From these hyperlinks, you can download both Journalism 2.0 (in either the English, Spanish or Portuguese versions; whatever ya want. Knock yerself out) and the Reporters Guide to Multimedia Proficiency.
Please download BOTH free texts and read each in its entirety (close to 200 pages total) before we next meet on Wednesday, Nov. 2. And thanks!
Tuesday, October 25, 2011
Rescue: Why Did So Few Of You ...
. . . make any mention that the city's zoning board was to be notified about the site's hazard to children, as indicated at the end of the report?
Isn't that an important detail relating to where the story may go from here, and detailing consequence for what happened?
Also, some of you referred to the site owner generically, but you never named the company directly. Why is that? Isn't that specific and useful information? Wouldn't readers want to know who owns the land, in the same way they want to know who died? Isn't who one of the five W's every story should have?
Finally, if this was a real story you were doing for a real news organization, what would have been some additional steps in reporting this story? Let's get some good answers.
Isn't that an important detail relating to where the story may go from here, and detailing consequence for what happened?
Also, some of you referred to the site owner generically, but you never named the company directly. Why is that? Isn't that specific and useful information? Wouldn't readers want to know who owns the land, in the same way they want to know who died? Isn't who one of the five W's every story should have?
Finally, if this was a real story you were doing for a real news organization, what would have been some additional steps in reporting this story? Let's get some good answers.
Rescue: Five W's
Quite a few of you never said what time the collapse took place. Even more of you never said when the boy was pulled out of the tunnel, and at what time the boy died.
Time often matters as one of the five W's. But in this case, it's especially important to the telling of the story.
Time tells you how difficult it would have been for the boy to be okay after being buried for so long. Time tells you how difficult it was to dig out the boy, in that it took so long.
In this case, specific times are important bits of data that help show teh reader what happened, and not just leave them being told by you.
You say it was a difficult rescue. The times help readers see that.
In every story you write, try to determine which data sets help explain the story and show readers what they need to see in terms of evidence supporting your overall angle.
Time often matters as one of the five W's. But in this case, it's especially important to the telling of the story.
Time tells you how difficult it would have been for the boy to be okay after being buried for so long. Time tells you how difficult it was to dig out the boy, in that it took so long.
In this case, specific times are important bits of data that help show teh reader what happened, and not just leave them being told by you.
You say it was a difficult rescue. The times help readers see that.
In every story you write, try to determine which data sets help explain the story and show readers what they need to see in terms of evidence supporting your overall angle.
Rescue: Was It ...
. . . a fort the kids were building? You know, with gates and turrets and moats and solid stone walls and stuff?
Or a tunnel that was a kind of play-fort?
It's the former, right?
So, why call it a just fort when it was really a tunnel?
It's not wrong that you refer to the fort in some way; just make sure the context is correct. One of you found a great way to say it: the boys were digging a tunnel to create a play fort.
Or a tunnel that was a kind of play-fort?
It's the former, right?
So, why call it a just fort when it was really a tunnel?
It's not wrong that you refer to the fort in some way; just make sure the context is correct. One of you found a great way to say it: the boys were digging a tunnel to create a play fort.
Rescue: Fatals
It doesn't take a lot to fatal, so be careful with your facts.
Like what time something took place. One of you said the collapse happened just shy of 6 p.m. In fact, the collapse happened at 4:40 p.m.
You would have been correct to say the collapse happened just shy of five p.m., or at 4:40 p.m. But 6 p.m. is not 4:40 p.m., and 4:40 p.m. is not just shy of 6 p.m.
But it is a fatal.
The day something happened is important, too. One of you said the incident happened today. But under date of incident, it clearly said yesterday.
So that's a fatal, too.
Finally, someone said a pond collapsed. In fact, it was a tunnel that was near a pond.
You know what that means.
Updating the fatal tally, as of now 17 of 21 students are card-carrying members of Omar's Fatals Club. Only four of you to go.
Like what time something took place. One of you said the collapse happened just shy of 6 p.m. In fact, the collapse happened at 4:40 p.m.
You would have been correct to say the collapse happened just shy of five p.m., or at 4:40 p.m. But 6 p.m. is not 4:40 p.m., and 4:40 p.m. is not just shy of 6 p.m.
But it is a fatal.
The day something happened is important, too. One of you said the incident happened today. But under date of incident, it clearly said yesterday.
So that's a fatal, too.
Finally, someone said a pond collapsed. In fact, it was a tunnel that was near a pond.
You know what that means.
Updating the fatal tally, as of now 17 of 21 students are card-carrying members of Omar's Fatals Club. Only four of you to go.
Monday, October 24, 2011
Police: Fatals
It doesn't take a lot to fatal, so you have to watch the details.
Like whether Terry DaRoza is a he or a she. In three places in the sheriff's report narrative DaRoza is described as "he." And that's a fatal.
Another point is the time. One of you said police were called at 1:20 a.m. In fact, it was 1:22 a.m.
Now, you'd be right to say police were called around 1:20 a.m., or at 1:22 a.m. But 1:20 a.m. is not 1:22 a.m.
But it is a fatal.
Like whether Terry DaRoza is a he or a she. In three places in the sheriff's report narrative DaRoza is described as "he." And that's a fatal.
Another point is the time. One of you said police were called at 1:20 a.m. In fact, it was 1:22 a.m.
Now, you'd be right to say police were called around 1:20 a.m., or at 1:22 a.m. But 1:20 a.m. is not 1:22 a.m.
But it is a fatal.
Police: Ledes That Are Good/Gooder/Goodest
This was a lede that hit the essentials just right:
An Okemos man was charged with armed robbery and resisting a merchant after a failed attempt on a Jiffy Foods early this morning.
While it includes everything that happened this morning, it left out something that was happening right now: that a suspect was still on the loose. Was that necessary in the lede? Maybe not. But this next lede weaved in that angle:
A local man has been arrested and another suspect is still on the loose following an alleged attempted armed robbery earlier today.
Still, I feel like there's something missing. Think Peanut Barrel. What makes this story unique? That somebody tried to rob a store? Or that the robber was beaten back by a dude in a cast? This next lede gets to the latter:
Despite having injuries from a previous accident, a Jiffy Foods clerk was able to single-handedly fend off two armed robbers in an attempted robbery that took place early this morning.
Now it's your turn. Which lede works the best, and why?
An Okemos man was charged with armed robbery and resisting a merchant after a failed attempt on a Jiffy Foods early this morning.
While it includes everything that happened this morning, it left out something that was happening right now: that a suspect was still on the loose. Was that necessary in the lede? Maybe not. But this next lede weaved in that angle:
A local man has been arrested and another suspect is still on the loose following an alleged attempted armed robbery earlier today.
Still, I feel like there's something missing. Think Peanut Barrel. What makes this story unique? That somebody tried to rob a store? Or that the robber was beaten back by a dude in a cast? This next lede gets to the latter:
Despite having injuries from a previous accident, a Jiffy Foods clerk was able to single-handedly fend off two armed robbers in an attempted robbery that took place early this morning.
Now it's your turn. Which lede works the best, and why?
Police: Peanut Barrel
I'm kind of surprised that none of you cited something that to me stood out like a sore thumb: the fact that the cane-wielding victim was almost 6 1/2 feet tall, while the would-be alleged robber he beat was not much over five feet tall and weighed less than half as much as the victim.
Isn't that a Peanut Barrel-type of item? Isn't that sharp contrast in size what takes an out-of-the-ordinary robbery story (unusual in that the victim beat off the attacker) and make it even more unique?
I'm not shocked that many of you didn't weave it into your ledes, because to do that is doable but a bit complex. I'm just surprised none of you noted that bit of interest.
Any explanations?
As journalists, it's important that even when we are looking at what we think is a routine event, that we are always on the lookout for something that makes it a bit different and a bit more interesting. Even if that bit of interest is buried in the nuances of a police report.
Isn't that a Peanut Barrel-type of item? Isn't that sharp contrast in size what takes an out-of-the-ordinary robbery story (unusual in that the victim beat off the attacker) and make it even more unique?
I'm not shocked that many of you didn't weave it into your ledes, because to do that is doable but a bit complex. I'm just surprised none of you noted that bit of interest.
Any explanations?
As journalists, it's important that even when we are looking at what we think is a routine event, that we are always on the lookout for something that makes it a bit different and a bit more interesting. Even if that bit of interest is buried in the nuances of a police report.
Police: Many Of You ...
. . . didn't list an exact address for Jiffy Foods.
You should have. It's news WHERE something happens, right?
Who, what, when, where, why, how.
You should have. It's news WHERE something happens, right?
Who, what, when, where, why, how.
Police: Allegedly
Some more problems with when to use allegedly.
It's not alleged that Keel entered the store. He has a face full of broken bones proving he was there. And it's not a crime to get your ass kicked (though it may be a crime to do the ass-kicking).
What is alleged is whether he pulled a knife, and tried to commit a crime.
So, where does allegedly fit in here?
DaRoza walked behind the counter for the key to the restroom when Keel followed him and exposed a knife.
Before "exposed a knife," right?
It's not alleged that Keel entered the store. He has a face full of broken bones proving he was there. And it's not a crime to get your ass kicked (though it may be a crime to do the ass-kicking).
What is alleged is whether he pulled a knife, and tried to commit a crime.
So, where does allegedly fit in here?
DaRoza walked behind the counter for the key to the restroom when Keel followed him and exposed a knife.
Before "exposed a knife," right?
JRN 200: Multimedia Downloads Are Here!
From these hyperlinks, you can download both Journalism 2.0 (in either the English, Spanish or Portuguese versions; whatever ya want. Knock yerself out) and the Reporters Guide to Multimedia Proficiency.
Please download BOTH free texts and read each in its entirety (close to 200 pages total) before we next meet on Wednesday, Nov. 2. And thanks!
Please download BOTH free texts and read each in its entirety (close to 200 pages total) before we next meet on Wednesday, Nov. 2. And thanks!
Thursday, October 20, 2011
JRN 200: Did You Know ...
... after this week, we'll only have three more written practice stories to go?
That doesn't mean work is wrapping up. It just means writing will shift to what you do with your out-of-class stories, and in-class we'll be dipping into multimedia and social media journalism skills soon.
I think it'll be a fun change of pace from the grind of writing drills. That also means you should soon get free accounts set up at twitter.com, blogger.com and youtube.com. And if you have a Flip or similar video camera, keep it near 'cuz you'll need it soon.
Details pending.
That doesn't mean work is wrapping up. It just means writing will shift to what you do with your out-of-class stories, and in-class we'll be dipping into multimedia and social media journalism skills soon.
I think it'll be a fun change of pace from the grind of writing drills. That also means you should soon get free accounts set up at twitter.com, blogger.com and youtube.com. And if you have a Flip or similar video camera, keep it near 'cuz you'll need it soon.
Details pending.
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.
And on this point, this is where we did a bit worse than previous semesters when virtually no one did that. Here, three of you DID name the victim by name.
Earlier in this semester, we discussed when and when not to name victims in stories. In most cases we DO name victims, but a notable exception in American journalism regarded the names of rape victims.
In general, the current rule of thumb is that in weighing the benefit to society in knowing who exactly was victimized versus the harm that would come in terms of stigma to the victim, we do not name rape victims expect in rare circumstances, like a victim wanting to intentionally put a name and face to a victim to promote greater societal understanding, or a rape victim whose alleged attacker wasn't convicted in criminal court but who is facing a lawsuit for money in civil court.
This wasn't one of those times.
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.
Three 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, one of you listed the exact home address where the crime took place. Only one family lives in a home, right? Again, you took a huge step in 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.
A couple 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.
Now, what about the suspect's name? I think only under the rarest of cases would you not name the suspect. He's central to the story. As a society we need to know who among us is considered dangerous, and who among us is being locked up like a zoo animal by our authorities.
The only time in my whole journalism career when I didn't name a suspect was in a case around 1992 -- really early in my professional career -- where I was covering the trial of a teen accused of raping his own mother.
My editors went back-and-forth on how to handle it before deciding they wouldn't name the victim or the suspect, because naming the latter would identify the former. And there was a big ol' editor's note added ahead of my lede to explain their reasoning.
So exceptions are rare. Either the circumstances are amazingly twisted and unique or the suspects are juveniles and a particular media organization has rules about naming kids.
Again, this ain't one of 'em.
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 only about half of you noted the link.
Note I say Caspinwall was a neighbor, not her direct neighbor. A neighbor -- or even better, a nearby neighbor -- could be somebody next door or down the street, right? So using neighbor in the generic doesn't necessarily narrow the possible victim pool to a single house or two.
Next, is the suspect's home address needed? I think some identification of where he lives is noteworthy. Wouldn't readers really want to know if an alleged rapist and home invader lived by them? Wouldn't you?
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. A couple of you did do something along those lines.
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.
And in all fairness to you, how you handled these circumstances were a smaller-than-usual part of your assignment grade here. I gave you a break because I didn't want you to suffer a penalty on this one, but I did want you to have to think about it before we discussed it now.
Finally, this is how I would have handled it: I WOULD NOT 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.
This is the sort of stuff you'll have to think about all the time in deciding what is teh best way to tell your story.
First, you should have been operating under the general journalistic premise that we do NOT name rape victims in almost all cases.
And on this point, this is where we did a bit worse than previous semesters when virtually no one did that. Here, three of you DID name the victim by name.
Earlier in this semester, we discussed when and when not to name victims in stories. In most cases we DO name victims, but a notable exception in American journalism regarded the names of rape victims.
In general, the current rule of thumb is that in weighing the benefit to society in knowing who exactly was victimized versus the harm that would come in terms of stigma to the victim, we do not name rape victims expect in rare circumstances, like a victim wanting to intentionally put a name and face to a victim to promote greater societal understanding, or a rape victim whose alleged attacker wasn't convicted in criminal court but who is facing a lawsuit for money in civil court.
This wasn't one of those times.
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.
Three 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, one of you listed the exact home address where the crime took place. Only one family lives in a home, right? Again, you took a huge step in 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.
A couple 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.
Now, what about the suspect's name? I think only under the rarest of cases would you not name the suspect. He's central to the story. As a society we need to know who among us is considered dangerous, and who among us is being locked up like a zoo animal by our authorities.
The only time in my whole journalism career when I didn't name a suspect was in a case around 1992 -- really early in my professional career -- where I was covering the trial of a teen accused of raping his own mother.
My editors went back-and-forth on how to handle it before deciding they wouldn't name the victim or the suspect, because naming the latter would identify the former. And there was a big ol' editor's note added ahead of my lede to explain their reasoning.
So exceptions are rare. Either the circumstances are amazingly twisted and unique or the suspects are juveniles and a particular media organization has rules about naming kids.
Again, this ain't one of 'em.
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 only about half of you noted the link.
Note I say Caspinwall was a neighbor, not her direct neighbor. A neighbor -- or even better, a nearby neighbor -- could be somebody next door or down the street, right? So using neighbor in the generic doesn't necessarily narrow the possible victim pool to a single house or two.
Next, is the suspect's home address needed? I think some identification of where he lives is noteworthy. Wouldn't readers really want to know if an alleged rapist and home invader lived by them? Wouldn't you?
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. A couple of you did do something along those lines.
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.
And in all fairness to you, how you handled these circumstances were a smaller-than-usual part of your assignment grade here. I gave you a break because I didn't want you to suffer a penalty on this one, but I did want you to have to think about it before we discussed it now.
Finally, this is how I would have handled it: I WOULD NOT 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.
This is the sort of stuff you'll have to think about all the time in deciding what is teh best way to tell your story.
911: Don't Assume!
In one lede, you did assume by saying that the 911 call ended up saving her mother's life.
Now, certainly the mother was being brutally attacked. Conventional wisdom gives you the right to label that as just that, in the same way the girl's actions can be viewed as heroic based on how she dealt with a horrible situation and how conventional wisdom would view that.
But can you say the mom would have certainly died without the 911 call being made?
I don't think so. This is a stretch. You can say the girl helped rescue her mother or helped apprehend her attacker, because those are based on facts. We simply don't have enough information to judge whether she would have been killed or just brutalized.
In another instance, you made an assumption that the victim was someone the attacker had personally known.
You did know the victim was the suspect's neighbor, but does that automatically mean the knew each other? I mean, I don't know my neighbors. Maybe that's because I'm an asshole, but the rapist doesn't sound like the nicest neighbor, either.
Again, you're going a step further than the evidence at hand allows.Either get a clarification from sources that establishes your premise or back off to a claim better supported by the facts in hand.
Now, certainly the mother was being brutally attacked. Conventional wisdom gives you the right to label that as just that, in the same way the girl's actions can be viewed as heroic based on how she dealt with a horrible situation and how conventional wisdom would view that.
But can you say the mom would have certainly died without the 911 call being made?
I don't think so. This is a stretch. You can say the girl helped rescue her mother or helped apprehend her attacker, because those are based on facts. We simply don't have enough information to judge whether she would have been killed or just brutalized.
In another instance, you made an assumption that the victim was someone the attacker had personally known.
You did know the victim was the suspect's neighbor, but does that automatically mean the knew each other? I mean, I don't know my neighbors. Maybe that's because I'm an asshole, but the rapist doesn't sound like the nicest neighbor, either.
Again, you're going a step further than the evidence at hand allows.Either get a clarification from sources that establishes your premise or back off to a claim better supported by the facts in hand.
911: Did You Know ...
... the copy-editing symbol for adding a comma to a sentence is an insert symbol and a comma, which tends to look like a little arrow?
I'm not sure many of you checked your copy-editing guide sheet to verify that, since so many people seem to be making repeated comma errors.
Also, the curly squiggle means you should delete any punctuation it touches. The squiggle looks like a little curly fry.
So if you have a squiggle connecting to a period and then there's that little arrow, what I'm trying to tell you is to replace the period with the comma.
I'm not sure many of you checked your copy-editing guide sheet to verify that, since so many people seem to be making repeated comma errors.
Also, the curly squiggle means you should delete any punctuation it touches. The squiggle looks like a little curly fry.
So if you have a squiggle connecting to a period and then there's that little arrow, what I'm trying to tell you is to replace the period with the comma.
911: Explain For Your Readers
When one of you decided to leave the little girl's name out of this, you mentioned this in an early attribution:
The girl, whose name will remain anonymous to protect the victim, said ...
You are doing something out of the ordinary (leaving someone's name out) and you are being transparent with your readers (by explaining why).
Good job!
The girl, whose name will remain anonymous to protect the victim, said ...
You are doing something out of the ordinary (leaving someone's name out) and you are being transparent with your readers (by explaining why).
Good job!
911: Say What You Mean; Mean What You Say
This lede says something you didn't mean to say. Let's read it literally:
An East Lansing man was arrested today for allegedly raping his neighbor in response to a brave 6-year-old's 911 call placed to the East Lansing Police Department.
What you just said the rape was in response to the 911 call. What you mean to say was that the man was arrested due to the 911 call, like this:
An East Lansing man who allegedly raped his neighbor was arrested in response to a brave 6-year-old's 911 call placed to the East Lansing Police Department.
Let's ignore that the sentence is a bit run-onish. Now, improved word order better recognized the sequence of events while minimizing the chance of any reader confusion.
Say what you mean, and mean what you say.
An East Lansing man was arrested today for allegedly raping his neighbor in response to a brave 6-year-old's 911 call placed to the East Lansing Police Department.
What you just said the rape was in response to the 911 call. What you mean to say was that the man was arrested due to the 911 call, like this:
An East Lansing man who allegedly raped his neighbor was arrested in response to a brave 6-year-old's 911 call placed to the East Lansing Police Department.
Let's ignore that the sentence is a bit run-onish. Now, improved word order better recognized the sequence of events while minimizing the chance of any reader confusion.
Say what you mean, and mean what you say.
911: Write With (AP) Style
Is it six-year-old girl with six spelled out, or is six in numeric form, like this: 6-year-old girl.
It's the latter. In AP Style under ages:
Always use figures.
Yes, the general number rule is spell out numbers under 10, and use numerals for 10 and over. But age is an exception. So are numbers used at the start of a sentence, which are always spelled out.
Remember these and the other exceptions we've noted through this semester.
It's the latter. In AP Style under ages:
Always use figures.
Yes, the general number rule is spell out numbers under 10, and use numerals for 10 and over. But age is an exception. So are numbers used at the start of a sentence, which are always spelled out.
Remember these and the other exceptions we've noted through this semester.
Wednesday, October 19, 2011
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 Caspinwall allegedly charged with rape? No. He is charged with rape. That's the name of the charge he's facing. It's a bit confusing in this exercise because the name of the charge and the action he is alleged to have done are the same: rape.
So, let's imagine instead of allegedly raping the woman, Caspinwall stabbed her to death. Caspinwall would be charged with murder, since that's the name of the charge which he will face in court. He's a murder defendant. The charge of murder came because he allegedly stabbed a woman to death.
The action is alleged. The charge is simply the label of the law which he is alleged to have broken.
I know this is confusing. Does this help?
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 Caspinwall allegedly charged with rape? No. He is charged with rape. That's the name of the charge he's facing. It's a bit confusing in this exercise because the name of the charge and the action he is alleged to have done are the same: rape.
So, let's imagine instead of allegedly raping the woman, Caspinwall stabbed her to death. Caspinwall would be charged with murder, since that's the name of the charge which he will face in court. He's a murder defendant. The charge of murder came because he allegedly stabbed a woman to death.
The action is alleged. The charge is simply the label of the law which he is alleged to have broken.
I know this is confusing. Does this help?
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 #2: Extra Credit Options
. . . because it never hurts to get extra credit:
FOR GETTING AN OUT-OF-CLASS STORY PUBLISHED, I will replace your out of class story grade (which is the average between your original version and your rewrite grade) with the higher grade. If your grade was the same with both versions, I will add up to o.5 to your grade, up to the grade becoming a 4.0.
For me to count your extra credit, you need to submit to me a published copy of your work or email me a Web link to your work, along with an email request to have it applied to extra credit.
FOR DOING A FOURTH OUT-OF-CLASS STORY, I will apply points up to that equal to an out-of-class story to your final grade. (An out-of-class story is equal to about 12 percent of your final grade in this class.)
FOR DOING AN OUT-OF-CLASS MINI-STORY -- which can be between 400 and 600 words, with a minimum of two human sources, in which you can cover ANY sort of event (subject t my approval) like a student group meeting or a speaker on-campus -- I will replace your two lowest practice story grades with 4.0s.
FOR GETTING THE MINI-STORY PUBLISHED, I will replace two more lowest-scoring practice stories with 4.0s.
I will also consider other extra-credit projects on a case-by-case basis. Please see me during my office hours to work out other extra-credit assignments.
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.
I just want to be clear on this one point regarding extra credit: extra credit will be applied to replace the grades of assignments you have actually done, including fataled assignments.
Extra credit will NOT be applied to assignments that you did not turn in, or in which you had a time fatal.
So if you were thinking of skipping an assignment or two toward the end of the semester by pre-emptively turning in some extra credit, that plan won't work.
FOR GETTING AN OUT-OF-CLASS STORY PUBLISHED, I will replace your out of class story grade (which is the average between your original version and your rewrite grade) with the higher grade. If your grade was the same with both versions, I will add up to o.5 to your grade, up to the grade becoming a 4.0.
For me to count your extra credit, you need to submit to me a published copy of your work or email me a Web link to your work, along with an email request to have it applied to extra credit.
FOR DOING A FOURTH OUT-OF-CLASS STORY, I will apply points up to that equal to an out-of-class story to your final grade. (An out-of-class story is equal to about 12 percent of your final grade in this class.)
FOR DOING AN OUT-OF-CLASS MINI-STORY -- which can be between 400 and 600 words, with a minimum of two human sources, in which you can cover ANY sort of event (subject t my approval) like a student group meeting or a speaker on-campus -- I will replace your two lowest practice story grades with 4.0s.
FOR GETTING THE MINI-STORY PUBLISHED, I will replace two more lowest-scoring practice stories with 4.0s.
I will also consider other extra-credit projects on a case-by-case basis. Please see me during my office hours to work out other extra-credit assignments.
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.
I just want to be clear on this one point regarding extra credit: extra credit will be applied to replace the grades of assignments you have actually done, including fataled assignments.
Extra credit will NOT be applied to assignments that you did not turn in, or in which you had a time fatal.
So if you were thinking of skipping an assignment or two toward the end of the semester by pre-emptively turning in some extra credit, that plan won't work.
Tuesday, October 18, 2011
Meeting: Fatals
Let's update the fatal tally!
In the meeting assignment, the number of fatals we had were ... uh, none.
This is the earliest in any semester a class of mine has had a fatal-free assignment. Congrats!
In the meeting assignment, the number of fatals we had were ... uh, none.
This is the earliest in any semester a class of mine has had a fatal-free assignment. Congrats!
Meeting: End Result/Ultimate Outcome
The best ledes start with the ending.
That is, a great lede is hooked on end result and ultimate outcome: how did things end? What was the final outcome? Was it happily ever after, or not?
In this case, the end result as the council action: it ultimately decided to donate land for the homeless shelter.
So this lede fell short:
The Grand Ledge City Council held a meeting yesterday regarding the proposal to build a homeless shelter on Garland Avenue.
Let's repeat the football analogy: this would be akin to writing a lede like, The Michigan State football team played a game yesterday against Notre Dame. The news isn't that something took place; it's what resulted at whatever took place. In the case of the game, it's who won or lost. In the case of the council, it's how they voted and what action they took.
This lede wasn't much better:
Last night, the Grand Ledge City Council held a meeting to vote on the donation and construction of a homeless shelter where the old fire station once stood on Garland Avenue.
Again, let's translate this to footballese: Last night, the Michigan State football team hoped to beat Notre Dame. It takes a step in the right direction by noting intent, but still falls way short of ultimate outcome.
This lede gets to ultimate outcome, but never says what the ultimate outcome was!
A decision has been made on the plan to continue producing housing for homeless people who populate Grand Ledge.
This might have been acceptable if your nut graf said what the decision was. But while the nut graf said the council voted on whether to donate land and that the decision as a majority vote, it never said whether they voted to donate or not donate land until the last graf!
That would be like holding off on saying who won the football game until the last graf, when this was your lede: A winner has finally emerged from the Michigan State-Notre Dame football game. Simply not good.
And very serious. Ledes that fail to address how things ended up and where things are at now are confusing and less-than-useful to readers. It defeats the purpose of journalism, which is to sum things up and update readers to the latest and newest happenings. In that regard, even if your story was otherwise well-written, I severely docked you for missing your lede or "burying" your lede well within a story.
This lede closes the job, like a lede saying, Michigan State's football team beat Notre Dame 147-0 last night would:
The Grand Ledge City Council voted 6-1 in a meeting yesterday to donate a former fire station site, valued at $500,000, to a project for a new homeless shelter.
Plus, here's a good lede/nut graf combo, where the nut graf further detailed from the lede the what (vote = 6-1) and why (land donation = old fire house) and added the why:
The Grand Ledge City Council voted yesterday to approve a land donation to the Coalition for the Homeless, Inc. valued at $500,000.
The City Council voted 6-1 to donate land to the coalition to build a new shelter at the old fire station on Garland Avenue for the homeless after the old shelter, the First United Methodist Church, became overcrowded and couldn't afford housing and feeding all of the homeless people.
You can't have a good story without a good lede, folks.
That is, a great lede is hooked on end result and ultimate outcome: how did things end? What was the final outcome? Was it happily ever after, or not?
In this case, the end result as the council action: it ultimately decided to donate land for the homeless shelter.
So this lede fell short:
The Grand Ledge City Council held a meeting yesterday regarding the proposal to build a homeless shelter on Garland Avenue.
Let's repeat the football analogy: this would be akin to writing a lede like, The Michigan State football team played a game yesterday against Notre Dame. The news isn't that something took place; it's what resulted at whatever took place. In the case of the game, it's who won or lost. In the case of the council, it's how they voted and what action they took.
This lede wasn't much better:
Last night, the Grand Ledge City Council held a meeting to vote on the donation and construction of a homeless shelter where the old fire station once stood on Garland Avenue.
Again, let's translate this to footballese: Last night, the Michigan State football team hoped to beat Notre Dame. It takes a step in the right direction by noting intent, but still falls way short of ultimate outcome.
This lede gets to ultimate outcome, but never says what the ultimate outcome was!
A decision has been made on the plan to continue producing housing for homeless people who populate Grand Ledge.
This might have been acceptable if your nut graf said what the decision was. But while the nut graf said the council voted on whether to donate land and that the decision as a majority vote, it never said whether they voted to donate or not donate land until the last graf!
That would be like holding off on saying who won the football game until the last graf, when this was your lede: A winner has finally emerged from the Michigan State-Notre Dame football game. Simply not good.
And very serious. Ledes that fail to address how things ended up and where things are at now are confusing and less-than-useful to readers. It defeats the purpose of journalism, which is to sum things up and update readers to the latest and newest happenings. In that regard, even if your story was otherwise well-written, I severely docked you for missing your lede or "burying" your lede well within a story.
This lede closes the job, like a lede saying, Michigan State's football team beat Notre Dame 147-0 last night would:
The Grand Ledge City Council voted 6-1 in a meeting yesterday to donate a former fire station site, valued at $500,000, to a project for a new homeless shelter.
Plus, here's a good lede/nut graf combo, where the nut graf further detailed from the lede the what (vote = 6-1) and why (land donation = old fire house) and added the why:
The Grand Ledge City Council voted yesterday to approve a land donation to the Coalition for the Homeless, Inc. valued at $500,000.
The City Council voted 6-1 to donate land to the coalition to build a new shelter at the old fire station on Garland Avenue for the homeless after the old shelter, the First United Methodist Church, became overcrowded and couldn't afford housing and feeding all of the homeless people.
You can't have a good story without a good lede, folks.
Meeting: Who Cares ...
... who spoke first, second or third at the meeting? Does that really impact reader understanding of the story at all?
In this case, I would argue it does not. Listing who spoke first or last or whenever doesn't matter and just wastes space.
Likewise, you should rarely -- if ever -- rank the use of quotes by the order in which people spoke. You use your best and most telling quotes first, regardless of when the person spoke.
You're not simply taking dictation; you are ranking information from most important to least.
In this case, I would argue it does not. Listing who spoke first or last or whenever doesn't matter and just wastes space.
Likewise, you should rarely -- if ever -- rank the use of quotes by the order in which people spoke. You use your best and most telling quotes first, regardless of when the person spoke.
You're not simply taking dictation; you are ranking information from most important to least.
Meeting; Second Refernces & 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: 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.
In many of your graded returned assignments, I've scratced out your uses of "that." See how those deletions don't change anything.
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.
In many of your graded returned assignments, I've scratced out your uses of "that." See how those deletions don't change anything.
Meeting: writing 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.
Monday, October 17, 2011
Out Of Class #1: A Rewrite Reminder
When turning in your rewrite, PLEASE BE SURE to also turn in the original graded copy of your out of class story so I can see what changes you needed to make, and what changes you actually made.
Thanks!
Thanks!
Speech: The News Is The News!
Make sure you state not just that something took place, but what it was precisely that took place. This otherw0ise-solid lede did not:
U.S. Surgeon General Tom Izzo spoke at a Michigan PTA convention in Detroit on Sunday evening about the issue of alcohol consumption among adolescents.
The problem here is you don't know what he said. Did he say he thought it was bad or great? That he thought it was awful? Or that he encourages all kids to get blotto?
You simply don't know based on what you offer. This next lede was much clearer:
U.S. Surgeon General Tom Izzo criticized the alcohol industry for targeting Halloween as their latest marketing opportunity at the Michigan PAT convention in Detroit Sunday.
Note how it doesn't just say Izzo spoke about the alcohol industry; it says he criticized it. Correctly finding and using such a word to describe the contents of what he said is teh difference between a vague lede and an exact one.
Finally, just for the hell of it, let's look at what I thought was a very nice lede/nut graf/telling quote combo:
So much to like here. First, a specific lede that I think fairly uses the work passionate. That word isn't based on your opinion; rather, it's based on your viewing his words in whole through conventional wisdom and factual basis. His argument had an edge to it, right? So, you're not offering an opinion, but an analysis.
That's the difference. An opinion is based on your feelings. Analysis is based on your reasonable interpretation of facts.
Second, the nut graf expands upon the lede. The lede says Izzo condemned the alcohol industry; the nut graf says how and why -- because of its marketing that promotes kids drinking.
Finally, you bring things full circle with your telling quote, so that readers don't have to take your word for it that Izzo was passionate and condemning -- you show the reader Izzo's words.
Nice work. It's no accident the latter story received the highest grade I've handed out on a practice story sofar this term.
U.S. Surgeon General Tom Izzo spoke at a Michigan PTA convention in Detroit on Sunday evening about the issue of alcohol consumption among adolescents.
The problem here is you don't know what he said. Did he say he thought it was bad or great? That he thought it was awful? Or that he encourages all kids to get blotto?
You simply don't know based on what you offer. This next lede was much clearer:
U.S. Surgeon General Tom Izzo criticized the alcohol industry for targeting Halloween as their latest marketing opportunity at the Michigan PAT convention in Detroit Sunday.
Note how it doesn't just say Izzo spoke about the alcohol industry; it says he criticized it. Correctly finding and using such a word to describe the contents of what he said is teh difference between a vague lede and an exact one.
Finally, just for the hell of it, let's look at what I thought was a very nice lede/nut graf/telling quote combo:
U.S. Surgeon General Tom Izzo delivered a passionate speech condemning the alcohol industry’s target of the traditional children’s holiday, Halloween, at the Michigan Parent Teacher Association meeting in Detroit last night.
In the speech, Izzo shared his concern of the alcohol industry’s festive marketing techniques this year and how it’s association with Halloween is promoting dangerous alcohol consumption among youth.
“This year the alcohol industry has given new meaning to those innocent words of childhood. They are serving up new treats –and new tricks,” said Izzo.
So much to like here. First, a specific lede that I think fairly uses the work passionate. That word isn't based on your opinion; rather, it's based on your viewing his words in whole through conventional wisdom and factual basis. His argument had an edge to it, right? So, you're not offering an opinion, but an analysis.
That's the difference. An opinion is based on your feelings. Analysis is based on your reasonable interpretation of facts.
Second, the nut graf expands upon the lede. The lede says Izzo condemned the alcohol industry; the nut graf says how and why -- because of its marketing that promotes kids drinking.
Finally, you bring things full circle with your telling quote, so that readers don't have to take your word for it that Izzo was passionate and condemning -- you show the reader Izzo's words.
Nice work. It's no accident the latter story received the highest grade I've handed out on a practice story sofar this term.
Speech: Only Two Fatals!
Which is great! Unless you're the one with the fatal.
And here they are: first, you misspelled Izzo in one place as Izoo.
That's all it takes. Double-check all your name uses, even if it's the same name being used over and over again.
Second, you said the speech took place Sunday morning. In fact, it took place at 8 p.m. at night.
Again, please make sure you double-check all the numbers before and after writing to ensure what you write and wrote is consistent with the information from which you are working.
For those of you keeping score at home, 16 of 21 people in here have now fataled. Only five to go.
And here they are: first, you misspelled Izzo in one place as Izoo.
That's all it takes. Double-check all your name uses, even if it's the same name being used over and over again.
Second, you said the speech took place Sunday morning. In fact, it took place at 8 p.m. at night.
Again, please make sure you double-check all the numbers before and after writing to ensure what you write and wrote is consistent with the information from which you are working.
For those of you keeping score at home, 16 of 21 people in here have now fataled. Only five to go.
Speech: No First Person!
In journalism, we do not use first-person references outside of quotes.
That means if you are writing about problems facing our youths, you need to take out the "our" and either leave it unfilled or replace it with something that's non-first-personish, like the nation's youths.
Using first-person references betray our standing as unbiased observers with no personal stake in the outcome.
Our, we, I ... if not in a quote, take it out.
That means if you are writing about problems facing our youths, you need to take out the "our" and either leave it unfilled or replace it with something that's non-first-personish, like the nation's youths.
Using first-person references betray our standing as unbiased observers with no personal stake in the outcome.
Our, we, I ... if not in a quote, take it out.
Speech: If This Were A Real Story ...
. . . who, if anybody, would you contact for reaction/rebuttals/comment after the meeting?
Speech: How Did You Know ...
. . . this?
According to the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, 4.6 million teenagers have a drinking problem.
This is kind of a trick question. You DON'T know this because the NIAAA told you, or because you read their report. You know it because Izzo cited the report, right?
So, correct attribution would be something like this:
Izzo said 4.6 million teenagers have a drinking problem, citing National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism figures.
According to the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, 4.6 million teenagers have a drinking problem.
This is kind of a trick question. You DON'T know this because the NIAAA told you, or because you read their report. You know it because Izzo cited the report, right?
So, correct attribution would be something like this:
Izzo said 4.6 million teenagers have a drinking problem, citing National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism figures.
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: Writing 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.
Is it Detroit, Michigan, or just Detroit?
It's the latter. Under "Detroit":
The city in Michigan stands alone in datelines.
And under "cities and towns":
See datelines for guidelines on when they should be followed by a state or country name.
There ya go.
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.
Is it Detroit, Michigan, or just Detroit?
It's the latter. Under "Detroit":
The city in Michigan stands alone in datelines.
And under "cities and towns":
See datelines for guidelines on when they should be followed by a state or country name.
There ya go.
Friday, October 14, 2011
Out Of Class #1: Why Attribution Is Important
Politico Gets Its Very Own Plagiarism Scandal
At long last, little local DC trade newspaper Politico has its very own Jayson Blair-type uproar! Short version: Politico reporter Kendra Marr was apparently a serial plagiarist.
At long last, little local DC trade newspaper Politico has its very own Jayson Blair-type uproar! Short version: Politico reporter In an admirably direct editor's note, Politico says that a complaint from a New York Times writer earlier this week prompted an internal investigation, followed by Marr's resignation yesterday.
This examination produced other examples of stories on transportation issues that bore troubling similarities to work earlier published by others. Some of these examples involved specific turns of phrase or passages that bore close resemblance to work published elsewhere. Others involved similarities in the way stories were organized to present their findings.
None of these examples represented invention of quotes, scenes, or other material
So, Marr was perhaps more of a serial summarizer-without-attribution than a Blair-level fabricator. Politico has posted links to seven of her stories which required corrections; Romenesko has posted information on Marr's background.
You messed up bad, Kendra. But it only takes five years to be forgiven for anything. We wish you luck in your next career.
[Photo via Politico]
... and here's a more straight-forward account from the Web site of the Poynter Institute, a well-regarded journalism think tank:
Politico reporter Kendra Marr resigns over plagiarism of at least 7 stories
Julie Moos, Oct. 13, 2011 11:46 pm
Reporter Kendra Marr resigned her position Thursday after a New York Times reporter alerted editors to similarities between his transportation policy story and Marr's story. Editors examined more of Marr's work and discovered at least seven instances in which "specific turns of phrase or passages ... bore close resemblance to work published elsewhere. Others involved similarities in the way stories were organized to present their findings. ... Material published in our pages borrowed from the work of others, without attribution, in ways which we cannot defend and will not tolerate."
In a prominent editor's note by John Harris and Jim VandeHei, Politico linked to the seven transportation-related stories written by Marr that were amended Thursday to include proper attribution. The stories also carry editor's notes that explain the changes. Based on the editor's notes appended to stories, material was used from these sources without proper credit:
Scripps Howard (twice)
The New York Times (four separate times)
Greenwire
NJ.com and The Associated Press (twice)
The Hill
The Journal of Commerce
Six of the stories were published between Sept. 19 and Oct. 10. One of the stories was published July 28.
Marr's LinkedIn profile says she joined Politico in August 2009 after two years as a staff writer at The Washington Post. Her Politico bio says the San Francisco native covered financial news for the Post, including the auto industry, and that her work also appeared in the San Jose Mercury News, The Orange County Register and The Miami Herald. Marr graduated from Northwestern in 2007. In November 2006, Marr was a student of David Protess at Northwestern.
During that time, as part of Medill's Innocence Project, Marr claimed to be a U.S. census worker in order to locate a witness in a murder case. Marr told the Chicago Tribune in May of this year that "she regrets using deception."
"I was a student in the class, and I wish I hadn't done it," Marr said. "It wasn't my idea, and as a professional journalist, I haven't misrepresented myself since, nor do I intend to ever again." Protess said the deception was the idea of Sergio Serritella, a private investigator then working as a teaching assistant with the Medill Innocence Project. "At the time, there was no law that prevented them from doing that," Protess said. "When I found out it was legal and legitimate, I gave it the green light."
Protess' 30-year career at Northwestern has ended, and the university has agreed to release emails he exchanged with student journalists working on the Innocence Project.
Missing word: Craig Silverman says VandeHei and Harris' note "is notable for the fact that is never uses the word plagiarism, even though it’s explicitly about a case of serial plagiarism."
Link to the Poynter article here.
Thursday, October 13, 2011
Out Of Class #1: 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 many 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 many 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!
Out Of Class #1: Imagine If ...
. . . if this story didn't have a neutral expert. Or two. Here's a link, and here's the text:
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."
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 #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.
Murder: Overall
Nice job by most folks on this exercise. Ledes were nice and to-the-point and most nut grafs were at least decently constructed.
Just remember a nut graf should expand upon details in the lede, and not simply repeat them, like the end of the nut graf here:
A man was murdered yesterday during the robbery of a local restaurant.
Kevin Blohm, a cook at the North Point Inn, was stabbed and killed when the restaurant was robbed yesterday morning.
Now, the nut graf did do many things well: from the lede to the nut it expanded on who (A man = Kevin Blohm), the what (murdered = stabbed), the when (yesterday = morning), the where (local restaurant = North Point Inn).
But on the why/how, you stumble. In the lede you say it was during a robbery; in the nut graf you simply repeat that.
Think about all the ways you could build upon that. In the nut graf you could note that the restaurant was robbed of $130. Or that it was robbed by as many as two unidentified men. Or it was robbed by at least one suspect who was still on the loose.
Regardless of how you advance the story, you must advance it in the nut graf and avoid such echoes of information.
Just remember a nut graf should expand upon details in the lede, and not simply repeat them, like the end of the nut graf here:
A man was murdered yesterday during the robbery of a local restaurant.
Kevin Blohm, a cook at the North Point Inn, was stabbed and killed when the restaurant was robbed yesterday morning.
Now, the nut graf did do many things well: from the lede to the nut it expanded on who (A man = Kevin Blohm), the what (murdered = stabbed), the when (yesterday = morning), the where (local restaurant = North Point Inn).
But on the why/how, you stumble. In the lede you say it was during a robbery; in the nut graf you simply repeat that.
Think about all the ways you could build upon that. In the nut graf you could note that the restaurant was robbed of $130. Or that it was robbed by as many as two unidentified men. Or it was robbed by at least one suspect who was still on the loose.
Regardless of how you advance the story, you must advance it in the nut graf and avoid such echoes of information.
Murder: Apropos For Fatals
Four fatals on this exercise. Let's review and learn:
Make sure you check your dates. One of you reported in your lede the robbery took place earlier today. In fact, it was yesterday. Be sure you double-check dates you've written against the information you're provided.
Make sure you check your names. One of you spelled the last name of Cortez as Cortex. Oddly enough, that's the second time this semester that this class has misspelled that name in that way. And again, it's precisely the sort of error spell check won't catch since you correctly spelled cortex. Be sure you double-check names for correct spellings.
Make sure you check titles. Like those of businesses you're writing about. One of you spelled the North Point Inn as Northpointe Inn. That's a fatal. Make sure the titles you use are accurate and consistent with the information you've gathered.
Make sure you check numbers. One of you wrote the robbery suspect was between 5 feet 6 inches and 6 feet tall. In fact, it was 5 feet 10 inches and 6 feet. You incorrectly widened the pool of possible suspects, and that is a fatal.
Fatals rarely come in the form of a fundamental misunderstanding of a story's main points. The vast majority of the time they are far more insidious, coming in the form of routine facts and figures.
That's why you have to get into a mind-set of religiously checking every bit of "little" information. That's where goofs happen.
For those of you keeping score at home, after last week's exercises we've had a total of 15 people fact-fatal, none more than twice. I think that may be a record for least fatals ever in the first half of one of my classes.
And I still have six of you to catch. Like I've said, keep checking the little stuff. That's how a fatal sneaks up on you.
Make sure you check your dates. One of you reported in your lede the robbery took place earlier today. In fact, it was yesterday. Be sure you double-check dates you've written against the information you're provided.
Make sure you check your names. One of you spelled the last name of Cortez as Cortex. Oddly enough, that's the second time this semester that this class has misspelled that name in that way. And again, it's precisely the sort of error spell check won't catch since you correctly spelled cortex. Be sure you double-check names for correct spellings.
Make sure you check titles. Like those of businesses you're writing about. One of you spelled the North Point Inn as Northpointe Inn. That's a fatal. Make sure the titles you use are accurate and consistent with the information you've gathered.
Make sure you check numbers. One of you wrote the robbery suspect was between 5 feet 6 inches and 6 feet tall. In fact, it was 5 feet 10 inches and 6 feet. You incorrectly widened the pool of possible suspects, and that is a fatal.
Fatals rarely come in the form of a fundamental misunderstanding of a story's main points. The vast majority of the time they are far more insidious, coming in the form of routine facts and figures.
That's why you have to get into a mind-set of religiously checking every bit of "little" information. That's where goofs happen.
For those of you keeping score at home, after last week's exercises we've had a total of 15 people fact-fatal, none more than twice. I think that may be a record for least fatals ever in the first half of one of my classes.
And I still have six of you to catch. Like I've said, keep checking the little stuff. That's how a fatal sneaks up on you.
Murder: A Good Catch
One of you emailed your story with this addendum:
I don't understand why it is called murder if the man who actually killed Kevin Blohm hasn't been convicted in court. In AP style it says "Do not say that a victim was murdered until someone has been convicted in court. Instead, say that a victim was killed or slain." So I did not use the word murder in my story and referred to the so called murderer as a robber. Also, what takes more precedence calling him a robber because of the robbery or a murderer because of the murder? Does killing with a knife count as murder since an armed robbery would?
Good questions, all. First, you are correct in that AP Style, under homicide, murder, manslaughter says this:
Homicide is a legal term for slaying or killing. Murder is malicious, premeditated homicide. Some satets define certain homicides as murder if the killing occurs in the course of armed robbery, rape. ect. Manslaughter is homicide without malice or premeditation.
A person should not be described as a murderer until convicted of the charge.
Unless authorities say premeditation was obvious, do not say a victim was murdered until someone has been convicted in court. Instead, say that a victim was killed or slain.
And that's a good general rule of thumb. But in this case, circumstantial facts in the case certainly do point toward the death being at the hands of another, and not a suicide or accident. So it would be proper to call this a murder, though it wouldn't be incorrect to follow the AP Style rule here (and I'll even bump up your grade a bit for being so thoughtful as to look it up).
However, if and when an arrest is made in this case, AP Style is absolutely correct that you don't call the suspect a murderer until convicted. Until then, he or she is an alleged killer or something like that, with strong emphasis on alleged.
You bring up a very interesting question as to whether the criminal in this case is a robber or killer. If clearly only one person was involved I would guess it would be either-or, with perhaps a slight preference for killer since that's the more heinous of the crimes.
But in this case, it's unclear whether one or two people were involved. We know which one is alleged to be the robber; we don't know which of the two appears to be the killer. Yes, since the killing took place during an armed robbery, both may be legally culpable for the killing. But as journalists we're not trying to identify who may be charged with what; we are trying to identify who did what, in terms of literal actions.
Finally, under legal terms using any sort of a deadly weapon is considered armed robbery. It can be a gun or a knife or a bomb or something that state law considers to be a deadly category of weapon.
I don't understand why it is called murder if the man who actually killed Kevin Blohm hasn't been convicted in court. In AP style it says "Do not say that a victim was murdered until someone has been convicted in court. Instead, say that a victim was killed or slain." So I did not use the word murder in my story and referred to the so called murderer as a robber. Also, what takes more precedence calling him a robber because of the robbery or a murderer because of the murder? Does killing with a knife count as murder since an armed robbery would?
Good questions, all. First, you are correct in that AP Style, under homicide, murder, manslaughter says this:
Homicide is a legal term for slaying or killing. Murder is malicious, premeditated homicide. Some satets define certain homicides as murder if the killing occurs in the course of armed robbery, rape. ect. Manslaughter is homicide without malice or premeditation.
A person should not be described as a murderer until convicted of the charge.
Unless authorities say premeditation was obvious, do not say a victim was murdered until someone has been convicted in court. Instead, say that a victim was killed or slain.
And that's a good general rule of thumb. But in this case, circumstantial facts in the case certainly do point toward the death being at the hands of another, and not a suicide or accident. So it would be proper to call this a murder, though it wouldn't be incorrect to follow the AP Style rule here (and I'll even bump up your grade a bit for being so thoughtful as to look it up).
However, if and when an arrest is made in this case, AP Style is absolutely correct that you don't call the suspect a murderer until convicted. Until then, he or she is an alleged killer or something like that, with strong emphasis on alleged.
You bring up a very interesting question as to whether the criminal in this case is a robber or killer. If clearly only one person was involved I would guess it would be either-or, with perhaps a slight preference for killer since that's the more heinous of the crimes.
But in this case, it's unclear whether one or two people were involved. We know which one is alleged to be the robber; we don't know which of the two appears to be the killer. Yes, since the killing took place during an armed robbery, both may be legally culpable for the killing. But as journalists we're not trying to identify who may be charged with what; we are trying to identify who did what, in terms of literal actions.
Finally, under legal terms using any sort of a deadly weapon is considered armed robbery. It can be a gun or a knife or a bomb or something that state law considers to be a deadly category of weapon.
Murder: Say What You Mean, Mean What You Say
In one passage, you wrote this:
Cortez said it was like any other day; she and Blohm were the only two usually there that early in the morning.
That's not exactly right. It started out like any other day, then it went horribly wrong. But that's not what you say; you say it was like any other day. Presumably that means a cook gets murdered every morning.
That's not what you meant, right? So be precise.
Say what you mean, and mean what you say. Use the right words at the right times to project an exact and accurate meaning.
Cortez said it was like any other day; she and Blohm were the only two usually there that early in the morning.
That's not exactly right. It started out like any other day, then it went horribly wrong. But that's not what you say; you say it was like any other day. Presumably that means a cook gets murdered every morning.
That's not what you meant, right? So be precise.
Say what you mean, and mean what you say. Use the right words at the right times to project an exact and accurate meaning.
Murder: References And Attribution
Some reminders: use a full business name in a first reference, and in a second reference you can use a generic name or an acronym.
For example, on first reference it's North Point Inn, and on second reference it can just be the inn. You've established which inn you're talking about with the first reference.
On, on first reference it's Michigan State University and on second reference it's MSU or the university.
With attribution, you need to have a source for each graf. But if your graf just cites a single source, then you only need one attribution, no matter how many sentences your graf is.
For example, on first reference it's North Point Inn, and on second reference it can just be the inn. You've established which inn you're talking about with the first reference.
On, on first reference it's Michigan State University and on second reference it's MSU or the university.
With attribution, you need to have a source for each graf. But if your graf just cites a single source, then you only need one attribution, no matter how many sentences your graf is.
Murder: Avoid Saying Nothing
Like in the first of these two grafs:
Nina Cortez is a book keeper at the restaurant and has worked there for seven years.
She said she arrived at the inn around 9 a.m. and entered the building with her key to the employee entrance in the back.
The first sentence is what I call an empty sentence: it doesn't say anything of reader value. It identifies someone but doesn't say what they have to say. It attribution without something to attribute.
But I know what you're trying to do: you're detailing who the person is to justify their relevance in the following graf. I'd fix this by simply merging these two grafs, like this:
Nina Cortez, a book keeper at the restaurant who has worked there for seven years, said she arrived at the inn around 9 a.m. and entered the building with her key to the employee entrance in the back.
Now, there's no empty sentence.
Nina Cortez is a book keeper at the restaurant and has worked there for seven years.
She said she arrived at the inn around 9 a.m. and entered the building with her key to the employee entrance in the back.
The first sentence is what I call an empty sentence: it doesn't say anything of reader value. It identifies someone but doesn't say what they have to say. It attribution without something to attribute.
But I know what you're trying to do: you're detailing who the person is to justify their relevance in the following graf. I'd fix this by simply merging these two grafs, like this:
Nina Cortez, a book keeper at the restaurant who has worked there for seven years, said she arrived at the inn around 9 a.m. and entered the building with her key to the employee entrance in the back.
Now, there's no empty sentence.
Murder: Do You Need To Say ...
... 9 a.m. yesterday morning?
No. You already said a.m., so adding morning is redundant.
All you need to say is 9 a.m. yesterday.
Look for redundancies and un-redundantify your copy!
No. You already said a.m., so adding morning is redundant.
All you need to say is 9 a.m. yesterday.
Look for redundancies and un-redundantify your copy!
Murder: Write With (AP) Style
Does the general AP Style number rule of spelling out numbers under 10 and using numerals for 10 and over?
Actually, no. Here is what it says in AP Style under times:
Use figures except for noon and midnight.
So 9 a.m. is 9 a.m., not nine a.m.
Also, is it 5-feet-10-inch or 5'10 or five foot ten or 5 feet 10 inches?
It's the first one or the last one. AP Style, under dimensions:
Use figures and spell out inches, feet, yards, ect, to indicate depth, height, length and width. Hyphenate adjectival forms before nouns.
EXAMPLES: He is 5 feet 6 inches tall, the 5-foot-6-inch man, the 5-foot man, the basketball team signed a 7-footer.
Use an apostrophe to indicate feet and quote marks to indicate inches (5'6") only in very technical contexts.
Moving on, in referring to the day of the week, should you have said yesterday or Tuesday (or Wednesday, depending on which day you filed your assignment)?
In general, it's the latter. Sayeth AP Style under time element:
Use the days of the week, not today or tonight in print copy. Use the month and a figure where appropriate.
Actually, no. Here is what it says in AP Style under times:
Use figures except for noon and midnight.
So 9 a.m. is 9 a.m., not nine a.m.
Also, is it 5-feet-10-inch or 5'10 or five foot ten or 5 feet 10 inches?
It's the first one or the last one. AP Style, under dimensions:
Use figures and spell out inches, feet, yards, ect, to indicate depth, height, length and width. Hyphenate adjectival forms before nouns.
EXAMPLES: He is 5 feet 6 inches tall, the 5-foot-6-inch man, the 5-foot man, the basketball team signed a 7-footer.
Use an apostrophe to indicate feet and quote marks to indicate inches (5'6") only in very technical contexts.
Moving on, in referring to the day of the week, should you have said yesterday or Tuesday (or Wednesday, depending on which day you filed your assignment)?
In general, it's the latter. Sayeth AP Style under time element:
Use the days of the week, not today or tonight in print copy. Use the month and a figure where appropriate.
Murder: Point Well Taken
This observation was from one of you via email, while turning in this assignment:
It must be really weird getting 20 emails with murder as the subject.
Hey, I was a journalist for 17 years. I'd say that's the least of the weird emails I've seen.
It must be really weird getting 20 emails with murder as the subject.
Hey, I was a journalist for 17 years. I'd say that's the least of the weird emails I've seen.
Wednesday, October 12, 2011
Bicyclists: Ledes
Every good story starts with a good lede.
A lede that passes the Peanut Barrel test. A lede that makes things clear for readers and intrigues them, pulling them into the greater story. A lede that sums up what is the latest and most important. A lede that looks at ultimate outcome and context.
In this exercise, there were plenty of good ledes. Many of you did very well in this exercise. This was one of those ledes:
After spending four months in a hospital and rehab, a local 37-year-old woman was released two days ago after being hit by a car while riding on her bicycle.
That's a good lede. It certainly gets the latest news in there. But I found what I thought were some better ledes, one that highlighted something that made this story a bit more interesting: the fact that wrecking her body hasn't scared her off from riding.
Marsha Taylor's body may be broken but her love of cycling, with the proper precautions, persists despite suffering major injuries from a bike accident she was involved in four months ago.
... and ...
Despite sustaining serious injuries from a cycling accident, Marsha L. Taylor is determined to get back on her bike and ride once again.
... and ...
After a biking accident caused a woman to suffer multiple severe injuries and spend four months in the hospital, she is able to maintain a positive attitude about the sport.
These all certainly hit a Peanut Barrel point. To-wit:
"Hey Omar, what story did you work on today?"
"I wrote about this woman who just got outta the hospital after getting all busted up riding her bike. And even though she got all messed up, she still wants to ride!"
That's one thing that makes this story a little bit different from any other accident story, right?
Now, don't get me wrong. It doesn't make the first lede wrong, or bad, or even so-so. It's just out of a bunch of good ledes, I would say the latter ones are better.
These ledes disregarded the time element by using anecdotes and context to tell a bigger story from a feature-ish angles of unexpected challenges.
When Marsha L. Taylor went out for a short bike ride four months ago, she never envisioned she would end up spending the next four months recovering from it.
... and ...
Once you learn how to ride a bike, it becomes second nature. But little do people know serious accidents can still happen, no matter how much experience someone has.
The opening of many of these ledes obviously aren't pegged to the time element, like the first lede we looked at. And that's okay, since the time pegs made it less of a breaking story. The woman was released two days ago; she was hurt four months ago. Those angles, one could argue, were old news.
But what was fresh regardless of time peg -- something we call an evergreen story in the news biz -- is the woman's personal and unique struggle in dealing with this and making sense of this. You didn't have to turn this into more of a news feature, but doesn't that angle work well? And isn't it a bit more interesting than simply saying someone left the hospital?
It's the sort of thing I'd tell my friends over a drink.
A lede that passes the Peanut Barrel test. A lede that makes things clear for readers and intrigues them, pulling them into the greater story. A lede that sums up what is the latest and most important. A lede that looks at ultimate outcome and context.
In this exercise, there were plenty of good ledes. Many of you did very well in this exercise. This was one of those ledes:
After spending four months in a hospital and rehab, a local 37-year-old woman was released two days ago after being hit by a car while riding on her bicycle.
That's a good lede. It certainly gets the latest news in there. But I found what I thought were some better ledes, one that highlighted something that made this story a bit more interesting: the fact that wrecking her body hasn't scared her off from riding.
Marsha Taylor's body may be broken but her love of cycling, with the proper precautions, persists despite suffering major injuries from a bike accident she was involved in four months ago.
... and ...
Despite sustaining serious injuries from a cycling accident, Marsha L. Taylor is determined to get back on her bike and ride once again.
... and ...
After a biking accident caused a woman to suffer multiple severe injuries and spend four months in the hospital, she is able to maintain a positive attitude about the sport.
These all certainly hit a Peanut Barrel point. To-wit:
"Hey Omar, what story did you work on today?"
"I wrote about this woman who just got outta the hospital after getting all busted up riding her bike. And even though she got all messed up, she still wants to ride!"
That's one thing that makes this story a little bit different from any other accident story, right?
Now, don't get me wrong. It doesn't make the first lede wrong, or bad, or even so-so. It's just out of a bunch of good ledes, I would say the latter ones are better.
These ledes disregarded the time element by using anecdotes and context to tell a bigger story from a feature-ish angles of unexpected challenges.
When Marsha L. Taylor went out for a short bike ride four months ago, she never envisioned she would end up spending the next four months recovering from it.
... and ...
Once you learn how to ride a bike, it becomes second nature. But little do people know serious accidents can still happen, no matter how much experience someone has.
The opening of many of these ledes obviously aren't pegged to the time element, like the first lede we looked at. And that's okay, since the time pegs made it less of a breaking story. The woman was released two days ago; she was hurt four months ago. Those angles, one could argue, were old news.
But what was fresh regardless of time peg -- something we call an evergreen story in the news biz -- is the woman's personal and unique struggle in dealing with this and making sense of this. You didn't have to turn this into more of a news feature, but doesn't that angle work well? And isn't it a bit more interesting than simply saying someone left the hospital?
It's the sort of thing I'd tell my friends over a drink.
Bicyclists: That's Not News
A few of you biffed on your ledes by not emphasizing what made something newsy, like this lede:
Telling of her bicycling accident that happened four months ago, a Holt residents was interviewed at home this morning, two days after being released from Izzo Memorial Hospital.
The problem here is that saying she spoke of her accident and that she was interviewed doesn't say anything, in the same way reporting that a football game was played says nothing of value.
The news in the latter is what happened at the game; who won, ect. In the former, the news is what she had to say in the interview about the bicycle accident, like here:
Released from Izzo Memorial Hospital two days ago following a severe bicycle incident, Holt resident Marsha Taylor said her doctor thought it was a miracle she was not paralyzed.
In this case, you picked out what was most telling about what she had to say, and you shared it prominently.
And that's journalism. You have to make decisions on what makes a story most interesting, relevant and useful. And then you have to highlight those factors in your telling.
Telling of her bicycling accident that happened four months ago, a Holt residents was interviewed at home this morning, two days after being released from Izzo Memorial Hospital.
The problem here is that saying she spoke of her accident and that she was interviewed doesn't say anything, in the same way reporting that a football game was played says nothing of value.
The news in the latter is what happened at the game; who won, ect. In the former, the news is what she had to say in the interview about the bicycle accident, like here:
Released from Izzo Memorial Hospital two days ago following a severe bicycle incident, Holt resident Marsha Taylor said her doctor thought it was a miracle she was not paralyzed.
In this case, you picked out what was most telling about what she had to say, and you shared it prominently.
And that's journalism. You have to make decisions on what makes a story most interesting, relevant and useful. And then you have to highlight those factors in your telling.
Bicyclist: Fatals
Two fatals, both by people who have been performing very well in this class sofar (which shows you that fatals can happen to anybody, once you let down your guard).
In one, the spell check was cool with you referring to a gull bladder.
I'm pretty sure you meant gall bladder, and not the bladder of a sea-faring bird.
Let's all say it together: Spell check is an aid to -- but not a substitute for -- rigorously reviewing your copy. Line by line, word by word, fact by fact.
By the way, somebody made this exact same mistake last fall. History really does repeat itself.
The other involved a quote where you dropped a letter. You wrote that Taylor had a "broke neck" when it fact it should have been "broken neck."
One dropped word. That's all it takes to fatal. And again, spell check wouldn't have caught that.
In one, the spell check was cool with you referring to a gull bladder.
I'm pretty sure you meant gall bladder, and not the bladder of a sea-faring bird.
Let's all say it together: Spell check is an aid to -- but not a substitute for -- rigorously reviewing your copy. Line by line, word by word, fact by fact.
By the way, somebody made this exact same mistake last fall. History really does repeat itself.
The other involved a quote where you dropped a letter. You wrote that Taylor had a "broke neck" when it fact it should have been "broken neck."
One dropped word. That's all it takes to fatal. And again, spell check wouldn't have caught that.
Bicyclist: Attribution
Most people are getting the hang of attribution; some of you not so much.
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.
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.
So be transparent with your readers about how you got your information, and attribute.
Bicyclist: Say What You Mean, Mean What You Say
This lede was dangerously close to being a fatal:
Marsha Taylor called cycling a hobby that she couldn't imagine her life without, until she was hit by a car while riding and was left with multiple injuries.
The problem here is what you literally say: that she couldn't give up riding until the accident. What I think you meant to say was, she couldn't give up riding even after the accident. After all, she said this:
"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."
The use of until simply wasn't correct. It changed the context of what was supported by the facts.
It's critical that you find the best and most correct words to convey the meaning based on the factual evidence, and not use any words that are at best confusing and at worst misleading.
Say what you mean, and mean what you say.
Marsha Taylor called cycling a hobby that she couldn't imagine her life without, until she was hit by a car while riding and was left with multiple injuries.
The problem here is what you literally say: that she couldn't give up riding until the accident. What I think you meant to say was, she couldn't give up riding even after the accident. After all, she said this:
"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."
The use of until simply wasn't correct. It changed the context of what was supported by the facts.
It's critical that you find the best and most correct words to convey the meaning based on the factual evidence, and not use any words that are at best confusing and at worst misleading.
Say what you mean, and mean what you say.
Bicyclist: Paraphrases
Quotes are great when they lend a human voice and add drama or humanity to cold facts, like this quote:
"Geez, you might as well ask what wasn't injured," Taylor said.
Dry things like numbers and basic facts without any context are probably best turned into paraphrases. Like this:
"I had a mild concussion, a broken neck, six broken ribs, a broken arm, and a broken pelvis," Taylor said.
In this case, if you turn it into a paraphrase, it doesn't lose any meaning since she was just dryly reciting a laundry list of trauma. See here:
Taylor said she had a mild concussion, a broken neck, six broken ribs, a broken arm, and a broken pelvis.
It's not wrong that you use a quote in such a situation. But it's not nearly as necessary as the first quote.
"Geez, you might as well ask what wasn't injured," Taylor said.
Dry things like numbers and basic facts without any context are probably best turned into paraphrases. Like this:
"I had a mild concussion, a broken neck, six broken ribs, a broken arm, and a broken pelvis," Taylor said.
In this case, if you turn it into a paraphrase, it doesn't lose any meaning since she was just dryly reciting a laundry list of trauma. See here:
Taylor said she had a mild concussion, a broken neck, six broken ribs, a broken arm, and a broken pelvis.
It's not wrong that you use a quote in such a situation. But it's not nearly as necessary as the first quote.
Bicyclist: Quotes
Quotes are a great way to highlight a point, illustrate a fact and personalize a calculated telling.
Some of you who hooked the story on the angle that Taylor can't wait to write again, like in this lede/nut graf combo:
Marsha Taylor's body may be broken but her love for cycling, with the proper precautions, persists after suffering major injuries from a bike accident she was involved in four months ago.
She was released from Izzo Memorial Hospital two days ago after finishing ongoing treatments for her many external and internal injuries and recollected on her accident.
Plus, you had a golden quote to use:
"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," Taylor said.
Great quote, right? Looking at the get-back-on-that-horse lede, it would be a perfect quote to support and confirm the lede for readers, right? Sums up your main point nicely, does it not?
Problem is, in this case you never used that quote!
And why not? We should always be on the lookout for quotes that support and highlight the central points of our stories, and then we should use those quotes prominently.
Others had very telling quotes that very much went to the heart of your ledes, yet you held off on using the quotes until toward the end of your stories. Like this story, that led with ...
Marsha Taylor called cycling a hobby that she couldn't imagine her life without, even after she was hit by a car while riding and was left with multiple injuries.
Then, in the eighth graf, there was this:
"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," Taylor said.
In those cases, I think such quotes would have been better positioned as the first quotes you use in the stories, ideally after the lede and nut graf and before you moved into the body of the story with a chronological telling.
In this case, I think it could be the nut graf, since it does what a nut graf is supposed to do: elaborate, expand and support the lede.
I'm wondering in such cases, if you held on to a great quote to use for a satisfying ending. For those of you who featurized this story, a satisfying ending was an option, but you should avoid holding off on a killer quote just for a satisfying ending. Use your best quotes prominently.
It's not enough to find quotes that support central points of your story. It's not even enough to use quotes that support central points of your story. You should make sure the best quotes that best support your central points are ranked within your story in a spot that recognizes the prominence.
In the same way that it's not enough to have a story that's relevant, interesting and useful and that you need to have a lede where the relevance, interest and utility shine through; it's not enough to have a story with good quotes and you need to have a story where good quotes shine through.
Some of you who hooked the story on the angle that Taylor can't wait to write again, like in this lede/nut graf combo:
Marsha Taylor's body may be broken but her love for cycling, with the proper precautions, persists after suffering major injuries from a bike accident she was involved in four months ago.
She was released from Izzo Memorial Hospital two days ago after finishing ongoing treatments for her many external and internal injuries and recollected on her accident.
Plus, you had a golden quote to use:
"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," Taylor said.
Great quote, right? Looking at the get-back-on-that-horse lede, it would be a perfect quote to support and confirm the lede for readers, right? Sums up your main point nicely, does it not?
Problem is, in this case you never used that quote!
And why not? We should always be on the lookout for quotes that support and highlight the central points of our stories, and then we should use those quotes prominently.
Others had very telling quotes that very much went to the heart of your ledes, yet you held off on using the quotes until toward the end of your stories. Like this story, that led with ...
Marsha Taylor called cycling a hobby that she couldn't imagine her life without, even after she was hit by a car while riding and was left with multiple injuries.
Then, in the eighth graf, there was this:
"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," Taylor said.
In those cases, I think such quotes would have been better positioned as the first quotes you use in the stories, ideally after the lede and nut graf and before you moved into the body of the story with a chronological telling.
In this case, I think it could be the nut graf, since it does what a nut graf is supposed to do: elaborate, expand and support the lede.
I'm wondering in such cases, if you held on to a great quote to use for a satisfying ending. For those of you who featurized this story, a satisfying ending was an option, but you should avoid holding off on a killer quote just for a satisfying ending. Use your best quotes prominently.
It's not enough to find quotes that support central points of your story. It's not even enough to use quotes that support central points of your story. You should make sure the best quotes that best support your central points are ranked within your story in a spot that recognizes the prominence.
In the same way that it's not enough to have a story that's relevant, interesting and useful and that you need to have a lede where the relevance, interest and utility shine through; it's not enough to have a story with good quotes and you need to have a story where good quotes shine through.
Bicyclist: Be Compact With Words
Like in this passage:
In the hospital, doctors confirmed that she had gotten a mild concussion, a broken neck, six broken ribs, a broken arm and a broken pelvis.
That's a lot of repetition with the word broken. You use it four times in one sentence! Why not look to use that term just once and in connection with a number of injuries, like this:
In the hospital, doctors confirmed that she had gotten a mild concussion and broke her neck, six ribs, an arm and her pelvis.
A bit more compact and concise, right?
Whenever you have a graf where you use the same word or term repeatedly, look for ways to end the "echo" and use the word in a more efficient manner.
In the hospital, doctors confirmed that she had gotten a mild concussion, a broken neck, six broken ribs, a broken arm and a broken pelvis.
That's a lot of repetition with the word broken. You use it four times in one sentence! Why not look to use that term just once and in connection with a number of injuries, like this:
In the hospital, doctors confirmed that she had gotten a mild concussion and broke her neck, six ribs, an arm and her pelvis.
A bit more compact and concise, right?
Whenever you have a graf where you use the same word or term repeatedly, look for ways to end the "echo" and use the word in a more efficient manner.
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.
Also, a refresher on the AP numbers rule, which a few of you are still grappling with: in general, spell out numbers below 10, and use numerals for numbers 10 and higher.
So in most cases, two is two. And 12 is 12.
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.
Also, a refresher on the AP numbers rule, which a few of you are still grappling with: in general, spell out numbers below 10, and use numerals for numbers 10 and higher.
So in most cases, two is two. And 12 is 12.
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
Drowning/Robbery: Overall
These were tough assignments for many of you. Very few people scored in the 3.0 range. Most people were somewhere between 2.0 and 3.0. We had quite a few fatals.
Am I worried for you? Not at all.
These assignments have been traditional stumbling blocks for previous classes. If you don't believe me, look at the February 2011 blog entries under the "robbery" and "drowning" headings. This is what I wrote on Feb. 18, 2011 in the spring semester's class blog:
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 a better 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.
In many cases, you're stumbling in the exact same ways previous classes have stumbled. If anything, you're fataling at a lower rate than those previous classes.
(To date, 11 of 21 students in this class have fact-fataled. Last spring as of now it was 14 of 15. Yet a bunch of people got 3.5s and 4.0s as final grades, and I'm not sure anyone who actually completed all their assignments scored worse than a 3.0).
These are normal stumbles for people looking at new ways of organizing and presenting information. Up to now, writing for you has been an artistic exercise, and reading has been an act of gleaning general knowledge.
Now, writing is organizing information in a way that allows what is most interesting, relevant and useful to others to be clear and concise and supported by a structure of facts. (Remember what I said about this not being a writing class, but an information organization class? Does it make a bit more sense now?)
Plus, when you're editing a story, you're not just trying to get the gist of meaning like a casual reader. You are learning to scan a page for inconsistencies and mistakes and affirmations that what you wrote is what you meant to write and has been double-checked for accuracy.
It's a whole new way of doing things -- reading and writing -- you've been doing for just about your entire life. And that new way takes some time to get used to.
To that end, you need a new way of managing your time when writing. When writing for English comp, you just write. If you have an hour to write, you write for 60 minutes. The major goal is to simply write your story.
But in journalism writing is one of three elements; the others being understanding what you are writing about before you're writing, and then reviewing your work to make sure what you wrote is what you intended, and that what you wrote will make sense to some schlub you don't know who's gonna read it.
To that end, you need to budget your time appropriately. If you have an hour, maybe the first 15 minutes go to immersing yourself in your material and gaining a thorough understanding of it; then the next half-hour goes to actual writing; and the last 15 minutes are dedicated to solid fact-checking and editing. You cannot treat the final step as something you'll squeeze in as an add-on; you have to make it as much a priority as the actual writing. And we express prioritization by how much time we give something.
It's not hopeless. Not at all, even if you feel a bit overwhelmed. The thing is, you're just being challenged to do something that's within you but you've never had to bring out. It's like riding a bike. The first few times you did it as a kid, you were probably a bit wobbly and scraped a knee or two. That didn't mean you were hopeless as a bike rider; just that you were new at it.
Consider these early assignments your skinned knee.
To that end, this class is massively back-loaded grade-wise. Even though as of next week we'll be 50 percent of the way through the semester, 80 percent of your final grade has yet to be determined!
That's by design. We use these practice stories -- which are relatively low in weight -- to see what you do well and what you need to improve upon, and then we look at fixing strategies. Each practice story represents maybe 1.5 percent of your final grade.
What we work up to are your out-of-class stories. Each of those represent more than 10 percent of your final grade. And you have the option -- which I strongly suggest you take -- to do an extra out-of-class story, which would create extra credit worth roughly that much.
I understand that fatals and low grades are frustrating. But don't get frustrated. We're still just getting started. And if past semesters have taught me anything, it's that you're about to turn a corner in the coming weeks.
You're much more on track than you know.
Am I worried for you? Not at all.
These assignments have been traditional stumbling blocks for previous classes. If you don't believe me, look at the February 2011 blog entries under the "robbery" and "drowning" headings. This is what I wrote on Feb. 18, 2011 in the spring semester's class blog:
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 a better 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.
In many cases, you're stumbling in the exact same ways previous classes have stumbled. If anything, you're fataling at a lower rate than those previous classes.
(To date, 11 of 21 students in this class have fact-fataled. Last spring as of now it was 14 of 15. Yet a bunch of people got 3.5s and 4.0s as final grades, and I'm not sure anyone who actually completed all their assignments scored worse than a 3.0).
These are normal stumbles for people looking at new ways of organizing and presenting information. Up to now, writing for you has been an artistic exercise, and reading has been an act of gleaning general knowledge.
Now, writing is organizing information in a way that allows what is most interesting, relevant and useful to others to be clear and concise and supported by a structure of facts. (Remember what I said about this not being a writing class, but an information organization class? Does it make a bit more sense now?)
Plus, when you're editing a story, you're not just trying to get the gist of meaning like a casual reader. You are learning to scan a page for inconsistencies and mistakes and affirmations that what you wrote is what you meant to write and has been double-checked for accuracy.
It's a whole new way of doing things -- reading and writing -- you've been doing for just about your entire life. And that new way takes some time to get used to.
To that end, you need a new way of managing your time when writing. When writing for English comp, you just write. If you have an hour to write, you write for 60 minutes. The major goal is to simply write your story.
But in journalism writing is one of three elements; the others being understanding what you are writing about before you're writing, and then reviewing your work to make sure what you wrote is what you intended, and that what you wrote will make sense to some schlub you don't know who's gonna read it.
To that end, you need to budget your time appropriately. If you have an hour, maybe the first 15 minutes go to immersing yourself in your material and gaining a thorough understanding of it; then the next half-hour goes to actual writing; and the last 15 minutes are dedicated to solid fact-checking and editing. You cannot treat the final step as something you'll squeeze in as an add-on; you have to make it as much a priority as the actual writing. And we express prioritization by how much time we give something.
It's not hopeless. Not at all, even if you feel a bit overwhelmed. The thing is, you're just being challenged to do something that's within you but you've never had to bring out. It's like riding a bike. The first few times you did it as a kid, you were probably a bit wobbly and scraped a knee or two. That didn't mean you were hopeless as a bike rider; just that you were new at it.
Consider these early assignments your skinned knee.
To that end, this class is massively back-loaded grade-wise. Even though as of next week we'll be 50 percent of the way through the semester, 80 percent of your final grade has yet to be determined!
That's by design. We use these practice stories -- which are relatively low in weight -- to see what you do well and what you need to improve upon, and then we look at fixing strategies. Each practice story represents maybe 1.5 percent of your final grade.
What we work up to are your out-of-class stories. Each of those represent more than 10 percent of your final grade. And you have the option -- which I strongly suggest you take -- to do an extra out-of-class story, which would create extra credit worth roughly that much.
I understand that fatals and low grades are frustrating. But don't get frustrated. We're still just getting started. And if past semesters have taught me anything, it's that you're about to turn a corner in the coming weeks.
You're much more on track than you know.
Drowning: Peanut Barrel Rule
Like I was saying, 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:
This morning, the police department released the name of the man who died trying to save a 10-year-old boy 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 East Lansing Regional Medical Center announced today the boy who was pulled out of Nichols Lake after he waded too far from shore yesterday has died.
. . . and this one, too:
Edward McGorwan, the 10-year-old boy who nearly drowned yesterday in Nichols Lake, was pronounced dead this morning, according to Dr. Catrina Lowrie from the Regional Medical Center.
(I do have a nit-pick with the second of these two ledes, though -- is it right to say the boy "nearly" drowned? After all, he did end up dying. Could you have found a better phrase to replace that word, like "was 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:
It was announced that 10-year-old Edward McGorwan died after being taken off of a respirator this morning,m and the man who died trying to save him from drowning at Lakeside Park's Nichols Lake yesterday was 30-year-old William McDowell.
This lede is a bit long and wordy, but 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:
This morning, the police department released the name of the man who died trying to save a 10-year-old boy 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 East Lansing Regional Medical Center announced today the boy who was pulled out of Nichols Lake after he waded too far from shore yesterday has died.
. . . and this one, too:
Edward McGorwan, the 10-year-old boy who nearly drowned yesterday in Nichols Lake, was pronounced dead this morning, according to Dr. Catrina Lowrie from the Regional Medical Center.
(I do have a nit-pick with the second of these two ledes, though -- is it right to say the boy "nearly" drowned? After all, he did end up dying. Could you have found a better phrase to replace that word, like "was 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:
It was announced that 10-year-old Edward McGorwan died after being taken off of a respirator this morning,m and the man who died trying to save him from drowning at Lakeside Park's Nichols Lake yesterday was 30-year-old William McDowell.
This lede is a bit long and wordy, but see how that says everything that needs to be said, and hits ultimate outcome(s) the best?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)