Attribution Quiz -- Paraphrases vs. Quotes

Many of you stumbled on this example:

"People think we make $3 million or $5 million a year." They don't realize most athletes make only $500,000, the ballplayer said.

What some of you did was change the second part of that statement into a quote. But it was not a quote. It was a paraphrase. Turning it into a quote was inaccurate. What you should have done was package a quote and paraphrase together, along something like these lines:

"People think we make $3 million or $5 million a year" and don't realize most athletes make only $500,000, the ballplayer said.
Be sure not to confuse quotes with paraphrases.

One of you did a bigger no-no: you changed a quote! DO NOT change the literal words within a quote, meaning anything that can change the meaning of a quote. For example, you can't change "gotta" to "got to," because it changes what was literally said.

Quotes are the literal truth within our stories, and you can't change the truth. But you can change paraphrases, as long as it is still contextually correct.

Attribution Quiz -- It's "said!"

It's not "he claimed." It's "he said."

It's not "she responded." It's "she said."

It's not "she continued." It's "she said."

'Nuff said on that.

Plus, the attribution is better at the start of end of a quote, and not in the middle of a quote unless separating two sentences. So instead of doing this:

"Only through self-discipline," he said, "can you achieve freedom."

. . . you are better off doing this:

"Only through self-discipline can you achieve freedom," he said.

More Ledes -- An Overview

I'm happy to tell you that this week's exercises were all ungraded drills, where I'd try to identify what you were good at and what needed improvement before I started grading you in a meaningful manner.

I'm happy because many of you fell into a common trap for young journalists,and that's committing too many fatals.

The reason for fatals appear to be all over the broad, and we'll take a look at why those fatals happened in some of the subsequent blog posts. But an overall theme seems to be an inattention to detail. Simply put, you have to do a better job of making sure what you have is correct after you finish writing and before you turn in your assignment.

Now would be a good time to alert you to this rule: once you turn in a deadline assignment to me, I won't accept a revised copy. After you turn something in is not the time to catch an error; it's before you turn something in. Make sure that you make fact-checking a priority.

Also, I had someone miss deadline on one of these assignments. If the assignment were to be graded, the grade would be zero. But even if you miss a deadline, I ask that you still turn in your work. I will critique and return your work, regardless of grade, so at least you get the knowledge and lessons from having done the assignment, even if you don't get a recordable grade.

Finally, these were our final ungraded exercises of the semester. From here on out, it's for real.

But as long as you keep learning via the blog and class discussions from what you and your peers have done, then you'll take able to take full advantage of the grading opportunities. It won't be a scary thing; it'll be a chance to show off how much you're learning.

More Ledes -- Ledes I Liked

Direct and to the point, but context is clear:

A man speeding to church for his wedding this morning was killed after losing control of his car.

. . . and . . .

A 22-year-old man was killed today in a car accident, only 15 minutes before he was to marry.

An emphasis on why something is happening, and enough details to know how:

In order to ease the city's financial burden, the jail is installing a new policy that charges criminals a $25 fee for the cost of booking them.

. . . and . . .

In an effort to save the city money, arrestees will now be charged $25 to get their mug shots and fingerprints taken.

. . . and . . .

Criminals are now expected to dish out $25 for their mug shot and fingerprints to trim city expenses, according to police Chief Barry Kopperrud.

(Plus, the latter one had attribution!)

These two had context emphasized by nice writing. Writing with a flourish isn't necessary right now, but as you grow in experience I'd like you to find the right words that are true to the facts and set the right tone, like these:

Instead of wedding bells, sirens were heard this morning after a 22-year-old man was killed in a car accident that occurred down the road from the church he was to be married at only minutes later.

. . . and in this delayed lede . . .

In East Lansing, crime does pay -- in a new way.

City officials are now requiring arrestees to pay a $25 fee to cover the costs of the booking process in an effort to cut down expenses and further hold criminals accountable for their actions.

This delayed lede would need to be followed by a nut graf that answers the question. If so, then I liked it:

A car was stolen today and the location revealed by the car thief. What would cause him to do that?

The only issue I have here is the use of "car." A car was not stolen; it was a van. If I were in a crabbier mood, I'd say this was a fatal. Be sure you use the correct words.

Still, nice work!

More Ledes -- Fatals Happen

But we're gonna try to work out bad habits and create good habits to avoid fatals like this one:

After zooming off from the Parsons Funeral Home lot, a thief reported a stolen car to the chief of police . . .

First, the information you had wasn't that the van was stolen from Parsons, but it was a van rented to Parsons stolen from outside the home of a client. Second, the thief didn't call the chief; he called police, and the chief told you about it.

The fatals tell me you perhaps read the material too quickly before you started writing -- and in the process you made assumptions -- and then you failed to adequately fact-check your story after writing it.

Fact-checking is more than just checking names and places and numbers; it's also making sure that they way you interpreted and wrote the story is, in fact, correct.

Here's a fatal that wouldn't have been caught by spell check:

A speeding driver was killed today after loosing control . . .

That's because the word "loosing" was spelled correctly. Problem is, you intended to say "losing." And since the new word you unintentionally used changes the meaning of the sentence, it is a fatal.

Spell check is a help, but it's a complement -- and not a substitute -- to checking a story line-by-line, and word-by-word, with your own eyeballs.

More Ledes -- Say What You Mean . . .

. . . and mean what you say.

Make sure that you don't say something that's not true. Like in this lede:

On the way to his wedding, a young man smashed into two trees and a fence trying to avoid a large dog in the street. The 22-year-old was pronounced dead 15 minutes before saying, "I do."

So, what you just literally said was that he died, and then said "I do."

Obviously, that's not the case. And just as obviously, that's not what you meant. What you meant was that he was pronounced dead 15 minutes before he was to say, "I do."

But that's NOT what you said! And that is a fatal error.

Here's a double-fatal:

A car theft called police after being spooked by unsuspecting passengers.

This is the corpse-in-a-van story. First, a theft didn't call police; a thief did. This is another example of spell check not helping you when you correctly spell the wrong word.

Secondly, there was only one corpse. Hence, one passenger. You have passengers in a plural form, meaning two or more. That's not correct.

Make sure that you say what you mean -- what is supported by the facts, that is -- and mean what you say.

More Ledes -- What's Missing Here?

Think of the Peanut Barrel rule when you look at this lede:

A 22-year-old man was killed in a car accident around 8:45 this morning trying to avoid hitting a dog.

Is this lede missing what makes it unique and most interesting? Is it missing what makes this different that any other run-of-the-mill car crash? Is it missing what makes this most memorable?

I'd say it was: it's missing that this guy wasn't just speeding; he was speeding to his own wedding. This lede has that element:

After striking two trees and a fence, a 22-year-old man was killed in a single-car accident this morning, a half-mile from where he was to be married 15 minutes later.

Which one better adheres to the Peanut Barrel rule? Which one has the essence of why a story is most newsworthy? I'd say, clearly the latter.

Here's another lede I feel misses a key point:

After stealing a van on New Orleans Avenue that had been rented by Parsons Funeral Home to pick up dead bodies, the thief called police to inform them that he would be leaving the van on the 3000 block of Eastland Drive.

Now, maybe this was a delayed lede. Maybe the gotcha! would be in the nut graf. But let's assume this is a basic lede. Is what makes this story memorable in the lede?

Again, I'd say, no. And again, let's think Peanut Barrel. Woudl you tell friends, "Yeah, this guy stole a van and then told cops where it was at," or, "Yeah, this guy stole a van and then told cops where it was at AFTER HE FOUND A FRICKIN' DEAD BODY IN THE VAN!"

I'd say it's the latter.

More Ledes -- Unnecessary Words

Watch for places where you can remove unnecessary language. Like here:

A 22-year-old man was killed today in a fatal car accident, only 15 minutes before he was to marry.

Great lede, but do you have to label it a fatal accident since you've already mentioned someone was killed? I would have dropped "fatal."

More Ledes -- Is The Name Necessary . . .

. . . in the lede?

I'm talking about the wedding day crash involving Scott Forsythe.

Let's think about when to use -- or not use -- names in ledes.

It's okay to use names in a lede if the name is someone the community at large is likely to know, or if the name is that of an authority figure who commits news simply by doing or saying anything, or if a lede is anecdotal in nature and attempts to humanize the subject immediately.

A specific name is not necessary in the lede if the reader isn't likely to recognize the name or if the name is less significant than a generic identifier -- e.g., 22-year-old local man -- with the name being detailed in a latter reference. Essentially, does the name matter in understanding the context of this story?

In this instance, some of you used the name and some of you did not. Why did you do what you did? What do you think you should have done?

More Ledes -- Be Specific!

Like here:

A stolen vehicle was returned shortly after the suspect discovered there was another passenger" the body of an elderly who died earlier that evening.

Uh, an elderly what? Man? Woman? Squirrel? Orca whale?

Don't assume readers know, and don't overlook providing what you may think is an obvious fact.

More Ledes . . . Nuts And Bolts

Some basic points to remember:
>>> Don't forget to translate big words to more simple language.

Why say, incarceration fee," when no one uses words like that in everyday language? Why not just say, "jailing fee" or something like that? If you're not sure what word could be used as a substitute, ask a source or check a thesaurus!

>>> Don't forget articles.

I don't mean stories. A mean a grammatical article, like a, an, the.

Like here: A car was stolen today and location revealed by the car thief.

It should be, . . . and the location . . .

If you're not sure if you have articles, read your story out loud and ask yourself if it sounds like you've formed complete sentences. If not, it's usually because you're missing an article.

>>> Use proper tense.

If you're writing about something that is happening, use a present tense. If you're writing about something that has already happened, use a past tense.

For example, is it that a car thief calls police? No, he called police.

You can still use an active tense; just make sure it's properly positioned as present or past, depending on the facts.

For example, is it that the groom was speeding? Yes, he was.

>>> Punctuation goes inside of quote marks.

So don't do this:

"I do".

. . . do this . . .

"I do."

More Ledes -- Write With (AP) Style

Still some AP style mistakes being made and even repeated. Making a mistake once is understandable, but once we've blogged about it, it's a crime punishable by execution!

Okay, it's not THAT drastic. But still, let's learn from these mistakes:

This is what I pulled from your AP Stylebooks, under "dollars": "Use figures and the $ sign in all except casual references or amounts without a figure."

So, instead of writing $25, why did a few of you say, 25 dollars?

Same with numbers use. Some of you were all over the board in whether to write a number as a digit or a word. Here's the most basic AP guideline, in your style book under "numerals": In general "Spell out whole numbers below 10, use figures for 10 and above."

So two should be two, not 2. And 10 should be 10, not ten.

So then, is this correct to start a sentence, under AP Style rules?

Twenty-two . . .

Actually, that IS correct number use. This is under the "numerals" heading:

Spell out a numeral at the beginning of a sentence.

Also, Is it 22 year-old or 16-year-old or 16 year old? AP Style under "ages": Use hyphens for ages expressed as adjectives before a noun or as substitutes for a noun.

So it's 22-year-old.

I know the AP Stylebook is a lot to digest. But as this class goes on, I expect that you improve by checking your word use against the AP Stylebook, and by remembering AP Style rules as we go along.

What I'm saying is, I don't expect you to make the same mistake twice. I expect you to learn from your mistakes and apply the lessons going forward.

When it comes to types of language you're likely to frequently -- like numbers and money references -- you may want to make a cheat sheet that you can quickly refer to. Just an idea, folks.

More Homework, Due Feb. 3!

Now that you've done one lede-writing homework assignment, it's time for another one. Yay, right? Please write ledes based on information provided in the Reporting For The Media text for items #1 and #2 on p. 179 and item #2 on p. 200. The slug is more ledes. This assignment will be due by 11 p.m. Thursday. Please be sure to check the latest blog posts at that time for the details of that assignment, including text pages, assignment numbers and the assignment slug.

Also, below I have new blog posts for you to read critiquing your Wednesday lede-writing assignment. Please read the latest blog entries under "City Ledes" before starting on the Thursday assignment.

Another reminder: by next Monday please read Reporting For The Media Chapter 10 (p. 242-271). It's a short chapter so this should not be a big problem.

As we touched on Monday, this week you also need to be working on coming up with your first out-of-class story idea. Next Monday you will be given a tip sheet that will need to be filled out and returned to me on Wednesday detailing your idea. See the Jan. 31 blog post entitled"Independent Study For Feb. 2 Snowmageddon" for details on what you should be preparing.

Other than checking out the latest blog posts and working on my exciting lede-writing drills, have a fun snow day, everybody!

City Ledes -- Ledes I Liked

Overall, this class is performing EXTREMELY well on the lede-writing exercises sofar. I'd have to say it's the best work of any JRN 200 class I've had!

Key to writing good ledes is identifying the central point and/or ultimate outcome of any event. If you can identify that from a morass of information, then you will have a good lede.

This one was clear and to the point. Everything a reader needs to know is right there. It's a perfect summary:

Young boys remain the riskiest drivers on the road, but young girls are gaining traction, according to a new study released by the Institute for Highway Safety.

This one zeroes in on what makes a story most unique and interesting:

A woman's wish to have her husband of 62 years buried in her backyard to have him close to her was rejected by city zoning board members.

This one is very short, but the essential facts are there:

Parental warnings against playing with guns are ineffective, a new study shows.

Really,, you guys are doing well. But can you do better. Hell, yes. read on and find out how . . .

City Ledes -- Fatals Suck

Getting it right is everything in journalism. Get it wrong, and readers have no reason to trust you or rely upon you.

That's why we're so anal about fatals.

Unfortunately, there was a fatal on this assignment, right here:

The Institute for Highway Safety revealed that 16-year-old boys are no longer the most risky drivers on the road, and that 16-year-old girls are.

That is a misreading of your text. This is what the book said, on p. 176: "16-year-old boys remain the most risky drivers on the road . . . But this year the institute found that 16-year-old girls are gaining."

This, folks, is a fatal.

And it happens from time to time, especially with young journalists writing about unfamiliar topics. Still, that doesn't absolve you from doing proper due diligence and making sure that you understand a story correctly and that you present it to your readers correctly.

That means double-checking every fact and figure and spelling. That means reading your work, line-by-line. That means building in time to do that within a deadline.

Fortunately for you, this was an ungraded assignment, so there's no penalty. But keep in mind, when graded assignments start, ANY fatal is an automatic zero on an assignment.

I don't do that to be an ass. I do that to make it clear that having a habit of making many fatals is the quickest way to lose a job in this business. If you can't get it right, you can't do this for a living.

But don't freak out. We'll work throughout this semester to build good habits that will help you corral fatals before you move on to bigger and better classes and internships. I'd rather that you work fatals out of your systems now, as opposed to when the stakes are much higher for you.

City Ledes -- Don't Forget The Obvious . . .

. .. like in this lede:

For the last 32 years, a nationwide study showed that 16-year-old boys are the most dangerous on the road. This year proved to be the same.

Here's my question: most dangerous what? Drivers? Passengers? Motorcyclists? Bicyclists? Pedestrians? Turtles? What?

This lede had the same problem:

A study revealed today proves that simple parental warnings are ineffective.

Again, warnings about what? It's gun play, in this case. It would have been helpful to make that mention.

Make sure that your ledes have the bare minimum of information readers need to get the gist of a story without the need to read anything else.

City Ledes -- Be Compact

This lede ran on a bit:

A recent study conducted by two school researchers questioned how young adolescent boys would react to firearms and found that a majority of the participants handled a gun with ease and curiosity despite parental warning.

That's a lot to stuff in a lede that's 35 words long, an amount that many editors and teachers woudl question.

If that many words were necessary, you could defend yourself adequately. I'm arguing you could have been more efficient.

For starters, do you need to say what researchers were looking for? I don't think so. The end result essentially suggests that. And even if you thought that information was helpful, is it really necessary in the lede, or can you make later reference of that?

I'd entirely get rid of "questioned how young adolescent boys would react to firearms," and replace "the participants" with "young adolescent boys."

This is what you'd have left:

A recent study conducted by two school researchers questioned found that a majority of young adolescent boys handled a gun with ease and curiosity despite parental warning.

Makes the same point, right? And in only 27 words.

Word order also helps in efficiency. Like with this lede:

After a vote of 7-0, . . .

Instead, why not say this:

After a 7-0 vote . . .

. . . and get rid of "of"? Okay, so saving one word isn't the biggest deal. But save a word here and there, and it can make a real difference in uncluttering copy.

City Ledes -- Don't Be Too Vague

Whaddya think of this lede?

A recent study reveals a horrifying connection between young boys and gun usage.

I have a couple of concerns: first, is "horrifying" justified, based on the facts? Or is it an embellishment not justified by the facts? Since you weren't writing a full story here, I can't say for sure. But I'll assume that you thought findings that indicate young boys ignore warnings about playing with guns is something that society in general would find horrifying. So I'll let that go.

My bigger concern is that the lede may be too vague. The news isn't that there's a horrifying connection; it's what the horrifying connection is.

Again, the limitations of this exercise prevent me from fully assessing this. Maybe this was a delayed-type of lede, and your nut graf would have spelled it out.

Now, let's look at this lede:

Two researchers put 50 children in a room that had drawers that contained guns testing the ineffectiveness of simple parental warnings.

The concern I have with this lede is that it focuses in on how the study was conducted, rather than what the study found.

Think of this scenario, but let's apply it to a football game. You wouldn't do this imaginary lede:

Two football teams met in a football stadium to find a champion of the Big Ten Conference.

You'd rather do a lede saying who won or lost, and what the final score was, right? That's focusing on ultimate outcome and end result.

The news isn't that something happened; it's why it's important or interesting or relevant or useful. Most of the time, those answers can be found by identifying and highlighting end result.

City Ledes -- Emphasize The News

What is the news; what happened or who said it? Usually, it's the former.

So while this lede isn't wrong, I think it can be improved upon:

The Institute of Highway Safety found 16-year-old boys continue to top the charts for risky driving, but 16-year-old girls are closing the gap.

Putting the source first results in a lag in getting to the heart of why this matters; e.g., what researchers found. So I'd flip the sequencing of this lede to put the source behind the finding, like this:

Sixteen-year-old boys continue to top the charts for risky driving, but 16-year-old girls are closing the gap, the Institute of Highway Safety found.

I'm using the EXACT SAME WORDS AND PHRASES you did.I'm just rearranging the order. See how it does a better job of emphasizing final result and ultimate outcome, though?

City Ledes -- Write With (AP) Style

Remember the last assignment, after which I blogged about when to use a dollar sign? This is what I pulled from your AP Stylebooks, under "dollars": "Use figures and the $ sign in all except casual references or amounts without a figure."

So, instead of writing $400,000, why did a few of you say, 400,000 dollars?

Yeah, I know the text had it the latter way. But unless it's inside of a quote, you should translate language to conform with AP style.

Same with numbers use. Some of you were all over the board in whether to write a number as a digit or a word. Here's the most basic AP guideline, in your style book under "numerals": In general "Spell out whole numbers below 10, use figures for 10 and above."

So two should be two, not 2. And 10 should be 10, not ten.

So then, is this correct, under AP Style rules?

. . . 52% of boys . . .

Yes and no. The number use is correct, but not the percentage symbol use. If you look under "percent," you find examples that show you should use the word, not the figure.

How about this for the start of a sentence?

Sixteen-year-old boys . . .

Actually, that IS correct number use. This is under the "numerals" heading:

Spell out a numeral at the beginning of a sentence.

Also, Is it 16 year-old girl or 16-year-old girl or 16 year old girl? AP Style under "ages": Use hyphens for ages expressed as adjectives before a noun or as substitutes for a noun.

So it's 16-year-old girl.

I know the AP Stylebook is a lot to digest. But as this class goes on, I expect that you improve by checking your word use against the AP Stylebook, and by remembering AP Style rules as we go along.

What I'm saying is, I don't expect you to make the same mistake twice. I expect you to learn from your mistakes and apply the lessons going forward.

When it comes to types of language you're likely to frequently -- like numbers and money references -- you may want to make a cheat sheet that you can quickly refer to. Just an idea, folks.