Out-Of-Class #3: A Review

I felt like we kind of stopped making progress on this one. Instead of a range of sources, many stories just had voices from one side of an issue, but not the other. Many lacked neutral experts that would have helped readers decide which side was closer to the truth. Still some issues with a lack of attribution, allowing readers to know where we got the information. Too often we told readers something, but failed to show them quotes or data providing evidence for the point being made.

Plus, we had a fatal. In one story, we wrote MSU has almost 40,000 students. I think you may have gotten that stat from a student you quoted. Even though that was the person's quote, we should still double-check out facts to make sure what we were told was right.

And a quick check of MSU's Web site found that the school currently has almost 50,000 students. That's a fatal, then.

Let's think back to the first few days of class, when I shared with you this saying:

If your mother says she loves you, check it out.

What it meant was, if you are told something, then go find evidence to support what was told. In the case of your mom, it would be proof that she really loves you, such as documentation (holiday cards she got you every year, expressing her love of you) and interviews (relatives and friends who say she always talks about how much she loves you) and facts (she has never missed getting you a birthday gift, supporting the idea that she really loves you).

We really needed to do that here. Journalism isn't about writing; it's about getting it right.

JRN 200: Getting Your Out-of-Class Story Published

Now that you've done a genuinely-reported real story, let's take the next step and get your work published.

In this class, if you get an out-of-class story published by any existing campus or local media, and if you email me a link proving that you've been published, then per the syllabus your final class grade will go up by 0.15 points for every published story.

That means if you get all three published, your 3.5 final grade would turn into a 4.0.

The benefit to you is two-fold: first, you get a better grade. Duh.

Second -- and probably more important to your long-term prospects -- you start building a portfolio. This is very much a field of demonstrated ability; that is, an employer doesn't want to see that you're capable of doing something; they want to see that you've already done it.

Like, write a real story and get it published.

Plus, then you get to add to your resume a line that you worked as a free-lance contributor to whatever publication in the fall of 2013. Even if you get just one story published, that is an accurate line in your resume.

So, where do you get your work published?

Not The State News. Sorry, folks. The paper doesn't take free-lance news submissions. But there are several online campus news organizations that do consider such work -- and which have historically published JRN 200 stories -- including:


Spartan Edge, at spartanedge.com

The Big Green, at thebiggreen.net

Uloop, at msu.uloop.com/main/

People have also had luck at other student-run and professionally-run news organizations. In the past, I've had a few people have luck in getting their hometown newspaper to run their stories, especially if the topic related to issues in their hometowns. I can think of a couple of times where the MSU Greek community newspaper, the Odyssey, did publish JRN 200 work.

So, let's try to contact some media organizations and get you officially stamped as a published journalist. If you need some help in brainstorming where to try and get published, please see me during my office hours.

Out-of-Class #1: Overall

Some people did very well on the first out-of-class story. Nice ledes, good attribution, a nice range of sources from different perspectives and sides of an issue, and a lot of original reporting that didn't rely on what you found online from some other news source.

Then again, we had some struggles. And most of those struggles are normal with a first out-of-class story, for which you have not much -- if anything -- compare it to.

There was a lack of attribution, where I didn't know where you got the information from.

There was an over-reliance on other sources for your information, as opposed to you getting quotes and data directly from first-hand sources yourself.

There were instances where you interviewed a narrow set of sources, like just one set of people in a complex issue. You may have just talked to one side of an issue but not the other or neutral experts. It seemed like some people stopped on the first and most obvious source group and didn't ask themselves, "Who else would be a good source to talk to about this? Who else would have good information that is relevant to this issue? Who's on the other side of this issue? Who is affected by this? Who would be a neutral expert, and how do I find them?"

There were some cases where stories were way too wordy and overloaded with paragraphs that took up space but really didn't advance the story or say much of anything in particular. This is journalism and not a term paper, folks; filling a story up with fluff to make the 700-word limit will get you an equally-empty grade.

And some people treated this like a term paper, rather than a news story. What I mean by that is, with a term paper you are filling up a space with relevant information to satisfy an arbitrary standard sought by a teacher.

You have presumptions, and you simply fill the space between presumptions with whatever seems to support the presumption. There really isn't much research of exploration or curiosity or even much consideration that there may very well be a surprising twist out there that may be found if you do enough digging. You're not only not discovering anything; you're just trying to support a presumption.

And that's not journalism.

In a news story, what we are doing is exploring an issue, and investigating it like a detective would a crime scene. Yes, we have some presumptions that we start with, but during the course of our investigation we are seeking sources that either confirm or deny our presumptions or even take the story in a whole new and unexpected direction, based on following the facts.

It's just like a scientific experiment: you start out with a theory, but that theory is just a starting point. Then you fact-test the theory by gaining real-world evidence. Then, you see what the evidence says -- whether or not it has anything left to do with your original theory -- and only then you decide upon your lede and your nut graf and what information you have is worth sharing with your audience.

Still, those problems I expected, and accept. That's normal for a first out-of-classer. But my other expectation I hoped wouldn't come to pass: that at least three people (and maybe two more) fataled this first assignment.


That wasn't a shock because four people fataled the first OOC in my previous semester of this class. But that was by far the most I ever had in a single OOC assignment, never having more than one prior to that.

The frustrating thing to me was that it was clear that the fatals all came from the simplest of mistakes, and were ones where the most basic principles of fact-checking were not being followed.

One person fataled in a story about cruise ship safety, when they referred to the Cruise Lines International Associate. In fact, the name of the group is the Cruise Lines International Association (italics mine), which I confirmed via Google at cruising.org.

That flouted the most basic fatals rule. From the syllabus:

Fact errors: Inaccurate information, misspelling a proper name, a misquotation or an error that changes the meaning of a story automatically drops a grade to a maximum of 1.0 (e.g., President "Barack Obamma" or "Department of Transport").

A second person fataled the name of the school. Instead of Michigan State, it was Michigan Sate, with the first "t" in "State" missing.

Problem is, "sate" is a real word. According to the American Heritage Dictionary sitting on my bookshelf, it's a verb that means, to satisfy (an appetite) fully; to indulge in excess; glut.

In the same story, there was a quote that said "I wonder how long they have to be in their for." We meant to say how long they're "there" for (italics mine).

I'd like to remind you one more time that spell check is a supplement to -- but not a substitute for -- checking a story word-for-word, fact-by-fact and line-by-line against your notes. Because spell check will not catch an incorrect spelling that creates an unintended and inaccurate but correctly-spelled word, like when your misspelling of "state" creates "sate."

The same problem applied to another person who fataled a quote, saying "I kind of had a foot it both camps," when they clearly meant to say "foot in both camps."

I'd like to remind you one more time that spell check is a supplement to -- but not a substitute for -- checking a story word-for-word, fact-by-fact and line-by-line against your notes. Because spell check will not catch an incorrect spelling that creates an unintended and inaccurate but correctly-spelled word, like when your misspelling of "in" creates "it."
 
Additionally, there are a couple of people whose interview notes I'd like to see. In one case, they have a quote that says ""I talk with students of across the board," which doesn't seem to make sense. I suspect the "of" doesn't belong there, which would make it a fatal.

In another story, someone has a quote that recommended  travel "if they have the recourses," which is an odd but not completely implausible use of the word. Did you mean resources? If so, that's a fatal, too.

So, a couple of grades are subject to revision.

We need to make sure we don't take anything for granted, even when we're writing down the most common name and assuming it has the most common spelling. Don't assume anything; if they say their name is John Smith, ask them if it's the common spelling and if they can spell it out, letter-by-letter. I promise you, the first time you assume you'll find out the next day his name was spelled Jon Smythe.

Yes, as a professional journalist I learned this the hard way, too.


Early on in this class, I talked about how doing all the little routine things in journalism -- like thoroughly checking your work to make sure what you wrote was what you intended to write, and that it was accurate as compared to your notes and the facts -- was something that you could never take for granted. It's not.

And it has nothing to do with talent, just vigilance. In the same way American can have the best army in the world, it doesn't really matter if the one night the army takes the night off, Canada decides to invade us.

Or if we're trying to stay in shape, and instead of running our miles every day we start to cut corners and slack here and there. Eventually, the pounds will start showing.

The fact is, you could be the world's best journalist, and you still have to do all the little and annoying things -- like checking routine facts -- if you want to stay ahead of making mistakes. Because when you're processing thousands of words a day in a professional environment and on deadline, a mistake is always waiting to catch you at a lax moment and bite your ass.

It's why The New York Times has the best journalists in the world, yet they still have a copy desk.

So there's no big thing to learn from the fatals, other than if we want to do things the right way, we have to do things the right way completely and each and every time.

This job isn't about writing. It's about getting it right. I'm sorry some of you have to learn that lesson in a very harsh manner.

The good news is, you have a rewrite. You have other assignments, including an optional fourth out-of-class story where if you do it, I take your worst-graded out-of-class story and replace it with the fourth one's grade. (if you fatal any out-of-class story, I cannot urge you more strongly to do a fourth out-of-classer, so we can get your grade to a better place.)

And I will offer a wide range of extra-credit opportunities that will do two things: prove to me that you can do all those little things right (along with the big things), and give you an opportunity to repair your grade and (hopefully) essentially make these fatals go away when it comes to your final grade.

I don't care if it takes you 10 out-of-class stories to do three well; just show me you can do three well. And yes, I will do everything I can to help you get there. If you're having issues and we're not talking during my office hours -- and I have 40 office hours each week! -- then we're not doing everything we can to pull up our grades.

But we have to start making sure we're following all the steps, every time. No more short cuts. No more assumptions. No more blowing things off until the last minute, and no more skipping me outside of class if you think you can use the help.

Each and every one of you is capable of doing this, and doing it well. But we need to do all the things we're supposed to do for that to happen.

Out-of-Class #2: A Strong Example ...

... of the strong points cited in the overall round-up blog. Please note those attributes and try to get some ideas for how you can best do your rewrite and third out-of-class story. The author's name has been removed to protect the innocent:

JRN 200
10.24.12
Slug: China
 

An impending shift in political power halfway across the world could have a significant impact on MSU students, according to Yasumasa Komori, an expert in East Asian politics at MSU.

In early 2013, the Chinese Communist Party will introduce a new president — Xi Jinping — whose policies will likely add to the already significant influx of Chinese international students to MSU, Komori said.

Since 2007, the population of Chinese international students has grown by more than 400 percent to almost 3,500 in 2011, according to the MSU Office of International Students and Scholars.

These increases of Chinese students are common across major universities in the western world, Komori said, and are due to an increase in the population of China’s upper class amidst the nation’s swift economic growth.

“China’s economy has grown by very large percentages each year over the past few decades,” Komori said.

Most Chinese students who are undergraduates at MSU come from wealthy families, according to Li Kang, Director of the MSU Neighborhood Cultural Assistance Program. 

“The average income of a Chinese family is about $5,000 or $6,000 per year, and tuition and living expenses at MSU can cost 10 times that,” Li said. “Usually only the wealthy families can afford to send their children here.”

Li works within the integration process of Chinese students to the MSU community. He said that employers in China see huge value in students who have been educated in the western world and can speak English well.

“The American university system is very highly regarded in China,” Li said.

But even as an increasing number of Chinese students come to MSU, many have trouble adjusting to American culture, Li said.

“Often times Chinese parents don’t realize the difficulties that come with sending their children to the United States,” Li said. 

These difficulties can lead to resentment between American students and Chinese students, Li said, which will only increase as MSU’s Chinese student population grows.

“People don’t like what they don’t understand,” Li said. “It is so important that we find ways to bridge the gap between American and Chinese students.”

Komori said that American students sometimes feel threatened by Chinese students.

“Americans always hear about China as a growing economic superpower, so they view China as a threat,” Komori said.

However, China’s economic growth itself could be under threat, Komori said.

After nine years of stable growth under current president Hu Jintao, Xi is set to take over as Chinese citizens demand more transparency of their government all the time, Komori said.

“Xi knows that he is taking over a fragile superpower,” Komori said. “The rise of China’s middle class is dangerous to him because Chinese people are finding more and more about the how political processes work outside of China.”

Most of China’s federal decisions are made by a Communist Party panel behind closed doors, Komori said, and local elections are corrupt and often rigged.

As the middle class demands more input in China’s governance, it could negatively impact the nation’s economic growth through unrest, Komori said. 

Higher, Adult and Lifelong Education graduate student Mei Jianyang said that life in China has been improving for most over the past decade, but few Chinese are interested in voting.

“Most people in China are so poor, they only care about having enough to eat,” Mei said. “China is not ready for free elections.”

However, she said that as Chinese people grow more educated, she thinks free elections are possible in a few decades.

“They will have to get rid of corruption among public officials,” Mei said. “Nobody trusts the few elections we do have. We know they’re rigged.”

Mei — who studied history at Nankai University in Tianjin, China — said that when she participated in elections for university officials, there were communist party members at the polls who effectively ordered voters who to vote for.

“Everyone knew how the election would turn out,” Mei said.

Mei said she came to MSU because of “new opportunities” that would not be available to her in China.

While she doesn’t expect Xi to be much different than Hu, Mei said she thinks that Chinese citizens will demand more transparency from him.

“Access to the internet has changed the way many Chinese people think about politics,” Mei said.

Word Count: 721

Sources:

Yasumasa Komori, James Madison College professor
Expert in East Asian Politics

komoriy@msu.edu

Li Kang, Director of the MSU Neighborhood Cultural Assistance Program

likang968@gmail.com

Mei Jianyang, Higher, Adult and Lifelong Education graduate student

meijiany@msu.edu

MSU Office of International Students and Scholars, 2011 Annual Report
http://oiss.isp.msu.edu/documents/statsreport/11pdfs/Asia.pdf

Out-of-Class #2: Overall

Each class I have I remember for having done something well, and something not-so-well.

Oddly, what is shaping up as my memory for this class is contradictory.

The good thing so far is the lack of fatals on practice stories. But the bad thing is the unprecedented volume of fatals on out-of-class stories.

We had three more with the second out-of-class stories, bringing the semester total to seven. Which is more than all other semesters I've taught, combined.

And it's the usual array of small stuff. Like saying BBBC News (three B's) when you meant BBC News (with two B's).

Or spelling President Barack Obama's first name as Barrack, with one too many r's. (Ironically, misspelling Obama's name was an example of a fatal in the syllabus!).

Or spelling desert (a dry place) when you meant to spell dessert (a sweet post-dinner snack).

The only lesson we learn is the one we seem to be overlooking at our peril: double-checking each and every name, title, figure and fact after we finish writing to ensure what we wrote is correct and is what we intended to write has nothing to do with talent, just vigilance.

It's too bad, because many people did quite well in this exercise, doing things like ...

... talking to a wide range of sources (instead of just one narrow category of sources).

For example, one of you did a story on how Chinese students at MSU may be affected by changes in Chinese leadership, in which you talked to Chinese students (the obvious central point of the story) AND MSU officials (another important groups, since they oversee the students) AND an expert in Asian politics (a neutral expert!).

It broadly reached across several parties that either have a stake in the issue AND experts who can help readers put those viewpoints into a better context.

... and interviewing sources first-hand (as opposed to simply citing other news organizations and Web sites).

One story on student health was flawed by its over-reliance on second-hand sources, which could easily have been supplanted by first-hand local sources we could have interviewed ourselves. Why cite livestrong.com when we could talk to a health expert at Olin Health Center? Why cite realsimple.com when we could go to a clinic and talk to a local doctor or nurse? Why go to WebMD when we could talk to a professor in the School of Medicine here? 


... and structuring stories well with ledes than went to ultimate outcome and end result and nut grafs that filled in details from the lede and telling quotes that hammered home main points ...

... and using frequent attribution, so that readers knew where we were getting our information ...

... and not making assumptions, and finding sourcing for background information. Some people had statements that simply lacked attribution. For example, a statement saying people are wondering whether the electoral college should be scrapped didn't come from out of nowhere. How do you know that? You need to tell your readers that. If you're not sure how, exactly, you know that, then find a knowledgeable source to cite, like a neutral expert.

... and finding and using neutral experts to help readers navigate stories.

For example, one of you who did a story in student diversity spoke with a psychoanalyst about the psychology behind accepting or fighting diversity. Another person doing a story about the Nobel Peace Prize interviewed a history professor here at MSU. A story about college eating habits included comments from a nutritionist. A report on the dude who jumped from the edge of outer space had interviews with the head of MSU's physics department about the science behind the jump. 

... and offering data to support your generalizations. One person didn't just write that the population of Chinese international students at MSU has increased, they cited data: it's grown by more than 400 percent to almost 3,500 students in 2011, according to the MSU Office of International Students and Scholars, That's showing me, and not just telling me.

... and offering quotes to support your data and generalizations. For example, the aforementioned story on student diversity had this generalization-and-quote pairing:

Peter Wood, a psychoanalyst in East Lansing, said that how the student was raised at home is a great indicator as to how the student wull accept diversity upon going to such a large school like MSU

"Having trouble accepting differences in people always has the possibility to create stereotypes. With that, stereotypes are something you cannot escape in life; they are everywhere," Wood said.

The generalization/quote package creates a more powerful subsection than if each lacked the other; the generalization provides a basic understanding but the quote adds a human voice and proof for the generalization.

Like I said, lots of good stuff. And lots to emulate and learn from.

Out-of-Class #1: An Overview

Generally nice job from many people, but there was one area I think many people can improve on, and that's regarding your range of first-hand sources.

Many of you only sought direct interviews for one aspect of your story, entirely ceding other angles to reports you found online or the work of other media.

For instance, let's say you did a story on student voting, as many of you did. Perhaps you interviewed students about it, and certainly they are one important group.

But when it came to neutral experts, you cited other media instead of finding and talking to neutral experts yourselves.

When it came to background data defining the problem, you cited reports you found online instead of seeking neutral experts to give you data directly.

When it came to political campaigns seeking the youth vote, you cited other media and the work they did, instead of contacting campaigns and campaign consultants or even student partisan political groups (like the College Democrats and College Republicans) yourself to get that information first-hand.

And in journalism, we should be contacting all of those groups -- and representatives of the various angles -- ourselves.

That's how we explore subjects; not based on second-hand information, but on first-hand witnesses.

Second-hand info is for term papers. First-hand info is the raw material of journalism. That's what separates the two. And it's going to be challenging for you to get a good grade in this class if you insist on doing the former instead of aspiring to do the latter.

Out-of-Class #1: Some Good News, Some Bad

Some people did very well on the first out-of-class story. Nice ledes, good attribution, a nice range of sources from different perspectives and sides of an issue, and a lot of original reporting that didn't rely on what you found online from some other news source.

Then again, we had some struggles. And most of those struggles are normal with a first out-of-class story, for which you have not much -- if anything -- compare it to.

There was a lack of attribution, where I didn't know where you got the information from.

There was an over-reliance on other sources for your information, as opposed to you getting quotes and data directly from first-hand sources yourself.

There were instances where you interviewed a narrow set of sources, like just one set of people in a complex issue. You may have just talked to one side of an issue but not the other or neutral experts. It seemed like some people stopped on the first and most obvious source group and didn't ask themselves, "Who else would be a good source to talk to about this? Who else would have good information that is relevant to this issue? Who would be a neutral expert, and how do I find them?"

There were some cases where stories were way too wordy and overloaded with paragraphs that took up space but really didn't advance the story or say much of anything in particular. This is journalism and not a term paper, folks; filling a story up with fluff to make the 700-word limit will get you an equally-empty grade.

And some people treated this like a term paper, rather than a news story. What I mean by that is, with a term paper you are filling up a space with relevant information to satisfy an arbitrary standard sought by a teacher.

You have presumptions, and you simply fill the space between presumptions with whatever seems to support the presumption. There really isn't much research of exploration or curiosity or even much consideration that there may very well be a surprising twist out there that may be found if you do enough digging.

And that's not journalism.

In a news story, what we are doing is exploring an issue, and investigating it like a detective would a crime scene. Yes, we have some presumptions that we start with, but during the course of our investigation we are seeking sources that either confirm or deny our presumptions or even take the story in a whole new and unexpected direction, based on following the facts.

It's just like a scientific experiment: you start out with a theory, but that theory is just a starting point. Then you fact-test the theory by gaining real-world evidence. Then, you see what the evidence says -- whether or not it has anything left to do with your original theory -- and only then you decide upon your lede and your nut graf and what information you have is worth sharing with your audience.

Still, those problems I expected. What I didn't expect was four people fataling the first out-of-class story.

That was a shock for many reasons: first, I've never had more than one person fatal any out-of-class assignment. Second, I've never had a class with this few fatals to date on practice stories. I thought fact-checking was one area we were doing pretty well.

And the frustrating thing to me was that it was clear that the fatals all came from the simplest of mistakes, and were ones where the most basic principles of fact-checking were not being followed.

One person fataled in an election story while talking about a student, saying:

Having worked at the poles before she was even old enough to vote ...

You meant polls, as in a place to vote, and not poles, as in a vertical rod, like those used by strippers.

In another case, you spelled the first name of MSU police spokeswoman Florene McGlothian-Taylor as Maureen.

We need to make sure we don't take anything for granted, and seek spellings of names even when we think it's a common name with a common spelling. Don't assume anything; if they say their name is Jack Smith, ask them if it's the common spelling and if they can spell it out, letter-by-letter.

Yes, as a professional journalist I learned this the hard way, too.

A third person fataled when they referred to the Gallup Poll (the name of the poll) as the Gallop Poll (as in, a horse that gallops). A fourth person misspelled colleges (schools of higher learning) as collages (a collection of images).

Early on in this class, I talked about how doing all the little routine things in journalism -- like thoroughly checking your work to make sure what you wrote was what you intended to write, and that it was accurate as compared to your notes and the facts -- was something that you could never take for granted. It's not.

And it has nothing to do with talent, just vigilance. In the same way American can have the best army in the world, it doesn't really matter if the one night the army takes the night off, Canada decides to invade us.

Or if we're trying to stay in shape, and instead of running our miles every day we start to cut corners and slack here and there. Eventually, the pounds will start showing.

The fact is, you could be the world's best journalist, and you still have to do all the little and annoying things -- like checking routine facts -- if you want to stay ahead of making mistakes. Because when you're processing thousands of words a day in a professional environment and on deadline, a mistake is always waiting to catch you at a lax moment and bite your ass.

It's why The New York Times has the best journalists in the world, yet they still have a copy desk.

So there's no big thing to learn from the fatals, other than if we want to do things the right way, we have to do things the right way completely and each and every time.

This job isn't about writing. It's about getting it right. I'm sorry some of you have to learn that lesson in a very harsh manner.

The good news is, you have a rewrite. You have other assignments. And I will offer a wide range of extra-credit opportunities that will do two things: prove to me that you can do all those little things right (along with the big things), and give you an opportunity to repair your grade and (hopefully) essentially make these fatals go away when it comes to your final grade.

But we have to start making sure we're following all the steps, every time. No more short cuts. No more assumptions.

Each and every one of you is capable of doing this, and doing it well. But we need to do all the things we're supposed to do for that to happen.

Out-of-Class #1: Imagine If ...

. . . if this story didn't have a neutral expert. Or two. Here's a link, and here's the text:

O'Donnell questions separation of church, state

By BEN EVANS, Associated Press Writer

WILMINGTON, Del. – Republican Senate nominee Christine O'Donnell of Delaware on Tuesday questioned whether the U.S. Constitution calls for a separation of church and state, appearing to disagree or not know that the First Amendment bars the government from establishing religion.

The exchange came in a debate before an audience of legal scholars and law students at Widener University Law School, as O'Donnell criticized Democratic nominee Chris Coons' position that teaching creationism in public school would violate the First Amendment by promoting religious doctrine.

Coons said private and parochial schools are free to teach creationism but that "religious doctrine doesn't belong in our public schools."

"Where in the Constitution is the separation of church and state?" O'Donnell asked him.

When Coons responded that the First Amendment bars Congress from making laws respecting the establishment of religion, O'Donnell asked: "You're telling me that's in the First Amendment?"

Her comments, in a debate aired on radio station WDEL, generated a buzz in the audience.

"You actually audibly heard the crowd gasp," Widener University political scientist Wesley Leckrone said after the debate, adding that it raised questions about O'Donnell's grasp of the Constitution.

Erin Daly, a Widener professor who specializes in constitutional law, said that while there are questions about what counts as government promotion of religion, there is little debate over whether the First Amendment prohibits the federal government from making laws establishing religion.

"She seemed genuinely surprised that the principle of separation of church and state derives from the First Amendment, and I think to many of us in the law school that was a surprise," Daly said. "It's one thing to not know the 17th Amendment or some of the others, but most Americans do know the basics of the First Amendment."

O'Donnell didn't respond to reporters who asked her to clarify her views after the debate.

During the exchange, she said Coons' views on creationism showed that he believes in big-government mandates.

"Talk about imposing your beliefs on the local schools," she said. "You've just proved how little you know not just about constitutional law but about the theory of evolution."

Coons said her comments show a "fundamental misunderstanding" of the Constitution.

The debate, their third in the past week, was more testy than earlier ones.

O'Donnell began by defending herself for not being able to name a recent Supreme Court decision with which she disagrees at a debate last week. She said she was stumped because she largely agrees with the court's recent decisions under conservative chief justices John Roberts and William Rehnquist.

"I would say this court is on the right track," she said.

The two candidates repeatedly talked over each other, with O'Donnell accusing Coons of caving at one point when he asked the moderator to move on to a new question after a lengthy argument.
"I guess he can't handle it," she said.

O'Donnell, a tea party favorite who stunned the state by winning the GOP primary last month in her third Senate bid in five years, called Coons a liberal "addicted to a culture of waste, fraud and abuse."
Coons, who has held a double-digit lead in recent polls, urged voters to support him as the candidate of substance, with a track record over six years as executive of the state's most populous county. He said O'Donnell's only experience is in "sharpening the partisan divide but not at bridging it."

Copyright © 2010 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.

Out of Class #1: The Rewrite

There is something I forgot to tell you because I am an idiot. And it is this:

If you do a rewrite, your rewrite grade WILL BE NO LOWER THAN YOUR ORIGINAL GRADE.

That's right. Do a rewrite and even if it's worse than your original work, your grade will be no worse than what you had in the first place.

Even if you ADD a fatal in your rewrite that wasn't in your original work, your grade won't be any worse off.

Now, that doesn't mean I won't note whether your rewrite is better or worse than the original, or includes a fatal that your original did not have. It's just that you won't pay a penalty for trying to improve your work.

So, you literally have nothing to lose and everything to gain by doing a rewrite.

Out Of Class #2: More Published Work!

Is campus water safe to drink? Michael is on it!

Bored at MSU? Maddie is on it!

How can it be Christmas already? Julia is on it!

Does MSU have a new dance team? Kevin is on it!

Out Of Class #1: A Rewrite Reminder

When turning in your rewrite, PLEASE BE SURE to also turn in the original graded copy of your out of class story so I can see what changes you needed to make, and what changes you actually made.

Thanks!

Out-Of-Class #1 -- Every Rose Has Its Thorns ...

Overall to date, this class has performed very well. In many ways you have been ahead of my previous JRN 200 classes in terms of your demonstrated ability and pace at which you picked up new skills.

I'm sorry to say the first out-of-class story assignment is NOT one of those examples. Only three people scored a 3.0 or higher. Just as many people fataled this assignment; an all-time high for a class I taught. Not good.

Still, it's your first assignment in a compacted class. Plus, you have a rewrite opportunity that has the potential of substantially improving your grade. It's critical that we learn from this first go-around and make many of the errors one-time-only deals.

Lets look at some common problems:

>>> This is not a good place to fatal. There were a total of three fatals; one of which was a time fatal. Even excluding that one, I've never had more than one person fatal on any single out-of-class story assignment.

The fatals definitely fall under the "catchable" category. In one, the author misspelled the name of President Barack Obama. Not only is that such a well-known name, but the example of misspelling Obama's name is actually an example in your syllabus of what constitutes a fatal.

The second author had two fatals: first, you had a misspelling in a quote, using "their" instead of "there." Any change from a literal quote is a fatal.

Second, you misspelled a source's name, which should have been caught because you had the correct spelling on your source list. If you have two different spellings of one name, you know at least one has to be wrong. You need to notice such inconsistencies.

I suspect you may have come close to a third fatal. In one section, that same author referred to auto facture instead of auto factory. A factory is a place where things are made; facture is the process of how something is made. (Facture is the root of manufcture, for example.)

Why I suspect the use of facture may have been unintended is because in 21 years of writing and teaching, plus roughly 40 years of being a voracious reader, I've never come across the word ever used, in any way, at all.

I'll say this again: spell check will not catch instances where you misspell a word in which the misspelling creates a correctly-spelled but unintended word.

>>> Do your own work. There was a distinct lack of original reporting in many of your stories. Instead of calling or emailing people, instead you used Web site content or the reporting of other media.

Using such sources are acceptable either as secondary sourcing or as a last resort. They should not be used as primary sources. If you have one side of an issue interviewed in person and the other side you simply rely on such secondary sources, that is not reporting.

One story on the housing market cited ABC News and a Web report, but it didn't appear you got any data directly yourself. Neutral experts can direct you to such data. So can Google.

That is digging into one side of an issue and doing a lousy job of researching the other side. You lose the chance to discover things about the other side and to do a back-and-forth exchange where you learn of issues and perspectives and questions to ask the original side about. And that's not journalism.

And that leads to another common problem ...

>>> A lack of vision. Many of you hit hard one side of an issue, then touched on an opposing side, and then failed at all to look at other relevant perspectives. The latter is necessary in differentiating simple he-said she-said fight-enabling and true journalism that deconstructs an issue from various angles.

Many of you talked to people doing things, but not to people affected by things. Many of you talked to proponents and opponents, but not neutral experts who could help referee the opposing views.

Here are some examples:

>>> You don't consider who is affected. one story regarded STD among college students. You talked to college health officials and experts, but you failed to talk to the people affected: students. Do they rely on the health officials? Do they think the health institutions you highlighted are effective and useful? Do they even see STDs as a concern?

Another story dealt with shortages of prescription medicines. You talked to pharmacists. You cited federal regulators as your neutral expert, but instead of talking to them you jut referred to their Web site. You didn't at all appear to talk to drug manufacturers -- after all, they are the ones who are falling short in making drugs -- nor did you talk to those who are or could be impacted: patients!

Such examples went on and on. One story dealt with the housing market, but didn't quote a single home owner of home buyer. Another story regarded a municipal water park and talked to managers but never talked to those who paid for it and use it: taxpayers.

A story about plans to haul used nuclear generators down the St. Clair River talked to the power company planning to do it and even to a government official who has concerns about the plan, but never talked to are local residents and local officials who may have strong feelings about 16 radioactive generators sailing right by where they live.

>>> You had a lack of balance. One story on summer recreational programs allowed the managers of such programs to tout the benefits, but readers are fair to say managers will have a natural bias touting such programs; their paychecks depend on it.

Nowhere did you talk to a neutral expert -- perhaps a parks and recs prof -- on whether such programs are popular and whether people view them as much as a viable option to a real vacation as the managers do. Nor did you quote many ultimate judges of whether such programs are worth doing or equal to a more traditional getaway: area residents. The story was so one-sided, it essentially sounded like a press release rather than a news story.

>>> You needed wider perspective. Another story regarded an archaeological discovery my MSUers that you claimed would be a big help to history researchers. Well, of course MSUers would say their work is important. What about getting perspective from a researcher not from MSU?

One story concerned the Patriot Act. Your exploration of opposition rationale was far more detailed than that of proponents. You talked to an activist about why they hate the act, but you never talk to law enforcement official about why they like the act. At least you did cite a neutral expert: an MSU criminal justice prof.

>>> The lack of interviews pre-empted opportunities to catch potentially-misleading statements. The aquatic center story cited pool officials as saying the facility was covering operating costs. And that rang a huge bell for me.

Back in my Las Vegas days, I wrote that the Las Vegas Monorail was struggling. Monorail officials always tried to throw me under the bus, claiming they were making an operating profit; that is, they were bringing in enough in fares to cover what it cost to run the monorail every day.

The problem was, while fares covered operating costs, they did not cover capital costs; that is, paying back the money used to build the monorail. Saying you're covering operating costs is akin to saying your paycheck is covering all your bills, except your mortgage. Your bills minus your mortgage is your operating cost; your mortgage is your capital cost.

Now, how did I know this? It's not because I'm a fiscal genius. I flunked Econ 101 in college (though a lack of attendance probably had something to do with it). I knew that because I got a hold of a neutral expert -- in this case, a Wall Street bond analyst -- who highlighted that for me.

So I was able to write in 2007 -- on my next-to-last day at work -- that the monorail was on track to run out of cash reserves by 2010, a story that was immediately ripped by monorail officials who claimed I didn't know what I was talking about. By the way, the monorail filed for bankruptcy last year. And please note in the latter story how a monorail official is still insistent that the rail line is covering operating costs. Jeez, Louise ...

I didn't just take someone's word for it. I checked with neutral experts and I educated myself so I knew when I was being told the truth and when I was being misled.

>>> Finally, you told me but you didn't show me. It's not enough to lay out a point; you also have to show the proof and/or offer a translation.

You tell me in a nut graf that grads are fleeing Michigan, but it's not until the 27th graf do you offer data proving that point, via a moving company's study. Another nut graf notes more people are attending summer school at MSU, but it' not until graf eight you offer data from MSU enrollment data. You tell me HPV is MSU's most common STD, but you never say exactly what HPV is.

You tell me many students choose to live in the summer, but you never show me any statistics. What is the summer dorm population compared to the summer enrollment total? And how does that percentage compare to the regular school year?

In the drug shortage story, you say the shortages primarily revolve around injectables, but you never say what an injectable is, or what some examples of such drugs -- that readers may be familiar with -- are.

In a story about disaster planning, you tell me MSU has a plan, but you never detail what that plan entails: what kinds of scenarios it covers, and what it calls for students to do.

The summer programs story has an official telling you that summer sessions draw more people than during other parts of the year. Some numbers to nail that down would have been nice. You write about MIPs, but you never detail the consequences. Is it a felony or a misdemeanor? How much can you get fined? Can you go to jail?

Guys, we don't have a lot of time in this class to get these problems resolved. I wish we had more time, but we don't. But that's not an excuse for me to just say, "Oh well, too bad for you guys." We have to find a way to make this work, within the time restrictions we have. And we will.

But I need your help in helping you.

I urge you to act on the points made in this blog post and in whatever comments I made on your graded papers.

I urge EVERYONE to seriously consider a rewrite, as this (and each of the rest of the out-of-class stories) will have a significant impact on your final grade.

I urge you to take advantage of class times to ask questions asking me to explain concepts and strategies and to talk about how you could do better. I know no one likes asking what they may deem as a "stupid" question in class, but trust me, many of you face the same issues, and if we all ask questions (and get answers) as a group, we'll all do better, and do so more quickly.

I urge you to see me during my office hours to review your work and make sure you are utilizing good habits and avoiding bad ones. I will make office hours for you, if possible within my work schedule and needed for you to succeed.

I know this is going to mean a lot of work for you over the next three weeks. We have out-of-class stories and in-class work and multimedia stuff coming up. The next three weeks will be a bear, no matter what we do or don't do.

But we can make these next three weeks worth your time, by doing what we need to do to get the grade that truly reflects your ability. Everyone here is smart enough to get a solid grade in here. Now, we need to make sure that we connect that potential with demonstrating that ability.

Let's do this.

Out-of-Class Stories -- Sofar . . .

I'm very happy with the current round of out-of-class work. Frankly, I was surprised by how strong many of the stories were. Everyone was a 3.0 or above and we even had one 4.0!

We haven't recapped as a group the out-of-class text as much as we have the vids and blogs and such. But here's some links to some of your out-of-class work published by Spartan Edge:

Books vs. eBooks

Sober/wasted bracelets

Campusfood.com

Smoking ban

Banished from B-Dubs

Spring break

Dance team

Please, take some time to read these. See if you can pick up any trends or patterns or ideas in terms of structure or ledes or nut grafs or sourcing.

Out-of-Class Story #3 -- The Written Version

Here's one story on texting while driving that has not yet been published by anybody. But I couldn't wait to show you. It really shows strong command of organization, research and the broad use of perspectives. Plus, a wonderful anecdotal lede. What do you come away with after reading this, regarding what you can do to write the best stories you can?

Despite the texting and driving ban that was implemented in Michigan last July, Cody Aiken still finds a way to get around the law.

Aiken, an agribusiness management sophomore from Michigan State University, said he used to text all the time while driving, and he would hold his hands up on the steering wheel.

“Now I try to do it under the wheel, which is a lot harder,” he said.

Aiken said he doesn’t think the laws are working because a lot of people are still going to text, and everyone can have an excuse for why they were looking down.

“I was wiping something off my pants, or something like that,” he said.

The laws banning texting and driving have caused no reduction in accidents so far, according to a report released from the Highway Data Loss Institute last September. In fact, the crash rates have risen slightly.

The National Safety Council website said a minimum of 200,000 crashes each year are caused by drivers who are texting.

Dr. David Strayer, professor of psychology at the University of Utah who researches texting and driving, said the number of text messages sent in general keeps increasing, and some are sent while people are driving.

“It’s a big problem,” he said. “We see that it’s exploding.”

Strayer said the laws aren’t as effective as they would have liked because they are not enforced the best and people try to scam the system by doing things such as holding the phone lower.

He said this poses more risk of an accident because a person’s eyes are off the road and their hands are off the steering wheel for a longer period of time.

Tiffany Brown, a spokeswoman for the Michigan State Police, said officers are trained to observe driving that is unusual, according to an email.

“Just as there are cues that would indicate a driver is impaired behind the wheel, officers can also spot a potential texting driver,” she said.

However, she said between August 2010 and March 2011, the Michigan State Police have only issued 27 citations for texting and driving. Twenty-five verbal warnings have been given.

Jim Miller, safety and health engineer at DTE Energy, said it is difficult to legislate safe driving habits. For example, the law says the vehicle has to be in motion, so people could be texting while sitting at red lights.

“I think it has been effective in curbing the number of drivers who are texting while they are driving,” he said.

Addison Brown, a finance sophomore at Michigan State University, said he thinks the ban is a great idea, but he doesn’t think the law can be enforced well.

He said people pulled over won’t admit to texting, and they may say they were calling or doing something else. He said there should be more awareness out there rather than a ban.

“Use common sense,” he said. “People don’t need to be texting and driving.”

Despite the laws not seeming to work as well as hoped, Dr. David Meyer, a professor of psychology at the University of Michigan and part of the cognition and cognitive neuroscience program, said it is still terrible to be texting while driving.

He said people need to be using the same processes for dealing with information when they are driving as when they are texting.

“The brain has limited capacity for processing this information,” he said.

Miller said texting is particularly dangerous because it involves all three types of distractions - visual, manual, and cognitive.

“It is simply distracted driving,” he said.

According to Meyer, texting and driving is similar to drunk driving. Even though someone’s abilities are highly impaired, they can still keep the car going.

“What matters is the potential for accidents happening under complicated driving situations,” he said.

He said complicated situations include having to make a sudden turn, being in busy traffic, or being in an environment where people are crossing the street. Those are when problems usually occur.

Strayer said a .08 blood alcohol level causes a crash risk increase that is four times higher than normal, while texting and driving causes an eightfold crash risk increase.

He said driving is probably the riskiest activity people engage in on a regular basis, and people tend to get a false sense of security while driving.

“Multitasking to relieve boredom isn’t worth someone else’s life,” he said.

As far as the future of the law, Miller said “I would expect it to be expanded to encompass all electronic devices that would require your use of hands to operate them.”

Meyer said the law ought to say people are not allowed to use other devices while driving.

He said when vehicles are made that operate themselves, then people can text and have cell phone conversations.

Aiken said he has adopted the strategy of handing his phone to a passenger and asking them to read the message aloud. He tells them what to text back.

In Michigan, texting while driving is a primary offense, according to Tiffany Brown. This means officers can pull someone over solely because they suspect they were texting while driving.

According to the Governors Highway Safety Association website, 30 states, D.C. and Guam ban all drivers from texting and driving. An additional eight states ban novice drivers from texting and driving

Out-of-Class Story #1 -- The Rewrite

Some general observations on your first rewrite:

Doing rewrites helped your grades. The average grade on the original story was a 2.7. The average rewrite grade was nearly a 3.2. That raised the overall average final grade for this assignment to a 3.0. And that's no small increase, given that just one out-of-class story is equal to 10 -- yes, 10! -- practice stories that we do in class.

Don't simply correct what I note. Take the opportunity to step back and look at your story in total. You're not writing it from scratch, so you have the time to just read it and see if it sounds like a sensible story to someone who may be encountering your topic for the first time and who has no prior knowledge of anything you're writing about.

Ask yourself, does it flow the way you want it to? Is it logically sequenced? Do any changes you make create the need for a restructuring of your story to make it read the best? Would it make sense to your grandmother if you gave it to her to read?

Don't be afraid to play with your story a bit and to fine-tune it beyond my suggestions. The worst thing that could happen is that your grade would be no worse off than before.

Make sure you spell people's names correctly! Someone fataled the spelling of a name. I know that because I compared the person's name to what was listed at MSU People Search.

That person received a major break because I did not catch the same fatal on their original paper. This one time only, I will not dock the person for the original fatal. The next time, your grades will be subject to revision if I subsequently find a fatal that I missed while originally grading the assignment.

Whenever you interview any subject, don't assume you know how their name is spelled. Ask them to spell it out for you. Each time. Every time. You know what happens when you assume.

Make sure that you get contact information for your sources, and that you list their contact info after your story! First, you should be getting contact info in case you have questions later. Second, I want to be able to contact your sources randomly and verify the information you gathered.

Neutral experts help! One of you did a story on the lawsuit against Taco Bell, alleging it uses subpar meat. You got statements from the lawyers behind the suit. And Taco Bell. And an MSU professor who specializes in food law!

Another one of you did a story on STDs, and you found a professor in Alabama who happens to head an international STD association. That person was able to help rate a vaccine that was developed by a pharmaceutical company that has a profit motive in touting the drug. The prof, of course, has no similar motive. He's just calling it like he sees it, based on his expertise.

Good gets!

Out of Class Story #1 -- Tell me . . .

. . . how was it?

What surprised you?

What stumped you?

What did you discover?

What did you like about the assignment? What did you like not so much?

What will you do different next time? What will you do again?

Let's try to share good ideas and warn others about pitfalls.

Out Of Class #1 -- Almost Due!

You should be finishing up work on your first out of class story assignment, due Wednesday. Make sure you meet the minimum requirements as noted in the syllabus in terms of length and sourcing.

Also, use the lessons you've learned in class and mentioned in this blog -- including today's blog posts about source attribution, which we will talk about here in a bit.

The deadline is BY the start of class Wednesday, so it has to be to me by 9:10 a.m. that day. You may turn in your story in paper form or electronically in a Word document via email to omars@msu.edu.

Whether you turn in your story by hand or email, be sure to turn in to me your tip sheet by the deadline.

Do the best you can on this assignment. It's just the first big step in your journalistic evolution, so don't sweat it too much. You'll only get better as the class goes along. Keep in mind you will have an opportunity to rewrite the story and improve your assignment grade.

And of course, don't forget: NO FATALS. Double-check everything and assume nothing.

Good luck, everybody.