Normally I don't blog about out-of-class work. Normally, the first out-of-classer is a bit of a struggle for my classes, as they ramp up and put their full set of skills to the test for the first time.
But for many of you, this one was a real struggle.
We had a time fatal, where someone missed the deadline. Please make sure you meet your deadline, no matter what. A safe way to do that is to email your story to me the night before, as a backup. Then hand in the printed copy the next day.
We had fact fatals. I've never had more than one person fatal on a single round of out-of-class stories, until now. In this one, we had three.
In one case, someone apparently assumed a locale was in East Lansing. In fact, it was on the Lansing side of the Lansing-East Lansing border. In another case, someone misspelled the name of an MSU landmark. DON'T ASSUME ANYTHING AND DOUBLE-CHECK EVERYTHING.
In the third case, someone misspelled "oversees" in a quote as "overseas." Any error in a quote is a fatal.
Use the accuracy checklist I handed out at the start of the term. There should be no reason anything should be unverified in an out-of-class story. You have access to Google searches and Web sites to help you confirm spellings and names and locations. Make sure you are dedicating a significant amount of time to fact-checking.
We had weak ledes, where you failed to develop a central idea. Think about the principles we've been practicing in here every day with the practice stories. After interviewing, look through your notes and identify a central theme or point or end result or ultimate outcome that adheres to the Peanut Barrel rule. Saying that you spoke with somebody is not a lede.
We had too few sources. Three is not really the minimum. Rather, it's having enough sources to cover the complexity of an issue. That would mean proponents AND opponents, decision-makers AND those impacted by those decisions, people with an interest in an issue AND neutral experts that can help make sense of things in an unbiased way.
We had one-sided stories that just talked to one side of an issue, without getting counterpoints or the views of everyday people or neutral experts. That's not journalism. Journalism is getting ALL sides of a complex issue, and not just one. Do research and explore an issue; the fewer sides you talk to, the more vulnerable you are to not knowing what you're leaving out.
We weren't curious enough. Some people just took one source's word for it, and though it was enough reporting. It never is. We talk to multiple people about the same thing to ensure consistency in answers and to discover and then research any inconsistencies. Others thought it as enough to send emails or fill out Web site forms. It's not. Get on the phone or go meet people face-to-face.
We had too few neutral experts. A part of this exercise is to find and utilize neutral experts: people who have knowledge on a particular issue, but who don' have a stake in the outcome. Look at the blog entries for neutral experts if you need ideas. But you need to come up with ideas.
For many of you, this may mean you need to see me during office hours. And that's fine! That's what office hours are for. If you're having issues with story organization or structure or sourcing or whatever, come see me and let's work on it. Don't wait until a day or two before things are due; let's get ahead of these issues.
The good news for you is that you'll get opportunities to do a rewrite of this story, due Monday, that will help lift your grade on this assignment. And you'll have a second out-of-class story due Friday that also will be eligible for a rewrite. And there's a third out-of-classer and even an extra credit out-of-classer, each of which will be due the last day of class.
So this is all fixable. But we're running out of time. We have to start acting on things NOW. Be proactive, see me for help as needed and as soon as possible, and let's get you a grade you'll feel good about.
No comments:
Post a Comment