Police: Peanut Barrel Rule

I'm kind of surprised that few of you cited something that to me stood out like a sore thumb: the fact that the cane-wielding victim was almost 6 1/2 feet tall, while the would-be alleged robber he beat was fit but not much over five feet tall and weighed less than half as much as the victim.

Isn't that a Peanut Barrel-type of item? Isn't that sharp contrast in size what takes an out-of-the-ordinary robbery story (unusual in that the victim beat off the attacker) and make it even more unique?

I'm not shocked that many of you didn't weave it into your ledes, because to do that is doable but a bit complex. I'm just surprised few few of you noted that bit of interest.

Any explanations?

As journalists, it's important that even when we are looking at what we think is a routine event, that we are always on the lookout for something that makes it a bit different and a bit more interesting. Even if that bit of interest is buried in the nuances of a police report.

Some of you did, however, note the victim's disability-turned-advantage. This lede did that, smartly:

A man with a cane should not be underestimated.

Squirrels: Ledes I Liked

A good number of good grades on this assignment. Good job, folks!

Additionally, you guys took different lede/nut graf approaches, offering a sampling of different ways to do the story. Here's a few examples. This first one was a basic lede/nut graf that did the job well. The lede summed up the problem; the nut graf detailed the consequences, and then you launch into the individual examples of squirrel-insipred woe:

         Lansing Community College officials are blaming squirrels for a recent run of car damage across campus.

 
          Students, teachers and staff members have faced repair bills amounting to hundreds of dollars after squirrels began nesting in their cars.


Here, you did an anecdotal lede that took several grafs before getting to the nut graf:

           For the past few weeks, Oliver Brookes couldn’t figure out why one headlight on his van refused to work.

           Despite having it replaced, the associate professor of English at Lansing Community College said he had continual problems with the headlight in his van. When he opened up the hood to poke around, he was greeted by more than just wires and machinery.

            “There was a big squirrel’s nest in the corner where the light wires were,” he said.

            Lately, squirrels have been causing quite the hassle for many LCC students and staff members by finding refuge under the hoods of cars.

In these next two, you had some fun with word play with fun alternate ledes followed by more to-the-point nut grafs:

         Nutty car problems have been occurring for the student body and faculty members of Lansing Community College this past school year.

          University officials have determined that squirrels are to blame for the issues students, teachers and staff members have been experiencing with their vehicles.

... and ... 

                  Problems with your car? A furry friend may be the cause.

                  College officials at Lansing Community College are blaming squirrels for car problems being had by students, teachers, and staff members. 

... and ...  

             Students, teachers, and staff members at Lansing Community College are going nuts courtesy of many problems caused by a familiar animal: the common squirrel.

             Officials at LCC are blaming squirrels for an influx of car problems affecting individuals who work at and attend the institution.

And these silly ledes are okay. Why? Because this is a silly story. It's not because of your writing preference; it's because the tone is true to the facts. And the facts are unexpected and weird and yes, silly.

As long as you let the facts dictate the tone, then you're doing it based not on opinion but on factual context.

Each of these ledes is a good, solid lede. But which ones do you think worked best? And why?

With each of these lede/nut graf sequences, the writers followed by offering the fact/quote sequences that we talked about earlier. So does this story -- which I will show you in its complete form -- that starts with an alternative lede, then goes to two nut grafs, then launches into the compartmentalized individual examples. This is a good structure which to aspire to:

       In Lansing, there is a new addition to the squirrel’s diet — electrical wires.

       The squirrels on Lansing Community College’s campus have been making homes and feeding on the electrical wires in cars on campus.

       The damage from the squirrels is costing students and staff money to replace ruined wires.

       LCC dietitian Linda Kasparov said an attendant at a service station found a squirrel’s nest as the cause of broken a oil-pressure gauge, speedometer and headlights on Kasparov’s car.

        “The attendant put up the hood and then jumped back exclaiming, ‘My God, what have you got in there!’” Kasparov said.

       Kasparov said the attendant found three baby squirrels in a nest built of string, sticks and plastic bags. 

       Kasparov said the damage cost her more than $400.

       Laura Ruffenboch, a wildlife professor at LCC, said the soybean-based insulation on many electrical wires may be appealing to the squirrels.

        Ruffenboch said squirrels building nests in a car which is used regularly is an uncommon phenomenon.

       Oliver Brookes, an associate professor of English at LCC, also said he found a squirrel’s nest under the hood of his car.

       “There was a big squirrels nest in the corner where the light wires were,” Brookes said.

       Brookes said the squirrels chewed through the headlight wiring in his car, which cost more than $180 to replace.

Robbery: The Peanut Barrel Rule, Revisited

There were plenty of decent ledes in the "robbery" exercise you did. You made some good decisions on how to best use the space you were allotted in creating the highest and best ledes possible.

But some were better than others. Let's look at this one:

A 22-year-old college student was fired from his job for having a gun in the store against company policy.


This is factually correct. And it does go to end result in one sense; that he got fired. But it missed end result in another sense: that a man was killed. And it fails to grasp context: not just that he was fired for having a gun, but that he was fired for having a gun that he used to kill a man while defending himself.


Think about the Peanut Barrel rule: would you first tell friends that a man was fired for having a gun at work, or that he was fired for having a gun at work that he used to save his own life?


In that sense, even this lede fell short:

A convenience store clerk shot and killed a man who attempted an armed robbery yesterday in Haslett.


Is what makes this story unique and different from other robbery stories in this lede? I think not. It's missing what the first lede had: consequence for the clerk.

Again, let's think about a Peanut Barrel situation. You wouldn't tell your friends, "The cops found some dead dude" or "A dude lost his job because he brought a gun to work" or just "Some guy shot and killed a robber." You'd be all like, "Yeah, this dude killed another dude robbing a store, but the victim lost his job for having a gun at work!"

It's the combination of those things that makes this story stand out. Here's one lede/nut graf combo that's along those lines:

A robbery at O-Mart late Sunday ended with a dead robber and a fired store clerk.

Michael Layoux was working at the O-Mart at Haslett when around 11 p.m. an individual came in to rob the store. Layoux shot and killed the robber, who was later identified as Robert Wiess.


Here's another really strong lede/nut graf combo that gets it all in:

A Lansing Community College student was fired from his clerk's job this morning after the district manager of O-Mart deemed his possession of a gun that potentially saved his life was against company policy.

Michael Layoux, 22, was the single employee working at the O-Mart at 1248 E. Forest Boulevard in Haslett Sunday evening when Robert Wiess entered the store and demanded Layoux empty the cash register while holding him at gunpoint.

After emptying the register, Layoux said he grabbed his .25-caliber pistol from under the counter and shot Wiess three times.


Still, I think I could top those ledes. I think I'd hit hard on the connection between saving his life and losing his job. If I decided to go straight with little color, I'd do this:

A Haslett convenience store clerk won't face charges for shooting and killing a would-be robber, but he lost his job for violating company rules of possessing handguns on the job.


Or if I wanted to get a bit colorful:

The same actions that allowed Michael Layoux to save his own life also cost him his job.


. . . or . . .

Michael Layoux didn't break the law when he shot and killed a robber last night. But he did break a company rule, and that will cost him his job.

How do my ledes adhere to the Peanut Barrel rule? Which works best, and why? Your turn to critique me.

Alt Ledes: The Peanut Barrel Rule

There's nothing wrong with this lede. But it's still missing something. Here it is:

A 22-year-old man was killed in a car accident earlier this morning after veering to avoid a dog in the road, according to police.

Technically, it's correct. But let's think about the Peanut Barrel rule. If you wrote this story for The State News and then headed down to the Peanut Barrel to meet friends for a legal drink or two afterward, and then they asked you what you wrote about today, what would you say? More importantly, what would be first to come out of your mouth?

"Uh, well I wrote something abut a dude who got killed when he swerved his car to miss a doggie in the road."

I don't think so. What I think you'd say would be something like this:

"Dude, this was so effed up I don't believe it! Some guy was driving his car all crazy fast so he could make it to his wedding, but he CRASHED and DIED! On his WEDDING DAY! Soo effed up."

I really do think you'd certainly include the wedding angle. That's what made this crash unique and especially poignant and tragic.

If it's a fact or angle that would pass the Peanut Barrel test, then it's a good fact or angle for a lede. If your proposed lede doesn't pass Peanut Barrel muster, then try again until it does.

Again, I can't say your lede was incorrect. Clearly, it passes factual muster. But is it really complete? No. It misses context, like calling 9/11 just a plane crash.

Let's look at this lede: does it meet the Peanut Barrel rule?

A Quik Shoppe robbery and carjacking took place just seconds apart. No one was killed, and the robber got away.

Now, you tell me what you think.

Police: Peanut Barrel Rule

I'm kind of surprised that few of you cited something that to me stood out like a sore thumb: the fact that the cane-wielding victim was almost 6 1/2 feet tall, while the would-be alleged robber he beat was fit but not much over five feet tall and weighed less than half as much as the victim.

Isn't that a Peanut Barrel-type of item? Isn't that sharp contrast in size what takes an out-of-the-ordinary robbery story (unusual in that the victim beat off the attacker) and make it even more unique?

I'm not shocked that many of you didn't weave it into your ledes, because to do that is doable but a bit complex. I'm just surprised few few of you noted that bit of interest.

Any explanations?

As journalists, it's important that even when we are looking at what we think is a routine event, that we are always on the lookout for something that makes it a bit different and a bit more interesting. Even if that bit of interest is buried in the nuances of a police report.

Speech: The News Is The News!

Make sure you state not just that something took place, but what it was precisely that took place. This otherwise-solid lede did not:

U.S. Surgeon General Tom Izzo spoke at a Michigan PTA convention in East Lansing yesterday about the issue of alcohol consumption among adolescents.

The problem here is you don't know what he said. Did he say he thought it was bad or great? That he thought it was awful? Or that he encourages all kids to get blotto?

You simply don't know based on what you offer. This next lede was much clearer:

U.S. Surgeon General Tom Izzo criticized the alcohol industry for targeting Halloween as their latest marketing opportunity at the Michigan PTA convention in East Lansing yesterday.

Note how it doesn't just say Izzo spoke about the alcohol industry; it says he criticized it. Correctly finding and using such a word to describe the contents of what he said is teh difference between a vague lede and an exact one.

Finally, just for the hell of it, let's look at what I thought was a very nice lede/nut graf/telling quote combo:

U.S. Surgeon General Tom Izzo delivered a passionate speech condemning the alcohol industry’s target of the traditional children’s holiday, Halloween, at the Michigan Parent Teacher Association meeting in East Lansing last night.

In the speech, Izzo shared his concern of the alcohol industry’s festive marketing techniques this year and how it’s association with Halloween is promoting dangerous alcohol consumption among youth.

“This year the alcohol industry has given new meaning to those innocent words of childhood. They are serving up new treats –and new tricks,” said Izzo.

So much to like here. First, a specific lede that I think fairly uses the work passionate. That word isn't based on your opinion; rather, it's based on your viewing his words in whole through conventional wisdom and factual basis. His argument had an edge to it, right? So, you're not offering an opinion, but an analysis.

That's the difference. An opinion is based on your feelings. Analysis is based on your reasonable interpretation of facts.

Second, the nut graf expands upon the lede. The lede says Izzo condemned the alcohol industry; the nut graf says how and why -- because of its marketing that promotes kids drinking.

Finally, you bring things full circle with your telling quote, so that readers don't have to take your word for it that Izzo was passionate and condemning -- you show the reader Izzo's words.

Robbery: The Peanut Barrel Rule, Revisited

There were plenty of decent ledes in the exercise you did Monday. You made some good decisions on how to best use the space you were allotted in creating the highest and best ledes possible.

But some were better than others. Let's look at this one:

A 22-year-old college student was fired from his job for having a gun in the store against company policy.


This is factually correct. And it does go to end result in one sense; that he got fired. But it missed end result in another sense: that a man was killed. And it fails to grasp context: not just that he was fired for having a gun, but that he was fired for having a gun that he used to kill a man while defending himself.


Think about the Peanut Barrel rule: would you first tell friends that a man was fired for having a gun at work, or that he was fired for having a gun at work that he used to save his own life?


In that sense, even this lede fell short:

A convenience store clerk shot and killed a man who attempted an armed robbery yesterday in Haslett.


Is what makes this story unique and different from other robbery stories in this lede? I think not. It's missing what the first lede had: consequence for the clerk.

Again, let's think about a Peanut Barrel situation. You wouldn't tell your friends, "The cops found some dead dude" or "A dude lost his job because he brought a gun to work" or just "Some guy shot and killed a robber." You'd be all like, "Yeah, this dude killed another dude robbing a store, but the victim lost his job for having a gun at work!"

It's the combination of those things that makes this story stand out. Here's one lede/nut graf combo that's along those lines:

A robbery at O-Mart late Sunday ended with a dead robber and a fired store clerk.

Michael Layous was working at the O-Mart at Haslett when around 11 p.m. an individual came in to rob the store. Layoux shot and killed the robber, who was later identified as Robert Wiess.


Here's another really strong lede/nut graf combo that gets it all in:

A Lansing Community College student was fired from his clerk's job this morning after the district manager of O-Mart deemed his possession of a gun that potentially saved his life was against company policy.

Michael Layoux, 22, was the single employee working at the O-Mart at 1248 E. Forest Boulevard in Haslett Sunday evening when Robert Wiess entered the store and demanded Layoux empty the cash register while holding him at gunpoint.

After emptying the register, Layoux said he grabbed his .25-caliber pistol from under the counter and shot Wiess three times.


Still, I think I could top those ledes. I think I'd hit hard on the connection between saving his life and losing his job. If I decided to go straight with little color, I'd do this:

A Haslett convenience store clerk won't face charges for shooting and killing a would-be robber, but he lost his job for violating company rules of possessing handguns on the job.


Or if I wanted to get a bit colorful:

The same actions that allowed Michael Layoux to save his own life also cost him his job.


. . . or . . .
 



Michael Layoux didn't break the law when he shot and killed a robber last night. But he did break a company rule, and that will cost him his job.

How do my ledes adhere to the Peanut Barrel rule? Which works best, and why? Your turn to critique me.

Ledes: Needle In A Haystack

There were a significant number of problems with the latter of the two lede exercises, regarding the cell phone driving ban.

We had a number of people end up writing ledes that really didn't get to the gist of the story: ones that centered on the legal debate on whether to allow cell phone use while driving, for example.

But that's not what the story was about. This lede I thought summed up the central point nicely:

A representative who opposes the banning of cell phone usage while driving caused a car crash Wednesday evening while discussing postponing a vote on the bill.

Now, was that evident in the material you had to read? No. It was overstuffed with secondary and nebulous crap. And that was by design.

Rarely -- if ever -- is a news story easy and immediate to identify. Most of the time, you have to sift and root through information (much of which is irrelevant or secondary in nature) to find what is the latest happening, ultimate outcome and/or what is of most interest/relevance/utility.

So you had the info about Constance Wei trying to block a cell phone driving ban. You had some background on a fatal accident that prompted sponsorship of the bill. You have that Wei was driving and talking on the phone about that very same bill when she got into an accident. And you have there were minor injuries in the accident.

A lot of that info was there to distract you, just like in real life you'd go through a ton of info to get to what mattered. Your job was to take a full accounting of what you have, fix in on what was most newsworthy, and discard the rest.

And I think what was most unique,most immediate, most contextual and best adhered to the Peanut Barrel rule was what the aforementioned lede focused upon.

It's like having to find a needle in a haystack. It's hard, yes. But that's the job. Readers don't need us to tell the easy stories; they need us to cut through the clutter and report the hard tales.

Alt Ledes: The Peanut Barrel Rule

There's nothing wrong with this lede. But it's still missing something. Here it is:

A 22-year-old man was killed in a car accident earlier this morning after veering to avoid a dog in the road, according to police.

Technically, it's correct. But let's think about the Peanut Barrel rule. If you wrote this story for The State News and then headed down to the Peanut Barrel to meet friends for a legal drink or two afterward, and then they asked you what you wrote about today, what would you say? More importantly, what would be first to come out of your mouth?

"Uh, well I wrote something abut a dude who got killed when he swerved his car to miss a doggie in the road."

I don't think so. What I think you'd say would be something like this:

"Dude, this was so effed up I don't believe it! Some guy was driving his car all crazy fast so he could make it to his wedding, but he CRASHED and DIED! On his WEDDING DAY! Soo effed up."

I really do think you'd certainly include the wedding angle. That's what made this crash unique and especially poignant and tragic.

If it's a fact or angle that would pass the Peanut Barrel test, then it's a good fact or angle for a lede. If your proposed lede doesn't pass Peanut Barrel muster, then try again until it does.

Again, I can't say your lede was incorrect. Clearly, it passes factual muster. But is it really complete? No. It misses context, like calling 9/11 just a plane crash.

Crime: Ledes

Let's look at some ledes; first, this one:

The Ingham County Sheriff's Office responded to an armed robbery around 1:30 a.m. today in Okemos.

It's factually correct, but does it go to end resul and ultimate outcome? No. It's like those hypothetical sports ledes we looked at last class: MSU football played a game Saturday night. It doesn't say how things finished, or at least set context. And in journalism, we start with ending and/or context.

The end result was what transpired. This lede got there:

An attempted armed robbery occurred today in Okemos, resulting in one arrest.

That's better, but there's still something missing. It wasn't a routine armed robbery; I mean, the clerk captured one of the robbers. That's different, right? So, why not highlight what makes this different, like this:

A store clerk captured one of two men who attempted an armed robbery at a convenience store this morning, according to an Ingham County sheriff's report.

Now, the reader knows not just that something happened, but what happened and how it ended.

It's fair to say what made this story stand out from other armed robbery stories is that the victim caught the suspect. What made it stand out among stories where the victim caught the suspect is that the victim was lame. This lede captured that extra element:

An armed robbery attempt at Jiffy Foods, 4010 Holbrook Drive in Okemos, was foiled by a clerk who had recently been injured in a construction job. 

Yet another lede developed that context -- a lame victim beating a robber -- a bit more.  This more anecdotal lede is followed by a nut graf that helped zero in on the basic details of end result:


While many view being cane-dependent as a handicap, Jiffy Foods clerk Terry DaRoza saw it as an advantage that helped save his life in an armed robbery late last night.


DaRoza, recently injured in a construction job, had to resort to violence when two customers threatened him with a knife at the convenience store on Holbrook Drive at 1:15 a.m., according to an Ingham County Sheriff's report.

This lede/nut graf combo did an outstanding job of setting context and offering basic details. Look carefully at how the nut graf answers specific questions created by the lede; e.g., who was the clerk, who was the robber, how did he defend himself, where and when did this happen, ect.

An injured convenience store clerk used his cane in self-defense this morning when two armed men  tried to rob Jiffy Foods, according to an Ingham County Sheriff's Department report.


At about 1:15 a.m., Terry DaRoza, 34, beat Timonthy Keel with his cane after Keel allegedly pulled a knife on DaRoza at the store located at 4010 Holbrook Drive, the report said.


Then the story starts a chronological narrative. But the reader already known end result and context.

Crime: Peanut Barrel Rule

I'm kind of surprised that few of you cited something that to me stood out like a sore thumb: the fact that the cane-wielding victim was almost 6 1/2 feet tall, while the would-be alleged robber he beat was not much over five feet tall and weighed less than half as much as the victim.

Isn't that a Peanut Barrel-type of item? Isn't that sharp contrast in size what takes an out-of-the-ordinary robbery story (unusual in that the victim beat off the attacker) and make it even more unique?

I'm not shocked that many of you didn't weave it into your ledes, because to do that is doable but a bit complex. I'm just surprised none of you noted that bit of interest.

Any explanations?

As journalists, it's important that even when we are looking at what we think is a routine event, that we are always on the lookout for something that makes it a bit different and a bit more interesting. Even if that bit of interest is buried in the nuances of a police report.

Out-Of-Class #1: Some Probs, Strugs

Normally I don't blog about out-of-class work. Normally, the first out-of-classer is a bit of a struggle for my classes, as they ramp up and put their full set of skills to the test for the first time.

But for many of you, this one was a real struggle.

We had a time fatal, where someone missed the deadline. Please make sure you meet your deadline, no matter what. A safe way to do that is to email your story to me the night before, as a backup. Then hand in the printed copy the next day.

We had fact fatals. I've never had more than one person fatal on a single round of out-of-class stories, until now. In this one, we had three.

 In one case, someone apparently assumed a locale was in East Lansing. In fact, it was on the Lansing side of the Lansing-East Lansing border. In another case, someone misspelled the name of an MSU landmark. DON'T ASSUME ANYTHING AND DOUBLE-CHECK EVERYTHING.

In the third case, someone misspelled "oversees" in a quote as "overseas." Any error in a quote is a fatal.

Use the accuracy checklist I handed out at the start of the term. There should be no reason anything should be unverified in an out-of-class story. You have access to Google searches and Web sites to help you confirm spellings and names and locations. Make sure you are dedicating a significant amount of time to fact-checking.

We had weak ledes, where you failed to develop a central idea. Think about the principles we've been practicing in here every day with the practice stories. After interviewing, look through your notes and identify a central theme or point or end result or ultimate outcome that adheres to the Peanut Barrel rule. Saying that you spoke with somebody is not a lede. 


We had too few sources. Three is not really the minimum. Rather, it's having enough sources to cover the complexity of an issue. That would mean proponents AND opponents, decision-makers AND those impacted by those decisions, people with an interest in an issue AND neutral experts that can help make sense of things in an unbiased way.

We had one-sided stories that just talked to one side of an issue, without getting counterpoints or the views of everyday people or neutral experts. That's not journalism. Journalism is getting ALL sides of a complex issue, and not just one. Do research and explore an issue; the fewer sides you talk to, the more vulnerable you are to not knowing what you're leaving out.

We weren't curious enough. Some people just took one source's word for it, and though it was enough reporting. It never is. We talk to multiple people about the same thing to ensure consistency in answers and to discover and then research any inconsistencies. Others thought it as enough to send emails or fill out Web site forms. It's not. Get on the phone or go meet people face-to-face.

We had too few neutral experts. A part of this exercise is to find and utilize neutral experts: people who have knowledge on a particular issue, but who don' have a stake in the outcome. Look at the blog entries for neutral experts if you need ideas. But you need to come up with ideas.

For many of you, this may mean you need to see me during office hours. And that's fine! That's what office hours are for. If you're having issues with story organization or structure or sourcing or whatever, come see me and let's work on it. Don't wait until a day or two before things are due; let's get ahead of these issues.

The good news for you is that you'll get opportunities to do a rewrite of this story, due Monday, that will help lift your grade on this assignment. And you'll have a second out-of-class story due Friday that also will be eligible for a rewrite. And there's a third out-of-classer and even an extra credit out-of-classer, each of which will be due the last day of class.

So this is all fixable. But we're running out of time. We have to start acting on things NOW. Be proactive, see me for help as needed and as soon as possible, and let's get you a grade you'll feel good about.

Robbery: The Peanut Barrel Rule, Revisited

There were plenty of decent ledes in the exercise you did Monday. You made some good decisions on how to best use the space you were allotted in creating the highest and best ledes possible.

But some were better than others. Let's look at this one:

A 22-year-old college student was fired from his job for having a gun in the store against company policy.


This is factually correct. And it does go to end result in one sense; that he got fired. But it missed end result in another sense: that a man was killed. And it fails to grasp context: not just that he was fired for having a gun, but that he was fired for having a gun that he used to kill a man while defending himself.


Think about the Peanut Barrel rule: would you first tell friends that a man was fired for having a gun at work, or that he was fired for having a gun at work that he used to save his own life?


In that sense, even this lede fell short:

A convenience store clerk shot and killed a man who attempted an armed robbery yesterday in Haslett.


Is what makes this story unique and different from other robbery stories in this lede? I think not. It's missing what the first lede had: consequence for the clerk.

Again, let's think about a Peanut Barrel situation. You wouldn't tell your friends, "The cops found some dead dude" or "A dude lost his job because he brought a gun to work" or just "Some guy shot and killed a robber." You'd be all like, "Yeah, this dude killed another dude robbing a store, but the victim lost his job for having a gun at work!"

It's the combination of those things that makes this story stand out. Here's one lede/nut graf combo that's along those lines:

A robbery at O-Mart late Sunday ended with a dead robber and a fired store clerk.

Michael Layous was working at the O-Mart at Haslett when around 11 p.m. an individual came in to rob the store. Layoux shot and killed the robber, who was later identified as Robert Wiess.


Here's another really strong lede/nut graf combo that gets it all in:

A Lansing Community College student was fired from his clerk's job this morning after the district manager of O-Mart deemed his possession of a gun that potentially saved his life was against company policy.


Michael Layoux, 22, was the single employee working at the O-Mart at 1248 E. Forest Boulevard in Haslett Sunday evening when Robert Wiess entered the store and demanded Layoux empty the cash register while holding him at gunpoint.


After emptying the register, Layoux said he grabbed his .25-caliber pistol from under the counter and shot Wiess three times.


Still, I think I could top those ledes. I think I'd hit hard on the connection between saving his life and losing his job. If I decided to go straight with little color, I'd do this:

A Haslett convenience store clerk won't face charges for shooting and killing a would-be robber, but he lost his job for violating company rules of possessing handguns on the job.


Or if I wanted to get a bit colorful:

The same actions that allowed Michael Layoux to save his own life also cost him his job.


. . . or . . .
 









Michael Layoux didn't break the law when he shot and killed a robber last night. But he did break a company rule, and that will cost him his job.

How do my ledes adhere to the Peanut Barrel rule? Which works best, and why? Your turn to critique me.

School: A Good Lede/Nut Graf Sequence

Let's take a look at this lede/but graf/body grouping.

The East Lansing School Board unanimously voted Tuesday night to ban boys from playing on girls' teams, after concerns were raised that male athletes could pose a hazard for female players.

The policy, which will take effect immediately, was implemented after four boys made the East Lansing High School girls' field hockey team. Many teams from opposing schools forfeited their games in order to avoid the possibility of their players being injured by the male athletes.

After receiving complaints in home and away districts, school board member Jane Tribitt decided it was time for a policy change.

"The boys are just too big and physical and it intimidates the girls on the team," Tribitt said. "It is a matter of safety."

Senior Jacob Stevens, who played on the field hockey team, thinks the policy is unfair and while he was on the team, none of the girls complained about his presence, he said.

East Lansing High School Athletic Director Hugh Baker said he believes the policy will hurt the school's athletics program, because the school would have to forfeit games against teams with male players due to safety concerns.

"It would be unfair to force our field hockey team to have a losing record every year because it has to forfeit all those games," Baker said.

East Lansing resident Sandra Adler, who has a daughter on the field hockey team, is in favor of the new policy.

"I just don't think it's healthy mentally or physically to have the boys and girls playing on the same team," Adler said.

First, you have a nice lede that says what happened (boys were banned), when it happened (Tuesday), who did the decision making (the board) and who is going to be affected (boys), and why it was made (safety concerns).

 Then the nut graf expands on that: it says exactly when the decision takes effect (immediately), and exactly why it was made (after four boys were on the team, and it forced other schools to forfeit games).

It mines a second layer of supporting info that is helpful for the reader to have to make sense of what happened.

Then, once the lede and nut graf is established, you get into the he-said and she-said and quotes and the supporting evidence that lays down what your lede concluded and your nut graf expanded upon.

You start with getting a paraphrase from a board member -- a decision-maker on this issue -- on why she voted yes; then you pair it with a related quote.

Then, you get an opposing viewpoint -- that from an affected player -- and pair that with a related quote.

Then, you get the perspective of someone caught in the middle -- the athletic director, who opposes the policy but is responsible for enforcing it -- followed by a related quote.  


Then, you wrap it up with an outside but relevant viewpoint; that of a parent of a athlete. And you also pair it with a related quote.


So you have a lede that meets the Peanut Barrel rule; a nut graf that helps expand on the lede and provide a pivot into the greater story; and then information sets in descending order of criticality to the story, each paired with quotes.


What do you think of the job done here?

Practice Ledes: Peanut Barrel Rule

When you think about the Peanut Barrel rule, a part of what you consider is what stands out most to a story, where it would be the first thing out of your mouth when talking about it to your friends.

Another aspect that often overlaps the first premise is that of end result and ultimate outcome: how did the story end? After all, the lede of a news story is usually the ending, wrapping up all the loose ends. That's a major way journalistic writing differs from other forms of writing.

This next lede meets the first aspect but not the second:

Arobbery went from bad to worse when the robber of the Quik Shoppe on Michigan Avenue stole a car with six-month-old Megan Perakiss still inside.


If this happened to be a delayed lede, where in the next paragraph you immediately get to end result, then you are fine. If not, then the lede can be improved upon.

This next lede was predicated on end result:

A six-month-old baby girl was found in the back seat of an abandoned getaway car Wednesday afternoon, 40 minutes after a man had robbed the Quik Shoppe and stolen the vehicle.

Often, the Peanut Barrel rule is simple and to the point. But it can also pre-emptively answer an obvious question created by your reporting, like, why the hell would they do that? This lede correctly anticipates such a question, and offers an answer:

Michigan State University ecologists and biologists want to bring African wildlife to th eGreat Plans and American West, due to the declining habitat in Africa.

Another approach would have been to hook the lede not on the reason, but the reaction: that some scientists and ranchers feared the impact those animals would have here. I think either approach is a good one. In journalist often there's more than one way to do a story correctly. It all depends on what you think your readers would consider most interesting, relevant and useful. And in this case, I think it's extremely subject to interpretation. There is no obvious single right answer.

Except maybe this one, where one of you rolled it all into one lede, with both reason and reaction:

African wildlife may find a new home on American soil in order to prevent extinction, despite some scientists' worries that this plan could be harmful to the fate of native species.

Another one of you decided to have fun with this lede, like this:

Rawr might be a common sound on the Great Plains of North America if a group of Michigan State University ecologists and biologists succeed in placing African wildlife there.

That lede certainly sets context: what would it mean for people here? Which of these do you think works best? Why or why not?

Moving on, a few of you struggled with the lede on using cell phones while driving, where you wrote about state officials arguing over whether or not to ban cell phone use while driving.  Even though that information was listed first and most prominently, what makes something most newsworthy is if it stands out, and not how much information we have or where that information is placed. You look at the whole of information, and then decide what stands out.

And the whole was this: that a state representative opposing a cell phone driving ban got into a car accident while talking on her cell phone! That's the Peanut Barrel rule, right?

And here were a few of your ledes along those lines:

Constance Wei, a Michigan state representative known for her opposition to banning cell phone usage, was involved in a car accident while talking on a cell phone.

This next lede took things a step further by noting the relevant topic of that phone conversation: 

A Michigan state representative got in a car accident on Wednesday while talking on her cell phone about postponing a vote on a bill to ban phone use while driving.

 A couple of you used the phrase ironically in noting the cause and Wei's intent, and I'd say that's fair and wise. After all, the facts indicate it was the definition of irony: someone who is for something gets into trouble because of that same something.

One of you noted the irony this way:

State Rep. Constance P. Wei, a known adversary of the ban on cell phone usage while driving, may want to reconsider her lack of support after her car accident on Wednesday.

Obviously, this lede would have to immediately be followed by a graf detailing the irony: that she was on her phone when the accident happened. Beyond that, what do you think of the "reconsider the lack of support" line? Fair notation of context based on the facts -- like calling this ironic -- or does it corss the line into being opinionated, which would be a no-no?

Either way, it does tread the line. What do you think? And why?

More Ledes: The Peanut Barrel Rule

There's nothing wrong with this lede. But it's still missing something. Here it is:

A 22-year-old man was killed in a car accident earlier this morning after veering to avoid a dog in the road, according to police.

Technically, it's correct. But let's think about the Peanut Barrel rule. If you wrote this story for The State News and then headed down to the Peanut Barrel to meet friends for a legal drink or two afterward, and then they asked you what you wrote about today, what would you say? More importantly, what would be first to come out of your mouth?

"Uh, well I wrote something abut a dude who got killed when he swerved his car to miss a doggie in the road."

I don't think so. What I think you'd say would be something like this:

"Dude, this was so effed up I don't believe it! Some guy was driving his car all crazy fast so he could make it to his wedding, but he CRASHED and DIED! On his WEDDING DAY! Soo effed up."

I really do think you'd certainly include the wedding angle. That's what made this crash unique and especially poignant and tragic.

If it's a fact or angle that would pass the Peanut Barrel test, then it's a good fact or angle for a lede. If your proposed lede doesn't pass Peanut Barrel muster, then try again until it does.

Again, I can't say your lede was incorrect. Clearly, it passes factual muster. But is it really complete? No. It misses context, like calling 9/11 just a plane crash.

Stats: A Lot Of Youze Guys ...

... were thrown off by the press release starting so heavily with background about the survey before moving on to what the survey found.

That led many of you to offer generic background on the survey -- it's been conducted since 1942, it polls 50,000 households, ect. -- ahead of what the survey found regarding Internet use -- most households now use computers, and the number has drastically grown over the past few decades.

And it led some of you to lede with the fact a survey was taken, rather than what the survey discovered!

All because something is first in a press release -- or a city council meeting, or a football game -- doesn't mean it's worth prominent mention or a lede. Your lede is based on the Peanut Barrel values we've discussed all semester (and in that case, it's not, Hey! A survey was taken! right?) and where you rank information is based on most relevant to least relevant, and not necesarily the order in which things were presented.

Don't fall for the sequence trap. Rank information on value to the reader and support for your story's central premise.

Police: Peanut Barrel

I'm kind of surprised that none of you cited something that to me stood out like a sore thumb: the fact that the cane-wielding victim was almost 6 1/2 feet tall, while the would-be alleged robber he beat was not much over five feet tall and weighed less than half as much as the victim.

Isn't that a Peanut Barrel-type of item? Isn't that sharp contrast in size what takes an out-of-the-ordinary robbery story (unusual in that the victim beat off the attacker) and make it even more unique?

I'm not shocked that many of you didn't weave it into your ledes, because to do that is doable but a bit complex. I'm just surprised none of you noted that bit of interest.

Any explanations?

As journalists, it's important that even when we are looking at what we think is a routine event, that we are always on the lookout for something that makes it a bit different and a bit more interesting. Even if that bit of interest is buried in the nuances of a police report.

Robbery: The Peanut Barrel Rule, Revisited

There were plenty of decent ledes in the exercise you did Monday. You made some good decisions on how to best use the space you were allotted in creating the highest and best ledes possible.

But some were better than others. Let's look at this one:

A man's body was found in a field near O-Mart's Haslett location late yesterday by Meridian Township police officers.

This is factually correct. But does it go to end result and ultimate outcome? It does not. It omits a major conclusion: that the clerk then shot and killed the robber. It's simply not sufficient.

Here was another lede that is technically correct, but missing something crucial:

A store clerk at a Haslett O-Mart convenience store was fired today after bringing his .25-caliber pistol to work yesterday.

It gets one ultimate outcome; that the clerk was fired. But it omits something huge: what the clerk did with the pistol. I mean, he killed somebody! That's no secondary detail.

Think about the Peanut Barrel rule: would you first tell friends that a man was found shot to death, or that a man was fired for bringing a gun to work, and leave it at that?

In that sense, even this lede fell short:

Michael Layoux, an O-Mart employee in Haslett, shot and killed a robber who attempted to steal from the convenience store late yesterday night.

Is what makes this story unique and different from other robbery stories in this lede? I think not. You tried that with these two ledes here:

A Haslett convenience store clerk has lost his job after he shot and killed a gunman attempting a robbery late yesterday.

. . . and . . .

Shooting an armed robber in self-defense may have saved a local convenience store clerk's life, but it cost him his job.

These are good ledes. Really good ledes. Concise, contextual, the whole shebang. But let's put it up against the Peanut Barrel rule again: is whatever really, really made this story stand out in these ledes?

I say, yes. My gut tells me that what really made this story the most unique is that the clerk legally defended himself -- and lost his job because he acted to save his own life!

Again, let's think about a Peanut Barrel situation. You wouldn't tell your friends, "The cops found some dead dude" or "A dude lost his job because he brought a gun to work" or just "Some guy shot and killed a robber." You'd be all like, "Yeah, this dude killed another dude robbing a store, but the victim lost his job for having a gun at work!"

It's what makes this story stand out.

Still, I think I could top those ledes. I think I'd hit hard on the connection between saving his life and losing his job. If I decided to go straight with little color, I'd do this:

A Haslett convenience store clerk won't face charges for shooting and killing a would-be robber, but he lost his job for violating company rules of possessing handguns on the job.

Or if I wanted to get a bit colorful:

The same actions that allowed Michael Layoux to save his own life also cost him his job.

. . . or . . .

Michael Layoux didn't break the law when he shot and killed a robber last night. But he did break a company rule, and that will cost him his job.

How do my ledes adhere to the Peanut Barrel rule? Which works best, and why? Your turn to critique me.

Graded Ledes: Peanut Barrel Rule, Part 2

When you think about the Peanut Barrel rule, a part of what you consider is what stands out most to a story, where it would be the first thing out of your mouth when talking about it to your friends.

Another aspect that often overlaps the first premise is that of end result and ultimate outcome: how did the story end? After all, the lede of a news story is usually the ending, wrapping up all the loose ends. That's a major way journalistic writing differs from other forms of writing.

This next lede meets the first aspect but not the second:

A trip to the gas station turned into every mother's worst nightmare when an armed robber stole a car with six-month-old Megan Perakiss in the backseat.

If this happened to be a delayed lede, where in the next paragraph you immediately get to end result, then you are fine. If not, then the lede can be improved upon.

This next lede was predicated on end result:

A terrifying ordeal ended well for a local family on Wednesday when a massive search located their six-month-old daughter safely inside a vehicle carjacked by an armed robber.

Of course, the downside of this approach is you lose a little bit of detail of what made the recovery dramatic: how the girl went missing in the first place. I though this next lede did a good job of reconciling all the competing factors:

An armed robbery of a local Quik Shoppe convenience store Wednesday afternoon quickly escalated to a carjacking and brief kidnapping of a six-month-old infant girl.

You hook the telling on the overall incident, and the use of "brief" to describe the kidnapping gives readers the indication they need of ultimate outcome.

Often, the Peanut Barrel rule is simple and to the point, like with this lede:

A group of Michigan State University scientists have joined fellow universities in coming with with a controversial idea to transplant African wildlife to the Great Plains of North America.

But it can also pre-emptively answer an obvious question created by your reporting, like, why the hell would they do that? This lede correctly anticipates such a question, and offers an answer:

In an effort to preserve species that are facing extinction, a group of more than 30 scientists want to relocate African wildlife to the Great Plains of North America.

Which of these do you think works best? Why or why not?