Controversial: Be Efficient With Words

It's important that you look for unnecessary words and strip those out of your work. Like in this lede:

The East Lansing School Board has made a decision on Tuesday to implement a ban to no longer allow boys from competing in girls' sports.

It's a good lede, but wordy. First, do you need to say has made a decision to when just saying decided would suffice?

Second, isn't saying implement a ban and no longer allow the same thing? I'd get rid of one of those, or even both. After all, doesn't ban say all that in just one word? What we have left is this:

The East Lansing School Board decided Tuesday to ban boys from competing in girls' sports.

Is there any difference in meaning or context or detail than the first lede? I'd say not. It's just a lot shorter and less wordy.

Basic Ledes: Use Simple Language

Some of you wrote something like; martial disruption is greater among highly-educated women.

What is martial disruption, though? In going through the information you were given, it appears the metrics the study used were whether and when people got divorced or separated.

So, why not say just that: separation or divorce is greater among highly-educated women.

When you have a chance to simplify a term and be more precise, please do take that opportunity,

Obits: Just A Few Things

First off,  we have some fatals to go over. Really, a lot of fatals. Nine out of 18, to be exact. That means one of every two people fataled. It's the biggest fatal binge of the semester, on an assignment that in past classes has typically been the easiest assignment of the term.

And it's the usual variety.

In three cases, we misspelled the first name of Terrence as Terrance, with an "a." Three!

In another instance, we spelled Terrence as Terence, with only one "r."

In two other cases, the last name Burnes was misspelled as the more common Burns, without the "e."

Also, we misspelled "fine" as "ine" -- with the "f" missing -- inside of a quote. Any misspelling inside of a quote is a fatal.

In another case, we alternately spelled the restaurant's name as Deacosta's and Deacista's. Obviously, one had to be wrong, right?

Also, in one case we said the dead guy was a resident of Chicago. In fact, he was born in Chicago and moved to East Lansing as an infant. (Remember all pertinent unspecified locales were East Lansing?)

(In regard to all these fatals, I'm wondering if I did you guys a disservice in allowing for so many practice stories to be done as homework, in that you didn't have to balance writing and fact-checking with deadlines in such a rigorous way as when we do practice stories in-class with a stricter and more immediate deadline.)

(I know some of you think I can be tough, but in this case I'm fearing that I wasn't tough enough to a point where we worked out bad habits and instituted good habits by more realistically simulating deadline conditions.)

(Unfortunately, we are just about out of time to keep working on this. I implore you to take the fact-checking strategies we've discussed and that are offered in this blog and make sure you implement them each and every time from here on out, and into your communications careers.)

Next, let's remember this lessons from the first few days of class: journalists do not use euphemisms -- words or terms used in place of more direct terms or words -- we use direct language.

In the case of this assignment, that means we don't say someone passed away,which is a euphemism for dying. So we simply say they died.

Plus, we should have capitalized the names of the medals he earned: the Bronze Star and Purple Heart. Why? Because those are the specific names of specific medals. And we capitalize specific names. Which is why a certain person is Terrence Austin and not terrence austin, and why a certain type of car is a Ford Mustang and not a ford mustang.

Also, one last AP style check: when we have multiple people with the same last name in a story, then we throw out the usual AP Style rule where in first identification we use first and last names, and from then on just the last name.

Instead, in these instances we use the first and last names throughout, for every person who shares the same last name. Including the deceased, in this case.

Now, you don't need to start using the full name after the first reference until you actually hit a second Austin in your story. But once you do, its firsts and lasts the rest of the way.

Finally, you would know you should capitalize Marines if you looked in your AP Style Book under the heading of, Marines.

Controversial: Be Efficient With Words

It's important that you look for unnecessary words and strip those out of your work. Like in this lede:

The East Lansing School Board has made a decision on Tuesday to implement a ban to no longer allow boys from competing in girls' sports.

It's a good lede, but wordy. First, do you need to say has made a decision to when just saying decided would suffice?

Second, isn't saying implement a ban and no longer allow the same thing? I'd get rid of one of those, or even both. After all, doesn't ban say all that in just one word? What we have left is this:

The East Lansing School Board decided Tuesday to ban boys from competing in girls' sports.

Is there any difference in meaning or context or detail than the first lede? I'd say not. It's just a lot shorter and less wordy.

Alt Ledes: Use Words Correctly; Use Correct Words

Language is important in journalism because people read what we write for understanding. Using a word incorrectly or using an incorrect word can create confusion at best, and an unintended meaning and fact error at worst.

Take for example, this lede:

In an attempt to trim city expenses, local officials announced that offendants will be charged $25 for mug shot and fingerprint services.

Structurally, it's a nice lede. But what the hell is an offendant? Now, there is the word defendant, which is someone accused of something. And offender, which is someone who did something. You kinda merged those two words to invent a new word.

I appreciate your eagerness to expand the English language, but if we are to be understandable we should use word that have already been invented and are well-known, okay?

Alt Ledes: Look For Inclusive Words

Many of you in the animals lede referred to "ecologists and biologists." A couple of you simply referred to "scientists."

And why not? Ecologists and biologists are scientists. It's simpler and doesn't result in any lost meaning to your readers.

If you have the opportunity to group specifics under a single umbrella term, consider that course of action.

Basic Ledes: Merge Sentences

The best ledes are just one sentence in length. And often, when you have a two-sentence lede, it's easy to merge it into one. Like here:

County treasurer Vernon Sindelair pleaded guilty to embezzlement Wednesday morning. Sindelair was charged with embezzling over $1.7 million and faces up to 30 years in prison.

A cue to look for in whether you can abbreviate a lede is whether you refer to something twice, like you do to Sindelair and embezzlement. Usually, you can cut that down to one reference by rearranging word order and eliminating redundancy, like this:

County treasurer Vernon Sindelair pleaded guilty Wednesday morning to embezzling over $1.7 million and faces up to 30 years in prison.

Getting rid of the second references also allows us to merge the sentences. And we lose no significant meaning at all. It's just shorter and clearer and less choppy. 

Murder: Say What You Mean; Mean What You Say

This was one of your lede/nut graf sequences:

 It was another routine morning for Nina Cortez at teh North Point Inn Restaurant, but it would quickly become one of her worst days.


A man armed with a knife came into the restaurant yesterday around 9 a.m. and stole $130 from Cortez and then killed a cook, said Cortez.


The cook, Kevin Blohm, had arrived at 8 a.m. to prepare for serving lunch at 11:30 a.m., said Cortez.

And then you went into a chronology of how things unfolded. And it reads really nicely, except for one thing: you said it was another routine morning. Unless cooks get killed every day, it was anything but routine.

I think what you meant to say was, it started as another routine morning.

Be precise. Say what you mean, and mean what you say.

Squirrels: Watch Your Wordiness

I have a big example and a small example.

First, the big one. This is what one of you wrote:

Laura Ruffenboch, a wildlife professor at LCC, has attempted to shed some light as to why this odd set of circumstances has come about. Ruffenboch said that many electrical wires are made from soybean derivatives, making them attractive to squirrels.

Let's look at the first sentence. It's something I call an empty sentence, in which you're not saying anything. All you're saying is that there's something to say, and then you say the specifics in the next sentence.

So, why not get rid of that first sentence and move its full attribution to the second sentence, like this:

Laura Ruffenboch, a wildlife professor at LCC, said that many electrical wires are made from soybean derivatives, making them attractive to squirrels.

What's missing in terms of meaning and context and facts? Nothing. Just the wordiness is gone.

Now, here's a small example. Why say professor of English at LCC Oliver Brookes when you can reverse word order in the title and call him LCC English professor Oliver Brookes?

School: Be Efficient With Words

It's important that you look for unnecessary words and strip those out of your work. Like in this lede:

The East Lansing School Board has made a decision on Tuesday to implement a ban to no longer allow boys from competing in girls' sports.

It's a good lede, but wordy. First, do you need to say has made a decision to when just saying decided would suffice?

Second, isn't saying implement a ban and no longer allow the same thing? I'd get rid of one of those, or even both. After all, doesn't ban say all that in just one word? What we have left is this:

The East Lansing School Board decided Tuesday to ban boys from competing in girls' sports.

Is there any difference in meaning or context or detail than the first lede? I'd say not. It's just a lot shorter and less wordy.

Practice Ledes: Look For Inclusive Words

Many of you in the animals lede referred to "ecologists and biologists." A couple of you simply referred to "scientists."

And why not? Ecologists and biologists are scientists. It's simpler and doesn't result in any lost meaning to your readers.

If you have the opportunity to group specifics under a single umbrella term, consider that course of action.

Ledes: Ledes I Liked

I'm happy to say that everybody did no worse than pretty good in this assignment, which in the past has been an ungraded piece of classwork. This year I'm going to give you some credit, though: you all get a boost to your overall quiz grade that's equivalent to 10 out of 10 on a single quiz. Which everybody could use.

On this first assignment, it was far less important that I grade you and more critical that you get used to writing in a journalistic style and under a newsroom-type deadline before it starts counting for something.

Still, I think you're right where you need to be. Let's look at some of the ledes I thought worked well:

Forty-three percent of American marriages break up within 15 years due to marrying young and being less religious, according to the Centers for Disease Control.

It identifies the most telling statistic, highlights it and provides a source for it. Nice work. This one collects a variety of factors:

Women who are wealthy, religious, college-educated, and at least 20 years old when they marry are less likely to get divorced, according to the Centers for Disease Control.


Next is this:

Mayor Datolli will introduce a new panhandling ordinance next week that will provide one-way bus tickets out of town to vagrants.

It has who: the mayor who is acting, and homeless people being acted upon (though is it okay to call them vagrants, or is that a stereotypical slur that should have been replaced with the term "homeless people"?). It has what: the mayor wanting to boot the homeless out of here. It has when: as soon as next week. It has how: one-way bus tickets for the homeless. Four of six W's are covered here, and in only 22 words.

Next is this:

A local swimming pool is being sued for extensive injuries to a local resident who claims swimming officials failed to warn him of immediate lightning danger last summer.

Again, it sums everything you need to know in a simple, straightforward way. This next lede -- which was done by my fall 2011 class, and not this one -- went a step further, and honed in on context:

Erik Barsh was going to be a senior tennis star until last summer when he was struck by lightning. Now he is in a legal volley with the city.

This is a more complex type of lede known by various terms, including a delayed lede (where the lede sets up a following nut graf that reads more like a basic lede) and an anecdotal lede (where in this case you are humanizing the subject a bit before plunging into the reason why this particular human is worthy of news coverage).

I didn't plan for you guys doing anything beyond a basic lede for this exercise, and it's fine that you did not. We'll talk about alternate ledes and as the term goes on I'll encourage you to try more complex forms of story-telling. But if you want to fall back on the basic lee structure for now, that's perfectly fine. What I want to see you demonstrate for now is proper identification and fact selection. And a basic lede does that just fine.


Now, there are some things missing from these and other ledes, like proper use of the word allegedly, and proper attribution use and style. But since we haven't learned those things yet, you weren't docked. And we'll get to learning those things very soon.

Ledes: Watch Your Tenses!

Traditionally in writing for print, we tend to use the past tense: the man sued the city, the mayor introduced an ordinance, ect. That's because in print, events have already happened by the time the paper reaches its audience.

For broadcast and online breaking news, however, the present tense is acceptable: the man is suing the city, the mayor is introducing an ordinance, ect.

For the purposes of this class, I'd like all exercises to be done in the past tense, unless otherwise noted or circumstances warrant (such as a case where events are ongoing or have yet to have happened).

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

Drowning: Use The Right Words!

Many of you said the boy and the man were rescued from the water. But were they really rescued, since each eventually died?

I'd say not. Better to say they were pulled out of the water. Rescue implies they were saved, which ultimately they were not.

Also, one of you said the boy passed away. Earlier this term, we talked about avoiding euphemisms, which are nice-sounding but vague ways to say something more specific. In most cases, use the specific word, in this case, died.

Squirrels: Watch Your Wordiness

Almost all of you called Oliver Brookes an associate professor of English.

Why not revise word order and shorten it to, an associate English professor?

Also, don't be afraid to cut to the chase, like in this graf:

Laura Ruffenboch had an explanation for why the creatures could be attracted to the cars. Ruffenboch is a wildlife professor at Lansing Community College. Ruffenboch said that the insulation on many electrical wires is made from a derivative of soybeans and squirrels may find that attractive.

There's a lot of wordiness here. The first sentence says she has an explanation but not what the explanation was, so it's not necessary. The second sentence simply states her position, and doesn't say anything else of value. The third sentence actually gets to the point.

I think you can eliminate the first sentence and merge the second and third sentences to say this:

Laura Ruffenboch, a wildlife professor at Lansing Community College, said that the insulation on many electrical wires is made from a derivative of soybeans and squirrels may find that attractive.

Now, the reader loses nothing except two sentences. Their fundamental understanding of who Ruffenboch is and what she has to say is unchanged.