JRN 200: Why Attribution Is Important

One reason is because you wouldn't want to be labeled a plagiarist. From gawker.com, in 2011 (link here):

Politico Gets Its Very Own Plagiarism Scandal
 

At long last, little local DC trade newspaper Politico has its very own Jayson Blair-type uproar! Short version: Politico reporter Kendra Marr was apparently a serial plagiarist.

In an admirably direct editor's note, Politico says that a complaint from a New York Times writer earlier this week prompted an internal investigation, followed by Marr's resignation.

This examination produced other examples of stories on transportation issues that bore troubling similarities to work earlier published by others. Some of these examples involved specific turns of phrase or passages that bore close resemblance to work published elsewhere. Others involved similarities in the way stories were organized to present their findings.
None of these examples represented invention of quotes, scenes, or other material

So, Marr was perhaps more of a serial summarizer-without-attribution than a Blair-level fabricator. Politico has posted links to seven of her stories which required corrections; Romenesko has posted information on Marr's background.

You messed up bad, Kendra. But it only takes five years to be forgiven for anything. We wish you luck in your next career.

[Photo via Politico]

... and here's a more straight-forward account from the Web site of the Poynter Institute, a well-regarded journalism think tank:

Politico reporter Kendra Marr resigns over plagiarism of at least 7 stories

Julie Moos, Oct. 13, 2011 11:46 pm

Reporter Kendra Marr resigned her position Thursday after a New York Times reporter alerted editors to similarities between his transportation policy story and Marr's story. Editors examined more of Marr's work and discovered at least seven instances in which "specific turns of phrase or passages ... bore close resemblance to work published elsewhere. Others involved similarities in the way stories were organized to present their findings. ... Material published in our pages borrowed from the work of others, without attribution, in ways which we cannot defend and will not tolerate."

In a prominent editor's note by John Harris and Jim VandeHei, Politico linked to the seven transportation-related stories written by Marr that were amended Thursday to include proper attribution. The stories also carry editor's notes that explain the changes. Based on the editor's notes appended to stories, material was used from these sources without proper credit:

Scripps Howard (twice)
The New York Times (four separate times)
Greenwire
NJ.com and The Associated Press (twice)
The Hill
The Journal of Commerce

Six of the stories were published between Sept. 19 and Oct. 10. One of the stories was published July 28.

Marr's LinkedIn profile says she joined Politico in August 2009 after two years as a staff writer at The Washington Post. Her Politico bio says the San Francisco native covered financial news for the Post, including the auto industry, and that her work also appeared in the San Jose Mercury News, The Orange County Register and The Miami Herald. Marr graduated from Northwestern in 2007. In November 2006, Marr was a student of David Protess at Northwestern.

During that time, as part of Medill's Innocence Project, Marr claimed to be a U.S. census worker in order to locate a witness in a murder case. Marr told the Chicago Tribune in May of this year that "she regrets using deception."

"I was a student in the class, and I wish I hadn't done it," Marr said. "It wasn't my idea, and as a professional journalist, I haven't misrepresented myself since, nor do I intend to ever again." Protess said the deception was the idea of Sergio Serritella, a private investigator then working as a teaching assistant with the Medill Innocence Project. "At the time, there was no law that prevented them from doing that," Protess said. "When I found out it was legal and legitimate, I gave it the green light."

Protess' 30-year career at Northwestern has ended, and the university has agreed to release emails he exchanged with student journalists working on the Innocence Project.

Missing word: Craig Silverman says VandeHei and Harris' note "is notable for the fact that is never uses the word plagiarism, even though it’s explicitly about a case of serial plagiarism."

Link to the Poynter article here.

JRN 200: Multimedia Downloads Are Here!

From this hyperlink you can download the Reporters Guide to Multimedia Proficiency.

Please download this FREE text and read each in its entirety (just over 40 pages) before class n Monday, June 11. And thanks!

Missing/Robbery: Fatalspalooza 2012

Another pair of exercises, another batch of fatals. Let's look and try to learn from mistakes:

Double-check your names! One of you referred to professor Alan Christopher as Alan Christophe, with the "r" at the end missing. Yes, that is a fatal. Yes, that sucks. Please double-check names to make sure they are correct.

Another one of you referred to the robber Robert Wiess as Weiss. That is also a fatal.


Don't trust spell check alone! One of you wrote that the story had a history of holdups. When you said story, you meant store. Since that changed a fact, that's a fatal. After all, the story had no history of holdups. The store did. And since your misspelling of store created a new but unintended word that happened to be spelled correctly, you can chalk this one up to trusting spell check too much. Please eyeball your story line-by-line before turning it in to make sure there aren't any misspellings that spell check wouldn't catch.


Look for inconsistencies in information! In one story, you spelled the robber's name as both Wiess and Weiss, in different sections. A thorough review of names after you finished writing but before you turned the story in would have revealed the dual spellings, for which you know one obviously has to be wrong.


We also had fatals on a make-up assignment that was not an exercise assigned to the class in general.

For that one, make sure you're clear on who said what! In it, a quote attributed to an agency was mistakenly attributed to an individual. In the information set you were given, the quote was listed right next to a change in speaker.

None of these fatals are over something remarkable. Each is regarding a very basic task we have to fit in, on deadline, every time.

I know we're rushed for time, but our goal as journalists is to balance two competing factors: time and accuracy. Not to give lip service to one and concentrate on the other. In doing deadline assignments, please make sure you're finding time to do double-checking. I'd rather have you write short than incorrectly.

For those of you scoring at home, as of this morning seven of 12 members of this class are members in good standing of the JRN 200 Fatals Club. I'm coming for the rest of you soon.

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.

Robbery: The Mystery Of The Missing Nut Graf

Nut grafs are important. Nut grafs do two important things: they fill in some of the blanks and details from your lede, and they offer a smooth transition to the body of a story.

In this exercise, a few of you had inadequate nut grafs -- or none at all.

What many of you did was write a lede, and then directly go into the chronology of what happened, like here:

A robbery turned into a self-defense shooting late yesterday at O-Mart on 1284 East Forest Blvd. in Haslett.

When 22-year-old, Michael Layoux was working last night, a customer came in to purchase a pack of cigarettes just after 11 p.m.

Whoa, wait a minute. In the lede, you say there was a robbery that turned into self-defense. Who was robbed? Who defended himself? Who was the robber? The lede created those questins, and a nut graf could have answered 'em. Instead, you dive right into the play-by-play. Essentially, you're holding the reader hostage by not making it clear what conclusion they're reading toward. They need to read the entire story to find out what happened.

The body of a story offers details and evidence that supports your lede. Your nut graf offers just enough of the 5 w's -- who, what, when, where, why, plus how -- so that if a reader goes no further than the nut graf and never reads the chronology, they still know what happened and how it ended.

A nut graf would have been a perfect place to say something like this:

Using a contraband pistol, store clerk Michael Layoux shot and killed Robert Wiess as the latter man fled the store after robbing the register of an estimated $20 in cash around 11 p.m. Wiess' body was found nearby.

Here was a better use of a lede-nut graf sequence by one of youze:

A 22-year-old store clerk killed a man in self-defense after the man robbed his store at gunpoint late yesterday in Haslett.

Michael Layoux, a clerk at O-Mart on 1284 East Forest Blvd., shot Robert Wiess after he said he was threatened with a pistol, and Wiess demanded the money in the cash register.

The lede suggests a pair of whos (clerk, a man who was killed), a what (killed a man), a when (yesterday), a where (in Haslett) and a why (self-defense).

Then, the nut grafs details the whos (naming the clerk and gunman), the what (the killing was done by shooting), the where (at the O-Mart, address noted) and the why (threatened with a pistol, demanded cash).

Only then does the story continues with the chronology of how things unfolded, in time order. You get a bit more information in the nut graf to help establish the lede -- and to let people know how things ended up -- before getting a blow-by-blow of how things went down.

After placing that next to the lede, then you can dive into the chronology. Basically, your lede/nut graf combo should read like a mini-story. (And if you ever write for broadcast, that's what they typical 30-second TV news story is: a lede and a nut graf, and maybe one sentence of additional information.)

Robbery: How Do You Know ...

... Layoux was alone in the store? Were you there with him (in which case he wasn't alone)?

No. You know it because he told you. So it's Layoux said he was alone in the store. 

How do you know Layoux was fired from his job? Did you can him?

No. You know it because he told you. So it's Layoux said he was fired by store management.

Don't ignore attribution. Every graf in the body of the story, every time.

Robbery: Who, What, WHERE, When, Why

Did you need to cite the store's street address? Isn't that a basic and helpful identifier of WHERE this happened?

Wouldn't people wonder WHERE? Whether this was near their home? Or was the store they go to?

The lede probably won't have been a good place for that -- a first attribution simply as a Haslett convenience store, or a local O-Mart store would have been fine -- but an address with a subsequent attribution would have been helpful.

I'm just sayin'.

Robbery: Who, What, WHEN, Where, Why ...

One of you did a bang-up job on your story. Nice lede, good nut graf, good story flow.

One problem, though: nowhere in the story did you way WHEN anything happened. No dates, no times.

You could have an otherwise-great story, but if it entirely misses a key element -- like any of the five W's -- then it's not a great story, or even a good one.

Don't overlook the obvious, folks!

Robbery: Be Clear

After talking about a back-and-forth between Layoux and the robber, this is what one of you wrote:

When he told him to get in the cooler, he shot him.

Uh, who shot who?

In situations where you have multiple players acting at once, it's best to go overboard on literal names and more specific identifers, like this:

When the robber told Layoux to get in the cooler, Layoux shot the robber.

Now there's no question or confusion or a reader having to guess. It's clear.

Robbery: Did You Need ...

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

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

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

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

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

Robbery: Did You Say ...

. . . it was a brand of Winston cigarettes? Or just cigarettes?

Was the particular brand necessary to the story? Or was it unimportant, other than to give the company a free ad?

Specific brands should be cited if important to the story; like if a Ford Focus crashed into a Hummer. Knowing a teeny-car brand hit a monster-tank brand makes a story more understandable, right?

But in this case, the robber could have asked for Winstons or Camels or whatever. It really wouldn't have made any difference.

It's one thing if you were writing some sort of detailed narrative, where small observations mater in setting mood and color. This wasn't one of those cases. You were just writing a plain ol' daily news story.

Unless it was inside of a quote, I would have left out the brand name.

Robbery: Write With (AP) Style

Is it 11:00 p.m. or 11 p.m. or 11 pm or 11 o'clock?

It's 11 p.m., or maybe 11 o'clock. Under "times":

Use figures except for noon and midnight. Use a colon to separate hours from minutes: 11 a.m., 1 p.m., 3:30 p.m. . . . The construction 4 o'clock is acceptable, but time listings with a.m. or p.m. are preferred.

In the wake of this exercise,please be sure to review the AP Style listings for times.

Missing: Different Types of Lede/Nut Graf Combos

Most of you were direct and to the point in your ledes and then built upon that fact with a nut graf that helped answer questions created by the lede, like this:

In 2011 in Michigan alone, a total of 57,152 people were reported missing at one time or another, according to the U.S. Justice Department.


Among the people missing are crime victims, runaway adolescents, people with Alzheimer's disease, distant parents, people who have tried to run away from their debt and people who have run away with lovers.

And that was fine. The lede established the basic premise of the story in a simple and direct manner. And then the nut graf that helped answer questions created by the lede, like, "why do they disappear?"


Some of you tried to take things a step further by looking at the basic fact AND a telling subfact, like, "who is it that disappears?":


Troubled youths and runaways make up for three-fourths of the 57,152 missing people reported in Michigan last year, according to the U.S. Justice Department.


Out of Michigan's missing, 48,384 people were found with another 9,000 still missing. Police estimate that people missing involuntarily total no more than 100 in number.

Here, the nut graf expands on details by looking at how many of the 57,000 plus are still gone, and how many of those are gone against their will. It drills down into that 57,000-plus number a bit.

A few of you tried an anecdotal lede. This one had a lede that covered tw grafs offering a personal anecdote symbolic of the larger problem, and then the third (nut) graf hits on that broader problem in a tone that sounds like a traditional straight lede:

Sabrina, a 14-year-old East Lansing resident and former runaway juvenile, is just one of the thousands of Michigan residents who have been rediscovered after earlier being reported as missing.

When Sabrina's parents divorced, she skipped town and moved to New York t get away from an abusive stepfather. Sabrina was discovered two years after she was reported missing after New York City police picked her up for shoplifting and prostitution, said Sabrina, who spoke on the condition her last name not be used.

According to the U.S. Justice Department, of the 57,152 men, women and children reported missing in Michigan last year, nearly 9,000 remain missing. Three-fourths of Michigan's total missing persons last year were runaway juveniles.

Here's another ambitious anecdotal lede:

Fourteen-year-old Sabrina just needed to escape.

Escape from her parents' divorce.

Escape from her stepfather, who would get drunk and hit her mom.

Just escape.

Sabrina, who spoke on the condition her last name not be used, is among the 42,864 juveniles in Michigan who went missing last year, according to the U.S. Justice Department.

Now, there's one way I think I could enhance these ledes, and that's with a telling quote from Sabrina that would help humanize the voice and perspective. In teh case of an anecdotal lede, the best place for a telling quote is between the lede and nut graf, and not after the nut graf like in a more traditional approach.

Which lede/nut graf combos do you like, or hate? And why?

Missing: Uh, Well ...

Some of you used quotes where the interview subject stammered. Like here:

"So, uh, I met this guy who was moving to New York. He didn't want to take me, said I was too young, but I, uh, got him to change his mind."

You may find the information to be useful, but the "uh's" are awkward. You have options on how to handle this.

First, you can translate the quotes into paraphrases, like this:

She said she met a man who was moving to New York City who didn't want to take her because she was too young, but she convinced him to change his mind.

Or, you could use quote fragments to work around the "um's" like this:

She said she "met this guy who was moving to New York. He didn't want to take me, said I was too young," but she "got him to change his mind."

Having a poorly-constructed quote doesn't mean you have to use a poorly-constructed quote. Our goal is to provide clarity to the reader, and the best way to do that is via a quote so the reader can see the subject's actual words.

But in lieu of that, making sure the information is clear and concise will suffice, as long as it's contextually correct and factually accurate and properly attributed.

Missing: How Do You Know ...

... so many people went missing last year? Did you count them yourself? Did you just make it up?

No. You got that from the U.S. Justice Department, right?

Well, how are your readers supposed to know that? Through attribution, of course.

So, offer the data and then attach, according to the U.S. Justice Department.

How do you know Jason Abare was found after a drunk driving arrest to have skipped out on child support? Were you riding shotgun with him and saw the whole thing go down?

Of course not. You know because he told you. So, if you were paraphrasing Abare's situation, you needed to say, Abare said.Pretty much everything not witnessed by you should have some sort of attribution. He said; she said; according to records; whatever.

Make sure you have properly attributed everything in your story. Basically, every paragraph after the lede and nut graf should have some sort of attribution affixed to it.

I know that's gonna look a bit weird, having graf after graf with so-and-so said this and this other dude said that and so on. But we do it as journalists to make sure that readers know exactly where we got our information. It promotes transparency and illustrates the factual basis for a story.

Over the next few days, when you're doing your daily newspaper readings please note attribution. See how frequent it is. See how writers offer it. Get a sense of how it's supposed to look in a finished product.

Missing: Did You ...

. . . use Sabrina Diaz's last name?

Why? Didn't you promise her that you would not?

If you didn't use her last name, did you tell readers WHY you weren't?

In our "Elements of Journalism" lectures, we talked about being transparent with readers. Part of that transparency includes telling readers why we aren't fully identifying somebody.

You really needed a disclaimer like . . .

. . . said Sabrina, who spoke on the condition that her last name not be used.

Missing: Second References

In first references, we often use the full title of an organization, in caps: the U.S. Justice Department, Wayne State University, ect.

But in subsequent references -- after we established the group in the first reference -- we can use a generic version in lower case or an appropriate common acronym: the justice department, the department, WSU, the university, ect.

Missing: Writing With (AP) Style

Lots of AP Style clunkers with this assignment. Where do I begin?

On first reference, is it Sergeant Manuel Cortez, or Sgt. Manuel Cortez?

It's Sgt. I know, because I looked in AP Style, under military titles.

On second reference, is it Sgt. Cortez, or just Cortez?

It's the latter. Under the same:

In subsequent references, do not continue using the title before a name. Use only the last name.
Also, some of you referred to Jason Abare as Jason in second references. Is that okay under AP style rules? No. This is what it says under names:

In general, use last names only on second reference.

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.Now, there are situations where you have a number that would be very awkward to spell out. Like with very large numbers, like 48,384. I would suggest not using such a number at the start of a sentence. Or start such a sentence with attribution so the number conflict doesn't matter (e.g., "According to the U.S. Justice Department, 48,384 . . . ).
Some of you faced a dilemma here with whether to change 3 to 1 to three to one, if used inside of a quote. Here's the general rule of thumb:

If the quote was spoken to you in an oral interview, then it's perfectly okay to change words to adhere to AP style, since it doesn't change what was spoken. If you are quoting a document, then you need to replicate how the document actually readers, whether it conforms with AP Style or not.

In this instance, since you did not know if the quotes were spoken or written, I noted the AP style rule but did not dock you for it.

Now, when the girl was referring to "my Mom," should "mom" be lower-case or upper-case?

It's lower-case. AP Style, under mom:

Uppercase only when the noun substitutes for a name as a term of address: Hi, Mom!

Did anyone think to look under "mom"?

Moving on, was it U.S. Justice Department or U.S. Justice Dept.? Did it depend on whether it was a first reference or a second reference? What does it say in AP Style under department?

Finally, is it Alzheimers disease or Alzheimer's disease? Did anybody look in AP Style under Alzheimer's disease?

I would strongly suggest you review AP Style headings under titles and numerals and names and department. And Alzheimer's disease wouldn't hurt.

Neutral Experts: A Primer

Neutral experts are people who have a great deal of knowledge and/or expertise regarding the subject you're wring about, but importantly they don't have an interest in the outcome. It's someone who can offer analysis that helps readers decide which side of an issue is more credible. In a one-sided story, it helps readers evaluate whether the people you're writing about are on the up and up.

Think of it in terms of a game: you normally have one side and the other side, right? How you view the game depends on which side you're on. Unless you have a referee, that is. A neutral expert is sort of a referee, helping point on when one side is telling the truth and the other side is stretching it a bit -- or a lot.

Most news stories at least attempt to include at least one neutral expert. And many of your first out-of-class stories would have benefited from having a neutral expert included.

You can find a neutral expert about almost anything, no matter how obscure. Let's look at this example: during the run-up to the 2008 presidential election, a lot was made about how the Obamas would fist-bump each other. The New York Times Sunday Magazine even did a story about it.

Here's how the story started:

Is this the end of high-five?
On the night in June that Barack Obama clinched the Democratic nomination, he and his wife, Michelle, exchanged what was variously described as a “closed-fist high five,” a “fist pound,” a “knuckle buckle” and a “fist jab.” Jonathan Tilove in The New Orleans Times-Picayune called the gesture “the dap heard ’round the world,” which he felt encapsulated “the new cultural trajectory of American politics.”

Believe it or not, they found an expert on fist-bumping. And that expert is right here. Let's continue the story:

Prof. Geneva Smitherman, director of African-American language study at Michigan State University, says: “Pound is when knuckles touch in a horizontal position. That’s the gesture that Michelle and Barack used. Dap is when the knuckles touch in a vertical position. Both gestures can be used as a greeting, to signal respect, agreement, bonding.”

Dap started among black soldiers during the Vietnam War; to give “some dap” (not usually “a” dap) means “to offer kudos, congratulations”; Prof. James Peterson of Bucknell, a hip-hop historian, says he thinks it is rooted in dapper, “neat, fashionably smart.” Pound came out of hip-hop in the late 1980s. Fist bump came later: a 1996 note in the Sports Network wire service reported that Eddie Murray of the Baltimore Orioles was accepting congratulations from baseball teammates with “high-fives, handshakes or fist bumps.” Peterson says the new phrase robs the gesture of its cultural significance, which includes the Obamas’ “quiet but pronounced in-group affiliation with all of black America.”

Hand signals have a checkered history in politics, from Prime Minister Winston Churchill’s V-for-victory sign to the famed photo of Gov. Nelson Rockefeller “giving the finger” to hecklers to the clenched-fist salute of “black power” to Lyndon Johnson’s fondness for “pressing the flesh.”

When Michelle Obama visited Barbara Walters on “The View” on ABC, the candidate’s wife sought to soften her image with “I have to be greeted properly. Fist bump, please. It is now my signature bump. . . . I got it from the young staff. That’s the new high-five.”

Colleges are notorious for being loaded with neutral experts (think of all your profs doing research, and all the TA's working on their thesis papers!) So really, there's no excuse for you NOT to find a neutral expert, especially here or at other schools.

Like many other schools, MSU -- in hopes of getting free publicity -- even makes it easy to find experts. The MSU News Office's Web site has an experts list, which you can link to here: http://news.msu.edu/experts/Results/?

Just looking at the first page, these are just some of the topics for which MSU can find you a neutral expert: wind power, renewable energy, water preservation, breast cancer, breast cancer education, medical education, microfinance, filmmaking, documentary production, sensors and nano-bisensor devices for biodefense, health diagnostics and theraputics, child welfare, biblical references and history, Samartian population, meteorology and climatology, Isreali-Palestinian conflict, Israeli politics, society and culture, international relations, U.S. foreign policy, school funding, school choice, school district building projects, the effects of mass communications, health communications, communications campaigns, international relations, the Middle East, Muslim issues, the early formation of galaxies, tax and expenditure policies, state and local public finance, poverty and income distribution, campus sustainability, Internet governance, new wireless technologies, telecommunications regulation and policy, bone and tissue engineering, labor markets, chaos theory, alternative dispute resolution, primitive stars, galaxy formation, labor unions and collective bargaining, international and domestic labor policy, work and family policy, flexible scheduling policy, tropical diseases, malaria, AIDS/HIV . . .

. . . and those are just a FEW of the subject areas!

You can also search by typing in a topic here: http://news.msu.edu/experts/

I took some general topics and looked for experts. Like Google, sometimes you have to try the same general term in different ways (like if you're searching for an expert in campus safety, you try that term, then campus, then safety, then police, and so on).

Under "campus living" I found one expert. For "transportation" I found two. There were three each for "housing" and "discrimination" and "elections." I found four each for "police" and "campus" and "drug." For "safety" I found 14! And "health" produced 35!

And you can filter by these general topic areas: agriculture and environment; arts and humanities; athletics; board and administration; business, economy, law and communications; education; family and social issues; health, medicine and veterinary medicine; international; science and technology; staff and faculty; students and campus life; tuition, costs and enrollment.
Plus, there's always Google, right? And other schools as well. And think tanks. And private research institutions.
Wherever you find a good one, it's critical that you do. Journalism isn't about just getting both sides of the story. Getting one side and the other side and nothing else is just enabling a fight.

We're about trying to arrive at a verifiable version of the truth based on facts and checking out what people have to say, right? That's the role a neutral expert helps accomplish.

To paraphrase legendary baseball announcer and willful drunk Harry Caray -- and this might be the only smart thing he ever said in his life, God rest his soul -- there are three sides to every story: your side, my side, and the truth.

We need to get more than two out of three. We need all of 'em. For the first out-of-class story, I'd like you to try real hard to find a neutral expert or two. And for the rest of the out-of-class stories, each will REQUIRE your citing of at least one neutral expert!

So go find some neutral experts!

Neutral Experts: 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.