Lawsuit: Legal B.S.

Did you need to say the Dowdells demand a jury trial of all issues triable as of a right by jury?

What the hell does that mean, anyway?

It just means they are asking for a jury trial. So it would have been enough to say the Dowdells demanded a jury trial.

Likewise, did you need to say the lawsuit targeted both the defendants jointly and severally, for the compensatory damages in the amount of $500,000?

No. More legal B.S. You could just say the lawsuit targeted the defendants for $500,000.

Now, I didn't knock your grade for your inability to navigate legal mumbo-jumbo, unless it changed the meaning of things. This is the sort of stuff you'll get the hang of when you actually start covering court cases.

Still, if you're not sure of the meaning of what you're writing, you should ask a source for a layman's translation.

Rescue: Why Did A Few Of Us ...

. . . forget to make any mention that the city's zoning board was to be notified about the site's hazard to children, as indicated at the end of the report?

Isn't that an important detail relating to where the story may go from here, and detailing consequence for what happened?

Also, some of you referred to the site owner generically, but you never named the company directly. Why is that? Isn't that specific and useful information? Wouldn't readers want to know who owns the land, in the same way they want to know who died? Isn't who one of the five W's every story should have?

Finally, if this was a real story you were doing for a real news organization, what would have been some additional steps in reporting this story? Let's get some good answers.

Missing: The News Is The News

News isn't that something happened or took place. It's what, exactly, happened or took place.

Let's consider this pretend lede from a football game story:

MSU played Notre Dame in a football game Saturday.

That lede doesn't work, right? That's because the news isn't that a game was played; it's what happened at the game, something like MSU beat Notre Dame 84-0 on Saturday.

In the same way, this not-pretend lede doesn't work, either:

The U.S. Department of Justice reveals the statistics of Michigan residents once reported as missing.

The news isn't that the justice department revelaed statistics; the news is what those statistics were! So a better lede would have said something like, The U.S. Department of Justice found more than 57,000 Michigan residents were reported missing last year.


What you're missing in each case is ultimate outcome and end result: who won or lost the game, and by how much in the former; how many people are missing in the latter.

So if you're covering a city council meeting, for example, the news isn't that there was a meeting, or even that they discussed a specific issue at the meeting; it's what action took place regarding the issue at the meeting.

Let's be sure we're hooking our stories and our basic ledes on what happened, and not just that something happened.

Missing: Don't Forget The Obvious

What's missing from this lede?

There is more missing than you think in the state of Michigan, with 57,1252 reported last year by the U.S. Department of Justice.

Here's the problem: what is missing? People? Cars? Cats? What?

Let's not overlook the obvious, and let's make sure that ledes have all the information that is critical to understanding the basic gist of the story.

Murder: Did 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!

Robbery: WHO, What, When, Where, Why

A few of you never named the robber. Why in earth wouldn't you?

I mean, the name is central to the story: WHO robbed the store. WHO was shot dead. Right?

Don't forget to include all the five W's (who, what, when, where, why) and the one H that accompanies it (how).

Others failed to name the robber until very late in the story, after generically referring to a gunman repeatedly in the story. Ideally, you'd want to ID the robber no later than the nut graf -- since WHO did the robbing and WHO was killed was a very major W among the 5 W's -- and go from there.

Just like you didn't wait to identify Layoux by name, don't wait to ID people who are considered central to the story. A person killed whose actions triggered everything else that happened -- Layoux having to use his gun, Layoux losing his job as a result -- isn't a bit player whose name can wait until later, like the district attorney or a cop who showed up after everything was over.

Robbery: Who, What, When, WHERE, Why

Did you need to cite the store's specific street address? Isn't that a basic and helpful identifier of WHERE this happened?

Wouldn't people wonder WHERE? Whether this was near their home? Or was the store they go to?

The lede probably wasn't a good place for that -- a first attribution simply as a Haslett convenience store, or a local O-Mart store would have been fine -- but an address with a subsequent attribution would have been helpful.

I'm just sayin'.

Robbery: Did You Say ...

. . . it was a brand of Winston cigarettes? Or just cigarettes?

Was the particular brand necessary to the story? Or was it unimportant, other than to give the company a free ad?

Specific brands should be cited if important to the story; like if a Ford Focus crashed into a Hummer. Knowing a teeny-car brand hit a monster-tank brand makes a story more understandable, right?

But in this case, the robber could have asked for Winstons or Camels or whatever. It really wouldn't have made any difference.

It's one thing if you were writing some sort of detailed narrative, where small observations mater in setting mood and color. This wasn't one of those cases. You were just writing a plain ol' daily news story.

Unless it was inside of a quote, I would have left out the brand name.

Robbery: Be Clear

After talking about a back-and-forth between Layoux and the robber, this is what one of you wrote:

When he told him to get in the cooler, he shot him.

Uh, who shot who?

In situations where you have multiple players acting at once, it's best to go overboard on literal names and more specific identifers, like this:

When the robber told Layoux to get in the cooler, Layoux shot the robber.

Now there's no question or confusion or a reader having to guess. It's clear.

Controversial: We Had Some Fatals

Most folks did pretty well in this assignment. Some grafs were too long (some people need to hit the "return" key more often and make shorter grafs) and too many people need to remember to double-space your work so I can fit comments in the margins.

Unfortunately in this exercise, we did have some fact fatals. In fact, many fatals.

Now, before we all start hyperventilating, let's put this into context. The hardest thing for young journalists to master is fact-checking and integrating fact-checking habits into their daily routines. That's because we come into our first journalism classes thinking it's more about writing then getting it right, when really it's the other way around.

So early every semester, there's a spate of fatals. And the reason we grade fatals so harshly is to get your attention that yes, fact-checking really is that critical. It's not just lip service; we need to get things right, period.

(For the record, 10 members of this 16-student class are already card-carrying members of Omar's JRN 200 Fatals Club, with at least one fact fatal on a graded assignment to date. We'll get t-shirts made soon.)

(And you're not close to being alone: in five years of teaching JRN 200, I can count the number of fatal-free students on one hand, and I have no idea how they did it. Almost everyone fatals at least once -- and, more typically, two or three times -- in here. Including dozens of people who ended up 3.5ing and 4.0ing this class. So again, don't freak out. The semester isn't close to being over, and your grade is far from being locked into anything.) 

Through fatals, we want to be able to identify where we're weak during these practice stories, any one of which is only worth around one percent of your final grade. It likely won't have much -- if any -- long-term impact, as you'll get a chance to show improved skills in higher-weight assignments as the semester rolls on.

Still, we can learn from these mistakes. And the lesson today is, it's not the big mistake that kills us. It's the little things we overlook and take for granted, like names.  

In one case, we spelled one last name as both Adler and Sadler (the former is correct).

First, a fact-by-fact fact check after writing would have revealed the misspelling.

Second, simply reading the story and noticing an inconsistency would have also highlighted the goof. After all, your last name is spelled only one way. Discovering two spellings for one last name would automatically tell us that one has to be wrong, and a potential fatal that needs to be fixed. 

In a second case, someone did basically the same thing, alternating between the last name of Baker and Bakers (the former is correct).

In a third case, we spelled the Adler name incorrectly, as Alder. Despite an awesome alternate lede and great story structure throughout, this was more than enough to sink the story.


In a fourth case, someone wrote a story that was structured almost perfectly. I mean, the grade could have been in the high 3's. But the story missed a letter inside of a quote. We wrote game instead of games, with an s.

Now, if that error was outside of a quote and it didn't change the meaning of the story, then it's just a spelling error. But inside of quotes, we have to be exact to what the person said. So, even a simple dropped letter costs us in this case.

In a fifth case, inside of a quote we replaced the word who with that. Again, which it doesn't change the meaning, it's not what the person said, exactly.


Now, do fatals suck? Yes, they do. You automatically get a 1.0 on the assignment, no matter how well you did otherwise.

That's so we can emphasize how the root of journalism isn't writing, it's getting it right. There is no such thing as getting a "little" thing wrong, as any error mars our credibility.

Now, a bigger problem is not turning something in at all. The two things we have to do every time out in journalism is get it right and meet our deadline. And the latter I penalize more harshly, with a 0.0 grade.

Unfortunately, two of us got the 0.0 for failing to meet the deadline at all. If you didn't get a graded assignment back, that's why.

And that's much, much worse than getting a 1.0. How, you may ask?

Well, everything we do in this class is part of a 1,000-point scale. And in that scale, each assignment is weighed as part. If you get a 4.0 on an assignment, you get 100 percent of points eligible for that assignment. If you get a 3.9 it's 99 percent, a 3.8 is 98 percent, and so on.

So if you get a 1.0, you still get 70 percent of possible points. If you get a 0.1 -- which I don't think I've ever handed out -- you get 61 points. But a 0.0 is zero points. You fall much further behind the point scale than if you turn in the worst story ever written.

Is there a journalistic value reason for that? You bet. An editor can work with a piece o' crap story, no matter how bad it is. They can fix it and clean it up sufficiently as long as they have it. But they can't work with nothing. Nor can you fill up a newspaper page or a TV script with nothing.

It's your responsibility to make sure you don't forget an assignment, as it is in the real world. It's your responsibility that you're not even one second late on your deadline, as it is in the real world. And as in the real world, it's your responsibility to make sure your assignment is routed to the right place, which in this case is omars@msu.edu.

Them's the breaks, folks. It sucks, but let's at least learn from these errors so we don't repeat 'em.
 

Alt Ledes: Don't Assume!

Like in this lede:

There are many fears that go through a bride's mind before their wedding. For Sara Howard, she never thought to worry about her husband's drive to the church.

Now, it's structurally fine. But the question I have is, how do you know she never thought to worry about her husband's drive to the church?

In the information you were given, you have no indication whether she wasn't worried, or that her fiancee was a shitty driver who had her constantly terrified with his lead foot.

Here, we went beyond the information you had, and made an assumption. We were being creative based on our guessing, not the facts. And we can't do that.

Now, as a journalist you would have been correct to find out if she ever though she'd have to worry about her fiancee's driving. And if she answered yes, then this lede would be perfect.

But we need to confirm the facts first.

Alt Ledes: Say What You Mean!

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.

Basic Ledes: Analysis Or Opinion?

It's a fine line between using descriptive words justified by the facts and being sensational with little justification. This lede straddled that line:

There was a miraculous escape as a train struck a family of three's SUV at an unsafe intersection on Michigan Avenue near Wayne Boulevard on Monday afternoon.

First, is it fair to say it was miraculous? It it was your conclusion, probably. But the information you were given included, police said it was amazing no one was killed. So it wasn't you simply making a subjective conclusion; you were citing presumed experts on car crashes (and hopefully in the body of the story you would include a quote from police explicitly supporting that claim in the lede).

Now, was it fair to call the intersection unsafe? This was a bit dicier. The information you were given said there were no warning lights or a crossing gate, but there were warning signs and a stop sign.

So, is that necessarily unsafe? If later in your story you cited some sort of expert or experts (like cops or safety engineers) or other people in the know (frequent users of the intersection), saying it's unsafe and offering a justification of why it's unsafe, then I'd say you're in the right.

But while this is clearly a less-protected crossing, I think it's a leap to say it's unsafe, in lieu of additional information. 

Basic Ledes: Don't Forget Important Details!

Like here:

Three were injured when a train struck a car Monday in East Lansing.

Um, three what? People? Puppies? Goldfish? What?

What we needed to do here was say, three people were injured when ...

Don't forget the obvious. And don't assume your audience can figure it out on their own. Be direct in your language and supporting facts.

Likewise, make sure you're saying what you mean to say, like here:

A train struck a family in a vehicle on Monday evening, but no one was seriously injured.

Now, did the train strike the family? No. The train struck a vehicle carrying the family. So say that:

A train struck a vehicle carrying a family on Monday evening, but no one was seriously injured.

 

Lawsuit: Legal B.S.

Did you need to say the Dowdells demand a jury trial of all issues triable as of a right by jury?

What the hell does that mean, anyway?

It just means they are asking for a jury trial. So it would have been enough to say the Dowdells demanded a jury trial.

Likewise, did you need to say the lawsuit targeted both the defendants jointly and severally, for the compensatory damages in the amount of $500,000?

No. More legal B.S. You could just say the lawsuit targeted the defendants for $500,000.

Now, I didn't knock your grade for your inability to navigate legal mumbo-jumbo, unless it changed the meaning of things. This is the sort of stuff you'll get the hang of when you actually start covering court cases.

Still, if you're not sure of the meaning of what you're writing, you should ask a source for a layman's translation.

Rescue: Why Did So Few Of Us ...

. . . make any mention that the city's zoning board was to be notified about the site's hazard to children, as indicated at the end of the report?

Isn't that an important detail relating to where the story may go from here, and detailing consequence for what happened?

Also, some of you referred to the site owner generically, but you never named the company directly. Why is that? Isn't that specific and useful information? Wouldn't readers want to know who owns the land, in the same way they want to know who died? Isn't who one of the five W's every story should have?

Finally, if this was a real story you were doing for a real news organization, what would have been some additional steps in reporting this story? Let's get some good answers.

Speech: How Do You Know ...

. . . this?

According to the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, 4.6 million teenagers have a drinking problem.

This is kind of a trick question. You DON'T know this because the NIAAA told you, or because you read their report. You know it because Izzo cited the report, right?

So, correct attribution would be something like this:

Izzo said 4.6 million teenagers have a drinking problem, citing National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism figures.

Be sure to attribute a source, or even the source of a source, if need be.

Robbery/Murder: Fatalspalooza 2012

Usually, every semester there are one or two practice stories where it seems like half the class goes off the fatals rail, and fatals are as common as puke on the sidewalk the morning after St. Patrick's Day.

Lotsa struggles on these assignments, especially the robbery one. Unlike the last few assignments were most people scored 3.0 or above, on the robbery one many people scored 3.0 or below.

What were the problems?


Ledes that were unfocused or failed to go enough toward ultimate outcome and end result.

Nut grafs that were entirely missing, leaving out a critical bridge between the lede and the body of the story.

A lack of attribution in paragraphs, leaving unclear where we got the information.

And yes, we had a bunch of fatals. Let's look first at the fatals and why they happened, and try to learn from 'em so we don't repeat such mistakes in the future:


We missed our deadline. One robbery story that had a 9 a.m. deadline was turned in at 9:47:28 a.m. That's 7 minutes, 28 seconds late. And that's a 0.0.

A time fatal is the worst kind of fatal we can get in this class, because everything we do in here translated to a 100-point scale. So when we get a 4.0 you get 100 percent of points, a 3.9 gets us 99 points, a 3.8 gets 98, and so forth.

And under that scale, a fact fatal that gets us a 1.0 still gets us 70 points. If we screw up an assignment so bad that we get a 0.1, that's still 61 points.

But a 0.0 is zero points. At a 0.1, we're closer to a 4.0 than a 0.0.

And again, that's to emphasize that missing your deadline is simply not an option in the media biz. We always need to hit our deadlines. Every single time.

We misspelled a name. Three of the robbery fatals revolved around the misspelling of the gunman's last name. It wasn't the common spelling of Weiss, it was Wiess.

Yet we used Weiss, even though what was given to us in your information was Wiess.

In general, first we should have noticed the different spelling. Second, if we found it odd, we should have double-checked with your sources to see if in fact the name was spelled in an uncommon way.

But in this case, the latter wasn't necessary. remember at the end of class I told you that all information was correct, as presented and spelled?

We spelled a name two different ways. In one robbery story, the last name of the clerk was alternately spelled Layoux and Lyoux.

Obviously, one had to be wrong. A thorough check of your story copy would have uncovered the inconsistency. Let's make sure that after we're done writing, we give ourselves a good chunk of time to go over the story and check each fact for accuracy.

We misspelled titles. Such as in the murder story, where one of us spelled North Point Inn as North Pointe Inn, with an "e" at the end of Point. Again, there's no such thing as a small mistake; make sure you are checking your info both before you start writing and after you finish.

Journalism isn't about writing; it's about getting it right.

We got dates wrong. Three of us -- three! -- in the murder story reported the slaying took place today; in fact, the information we had was that it took place yesterday morning.

We mistook facts. One of us wrote in robbery that two other clerks who worked at O-Mart were previously shot. In fact, two clerks at another convenience store in the city were shot and killed.

A thorough reading and understanding of the subject matter before we started writing would have headed off this error. Let's make sure that before we start writing, we give ourselves a good chunk of time to go over notes and materials and make sure we understand each fact correctly.

For those keeping score, eight of 18 people in this class now have at least one fact fatal. If you include missed deadlines, you can add as many as four more people (pending any verifiable excuses) to the list.

Now, is that awful? No. Typically in this class we get a ton of fatals in the first half of the semester, before good habits start to kick in and fatals become much more rare in the second half. And this class sofar has fewer fatals overall than I would expect at this point from previous classes.

Still, it's not good. We need to get better at this, pronto.

Robbery: Who, What, WHEN, Where, Why

One of you did a bang-up job on your story. Nice lede, good nut graf, good story flow.

One problem, though: nowhere in the story did you way WHEN anything happened. No dates, no times.

You could have an otherwise-great story, but if it entirely misses a key element -- like any of the five W's -- then it's not a great story, or even a good one.

Others had a day, but not time. Still others had a time, but no day.

Don't overlook the obvious, folks!

Robbery: WHO, What, When, Where, Why

A few of you never named the robber. Why in earth wouldn't you?

I mean, the name is central to the story: WHO robbed the store. WHO was shot dead. Right?

Don't forget to include all the five W's (who, what, when, where, why) and the one H that accompanies it (how).

Others failed to name the robber until very late in the story, after generically referring to a gunman repeatedly in the story. Ideally, you'd want to ID the robber no later than the nut graf -- since WHO did the robbing and WHO was killed was a very major W among the 5 W's -- and go from there.

Just like you didn't wait to identify Layoux by name, don't wait to ID people who are considered central to the story. A person killed whose actions triggered everything else that happened -- Layoux having to use his gun, Layoux losing his job as a result -- isn't a bit player whose name can wait until later, like the district attorney or a cop who showed up after everything was over.