Out-of-Class #2: Overall

Each class I have I remember for having done something well, and something not-so-well.

Oddly, what is shaping up as my memory for this class is contradictory.

The good thing so far is the lack of fatals on practice stories. But the bad thing is the unprecedented volume of fatals on out-of-class stories.

We had three more with the second out-of-class stories, bringing the semester total to seven. Which is more than all other semesters I've taught, combined.

And it's the usual array of small stuff. Like saying BBBC News (three B's) when you meant BBC News (with two B's).

Or spelling President Barack Obama's first name as Barrack, with one too many r's. (Ironically, misspelling Obama's name was an example of a fatal in the syllabus!).

Or spelling desert (a dry place) when you meant to spell dessert (a sweet post-dinner snack).

The only lesson we learn is the one we seem to be overlooking at our peril: double-checking each and every name, title, figure and fact after we finish writing to ensure what we wrote is correct and is what we intended to write has nothing to do with talent, just vigilance.

It's too bad, because many people did quite well in this exercise, doing things like ...

... talking to a wide range of sources (instead of just one narrow category of sources).

For example, one of you did a story on how Chinese students at MSU may be affected by changes in Chinese leadership, in which you talked to Chinese students (the obvious central point of the story) AND MSU officials (another important groups, since they oversee the students) AND an expert in Asian politics (a neutral expert!).

It broadly reached across several parties that either have a stake in the issue AND experts who can help readers put those viewpoints into a better context.

... and interviewing sources first-hand (as opposed to simply citing other news organizations and Web sites).

One story on student health was flawed by its over-reliance on second-hand sources, which could easily have been supplanted by first-hand local sources we could have interviewed ourselves. Why cite livestrong.com when we could talk to a health expert at Olin Health Center? Why cite realsimple.com when we could go to a clinic and talk to a local doctor or nurse? Why go to WebMD when we could talk to a professor in the School of Medicine here? 


... and structuring stories well with ledes than went to ultimate outcome and end result and nut grafs that filled in details from the lede and telling quotes that hammered home main points ...

... and using frequent attribution, so that readers knew where we were getting our information ...

... and not making assumptions, and finding sourcing for background information. Some people had statements that simply lacked attribution. For example, a statement saying people are wondering whether the electoral college should be scrapped didn't come from out of nowhere. How do you know that? You need to tell your readers that. If you're not sure how, exactly, you know that, then find a knowledgeable source to cite, like a neutral expert.

... and finding and using neutral experts to help readers navigate stories.

For example, one of you who did a story in student diversity spoke with a psychoanalyst about the psychology behind accepting or fighting diversity. Another person doing a story about the Nobel Peace Prize interviewed a history professor here at MSU. A story about college eating habits included comments from a nutritionist. A report on the dude who jumped from the edge of outer space had interviews with the head of MSU's physics department about the science behind the jump. 

... and offering data to support your generalizations. One person didn't just write that the population of Chinese international students at MSU has increased, they cited data: it's grown by more than 400 percent to almost 3,500 students in 2011, according to the MSU Office of International Students and Scholars, That's showing me, and not just telling me.

... and offering quotes to support your data and generalizations. For example, the aforementioned story on student diversity had this generalization-and-quote pairing:

Peter Wood, a psychoanalyst in East Lansing, said that how the student was raised at home is a great indicator as to how the student wull accept diversity upon going to such a large school like MSU

"Having trouble accepting differences in people always has the possibility to create stereotypes. With that, stereotypes are something you cannot escape in life; they are everywhere," Wood said.

The generalization/quote package creates a more powerful subsection than if each lacked the other; the generalization provides a basic understanding but the quote adds a human voice and proof for the generalization.

Like I said, lots of good stuff. And lots to emulate and learn from.