a policy banning." Why not just replace all that with the word "ban," like this:
A unanimous vote by East Lansing's school board on Tuesday will ban boys from playing on the girls' field hockey, volleyball and softball teams.
Exact same meaning; you're just cutting through the clutter of words a bit.
In this next case, you have phrases that are somewhat outdated by the end result:
The policy proposed by East Lansing School Board members to ban boys from playing on girls sporting teams resulted in a 9-0 vote Tuesday night.
First off, "The policy proposed by" is no longer relevant. They passed the proposed policy, right? So it's no longer meaningful as a proposal; only as a done deed. So let's eliminate that and add a qualifying verb -- in this case, "agreed" -- to denote the action, like this:
East Lansing School Board members agreed to ban boys from playing on girls sporting teams resulted in a 9-0 vote Tuesday night.
Let's take this a step further. Is "resulted" necessary? Or can you eliminate that without changing meaning. I think you can. And here's what's left:
East Lansing School Board members agreed to ban boys from playing on girls sporting teams in a 9-0 vote Tuesday night.
Has the meaning changed at all? I'd say not. But it's more compact, easier to read and just as filled with relevant information. Just with fewer words.
Speaking of fewer words, I'd like to remind you to watch your use of the word "that." Quite often, a sentence can live perfectly fine on its own without a "that." If you do use "that," take it out and read your sentence aloud and ask yourself if the sentence sounds incomplete. If not, then keep "that" out.
A unanimous vote by East Lansing's school board on Tuesday will implement a policy banning boys from playing on the girls' field hockey, volleyball and softball teams.
Fine lede, but I'd argue it's a bit unnecessarily wordy. I'm honing in on "implement a policy banning." Why not just replace all that with the word "ban," like this:
A unanimous vote by East Lansing's school board on Tuesday will ban boys from playing on the girls' field hockey, volleyball and softball teams.
Exact same meaning; you're just cutting through the clutter of words a bit.
In this next case, you have phrases that are somewhat outdated by the end result:
The policy proposed by East Lansing School Board members to ban boys from playing on girls sporting teams resulted in a 9-0 vote Tuesday night.
First off, "The policy proposed by" is no longer relevant. They passed the proposed policy, right? So it's no longer meaningful as a proposal; only as a done deed. So let's eliminate that and add a qualifying verb -- in this case, "agreed" -- to denote the action, like this:
East Lansing School Board members agreed to ban boys from playing on girls sporting teams resulted in a 9-0 vote Tuesday night.
Let's take this a step further. Is "resulted" necessary? Or can you eliminate that without changing meaning. I think you can. And here's what's left:
East Lansing School Board members agreed to ban boys from playing on girls sporting teams in a 9-0 vote Tuesday night.
Has the meaning changed at all? I'd say not. But it's more compact, easier to read and just as filled with relevant information. Just with fewer words.
Speaking of fewer words, I'd like to remind you to watch your use of the word "that." Quite often, a sentence can live perfectly fine on its own without a "that." If you do use "that," take it out and read your sentence aloud and ask yourself if the sentence sounds incomplete. If not, then keep "that" out.
Controversial -- Fatals
Sorry to say two people fataled on this one. In both cases, it was the same culprit: the spelling of names.
In one case, you said Alder when you meant Adler. In another case, you said Stuart Alder when you meant Stuard Adler. In both cases, those are factually incorrect.
Some of you came close to fataling by making faulty inferences. One of you offered this lede:
Some boys at East Lansing High School will not have to re-tape their field hockey sticks or buy new shin guards in preparation for this upcoming season -- that is, unless they plan on trying out for the boys' squad.
Problem is, there is no boys' squad. That's why they were playing on the girls' squad. You would have been more accurate to say "unless they plan on creating a boys' squad" or something to that effect.
In another case, poor word order came close to creating a misleading fatal. Here it is:
The policy was implemented last year after four boys made the girls' field hockey team.
What you meant to say was, the policy was implemented after four boys last year made the girls' field hockey team.
But that's not what you wrote. What kept me from making this a fatal was that your previous graf was clear that the decision was made Tuesday night, and not last year. Nonetheless, the subsequent "last year" is at best confusing to the reader and at worst a fatal.
In one case, you said Alder when you meant Adler. In another case, you said Stuart Alder when you meant Stuard Adler. In both cases, those are factually incorrect.
Some of you came close to fataling by making faulty inferences. One of you offered this lede:
Some boys at East Lansing High School will not have to re-tape their field hockey sticks or buy new shin guards in preparation for this upcoming season -- that is, unless they plan on trying out for the boys' squad.
Problem is, there is no boys' squad. That's why they were playing on the girls' squad. You would have been more accurate to say "unless they plan on creating a boys' squad" or something to that effect.
In another case, poor word order came close to creating a misleading fatal. Here it is:
The policy was implemented last year after four boys made the girls' field hockey team.
What you meant to say was, the policy was implemented after four boys last year made the girls' field hockey team.
But that's not what you wrote. What kept me from making this a fatal was that your previous graf was clear that the decision was made Tuesday night, and not last year. Nonetheless, the subsequent "last year" is at best confusing to the reader and at worst a fatal.
Controversial -- Grafs Are TOO Big!
In traditional English composition, you learn to just write and write and write, with no regard to how big a paragraph can get.
That is NOT how we write in journalism.
In journalism, grafs are much more bite-sized. And there's a reason for that. Each graf should contain just ONE central point, or ONE supporting fact. It should be easy for a reader to be able to break down the informational subsets you offer, and it should be easy for an editor to be able to skim through your story and identify each idea and piece of evidence broken out into its own paragraph.
In general, that means you should often end up with most paragraphs being no longer than two sentences, and quite often just one sentence long.
Let's look at this:
Now, key points stand out: what happened (in the first lede graf), the details of how it's being implemented (in the second nut graf) and an explanation of why it's needed in the first place (the third graf). Now do you see what I mean by separating units of thoughts and main points?
Same thing with the relationship between a point and supporting information, like here:
Again, do you see how it clearly differentiates between one unit of information (the point being made via paraphrase) and the supporting evidence for the unit (the quote)?
You may notice in your returned work that I may have peppered your paper with what appears to be a red-ink capital L. That's the copyediting symbol for where you should have ideally started a new paragraph.
That is NOT how we write in journalism.
In journalism, grafs are much more bite-sized. And there's a reason for that. Each graf should contain just ONE central point, or ONE supporting fact. It should be easy for a reader to be able to break down the informational subsets you offer, and it should be easy for an editor to be able to skim through your story and identify each idea and piece of evidence broken out into its own paragraph.
In general, that means you should often end up with most paragraphs being no longer than two sentences, and quite often just one sentence long.
Let's look at this:
In a 9-0 vote Tuesday evening, the local school board unanimously decided to ban boys from playing on girls’ sports teams in the district. Effective immediately, boys will be banned from playing on the girls’ field hockey, softball, and volleyball teams. Although the new policy is largely unpopular with many students and parents, the school board stands by its decision, citing the size, speed, and power of male athletes and its potential hazards to female players.
That's just too much, and too long. All the information is mushed in together. It's hard to differentiate key points. But to make the story cleaner and easier to read, all you had to do was hit the "return" key a couple of times, like this:
In a 9-0 vote Tuesday evening, the local school board unanimously decided to ban boys from playing on girls’ sports teams in the district.
Effective immediately, boys will be banned from playing on the girls’ field hockey, softball, and volleyball teams.
Although the new policy is largely unpopular with many students and parents, the school board stands by its decision, citing the size, speed, and power of male athletes and its potential hazards to female players.
Now, key points stand out: what happened (in the first lede graf), the details of how it's being implemented (in the second nut graf) and an explanation of why it's needed in the first place (the third graf). Now do you see what I mean by separating units of thoughts and main points?
Same thing with the relationship between a point and supporting information, like here:
High school Athletic Director Hugh Baker worried that the new ruling will force teams, like the girls field hockey team, to forfeit because of other teams in the league that have boys on them. “Our girls field hockey team would have had to forfeit at least ten of their 18 games last season because we played other schools that had boys on their teams,” Baker said.
Once again, you can divide the point being made in the paraphrase, and the evidence via the quote, like this:
High school Athletic Director Hugh Baker worried that the new ruling will force teams, like the girls field hockey team, to forfeit because of other teams in the league that have boys on them.
“Our girls field hockey team would have had to forfeit at least ten of their 18 games last season because we played other schools that had boys on their teams,” Baker said.
Again, do you see how it clearly differentiates between one unit of information (the point being made via paraphrase) and the supporting evidence for the unit (the quote)?
You may notice in your returned work that I may have peppered your paper with what appears to be a red-ink capital L. That's the copyediting symbol for where you should have ideally started a new paragraph.
Controversial -- Attribute!
How do you know that East Lansing High may have to forfeit games next year to avoid playing mixed-gender teams? Did you simply make that up? Did you decide that yourself?
Of course not. You know that because East Lansing Athletic Difrector Hugh Baker said that.
So, it's not enough to offer a graf saying this:
East Lansing High may have to forfeit games next year to avoid playing mixed-gender teams.
You'd need to say something like this, if first referring to Baker:
East Lansing High may have to forfeit games next year to avoid playing mixed-gender teams, school athletic director Hugh Baker said.
Or this, if it's a secondary reference to Baker:
East Lansing High may have to forfeit games next year to avoid playing mixed-gender teams, Baker said.
Don't leave readers wondering where you got your information. Offer attribution! Make sure that every graf after the lede has some form of adequate attribution.
Of course not. You know that because East Lansing Athletic Difrector Hugh Baker said that.
So, it's not enough to offer a graf saying this:
East Lansing High may have to forfeit games next year to avoid playing mixed-gender teams.
You'd need to say something like this, if first referring to Baker:
East Lansing High may have to forfeit games next year to avoid playing mixed-gender teams, school athletic director Hugh Baker said.
Or this, if it's a secondary reference to Baker:
East Lansing High may have to forfeit games next year to avoid playing mixed-gender teams, Baker said.
Don't leave readers wondering where you got your information. Offer attribution! Make sure that every graf after the lede has some form of adequate attribution.
Thursday, February 10, 2011
Test Ledes -- A Wrap-Up
Happy to see many of you aced your test ledes exercise. Lots of grades of 3.5 or above. Everybody showed the ability to correctly identify and summarize the central points of your stories. Congrats!
The problem that arose here and there came with fatals. Gulp.
Two people fataled parts of the test. Now, the way I graded this assignment minimized the impact of those fatals, as I graded each item separately and then computed a final grade based on the average score. So the fatal only impacted one-third of your grade. It'll leave a bruise, but it won't kill you, grade-wise.
But I need to warn you, most future assignments will receive just a single grade. So ANY fatal can drop your grade on that kind of assignment to zero. Let's avoid that, okay?
And in the spirit of learning lessons from our errors, let's look at the fatals.
One was yet another case of the incorrect word being spelled correctly. In this case, it was "the contagious decease" when you meant to say "contagious disease." Since "decease" is spelled correctly but changes the meaning of the statement, this is a fatal. We've seen this before. It's a very common way of fataling.
Still, it needs to stop. That starts with not simply relying on spell check. That starts with making sure that you read your story line-by-line after you finish writing and before you turn it in, to make sure what you wrote was what you actually intended to write.
The other fatal sank what was otherwise a great lede and nut graf. Let's look at it:
Are no fewer than 12 injuries in the past 20 years enough to end a 100-year tradition? In East Lansing, the answer is yes.
Today, East Lansing Fire Chief Tom Izzo said the city plans to eliminate the "bad" tradition of sliding down a pole . . .
Okay, let's stop there. You put quotes around "bad." Do we put quotes around things that people didn't utter? No, we don't. In general, quotes only go around words that were literally uttered by someone.
Now, I may have let this go if it was clear that the quote marks were intended as a writing device and were not for attribution. But look at the placement. It's in the same sentence as "Izzo said" and therefore can be assumed by the reader to have been uttered by Izzo, Which it was not.
Sorry, folks, but that's a fatal.
I know this can be frustrating. But don't get frustrated. Again, learn from this, apply what you have learned going forward, and make this an issue of yours at the start of your journalism career. That's something many of the folks who preceded you -- myself included -- can relate to, but that we also worked out of our systems through the constant adherence to double-checking work.
The problem that arose here and there came with fatals. Gulp.
Two people fataled parts of the test. Now, the way I graded this assignment minimized the impact of those fatals, as I graded each item separately and then computed a final grade based on the average score. So the fatal only impacted one-third of your grade. It'll leave a bruise, but it won't kill you, grade-wise.
But I need to warn you, most future assignments will receive just a single grade. So ANY fatal can drop your grade on that kind of assignment to zero. Let's avoid that, okay?
And in the spirit of learning lessons from our errors, let's look at the fatals.
One was yet another case of the incorrect word being spelled correctly. In this case, it was "the contagious decease" when you meant to say "contagious disease." Since "decease" is spelled correctly but changes the meaning of the statement, this is a fatal. We've seen this before. It's a very common way of fataling.
Still, it needs to stop. That starts with not simply relying on spell check. That starts with making sure that you read your story line-by-line after you finish writing and before you turn it in, to make sure what you wrote was what you actually intended to write.
The other fatal sank what was otherwise a great lede and nut graf. Let's look at it:
Are no fewer than 12 injuries in the past 20 years enough to end a 100-year tradition? In East Lansing, the answer is yes.
Today, East Lansing Fire Chief Tom Izzo said the city plans to eliminate the "bad" tradition of sliding down a pole . . .
Okay, let's stop there. You put quotes around "bad." Do we put quotes around things that people didn't utter? No, we don't. In general, quotes only go around words that were literally uttered by someone.
Now, I may have let this go if it was clear that the quote marks were intended as a writing device and were not for attribution. But look at the placement. It's in the same sentence as "Izzo said" and therefore can be assumed by the reader to have been uttered by Izzo, Which it was not.
Sorry, folks, but that's a fatal.
I know this can be frustrating. But don't get frustrated. Again, learn from this, apply what you have learned going forward, and make this an issue of yours at the start of your journalism career. That's something many of the folks who preceded you -- myself included -- can relate to, but that we also worked out of our systems through the constant adherence to double-checking work.
JRN 200 -- What Does My Grade Mean?
From the syllabus, here's a roundup of what the funny numbers atop your returned work means:
4.0: Story could be published virtually as is. It shows superior command of the facts, news judgment, story organization, reporting and writing.
3.5: Could be published with very minor revisions. Generally well-written, accurate copy containing all relevant material, but requires minor editing for maximum precision and clarity.
3.0: Better-than-average story. The story was handled well. Copy needs some rewriting and polishing before it could be published.
2.5: A little above average. The story might have a significant problem with reporting, organization, completeness, ect. Certainly needs rewriting.
2.0: Average job. Not a story most readers would read unless they really needed the information. The story may have reporting, organization or writing problems.
1.5: A weak story. The story may have a buried lede, problems in news interpretation, problems in story organization, omission of some important fact or source. The story needs substantial revision.
1.0: A non-story. The story lacks news judgment, displays major flaws in reporting and writing, omits important facts. The story needs substantial rethinking.
0.0: Story is late or failed to receive instructor's approval. Story is misleading or unethical. Organization of writing flaws make the story incoherent.
4.0: Story could be published virtually as is. It shows superior command of the facts, news judgment, story organization, reporting and writing.
3.5: Could be published with very minor revisions. Generally well-written, accurate copy containing all relevant material, but requires minor editing for maximum precision and clarity.
3.0: Better-than-average story. The story was handled well. Copy needs some rewriting and polishing before it could be published.
2.5: A little above average. The story might have a significant problem with reporting, organization, completeness, ect. Certainly needs rewriting.
2.0: Average job. Not a story most readers would read unless they really needed the information. The story may have reporting, organization or writing problems.
1.5: A weak story. The story may have a buried lede, problems in news interpretation, problems in story organization, omission of some important fact or source. The story needs substantial revision.
1.0: A non-story. The story lacks news judgment, displays major flaws in reporting and writing, omits important facts. The story needs substantial rethinking.
0.0: Story is late or failed to receive instructor's approval. Story is misleading or unethical. Organization of writing flaws make the story incoherent.
Tuesday, February 8, 2011
Alt Ledes -- Ledes I Liked
A bunch of good ledes in this last exercise. Lots of good grades! Some were basic ledes and some were delayed ledes and some played on words and some sought to humanize the moment. All sorts of different styles were on display, and all were good!
Let's look at a few, and you tell me why these worked so well. Of if you think they could be improved upon, please do share:
After being knocked aside by a store thief trying to escape, Ethel Perakiss watched as the man took off with her truck and 6-month-old daughter who was still inside.
. . . and . . .
What would cause a carjacker to flee and leave a stolen vehicle unlocked and running with the air conditioner on? Discovering a six-month-old baby in the back seat might do the trick.
. . . and . . .
A six-month-old girl was unharmed after the SUV she was in was stolen by an armed robber who had just held up a Quik Shoppe convenience store.
. . . and . . .
A robber ran away with more than he bargained for.
. . . and . . .
A group of scientists have proposed an idea to relocate some African wildlife to the American West in an attempt to increase their population, despite criticism from ranchers and other scientists.
. . . and . . .
In an effort to increase populations of animal species facing extinction, Michigan State ecologists and biologists suggest introducing some African wildlife species to the Great Plains of North America.
Whaddya think?
Let's look at a few, and you tell me why these worked so well. Of if you think they could be improved upon, please do share:
After being knocked aside by a store thief trying to escape, Ethel Perakiss watched as the man took off with her truck and 6-month-old daughter who was still inside.
. . . and . . .
What would cause a carjacker to flee and leave a stolen vehicle unlocked and running with the air conditioner on? Discovering a six-month-old baby in the back seat might do the trick.
. . . and . . .
A six-month-old girl was unharmed after the SUV she was in was stolen by an armed robber who had just held up a Quik Shoppe convenience store.
. . . and . . .
A robber ran away with more than he bargained for.
. . . and . . .
A group of scientists have proposed an idea to relocate some African wildlife to the American West in an attempt to increase their population, despite criticism from ranchers and other scientists.
. . . and . . .
In an effort to increase populations of animal species facing extinction, Michigan State ecologists and biologists suggest introducing some African wildlife species to the Great Plains of North America.
Whaddya think?
Alt Ledes -- Fatals Suck
So let'slearn from them so we don't repeat these mistakes.
Like in this lede:
A late-night robbery at the Michigan Avenue Quik Shoppe convenience store went from bad to worse when the robber carjacked a vehicle with a six-month-old passenger in the backseat.
Now, this is a great lede. Colorful, contextual, all that. But it's also wrong. The carjacking was at 2 p.m. That's hardly late at night. It's not even late afternoon yet!
Here's another fatal:
Ethel Perakiss may decide to lock her car doors on her next trip to the convenience store after her six-month-year daughter was left in the lands of a carjacker for 40 minutes, but eventually was found safe by police.
You mean to say six-month-old. What you said was six-month-year. Please make sure you're giving yourself enough time to find any goofs in your copy. They do happen, in the same way you forget where you put your keys and brain-fart a homework assignment sometimes.
What separates journalists from other writers is that we try to incorporate fact-checking into the process to minimize those instances.
Like in this lede:
A late-night robbery at the Michigan Avenue Quik Shoppe convenience store went from bad to worse when the robber carjacked a vehicle with a six-month-old passenger in the backseat.
Now, this is a great lede. Colorful, contextual, all that. But it's also wrong. The carjacking was at 2 p.m. That's hardly late at night. It's not even late afternoon yet!
Here's another fatal:
Ethel Perakiss may decide to lock her car doors on her next trip to the convenience store after her six-month-year daughter was left in the lands of a carjacker for 40 minutes, but eventually was found safe by police.
You mean to say six-month-old. What you said was six-month-year. Please make sure you're giving yourself enough time to find any goofs in your copy. They do happen, in the same way you forget where you put your keys and brain-fart a homework assignment sometimes.
What separates journalists from other writers is that we try to incorporate fact-checking into the process to minimize those instances.
Alt Ledes -- Be Efficient With Word Use
Like in a section of one lede:
. . . scientists from Michigan State University developed an idea that would bring these animals . . .
that's kinda run-on-ish. Why not replace something like, "developed an idea that would bring" with something more compact that says the same thing, like "propose bringing" or something like that?
But here you DID take one opportunity to shorten things, by referring to "ecologists and biologists" simply as "scientists." After all, both ecologists and biologists ARE scientists, right?
. . . scientists from Michigan State University developed an idea that would bring these animals . . .
that's kinda run-on-ish. Why not replace something like, "developed an idea that would bring" with something more compact that says the same thing, like "propose bringing" or something like that?
But here you DID take one opportunity to shorten things, by referring to "ecologists and biologists" simply as "scientists." After all, both ecologists and biologists ARE scientists, right?
Alt Ledes -- Write With (AP) Style
Is it a store on Michigan Ave. or Michigan Avenue?
It's the latter. How do I know this? In AP Style under "addresses" . . .
Use the abbreviations Ave., Blvd. and St. only with a numbered address: 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. Spell them out and capitalize when part of a formal street name without a number: Pennsylvania Avenue.
Don't forget your AP Style, folks!
It's the latter. How do I know this? In AP Style under "addresses" . . .
Use the abbreviations Ave., Blvd. and St. only with a numbered address: 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. Spell them out and capitalize when part of a formal street name without a number: Pennsylvania Avenue.
Don't forget your AP Style, folks!
Alt Ledes -- Spell Check Won't Save You!
One of you referred to the robbed convenience store as a "convenient" store. Another said it was a "convince" store.
In another instance, someone noted a "critique" from ranchers and scientists. Did you mean criticism?
Again, spell check will not catch instances where you correctly spell an incorrect word.
In another instance, someone noted a "critique" from ranchers and scientists. Did you mean criticism?
Again, spell check will not catch instances where you correctly spell an incorrect word.
Alt Ledes -- Say What You Mean . . .
. . . and mean what you say. Let's look at this delayed lede:
Animals seen in Disney's "The Lion King" may no longer call Africa their only home.
Now, I don't have a problem with what you are alluding to. I have concern with what you literally say here, which is "The Lion King" animals are moving here. But that's not what you meant -- what you meant was animals like those seen in "The Lion King" may be on teh move, right?
So, the best lede would be; Animals like those seen in . . .
Say what you mean,and mean what you say.
Animals seen in Disney's "The Lion King" may no longer call Africa their only home.
Now, I don't have a problem with what you are alluding to. I have concern with what you literally say here, which is "The Lion King" animals are moving here. But that's not what you meant -- what you meant was animals like those seen in "The Lion King" may be on teh move, right?
So, the best lede would be; Animals like those seen in . . .
Say what you mean,and mean what you say.
Attribution Quiz -- Paraphrases vs. Quotes
Many of you stumbled on this example:
"People think we make $3 million or $5 million a year." They don't realize most athletes make only $500,000, the ballplayer said.
What some of you did was change the second part of that statement into a quote. But it was not a quote. It was a paraphrase. Turning it into a quote was inaccurate. What you should have done was package a quote and paraphrase together, along something like these lines:
"People think we make $3 million or $5 million a year" and don't realize most athletes make only $500,000, the ballplayer said.
Be sure not to confuse quotes with paraphrases.
One of you did a bigger no-no: you changed a quote! DO NOT change the literal words within a quote, meaning anything that can change the meaning of a quote. For example, you can't change "gotta" to "got to," because it changes what was literally said.
Quotes are the literal truth within our stories, and you can't change the truth. But you can change paraphrases, as long as it is still contextually correct.
"People think we make $3 million or $5 million a year." They don't realize most athletes make only $500,000, the ballplayer said.
What some of you did was change the second part of that statement into a quote. But it was not a quote. It was a paraphrase. Turning it into a quote was inaccurate. What you should have done was package a quote and paraphrase together, along something like these lines:
"People think we make $3 million or $5 million a year" and don't realize most athletes make only $500,000, the ballplayer said.
Be sure not to confuse quotes with paraphrases.
One of you did a bigger no-no: you changed a quote! DO NOT change the literal words within a quote, meaning anything that can change the meaning of a quote. For example, you can't change "gotta" to "got to," because it changes what was literally said.
Quotes are the literal truth within our stories, and you can't change the truth. But you can change paraphrases, as long as it is still contextually correct.
Attribution Quiz -- It's "said!"
It's not "he claimed." It's "he said."
It's not "she responded." It's "she said."
It's not "she continued." It's "she said."
'Nuff said on that.
Plus, the attribution is better at the start of end of a quote, and not in the middle of a quote unless separating two sentences. So instead of doing this:
"Only through self-discipline," he said, "can you achieve freedom."
. . . you are better off doing this:
"Only through self-discipline can you achieve freedom," he said.
It's not "she responded." It's "she said."
It's not "she continued." It's "she said."
'Nuff said on that.
Plus, the attribution is better at the start of end of a quote, and not in the middle of a quote unless separating two sentences. So instead of doing this:
"Only through self-discipline," he said, "can you achieve freedom."
. . . you are better off doing this:
"Only through self-discipline can you achieve freedom," he said.
Friday, February 4, 2011
More Ledes -- An Overview
I'm happy to tell you that this week's exercises were all ungraded drills, where I'd try to identify what you were good at and what needed improvement before I started grading you in a meaningful manner.
I'm happy because many of you fell into a common trap for young journalists,and that's committing too many fatals.
The reason for fatals appear to be all over the broad, and we'll take a look at why those fatals happened in some of the subsequent blog posts. But an overall theme seems to be an inattention to detail. Simply put, you have to do a better job of making sure what you have is correct after you finish writing and before you turn in your assignment.
Now would be a good time to alert you to this rule: once you turn in a deadline assignment to me, I won't accept a revised copy. After you turn something in is not the time to catch an error; it's before you turn something in. Make sure that you make fact-checking a priority.
Also, I had someone miss deadline on one of these assignments. If the assignment were to be graded, the grade would be zero. But even if you miss a deadline, I ask that you still turn in your work. I will critique and return your work, regardless of grade, so at least you get the knowledge and lessons from having done the assignment, even if you don't get a recordable grade.
Finally, these were our final ungraded exercises of the semester. From here on out, it's for real.
But as long as you keep learning via the blog and class discussions from what you and your peers have done, then you'll take able to take full advantage of the grading opportunities. It won't be a scary thing; it'll be a chance to show off how much you're learning.
I'm happy because many of you fell into a common trap for young journalists,and that's committing too many fatals.
The reason for fatals appear to be all over the broad, and we'll take a look at why those fatals happened in some of the subsequent blog posts. But an overall theme seems to be an inattention to detail. Simply put, you have to do a better job of making sure what you have is correct after you finish writing and before you turn in your assignment.
Now would be a good time to alert you to this rule: once you turn in a deadline assignment to me, I won't accept a revised copy. After you turn something in is not the time to catch an error; it's before you turn something in. Make sure that you make fact-checking a priority.
Also, I had someone miss deadline on one of these assignments. If the assignment were to be graded, the grade would be zero. But even if you miss a deadline, I ask that you still turn in your work. I will critique and return your work, regardless of grade, so at least you get the knowledge and lessons from having done the assignment, even if you don't get a recordable grade.
Finally, these were our final ungraded exercises of the semester. From here on out, it's for real.
But as long as you keep learning via the blog and class discussions from what you and your peers have done, then you'll take able to take full advantage of the grading opportunities. It won't be a scary thing; it'll be a chance to show off how much you're learning.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)