For the most part, many people did well -- but not great. Writing, organization and story structure were in general very, very good, but where we fell short was with range of sources.
In many stories, we had just one side of an issue. Maybe we just talked to officials in charge of something. Maybe we just talked to people affected by something. Maybe we just talked to neutral experts, who have no vested interest in how things turn out, but know a lot about the subject at hand.
What we need to do is talk to all such groups. Not just one, and not even just two of three. We need to explore all the levels of complexity of a story, and reach out to all the niche groups that have an interest in what is happening, is affected by what is happening, is in charge of what is happening, and is expect in what is happening.
To find such sources, we need to ask ourselves, who is interested in this? Who is affected by this? Who is in charge of this? Who is expert in this? And where might I find these people?
Then, we need to find them.
Google is your pal, sure. But it starts with your own curiosity, and your willingness to act upon it. You can't just race to the minimum three sources and think, I'm done. You're done when you've answered those aforementioned questions in italics; then interviewed all those people; and then answered all their questions.
Only then do you know what you have. Only then do you know what to write. Only then have you committed an act of journalism.
Plus, we need to do a better job of showing, and not just telling. When a source says something is great or terrible, we can't just stop at taking their word for it. That's when we need to immediately follow up with data that shows proof for their position.
If a source says, "MSU is the world's best school," then we shouldn't lave that unqualified. We need to follow that up immediately in the next graf with data, like, a survey of one million college students found that 94 percent considered MSU the world's best school.
How do we find such data? One basic way is this: when a source tells you something, we can ask them, how do you know that? Do you have data or a study that you can point me to? Neutral experts in particular should have loads of data sources they can point us to.
Plus, there's Google. There's always Google.
For many of us, it's going to be additional reporting that will be needed to make a significant difference in our rewrite grade. That means talking to and/or quoting more sources, or more varied sources, or offering more data.
It also may mean reframing our stories, by crafting new, more to-the-point ledes based on what we discovered (and not just what we wrote about), and nut grafs that better support the lede with answers and data, and moving around paragraphs to let the most telling grafs and grafs that best back up the telling points stick out over necessary but secondary background info.
It's substance I'm looking for, and not cosmetic fixes in many cases. If all we do is fix AP Style and spelling errors, your grade may not move much -- or at all.
In many stories, we had just one side of an issue. Maybe we just talked to officials in charge of something. Maybe we just talked to people affected by something. Maybe we just talked to neutral experts, who have no vested interest in how things turn out, but know a lot about the subject at hand.
What we need to do is talk to all such groups. Not just one, and not even just two of three. We need to explore all the levels of complexity of a story, and reach out to all the niche groups that have an interest in what is happening, is affected by what is happening, is in charge of what is happening, and is expect in what is happening.
To find such sources, we need to ask ourselves, who is interested in this? Who is affected by this? Who is in charge of this? Who is expert in this? And where might I find these people?
Then, we need to find them.
Google is your pal, sure. But it starts with your own curiosity, and your willingness to act upon it. You can't just race to the minimum three sources and think, I'm done. You're done when you've answered those aforementioned questions in italics; then interviewed all those people; and then answered all their questions.
Only then do you know what you have. Only then do you know what to write. Only then have you committed an act of journalism.
Plus, we need to do a better job of showing, and not just telling. When a source says something is great or terrible, we can't just stop at taking their word for it. That's when we need to immediately follow up with data that shows proof for their position.
If a source says, "MSU is the world's best school," then we shouldn't lave that unqualified. We need to follow that up immediately in the next graf with data, like, a survey of one million college students found that 94 percent considered MSU the world's best school.
How do we find such data? One basic way is this: when a source tells you something, we can ask them, how do you know that? Do you have data or a study that you can point me to? Neutral experts in particular should have loads of data sources they can point us to.
Plus, there's Google. There's always Google.
For many of us, it's going to be additional reporting that will be needed to make a significant difference in our rewrite grade. That means talking to and/or quoting more sources, or more varied sources, or offering more data.
It also may mean reframing our stories, by crafting new, more to-the-point ledes based on what we discovered (and not just what we wrote about), and nut grafs that better support the lede with answers and data, and moving around paragraphs to let the most telling grafs and grafs that best back up the telling points stick out over necessary but secondary background info.
It's substance I'm looking for, and not cosmetic fixes in many cases. If all we do is fix AP Style and spelling errors, your grade may not move much -- or at all.
No comments:
Post a Comment