Controversial: Be Efficient With Words

It's important that you look for unnecessary words and strip those out of your work. Like in this lede:

The East Lansing School Board has made a decision on Tuesday to implement a ban to no longer allow boys from competing in girls' sports.

It's a good lede, but wordy. First, do you need to say has made a decision to when just saying decided would suffice?

Second, isn't saying implement a ban and no longer allow the same thing? I'd get rid of one of those, or even both. After all, doesn't ban say all that in just one word? What we have left is this:

The East Lansing School Board decided Tuesday to ban boys from competing in girls' sports.

Is there any difference in meaning or context or detail than the first lede? I'd say not. It's just a lot shorter and less wordy.

Basic Ledes: Use Simple Language

Some of you wrote something like; martial disruption is greater among highly-educated women.

What is martial disruption, though? In going through the information you were given, it appears the metrics the study used were whether and when people got divorced or separated.

So, why not say just that: separation or divorce is greater among highly-educated women.

When you have a chance to simplify a term and be more precise, please do take that opportunity,

Basic Ledes: One Sentence Is Better Than Two

Most of the time, we'd like to keep ledes to one sentence. This one had two:

Three people were injured when a train struck a car Monday evening in East Lansing. Police say the driver of the car failed to stop at a stop sign.

I would say this lede could have been merged into one sentence by moving word order around so that the supporting fact (why the crash happened) fits into the main point (how it unfolded).

So I would take that second sentence and fold its main point into the narrative of the first sentence, like this:

Three people were injured when a train struck a car that failed to stop at a stop sign Monday evening in East Lansing.

Now, it's one fewer sentence, a few less words and you're still including the what and why in the lede.

Obits: Just A Few Things

First off,  we have some fatals to go over. Really, a lot of fatals. Nine out of 18, to be exact. That means one of every two people fataled. It's the biggest fatal binge of the semester, on an assignment that in past classes has typically been the easiest assignment of the term.

And it's the usual variety.

In three cases, we misspelled the first name of Terrence as Terrance, with an "a." Three!

In another instance, we spelled Terrence as Terence, with only one "r."

In two other cases, the last name Burnes was misspelled as the more common Burns, without the "e."

Also, we misspelled "fine" as "ine" -- with the "f" missing -- inside of a quote. Any misspelling inside of a quote is a fatal.

In another case, we alternately spelled the restaurant's name as Deacosta's and Deacista's. Obviously, one had to be wrong, right?

Also, in one case we said the dead guy was a resident of Chicago. In fact, he was born in Chicago and moved to East Lansing as an infant. (Remember all pertinent unspecified locales were East Lansing?)

(In regard to all these fatals, I'm wondering if I did you guys a disservice in allowing for so many practice stories to be done as homework, in that you didn't have to balance writing and fact-checking with deadlines in such a rigorous way as when we do practice stories in-class with a stricter and more immediate deadline.)

(I know some of you think I can be tough, but in this case I'm fearing that I wasn't tough enough to a point where we worked out bad habits and instituted good habits by more realistically simulating deadline conditions.)

(Unfortunately, we are just about out of time to keep working on this. I implore you to take the fact-checking strategies we've discussed and that are offered in this blog and make sure you implement them each and every time from here on out, and into your communications careers.)

Next, let's remember this lessons from the first few days of class: journalists do not use euphemisms -- words or terms used in place of more direct terms or words -- we use direct language.

In the case of this assignment, that means we don't say someone passed away,which is a euphemism for dying. So we simply say they died.

Plus, we should have capitalized the names of the medals he earned: the Bronze Star and Purple Heart. Why? Because those are the specific names of specific medals. And we capitalize specific names. Which is why a certain person is Terrence Austin and not terrence austin, and why a certain type of car is a Ford Mustang and not a ford mustang.

Also, one last AP style check: when we have multiple people with the same last name in a story, then we throw out the usual AP Style rule where in first identification we use first and last names, and from then on just the last name.

Instead, in these instances we use the first and last names throughout, for every person who shares the same last name. Including the deceased, in this case.

Now, you don't need to start using the full name after the first reference until you actually hit a second Austin in your story. But once you do, its firsts and lasts the rest of the way.

Finally, you would know you should capitalize Marines if you looked in your AP Style Book under the heading of, Marines.

Meeting: You Don't Need "That"!

"That" is one of the most unneeded words ever. Let's look at this sentence:

The board said that in its decision that parents should talk to their children about the issue and provide their home with the religious training that they feel to be most appropriate.

Now, let's get rid of the three references to "that." This is what's left:

The board said in its decision parents should talk to their children about the issue and provide their home with the religious training they feel to be most appropriate.

Now, what's different? Besides the loss of an unnecessary word?

Most of the time, you don't need "that."

Murder: Do You Need To Say ...

... 9 a.m. yesterday morning?

No. You already said a.m., so adding morning is redundant.

All you need to say is 9 a.m. yesterday.

Look for redundancies and un-redundantify your copy!

Murder: Avoid Saying Nothing

Like in the first of these two grafs:

Nina Cortez is a book keeper at the restaurant and has worked there for seven years.

She said she arrived at the inn around 9 a.m. and entered the building with her key to the employee entrance in the back.

The first sentence is what I call an empty sentence: it doesn't say anything of reader value. It identifies someone but doesn't say what they have to say. It attribution without something to attribute.

But I know what you're trying to do: you're detailing who the person is to justify their relevance in the following graf. I'd fix this by simply merging these two grafs, like this:

Nina Cortez, a book keeper at the restaurant who has worked there for seven years, said she arrived at the inn around 9 a.m. and entered the building with her key to the employee entrance in the back.

Now, there's no empty sentence.

Controversial: Be Efficient With Words

It's important that you look for unnecessary words and strip those out of your work. Like in this lede:

The East Lansing School Board has made a decision on Tuesday to implement a ban to no longer allow boys from competing in girls' sports.

It's a good lede, but wordy. First, do you need to say has made a decision to when just saying decided would suffice?

Second, isn't saying implement a ban and no longer allow the same thing? I'd get rid of one of those, or even both. After all, doesn't ban say all that in just one word? What we have left is this:

The East Lansing School Board decided Tuesday to ban boys from competing in girls' sports.

Is there any difference in meaning or context or detail than the first lede? I'd say not. It's just a lot shorter and less wordy.

Alt Ledes: Use Words Correctly; Use Correct Words

Language is important in journalism because people read what we write for understanding. Using a word incorrectly or using an incorrect word can create confusion at best, and an unintended meaning and fact error at worst.

Take for example, this lede:

In an attempt to trim city expenses, local officials announced that offendants will be charged $25 for mug shot and fingerprint services.

Structurally, it's a nice lede. But what the hell is an offendant? Now, there is the word defendant, which is someone accused of something. And offender, which is someone who did something. You kinda merged those two words to invent a new word.

I appreciate your eagerness to expand the English language, but if we are to be understandable we should use word that have already been invented and are well-known, okay?

Alt Ledes: Look For Inclusive Words

Many of you in the animals lede referred to "ecologists and biologists." A couple of you simply referred to "scientists."

And why not? Ecologists and biologists are scientists. It's simpler and doesn't result in any lost meaning to your readers.

If you have the opportunity to group specifics under a single umbrella term, consider that course of action.

Ledes: Be Economical With Words

Look for opportunities to use fewer words to say the same thing, or to get rid of redundant or unnecessary lingo. Like here:

The Centers for Disease Control conducted a study and found that if a woman is healthy with a good educational background, she is less likely to get divorced.

In that case, why say, conducted a study and found? Isn't that like writing a football game story and saying MSU played a game and won? The won part presumes a game was played, making a general reference to the game unneeded. So, along those lines why not drop conducted a study and, like this?

The Centers for Disease Control found that if a woman is healthy with a good educational background, she is less likely to get divorced.

It says the same thing, but with less wordiness, right?

Let's keep looking at this example. We talk about trying to put the news first, ahead of attribution. Here, you have the attribution first, then the news. So let's try flipping the order like this:

If a woman is healthy with a good educational background, she is less likely to get divorced, the Centers for Disease Control found.

See how "flipping" your lede emphasizes the news over the sourcing? A flip wasn't necessary, and if you were trying to emphasize the source for credibility reasons, then a flip wouldn't be a good idea. But in many cases, a flip is the best approach.  

Ledes: Watch Your Tenses!

Traditionally in writing for print, we tend to use the past tense: the man sued the city, the mayor introduced an ordinance, ect. That's because in print, events have already happened by the time the paper reaches its audience.

For broadcast and online breaking news, however, the present tense is acceptable: the man is suing the city, the mayor is introducing an ordinance, ect.

For the purposes of this class, I'd like all exercises to be done in the past tense, unless otherwise noted or circumstances warrant (such as a case where events are ongoing or have yet to have happened).

Murder: Say What You Mean, Mean What You Say

In one passage, you wrote this:

Cortez said it was like any other day; she and Blohm were the only two usually there that early in the morning.

That's not exactly right. It started out like any other day, then it went horribly wrong. But that's not what you say; you say it was like any other day. Presumably that means a cook gets murdered every morning.

That's not what you meant, right? So be precise.

Say what you mean, and mean what you say. Use the right words at the right times to project an exact and accurate meaning.

Murder: Do You Need To Say ...

... 9 a.m. yesterday morning?

No. You already said a.m., so adding morning is redundant.

All you need to say is 9 a.m. yesterday.

Look for redundancies and un-redundantify your copy!

Bicyclist: Say What You Mean, Mean What You Say

This lede was dangerously close to being a fatal:

Marsha Taylor called cycling a hobby that she couldn't imagine her life without, until she was hit by a car while riding and was left with multiple injuries.

The problem here is what you literally say: that she couldn't give up riding until the accident. What I think you meant to say was, she couldn't give up riding even after the accident. After all, she said this:

"I still want to ride. If I could, I'd be out there right now, but it's hard to ride a bike when you have to use crutches."

The use of until simply wasn't correct. It changed the context of what was supported by the facts.

It's critical that you find the best and most correct words to convey the meaning based on the factual evidence, and not use any words that are at best confusing and at worst misleading.

Say what you mean, and mean what you say.

Bicyclist: Be Compact With Words

Like in this passage:

In the hospital, doctors confirmed that she had gotten a mild concussion, a broken neck, six broken ribs, a broken arm and a broken pelvis.

That's a lot of repetition with the word broken. You use it four times in one sentence! Why not look to use that term just once and in connection with a number of injuries, like this:

In the hospital, doctors confirmed that she had gotten a mild concussion and broke her neck, six ribs, an arm and her pelvis.

A bit more compact and concise, right?

Whenever you have a graf where you use the same word or term repeatedly, look for ways to end the "echo" and use the word in a more efficient manner.

Drowning: Use The Right Words!

Many of you said the boy and the man were rescued from the water. But were they really rescued, since each eventually died?

I'd say not. Better to say they were pulled out of the water. Rescue implies they were saved, which ultimately they were not.

Also, one of you said the boy passed away. Earlier this term, we talked about avoiding euphemisms, which are nice-sounding but vague ways to say something more specific. In most cases, use the specific word, in this case, died.

Squirrels: Watch Your Wordiness

Almost all of you called Oliver Brookes an associate professor of English.

Why not revise word order and shorten it to, an associate English professor?

Also, don't be afraid to cut to the chase, like in this graf:

Laura Ruffenboch had an explanation for why the creatures could be attracted to the cars. Ruffenboch is a wildlife professor at Lansing Community College. Ruffenboch said that the insulation on many electrical wires is made from a derivative of soybeans and squirrels may find that attractive.

There's a lot of wordiness here. The first sentence says she has an explanation but not what the explanation was, so it's not necessary. The second sentence simply states her position, and doesn't say anything else of value. The third sentence actually gets to the point.

I think you can eliminate the first sentence and merge the second and third sentences to say this:

Laura Ruffenboch, a wildlife professor at Lansing Community College, said that the insulation on many electrical wires is made from a derivative of soybeans and squirrels may find that attractive.

Now, the reader loses nothing except two sentences. Their fundamental understanding of who Ruffenboch is and what she has to say is unchanged.

Graded Ledes: Look For Inclusive Words!

Many of you in the animals lede referred to "ecologists and biologists." A couple of you simply referred to "scientists."

And why not? Ecologists and biologists are scientists. It's simpler and doesn't result in any lost meaning to your readers.

If you have the opportunity to group specifics under a single umbrella term, consider that course of action.

Graded Ledes: Avoid Redundant Words!

Like if you say, "a local East Lansing store." East Lansing is the locality, so you could just say, "East Lansing store" with no "local" and save a word.