Rescue: Was It ...

. . . a fort the kids were building? You know, with gates and turrets and moats and solid stone walls and stuff?

Or a tunnel that was a kind of play-fort?

It's the former, right?

So, why just call it a fort when it was really a tunnel?

It's not wrong that you refer to the fort in some way; just make sure the context is correct. One of you found a great way to say it: the boys were digging a tunnel to create a play fort.

911: Identification

Probably the hardest thing about this exercise for you was identification. We had competing interests at work here.

First, you should have been operating under the general journalistic premise that we do NOT name rape victims in almost all cases.

And on this point, some of us DID name the victim by name.

Earlier in this semester, we discussed when and when not to name victims in stories. In most cases we DO name victims, but a notable exception in American journalism regarded the names of rape victims.

In general, the current rule of thumb is that in weighing the benefit to society in knowing who exactly was victimized versus the harm that would come in terms of stigma to the victim, we do not name rape victims expect in rare circumstances, like a victim wanting to intentionally put a name and face to a victim to promote greater societal understanding, or a rape victim whose alleged attacker wasn't convicted in criminal court but who is facing a lawsuit for money in civil court.

This wasn't one of those times.

Then, there is the concern of making a virtual identification; that is, giving so much other information that it is easy for anybody to identify the victim.

Some of us named the victim's daughter. A daughter only has one mother, right? So that would be real easy to narrow down who the victim was if we gave the girl's name.

Also, some of us listed the exact home address where the crime took place. Only one family lives in a home, right? Again, we took a huge step in virtually identifying the victim.

Even though an exact address would expose the victim, don't readers still deserve to know where a crime took place? I mean, a story is much more relevant if it happened on your street or in your neighborhood than if it didn't. Some location is necessary to establish relevance.

A couple of us handled it in a smart way: you simply said the incident happened on Wilson Avenue. No street address included. That gave readers enough information to better set proximity, without giving away the victim's home and creating a virtual identification.

Now, what about the suspect's name? I think only under the rarest of cases would you not name the suspect. He's central to the story. As a society we need to know who among us is considered dangerous, and who among us is being locked up like a zoo animal by our authorities.

The only time in my whole journalism career when I didn't name a suspect was in a case around 1992 -- really early in my professional career -- where I was covering the trial of a teen accused of raping his own mother.

My editors went back-and-forth on how to handle it before deciding they wouldn't name the victim or the suspect, because naming the latter would identify the former. And there was a big ol' editor's note added ahead of my lede to explain their reasoning.

So exceptions are rare. Either the circumstances are amazingly twisted and unique or the suspects are juveniles and a particular media organization has rules about naming kids.

Again, this ain't one of 'em.

I also thought important to the story was noting that Caspinwall was a neighbor of the victim. Readers need to know if this crime was totally random or if there was some sort of link between the victim and attacker. Readers have more reason to worry if someone is willy-nilly breaking into random homes, as opposed to attacking a neighbor, right?

But only a few of us you noted the link.

Note I say Caspinwall was a neighbor, not her direct neighbor. A neighbor -- or even better, a nearby neighbor -- could be somebody next door or down the street, right? So using neighbor in the generic doesn't necessarily narrow the possible victim pool to a single house or two.

Next, is the suspect's home address needed? I think some identification of where he lives is noteworthy. Wouldn't readers really want to know if an alleged rapist and home invader lived by them? Wouldn't you?

Also, there was something else that I think we owed the reader: an explanation of why you weren't naming the girl or listing her exact address.

Even though you're following journalistic rules, your readers probably don't know those rules and may simply be wondering, why the hell aren't there any names or exact addresses in this story? It wouldn't have hurt to have a simple background sentence somewhere in the story, like this:

The names of the girl and victim and the exact address where the crime occurred is being withheld to protect the identity of the victim.

That way, you are being transparent with readers about why they're not getting the level of information that other non-rape stories would include. A couple of us did do something along those lines.

Admittedly, this was a confusing exercise. We had many different factors tugging at us. It's really a tough situation for a young reporter to find himself or herself in. In a real-world setting, we'd definitely want to bring an editor in the loop to help make the best judgments that give the readers the most information while at the same time minimizing harm to the victim.

But here, I wanted to test your judgment and see how you responded. And I figured you'd appreciate the lesson much more if we did it this way, as opposed to just lecturing about it.

And in all fairness to you, how you handled these circumstances were a smaller-than-usual part of your assignment grade here. I gave you a break because I didn't want you to suffer a penalty on this one, but I did want you to have to think about it before we discussed it now.

Finally, this is how I would have handled it: I WOULD NOT name the victim or the girl. I WOULD name the suspect and even use HIS home address. I'd say the victim lived nearby, but I wouldn't specifically say they were direct neighbors.

That way, readers know who did this (and know exactly where the sicko lived) and the general area where the crime occurred and that it wasn't a random crime, while at the same time limiting the ability to identify who the victim was.

This is the sort of stuff you'll have to think about all the time in deciding what is the best way to tell your story.

Robbery: Did You Need ...

. . . to use the clerk's full name of Michael Ernest Layoux?

It's not wrong to use middle names or middle initials, but here's a good rule of thumb: if you feel the name is so common where a middle name is needed to distinguish a person from others with a similar name, then you may want to use a middle name or initial. Like with former MSU football coach John L. Smith.

But if you feel the name is fairly unique, it's less necessary. Like with Omar Sofradzija.

BTW, you may have noticed serial killers or mass murderers or criminals of the highest profile are often referred to with a middle name included (like John Wayne Gacy, Lee Harvey Oswald, ect.). That's because with a crime so heinous, you want to go the extra mile to make sure you're identifying the right guy.

For a guide, please look under AP Style under middle names.

One more BTW ... did you need to use Layoux's name in the lede, or would it be sufficient to identify him in the generic as a 22-year-old clerk in the lede and then name him in the nut graf? What did you do, and why did you do it?

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.

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.

Rescue: Was It ...

. . . a fort the kids were building? You know, with gates and turrets and moats and solid stone walls and stuff?

Or a tunnel that was a kind of play-fort?

It's the former, right?

So, why just call it a fort when it was really a tunnel?

It's not wrong that you refer to the fort in some way; just make sure the context is correct. One of you found a great way to say it: the boys were digging a tunnel to create a play fort.

911: Identification

Probably the hardest thing about this exercise for you was identification. You had competing interests at work here.

First, you should have been operating under the general journalistic premise that we do NOT name rape victims in almost all cases.

And on this point, this is where we did a bit worse than previous semesters when virtually no one did that. Here, three of you DID name the victim by name.

Earlier in this semester, we discussed when and when not to name victims in stories. In most cases we DO name victims, but a notable exception in American journalism regarded the names of rape victims.

In general, the current rule of thumb is that in weighing the benefit to society in knowing who exactly was victimized versus the harm that would come in terms of stigma to the victim, we do not name rape victims expect in rare circumstances, like a victim wanting to intentionally put a name and face to a victim to promote greater societal understanding, or a rape victim whose alleged attacker wasn't convicted in criminal court but who is facing a lawsuit for money in civil court.

This wasn't one of those times.

Then, there is the concern of making a virtual identification; that is, giving so much other information that it is easy for anybody to identify the victim.

Three of you named the victim's daughter. A daughter only has one mother, right? So that would be real easy to narrow down who the victim was if you gave the girl's name.

Also, one of you listed the exact home address where the crime took place. Only one family lives in a home, right? Again, you took a huge step in virtually identifying the victim.

Even though an exact address would expose the victim, don't readers still deserve to know where a crime took place? I mean, a story is much more relevant if it happened on your street or in your neighborhood than if it didn't. Some location is necessary to establish relevance.

A couple of you handled it in a smart way: you simply said the incident happened on Wilson Avenue. No street address included. That gave readers enough information to better set proximity, without giving away the victim's home and creating a virtual identification.

Now, what about the suspect's name? I think only under the rarest of cases would you not name the suspect. He's central to the story. As a society we need to know who among us is considered dangerous, and who among us is being locked up like a zoo animal by our authorities.

The only time in my whole journalism career when I didn't name a suspect was in a case around 1992 -- really early in my professional career -- where I was covering the trial of a teen accused of raping his own mother.

My editors went back-and-forth on how to handle it before deciding they wouldn't name the victim or the suspect, because naming the latter would identify the former. And there was a big ol' editor's note added ahead of my lede to explain their reasoning.

So exceptions are rare. Either the circumstances are amazingly twisted and unique or the suspects are juveniles and a particular media organization has rules about naming kids.

Again, this ain't one of 'em.

I also thought important to the story was noting that Caspinwall was a neighbor of the victim. Readers need to know if this crime was totally random or if there was some sort of link between the victim and attacker. Readers have more reason to worry if someone is willy-nilly breaking into random homes, as opposed to attacking a neighbor, right?

But only about half of you noted the link.

Note I say Caspinwall was a neighbor, not her direct neighbor. A neighbor -- or even better, a nearby neighbor -- could be somebody next door or down the street, right? So using neighbor in the generic doesn't necessarily narrow the possible victim pool to a single house or two.

Next, is the suspect's home address needed? I think some identification of where he lives is noteworthy. Wouldn't readers really want to know if an alleged rapist and home invader lived by them? Wouldn't you?

Also, there was something else that I think you owed the reader: an explanation of why you weren't naming the girl or listing her exact address.

Even though you're following journalistic rules, your readers probably don't know those rules and may simply be wondering, why the hell aren't there any names or exact addresses in this story? It wouldn't have hurt to have a simple background sentence somewhere in the story, like this:

The names of the girl and victim and the exact address where the crime occurred is being withheld to protect the identity of the victim.

That way, you are being transparent with readers about why they're not getting the level of information that other non-rape stories would include. A couple of you did do something along those lines.

Admittedly, this was a confusing exercise. You had many different factors tugging at you. It's really a tough situation for a young reporter to find himself or herself in. In a real-world setting, you'd definitely want to bring an editor in the loop to help make the best judgments that give the readers the most information while at the same time minimizing harm to the victim.

But here, I wanted to test your judgment and see how you responded. And I figured you'd appreciate the lesson much more if we did it this way, as opposed to just lecturing about it.

And in all fairness to you, how you handled these circumstances were a smaller-than-usual part of your assignment grade here. I gave you a break because I didn't want you to suffer a penalty on this one, but I did want you to have to think about it before we discussed it now.

Finally, this is how I would have handled it: I WOULD NOT name the victim or the girl. I WOULD name the suspect and even use HIS home address. I'd say the victim lived nearby, but I wouldn't specifically say they were direct neighbors.

That way, readers know who did this (and know exactly where the sicko lived) and the general area where the crime occurred and that it wasn't a random crime, while at the same time limiting the ability to identify who the victim was.

This is the sort of stuff you'll have to think about all the time in deciding what is the best way to tell your story.

Robbery: Who, What, WHERE, When, 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 won't have been 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: 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: 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.

Robbery: Did You Need ...

. . . to use the clerk's full name of Michael Ernest Layoux?

It's not wrong to use middle names or middle initials, but here's a good rule of thumb: if you feel the name is so common where a middle name is needed to distinguish a person from others with a similar name, then you may want to use a middle name or initial. Like with former MSU football coach John L. Smith.

But if you feel the name is fairly unique, it's less necessary. Like with Omar Sofradzija.

BTW, you may have noticed serial killers or mass murderers or criminals of the highest profile are often referred to with a middle name included (like John Wayne Gacy, Lee Harvey Oswald, ect.). That's because with a crime so heinous, you want to go the extra mile to make sure you're identifying the right guy.

For a guide, please look under AP Style under middle names.

One more BTW ... did you need to use Layoux's name in the lede, or would it be sufficient to identify him in the generic as a 22-year-old clerk in the lede and then name him in the nut graf? What did you do, and why did you do it?

JRN 200: The Body Of A News Story

The most basic story structures are very specific in style yet simple in design. So let's look an imaginary story done in a basic news style, starting with what you already know -- the lede:

School was canceled forever today after a 42-year-old college instructor won a multi-billion dollar lottery, quitting his job and sparking a walkout among his students.

The lede is usually followed by what is called the nut graf. The role of that paragraph is to elaborate and expand upon the details of the lede.

Consider the general identifiers posed in the lede: an unnamed instructor, an unnamed school, an unspecified big-money lottery ect. Try to follow up on those generalities with specifics in the nut graf, like this:

Omar Sofradzija, who teaches a journalism class at Michigan State University in East Lansing, won the $99 billion Amazeballs drawing Monday, after which he quit Tuesday, lottery officials said.

That was followed by a mass walkout by MSU students, and then cancelation of MSU classes the next day, university officials said.

In journalism, we try to keep paragraphs fairly short -- usually limited to one main point or idea per graf, and/or one or two sentences per graf. In this case, I thought the nut graf was running a bit long, so I split it into two grafs.

We try to keep paragraphs short and specific for two big reasons: one, to make it easy for the reader to identify key points and specific quotes and such; and two, to make it easy for editors to do the same so they can more quickly edit the story by easily finding what may be worth emphasis or cutting out.

The point after the nut graf is a great place to consider putting in a telling quote; something that goes to the heart of the story's theme or context or ultimate meaning. Something like this:

"If there's no Omar, there simply isn't any point in having school," MSU president Lou Anna K. Simon said.

At this point, the lede/nut graf/key quote package creates sort of a mini-story. In the same way the lede gives you the bare minimum of what you need to know about the story, this grouping of grafs gives readers the minimum amount of information AND supporting detail and evidence.

From this point on, you have a couple of options: you can add more supporting facts and quotes, in descending order of importance. This is called the inverted pyramid style of story organization. You start with the most important piece of background, then the next most important, and so on. Like with short paragraphs, it allows for faster reading and editing. Like this:

Sofradzija, who has been making just $2 an hour teaching an introduction-to-journalism class, said he plans to never teach again.

"Seriously, eff those little brats," he said.

But a number of students said that losing Sofradzija as an instructor has sapped their will to learn.

"If I can't learn from Omar, I can't learn. I'm that stupid," said Elvis Presley, a sophomore journalism major from Canada.

Sofradzija said he did not know what exactly he's spend his fortune on, but he promised it would be something stupid.

Notice how pieces of telling information are paired up with quotes supporting, amplifying and humanizing that raw data. It's not necessary that every graf of info is followed by a related quote, but it does help in reinforcing the points that are made throughout a story.

Also, please note attribution is liberally used throughout the story, in every graf after the lede. That's for the benefit of readers, who get to see exactly where you get each bit of information that supports the original claim you make in your lede. Not only are you transparent, but you essentially rely on the expertise of your sources by citing them, building your credibility.

Another approach is to offer a chronological telling, looking at things from the start. It's important that you weigh the facts you have and the context of the story to decide if an inverted pyramid, chronology or some other method best tells the story. Like this:

Events quickly began to unfold around 8 p.m. Monday, when Sofradzija was named the Amazeballs winner. His resignation was submitted to MSU by 6 a.m. Tuesday, school officials said.

"Seriously, eff those little brats," Sofradzija said.

Word quickly swirled around campus of Sofradzija's departure, with students walking out of their classes em masse throughout the day Tuesday, school officials said.

"If I can't learn from Omar, I can't learn. I'm that stupid," said Elvis Presley, a sophomore journalism major from Canada.

University leaders met that night before making the cancellation of the semester official at 8 a.m. today, officials said.

And that's it. Notice how the story seems to end sort of abruptly. Looks weird, right? Well, in journalism that's okay is your story lacks what writers call a satisfying ending. Why is this okay? Because you already have an ending: your lede.

Now that we looked at these two structures in pieces, let's put it all together and look at the pieces as stories. First, the inverted pyramid:

School was canceled forever today after a 42-year-old college instructor won a multi-billion dollar lottery, quitting his job and sparking a walkout among his students.

Omar Sofradzija, who teaches a journalism class at Michigan State University in East Lansing, won the $99 billion Amazeballs drawing Monday, after which he quit Tuesday, lottery officials said.

That was followed by a mass walkout by MSU students, and then cancelation of MSU classes the next day, university officials said.

"If there's no Omar, there simply isn't any point in having school," MSU president Lou Anna K. Simon said.

Sofradzija, who has been making just $2 an hour teaching an introduction-to-journalism class, said he plans to never teach again.

"Seriously, eff those little brats," he said.

But a number of students said that losing Sofradzija as an instructor has sapped their will to learn.

"If I can't learn from Omar, I can't learn. I'm that stupid," said Elvis Presley, a sophomore journalism major from Canada.

Sofradzija said he did not know what exactly he's spend his fortune on, but he promised it would be something stupid.

*****

Now, the chronological style:

*****

School was canceled forever today after a 42-year-old college instructor won a multi-billion dollar lottery, quitting his job and sparking a walkout among his students.

Omar Sofradzija, who teaches a journalism class at Michigan State University in East Lansing, won the $99 billion Amazeballs drawing Monday, after which he quit Tuesday, lottery officials said.

That was followed by a mass walkout by MSU students, and then cancelation of MSU classes the next day, university officials said.

"If there's no Omar, there simply isn't any point in having school," MSU president Lou Anna K. Simon said.

Events quickly began to unfold around 8 p.m. Monday, when Sofradzija was named the Amazeballs winner. His resignation was submitted to MSU by 6 a.m. Tuesday, school officials said.

"Seriously, eff those little brats," Sofradzija said.

Word quickly swirled around campus of Sofradzija's departure, with students walking out of their classes em masse throughout the day Tuesday, school officials said.

"If I can't learn from Omar, I can't learn. I'm that stupid," said Elvis Presley, a sophomore journalism major from Canada.

University leaders met that night before making the cancellation of the semester official at 8 a.m. today, officials said.

Now, which is the best structure to use: inverted pyramid or chronology? Again, it depends on what best tells the story.

If you're writing about something complex where impact and meaning doesn't necessarily happen in sequence -- like a tuition increase or comparing on-campus and off-campus housing -- then structuring things based on an analyzed importance may be the way to go.

But of the story you're looking into naturally and dramatically unfolds in order -- like a bank robbery or 9/11 -- then a chronology probably works best.

A lot of it depends on what kind of facts you dig up while reporting. Note in each approach, some facts get greater or lesser emphasis, and some facts get entirely left out. You should think about which approach best uses the most important, relevant, interesting and useful facts. Whichever does is probably the highest and best approach to take.

Let me be clear, though: these are NOT the only two story structure options you have. As you've read in the book and probably noticed in your newspaper readings, there are endless ways to write ledes and detail nut grafs and add quotes and cascade facts throughout a story.

You're first and foremost looking for the best way to tell a story, based on what makes meaning and context and accuracy clear and easy to follow.

These are just two basic ways to do that. Master this, and then start practicing other ways.

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.

911: Identification

Probably the hardest thing about this exercise for you was identification. You had competing interests at work here.

First, you should have been operating under the general journalistic premise that we do NOT name rape victims in almost all cases.

And on this point, this is where we did a bit worse than previous semesters when virtually no one did that. Here, three of you DID name the victim by name.

Earlier in this semester, we discussed when and when not to name victims in stories. In most cases we DO name victims, but a notable exception in American journalism regarded the names of rape victims.

In general, the current rule of thumb is that in weighing the benefit to society in knowing who exactly was victimized versus the harm that would come in terms of stigma to the victim, we do not name rape victims expect in rare circumstances, like a victim wanting to intentionally put a name and face to a victim to promote greater societal understanding, or a rape victim whose alleged attacker wasn't convicted in criminal court but who is facing a lawsuit for money in civil court.

This wasn't one of those times.

Then, there is the concern of making a virtual identification; that is, giving so much other information that it is easy for anybody to identify the victim.

Three of you named the victim's daughter. A daughter only has one mother, right? So that would be real easy to narrow down who the victim was if you gave the girl's name.

Also, one of you listed the exact home address where the crime took place. Only one family lives in a home, right? Again, you took a huge step in virtually identifying the victim.

Even though an exact address would expose the victim, don't readers still deserve to know where a crime took place? I mean, a story is much more relevant if it happened on your street or in your neighborhood than if it didn't. Some location is necessary to establish relevance.

A couple of you handled it in a smart way: you simply said the incident happened on Wilson Avenue. No street address included. That gave readers enough information to better set proximity, without giving away the victim's home and creating a virtual identification.

Now, what about the suspect's name? I think only under the rarest of cases would you not name the suspect. He's central to the story. As a society we need to know who among us is considered dangerous, and who among us is being locked up like a zoo animal by our authorities.

The only time in my whole journalism career when I didn't name a suspect was in a case around 1992 -- really early in my professional career -- where I was covering the trial of a teen accused of raping his own mother.

My editors went back-and-forth on how to handle it before deciding they wouldn't name the victim or the suspect, because naming the latter would identify the former. And there was a big ol' editor's note added ahead of my lede to explain their reasoning.

So exceptions are rare. Either the circumstances are amazingly twisted and unique or the suspects are juveniles and a particular media organization has rules about naming kids.

Again, this ain't one of 'em.

I also thought important to the story was noting that Caspinwall was a neighbor of the victim. Readers need to know if this crime was totally random or if there was some sort of link between the victim and attacker. Readers have more reason to worry if someone is willy-nilly breaking into random homes, as opposed to attacking a neighbor, right?

But only about half of you noted the link.

Note I say Caspinwall was a neighbor, not her direct neighbor. A neighbor -- or even better, a nearby neighbor -- could be somebody next door or down the street, right? So using neighbor in the generic doesn't necessarily narrow the possible victim pool to a single house or two.

Next, is the suspect's home address needed? I think some identification of where he lives is noteworthy. Wouldn't readers really want to know if an alleged rapist and home invader lived by them? Wouldn't you?

Also, there was something else that I think you owed the reader: an explanation of why you weren't naming the girl or listing her exact address.

Even though you're following journalistic rules, your readers probably don't know those rules and may simply be wondering, why the hell aren't there any names or exact addresses in this story? It wouldn't have hurt to have a simple background sentence somewhere in the story, like this:

The names of the girl and victim and the exact address where the crime occurred is being withheld to protect the identity of the victim.

That way, you are being transparent with readers about why they're not getting the level of information that other non-rape stories would include. A couple of you did do something along those lines.

Admittedly, this was a confusing exercise. You had many different factors tugging at you. It's really a tough situation for a young reporter to find himself or herself in. In a real-world setting, you'd definitely want to bring an editor in the loop to help make the best judgments that give the readers the most information while at the same time minimizing harm to the victim.

But here, I wanted to test your judgment and see how you responded. And I figured you''d appreciate the lesson much more if we did it this way, as opposed to just lecturing about it.

And in all fairness to you, how you handled these circumstances were a smaller-than-usual part of your assignment grade here. I gave you a break because I didn't want you to suffer a penalty on this one, but I did want you to have to think about it before we discussed it now.

Finally, this is how I would have handled it: I WOULD NOT name the victim or the girl. I WOULD name the suspect and even use HIS home address. I'd say the victim lived nearby, but I wouldn't specifically say they were direct neighbors.

That way, readers know who did this (and know exactly where the sicko lived) and the general area where the crime occurred and that it wasn't a random crime, while at the same time limiting the ability to identify who the victim was.

This is the sort of stuff you'll have to think about all the time in deciding what is the best way to tell your story.

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.

Practice Ledes: Be Precise

Quite a few of you said a 6-month-old was in the SUV at the time of the carjacking. A 6-month-old what?

Don't forget the "girl" part. It could have been a 6-month-old anything. Don't make a reader hunt through a story to find out what you're talking about; be clear from the first reference on.

Likewise, some of you referred to the SUV as a car. Actually, an SUV is not technically a car. A car in the generic usually refers to a sedan-type automobile, like a typical four-door car. Pickup trucks, vans and sport utility vehicles are just that, and not cars.

I didn't dock you on this exercise for that notation, but if you call everything a car, that's a habit you want to start breaking.

Also, this was one of your ledes:

Constance P. Wei, a leading opponent to Michigan's proposed ban on cell phone use while driving, was allegedly talking on her phone when she slammed into a car stopped at a red light.

What's missing from this lede that I'd argue is critical to the lede? Think what and why ...

More 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.

911: Identification

Probably the hardest thing about this exercise for you was identification. You had competing interests at work here.

First, you should have been operating under the general journalistic premise that we do NOT name rape victims in almost all cases.

And on this point, this is where we did a bit worse than previous semesters when virtually no one did that. Here, three of you DID name the victim by name.

Earlier in this semester, we discussed when and when not to name victims in stories. In most cases we DO name victims, but a notable exception in American journalism regarded the names of rape victims.

In general, the current rule of thumb is that in weighing the benefit to society in knowing who exactly was victimized versus the harm that would come in terms of stigma to the victim, we do not name rape victims expect in rare circumstances, like a victim wanting to intentionally put a name and face to a victim to promote greater societal understanding, or a rape victim whose alleged attacker wasn't convicted in criminal court but who is facing a lawsuit for money in civil court.

This wasn't one of those times.

Then, there is the concern of making a virtual identification; that is, giving so much other information that it is easy for anybody to identify the victim.

Three of you named the victim's daughter. A daughter only has one mother, right? So that would be real easy to narrow down who the victim was if you gave the girl's name.

Also, one of you listed the exact home address where the crime took place. Only one family lives in a home, right? Again, you took a huge step in virtually identifying the victim.

Even though an exact address would expose the victim, don't readers still deserve to know where a crime took place? I mean, a story is much more relevant if it happened on your street or in your neighborhood than if it didn't. Some location is necessary to establish relevance.

A couple of you handled it in a smart way: you simply said the incident happened on Wilson Avenue. No street address included. That gave readers enough information to better set proximity, without giving away the victim's home and creating a virtual identification.

Now, what about the suspect's name? I think only under the rarest of cases would you not name the suspect. He's central to the story. As a society we need to know who among us is considered dangerous, and who among us is being locked up like a zoo animal by our authorities.

The only time in my whole journalism career when I didn't name a suspect was in a case around 1992 -- really early in my professional career -- where I was covering the trial of a teen accused of raping his own mother.

My editors went back-and-forth on how to handle it before deciding they wouldn't name the victim or the suspect, because naming the latter would identify the former. And there was a big ol' editor's note added ahead of my lede to explain their reasoning.

So exceptions are rare. Either the circumstances are amazingly twisted and unique or the suspects are juveniles and a particular media organization has rules about naming kids.

Again, this ain't one of 'em.

I also thought important to the story was noting that Caspinwall was a neighbor of the victim. Readers need to know if this crime was totally random or if there was some sort of link between the victim and attacker. Readers have more reason to worry if someone is willy-nilly breaking into random homes, as opposed to attacking a neighbor, right?

But only about half of you noted the link.

Note I say Caspinwall was a neighbor, not her direct neighbor. A neighbor -- or even better, a nearby neighbor -- could be somebody next door or down the street, right? So using neighbor in the generic doesn't necessarily narrow the possible victim pool to a single house or two.

Next, is the suspect's home address needed? I think some identification of where he lives is noteworthy. Wouldn't readers really want to know if an alleged rapist and home invader lived by them? Wouldn't you?

Also, there was something else that I think you owed the reader: an explanation of why you weren't naming the girl or listing her exact address.

Even though you're following journalistic rules, your readers probably don't know those rules and may simply be wondering, why the hell aren't there any names or exact addresses in this story? It wouldn't have hurt to have a simple background sentence somewhere in the story, like this:

The names of the girl and victim and the exact address where the crime occurred is being withheld to protect the identity of the victim.

That way, you are being transparent with readers about why they're not getting the level of information that other non-rape stories would include. A couple of you did do something along those lines.

Admittedly, this was a confusing exercise. You had many different factors tugging at you. It's really a tough situation for a young reporter to find himself or herself in. In a real-world setting, you'd definitely want to bring an editor in the loop to help make the best judgments that give the readers the most information while at the same time minimizing harm to the victim.

But here, I wanted to test your judgment and see how you responded. And I figured you''d appreciate the lesson much more if we did it this way, as opposed to just lecturing about it.

And in all fairness to you, how you handled these circumstances were a smaller-than-usual part of your assignment grade here. I gave you a break because I didn't want you to suffer a penalty on this one, but I did want you to have to think about it before we discussed it now.

Finally, this is how I would have handled it: I WOULD NOT name the victim or the girl. I WOULD name the suspect and even use HIS home address. I'd say the victim lived nearby, but I wouldn't specifically say they were direct neighbors.

That way, readers know who did this (and know exactly where the sicko lived) and the general area where the crime occurred and that it wasn't a random crime, while at the same time limiting the ability to identify who the victim was.

This is the sort of stuff you'll have to think about all the time in deciding what is teh best way to tell your story.

Graded Ledes: A Versus The

So is it a six-month-old girl? Or the six-month-old girl?

In first reference, it's a six-month-old. After all, she's not the only six-month-old girl in the world, probably.

But after establishing her as a specific six-month-old girl, for second and subsequent references you could call her the girl.

More 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.