Squirrels: How Do You Know ...

... Brookes spent $184 to get his car's wiring replaced?

Were you there when he had the wiring replaced? No.

Did you pay for the repair bill? No.

So, how do you know?

It's because he said so, right?

So, why not let readers know your sourcing? Brookes said he spent $184 to get his car's wiring replaced?

How do you know Kasparov was driving home one night when her car fritzed out? Because she said! So add "she said" as attribution.

How do you know how her mechanic found squirrels under the hood? Because she said!

Pretty much everything not witnessed by you should have some sort of attribution. He said; she said; according to records; whatever.

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

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

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.

Rescue: Attribution

How do we know this?

The tunnel kept collapsing on rescuers, Chenn said.

Is it because Chenn said it to us?

No, it's not. It's because Chenn put it in his report, and then we read the report. So, proper attribution would be something like this:

The tunnel kept collapsing on rescuers, Chenn said in his report.

Let's not forget attribution to the actual source from which we learned of what we are writing about.

Attribution needs to go with everything we didn't witness, and needs to be attributed to the source of information. Often, that source is someone we interviewed. But in other cases, like here, it's the fire report we read. Be sure to cite it, so people know from where you got your information.

So, if your source is a fire report, treat attribution to that report in the exact same way we would treat attribution from an interview subject. And that's true whether our source of information is a person or a report or a stone tablet or graffiti on a wall. 

In this story, odds were you should have offered a repeated, according to the fire report over and over again, in graf after graf. That's okay. Just like human source attribution, we simply need to be consistent and thorough, even if it is a bit repetitive.

Also, in this story it would have been wrong to attribute things to the responding officer. That's because you didn't get information from the officer, you got it from the report he wrote.

If we talk so someone, we attribute the person. If we get it from a report the person wrote, then we either attribute it to so-and-so-wrote in a report (or, in the case of witnesses, so-and-so said, according to the report), or we simply attribute it to just, the report said.

Police: Attribution

How do we know this?

DaRoza said that he swung the cane as hard as he could into Keel's face.

Is it because DaRoza said it to us?

No, it's not. It's because DaRoza told the cops, and the cops put it in their report, and we read the report. So, proper attribution would be something like this:

DaRoza said that he swung the cane as hard as he could into Keel's face, according to a sheriff's report.

Let's not forget attribution. Attribution needs to go with everything we didn't witness, and needs to be attributed to the source of information. Often, that source is someone we interviewed. But in other cases, like here, it's the police report we read. Be sure to cite it, so people know from where you got your information.

So, if your source is a police report, treat attribution to that report in the exact same way we would treat attribution from an interview subject. And that's true whether our source of information is a person or a report or a stone tablet or graffiti on a wall. 

In this story, odds were you should have offered a repeated, according to the police report over and over again, in graf after graf. That's okay. Just like human source attribution, we simply need to be consistent and thorough, even if it is a bit repetitive.

Also, in this story it would have been wrong to attribute things to the responding officer. That's because you didn't get information from the officer, you got it from the report he wrote.

If we talk so someone, we attribute the person. If we get it from a report the person wrote, then we either attribute it to so-and-so-wrote in a report (or, in the case of witnesses, so-and-so said, according to the report), or we simply attribute it to just, the report said.

Squirrels: How Do You Know ...

... Brookes spent $184 to get his car's wiring replaced?

Were you there when he had the wiring replaced? No.

Did you pay for the repair bill? No.

So, how do you know?

It's because he said so, right?

So, why not let readers know your sourcing? Brookes said he spent $184 to get his car's wiring replaced?

How do you know Kasparov was driving home one night when her car fritzed out? Because she said! So add "she said" as attribution.

How do you know how her mechanic found squirrels under the hood? Because she said!

Pretty much everything not witnessed by you should have some sort of attribution. He said; she said; according to records; whatever.

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

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

Rescue: Attribution

How do we know this?

The tunnel kept collapsing on rescuers, Chenn said.

Is it because Chenn said it to us?

No, it's not. It's because Chenn put it in his report, and then we read the report. So, proper attribution would be something like this:

The tunnel kept collapsing on rescuers, Chenn said in his report.

Let's not forget attribution to the actual source from which we learned of what we are writing about.

Attribution needs to go with everything we didn't witness, and needs to be attributed to the source of information. Often, that source is someone we interviewed. But in other cases, like here, it's the fire report we read. Be sure to cite it, so people know from where you got your information.

So, if your source is a fire report, treat attribution to that report in the exact same way we would treat attribution from an interview subject. And that's true whether our source of information is a person or a report or a stone tablet or graffiti on a wall. 

In this story, odds were you should have offered a repeated, according to the fire report over and over again, in graf after graf. That's okay. Just like human source attribution, we simply need to be consistent and thorough, even if it is a bit repetitive.

Also, in this story it would have been wrong to attribute things to the responding officer. That's because you didn't get information from the officer, you got it from the report he wrote.

If we talk so someone, we attribute the person. If we get it from a report the person wrote, then we either attribute it to so-and-so-wrote in a report (or, in the case of witnesses, so-and-so said, according to the report), or we simply attribute it to just, the report said.

Police: Attribution

How do we know this?

DaRoza said that he swung the cane as hard as he could into Keel's face.

Is it because DaRoza said it to us?

No, it's not. It's because DaRoza told the cops, and the cops put it in their report, and we read the report. So, proper attribution would be something like this:

DaRoza said that he swung the cane as hard as he could into Keel's face, according to a sheriff's report.

Let's not forget attribution. Attribution needs to go with everything we didn't witness, and needs to be attributed to the source of information. Often, that source is someone we interviewed. But in other cases, like here, it's the police report we read. Be sure to cite it, so people know from where you got your information.

So, if your source is a police report, treat attribution to that report in the exact same way we would treat attribution from an interview subject. And that's true whether our source of information is a person or a report or a stone tablet or graffiti on a wall. 

In this story, odds were you should have offered a repeated, according to the police report over and over again, in graf after graf. That's okay. Just like human source attribution, we simply need to be consistent and thorough, even if it is a bit repetitive.

Also, in this story it would have been wrong to attribute things to the responding officer. That's because you didn't get information from the officer, you got it from the report he wrote.

If we talk so someone, we attribute the person. If we get it from a report the person wrote, then we either attribute it to so-and-so-wrote in a report (or, in the case of witnesses, so-and-so said, according to the report), or we simply attribute it to just, the report said.

Squirrels: How Do You Know ...

... Brookes spent $184 to get his car's wiring replaced?

Were you there when he had the wiring replaced? No.

Did you pay for the repair bill? No.

So, how do you know?

It's because he said so, right?

So, why not let readers know your sourcing? Brookes said he spent $184 to get his car's wiring replaced?

How do you know Kasparov was driving home one night when her car fritzed out? Because she said! So add "she said" as attribution.

How do you know how her mechanic found squirrels under the hood? Because she said!

Pretty much everything not witnessed by you should have some sort of attribution. He said; she said; according to records; whatever.

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

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

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.

Rescue: Attribution

How do we know this?

The tunnel kept collapsing on rescuers, Chenn said.

Is it because Chenn said it to us?

No, it's not. It's because Chenn put it in his report, and then we read the report. So, proper attribution would be something like this:

The tunnel kept collapsing on rescuers, Chenn said in his report.

Let's not forget attribution to the actual source from which we learned of what we are writing about.

Attribution needs to go with everything we didn't witness, and needs to be attributed to the source of information. Often, that source is someone we interviewed. But in other cases, like here, it's the fire report we read. Be sure to cite it, so people know from where you got your information.

So, if your source is a fire report, treat attribution to that report in the exact same way we would treat attribution from an interview subject. And that's true whether our source of information is a person or a report or a stone tablet or graffiti on a wall. 

In this story, odds were you should have offered a repeated, according to the fire report over and over again, in graf after graf. That's okay. Just like human source attribution, we simply need to be consistent and thorough, even if it is a bit repetitive.

Also, in this story it would have been wrong to attribute things to the responding officer. That's because you didn't get information from the officer, you got it from the report he wrote.

If we talk so someone, we attribute the person. If we get it from a report the person wrote, then we either attribute it to so-and-so-wrote in a report (or, in the case of witnesses, so-and-so said, according to the report), or we simply attribute it to just, the report said. 

Speech: The Evils Of No Attribution

In writing this story, one of us had this transitional paragraph: 
  
Maybe it’s the level of acceptance in our country. Or perhaps it’s the fact that alcohol is glamorized. 

And that's a big problem. The first and most fundamental problem is that it's an unattributed statement. Who said that? We need to be clear that we are reporting and sharing our observations of what others say and do, and we're not simply preaching our own personal viewpoints.

Attribution helps make that crystal-clear. But the way we've written it here, it could easily seem like we're taking sides and just stating our opinions.

Let's think back to the early days of this class. We talked about attribution being necessary, unless the fact is one that's undisputed (such as, the sun rises every morning) or one witnessed by the reporter (you can just state the score of the football game you were covering, without adding, the scoreboard said).

But this goes an extra step: it's an unattributed opinion. First, the reasons for alcohol being popular among youth is not an established fact, like that two cars crashed at an intersection or a store went out of business. It's an interpretation by one individual: Izzo.

Second, we acknowledge that it isn't established by starting the sentence with,Maybe ... We can't be more clear that we're not sure.

This sure as hell needs an Izzo said somewhere.

Overall, we're still a bit sloppy on attribution. Attribution is important, so that the audience is clear where the information is coming from. Really, virtually every paragraph after the lede and nut graf should have some level of attribution.

And certainly, every graf that contains a fact or a statistic or a quote or an opinion must have attribution, without exception.

Attribution is important, because in journalism it's not enough to have information; we must be persuasive to our audience that the information is correct. One way we persuade people is by answering to our audience, this is how we know that. Because so-and-so said. Or it's according to this-and-that document. We didn't make this shit up; this is where it';s from.

That's attribution. 

We're journalists. We don't come up with (or make up!) facts or statistics or quotes or opinions. We find those, and then we share those, and as we share those, we let people know from where we got those.

That last step is attribution.

Speech: How Do You Know ...

. . . this?

According to the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, 4.6 million teenagers have a drinking problem.

This is kind of a trick question. You DON'T know this because the NIAAA told you, or because you read their report. You know it because Izzo cited the report, right?

So, correct attribution would be something like this:

Izzo said 4.6 million teenagers have a drinking problem, citing National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism figures.

Be sure to attribute a source, or even the source of a source, if need be. 

Sleep: Attribution

The reason we do frequent attribution is two-fold: first, so that it's clear where we got each bit of information from. Secondly, it's to borrow the expertise of our sources, to build the credibility of our stories.

For example, let's look at this passage:

Understanding that sleep deprivation is a serious problem, how can people solve this problem?

First, find someplace that’s dark and quiet. Shut off all the lights and draw the shades.  Second, it’s good to relax for an hour or so before going to bed. 

Tobacco, coffee, and alcohol are all also bad. As the effects of these substances wear off, your brain becomes more alert, causing you to wake up in the middle of the night, even after falling asleep. 

Now, the reader is fair to ask, where the hell is this information coming from? Is the writer talking out of his or her ass? The reader can't be sure, because there is no attribution. They have no way to judging for themselves whether this is credible information, or not.

But if we add attribution -- Gant said -- then the reader not only knows where the info is coming from, they know it's coming from a sleep expert!

So, now let's add attribution:

Understanding that sleep deprivation is a serious problem, how can people solve this problem?

First, find someplace that’s dark and quiet. Shut off all the lights and draw the shades.  Second, it’s good to relax for an hour or so before going to bed, Gant said. 

Tobacco, coffee, and alcohol are all also bad. As the effects of these substances wear off, your brain becomes more alert, causing you to wake up in the middle of the night, even after falling asleep, Gant said. 

Now, not only does your reader know where the info is coming from, they know it's coming from someone who should know what they're talking about.

Murder: How Do You Know ...

... that Nina Cortez arrived at work around 9 a.m.? Did you give her a ride?

No. You know that because she told you. So, it should be, Nina Cortez said she arrived at work around 9 a.m.

How do you know that she went to her office to count money? Is it because you were hand-cuffed to her wrist, so you follower her around?

No, you know that because she told you. So, it should be, Cortez said she then went to her office to count money.

Likewise, did you count the stab wounds on Kevin Blohm? No; Cortez told you. So, you know what to do by now, right?

Said is your friend. Be sure to attribute often and liberally. Let the audience know where you got each bot of information, and not just the direct quotes.

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.

Missing: How Do You Know ...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Squirrels: How Do You Know ...

... Brookes spent $184 to get his car's wiring replaced?

Were you there when he had the wiring replaced? No.

Did you pay for the repair bill? No.

So, how do you know?

It's because he said so, right?

So, why not let readers know your sourcing? Brookes said he spent $184 to get his car's wiring replaced?

How do you know Kasparov was driving home one night when her car fritzed out? Because she said! So add "she said" as attribution.

How do you know how her mechanic found squirrels under the hood? Because she said!

Pretty much everything not witnessed by you should have some sort of attribution. He said; she said; according to records; whatever.

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

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

Controversial: How Do You Know ...

... that the athletic director disagreed with the move? Could you read his brain?

No. You know that because he said that.

So, you need to say that the athletic director said he disagreed with the policy.

How do you know the boy field hockey player was disappointed? Did he write you a note?

No. You know because he said that, too.

So you need to say the boy field hockey player said he was disappointed.

Controversial: It's SAID

It's not so-and-so explained. It's so-and-so said.

It's not so-and-so commented. It's so-and-so said.

It's not so-and-so continued. It's so-and-so said.

It's not so-and-so described or told or stated or exclaimed.

It's so-and-so said. No need to find another word saying the same thing.

You cannot say said enough. It cannot be overused. I know in English comp you're taught to mix it up; someone said, then exclaimed, 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.

Rescue: Attribution

How do we know this?

The tunnel kept collapsing on rescuers, Chenn said.

Is it because Chenn said it to us?

No, it's not. It's because Chenn put it in his report, and then we read the report. So, proper attribution would be something like this:

The tunnel kept collapsing on rescuers, Chenn said in his report.

Let's not forget attribution to the actual source from which we learned of what we are writing about.

Attribution needs to go with everything we didn't witness, and needs to be attributed to the source of information. Often, that source is someone we interviewed. But in other cases, like here, it's the fire report we read. Be sure to cite it, so people know from where you got your information.

So, if your source is a fire report, treat attribution to that report in the exact same way we would treat attribution from an interview subject. And that's true whether our source of information is a person or a report or a stone tablet or graffiti on a wall.

In this story, odds were you should have offered a repeated, according to the fire report over and over again, in graf after graf. That's okay. Just like human source attribution, we simply need to be consistent and thorough, even if it is a bit repetitive.

Also, in this story it would have been wrong to attribute things to the responding officer. That's because you didn't get information from the officer, you got it from the report he wrote.

If we talk so someone, we attribute the person. If we get it from a report the person wrote, then we either attribute it to so-and-so-wrote in a report (or, in the case of witnesses, so-and-so said, according to the report), or we simply attribute it to just, the report said.