Is it 4 boys, with 4 as a numeral; or four boys, with four spelled out?
It's four. How do I know that? 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 four should be four, not 4. And 10 should be 10, not ten.
So then, is this correct to start a sentence, under AP Style rules?
Twenty-two . . .
Actually, that IS correct number use. This is under the numerals heading:
Spell out a numeral at the beginning of a sentence.
Now,
there are situations where you have a number that would be very
awkward to spell out. Like with very large numbers, like 48,384. I
would suggest not using such a number at the start of a sentence. Or
start such a sentence with attribution so the number conflict doesn't
matter (e.g., "According to the U.S. Justice Department, 48,384 . . .
).
Also, punctuation goes inside a quote, like this:
"I love field hockey," Stevens said.
NOT outside, like this:
"I love field hockey", Stevens said.
One more time: punctuation goes inside
a quote. At least for now. In English English -- the English spoken in England -- it traditionally does go
outside the quote. But in American English -- the English we speak here -- it goes inside, although
there seems to be an argument in the English profession on whether that
should evolve into something closer to the English English model.
As they say, England and America are two nations separated by a common language.
Now, let's talk about titles.
If someone's title precedes their name, then you capitalize: East Lansing Athletic Director Hugh Baker
If someone's title follows their name, then it's lower-case: Hugh Baker, East Lansing athletic director
Also, titles in most cases should not be included after a first reference. You may start out by saying Athletic Director Hugh Baker, but in subsequent references it's just Baker.
If you're referring to an organization by formal title, then it's usually caps: the East Lansing School Board
However,
on second reference -- once you've established what group you're
referring to -- you can use a generic title in lower-case: the school board
And if you break up the title or rearrange the sequence in an informal way, then drop to lower-case: the school board in East Lansing
Moving on; on first reference, you use a first and last name: Stuard Adler. 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.
So, in most second reference situations, it would be just, Adler.
But what if there is more than one person with the same last name? Like, if you mention both Sandra and Stuard Adler in first reference? 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, it would be Stuard Adler and Sandra Adler repeatedly.
Do not say Mr. Adler or Mrs. Adler. Under AP Style, names:
In subsequent references, do not continue using the title before a name. Use only the last name.
Same goes if you're using titles in first references like Dr. or Capt. or Rep., ect.
Wednesday, October 2, 2013
RFTM Ch. 12: Interviews
Why do we interview? First, to gain facts and details. Who is involved or is affected? What happened? When and where did it happen? And why and how?
Second, to construct a chronology showing the unfolding of events. What happened first? How did things go from there? And what happened next?
Third, to determine the relationships among the people and interests involved. Who's involved? Why were they involved? Who are they? Why are they important?
Fourth, to understand context and perspective. Why is this event or issue significant? What relationship does it have to other issues? How is it historically significant? How is it different and unique? How and why does it matter to readers? How does this affect them?
Fifth, to find anecdotes. Is there an individual story or example that helps illuminate the event or issue, or make it more dramatic or understandable?
Writing for English composition is based on your own thoughts and feelings. But writing for journalism is entirely based on facts. So, instead of thinking of things to write, we interview to collect facts to make sense of, then write.
Whom should we interview? People who are in the best position to have first-hand knowledge or expertise on the subjects we're writing about.
For example, people with knowledge relevant to the story. If you're writing about a house fire, one such person may be the person who lived at the house that burned down.
Plus, people with expertise relevant to the story. Like a firefighter who helped put out the fire and rescue people.
And, people with insight relevant to the story. Like a fire safety expert, that can offer some analysis on why things happened the way it did.
Also, we need to reach people who are available. This is a deadline business; we can't wait for everyone to get back to us. Maybe the resident isn't around; we need to find someone else as a backup source. Maybe we talk to a neighbor. Perhaps the firefighter who handled the call declines comment; so we talk to the fire chief and see what we can get. Maybe we leave a message for the fire safety expert; we don't wait for the call-back, and we try to find another similar expert.
Finally, we seek non-human sources of information. Think police and court records, fire reports, other governmental documents, verifiable sources found via Googling, ect. This may save time and trouble by providing the information you seek. Just make sure to corroborate the info.
How many sources are enough? It depends. It may be a couple of people, or it may be dozens.
It depends on deadline pressure. This may limit your ability to contact sources to those most critical to the story's telling.
It depends on the expertise of sources. Less experience requires more sourcing. If you're writing about Tom Izzo's plans and your source is Tom Izzo, that's a pretty expert source on Izzo. If you're writing about Izzo and Izzo won't talk to you, you'll probably need a range of sources like his assistants and peer coaches and players and school officials and such to try to equal Izzo's own expertise on himself.
It depends on the degree of controversy. The more controversy, the more of a need there is for more viewpoints. Writing about a Cedar Fest riot? Talk to the cops and the rioters and the rioters' parents other students who didn't participate in the riot and townies and civil libertarians.
Along those same lines, it depends on the complexity of a topic. All degrees of complexity should be represented.
A reporter has an obligation to evaluate sources. Don't be afraid to ask yourself or even your source, what is the basis of the source's knowledge? (Why would Tom Izzo know about college sports? Because he's a college basketball coach.) How credible and reliable is the source? (Izzo has a track record of being truthful to other media over the years.) Ask your source, "How do you know that?" (How does Izzo know being a coach is hectic? Because he's been living it for a few decades, he might say.) And cross-check between sources (remember "If your mother says she loves you, check it out"?).
When should a reporter conduct interviews? Ideally, after conducting research on the topic, if possible. Use Google, use archived news stories, social media, whatever.
Doing research allows a reporter to avoid wasting time on irrelevant questions (e.g., "So, Tom Izzo, what is this game called 'basketball' of which you speak? Never heard of it"); to recognize newsworthy statements and ask appropriate follow-ups (if you knew Izzo once almost took a pro coaching job in Cleveland, you would perk up if he mentioned he just bought a condo there. Uh, why, coach? Something cooking in Cleveland again?); and make it less likely to have to reinterview sources.
Without preparation, how will you know what to ask?
Where should a reporter conduct an interview? Ideally, in places where sources are most comfortable and will talk freely, if possible. But time, distance and deadlines may (and usually will) constrain this.
In-person is best, but the next-best bet is by phone. It can save a lot of time, but it can also be superficial. And it can be a poor choice on complex issues for in-depth reporting. Still, it does allow for bakc-and-forth dialogue in real time, which makes it superior to email.
Wit email interviews, we must also verify that it was the source that actually wrote the email, as opposed to a spokesperson or assistant. Plus, we don't attribute what the person said to the person; we attribute it to the person's email (e.g., The MSU basketball team is joining the NBA, Tom Izzo said via email today).
What questions should a reporter ask? Sequence and actual questions can vary, depending on the story and situation. But there are general questions establishing basic facts; specific questions about the issue or event; embarrassing or difficult questions, if necessary for understanding, background questions establishing history and context, ect.
Try to ask questions that will elicit as much information as possible, like open-ended questions that allow the source to provide analysis, context and detail. Try to steer away from yes-or-no questions unless a source is being vague and/or evasive, and you require a clear answer (which you always do).
Don't forget to ask about basic details, like the spellings of names, formal titles, ect. I promise you, the first time you assume someone's name is spelled Billy Smith, you'll find out it's really Billye Smythe. Don't take that chance; ask for a spelling every time.
Ask for a phone number and email address where they can be reached before deadline. If later you have other questions, you want to be able to quickly and easily get them answered. Most sources would rather you get it right and bother them, as opposed to leaving them unbothered and then airing a mistake that makes them look stupid.
Ask, "Is there anything about this that I haven't asked you about that you think is important for readers to know about this?" You have no idea how many times during my professional career this elicited a killer quote.
I think it's because many of the people we interview are not professional interviewees. It takes them a while to get comfortable with the interview as its taking place,and to structure their thoughts in a way they can verbalize. So, by the end of the interview I find most people in a better position to clearly articulate what they have to say, moreso than at the start. Give it a try, will ya?
How should a reporter conduct interviews? First, start with a clear statement of purpose. Tell them why you're there, and what you're working on. Don't be vague. It's their right to talk or not talk to you. So, if you wanna talk to Tom Izzo about his explosive weight gain, tell him that from the start. Don't play "gotcha" with your sources.
Second, take charge of the conversation. Keep the interview on track. You're there to talk about Izzo getting fat; not about his kid's grade school art project. If Izzo drifts toward the latter, steer him back toward the former. Decide what questions to ask. Seek full answers and explanations. If you get less-than-full answers, be persistent. Keep asking until you get definitive answers, or a definitive "no comment."
Third, be a good listener. This is not contradictory to the previous point. You can keep an interview on track and let a source talk. Don't interrupt, argue with or lecture a source. This isn't the debate team. Even if a source appears to be lying, let them finish. Then get the interview back on track, by offering contradictory information and asking for an explanation. Do give sources time to develop their thoughts; like I said before, they're probably not expert at this.
Fourth, expect unexpected but newsworthy developments in an interview. Be prepared to explore new angles on the fly. Perhaps you're interviewing Izzo about his weight gain and he suddenly says, "It really doesn't matter. I was planning on retiring after this season, anyway." Whaa? Nobody knows this. Follow the new line of questioning.
Fifth, don't bully, intimidate or harass a source. It's their choice to talk, or not talk. Plus, it's an interview, not an interrogation.
Interviewing for in-depth or investigative reports require a bit more caution. A subject's version of events may differ from that of other sources or records. Ask sources to explain contradictions from other accounts. And allow sources to reply to and rebut charges, allegations and conflicting information. This may require multiple rounds of interviews.
How should a reporter take notes? It's helpful to use or develop a form of shorthand writing. If a source talks too fast or you write too slowly, don't be afraid to ask them to slow down or repeat what they said. It's about getting it right, remember?
Plus, try to review your notes immediately afterward, while the discussion is still fresh in your mind. That's your chance to recall what that goofy squiggly line you wrote means.
Recording an interview is a good backup, but tedious to use in practice. On long interviews, you may have too much audio to review. It's better to have a recorder running while you take hand notes that also note the time (as measured against the recorder's clock) certain statements were made. Then, you can easily fast-forward to the quotes you need to retrieve.
Before you record, make sure you are in a state and/or community that allows recording. Different states have different laws. In Michigan, you need to get the verbal consent of someone to tape an interview. And in general, always let sources know they are being taped, if in fact you're taping them. If you were being interviewed, you'd want to know that, too.
Second, to construct a chronology showing the unfolding of events. What happened first? How did things go from there? And what happened next?
Third, to determine the relationships among the people and interests involved. Who's involved? Why were they involved? Who are they? Why are they important?
Fourth, to understand context and perspective. Why is this event or issue significant? What relationship does it have to other issues? How is it historically significant? How is it different and unique? How and why does it matter to readers? How does this affect them?
Fifth, to find anecdotes. Is there an individual story or example that helps illuminate the event or issue, or make it more dramatic or understandable?
Writing for English composition is based on your own thoughts and feelings. But writing for journalism is entirely based on facts. So, instead of thinking of things to write, we interview to collect facts to make sense of, then write.
Whom should we interview? People who are in the best position to have first-hand knowledge or expertise on the subjects we're writing about.
For example, people with knowledge relevant to the story. If you're writing about a house fire, one such person may be the person who lived at the house that burned down.
Plus, people with expertise relevant to the story. Like a firefighter who helped put out the fire and rescue people.
And, people with insight relevant to the story. Like a fire safety expert, that can offer some analysis on why things happened the way it did.
Also, we need to reach people who are available. This is a deadline business; we can't wait for everyone to get back to us. Maybe the resident isn't around; we need to find someone else as a backup source. Maybe we talk to a neighbor. Perhaps the firefighter who handled the call declines comment; so we talk to the fire chief and see what we can get. Maybe we leave a message for the fire safety expert; we don't wait for the call-back, and we try to find another similar expert.
Finally, we seek non-human sources of information. Think police and court records, fire reports, other governmental documents, verifiable sources found via Googling, ect. This may save time and trouble by providing the information you seek. Just make sure to corroborate the info.
How many sources are enough? It depends. It may be a couple of people, or it may be dozens.
It depends on deadline pressure. This may limit your ability to contact sources to those most critical to the story's telling.
It depends on the expertise of sources. Less experience requires more sourcing. If you're writing about Tom Izzo's plans and your source is Tom Izzo, that's a pretty expert source on Izzo. If you're writing about Izzo and Izzo won't talk to you, you'll probably need a range of sources like his assistants and peer coaches and players and school officials and such to try to equal Izzo's own expertise on himself.
It depends on the degree of controversy. The more controversy, the more of a need there is for more viewpoints. Writing about a Cedar Fest riot? Talk to the cops and the rioters and the rioters' parents other students who didn't participate in the riot and townies and civil libertarians.
Along those same lines, it depends on the complexity of a topic. All degrees of complexity should be represented.
A reporter has an obligation to evaluate sources. Don't be afraid to ask yourself or even your source, what is the basis of the source's knowledge? (Why would Tom Izzo know about college sports? Because he's a college basketball coach.) How credible and reliable is the source? (Izzo has a track record of being truthful to other media over the years.) Ask your source, "How do you know that?" (How does Izzo know being a coach is hectic? Because he's been living it for a few decades, he might say.) And cross-check between sources (remember "If your mother says she loves you, check it out"?).
When should a reporter conduct interviews? Ideally, after conducting research on the topic, if possible. Use Google, use archived news stories, social media, whatever.
Doing research allows a reporter to avoid wasting time on irrelevant questions (e.g., "So, Tom Izzo, what is this game called 'basketball' of which you speak? Never heard of it"); to recognize newsworthy statements and ask appropriate follow-ups (if you knew Izzo once almost took a pro coaching job in Cleveland, you would perk up if he mentioned he just bought a condo there. Uh, why, coach? Something cooking in Cleveland again?); and make it less likely to have to reinterview sources.
Without preparation, how will you know what to ask?
Where should a reporter conduct an interview? Ideally, in places where sources are most comfortable and will talk freely, if possible. But time, distance and deadlines may (and usually will) constrain this.
In-person is best, but the next-best bet is by phone. It can save a lot of time, but it can also be superficial. And it can be a poor choice on complex issues for in-depth reporting. Still, it does allow for bakc-and-forth dialogue in real time, which makes it superior to email.
Wit email interviews, we must also verify that it was the source that actually wrote the email, as opposed to a spokesperson or assistant. Plus, we don't attribute what the person said to the person; we attribute it to the person's email (e.g., The MSU basketball team is joining the NBA, Tom Izzo said via email today).
What questions should a reporter ask? Sequence and actual questions can vary, depending on the story and situation. But there are general questions establishing basic facts; specific questions about the issue or event; embarrassing or difficult questions, if necessary for understanding, background questions establishing history and context, ect.
Try to ask questions that will elicit as much information as possible, like open-ended questions that allow the source to provide analysis, context and detail. Try to steer away from yes-or-no questions unless a source is being vague and/or evasive, and you require a clear answer (which you always do).
Don't forget to ask about basic details, like the spellings of names, formal titles, ect. I promise you, the first time you assume someone's name is spelled Billy Smith, you'll find out it's really Billye Smythe. Don't take that chance; ask for a spelling every time.
Ask for a phone number and email address where they can be reached before deadline. If later you have other questions, you want to be able to quickly and easily get them answered. Most sources would rather you get it right and bother them, as opposed to leaving them unbothered and then airing a mistake that makes them look stupid.
Ask, "Is there anything about this that I haven't asked you about that you think is important for readers to know about this?" You have no idea how many times during my professional career this elicited a killer quote.
I think it's because many of the people we interview are not professional interviewees. It takes them a while to get comfortable with the interview as its taking place,and to structure their thoughts in a way they can verbalize. So, by the end of the interview I find most people in a better position to clearly articulate what they have to say, moreso than at the start. Give it a try, will ya?
How should a reporter conduct interviews? First, start with a clear statement of purpose. Tell them why you're there, and what you're working on. Don't be vague. It's their right to talk or not talk to you. So, if you wanna talk to Tom Izzo about his explosive weight gain, tell him that from the start. Don't play "gotcha" with your sources.
Second, take charge of the conversation. Keep the interview on track. You're there to talk about Izzo getting fat; not about his kid's grade school art project. If Izzo drifts toward the latter, steer him back toward the former. Decide what questions to ask. Seek full answers and explanations. If you get less-than-full answers, be persistent. Keep asking until you get definitive answers, or a definitive "no comment."
Third, be a good listener. This is not contradictory to the previous point. You can keep an interview on track and let a source talk. Don't interrupt, argue with or lecture a source. This isn't the debate team. Even if a source appears to be lying, let them finish. Then get the interview back on track, by offering contradictory information and asking for an explanation. Do give sources time to develop their thoughts; like I said before, they're probably not expert at this.
Fourth, expect unexpected but newsworthy developments in an interview. Be prepared to explore new angles on the fly. Perhaps you're interviewing Izzo about his weight gain and he suddenly says, "It really doesn't matter. I was planning on retiring after this season, anyway." Whaa? Nobody knows this. Follow the new line of questioning.
Fifth, don't bully, intimidate or harass a source. It's their choice to talk, or not talk. Plus, it's an interview, not an interrogation.
Interviewing for in-depth or investigative reports require a bit more caution. A subject's version of events may differ from that of other sources or records. Ask sources to explain contradictions from other accounts. And allow sources to reply to and rebut charges, allegations and conflicting information. This may require multiple rounds of interviews.
How should a reporter take notes? It's helpful to use or develop a form of shorthand writing. If a source talks too fast or you write too slowly, don't be afraid to ask them to slow down or repeat what they said. It's about getting it right, remember?
Plus, try to review your notes immediately afterward, while the discussion is still fresh in your mind. That's your chance to recall what that goofy squiggly line you wrote means.
Recording an interview is a good backup, but tedious to use in practice. On long interviews, you may have too much audio to review. It's better to have a recorder running while you take hand notes that also note the time (as measured against the recorder's clock) certain statements were made. Then, you can easily fast-forward to the quotes you need to retrieve.
Before you record, make sure you are in a state and/or community that allows recording. Different states have different laws. In Michigan, you need to get the verbal consent of someone to tape an interview. And in general, always let sources know they are being taped, if in fact you're taping them. If you were being interviewed, you'd want to know that, too.
Neutral Experts: WTF is THAT?!?
Today, I'm
going to introduce a new concept that you'll need for completing your
self-reported out-of-class stories. And that concept is that of neutral experts.
Neutral experts are people who have a great deal of knowledge and/or expertise regarding the subject you're writing 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.
Let's say you're doing a story on a new business coming to East Lansing. You'd certainly talk to the business owner, but he or she has an interest in telling you positive stuff, since they own the biz. You can talk to rival businesses, but they have an interest in making themselves look better than the new guy. You can talk to shoppers who do have a valid viewpoint, but they are not expert at economic development.
That's where a neutral expert like, say, a business school prof at MSU, can come in handy. That person doesn't have a stake in whether a business succeeds or fails, but they are expert at business, and can comment on the pros and cons not based on self-interest but rather on expertise. And that expertise helps a reader sort out all the competing perspectives, and decide which ones are credible and carry the most weight and relevance.
Most news stories at least attempt to include at least one neutral expert. And 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 was 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 we need our out-of-class stories to cite AT LEAST one neutral expert!
So go find some neutral experts!
Neutral experts are people who have a great deal of knowledge and/or expertise regarding the subject you're writing 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.
Let's say you're doing a story on a new business coming to East Lansing. You'd certainly talk to the business owner, but he or she has an interest in telling you positive stuff, since they own the biz. You can talk to rival businesses, but they have an interest in making themselves look better than the new guy. You can talk to shoppers who do have a valid viewpoint, but they are not expert at economic development.
That's where a neutral expert like, say, a business school prof at MSU, can come in handy. That person doesn't have a stake in whether a business succeeds or fails, but they are expert at business, and can comment on the pros and cons not based on self-interest but rather on expertise. And that expertise helps a reader sort out all the competing perspectives, and decide which ones are credible and carry the most weight and relevance.
Most news stories at least attempt to include at least one neutral expert. And 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 was 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 we need our out-of-class stories to cite AT LEAST one neutral expert!
So go find some neutral experts!
Neutral Experts: Imagine If ...
. . . if this story didn't have a neutral expert. Or two. A reader would just get two people arguing. And that's not journalism.
Journalism isn't about simply getting one side and the other side; it's about fact-testing the sides that are presented through the use of empirical evidence and expert testimony that helps make sense of what was said, and helps the reader determine what is true -- and what is not.
In this instance, the reporter didn't simply stop at reporting an argument over the Constitution between two politicians during a debate; rather the reporter went and found an expert in constitutional law who did NOT participate in the debate, to help answer what was right and wrong from the various positions claimed by the candidates.
And that completes journalism's true mission, which isn't simply to report the facts. Today, it's about helping the audience make sense of the facts, without partisan bias.
Here's a link, and here's the text (with the neutral expert's passage highlighted. See the difference it makes?):
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.
Journalism isn't about simply getting one side and the other side; it's about fact-testing the sides that are presented through the use of empirical evidence and expert testimony that helps make sense of what was said, and helps the reader determine what is true -- and what is not.
In this instance, the reporter didn't simply stop at reporting an argument over the Constitution between two politicians during a debate; rather the reporter went and found an expert in constitutional law who did NOT participate in the debate, to help answer what was right and wrong from the various positions claimed by the candidates.
And that completes journalism's true mission, which isn't simply to report the facts. Today, it's about helping the audience make sense of the facts, without partisan bias.
Here's a link, and here's the text (with the neutral expert's passage highlighted. See the difference it makes?):
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.
Tuesday, October 1, 2013
RFTM Ch. 10: The Body of a News Story
The portion of the story that follows the lede is the body. The body
offers details amplifying, supporting, building and detailing the lede.
The most basic type of story body is known as the inverted pyramid. In an inverted pyramid, writers arrange information of descending importance or newsworthiness, in this kind of order:
First paragraph: the lede
Second graf: The nut graf
Third graf: first most-important bit of detail
Fourth graf: second most-important bit of detail
Fifth graf: third most-important bit of detail
... and so on
The advantages of an inverted pyramid are: it helps reporters prioritize information; it helps new reporters find missing elements in a story; it's easy for readers to understand; and it's easy to write and edit quickly (making it especially useful in breaking news situations).
The disadvantages include: it concentrates on basic facts, not leaving much room for context and meaning; it can be boring to read; and it locks reporters into formulatic writing, allowing less flexibilty.
(Having said that, it is a basic writing style that works well as a default style if you're getting confused on how to write something. You can always fall back on an inverted pyramid and be okay.)
In organizing an inverted pyramid story, of course we start with the lede, which we've already gone over. The second graf is known as the nut graf, which does two big things: first, it answers questions created by the lede; second, it offers a logical transition to the body of the story.
For example, let's look at a lede from a previous exercise:
A 22-year-old man speeding at 100 mph crashed his car and died, just 15 minutes before his wedding was to begin this morning in East Lansing.
This lede creates several questions: who was the 22-year-old man? When, exactly, was the crash? And where, specifically? Why did he crash? And so on.
Those exact details were probably left out of the lede for brevity's sake. But now we can add in some of those details via a nut graf, like this:
Scott Forsythe, who was to wed Sara Howard, was trying to avoid a dog in the road at the time of the 8:45 a.m. crash along Kirkmann Road.
Now, let's pair the lede and nut graf, and see how they symbiotically support each other:
A 22-year-old man speeding at 100 mph crashed his car and died, just 15 minutes before his wedding was to begin this morning in East Lansing.
Scott Forsythe, who was to wed Sara Howard, was trying to avoid a dog in the road at the time of the 8:45 a.m. crash along Kirkmann Road.
The nut graf doesn't mimic or echo the lede; it builds upon it, by filling in details from the lede. Then, we can start a narrative telling in the body of the story.
Another way to pair a lede/nut graf combo is to do an alternative lede. In such cases, the lede (rather than being a summary of how things ended up) can be an anecdote that conveys a more human and relateable example of the bigger issue. (In such cases, the lede may actually be two or three grafs, or more.) Then, the nut graf (much like a traditional lede) sums up the issue bottom line.
For example, a hypothetical story about students struggling to pay for tuition may start with a two-graf anecdotal lede, and then go to a nut graf, like this:
Joe Schmo is a college student, but his day consists of far more than class.
Schmo, a sophomore at Michigan State University, works six jobs in addition to attending six hours of class each day. He works as a waiter, a clerk, a mime, a bookie, a pilot and a rodeo clown, all in an effort to cover his $25,000 in annual tuition payments, he said.
A growing number of students -- like Schmo -- are having to work while attending college, with the number of students engaged in work-study increasing by 500 percent between 1993 and 2013, a recent study found.
With an anecdotal lede, we try to take something big -- like student struggles -- and break it down into something that's easier to relate to, in this case a single student's struggle.
Now, in picking which way to lede a story, we don't base it on what writing style we prefer. Rather, we select the one that best tells the story, and allows readers to best relate to what makes this story interesting, relevant and.or useful.
(This is another big difference between writing for English composition and writing for journalism. In English comp, we write for personal expression and artistic reason. It's all about us. In journalism, we write to contextually and accurately represent the facts we've discovered, and for reader understanding of the story. It's all about the readers and the truth. We may use creative and artistic techniques in telling the story, but we do it based on the facts and reader comprehension, not our own personal expressiveness.)
Then, we continue with the news in the body of the story. We more fully explain how things unfolded or happened. We offer quotes and descriptions. We offer more detail and reaction.
Also in the body of the story, we explain the unfamiliar. We avoid or translate words that are not used in everyday conversation,or that are jargon, as we blogged about earlier. We can translate terms (like, instead of saying cardiac arrest, we use the more conversational heart attack).
Or we can define terms (by saying something like, the man suffered cardiac arrest, commonly known as a heart attack), helping to make a complex story more understandable, and teaching the audience something that may be useful or interesting.
Examples are important, too. Citing examples can help factually justify your summations; make stories more readable and interesting; they can personalize stories and make stories more understandable and relateable; and make concepts more understandable by comparing them to things that are familiar.
In journalism, we try to remember a concept of show, and don't just tell. That is, don't just tell me the news; show me the proof through quotes and data and such. In the lede and nut graf, we generally tell. But in the body of the story, we must show.
The most basic type of story body is known as the inverted pyramid. In an inverted pyramid, writers arrange information of descending importance or newsworthiness, in this kind of order:
First paragraph: the lede
Second graf: The nut graf
Third graf: first most-important bit of detail
Fourth graf: second most-important bit of detail
Fifth graf: third most-important bit of detail
... and so on
The advantages of an inverted pyramid are: it helps reporters prioritize information; it helps new reporters find missing elements in a story; it's easy for readers to understand; and it's easy to write and edit quickly (making it especially useful in breaking news situations).
The disadvantages include: it concentrates on basic facts, not leaving much room for context and meaning; it can be boring to read; and it locks reporters into formulatic writing, allowing less flexibilty.
(Having said that, it is a basic writing style that works well as a default style if you're getting confused on how to write something. You can always fall back on an inverted pyramid and be okay.)
In organizing an inverted pyramid story, of course we start with the lede, which we've already gone over. The second graf is known as the nut graf, which does two big things: first, it answers questions created by the lede; second, it offers a logical transition to the body of the story.
For example, let's look at a lede from a previous exercise:
A 22-year-old man speeding at 100 mph crashed his car and died, just 15 minutes before his wedding was to begin this morning in East Lansing.
This lede creates several questions: who was the 22-year-old man? When, exactly, was the crash? And where, specifically? Why did he crash? And so on.
Those exact details were probably left out of the lede for brevity's sake. But now we can add in some of those details via a nut graf, like this:
Scott Forsythe, who was to wed Sara Howard, was trying to avoid a dog in the road at the time of the 8:45 a.m. crash along Kirkmann Road.
Now, let's pair the lede and nut graf, and see how they symbiotically support each other:
A 22-year-old man speeding at 100 mph crashed his car and died, just 15 minutes before his wedding was to begin this morning in East Lansing.
Scott Forsythe, who was to wed Sara Howard, was trying to avoid a dog in the road at the time of the 8:45 a.m. crash along Kirkmann Road.
The nut graf doesn't mimic or echo the lede; it builds upon it, by filling in details from the lede. Then, we can start a narrative telling in the body of the story.
Another way to pair a lede/nut graf combo is to do an alternative lede. In such cases, the lede (rather than being a summary of how things ended up) can be an anecdote that conveys a more human and relateable example of the bigger issue. (In such cases, the lede may actually be two or three grafs, or more.) Then, the nut graf (much like a traditional lede) sums up the issue bottom line.
For example, a hypothetical story about students struggling to pay for tuition may start with a two-graf anecdotal lede, and then go to a nut graf, like this:
Joe Schmo is a college student, but his day consists of far more than class.
Schmo, a sophomore at Michigan State University, works six jobs in addition to attending six hours of class each day. He works as a waiter, a clerk, a mime, a bookie, a pilot and a rodeo clown, all in an effort to cover his $25,000 in annual tuition payments, he said.
A growing number of students -- like Schmo -- are having to work while attending college, with the number of students engaged in work-study increasing by 500 percent between 1993 and 2013, a recent study found.
With an anecdotal lede, we try to take something big -- like student struggles -- and break it down into something that's easier to relate to, in this case a single student's struggle.
Now, in picking which way to lede a story, we don't base it on what writing style we prefer. Rather, we select the one that best tells the story, and allows readers to best relate to what makes this story interesting, relevant and.or useful.
(This is another big difference between writing for English composition and writing for journalism. In English comp, we write for personal expression and artistic reason. It's all about us. In journalism, we write to contextually and accurately represent the facts we've discovered, and for reader understanding of the story. It's all about the readers and the truth. We may use creative and artistic techniques in telling the story, but we do it based on the facts and reader comprehension, not our own personal expressiveness.)
Then, we continue with the news in the body of the story. We more fully explain how things unfolded or happened. We offer quotes and descriptions. We offer more detail and reaction.
Also in the body of the story, we explain the unfamiliar. We avoid or translate words that are not used in everyday conversation,or that are jargon, as we blogged about earlier. We can translate terms (like, instead of saying cardiac arrest, we use the more conversational heart attack).
Or we can define terms (by saying something like, the man suffered cardiac arrest, commonly known as a heart attack), helping to make a complex story more understandable, and teaching the audience something that may be useful or interesting.
Examples are important, too. Citing examples can help factually justify your summations; make stories more readable and interesting; they can personalize stories and make stories more understandable and relateable; and make concepts more understandable by comparing them to things that are familiar.
In journalism, we try to remember a concept of show, and don't just tell. That is, don't just tell me the news; show me the proof through quotes and data and such. In the lede and nut graf, we generally tell. But in the body of the story, we must show.
Body of a Story: Some Examples
The most basic story structures are very specific in style yet simple
in design. So let's look an imaginary story done in a basic news style,
starting with what you already know -- the lede:
School
was canceled forever today after a 44-year-old college instructor won a
multi-billion dollar lottery, quitting his job and sparking a walkout
among his students.
The lede
is usually followed by what is called the nut graf. The role of that
paragraph is to elaborate and expand upon the details of the lede.
Consider
the general identifiers posed in the lede: an unnamed instructor, an
unnamed school, an unspecified big-money lottery ect. Try to follow up
on those generalities with specifics in the nut graf, like this:
Omar
Sofradzija, who teaches a journalism class at Michigan State University
in East Lansing, won the $99 billion Amazeballs drawing Monday, after
which he quit Tuesday, lottery officials said.
That
was followed by a mass walkout by MSU students, and then cancelation of
MSU classes the next day, university officials said.
In
journalism, we try to keep paragraphs fairly short -- usually limited
to one main point or idea per graf, and/or one or two sentences per
graf. In this case, I thought the nut graf was running a bit long, so I
split it into two grafs.
We try to keep paragraphs
short and specific for two big reasons: one, to make it easy for the
reader to identify key points and specific quotes and such; and two, to
make it easy for editors to do the same so they can more quickly edit
the story by easily finding what may be worth emphasis or cutting out.
The
point after the nut graf is a great place to consider putting in a
telling quote; something that goes to the heart of the story's theme or
context or ultimate meaning. Something like this:
"If there's no Omar, there simply isn't any point in having school," MSU president Lou Anna K. Simon said.
At
this point, the lede/nut graf/key quote package creates sort of a
mini-story. In the same way the lede gives you the bare minimum of what
you need to know about the story, this grouping of grafs gives readers
the minimum amount of information AND supporting detail and evidence.
From
this point on, you have a couple of options: you can add more
supporting facts and quotes, in descending order of importance. This is
called the inverted pyramid style of story organization. You start with
the most important piece of background, then the next most important,
and so on. Like with short paragraphs, it allows for faster reading and
editing. Like this:
Sofradzija, who
has been making just $2 an hour teaching an introduction-to-journalism
class, said he plans to never teach again.
"Seriously, eff those little brats," he said.
But a number of students said that losing Sofradzija as an instructor has sapped their will to learn.
"If I can't learn from Omar, I can't learn. I'm that stupid," said Elvis Presley, a sophomore journalism major from Canada.
Sofradzija said he did not know what exactly he's spend his fortune on, but he promised it would be something stupid.
Notice
how pieces of telling information are paired up with quotes supporting,
amplifying and humanizing that raw data. It's not necessary that every
graf of info is followed by a related quote, but it does help in
reinforcing the points that are made throughout a story.
Also,
please note attribution is liberally used throughout the story, in
every graf after the lede. That's for the benefit of readers, who get to
see exactly where you get each bit of information that supports the
original claim you make in your lede. Not only are you transparent, but
you essentially rely on the expertise of your sources by citing them,
building your credibility.
Another
approach is to offer a chronological telling, looking at things from
the start and listing them in the order they happened. It's important that you weigh the facts you have and the
context of the story to decide if an inverted pyramid, chronology or
some other method best tells the story. Like this:
Events
quickly began to unfold around 8 p.m. Monday, when Sofradzija was named
the Amazeballs winner. His resignation was submitted to MSU by 6 a.m.
Tuesday, school officials said.
"Seriously, eff those little brats," Sofradzija said.
Word
quickly swirled around campus of Sofradzija's departure, with students
walking out of their classes em masse throughout the day Tuesday, school
officials said.
"If I can't learn from Omar, I can't learn. I'm that stupid," said Elvis Presley, a sophomore journalism major from Canada.
University leaders met that night before making the cancellation of the semester official at 8 a.m. today, officials said.
And
that's it. Notice how the story seems to end sort of abruptly. Looks
weird, right? Well, in journalism that's okay is your story lacks what
writers call a satisfying ending. Why is this okay? Because you already
have an ending: your lede.
Now
that we looked at these two structures in pieces, let's put it all
together and look at the pieces as stories. First, the inverted pyramid:
School
was canceled forever today after a 44-year-old college instructor won a
multi-billion dollar lottery, quitting his job and sparking a walkout
among his students.
Omar
Sofradzija, who teaches a journalism class at Michigan State University
in East Lansing, won the $99 billion Amazeballs drawing Monday, after
which he quit Tuesday, lottery officials said.
That
was followed by a mass walkout by MSU students, and then cancelation of
MSU classes the next day, university officials said.
"If there's no Omar, there simply isn't any point in having school," MSU president Lou Anna K. Simon said.
Sofradzija,
who has been making just $2 an hour teaching an
introduction-to-journalism class, said he plans to never teach again.
"Seriously, eff those little brats," he said.
But a number of students said that losing Sofradzija as an instructor has sapped their will to learn.
"If I can't learn from Omar, I can't learn. I'm that stupid," said Elvis Presley, a sophomore journalism major from Canada.
Sofradzija said he did not know what exactly he's spend his fortune on, but he promised it would be something stupid.
*****
Now, the chronological style:
*****
School
was canceled forever today after a 44-year-old college instructor won a
multi-billion dollar lottery, quitting his job and sparking a walkout
among his students.
Omar
Sofradzija, who teaches a journalism class at Michigan State University
in East Lansing, won the $99 billion Amazeballs drawing Monday, after
which he quit Tuesday, lottery officials said.
That
was followed by a mass walkout by MSU students, and then cancelation of
MSU classes the next day, university officials said.
"If there's no Omar, there simply isn't any point in having school," MSU president Lou Anna K. Simon said.
Events
quickly began to unfold around 8 p.m. Monday, when Sofradzija was named
the Amazeballs winner. His resignation was submitted to MSU by 6 a.m.
Tuesday, school officials said.
"Seriously, eff those little brats," Sofradzija said.
Word
quickly swirled around campus of Sofradzija's departure, with students
walking out of their classes em masse throughout the day Tuesday, school
officials said.
"If I can't learn from Omar, I can't learn. I'm that stupid," said Elvis Presley, a sophomore journalism major from Canada.
University leaders met that night before making the cancellation of the semester official at 8 a.m. today, officials said.
Now, which is the best structure to use: inverted pyramid or chronology? Again, it depends on what best tells the story.
If
you're writing about something complex where impact and meaning doesn't
necessarily happen in sequence -- like a tuition increase or comparing
on-campus and off-campus housing -- then structuring things based on an
analyzed importance may be the way to go.
But
of the story you're looking into naturally and dramatically unfolds in
order -- like a bank robbery or 9/11 -- then a chronology probably works
best.
A lot of it depends on what kind
of facts you dig up while reporting. Note in each approach, some facts
get greater or lesser emphasis, and some facts get entirely left out.
You should think about which approach best uses the most important,
relevant, interesting and useful facts. Whichever does is probably the
highest and best approach to take.
Let
me be clear, though: these are NOT the only two story structure options
you have. As you've read in the book and probably noticed in your
newspaper readings, there are endless ways to write ledes and detail nut
grafs and add quotes and cascade facts throughout a story.
You're
first and foremost looking for the best way to tell a story, based on
what makes meaning and context and accuracy clear and easy to follow.
These are just two basic ways to do that. Master this, and then start practicing other ways.
Thursday, September 26, 2013
Final Ledes: Ledes I Liked ...
... included ...
Despite Olivida Saleeby’s plea,
the East Lansing Zoning Board voted unanimously last night against the burial
of her dead husband
in the backyard of her home on Elizabeth Lane.
... and ...
Talk about timing.
The latter one is an alternative lede with a nut graf, obviously.
FYI, most people did at least well, if not great, on this assignment. I did grade you harder than in previous assignments, as I will as we have more practice opportunities, lectures and blog reviews under our belts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)