Out-of-Class #1: Overall

Some people did very well on the first out-of-class story. Nice ledes, good attribution, a nice range of sources from different perspectives and sides of an issue, and a lot of original reporting that didn't rely on what you found online from some other news source.

Then again, we had some struggles. And most of those struggles are normal with a first out-of-class story, for which you have not much -- if anything -- compare it to.

There was a lack of attribution, where I didn't know where you got the information from.

There was an over-reliance on other sources for your information, as opposed to you getting quotes and data directly from first-hand sources yourself.

There were instances where you interviewed a narrow set of sources, like just one set of people in a complex issue. You may have just talked to one side of an issue but not the other or neutral experts. It seemed like some people stopped on the first and most obvious source group and didn't ask themselves, "Who else would be a good source to talk to about this? Who else would have good information that is relevant to this issue? Who's on the other side of this issue? Who is affected by this? Who would be a neutral expert, and how do I find them?"

There were some cases where stories were way too wordy and overloaded with paragraphs that took up space but really didn't advance the story or say much of anything in particular. This is journalism and not a term paper, folks; filling a story up with fluff to make the 700-word limit will get you an equally-empty grade.

And some people treated this like a term paper, rather than a news story. What I mean by that is, with a term paper you are filling up a space with relevant information to satisfy an arbitrary standard sought by a teacher.

You have presumptions, and you simply fill the space between presumptions with whatever seems to support the presumption. There really isn't much research of exploration or curiosity or even much consideration that there may very well be a surprising twist out there that may be found if you do enough digging. You're not only not discovering anything; you're just trying to support a presumption.

And that's not journalism.

In a news story, what we are doing is exploring an issue, and investigating it like a detective would a crime scene. Yes, we have some presumptions that we start with, but during the course of our investigation we are seeking sources that either confirm or deny our presumptions or even take the story in a whole new and unexpected direction, based on following the facts.

It's just like a scientific experiment: you start out with a theory, but that theory is just a starting point. Then you fact-test the theory by gaining real-world evidence. Then, you see what the evidence says -- whether or not it has anything left to do with your original theory -- and only then you decide upon your lede and your nut graf and what information you have is worth sharing with your audience.

Still, those problems I expected, and accept. That's normal for a first out-of-classer. But my other expectation I hoped wouldn't come to pass: that at least three people (and maybe two more) fataled this first assignment.


That wasn't a shock because four people fataled the first OOC in my previous semester of this class. But that was by far the most I ever had in a single OOC assignment, never having more than one prior to that.

The frustrating thing to me was that it was clear that the fatals all came from the simplest of mistakes, and were ones where the most basic principles of fact-checking were not being followed.

One person fataled in a story about cruise ship safety, when they referred to the Cruise Lines International Associate. In fact, the name of the group is the Cruise Lines International Association (italics mine), which I confirmed via Google at cruising.org.

That flouted the most basic fatals rule. From the syllabus:

Fact errors: Inaccurate information, misspelling a proper name, a misquotation or an error that changes the meaning of a story automatically drops a grade to a maximum of 1.0 (e.g., President "Barack Obamma" or "Department of Transport").

A second person fataled the name of the school. Instead of Michigan State, it was Michigan Sate, with the first "t" in "State" missing.

Problem is, "sate" is a real word. According to the American Heritage Dictionary sitting on my bookshelf, it's a verb that means, to satisfy (an appetite) fully; to indulge in excess; glut.

In the same story, there was a quote that said "I wonder how long they have to be in their for." We meant to say how long they're "there" for (italics mine).

I'd like to remind you one more time that spell check is a supplement to -- but not a substitute for -- checking a story word-for-word, fact-by-fact and line-by-line against your notes. Because spell check will not catch an incorrect spelling that creates an unintended and inaccurate but correctly-spelled word, like when your misspelling of "state" creates "sate."

The same problem applied to another person who fataled a quote, saying "I kind of had a foot it both camps," when they clearly meant to say "foot in both camps."

I'd like to remind you one more time that spell check is a supplement to -- but not a substitute for -- checking a story word-for-word, fact-by-fact and line-by-line against your notes. Because spell check will not catch an incorrect spelling that creates an unintended and inaccurate but correctly-spelled word, like when your misspelling of "in" creates "it."
 
Additionally, there are a couple of people whose interview notes I'd like to see. In one case, they have a quote that says ""I talk with students of across the board," which doesn't seem to make sense. I suspect the "of" doesn't belong there, which would make it a fatal.

In another story, someone has a quote that recommended  travel "if they have the recourses," which is an odd but not completely implausible use of the word. Did you mean resources? If so, that's a fatal, too.

So, a couple of grades are subject to revision.

We need to make sure we don't take anything for granted, even when we're writing down the most common name and assuming it has the most common spelling. Don't assume anything; if they say their name is John Smith, ask them if it's the common spelling and if they can spell it out, letter-by-letter. I promise you, the first time you assume you'll find out the next day his name was spelled Jon Smythe.

Yes, as a professional journalist I learned this the hard way, too.


Early on in this class, I talked about how doing all the little routine things in journalism -- like thoroughly checking your work to make sure what you wrote was what you intended to write, and that it was accurate as compared to your notes and the facts -- was something that you could never take for granted. It's not.

And it has nothing to do with talent, just vigilance. In the same way American can have the best army in the world, it doesn't really matter if the one night the army takes the night off, Canada decides to invade us.

Or if we're trying to stay in shape, and instead of running our miles every day we start to cut corners and slack here and there. Eventually, the pounds will start showing.

The fact is, you could be the world's best journalist, and you still have to do all the little and annoying things -- like checking routine facts -- if you want to stay ahead of making mistakes. Because when you're processing thousands of words a day in a professional environment and on deadline, a mistake is always waiting to catch you at a lax moment and bite your ass.

It's why The New York Times has the best journalists in the world, yet they still have a copy desk.

So there's no big thing to learn from the fatals, other than if we want to do things the right way, we have to do things the right way completely and each and every time.

This job isn't about writing. It's about getting it right. I'm sorry some of you have to learn that lesson in a very harsh manner.

The good news is, you have a rewrite. You have other assignments, including an optional fourth out-of-class story where if you do it, I take your worst-graded out-of-class story and replace it with the fourth one's grade. (if you fatal any out-of-class story, I cannot urge you more strongly to do a fourth out-of-classer, so we can get your grade to a better place.)

And I will offer a wide range of extra-credit opportunities that will do two things: prove to me that you can do all those little things right (along with the big things), and give you an opportunity to repair your grade and (hopefully) essentially make these fatals go away when it comes to your final grade.

I don't care if it takes you 10 out-of-class stories to do three well; just show me you can do three well. And yes, I will do everything I can to help you get there. If you're having issues and we're not talking during my office hours -- and I have 40 office hours each week! -- then we're not doing everything we can to pull up our grades.

But we have to start making sure we're following all the steps, every time. No more short cuts. No more assumptions. No more blowing things off until the last minute, and no more skipping me outside of class if you think you can use the help.

Each and every one of you is capable of doing this, and doing it well. But we need to do all the things we're supposed to do for that to happen.