More Ledes: What Does My Grade Mean?

Overall, nice work on the graded ledes exercise. Plus, for the first time you're getting very specific evaluations in numerical form. That's called a grade.

From the syllabus, here's a roundup of what the funny numbers cited in your returned work means:

4.0: Story could be published virtually as is. It shows superior command of the facts, news judgment, story organization, reporting and writing.

3.5: Could be published with very minor revisions. Generally well-written, accurate copy containing all relevant material, but requires minor editing for maximum precision and clarity.

3.0: Better-than-average story. The story was handled well. Copy needs some rewriting and polishing before it could be published.

2.5: A little above average. The story might have a significant problem with reporting, organization, completeness, ect. Certainly needs rewriting.

2.0: Average job. Not a story most readers would read unless they really needed the information. The story may have reporting, organization or writing problems.

1.5: A weak story. The story may have a buried lede, problems in news interpretation, problems in story organization, omission of some important fact or source. The story needs substantial revision.

1.0: A non-story. The story lacks news judgment, displays major flaws in reporting and writing, omits important facts. The story needs substantial rethinking. Also, a story with any fact error automatically gets this grade.

0.0: Story is late or failed to receive instructor's approval. Story is misleading or unethical. Organization of writing flaws make the story incoherent.

More Ledes: Ledes I Liked

Everyone did at least fine on this assignment, some by sticking to basic ledes, and others by trying alternative ledes.

Here's some basic ones:

The East Lansing Police Department will charge arrested persons $25 for mug shots and fingerprints to offset expenses, city officials announced today.

 ... and ...

 Scott Forsythe, 22, was killed this morning in a car accident on Kirkmann Road, just 15 minutes before he was to be married.

... and ...  

A group of Michigan State scientists have come up with a possible plan to transplant African wildlife in danger of extinction to the Great Plains of North America.

... and ...

 A six-month-old girl was left unharmed in her parents’ sport-utility vehicle after it was carjacked by an armed robber at the Quik Shoppe convenience store Wednesday.

Next up, let's look at some alternate ledes. Off we go:

Arrested? Prepare for a mug shot, fingerprints, and a $25 service charge.

It's basic and to-the-point, yet still a bit creative in terms of the question lede. It makes it sound a bit more conversational. So did this one:

In an attempt to cure East Lansing's financial troubles, committing a crime now costs offenders more than the humiliation of an arrest.


These next two one looked at the topic from a similarly-practical angle; what you may see as a result of the news:

Lions, elephants and giraffes may soon be found roaming a lot closer to home, as ecologists and biologists want to transplant African wildlife to the Great Plains of North America.

... and ...

While driving across the Great Plains of North America, how would you feel about looking out the car window and seeing giraffes, lions and elephants?

Here, someone took a secondary angle and highlighted it; the angle being, what would the move mean to those affected?

A new idea from Michigan State University scientists has Jim Smithson, a rancher in North Dakota, worried that his cows may be slaughtered by a possible new threat: lions.

This next one had a bit of fun with word play: 

A wild idea proposed for a transplant of African wildlife to the Great Plains of North America by Michigan State University scientists is stirring up controversy across the country. 

These next two went straight to context:

What could have been the happiest day of Scott Forsythe's life turned fatal after he was killed in a car accident driving 100 mph on the way to his own wedding.

... and ...

Just 15 minutes before 22-year-old Scott Forsythe was scheduled to say "I do," a decision to save a dog's life took his own.

... and ...

      Scott Forsythe was to be wed at 9 a.m.

At 8:45 a.m., half a mile from the church where his bride-to-be waited at the altar, Forsythe crashed into two trees and a fence at 100 mph.

Now, instead of a honeymoon, his bride will attend a funeral.

This next one very nicely went to end result and ultimate outcome: 


A 6-month-old girl was left unharmed in her parents’ sport-utility vehicle after it was carjacked by an armed robber at the Quik Shoppe convenience store Wednesday.
 

I liked these next two, too, that were centered on context:

Could you imagine a routine gas station visit turning into a search for your missing 6-month old baby? For Ethel Perakiss on Wednesday afternoon, this was a reality.
 ...and ...
    

                   When Ethel Perakiss’ car pulled up to the Quik Shoppe convenience store Wednesday afternoon, her six-month-old daughter was in the back seat. 

When the car pulled away from the store, her baby was still in the back, but a stranger with stolen money and a handgun was at the wheel.

This next one bridged the basic facts AND context:

A Michigan Avenue Quick Shoppe robber fled the scene Wednesday with money, a stolen car, and to his surprise, a baby.

Now, which ones do you like, and why? Which ones don't you like, and how come?

More Ledes: A Decent Foursome

1.     A wedding day turned to tragedy when Sara Howard’s fiancée  Scott

Forsythe was killed in a car accident today on Kirkmann Road after he swerved to avoid a dog. 

2.     A night in jail not only includes an embarrassing photo and inked-stained fingers, but also now costs the person who was arrested $25 for this service, according to East Lansing city officials. 

1.   A group of ecologists and biologists at Michigan State University and other schools want to transplant African wildlife to the Great Plains of North America in order to preserve them from extinction. 

2. The robbery of a Quik Shoppe convenience store turned into the search for 6-month-old Megan Perakiss when the thief carjacked a vehicle with the baby still inside Wednesday.

More Ledes: Four More

A 22-year-old man was on his way to starting a new life, but instead he lost his own.

            Scott Forsythe died this morning in a car accident just 15 minutes before his wedding as a result from veering to avoid hitting a dog, witnesses said.

2.         Every person arrested must pay a $25 fee to cover city expenses during a financial crisis, East Lansing city officials announced today.

1.         Lions, giraffes, and elephants – oh my!

            While driving through the Great Plains of North America in the future, one might expect to see African wildlife out their window. A group of scientists in East Lansing believe that relocating African wildlife to America will increase their population numbers for future growth.

2.         Six-month-old girl Megan Perakiss arrived with her mother, but left with her hijacker.

More Ledes: The Peanut Barrel Rule

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

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

Technically, it's correct. But let's consider something I call the Peanut Barrel rule.

Here it is: Let's say you work at The State News, and one night you wrote this story for The State News and then headed down to the Peanut Barrel to meet friends who DON'T work at The State News and who don't particularly give a crap about journalism for a legal drink or two afterward.

So, you're there with your non-journo pals and then they asked you what you wrote about today. What would you say? More importantly, what would be first to come out of your mouth?

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

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

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

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

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

Obviously, you need to clean it up a bit for print. But the basics would remain the same: A 22-year-old man speeding at 100 mph crashed his car and died, just 10 minutes before his wedding was to begin. 

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

More Ledes: Fatals

PROBLEM: In one lede, we said the carjacked vehicle was a Ford Focus. In fact, the vehicle was a Ford Explorer.

SOLUTION: Before writing, carefully go over the information to make sure you understand all the facts as they are. After writing, double-check against your notes every noun (person, place or thing), identifying labels (like addresses, titles and such), numbers, dates and the entirety of all quotes to make sure what you wrote was what you intended to write.

More Ledes: Too Much Snark ...

... here?

Instead of meeting his future wife, Scott Forsythe met an early grave this morning in a car accident less then a mile from the church where he was originally to be wed.

Irony is context, but there's also appropriateness. Is it wise to be snarky when it's a story involving someone's death?

It's clever, but I'm not sure it's the right time to do this. 

More Ledes: Say What You Mean; Mean What You Say, Part 1

What is wrong with this lede?

To save the life of a dog, 22-year-old Scott Forsythe lost his life in a car crash just 15 minutes before his wedding this morning.

If you read this lede literally, it's this: you're saying this man died 15 minutes before his wedding. You're suggesting his wedding took place (all "Weekend at Bernie's"-style, perhaps).

But that's not what you meant. What you meant was, he died 15 minutes before his wedding was to take place this morning.

If that's what you meant, then that's what you should have written.

Make sure you say what you mean, and mean what you say. Don't leave room for any misinterpretations. Be precise.

More Ledes: Say What You Mean, Mean What You Say, Part 2

Let's look at this lede: 

A $25 mug shot and fingerprint fee will now be charged to those arrested in East Lansing to aid financial crisis, according to city officials.

Um, the fee is aiding the crisis?

I think what we meant to say was the fee would aid city finances, or battle the financial crisis. But what we said is it would aid the crisis. It would help make things worse.

Let's be sure we say what we mean to say. 

More Ledes: The 5 W's

You may have heard of the 5 W's -- who, what, when, where, why and a non-w: how -- that are central to good journalism. It's important that we identify the most critical of those W's, and include them in our ledes. 

Let's look at one lede: 

Scott Forsythe, 22, was killed en route on his way to his wedding. Forsythe lost control of his car trying to avoid a dog that walked in the middle of the street.  

Now, let's identify the W's 

Who = Scott Forsythe, 22
What = he died while on his way to the wedding
Why = lost control of his car trying to avoid a dog
Where = the middle of the street, but we don't say which one
When = ????
How = see what, why 
 
So, we're missing two of the W's (one is totally off the radar, and the other is unclear). When was critical, at least in its most basic form, such as saying, today. (You could include a specific time later in the story). News is something new, so the date would indicate the newness. 

Where is also pretty important. Something that happens near where I live and work is probably a bigger deal than something faraway. So an approximate placement (e.g., along Kirkmann Road) would help, as opposed to just saying the middle of the street, which can be anywhere. 

Let's add those in the lede (and merge the sentences into one): 

Scott Forsythe, 22, was killed en route to his wedding today after losing control of his car trying to avoid a dog that walked in the middle of Kirkmann Road. 

Now, our bases are covered. And still at 30 words, and one sentence!

More Ledes: Be Specific

Here's the lede:

A convenience store robbery Wednesday afternoon sent city police on a massive hunt for the armed robber in a stolen vehicle — and the 6-month-old still in the backseat.

Here's the problem: in the back seat was a 6-month-old what?

A dog? A sandwich? A gallon of milk?

It's a girl. We know that. But your readers don't, at least not yet.

When a reader approaches a lede,  we need to remember that they know absolutely nothing about the story they are about to be told. That's why people come to news organizations; to find out what theydon't know.

So, we can't assume that the reader knows anything. We have to be on-point and clear. We can't just say a 6-month-old; we need to say it was a 6-month-old girl.

More Ledes: Did You Need The Name?

In your ledes, some of you referred to the car accident victim specifically -- Scott Forsythe -- while others referred to him in the generic -- 22-year-old local man, or something to that effect.

While neither is wrong, I'd say the latter is the best approach. You have no reason to believe Forsythe is someone that would be known by name to your readers. In such cases, the generic identifier would suffice in a first reference, and you can offer the specific name as a secondary detail later in the story.

(Remember, in a real situation you would have the rest of the story to fill in specific details and secondary information!)

Now, if the victim was Oprah Winfrey, the name would be a good bet for the lede, 

More Ledes: Consider Inclusive Words

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

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

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

More Ledes: Grammatical Articles

A reminder: don't forget to use grammatical articles in sentences, like a, and, and the. Make sure your sentences are complete sentences. If you're not sure, read your sentences out loud. If you sound like a robot -- police kill man in house -- then you probably need to add some articles like this -- police killed a man in a house. 

More Ledes: Writing With (AP) Style

In this assignment you weren't asked to write conforming to AP style. And on this one I won't grade you on that basis. Still, we're going to use this opportunity to start picking up some of the more common AP style points.

Like with how to refer to money. Is it $25 with the dollar symbol ahead of the amount or 25 dollars, with dollars spelled out?

It's the former. This is what I pulled from the AP Stylebook, under dollars: "Use figures and the $ sign in all except casual references or amounts without a figure."Number usage has its own specific style under AP rules. 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, by spelling out a number like this?

Twenty-two . . . 

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

Spell out a numeral at the beginning of a sentence.

Also, Is it 6 month-old with a hyphen between month and old or 6-month-old with hyphens between everything or 6 month old with no hyphens at all? AP Style underages: Use hyphens for ages expressed as adjectives before a noun or as substitutes for a noun.

So it's 6-month-old, with hyphens between the 6 and month, and between month and old.

Also, please note it is NOT six-month-old girl with six spelled out,; rather, the six is in numeric form, like this: 6-month-old girl.

It's another exception to the general AP number rule. In AP Style under ages:

Always use figures.

Moving on, let's talk about names. On first reference, you use a first and last name: Megan Perakiss. But what do you do on a second and subsequent references?

Here is AP Style, under names:

In general, use only last names on second reference.

But what if there is more than one person with the same last name? AP Style has that covered, too. Also under names:

When it is necessary to distinguish between two people who use the same last name, as in married couples or brothers and sisters, use the first and last name.

So in the case of any member of the Perakiss family -- who has the same last name -- it would be first and last names in all references, if more than one Perakiss is referred to in the story. If there's only one Perakiss in the story, it would simply be Perakiss in all references after the first.

Either way, try not to use just a first name on any reference.

FYI, this may be a good time to start an AP Style cheat sheet, where you write down and keep track of some of the more common AP Style rules cited in blog posts. There's also another way to have a quick-look AP Style cheat sheet: simply click on "ap style" under "labels" at the bottom of this blog, and EVERY AP STYLE POST WE'VE DONE SOFAR will appear!

RFTM Ch. 11: Quotations and Attribution

What do quotations do? They add color, interest and personality; they allow for a voice other than that of the writer; and they offer evidence of what the writer is concluding.

There are three types of quotations. The first is known as a direct quotation.That is a source's exact words, set inside quotation marks. For example:

Tom Izzo tells Omar Sofradzija, "You are a God-awful teacher." So, a direct quote of this would be, "You are a God-awful teacher," Tom Izzo said. Please note what is being said is EXACTLY what the speaker said, and the saying is entirely inside of quotation marks.


The second is an indirect quotation, also known as a paraphrase. This is when  the writer summarizes or paraphrases a source's words. A paraphrase is NOT placed inside of quotation marks. For example:

Tom Izzo tells Omar Sofradzija, "You are a God-awful teacher." So, an indirect quotation/paraphrase could be, Tom Izzo was critical of Omar Sofradzija's teaching skills. Please note that the sentence is a summary based on the quote, and no quotation marks are used at all.

The third is a partial quotation. This is when we select key phrases from a source's own words, setting just those phrases in quotation marks. For example:

Tom Izzo tells Omar Sofradzija, "You are a God-awful teacher," So, a partial quote could be, Tom Izzo described Omar Sofradzija's skills as "God-awful."Please note that the portion being used inside of quotation marks is EXACTLY what the speaker said, and is a portion that is critical in highlighting context and meaning.

When do we use quotations? To let a source essentially talk directly to a reader (it's not just the writer asking readers to take his or her word for it; he or she is sharing with the audience what was said directly from the source); when the writer can't improve upon the quotation or match its color, rythym, wit or emotion; to tie a controversial opinion or happening to a source; as evidence for the statement; and/or to reveal the speaker's character.

When do you use direct quotes? When such a quote illustrates a key point. The quote shouldn't necessarily tell the whole story.Often, we will summarize a major point, and then follow that summarization with a key quote to explain the idea or provide more specific detail.

For example:

Tom Izzo was promoted to MSU president Tuesday, and his first course of action was to fire journalism instructor Omar Sofradzija.

"You are a God-awful teacher," Izzo told Sofradzija.

See how the first graf sets up the second; the second underlines and supports the main point of the first, and the two grafs support each other?

When do you use indirect quotations? If a direct quote is weak, boring or confusing; when sources fail to state their ideas effectively or coherently, or when a source states the obvious.

For example, let's imagine the Izzo quote we've been using actually was "Omar, you know, uh, you're God-awful at teaching and stuff." Obviously, not a great quote to use, with all the "uh" and "you know" and what-not. So, perhaps you offer a summary that's true to the facts of the quote, like,  Izzo was highly critical of Sofradzija's teaching skills. No quote marks needed, intent expressed accurately but grammar cleaned up for clarity.

When do we use partial quotations? One could be used in the aforementioned situation by stripping a key, telling word or phrase from a shoddy or long quote, like this: Izzo described Sofradzija's teaching ability as "God-awful." We should use these very sparingly. Partial quotes can be awkward, wordy or unnecessary; they can be misleading or libelous if the partial quote changes meaning and context; and it leaves the audience suspicious of what you cut out.

Do you change quotations, to do things like correct grammatical errors? No. Never. NEVER EVER EVER. If it's inside of quotation marks, it should be EXACTLY what the person said. If Izzo said "I'm gonna fire you!" then it should be "gonna," not "going to." If the poor grammar bothers you that much or if you think it would be confusing to the audience, then consider a paraphrase or partial quote.

What is attribution? Attribution is labeling for your readers the person that was the source of information. For example, if we have a quote like, "I'm gonna fire you!" Tom Izzo said, the Tom Izzo said part of that is the attribution.

Attribution allows writers to rely on the expertise of their sources; for example, if you're writing a story about a house fire, attributing information to firefighters and witnesses and home occupants increases your credibility, because it's clear to readers that your information is coming from people who are very relevant to the fire. It builds credibility with readers.

It also allows readers to know and vet the reliability of your sources. (If you're doing a story about Tom Izzo quitting as basketball coach and statements are attributed to Tom Izzo, readers know it's solid. If it's attributed to his wife or assistant coaches, readers know it's from people who are in a position to know. If it's attributed to an eighth-grader living in Ann Arbor, not so much. If it's attributed to no one, who knows, then?)

What kinds of statements require attribution? For example:

Information you get from other people, such as from personal interviews: "I love donuts," Tom Izzo said.

Information you get from documents: Tom Izzo eats 150 donuts a day, according to medical records.

Information that was not offered to you first-hand, such as reports from other media: Tom Izzo was rejected as a Weight Watchers spokesman because of his donut-eating habits, according to CNN.

Information gathered online from Web sites: Tom Izzo has ballooned up to 400 pounds, according to ESPN.com. He is eating 150 donuts a day, Izzo said via his Twitter account.

Statements about controversial issues. Be sure to use quotes to make clear key story points: Izzo said donuts are healthy, contradicting scientific research. "If donuts were bad for you, they wouldn't taste so good," he said.

Statements of opinion. As neutral journalists, we need to be clear we're not offering an opinion; the people we're reporting on are: "Donuts are the greatest thing ever brought to earth by the little baby Jesus, which I prefer over the bearded older Jesus,"Tom Izzo said.

All direct and indirect quotations. We need to make sure readers know who is saying what, every time. 

Pretty much every paragraph after the lede and nut graf. The lede and nut graf are usually a summary of things from various sources, but after that point we need to be specific on bits of info. We'll get into how to do this a bit more when we move on to how to structure a story in the very near future.

What kinds of statements do NOT require attribution? Very few, actually. For example:

Undisputed facts. Like, the sun rises in the East every morning.

Things the reporter witnessed. If you're covering a football game, you don't need to say, MSU beat Notre Dame, 104-0, the scoreboard said. You were presumably watching the game from the press box; you could simply say, MSU beat Notre Dame 104-0, and leave it at that.

Guidelines for the placement and frequency of attribution: Attribution can be at the beginning or the end of a sentence (for example, Izzo said Michigan sucks, or Michigan sucks, Izzo said.)

But it should not interrupt a sentence or thought (for example, don't say, The University of Michigan sucks, Izzo said, because they are wimps, with the attribution at mid-sentence. Instead, put the attribution at the start or end of the sentence, like this: Izzo said the University of Michigan sucks because they are wimps, or The University of Michigan sucks because they are wimps, Izzo said.)

Attribution should be placed at the start of any paragraph where there is a change in speaker, to avoid confusion on the part of the reader as to who is saying what.

So, let's say you had a paragraph where you were attributing things to Omar Sofradzija, followed by a graf where you're attributing Tom Izzo. That Izzo graf should begin with, Tom Izzo said, since there is a change in speaker from Omar to Izzo.

Word choice in attributing statements: you cannot say said enough. It cannot be overused. I know in English comp you're taught to mix it up; someone said, thenexclaimed, then stated, and whatever.

In journalistic writing, we strive for simplicity. And attributing statements are simple tags, so we try to keep the language simple and direct and consistent. So, if someone said something, just say said.

I know it's gonna look weird to you, having graf after graf that says so-and-so saidthis, and said that, and said some more. But again, we're striving for simplicity and consistency' not creativity in a word that's nothing more than a simple label.

There are different levels of attribution. The most basic one is known as on the record. That means everything the source says may be published and quoted directly, and that the source may be fully identified by name and title. Reporters should try to keep all or as much as possible on the record.

So, if for example you're interviewing Tom Izzo on the record, anything he says can be used in your story,  and can be attributed to him by name and title. 

Then, there is off the record. And young journalists are usually confused on what this means, so please pay careful attention here: it means everything a source says CANNOT be used by a reporter. This is often confused with on background or not for attribution, which we'll get into in a moment.

Why would we talk to people off the record, if we can't use what they say? Often, it's done in an effort to gain context and confirm facts from sources that are not authorized to talk about something. Reporters should NEVER use off the record statements as the sole basis for news stories. Rather, use it as a springboard to corroborate facts through sources you can cite, like other sources or documents or whatever.

(For example, if Tom Izzo tells you off the record that Omar Sofradzija is being arrested for shoplifting, you can check police reports for such an arrest, or ask Omar's mom if he's in any trouble with the law.)

Now, let's get to on background or not for attribution, which young journalists frequently confuse with off the record. On background or not for attribution means everything the source says MAY be published and quoted, BUT the reporter may not attribute the statements to teh source by name. This is the typical anonymous source situation.

The reporter MAY describe the source by position in a general way that does not reveal a specific position incidentally, but that does indicate some level of credibility.

(For example, if Tom, Izzo tells you not for attribution that Omar Sofradzija is being fired, you could source it like, A high-ranking MSU official who asked for anonymity said Omar Sofradzija will be fired as a school instructor.)

(When doing so, make sure you don't reveal too much information about the source where you create a virtual identification. Case in point: a few years ago, a newspaper out West did an expose on a corrupt city hall, using an unnamed city hall official as the source. At times in the story, the source was referred to as she. Problem was, there was only one female employee in all of that city hall. Guess who lost their job, and then sued the newspaper for breaching a confidentiality promise?)

If you promise a source anonymity, then that promise is absolute. The only person you may tell is your editor, and then he or he is also bound not to tell anyone. And I mean anyone: not coworkers, not friends, not sources, and not judges, even when they threaten you with jail time for contempt of court (a situation most reporters never face, but one I faced twice early in my professional career).

In general, use anonymous sources sparingly. Please review guidelines on p. 291 in Reporting For The Media for tips. 

Guidelines for capitalizing and punctuating quotations. First, where do we put the traditional double quotation marks (")? Quotation marks only go around the actual quote, and not the attribution. The attribution should remain outside the quotation marks. For example: "I love basketball," Tom Izzo said. Not like this: "I love basketball, Tom Izzo said."

When a quote is before attribution, then the quote should end with a comma, then the quotation mark, then the attribution, and then a period after the attribution, like this:"I love basketball," Tom Izzo said. Not like this: "I love basketball." Tom Izzo said.

When the attribution is before the quotation, then the attribution should be followed by a comma, then the quotation mark, then the quote, and then the period at the end of the quote, like this: Tom Izzo said, "I love basketball."

Now, there are times when you have a quote within a quote, like if Tom Izzo is quoting someone, and then you quote Izzo quoting the quote. When we have a quote inside a quote, the inside-quote gets single quotation marks (') and the full quote gets the traditional double marks (").

So, a quote-inside-a-quote combo could look like this: "Forrest Gump once said, 'I gotta pee,'" Tom Izzo said. The double quotation marks are around everything Izzo said, including the quote he quoted. And the quote he quotes from Forrest Gump is inside single quotation marks, which at the end creates the appearance of a triple quotation mark. Which looks weird, but it's correct.

Regarding capitalization, we should capitalize the first word in a quotation that is a complete sentence. For example, we would say, "That's my donut," Tom Izzo said, or Tom Izzo said, "That's my donut," with the first letter of the quote capitalized.

But we do not capitalize the first word in a partial quotation, unless it's at the start of a sentence. So, let's say we're partially quoting Tom Izzo saying "The Wolverines, you know, can suck it and stuff." If we had a partial quotation in the middle or end of a sentence, then we do lower-case: Tom Izzo said, "suck it" to the University of Michigan, or Tom Izzo said the University of Michigan can "suck it."

But if we start the sentence with the partial quote, then it's caps, like this: "Suck it," Tom Izzo said of the University of Michigan.

Any questions? Be sure to call or email or visit me.

More Ledes: Don't Assume

Like in this lede:

There are many fears that go through a bride's mind before their wedding. For Sara Howard, she never thought to worry about her husband's drive to the church.

Now, it's structurally fine. But the question I have is, how do you know she never thought to worry about her husband's drive to the church?

In the information you were given, you have no indication whether she wasn't worried, or that her fiancee was a shitty driver who had her constantly terrified with his lead foot.

Here, we went beyond the information you had, and made an assumption. We were being creative based on our guessing, not the facts. And we can't do that.

Now, as a journalist you would have been correct to find out if she ever though she'd have to worry about her fiancee's driving. And if she answered yes, then this lede would be perfect.

But we need to confirm the facts first.

First Ledes: Overall

On this assignment, since it's the first one I gave you a 4.0 simply for finishing the assignment without any fatal fact errors, as defined by the syllabus (if you did have a fatal, sorry but that's an automatic 1.0) and if you did assignment parameters correctly, like doing the correct items or staying within the 30-word limit (each such mistake resulted in a 1.0 deduction).

And you weren't graded for AP Style rules, though I did note them in your returned graded work (in which my comments were inserted in BOLD FACE/CAPS). 

In future assignments, we will actually grade every item. But for this first one, I wanted you all to get used to writing on deadline, and for us to have some blog material to go over to see what we did well (and why it was good), and what we could have done better (and how).

So after we do a particular assignment, it's critical that we review ALL related blog posts to go over those points. Not just ones with your work or random ones. All the posts on the same assignment should get a look-see from you, every time.

One more thing: in your graded work I may have used the word sted. It's sometimes a journalistic editing abbreviation for instead, FYI.

Off we go, then: 

First Ledes: Ledes I Liked

This one was straight and to-the-point, containing who (two children), what (died), when(Saturday night), where (in a bedroom of their home), why (as a result of a fire) and how (caused by matches the children were playing with).

Two young children died Saturday night in a bedroom of their home as a result of a fire caused by matches the children were playing with.



This one did the same, but specified the names of the children:

Krista and Jeremy Lewis were found dead after a fire consumed their bedroom while a babysitter cared for them Saturday evening.


This one did a nice job of emphasizing a telling point from the larger story: 

Women who have achieved a graduate degree are found to get divorced more frequently than women without higher education, according to a study done by sociologists at the University of Florida.

This one, too:

Marital disruption is more likely among highly educated women, researchers said in a new study released on Monday.

This lede said everything people needed to know about this story, without having to read any further. The rest was just detailing the major points already offered by the lede:

A family of three was taken to the hospital after their car was struck by an oncoming train on Monday night, but no one was seriously injured. 

This next lede emphasized end result not in terms of what, but why and how:

 A failure to have warning lights at a train crossing on Michigan Avenue resulted in a vehicle carrying a family of three getting struck by an eastbound train.


Here's a nice 1-2-3 package by one of youze, which nicely go to end result, ultimate outcome and a summary of what people absolutely need to know about what happened, and how it all ended up:

1. A car crashed into a moving train on Monday, causing minor injuries to a family of three. 

4. Highly-educated married women are more likely to end up separated or divorced, according to a recent study conducted by the University of Florida. 

5. Two local children started the fire that claimed their lives Saturday evening, according to fire officials. 

First Ledes: That Didn't Take Long

I'm sorry to say that with this assignment we had our first fatal fact errors, in which we offered inaccurate facts as defined by the syllabus.

And, in the interest of learning from each other this term, we will review most fatals so (hopefully) we can learn from the mistakes of others -- and avoid such mistakes ourselves, going forward.

Here's samples of the first bunch:

In one case, we identified the place doing the marriage study as the National Institute of Mental Health, when in fact it was the University of Florida. The NIMH paid U. of F. to do the study. (Two people fatales this way.)

Yes, that's a fatal. And yes, the vast majority of fatals are something simple and basic that was overlooked and/or misinterpreted.

Like day of the week. One of us wrote that the train-SUV crash happened this evening, when in fact it happened Monday. (Two people fatales this way.)

In another case, we wrote that a study looked at marriage distribution, when in fact it looked at marriage disruption. That, too, is a fatal, since distribution is not what the study considered.

(And this is an example of where spell check wouldn't have caught the mistake, because the unintended word is correctly spelled. This is why we need to use spell check as a supplement to -- but not a substitute for -- checking your story fact-by-fact with your own eyes, and checking against your notes -- or, in this case, against the information in your text.)

We get this idea that fatals are a HUGE error, but the reality is overwhelmingly fatals are simple mistakes. Like forgetting a word. That's why we urge such stringent fact-checking.

So please, be vigilant. After you finish writing be sure to double-check every name and age and title and date and, yes, city spellings.

No matter how well you did -- and the people who fataled did otherwise do well -- any fatal gets a 1.0 for the whole assignment. 

Seriously, it's that serious. Like I've said, journalism isn't about writing; it's about getting it right. Let's make sure we build good fact-checking habits so this is a rare circumstance.

First Ledes: The News Is The News!

News isn't that someone did something or something happened; it's what, exactly, was done and/or happened.

For example, we'd never write a lede about a football game like this ...

The Spartans played Notre Dame in a football game Saturday.

... because that lede doesn't say anything of substance. That's because the news isn't that a game was played; it's who won or lost.

The lede we'd do would be something like this:

The Spartans walloped Notre Dame 107-0 Saturday.

Keeping that in mind, does this lede work?

A research study conducted by sociologists at the University of Florida revealed new information Monday regarding marriage stability in relation to women’s education level.

I'd argue it does not, because while it tells us there's new information, it doesn't tell us what the new information is. A better lede tells us what happened, like this one:

Marital disruption is more likely among highly educated women, researchers said in a new study released on Monday.

Now, the reader doesn't simply know that researchers discovered something; they know what the something is.