Everyone did at least fine on this assignment, some by sticking to basic ledes, and others by trying alternative ledes.
Since you seem to have the former down pat, we'll look at the latter. Off we go:
Arrested? Prepare for a mug shot, fingerprints, and a $25 service charge.
It's basic and to-the-point, yet still a bit creative in terms of the question lede. It makes it sound a bit more conversational. So did this one:
In an attempt to cure East Lansing's financial troubles, committing a crime now csts offenders more than the humiliation of an arrest.
These next two one looked at the topic from a similarly-practical angle; what you may see as a result of the news:
Lions, elephants and giraffes may soon be found roaming a lot closer to home, as ecologists and biologists want to transplant African wildlife to the Great Plains of North America.
... and ...
While driving across the Great Plains of North America, how would you feel about looking out the car window and seeing giraffes, lions and elephants?
These next two went straight to context:
What could have been the happiest day of Scott Forsythe's life turned fatal after he was killed in a car accident driving 100 mph on the way to his own wedding.
... and ...
Just 15 minutes before 22-year-old Scott Forsythe was scheduled to say "I do," a decision to save a dog's life took his own.
Now, which ones do you like, and why? Which ones don't you like, and how come?
Friday, September 21, 2012
Alt Ledes: What A Nut Graf Looks Like
In this exercise, you were asked to do just a lede, with no subsequent paragraph. But some of you did ledes that in essence acted as a combination alternate lede/subsequent nut graf, combined into a single graf.
What I did was split some of these ledes as follows, so you can see a concept we talked about earlier: that when you do a unique and contextual alternate lede, it is usually followed by a nut graf that sounds more like a traditional lede, fills in the specific blanks left by your general contextual lede, and offers a strong transition to the body of the story.
Let's look at a few examples:
Freedom might not be free, but neither is detainment.
Police chief Barry Kopperrud is proposing cost cuts for the city, starting with a $25 service fee for incoming criminals.
The lede nicely sets context, then the nut graf explains the details behind the context.
Next:
It looks like someone's been thinking on the wild side!
A group of scientists are interested in a project that would transplant African wildlife to the Great Plains of North America.
The lede has fun with an odd concept, that of bringing Africa to America. So you reveled in the fun in the lede, then explained what was so unique in the nut graf.
Then, there's this:
Typically, 'til death do us part doesn't apply until after the wedding.
Scott Forsythe, 22, died in a high-speed accident around 8:45 this morning on Kirkmann Road after veering to avoid a dog. Forsythe was less than a mile away from the church where he was to be married today.
Certainly, the lede is creative, contextual and accurate. But let me ask you guys this: is it a bit too flippant and casual in noting the irony? Let's discuss.
What I did was split some of these ledes as follows, so you can see a concept we talked about earlier: that when you do a unique and contextual alternate lede, it is usually followed by a nut graf that sounds more like a traditional lede, fills in the specific blanks left by your general contextual lede, and offers a strong transition to the body of the story.
Let's look at a few examples:
Freedom might not be free, but neither is detainment.
Police chief Barry Kopperrud is proposing cost cuts for the city, starting with a $25 service fee for incoming criminals.
The lede nicely sets context, then the nut graf explains the details behind the context.
Next:
It looks like someone's been thinking on the wild side!
A group of scientists are interested in a project that would transplant African wildlife to the Great Plains of North America.
The lede has fun with an odd concept, that of bringing Africa to America. So you reveled in the fun in the lede, then explained what was so unique in the nut graf.
Then, there's this:
Typically, 'til death do us part doesn't apply until after the wedding.
Scott Forsythe, 22, died in a high-speed accident around 8:45 this morning on Kirkmann Road after veering to avoid a dog. Forsythe was less than a mile away from the church where he was to be married today.
Certainly, the lede is creative, contextual and accurate. But let me ask you guys this: is it a bit too flippant and casual in noting the irony? Let's discuss.
Alt Ledes: The Peanut Barrel Rule
There's nothing wrong with this lede. But it's still missing something. Here it is:
A 22-year-old man was killed in a car accident earlier this morning after veering to avoid a dog in the road, according to police.
Technically, it's correct. But let's think about the Peanut Barrel rule. If you wrote this story for The State News and then headed down to the Peanut Barrel to meet friends for a legal drink or two afterward, and then they asked you what you wrote about today, what would you say? More importantly, what would be first to come out of your mouth?
"Uh, well I wrote something abut a dude who got killed when he swerved his car to miss a doggie in the road."
I don't think so. What I think you'd say would be something like this:
"Dude, this was so effed up I don't believe it! Some guy was driving his car all crazy fast so he could make it to his wedding, but he CRASHED and DIED! On his WEDDING DAY! Soo effed up."
I really do think you'd certainly include the wedding angle. That's what made this crash unique and especially poignant and tragic.
If it's a fact or angle that would pass the Peanut Barrel test, then it's a good fact or angle for a lede. If your proposed lede doesn't pass Peanut Barrel muster, then try again until it does.
Again, I can't say your lede was incorrect. Clearly, it passes factual muster. But is it really complete? No. It misses context, like calling 9/11 just a plane crash.
A 22-year-old man was killed in a car accident earlier this morning after veering to avoid a dog in the road, according to police.
Technically, it's correct. But let's think about the Peanut Barrel rule. If you wrote this story for The State News and then headed down to the Peanut Barrel to meet friends for a legal drink or two afterward, and then they asked you what you wrote about today, what would you say? More importantly, what would be first to come out of your mouth?
"Uh, well I wrote something abut a dude who got killed when he swerved his car to miss a doggie in the road."
I don't think so. What I think you'd say would be something like this:
"Dude, this was so effed up I don't believe it! Some guy was driving his car all crazy fast so he could make it to his wedding, but he CRASHED and DIED! On his WEDDING DAY! Soo effed up."
I really do think you'd certainly include the wedding angle. That's what made this crash unique and especially poignant and tragic.
If it's a fact or angle that would pass the Peanut Barrel test, then it's a good fact or angle for a lede. If your proposed lede doesn't pass Peanut Barrel muster, then try again until it does.
Again, I can't say your lede was incorrect. Clearly, it passes factual muster. But is it really complete? No. It misses context, like calling 9/11 just a plane crash.
Alt Ledes: Spell Check Is Not Perfickt
Spell check is a useful tool to use to quickly identify some spelling errors, but not all. For example, it will not alert you to when you incorrectly spell a word that creates an incorrect word that is correctly spelled. Like here:
Sara Howard will no longer be walking down the isle this morning after hearing of her fiance's fatal car accident, 15 minutes before their ceremony was to begin.
The problem here? You meant to say aisle, but you misspelled it as isle.
And that's a bigger problem than just a simple misspelling.
That's because the misspelling creates a different word. Aisle means a passageway between two seating sections. An isle is a small an island.
So, what you are saying is that Sara was no longer going to walk down a small island.
And that, unfortunately, is a fatal fact error. And a fact error is a fatal.
So let me be clear: SPELL CHECK IS A COMPLEMENT TO -- BUT NOT A SUBSTITUTE FOR -- CHECKING YOUR STORY LINE-BY-LINE AND WORD-BY-WORD YOURSELF.
Please be sure to BOTH spell check AND eyeball your story before you turn it in. Each and every time.
Sara Howard will no longer be walking down the isle this morning after hearing of her fiance's fatal car accident, 15 minutes before their ceremony was to begin.
The problem here? You meant to say aisle, but you misspelled it as isle.
And that's a bigger problem than just a simple misspelling.
That's because the misspelling creates a different word. Aisle means a passageway between two seating sections. An isle is a small an island.
So, what you are saying is that Sara was no longer going to walk down a small island.
And that, unfortunately, is a fatal fact error. And a fact error is a fatal.
So let me be clear: SPELL CHECK IS A COMPLEMENT TO -- BUT NOT A SUBSTITUTE FOR -- CHECKING YOUR STORY LINE-BY-LINE AND WORD-BY-WORD YOURSELF.
Please be sure to BOTH spell check AND eyeball your story before you turn it in. Each and every time.
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?
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: Say What You Mean, Mean What You Say
What is wrong with this lede?
To save the life of a dog, 22-year-old Scott Forsythe lost his life in a car crash just 15 minutes before his wedding this morning.
If you read this lede literally, it's this: you're saying this man died 15 minutes before his wedding. You're suggesting his wedding took place (all "Weekend at Bernie's"-style, perhaps).
But that's not what you meant. What you meant was, he died 15 minutes before his wedding was to take place this morning.
If that's what you meant, then that's what you should have written.
Make sure you say what you mean, and mean what you say. Don't leave room for any misinterpretations. Be precise.
To save the life of a dog, 22-year-old Scott Forsythe lost his life in a car crash just 15 minutes before his wedding this morning.
If you read this lede literally, it's this: you're saying this man died 15 minutes before his wedding. You're suggesting his wedding took place (all "Weekend at Bernie's"-style, perhaps).
But that's not what you meant. What you meant was, he died 15 minutes before his wedding was to take place this morning.
If that's what you meant, then that's what you should have written.
Make sure you say what you mean, and mean what you say. Don't leave room for any misinterpretations. Be precise.
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.
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.
Alt Ledes: Did You Need The Name?
In your ledes, some of you referred to the car accident victim
specifically -- Scott Forsythe -- while others referred to him in the
generic -- 22-year-old local man, or something to that effect.
While
neither is wrong, I'd say the latter is the best approach. You have no
reason to believe Forsythe is someone that would be known by name to
your readers. In such cases, the generic identifier would suffice in a
first reference, and you can offer the specific name as a secondary
detail later in the story.
Now,
if the victim was Oprah Winfrey, the name would be a good bet for the
lede, precisely because she is someone many people would instantly
recognize by name.
Wednesday, September 19, 2012
Basic Ledes: Get It Right!!!
In this exercise, you got credit simply for participating. But in all future exercises, starting today, ANY fact error will automatically drop your grade to a 1.0.
That isn't to be mean; rather, it's to emphasize the importance of accuracy, fact-checking and understanding topics in journalism. Our credibility rests on our accuracy, and if we don't develop good habits to make sure what we write is right, then we have dim prospects in this industry.
Unfortunately, on this exercise we had a few of what we call "fatals." In fact, SEVEN people would have fataled this assignment. Not unusual for newbie journalists who are still working on their fact-checking habits, but not something to ignore, either.
To-wit:
This lede: A study by sociologists at the University of Florida shows that fewer women are likely to get divorced or separated after receiving their degree.
Technically, the lede is strong. The problem is, the study found the exact opposite result, that women with higher educational levels are more likely to divorce!
In another lede, you referred to a person's last name as Sindelair in one reference, then Sinclair in the next.
If you did a proper post-write fact-check, in which you went over the basics like names and compared what you wrote against the information you were provided, then you would have surely found the error.
Additionally, if you thoroughly read what you wrote and looked for inconsistencies then you would have found that you wrote one name in two ways, and that at least one surely had to be wrong.
Three of you flubbed on the name altogether. Two spelled it as Sinclair, and another as Sendelair. Another incorrectly referred to him as a city council treasurer, when in fact he was a county treasurer.
One of those fatalees actually had a double-fatal: not only did they misspell the name, they also reported he was charged with embezzlement today. In fact, he pleaded guilty today, after being charged three months ago.
Another person incorrectly reported the treasurer resigned two weeks ago. In fact, he resigned two weeks after being originally charged three months before! Please pay attention to detail and make sure you catch little things that, if left unnoticed, can cause big errors. (See why I had the gotcha true-or-false quiz questions?)
Journalism isn't about just writing; it's about understanding what you are writing before you type a single key stroke, and double-checking what you wrote once you're finished writing.
That means in any time period you are given to write a story, you should spend the first 25 percent going over and understanding your background material; 50 percent writing the story; and 25 percent going over what you wrote. Every minute of actual writing time should have an equal amount of quality control time behind it.
That isn't to be mean; rather, it's to emphasize the importance of accuracy, fact-checking and understanding topics in journalism. Our credibility rests on our accuracy, and if we don't develop good habits to make sure what we write is right, then we have dim prospects in this industry.
Unfortunately, on this exercise we had a few of what we call "fatals." In fact, SEVEN people would have fataled this assignment. Not unusual for newbie journalists who are still working on their fact-checking habits, but not something to ignore, either.
To-wit:
This lede: A study by sociologists at the University of Florida shows that fewer women are likely to get divorced or separated after receiving their degree.
Technically, the lede is strong. The problem is, the study found the exact opposite result, that women with higher educational levels are more likely to divorce!
In another lede, you referred to a person's last name as Sindelair in one reference, then Sinclair in the next.
If you did a proper post-write fact-check, in which you went over the basics like names and compared what you wrote against the information you were provided, then you would have surely found the error.
Additionally, if you thoroughly read what you wrote and looked for inconsistencies then you would have found that you wrote one name in two ways, and that at least one surely had to be wrong.
Three of you flubbed on the name altogether. Two spelled it as Sinclair, and another as Sendelair. Another incorrectly referred to him as a city council treasurer, when in fact he was a county treasurer.
One of those fatalees actually had a double-fatal: not only did they misspell the name, they also reported he was charged with embezzlement today. In fact, he pleaded guilty today, after being charged three months ago.
Another person incorrectly reported the treasurer resigned two weeks ago. In fact, he resigned two weeks after being originally charged three months before! Please pay attention to detail and make sure you catch little things that, if left unnoticed, can cause big errors. (See why I had the gotcha true-or-false quiz questions?)
Journalism isn't about just writing; it's about understanding what you are writing before you type a single key stroke, and double-checking what you wrote once you're finished writing.
That means in any time period you are given to write a story, you should spend the first 25 percent going over and understanding your background material; 50 percent writing the story; and 25 percent going over what you wrote. Every minute of actual writing time should have an equal amount of quality control time behind it.
Basic Ledes: Ledes I Liked
Include this one ...
Sociologists discovered that women with degrees are more likely to get divored.
Basic, to-the-point, simple and short.
... and this one ...
An accidental house fire on Saturday evening left two children dead, one adult with critical burns and caused an estimated $39,000 in damage.
It's everything critical to the story, right? What happened, how many people were hurt or died, who were they (in the generic), when it happened, what it was (accidental in nature).
... and this one ...
Failure to adhere to the warning signs at the train crossing near the intersection of Michigan Avenue and Wayne Boulevard almost took the lives of the Cohen family, police said.
That lede started first with why, then what.
And this one was ALMOST perfect:
County treasurer Vernon Sinclair faces up to 30 years in prison and fines of more than $1.5 million after pleading guilty to charges of embezzlement Wednesday morning.
It was techincally perfect! It went to the latest news -- that he's going to the joing for a looooong time -- and it flowed wonderfully.
But you misspelled the name! And if we don't have the facts right, then nothing is right.
Sociologists discovered that women with degrees are more likely to get divored.
Basic, to-the-point, simple and short.
... and this one ...
An accidental house fire on Saturday evening left two children dead, one adult with critical burns and caused an estimated $39,000 in damage.
It's everything critical to the story, right? What happened, how many people were hurt or died, who were they (in the generic), when it happened, what it was (accidental in nature).
... and this one ...
Failure to adhere to the warning signs at the train crossing near the intersection of Michigan Avenue and Wayne Boulevard almost took the lives of the Cohen family, police said.
That lede started first with why, then what.
And this one was ALMOST perfect:
County treasurer Vernon Sinclair faces up to 30 years in prison and fines of more than $1.5 million after pleading guilty to charges of embezzlement Wednesday morning.
It was techincally perfect! It went to the latest news -- that he's going to the joing for a looooong time -- and it flowed wonderfully.
But you misspelled the name! And if we don't have the facts right, then nothing is right.
Basic ledes: End Result
Ledes need to go to end result and ultimate outcome. So, is this lede sufficent?
A train struck a car carrying a family of three Monday morning. The accident occurred at 5:48 p.m. when Abraham Cohen failed to stop at a stop sign.
I would say not. What happened to the family? That goes to end result, right? This lede does that:
On Monday evening, a train struck a sport-utility vehicle carrying two adults and a child, resulting in extensive vehicle damage but no serious injuries.
Now, you know not only what happened, but how it ended up. And that's what a lede is supposed to do.
Likewise, the news isn't just that something happened, it's what happened. This lede gets the first part, but not the second:
A $1.5 million study by the University of Florida reveals how education effects the marital status of women.
Okay, so we know that there was a study. Problem is, from this lede we don't know what the study found, exactly!
And the news isn't that a study took place, in the same way the news isn't that a football game was played. It's who won or lost, right?
Again, we need end result. And the end result is that the study found more educated women are more likely to divorce. So, the best lede would have been something like this:
A $1.5 million study by the University of Florida reveals more education can negatively effect the marital status of women.
Now, we know ultimate outcome: what the study found.
A train struck a car carrying a family of three Monday morning. The accident occurred at 5:48 p.m. when Abraham Cohen failed to stop at a stop sign.
I would say not. What happened to the family? That goes to end result, right? This lede does that:
On Monday evening, a train struck a sport-utility vehicle carrying two adults and a child, resulting in extensive vehicle damage but no serious injuries.
Now, you know not only what happened, but how it ended up. And that's what a lede is supposed to do.
Likewise, the news isn't just that something happened, it's what happened. This lede gets the first part, but not the second:
A $1.5 million study by the University of Florida reveals how education effects the marital status of women.
Okay, so we know that there was a study. Problem is, from this lede we don't know what the study found, exactly!
And the news isn't that a study took place, in the same way the news isn't that a football game was played. It's who won or lost, right?
Again, we need end result. And the end result is that the study found more educated women are more likely to divorce. So, the best lede would have been something like this:
A $1.5 million study by the University of Florida reveals more education can negatively effect the marital status of women.
Now, we know ultimate outcome: what the study found.
Basic Ledes: Go With The Latest News
Like I've said in this class, the root of "news" is "new" We need to look for and highlight the newest information. That's the job.
Did this lede do that?
County treasurer Vernon Sindelair resigned after being charged with the embezzlement of more than $1.7 million. He is facing 30 years in prison and over $1.5 million in fines.
Here's the problem: Sindelair resigned two weeks after he was charged three months ago! The latest happening was that he pleaded guilty. The lede needed to emphasize that and remove the reference to the old news (which could be used later in the story as background), like this:
County treasurer Vernon Sindelair pleaded guilty to the embezzlement of more than $1.7 million. He is facing 30 years in prison and over $1.5 million in fines.
Did this lede do that?
County treasurer Vernon Sindelair resigned after being charged with the embezzlement of more than $1.7 million. He is facing 30 years in prison and over $1.5 million in fines.
Here's the problem: Sindelair resigned two weeks after he was charged three months ago! The latest happening was that he pleaded guilty. The lede needed to emphasize that and remove the reference to the old news (which could be used later in the story as background), like this:
County treasurer Vernon Sindelair pleaded guilty to the embezzlement of more than $1.7 million. He is facing 30 years in prison and over $1.5 million in fines.
Basic Ledes: Consider Flipping The Lede
With many ledes, we want to emphasize the news over the sourcing; that is, what happened gets priority over who it happened to or who said it.
Let's look at this lede, where the sourcing comes first:
A study led by sociologists at the University of Florida found highly educated women are more likely to end up in a failed marriage compared to women without degrees.
Now, that's a fine lede. Very solid. But I would argue that it can amplify the main point a bit more by what I call flipping the lede; that is, changing the sequence from source-finding to finding-source -- essentially, just moving the start of the lede to the back -- like this:
Highly educated women are more likely to end up in a failed marriage compared to women without degrees, a study led by sociologists at the University of Florida found.
Now, you start right out with the news, and then get to who discovered it. Notice I did not change, remove or add any words; it is exactly what you wrote. Just in a different sequence.
Was it necessary? No. But I think it does improve the lede just a bit more.
Are there times when you should have the sourcing first? Yes, when the source itself is newsworthy, like if President Obama announces something.
Let's look at this lede, where the sourcing comes first:
A study led by sociologists at the University of Florida found highly educated women are more likely to end up in a failed marriage compared to women without degrees.
Now, that's a fine lede. Very solid. But I would argue that it can amplify the main point a bit more by what I call flipping the lede; that is, changing the sequence from source-finding to finding-source -- essentially, just moving the start of the lede to the back -- like this:
Highly educated women are more likely to end up in a failed marriage compared to women without degrees, a study led by sociologists at the University of Florida found.
Now, you start right out with the news, and then get to who discovered it. Notice I did not change, remove or add any words; it is exactly what you wrote. Just in a different sequence.
Was it necessary? No. But I think it does improve the lede just a bit more.
Are there times when you should have the sourcing first? Yes, when the source itself is newsworthy, like if President Obama announces something.
Basic Ledes: Order of Importance
In journalism, we shouldn't list things simply how they are listed; we should rank things based on importance.
Let's look at this lede:
A fire broke out at 9:15 p.m. Saturday on Maldren Avenue in East Lansing, resulting in $39,000 damage, the deaths of two children, and serious harm to their babysitter.
Now, let's look at the end results. How would you rank the imprtance of the following facts?
1. There was $39,000 in damage
2. Two children died
3. Their babysitter was badly hurt
I think most people would rank it 2, 3, then 1, right? So, do the same in your fact order, like this:
A fire broke out at 9:15 p.m. Saturday on Maldren Avenue in East Lansing, resulting in the deaths of two children, serious harm to their babysitter, and $39,000 in damage.
Just like a lede takes what is most important in a story and puts it out front, the elements of the lede must emphasize which facts are the most important among the most important.
Let's look at this lede:
A fire broke out at 9:15 p.m. Saturday on Maldren Avenue in East Lansing, resulting in $39,000 damage, the deaths of two children, and serious harm to their babysitter.
Now, let's look at the end results. How would you rank the imprtance of the following facts?
1. There was $39,000 in damage
2. Two children died
3. Their babysitter was badly hurt
I think most people would rank it 2, 3, then 1, right? So, do the same in your fact order, like this:
A fire broke out at 9:15 p.m. Saturday on Maldren Avenue in East Lansing, resulting in the deaths of two children, serious harm to their babysitter, and $39,000 in damage.
Just like a lede takes what is most important in a story and puts it out front, the elements of the lede must emphasize which facts are the most important among the most important.
Basic Ledes: Details!
Make sure you're being precise in what you say. Like with this lede:
A family of three miraculously survived after being struck by a train while failing to stop at a gate to make sure no train was approaching.
So, the family was hit by the train? Were they walking across the tracks?
No. They were in a sport-utility vehicle that was struck by the train. Problem is, your lede at best is fuzzy on that critical detail and at worst misleading.
What you needed to say was, A family of three miraculously survived after their SUV was struck by a train while failing to stop at a gate to make sure no train was approaching.
Plus, there's an important element missing from this lede: when it happened. When is critical to news, right?
So, let's plug in the date, which in this case was Monday: A family of three miraculously survived after their SUV was struck by a train Monday while failing to stop at a gate to make sure no train was approaching.
Okay, now you're done.
A family of three miraculously survived after being struck by a train while failing to stop at a gate to make sure no train was approaching.
So, the family was hit by the train? Were they walking across the tracks?
No. They were in a sport-utility vehicle that was struck by the train. Problem is, your lede at best is fuzzy on that critical detail and at worst misleading.
What you needed to say was, A family of three miraculously survived after their SUV was struck by a train while failing to stop at a gate to make sure no train was approaching.
Plus, there's an important element missing from this lede: when it happened. When is critical to news, right?
So, let's plug in the date, which in this case was Monday: A family of three miraculously survived after their SUV was struck by a train Monday while failing to stop at a gate to make sure no train was approaching.
Okay, now you're done.
Basic Ledes: Get Rid Of Unneeded Words
Like in this lede:
County treasurer Vernon Sindelair appeared in court Wednesday morning to plead guilty after bbeing charged three months ago of embezzling over $1.7 million in tax receipts.
There's room to trim here withut losing meaning. First, appearing in ocurt is secondary to why he was there: to plead guilty. So I could eliminate "appeared in court," leaving us with this:
County treasurer Vernon Sindelair pleaded guilty Wednesday morning after being charged three months ago of embezzling over $1.7 million in tax receipts.
There's more. Is the fact he was charged three months ago necessary for the lede, or could you move it to a latter part of the story, as background? I'd say the latter. So I could cut out that part, leaving us with this:
County treasurer Vernon Sindelair pleaded guilty Wednesday morning to embezzling over $1.7 million in tax receipts.
Much shorter, right? And has the meaning of the original lede been diminished in any significant way? I'd say not at all.
Now, were these trims needed? Not absolutely. The lede was fine as-is. But I hope this gives you an idea of how you can trim for space and be brief and to-the-point.
County treasurer Vernon Sindelair appeared in court Wednesday morning to plead guilty after bbeing charged three months ago of embezzling over $1.7 million in tax receipts.
There's room to trim here withut losing meaning. First, appearing in ocurt is secondary to why he was there: to plead guilty. So I could eliminate "appeared in court," leaving us with this:
County treasurer Vernon Sindelair pleaded guilty Wednesday morning after being charged three months ago of embezzling over $1.7 million in tax receipts.
There's more. Is the fact he was charged three months ago necessary for the lede, or could you move it to a latter part of the story, as background? I'd say the latter. So I could cut out that part, leaving us with this:
County treasurer Vernon Sindelair pleaded guilty Wednesday morning to embezzling over $1.7 million in tax receipts.
Much shorter, right? And has the meaning of the original lede been diminished in any significant way? I'd say not at all.
Now, were these trims needed? Not absolutely. The lede was fine as-is. But I hope this gives you an idea of how you can trim for space and be brief and to-the-point.
Basic Ledes: Don't Forget Your Articles!
I don't mean stories; I mean grammatical articles, like a, and, the.
This lede was missing its articles:
Three people taken to hospital after a train crashed into a sport-utility vehicle last night.
What you meant was this:
Three people were taken to a hospital after a train crashed into a sport-utility vehicle last night.
If you're wondering if you have proper articles in your lede, read it out loud. Does it sound like a complete sentence? Or does it sound like a robot talking?
If it's the latter, you're probably missing some articles.
This is a pretty common problem for newbie journos. I suspect it's because when we write story headlines, we do tend to leave out articles. But we don't do that in stories.
This lede was missing its articles:
Three people taken to hospital after a train crashed into a sport-utility vehicle last night.
What you meant was this:
Three people were taken to a hospital after a train crashed into a sport-utility vehicle last night.
If you're wondering if you have proper articles in your lede, read it out loud. Does it sound like a complete sentence? Or does it sound like a robot talking?
If it's the latter, you're probably missing some articles.
This is a pretty common problem for newbie journos. I suspect it's because when we write story headlines, we do tend to leave out articles. But we don't do that in stories.
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.
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.
Basic Ledes: Writing With (AP) Style
In this assignment you weren't asked to write conforming to AP style. And on this one I won't grade you on that basis. Still, we're going to use this opportunity to start picking up some of the more common AP style points.
Like with how to refer to money. Is it $25 with the dollar symbol ahead of the amount or 25 dollars, with dollars spelled out?
It's the former. This is what I pulled from the AP Stylebook, under dollars: "Use figures and the $ sign in all except casual references or amounts without a figure."Number usage has its own specific style under AP rules. 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, by spelling out a number like this?
Twenty-two . . .
Actually, that IS correct number use. This is under the numerals heading:
Spell out a numeral at the beginning of a sentence.
Also, Is it 17 year-old with a hyphen between year and old or 17-year-old with hyphens between everything or 17 year old with no hyphens at all? AP Style under ages: Use hyphens for ages expressed as adjectives before a noun or as substitutes for a noun.
So it's 17-year-old, with hyphens between the 17 and year, and between the year and old.
Moving on, is it six-year-old girl with six spelled out, or is six in numeric form, like this: 6-year-old girl.
It's the latter. It's another exception to the general AP number rule. In AP Style under ages:
Always use figures.
Another AP no-no is using the percentage symbol of % instead of spelling out the word percent. The correct use is to spell out the symbol, like this: 35 percent. Please review the AP listing under percent.
Also, is an address 2752 Michigan Ave or 2752 Michigan Ave. or 2752 Michigan Avenue?
From 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. Lowercase and spell out when used alone or with more than one street name: Massachusetts and Pennsylvania avenues.
Spell out and capitalize First through Ninth when used as street names; use figures with two letters for 10th and above: 7 Fifth Ave., 100 21st St. So in this case, it's 2752 Michigan Ave.
And if you referred to the intersection of 29th Street and Melrose Avenue, that would be the correct reference, not just 29th and Melrose.
Monday, June 25, 2012
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)