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.
Monday, October 8, 2012
Robbery: The Mystery Of The Missing Nut Grafs
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:
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:
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.)
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: A Decent Example ...
... of what a properly-sourced story with a good lede looked like, via one of youze.
It lacks a true nut graf -- which would have more conclusively detailed end result, including Layoux's eventual firing -- but the grafs right after the lede sufficiently answer questions created by the lede, such as who was the clerk and who was the robber and where it happened.
And the story also lacks offering a specific address and time the robbery took place.
Still, it is a very strong lede that goes to a minimal end result and ultimate outcome -- what happened at the robbery -- and very good story flow, use of quotes and proper source attribution.
It's a decent example to look at and consider against your own work. Here we go:
Michael Ernest Layoux, a 22-year-old Lansing Community College student, was working the night shift at O-Mart as a clerk when a man pulled a gun on him, Layoux said.
It lacks a true nut graf -- which would have more conclusively detailed end result, including Layoux's eventual firing -- but the grafs right after the lede sufficiently answer questions created by the lede, such as who was the clerk and who was the robber and where it happened.
And the story also lacks offering a specific address and time the robbery took place.
Still, it is a very strong lede that goes to a minimal end result and ultimate outcome -- what happened at the robbery -- and very good story flow, use of quotes and proper source attribution.
It's a decent example to look at and consider against your own work. Here we go:
An attempted robbery of a
convenience store on East Forest Boulevard ended with bloodshed last night
after the clerk shot the attempted robber, according to the clerk and Meridian
Township Police.
Michael Ernest Layoux, a 22-year-old Lansing Community College student, was working the night shift at O-Mart as a clerk when a man pulled a gun on him, Layoux said.
Layoux said the robber – identified
by police as Robert A. Wiess of 2032 Turf Way – asked for a
pack of cigarettes and then showed Layoux his gun.
pack of cigarettes and then showed Layoux his gun.
Wiess kept his gun near his hip so
no one outside the store could see what he was holding, Layoux said.
The robber received only the money
that was in the register, which was around $20, Layoux said.
Violating a company policy, Layoux said
he kept a gun on him at work, waited for an opportune moment and then shot the
robber with his .25 caliber pistol.
“I shot him three times in the
chest and side, but I didn’t know right away that I hit him,” Layoux said. “He
just ran through the front door. He didn’t even open it. He ran right through
the glass.”
Police said Wiess’ body was found
in a field near the O-Mart.
Ingham County District Attorney
Ramone Hernandez said that he believes Layoux acted in self-defense and Layoux
won’t be facing any charges.
Layoux did face a penalty for his
actions, however.
Layoux said he received a phone
call from his district manager this morning, who fired Layoux because it’s
against company policy to carry a gun in the store.
Layoux said that convenience stores
in Haslett that are opened 24 hours are dangerous, which is why he decided to
bring a gun to work.
“We’re open 24 hours, and the store
has a history of holdups, particularly at night when there aren’t any customers
in the store,” Layoux said.
Layoux said that he had been
attending classes during the day and working at night to pay for school at LCC.
O-Mart officials declined to
comment on the incident.
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.
Others had a day, but not time. Still others had a time, but no day.
Don't overlook the obvious, folks!
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.
Others had a day, but not time. Still others had a time, but no day.
Don't overlook the obvious, folks!
Robbery: Who, What, WHERE, When, Why
Did you need to cite the store's specific 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'.
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
A few of you never named the robber. Why in earth wouldn't you?
I mean, the name is central to the story: WHO robbed the store. WHO was shot dead. Right?
Don't forget to include all the five W's (who, what, when, where, why) and the one H that accompanies it (how).
Others failed to name the robber until very late in the story, after generically referring to a gunman repeatedly in the story. Ideally, you'd want to ID the robber no later than the nut graf -- since WHO did the robbing and WHO was killed was a very major W among the 5 W's -- and go from there.
Just like you didn't wait to identify Layoux by name, don't wait to ID people who are considered central to the story. A person killed whose actions triggered everything else that happened -- Layoux having to use his gun, Layoux losing his job as a result -- isn't a bit player whose name can wait until later, like the district attorney or a cop who showed up after everything was over.
I mean, the name is central to the story: WHO robbed the store. WHO was shot dead. Right?
Don't forget to include all the five W's (who, what, when, where, why) and the one H that accompanies it (how).
Others failed to name the robber until very late in the story, after generically referring to a gunman repeatedly in the story. Ideally, you'd want to ID the robber no later than the nut graf -- since WHO did the robbing and WHO was killed was a very major W among the 5 W's -- and go from there.
Just like you didn't wait to identify Layoux by name, don't wait to ID people who are considered central to the story. A person killed whose actions triggered everything else that happened -- Layoux having to use his gun, Layoux losing his job as a result -- isn't a bit player whose name can wait until later, like the district attorney or a cop who showed up after everything was over.
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.
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: 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.
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?
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.
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/Murder: 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.
Now, does the general AP Style number rule of spelling out numbers under 10 and using numerals for 10 and over count when talking about the time of day??
Actually, no. Here is what it says in AP Style under times:
Use figures except for noon and midnight.
So 9 a.m. is 9 a.m., not nine a.m.
Also, is it 5-feet-10-inch or 5'10 or five foot ten or 5 feet 10 inches?
It's the first one or the last one. AP Style, under dimensions:
Use figures and spell out inches, feet, yards, ect, to indicate depth, height, length and width. Hyphenate adjectival forms before nouns.
EXAMPLES: He is 5 feet 6 inches tall, the 5-foot-6-inch man, the 5-foot man, the basketball team signed a 7-footer.
Use an apostrophe to indicate feet and quote marks to indicate inches (5'6") only in very technical contexts.
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.
Now, does the general AP Style number rule of spelling out numbers under 10 and using numerals for 10 and over count when talking about the time of day??
Actually, no. Here is what it says in AP Style under times:
Use figures except for noon and midnight.
So 9 a.m. is 9 a.m., not nine a.m.
Also, is it 5-feet-10-inch or 5'10 or five foot ten or 5 feet 10 inches?
It's the first one or the last one. AP Style, under dimensions:
Use figures and spell out inches, feet, yards, ect, to indicate depth, height, length and width. Hyphenate adjectival forms before nouns.
EXAMPLES: He is 5 feet 6 inches tall, the 5-foot-6-inch man, the 5-foot man, the basketball team signed a 7-footer.
Use an apostrophe to indicate feet and quote marks to indicate inches (5'6") only in very technical contexts.
Out-of-Class #1: Neutral Experts
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.”
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. And from here on out, each out-of-class story will REQUIRE your citing of at least one neutral expert!
So go find some neutral experts!
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. And from here on out, each out-of-class story will REQUIRE your citing of at least one neutral expert!
So go find some neutral experts!
Out-of-Class #1: Imagine If ...
. . . if this story didn't have a neutral expert. Or two. Here's a link, and here's the text:
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.
O'Donnell questions separation of church, state
WILMINGTON, Del. – Republican Senate nominee Christine O'Donnell of Delaware on Tuesday questioned whether the U.S. Constitution calls for a separation of church and state, appearing to disagree or not know that the First Amendment bars the government from establishing religion.The exchange came in a debate before an audience of legal scholars and law students at Widener University Law School, as O'Donnell criticized Democratic nominee Chris Coons' position that teaching creationism in public school would violate the First Amendment by promoting religious doctrine.
Coons said private and parochial schools are free to teach creationism but that "religious doctrine doesn't belong in our public schools."
"Where in the Constitution is the separation of church and state?" O'Donnell asked him.
When Coons responded that the First Amendment bars Congress from making laws respecting the establishment of religion, O'Donnell asked: "You're telling me that's in the First Amendment?"
Her comments, in a debate aired on radio station WDEL, generated a buzz in the audience.
"You actually audibly heard the crowd gasp," Widener University political scientist Wesley Leckrone said after the debate, adding that it raised questions about O'Donnell's grasp of the Constitution.
Erin Daly, a Widener professor who specializes in constitutional law, said that while there are questions about what counts as government promotion of religion, there is little debate over whether the First Amendment prohibits the federal government from making laws establishing religion.
"She seemed genuinely surprised that the principle of separation of church and state derives from the First Amendment, and I think to many of us in the law school that was a surprise," Daly said. "It's one thing to not know the 17th Amendment or some of the others, but most Americans do know the basics of the First Amendment."
O'Donnell didn't respond to reporters who asked her to clarify her views after the debate.
During the exchange, she said Coons' views on creationism showed that he believes in big-government mandates.
"Talk about imposing your beliefs on the local schools," she said. "You've just proved how little you know not just about constitutional law but about the theory of evolution."
Coons said her comments show a "fundamental misunderstanding" of the Constitution.
The debate, their third in the past week, was more testy than earlier ones.
O'Donnell began by defending herself for not being able to name a recent Supreme Court decision with which she disagrees at a debate last week. She said she was stumped because she largely agrees with the court's recent decisions under conservative chief justices John Roberts and William Rehnquist.
"I would say this court is on the right track," she said.
The two candidates repeatedly talked over each other, with O'Donnell accusing Coons of caving at one point when he asked the moderator to move on to a new question after a lengthy argument.
"I guess he can't handle it," she said.
O'Donnell, a tea party favorite who stunned the state by winning the GOP primary last month in her third Senate bid in five years, called Coons a liberal "addicted to a culture of waste, fraud and abuse."
Coons, who has held a double-digit lead in recent polls, urged voters to support him as the candidate of substance, with a track record over six years as executive of the state's most populous county. He said O'Donnell's only experience is in "sharpening the partisan divide but not at bridging it."
Copyright © 2010 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
Out of Class #1: The Rewrite
There is something I forgot to tell you because I am an idiot. And it is this:
If you do a rewrite, your rewrite grade WILL BE NO LOWER THAN YOUR ORIGINAL GRADE.
That's right. Do a rewrite and even if it's worse than your original work, your grade will be no worse than what you had in the first place.
Even if you ADD a fatal in your rewrite that wasn't in your original work, your grade won't be any worse off.
Now, that doesn't mean I won't note whether your rewrite is better or worse than the original, or includes a fatal that your original did not have. It's just that you won't pay a penalty for trying to improve your work.
So, you literally have nothing to lose and everything to gain by doing a rewrite.
If you do a rewrite, your rewrite grade WILL BE NO LOWER THAN YOUR ORIGINAL GRADE.
That's right. Do a rewrite and even if it's worse than your original work, your grade will be no worse than what you had in the first place.
Even if you ADD a fatal in your rewrite that wasn't in your original work, your grade won't be any worse off.
Now, that doesn't mean I won't note whether your rewrite is better or worse than the original, or includes a fatal that your original did not have. It's just that you won't pay a penalty for trying to improve your work.
So, you literally have nothing to lose and everything to gain by doing a rewrite.
Wednesday, October 3, 2012
Attribution Quiz: Overall ...
... pretty good job on this one. Great scores for the most part. Then again, it was open-book and take-home, so I'm sure
that helped.
Your grade was based on each question being worth three points: one each for proper attribution, correct punctuation and proper use of journalistic style.
Please read the following blog posts for details regarding some of the more common errors.
Your grade was based on each question being worth three points: one each for proper attribution, correct punctuation and proper use of journalistic style.
Please read the following blog posts for details regarding some of the more common errors.
Attribution: Quoes Within A Quote
When you have a quote, you use the traditional quotation symbols (" and ") to signify the quote itself.
But what if you have a quote within a quote? That is a quote where the subject is also quoting someone else?
For the quote within a quote, you use single quotation marks (' and ').
This is what it looks like, in actual use:
"My dad told me, 'Americans suffer under the illusion that everything can be cured by passing a new law.' My dad with right, of course. Most things can't be solved by a new law," Karpov said.
See? So remember, a quote gets the traditional double quotation marks; a quote within a quote is offset with single quotation marks.
But what if you have a quote within a quote? That is a quote where the subject is also quoting someone else?
For the quote within a quote, you use single quotation marks (' and ').
This is what it looks like, in actual use:
"My dad told me, 'Americans suffer under the illusion that everything can be cured by passing a new law.' My dad with right, of course. Most things can't be solved by a new law," Karpov said.
See? So remember, a quote gets the traditional double quotation marks; a quote within a quote is offset with single quotation marks.
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.
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.
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.
Plus, 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.
"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.
Plus, 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.
Missing: Overall
Generally nice work on this assignment. Most people scored in the 3.0 range and up. And no fatals! Keep up your fact-checking habits.
And let's make sure we're giving ourselves a cushion in meeting deadlines. One person came within just 82 seconds of missing their deadline, according to the time stamp on the email.
(Please keep in mind; the official time is the time at which I receive it, according to the email time stamp. It's not necessarily the time you sent it. So, the closer you send to the deadline, the more likely it is to miss being received in time)
And a missed deadline -- even if it's just one second late -- is an automatic fatal.
Again, that's not to be a dick. Rather, in journalism we always have to meet our deadlines, since our news products are deadline-based. Ever see the 11 p.m. news start out with "Hey, our scripts aren't ready; tune back in a minute or two"?
Me neither. That's because we get into good habits that allow us to NEVER, EVER miss a deadline, or even send something right at deadline (because an anchor can't read a script starting at exactly 11 p.m. if it's also sent at exactly 11 p.m.).
Our jobs simply don't allow it.
I never received stories from two people. That's an automatic 0.0. And again, in journalism it's totally unacceptable.
Even if you turn in the worst piece of crap ever, as long as it makes deadline and has no fact errors it's far more preferable than filing nothing.
Two reasons for that: first, an editor can work with a piece of crap and massage it to life, but an editor can't work with nothing.
Second, regardless of how bad a story may be, a story on a newsworthy topic must be filed and shared with the audience. If there's a football game, the audience is going to expect a football game story after the game, period. You don't have a choice of not offering one.
And the page in the newspaper and the air time on the news show have to be filled. You can't just run a blank space or dead air.
Not turning something in at all is the quickest way to lose your job in this biz. That's why I'm strict on this rule in this class, to reinforce the point while the stakes are fairly low (an assignment grade) as opposed to you learning it when the stakes are high (your job and career).
Let's get this right every time, folks.
And let's make sure we're giving ourselves a cushion in meeting deadlines. One person came within just 82 seconds of missing their deadline, according to the time stamp on the email.
(Please keep in mind; the official time is the time at which I receive it, according to the email time stamp. It's not necessarily the time you sent it. So, the closer you send to the deadline, the more likely it is to miss being received in time)
And a missed deadline -- even if it's just one second late -- is an automatic fatal.
Again, that's not to be a dick. Rather, in journalism we always have to meet our deadlines, since our news products are deadline-based. Ever see the 11 p.m. news start out with "Hey, our scripts aren't ready; tune back in a minute or two"?
Me neither. That's because we get into good habits that allow us to NEVER, EVER miss a deadline, or even send something right at deadline (because an anchor can't read a script starting at exactly 11 p.m. if it's also sent at exactly 11 p.m.).
Our jobs simply don't allow it.
I never received stories from two people. That's an automatic 0.0. And again, in journalism it's totally unacceptable.
Even if you turn in the worst piece of crap ever, as long as it makes deadline and has no fact errors it's far more preferable than filing nothing.
Two reasons for that: first, an editor can work with a piece of crap and massage it to life, but an editor can't work with nothing.
Second, regardless of how bad a story may be, a story on a newsworthy topic must be filed and shared with the audience. If there's a football game, the audience is going to expect a football game story after the game, period. You don't have a choice of not offering one.
And the page in the newspaper and the air time on the news show have to be filled. You can't just run a blank space or dead air.
Not turning something in at all is the quickest way to lose your job in this biz. That's why I'm strict on this rule in this class, to reinforce the point while the stakes are fairly low (an assignment grade) as opposed to you learning it when the stakes are high (your job and career).
Let's get this right every time, folks.
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 the 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?
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 the 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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)