How do you know so many people went missing last year? Did you count them yourself? Did you just make it up?
No. You got that from the U.S. Justice Department, right?
Well, how are your readers supposed to know that? Through attribution, of course.
So, offer the data and then attach, according to the U.S. Justice Department.
How do you know Jason Abare was found after a drunk driving arrest to have skipped out on child support? Were you there for the arrest?
Of course not. You know because he told you. So, if you were paraphrasing Abare's situation, you needed to say, Abare said.
Pretty much everything not witnessed by you should have some sort of attribution. He said; she said; according to records; whatever.
Make sure you have properly attributed everything in your story. Basically, every paragraph after the lede and nut graf should have some sort of attribution affixed to it.
I know that's gonna look a bit weird, having graf after graf with so-and-so said this and this other dude said that and so on. But we do it as journalists to make sure that readers know exactly where we got our information. It promotes transparency and illustrates the factual basis for a story.
Over the next few days, when you're doing your daily newspaper readings please note attribution. See how frequent it is. See how writers offer it. Get a sense of how it's supposed to look in a finished product.
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
Missing -- Uh . . .
Many of you used quotes where the interview subject stammered. Like here:
"So, uh, I met this guy who was moving to New York. He didn't want to take me, said I was too young, but I, uh, got him to change his mind."
You may find the information to be useful, but the "uh's" are awkward. You have options on how to handle this.
First, you can translate the quotes into paraphrases, like this:
She said she met a man who was moving to New York City who didn't want to take her because she was too young, but she convinced him to change his mind.
Or, you could use quote fragments to work around the "um's" like this:
She said she "met this guy who was moving to New York. He didn't want to take me, said I was too young," but she "got him to change his mind."
Having a poorly-constructed quote doesn't mean you have to use a poorly-constructed quote. Our goal is to provide clarity to the reader, and the best way to do that is via a quote so the reader can see the subject's actual words. But in lieu of that, making sure the information is clear and concise will suffice, as long as it's contextually correct and factually accurate and properly attributed.
"So, uh, I met this guy who was moving to New York. He didn't want to take me, said I was too young, but I, uh, got him to change his mind."
You may find the information to be useful, but the "uh's" are awkward. You have options on how to handle this.
First, you can translate the quotes into paraphrases, like this:
She said she met a man who was moving to New York City who didn't want to take her because she was too young, but she convinced him to change his mind.
Or, you could use quote fragments to work around the "um's" like this:
She said she "met this guy who was moving to New York. He didn't want to take me, said I was too young," but she "got him to change his mind."
Having a poorly-constructed quote doesn't mean you have to use a poorly-constructed quote. Our goal is to provide clarity to the reader, and the best way to do that is via a quote so the reader can see the subject's actual words. But in lieu of that, making sure the information is clear and concise will suffice, as long as it's contextually correct and factually accurate and properly attributed.
Missing -- Write With (AP) Style
Lots of AP Style clunkers with this assignment. Where do I begin?
On first reference, is it Sergeant Manuel Cortez, or Sgt. Manuel Cortez?
It's Sgt. I know, because I looked in AP Style, under "military titles."
On second reference, is it Sgt. Cortez, or just Cortez?
It's the latter. Under the same:
In subsequent references, do not continue using the title before a name. Use only the last name.
Also, some of you referred to Jason Abare as Jason in second references. Is that okay under AP style rules? No. This is what it says under "names":
In general, use last names only on second reference.
Some of you were all over the board in whether to write a number as a digit or a word. Here's the most basic AP guideline, in your style book under "numerals": In general "Spell out whole numbers below 10, use figures for 10 and above."
So two should be two, not 2. And 10 should be 10, not ten.
So then, is this correct to start a sentence, under AP Style rules?
Twenty-two . . .
Actually, that IS correct number use. This is under the "numerals" heading:
Spell out a numeral at the beginning of a sentence.
Now, there are situations where you have a number that would be very awkward to spell out. Like with very large numbers, like 48,384. I would suggest not using such a number at the start of a sentence. Or start such a sentence with attribution so the number conflict doesn't matter (e.g., "According to the U.S. Justice Department, 48,384 . . . ).
Some of you faced a dilemma here with whether to change 3 to 1 to three to one, if used inside of a quote. Here's the general rule of thumb:
If the quote was spoken to you in an oral interview, then it's perfectly okay to change words to adhere to AP style, since it doesn't change what was spoken. If you are quoting a document, then you need to replicate how the document actually readers, whether it conforms with AP Style or not.
In this instance, since you did not know if the quotes were spoken or written, I noted the AP style rule but did not dock you for it.
Now, when the girl was referring to "my Mom," should "mom" be lower-case or upper-case?
It's lower-case. AP Style, under "mom":
Uppercase only when the noun substitutes for a name as a term of address: Hi, Mom!
Did anyone think to look under "mom"?
Moving on, was it U.S. Justice Department or U.S. Justice Dept.? Did it depend on whether it was a first reference or a second reference? What does it say in AP Style under "department"?
I would strongly suggest you review AP Style headings under titles and numerals and names and department.
On first reference, is it Sergeant Manuel Cortez, or Sgt. Manuel Cortez?
It's Sgt. I know, because I looked in AP Style, under "military titles."
On second reference, is it Sgt. Cortez, or just Cortez?
It's the latter. Under the same:
In subsequent references, do not continue using the title before a name. Use only the last name.
Also, some of you referred to Jason Abare as Jason in second references. Is that okay under AP style rules? No. This is what it says under "names":
In general, use last names only on second reference.
Some of you were all over the board in whether to write a number as a digit or a word. Here's the most basic AP guideline, in your style book under "numerals": In general "Spell out whole numbers below 10, use figures for 10 and above."
So two should be two, not 2. And 10 should be 10, not ten.
So then, is this correct to start a sentence, under AP Style rules?
Twenty-two . . .
Actually, that IS correct number use. This is under the "numerals" heading:
Spell out a numeral at the beginning of a sentence.
Now, there are situations where you have a number that would be very awkward to spell out. Like with very large numbers, like 48,384. I would suggest not using such a number at the start of a sentence. Or start such a sentence with attribution so the number conflict doesn't matter (e.g., "According to the U.S. Justice Department, 48,384 . . . ).
Some of you faced a dilemma here with whether to change 3 to 1 to three to one, if used inside of a quote. Here's the general rule of thumb:
If the quote was spoken to you in an oral interview, then it's perfectly okay to change words to adhere to AP style, since it doesn't change what was spoken. If you are quoting a document, then you need to replicate how the document actually readers, whether it conforms with AP Style or not.
In this instance, since you did not know if the quotes were spoken or written, I noted the AP style rule but did not dock you for it.
Now, when the girl was referring to "my Mom," should "mom" be lower-case or upper-case?
It's lower-case. AP Style, under "mom":
Uppercase only when the noun substitutes for a name as a term of address: Hi, Mom!
Did anyone think to look under "mom"?
Moving on, was it U.S. Justice Department or U.S. Justice Dept.? Did it depend on whether it was a first reference or a second reference? What does it say in AP Style under "department"?
I would strongly suggest you review AP Style headings under titles and numerals and names and department.
Monday, February 14, 2011
Squirrels -- How Do You Know That?
I'm happy with your overall performance on this assignment. Lots of good ledes. Lots of good nut grafs. Lots of strong use of examples and supporting quotes.
One problem area, though, was attribution. Just about everybody failed to have an adequate level of attribution. Not uncommon for a young reporter, but something that needs to be fixed, pronto.
For example, how do you know Brookes spent $184 to get his car's wiring replaced?
Were you there when he had the wiring replaced? No.
Did you pay for the repair bill? No.
So, how do you know?
It's because he said so, right?
So, why not let readers know your sourcing? Brookes said he spent $184 to get his car's wiring replaced?
How do you know Kasparov was driving home one night when her car fritzed out? Because she said! So add "she said" as attribution.
How do you know how her mechanic found squirrels under the hood? Because she said!
Pretty much everything not witnessed by you should have some sort of attribution. He said; she said; according to records; whatever.
Make sure you have properly attributed everything in your story. Basically, every paragraph after the lede and nut graf should have some sort of attribution affixed to it.
I know that's gonna look a bit weird, having graf after graf with so-and-so said this and this other dude said that and so on. But we do it as journalists to make sure that readers know exactly where we got our information. It promotes transparency and illustrates the factual basis for a story.
Over the next few days, when you're doing your daily newspaper readings please note attribution. See how frequent it is. See how writers offer it. Get a sense of how it's supposed to look in a finished product.
One problem area, though, was attribution. Just about everybody failed to have an adequate level of attribution. Not uncommon for a young reporter, but something that needs to be fixed, pronto.
For example, how do you know Brookes spent $184 to get his car's wiring replaced?
Were you there when he had the wiring replaced? No.
Did you pay for the repair bill? No.
So, how do you know?
It's because he said so, right?
So, why not let readers know your sourcing? Brookes said he spent $184 to get his car's wiring replaced?
How do you know Kasparov was driving home one night when her car fritzed out? Because she said! So add "she said" as attribution.
How do you know how her mechanic found squirrels under the hood? Because she said!
Pretty much everything not witnessed by you should have some sort of attribution. He said; she said; according to records; whatever.
Make sure you have properly attributed everything in your story. Basically, every paragraph after the lede and nut graf should have some sort of attribution affixed to it.
I know that's gonna look a bit weird, having graf after graf with so-and-so said this and this other dude said that and so on. But we do it as journalists to make sure that readers know exactly where we got our information. It promotes transparency and illustrates the factual basis for a story.
Over the next few days, when you're doing your daily newspaper readings please note attribution. See how frequent it is. See how writers offer it. Get a sense of how it's supposed to look in a finished product.
Friday, February 11, 2011
Controversial -- Overall
Your first chance to write a graded story in its entirety ended up pretty much the way first assignments have usually ended up in my previous JRN 200 classes: people were all over the board. Some did well, some came close to doing real well, and others struggled a bit.
And that's okay. First assignments are always the toughest, because you don't have anything to compare them to.
You're not exactly sure how to lay out a story and organize facts. You've had only theoretical discussions to date.
But in journalism, we learn by doing. And then having that work critiqued, so I can highlight what you did well,and what could be improved upon, and how to do better the next time around.
The sort of mistakes I saw this time around are on par for what trips up a young journalist: your paragraphs are too big. Attribution is lacking. Fatals creep up here and there.
No one loves seeing a lot of red ink on their papers. But red ink, right now, is a good thing. It means we're finding out what we need to work on, and we're working on solutions to those issues.
So don't fret, no matter how you did on our first few assignments. We have a long way to go, and you'll have plenty of opportunities to show me your improvement in the coming weeks.
And that's okay. First assignments are always the toughest, because you don't have anything to compare them to.
You're not exactly sure how to lay out a story and organize facts. You've had only theoretical discussions to date.
But in journalism, we learn by doing. And then having that work critiqued, so I can highlight what you did well,and what could be improved upon, and how to do better the next time around.
The sort of mistakes I saw this time around are on par for what trips up a young journalist: your paragraphs are too big. Attribution is lacking. Fatals creep up here and there.
No one loves seeing a lot of red ink on their papers. But red ink, right now, is a good thing. It means we're finding out what we need to work on, and we're working on solutions to those issues.
So don't fret, no matter how you did on our first few assignments. We have a long way to go, and you'll have plenty of opportunities to show me your improvement in the coming weeks.
Controversial -- Streamlining
Don't waste words in making your point, like with this lede:
A unanimous vote by East Lansing's school board on Tuesday will implement a policy banning boys from playing on the girls' field hockey, volleyball and softball teams.
Fine lede, but I'd argue it's a bit unnecessarily wordy. I'm honing in on "implement a policy banning." Why not just replace all that with the word "ban," like this:
A unanimous vote by East Lansing's school board on Tuesday will ban boys from playing on the girls' field hockey, volleyball and softball teams.
Exact same meaning; you're just cutting through the clutter of words a bit.
In this next case, you have phrases that are somewhat outdated by the end result:
The policy proposed by East Lansing School Board members to ban boys from playing on girls sporting teams resulted in a 9-0 vote Tuesday night.
First off, "The policy proposed by" is no longer relevant. They passed the proposed policy, right? So it's no longer meaningful as a proposal; only as a done deed. So let's eliminate that and add a qualifying verb -- in this case, "agreed" -- to denote the action, like this:
East Lansing School Board members agreed to ban boys from playing on girls sporting teams resulted in a 9-0 vote Tuesday night.
Let's take this a step further. Is "resulted" necessary? Or can you eliminate that without changing meaning. I think you can. And here's what's left:
East Lansing School Board members agreed to ban boys from playing on girls sporting teams in a 9-0 vote Tuesday night.
Has the meaning changed at all? I'd say not. But it's more compact, easier to read and just as filled with relevant information. Just with fewer words.
Speaking of fewer words, I'd like to remind you to watch your use of the word "that." Quite often, a sentence can live perfectly fine on its own without a "that." If you do use "that," take it out and read your sentence aloud and ask yourself if the sentence sounds incomplete. If not, then keep "that" out.
A unanimous vote by East Lansing's school board on Tuesday will implement a policy banning boys from playing on the girls' field hockey, volleyball and softball teams.
Fine lede, but I'd argue it's a bit unnecessarily wordy. I'm honing in on "implement a policy banning." Why not just replace all that with the word "ban," like this:
A unanimous vote by East Lansing's school board on Tuesday will ban boys from playing on the girls' field hockey, volleyball and softball teams.
Exact same meaning; you're just cutting through the clutter of words a bit.
In this next case, you have phrases that are somewhat outdated by the end result:
The policy proposed by East Lansing School Board members to ban boys from playing on girls sporting teams resulted in a 9-0 vote Tuesday night.
First off, "The policy proposed by" is no longer relevant. They passed the proposed policy, right? So it's no longer meaningful as a proposal; only as a done deed. So let's eliminate that and add a qualifying verb -- in this case, "agreed" -- to denote the action, like this:
East Lansing School Board members agreed to ban boys from playing on girls sporting teams resulted in a 9-0 vote Tuesday night.
Let's take this a step further. Is "resulted" necessary? Or can you eliminate that without changing meaning. I think you can. And here's what's left:
East Lansing School Board members agreed to ban boys from playing on girls sporting teams in a 9-0 vote Tuesday night.
Has the meaning changed at all? I'd say not. But it's more compact, easier to read and just as filled with relevant information. Just with fewer words.
Speaking of fewer words, I'd like to remind you to watch your use of the word "that." Quite often, a sentence can live perfectly fine on its own without a "that." If you do use "that," take it out and read your sentence aloud and ask yourself if the sentence sounds incomplete. If not, then keep "that" out.
Controversial -- Fatals
Sorry to say two people fataled on this one. In both cases, it was the same culprit: the spelling of names.
In one case, you said Alder when you meant Adler. In another case, you said Stuart Alder when you meant Stuard Adler. In both cases, those are factually incorrect.
Some of you came close to fataling by making faulty inferences. One of you offered this lede:
Some boys at East Lansing High School will not have to re-tape their field hockey sticks or buy new shin guards in preparation for this upcoming season -- that is, unless they plan on trying out for the boys' squad.
Problem is, there is no boys' squad. That's why they were playing on the girls' squad. You would have been more accurate to say "unless they plan on creating a boys' squad" or something to that effect.
In another case, poor word order came close to creating a misleading fatal. Here it is:
The policy was implemented last year after four boys made the girls' field hockey team.
What you meant to say was, the policy was implemented after four boys last year made the girls' field hockey team.
But that's not what you wrote. What kept me from making this a fatal was that your previous graf was clear that the decision was made Tuesday night, and not last year. Nonetheless, the subsequent "last year" is at best confusing to the reader and at worst a fatal.
In one case, you said Alder when you meant Adler. In another case, you said Stuart Alder when you meant Stuard Adler. In both cases, those are factually incorrect.
Some of you came close to fataling by making faulty inferences. One of you offered this lede:
Some boys at East Lansing High School will not have to re-tape their field hockey sticks or buy new shin guards in preparation for this upcoming season -- that is, unless they plan on trying out for the boys' squad.
Problem is, there is no boys' squad. That's why they were playing on the girls' squad. You would have been more accurate to say "unless they plan on creating a boys' squad" or something to that effect.
In another case, poor word order came close to creating a misleading fatal. Here it is:
The policy was implemented last year after four boys made the girls' field hockey team.
What you meant to say was, the policy was implemented after four boys last year made the girls' field hockey team.
But that's not what you wrote. What kept me from making this a fatal was that your previous graf was clear that the decision was made Tuesday night, and not last year. Nonetheless, the subsequent "last year" is at best confusing to the reader and at worst a fatal.
Controversial -- Grafs Are TOO Big!
In traditional English composition, you learn to just write and write and write, with no regard to how big a paragraph can get.
That is NOT how we write in journalism.
In journalism, grafs are much more bite-sized. And there's a reason for that. Each graf should contain just ONE central point, or ONE supporting fact. It should be easy for a reader to be able to break down the informational subsets you offer, and it should be easy for an editor to be able to skim through your story and identify each idea and piece of evidence broken out into its own paragraph.
In general, that means you should often end up with most paragraphs being no longer than two sentences, and quite often just one sentence long.
Let's look at this:
Now, key points stand out: what happened (in the first lede graf), the details of how it's being implemented (in the second nut graf) and an explanation of why it's needed in the first place (the third graf). Now do you see what I mean by separating units of thoughts and main points?
Same thing with the relationship between a point and supporting information, like here:
Again, do you see how it clearly differentiates between one unit of information (the point being made via paraphrase) and the supporting evidence for the unit (the quote)?
You may notice in your returned work that I may have peppered your paper with what appears to be a red-ink capital L. That's the copyediting symbol for where you should have ideally started a new paragraph.
That is NOT how we write in journalism.
In journalism, grafs are much more bite-sized. And there's a reason for that. Each graf should contain just ONE central point, or ONE supporting fact. It should be easy for a reader to be able to break down the informational subsets you offer, and it should be easy for an editor to be able to skim through your story and identify each idea and piece of evidence broken out into its own paragraph.
In general, that means you should often end up with most paragraphs being no longer than two sentences, and quite often just one sentence long.
Let's look at this:
In a 9-0 vote Tuesday evening, the local school board unanimously decided to ban boys from playing on girls’ sports teams in the district. Effective immediately, boys will be banned from playing on the girls’ field hockey, softball, and volleyball teams. Although the new policy is largely unpopular with many students and parents, the school board stands by its decision, citing the size, speed, and power of male athletes and its potential hazards to female players.
That's just too much, and too long. All the information is mushed in together. It's hard to differentiate key points. But to make the story cleaner and easier to read, all you had to do was hit the "return" key a couple of times, like this:
In a 9-0 vote Tuesday evening, the local school board unanimously decided to ban boys from playing on girls’ sports teams in the district.
Effective immediately, boys will be banned from playing on the girls’ field hockey, softball, and volleyball teams.
Although the new policy is largely unpopular with many students and parents, the school board stands by its decision, citing the size, speed, and power of male athletes and its potential hazards to female players.
Now, key points stand out: what happened (in the first lede graf), the details of how it's being implemented (in the second nut graf) and an explanation of why it's needed in the first place (the third graf). Now do you see what I mean by separating units of thoughts and main points?
Same thing with the relationship between a point and supporting information, like here:
High school Athletic Director Hugh Baker worried that the new ruling will force teams, like the girls field hockey team, to forfeit because of other teams in the league that have boys on them. “Our girls field hockey team would have had to forfeit at least ten of their 18 games last season because we played other schools that had boys on their teams,” Baker said.
Once again, you can divide the point being made in the paraphrase, and the evidence via the quote, like this:
High school Athletic Director Hugh Baker worried that the new ruling will force teams, like the girls field hockey team, to forfeit because of other teams in the league that have boys on them.
“Our girls field hockey team would have had to forfeit at least ten of their 18 games last season because we played other schools that had boys on their teams,” Baker said.
Again, do you see how it clearly differentiates between one unit of information (the point being made via paraphrase) and the supporting evidence for the unit (the quote)?
You may notice in your returned work that I may have peppered your paper with what appears to be a red-ink capital L. That's the copyediting symbol for where you should have ideally started a new paragraph.
Controversial -- Attribute!
How do you know that East Lansing High may have to forfeit games next year to avoid playing mixed-gender teams? Did you simply make that up? Did you decide that yourself?
Of course not. You know that because East Lansing Athletic Difrector Hugh Baker said that.
So, it's not enough to offer a graf saying this:
East Lansing High may have to forfeit games next year to avoid playing mixed-gender teams.
You'd need to say something like this, if first referring to Baker:
East Lansing High may have to forfeit games next year to avoid playing mixed-gender teams, school athletic director Hugh Baker said.
Or this, if it's a secondary reference to Baker:
East Lansing High may have to forfeit games next year to avoid playing mixed-gender teams, Baker said.
Don't leave readers wondering where you got your information. Offer attribution! Make sure that every graf after the lede has some form of adequate attribution.
Of course not. You know that because East Lansing Athletic Difrector Hugh Baker said that.
So, it's not enough to offer a graf saying this:
East Lansing High may have to forfeit games next year to avoid playing mixed-gender teams.
You'd need to say something like this, if first referring to Baker:
East Lansing High may have to forfeit games next year to avoid playing mixed-gender teams, school athletic director Hugh Baker said.
Or this, if it's a secondary reference to Baker:
East Lansing High may have to forfeit games next year to avoid playing mixed-gender teams, Baker said.
Don't leave readers wondering where you got your information. Offer attribution! Make sure that every graf after the lede has some form of adequate attribution.
Thursday, February 10, 2011
Test Ledes -- A Wrap-Up
Happy to see many of you aced your test ledes exercise. Lots of grades of 3.5 or above. Everybody showed the ability to correctly identify and summarize the central points of your stories. Congrats!
The problem that arose here and there came with fatals. Gulp.
Two people fataled parts of the test. Now, the way I graded this assignment minimized the impact of those fatals, as I graded each item separately and then computed a final grade based on the average score. So the fatal only impacted one-third of your grade. It'll leave a bruise, but it won't kill you, grade-wise.
But I need to warn you, most future assignments will receive just a single grade. So ANY fatal can drop your grade on that kind of assignment to zero. Let's avoid that, okay?
And in the spirit of learning lessons from our errors, let's look at the fatals.
One was yet another case of the incorrect word being spelled correctly. In this case, it was "the contagious decease" when you meant to say "contagious disease." Since "decease" is spelled correctly but changes the meaning of the statement, this is a fatal. We've seen this before. It's a very common way of fataling.
Still, it needs to stop. That starts with not simply relying on spell check. That starts with making sure that you read your story line-by-line after you finish writing and before you turn it in, to make sure what you wrote was what you actually intended to write.
The other fatal sank what was otherwise a great lede and nut graf. Let's look at it:
Are no fewer than 12 injuries in the past 20 years enough to end a 100-year tradition? In East Lansing, the answer is yes.
Today, East Lansing Fire Chief Tom Izzo said the city plans to eliminate the "bad" tradition of sliding down a pole . . .
Okay, let's stop there. You put quotes around "bad." Do we put quotes around things that people didn't utter? No, we don't. In general, quotes only go around words that were literally uttered by someone.
Now, I may have let this go if it was clear that the quote marks were intended as a writing device and were not for attribution. But look at the placement. It's in the same sentence as "Izzo said" and therefore can be assumed by the reader to have been uttered by Izzo, Which it was not.
Sorry, folks, but that's a fatal.
I know this can be frustrating. But don't get frustrated. Again, learn from this, apply what you have learned going forward, and make this an issue of yours at the start of your journalism career. That's something many of the folks who preceded you -- myself included -- can relate to, but that we also worked out of our systems through the constant adherence to double-checking work.
The problem that arose here and there came with fatals. Gulp.
Two people fataled parts of the test. Now, the way I graded this assignment minimized the impact of those fatals, as I graded each item separately and then computed a final grade based on the average score. So the fatal only impacted one-third of your grade. It'll leave a bruise, but it won't kill you, grade-wise.
But I need to warn you, most future assignments will receive just a single grade. So ANY fatal can drop your grade on that kind of assignment to zero. Let's avoid that, okay?
And in the spirit of learning lessons from our errors, let's look at the fatals.
One was yet another case of the incorrect word being spelled correctly. In this case, it was "the contagious decease" when you meant to say "contagious disease." Since "decease" is spelled correctly but changes the meaning of the statement, this is a fatal. We've seen this before. It's a very common way of fataling.
Still, it needs to stop. That starts with not simply relying on spell check. That starts with making sure that you read your story line-by-line after you finish writing and before you turn it in, to make sure what you wrote was what you actually intended to write.
The other fatal sank what was otherwise a great lede and nut graf. Let's look at it:
Are no fewer than 12 injuries in the past 20 years enough to end a 100-year tradition? In East Lansing, the answer is yes.
Today, East Lansing Fire Chief Tom Izzo said the city plans to eliminate the "bad" tradition of sliding down a pole . . .
Okay, let's stop there. You put quotes around "bad." Do we put quotes around things that people didn't utter? No, we don't. In general, quotes only go around words that were literally uttered by someone.
Now, I may have let this go if it was clear that the quote marks were intended as a writing device and were not for attribution. But look at the placement. It's in the same sentence as "Izzo said" and therefore can be assumed by the reader to have been uttered by Izzo, Which it was not.
Sorry, folks, but that's a fatal.
I know this can be frustrating. But don't get frustrated. Again, learn from this, apply what you have learned going forward, and make this an issue of yours at the start of your journalism career. That's something many of the folks who preceded you -- myself included -- can relate to, but that we also worked out of our systems through the constant adherence to double-checking work.
JRN 200 -- What Does My Grade Mean?
From the syllabus, here's a roundup of what the funny numbers atop your returned work means:
4.0: Story could be published virtually as is. It shows superior command of the facts, news judgment, story organization, reporting and writing.
3.5: Could be published with very minor revisions. Generally well-written, accurate copy containing all relevant material, but requires minor editing for maximum precision and clarity.
3.0: Better-than-average story. The story was handled well. Copy needs some rewriting and polishing before it could be published.
2.5: A little above average. The story might have a significant problem with reporting, organization, completeness, ect. Certainly needs rewriting.
2.0: Average job. Not a story most readers would read unless they really needed the information. The story may have reporting, organization or writing problems.
1.5: A weak story. The story may have a buried lede, problems in news interpretation, problems in story organization, omission of some important fact or source. The story needs substantial revision.
1.0: A non-story. The story lacks news judgment, displays major flaws in reporting and writing, omits important facts. The story needs substantial rethinking.
0.0: Story is late or failed to receive instructor's approval. Story is misleading or unethical. Organization of writing flaws make the story incoherent.
4.0: Story could be published virtually as is. It shows superior command of the facts, news judgment, story organization, reporting and writing.
3.5: Could be published with very minor revisions. Generally well-written, accurate copy containing all relevant material, but requires minor editing for maximum precision and clarity.
3.0: Better-than-average story. The story was handled well. Copy needs some rewriting and polishing before it could be published.
2.5: A little above average. The story might have a significant problem with reporting, organization, completeness, ect. Certainly needs rewriting.
2.0: Average job. Not a story most readers would read unless they really needed the information. The story may have reporting, organization or writing problems.
1.5: A weak story. The story may have a buried lede, problems in news interpretation, problems in story organization, omission of some important fact or source. The story needs substantial revision.
1.0: A non-story. The story lacks news judgment, displays major flaws in reporting and writing, omits important facts. The story needs substantial rethinking.
0.0: Story is late or failed to receive instructor's approval. Story is misleading or unethical. Organization of writing flaws make the story incoherent.
Tuesday, February 8, 2011
Alt Ledes -- Ledes I Liked
A bunch of good ledes in this last exercise. Lots of good grades! Some were basic ledes and some were delayed ledes and some played on words and some sought to humanize the moment. All sorts of different styles were on display, and all were good!
Let's look at a few, and you tell me why these worked so well. Of if you think they could be improved upon, please do share:
After being knocked aside by a store thief trying to escape, Ethel Perakiss watched as the man took off with her truck and 6-month-old daughter who was still inside.
. . . and . . .
What would cause a carjacker to flee and leave a stolen vehicle unlocked and running with the air conditioner on? Discovering a six-month-old baby in the back seat might do the trick.
. . . and . . .
A six-month-old girl was unharmed after the SUV she was in was stolen by an armed robber who had just held up a Quik Shoppe convenience store.
. . . and . . .
A robber ran away with more than he bargained for.
. . . and . . .
A group of scientists have proposed an idea to relocate some African wildlife to the American West in an attempt to increase their population, despite criticism from ranchers and other scientists.
. . . and . . .
In an effort to increase populations of animal species facing extinction, Michigan State ecologists and biologists suggest introducing some African wildlife species to the Great Plains of North America.
Whaddya think?
Let's look at a few, and you tell me why these worked so well. Of if you think they could be improved upon, please do share:
After being knocked aside by a store thief trying to escape, Ethel Perakiss watched as the man took off with her truck and 6-month-old daughter who was still inside.
. . . and . . .
What would cause a carjacker to flee and leave a stolen vehicle unlocked and running with the air conditioner on? Discovering a six-month-old baby in the back seat might do the trick.
. . . and . . .
A six-month-old girl was unharmed after the SUV she was in was stolen by an armed robber who had just held up a Quik Shoppe convenience store.
. . . and . . .
A robber ran away with more than he bargained for.
. . . and . . .
A group of scientists have proposed an idea to relocate some African wildlife to the American West in an attempt to increase their population, despite criticism from ranchers and other scientists.
. . . and . . .
In an effort to increase populations of animal species facing extinction, Michigan State ecologists and biologists suggest introducing some African wildlife species to the Great Plains of North America.
Whaddya think?
Alt Ledes -- Fatals Suck
So let'slearn from them so we don't repeat these mistakes.
Like in this lede:
A late-night robbery at the Michigan Avenue Quik Shoppe convenience store went from bad to worse when the robber carjacked a vehicle with a six-month-old passenger in the backseat.
Now, this is a great lede. Colorful, contextual, all that. But it's also wrong. The carjacking was at 2 p.m. That's hardly late at night. It's not even late afternoon yet!
Here's another fatal:
Ethel Perakiss may decide to lock her car doors on her next trip to the convenience store after her six-month-year daughter was left in the lands of a carjacker for 40 minutes, but eventually was found safe by police.
You mean to say six-month-old. What you said was six-month-year. Please make sure you're giving yourself enough time to find any goofs in your copy. They do happen, in the same way you forget where you put your keys and brain-fart a homework assignment sometimes.
What separates journalists from other writers is that we try to incorporate fact-checking into the process to minimize those instances.
Like in this lede:
A late-night robbery at the Michigan Avenue Quik Shoppe convenience store went from bad to worse when the robber carjacked a vehicle with a six-month-old passenger in the backseat.
Now, this is a great lede. Colorful, contextual, all that. But it's also wrong. The carjacking was at 2 p.m. That's hardly late at night. It's not even late afternoon yet!
Here's another fatal:
Ethel Perakiss may decide to lock her car doors on her next trip to the convenience store after her six-month-year daughter was left in the lands of a carjacker for 40 minutes, but eventually was found safe by police.
You mean to say six-month-old. What you said was six-month-year. Please make sure you're giving yourself enough time to find any goofs in your copy. They do happen, in the same way you forget where you put your keys and brain-fart a homework assignment sometimes.
What separates journalists from other writers is that we try to incorporate fact-checking into the process to minimize those instances.
Alt Ledes -- Be Efficient With Word Use
Like in a section of one lede:
. . . scientists from Michigan State University developed an idea that would bring these animals . . .
that's kinda run-on-ish. Why not replace something like, "developed an idea that would bring" with something more compact that says the same thing, like "propose bringing" or something like that?
But here you DID take one opportunity to shorten things, by referring to "ecologists and biologists" simply as "scientists." After all, both ecologists and biologists ARE scientists, right?
. . . scientists from Michigan State University developed an idea that would bring these animals . . .
that's kinda run-on-ish. Why not replace something like, "developed an idea that would bring" with something more compact that says the same thing, like "propose bringing" or something like that?
But here you DID take one opportunity to shorten things, by referring to "ecologists and biologists" simply as "scientists." After all, both ecologists and biologists ARE scientists, right?
Alt Ledes -- Write With (AP) Style
Is it a store on Michigan Ave. or Michigan Avenue?
It's the latter. How do I know this? In 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.
Don't forget your AP Style, folks!
It's the latter. How do I know this? In 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.
Don't forget your AP Style, folks!
Alt Ledes -- Spell Check Won't Save You!
One of you referred to the robbed convenience store as a "convenient" store. Another said it was a "convince" store.
In another instance, someone noted a "critique" from ranchers and scientists. Did you mean criticism?
Again, spell check will not catch instances where you correctly spell an incorrect word.
In another instance, someone noted a "critique" from ranchers and scientists. Did you mean criticism?
Again, spell check will not catch instances where you correctly spell an incorrect word.
Alt Ledes -- Say What You Mean . . .
. . . and mean what you say. Let's look at this delayed lede:
Animals seen in Disney's "The Lion King" may no longer call Africa their only home.
Now, I don't have a problem with what you are alluding to. I have concern with what you literally say here, which is "The Lion King" animals are moving here. But that's not what you meant -- what you meant was animals like those seen in "The Lion King" may be on teh move, right?
So, the best lede would be; Animals like those seen in . . .
Say what you mean,and mean what you say.
Animals seen in Disney's "The Lion King" may no longer call Africa their only home.
Now, I don't have a problem with what you are alluding to. I have concern with what you literally say here, which is "The Lion King" animals are moving here. But that's not what you meant -- what you meant was animals like those seen in "The Lion King" may be on teh move, right?
So, the best lede would be; Animals like those seen in . . .
Say what you mean,and mean what you say.
Attribution Quiz -- Paraphrases vs. Quotes
Many of you stumbled on this example:
"People think we make $3 million or $5 million a year." They don't realize most athletes make only $500,000, the ballplayer said.
What some of you did was change the second part of that statement into a quote. But it was not a quote. It was a paraphrase. Turning it into a quote was inaccurate. What you should have done was package a quote and paraphrase together, along something like these lines:
"People think we make $3 million or $5 million a year" and don't realize most athletes make only $500,000, the ballplayer said.
Be sure not to confuse quotes with paraphrases.
One of you did a bigger no-no: you changed a quote! DO NOT change the literal words within a quote, meaning anything that can change the meaning of a quote. For example, you can't change "gotta" to "got to," because it changes what was literally said.
Quotes are the literal truth within our stories, and you can't change the truth. But you can change paraphrases, as long as it is still contextually correct.
"People think we make $3 million or $5 million a year." They don't realize most athletes make only $500,000, the ballplayer said.
What some of you did was change the second part of that statement into a quote. But it was not a quote. It was a paraphrase. Turning it into a quote was inaccurate. What you should have done was package a quote and paraphrase together, along something like these lines:
"People think we make $3 million or $5 million a year" and don't realize most athletes make only $500,000, the ballplayer said.
Be sure not to confuse quotes with paraphrases.
One of you did a bigger no-no: you changed a quote! DO NOT change the literal words within a quote, meaning anything that can change the meaning of a quote. For example, you can't change "gotta" to "got to," because it changes what was literally said.
Quotes are the literal truth within our stories, and you can't change the truth. But you can change paraphrases, as long as it is still contextually correct.
Attribution Quiz -- It's "said!"
It's not "he claimed." It's "he said."
It's not "she responded." It's "she said."
It's not "she continued." It's "she said."
'Nuff said on that.
Plus, the attribution is better at the start of end of a quote, and not in the middle of a quote unless separating two sentences. So instead of doing this:
"Only through self-discipline," he said, "can you achieve freedom."
. . . you are better off doing this:
"Only through self-discipline can you achieve freedom," he said.
It's not "she responded." It's "she said."
It's not "she continued." It's "she said."
'Nuff said on that.
Plus, the attribution is better at the start of end of a quote, and not in the middle of a quote unless separating two sentences. So instead of doing this:
"Only through self-discipline," he said, "can you achieve freedom."
. . . you are better off doing this:
"Only through self-discipline can you achieve freedom," he said.
Friday, February 4, 2011
More Ledes -- An Overview
I'm happy to tell you that this week's exercises were all ungraded drills, where I'd try to identify what you were good at and what needed improvement before I started grading you in a meaningful manner.
I'm happy because many of you fell into a common trap for young journalists,and that's committing too many fatals.
The reason for fatals appear to be all over the broad, and we'll take a look at why those fatals happened in some of the subsequent blog posts. But an overall theme seems to be an inattention to detail. Simply put, you have to do a better job of making sure what you have is correct after you finish writing and before you turn in your assignment.
Now would be a good time to alert you to this rule: once you turn in a deadline assignment to me, I won't accept a revised copy. After you turn something in is not the time to catch an error; it's before you turn something in. Make sure that you make fact-checking a priority.
Also, I had someone miss deadline on one of these assignments. If the assignment were to be graded, the grade would be zero. But even if you miss a deadline, I ask that you still turn in your work. I will critique and return your work, regardless of grade, so at least you get the knowledge and lessons from having done the assignment, even if you don't get a recordable grade.
Finally, these were our final ungraded exercises of the semester. From here on out, it's for real.
But as long as you keep learning via the blog and class discussions from what you and your peers have done, then you'll take able to take full advantage of the grading opportunities. It won't be a scary thing; it'll be a chance to show off how much you're learning.
I'm happy because many of you fell into a common trap for young journalists,and that's committing too many fatals.
The reason for fatals appear to be all over the broad, and we'll take a look at why those fatals happened in some of the subsequent blog posts. But an overall theme seems to be an inattention to detail. Simply put, you have to do a better job of making sure what you have is correct after you finish writing and before you turn in your assignment.
Now would be a good time to alert you to this rule: once you turn in a deadline assignment to me, I won't accept a revised copy. After you turn something in is not the time to catch an error; it's before you turn something in. Make sure that you make fact-checking a priority.
Also, I had someone miss deadline on one of these assignments. If the assignment were to be graded, the grade would be zero. But even if you miss a deadline, I ask that you still turn in your work. I will critique and return your work, regardless of grade, so at least you get the knowledge and lessons from having done the assignment, even if you don't get a recordable grade.
Finally, these were our final ungraded exercises of the semester. From here on out, it's for real.
But as long as you keep learning via the blog and class discussions from what you and your peers have done, then you'll take able to take full advantage of the grading opportunities. It won't be a scary thing; it'll be a chance to show off how much you're learning.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)