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 said this, 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.

Controversial: Who Is This?

Often, readers need to know why a person being cited is being cited, like here:

Sandra Adler said, “There probably are girls who want to play on the boys football or baseball teams, but they are not allowed.” 

Okay, so who is Sandra Adler? Why is she being quoted? Is she relevant to the discussion? 

We know she is. She's a former player whose daughter played on last year's team.

Problem is, the reader doesn't know that, unless we let them know who she is, like this:

Sandra Adler, a former player whose daughter was on last year's team, said, “There probably are girls who want to play on the boys football or baseball teams, but they are not allowed.” 

Now, the reader knows why she's a relevant part of the conversation. If there is any risk of confusion or vagueness, be sure to label not only who a person is by name, but what their role is in the matter at hand. 

Controversial: Writing With (AP) Style

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.

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.

Out-Of-Class #1: How Do I Interview?

A number of people have been asking for interviewing tips, in that they don't know where to start, or what to ask, ect.

Happily, I do have some resources with which to help you guys out!

The first one is a handout called "Reporter's Tip Sheet" (not to be confused with the tip sheets with which we outline our out-of-class story proposals). Below is the text. Hope it helps! (And if not, see me ASAP so we can figure things out a bit):

REPORTER'S TIP SHEET

FIRST: Talk to you editor and ask questions to learn what the story is about, possible sources and your editor's perspective on why this is worth covering.

PREPARE FOR THE INTERVIEW:

>>> Read back issues of the publication or any other publication that has covered the story for background.

>>> Think about who is likely to know the information you need.

>>> Surf the Web and use other reporting tools to find sources to interview both on the Web or phone (for those who live out of your area) and in-person.

>>> Identify those individuals.

>>> Email or call to set up an interview.

>>> If you need biographical info from a business executive, politician or celebrity, ask in advance of interview and check out online resources like Wikipedia.

>>> Write down your questions in advance.

>>> Organize the questions so your interview flows.

>>> Read over the questions to make sure you cover all you need to in the interview.

>>> In all stories, at a minimum, you need to answer the 5 W's and H (who, what, when, where, why and how).

FACE-TO-FACE INTERVIEWS:

>>> Be on-time and dress appropriately in, at least, business casual

>>> Introduce yourself, shake hands and sit down

>>> Observe the surroundings (e.g., if you're in an office, there are family pictures, unusual artwork, ect.). Use the information for color in your story, if appropriate, and as an ice-breaker to start the interview.

>>> Make sure you have the correct spelling and title of the person you're interviewing.

>>> After one or two ice-breaker questions, start asking your formal interview questions (leave the hard or controversial questions to near the end of the interview; just be sure you don't run out of time!).

>>> Take careful notes using a reporter's notebook or laptop computer. If you use a tape recorder, you MUST still take thorough notes. (Tape recorders are notorious for malfunctioning during critical interviews.)

>>> Control the interview -- you ask the questions. Don't get tricked into answering your subject's questions or getting into a discussion or conversation with the person. That's the oldest trick in the book. Before you know it, the interview is over, and you don't have what you need for the story.

>>> Listen AND take good notes. Rich, full, direct quotes are essential in well-written stories.

>>> Get a cell phone number and email address for follow-up questions. Tell your subject you need the numbers in case you have further questions after business hours and to ensure accuracy of your story.

>>> Ask the interview subject who else could provide you with additional information.

>>> Thank the person for his or her time. 

>>> Remember, journalists do not show stories to any interviewee for their approval or verification, prior to publication. This isn't public relations for the company newsletter.

PHONE INTERVIEWS:

>>> Interviewing by phone has some strong limitations -- depriving you of visual cues from the person being interviewed.

>>> However, the phone is such a common method of communication that many times you can actually pull more information from a person in a phone interview, if you know how to ask the questions and control the direction and speed of the interview.

>>> Most of the same rules of face-to-face interviewing apply.

>>> When in doubt, check it out.

EMAIL INTERVIEWS

>>> Interviewing people by email has some inherent pluses -- you get agreat set of accurate quotes back.

>>> However, the flexibility and flow of an interview is more formalized and stilted.

>>> And, you have to make sure you are getting answers from the person you are interviewing and not some flunky or publicist who is a stand-in.

>>> It is preferable to make contact via email, then if the person is still within the U.S. to do a phone interview if a face-to-face is impossible or geographically unfeasible.

Out-Of-Class #1: More On, How Do I Interview?

In this post, we have a few more tips on how to interview and what to watch for in interviews. Off we go:

THE NEW IMPROVED RANDOM THOUGHTS ON THE ART OF INTERVIEWING

BY BRUCE SELCRAIG

1. WERE YOU SURPRISED THAT …? Has anyone ever gotten a good response to this all-time cliché query? Let’s call for a moratorium. Besides, it’s a yes or no question, which should be avoided if possible. Try to rephrase it with a “why” and you’ll likely get better responses.

2. PROMPT YOUR SUBJECT. If you ask an eight-year-old child what happened in school today, the answer is likely to be, “Nothing.” If, however, you prompt the child with, “Was your teacher kidnapped by the Taliban?” he or she may remember that indeed this occurred before lunch. Adult sources often need the same treatment. Don’t assume people remember everything or place the same significance on events that you do. Don’t just ask, “Did anything happen in the executive session?”

3. THE ARTFUL LIE. Good liars, most lawyers and many media-wise types have perfected the response that either answers a question you didn’t actually ask or conceals a larger lie. Question: “Senator, did the Tobacco Institute pay your way to Rio de Janeiro?” Answer: “It’s been my policy to never accept such junkets.” (Who asked about your policy? I want to know if you took the trip and who paid for it.)

4. THE FIRST CONFESSION. An admission of wrongdoing is a critical moment in any investigation, but be aware that the first admission is very often a lie, usually an understatement of the frequency or severity of the offense. “Yeah, I look a little money once, so what?” (He took plenty on a routine basis.)

5. THE TELEGRAPHED PASS. Many reporters preface their most sensitive questions with almost apologetic cream-puffery. “Sorry, but I’ve got to ask you this question … I know you’ve heard these allegations before, but … “ Don’t prepare them for hard questions. That moment of uncertainty on their part may tell you more than the answer itself.

6. THE JOE THEISMANN SYNDROME. Many reporters, myself lamentably included, ask questions with half-lives greater than plutonium. Err on the side of brevity. Be concise. This may be one of the few things to be learned from television reporters – but, of course, don’t tell them this.

7. THE NERVOUS LIAR. Notice stress indicators like frequent crossing and uncrossing of legs, constant handling of desk items like paperclips, picking at one’s clothing, and obvious signs like sweating or stuttering. They may not be lying yet, but you may be getting uncomfortably close to the right question. Try asking, “Have I made you nervous?” or “You seem to be bothered by something today.”

8. THE EXPERT INTERVIEW. Experts appreciate that you’ve done your homework and can ask intelligent questions, but they don’t want to hear you demonstrate your expertise. That’s why you’ve come to them. Let them impress you. Remind yourself to listen.

9. HEAR WHAT WASN’T SAID. We are often so intent on getting accurate quotes and atmospheric readings that we forget to listen between the lines. Who isn’t being discussed? Why doesn’t the mayor ever discuss that program? Why does he talk about his kids and not his wife? Which questions always get short answers?

10. THE TRUTH TEST. Especially with informants, learn to periodically ask questions to which you know the answer and know that he does, too. Be wary of the source who seems incapable of saying, “I don’t know.” The classic con hates to admit this.

11. THE HEAD FAKE. You’re trying to confirm if the FBI has begun an investigation at Steroid University. You may get nowhere if you simply ask an agent, “Can you confirm this or that?” Instead, try: “What’s the Bureau’s jurisdiction for entering this case?” “Which agent will be supervising the investigation at the university?”

12. A CHANGE OF SCENERY. Most interviews work best when the subject is relaxed and comfortable in his or her surroundings. But that’s not always wise or possible. Try adversarial interviews in settings where they can’t just simply stop the questions and show you the door. Source interviews may often work better out of the office – driving a car, attending a sports event, ect. This often relieves the one-on-one tension.

13. DO YOU CARE TO COMMENT? A real pet peeve of mine. For most people this is a red flag that screams, “I’m going to quote you, so choose your words carefully.” Similar version: “Do you have a reaction to this and that?” Many corporate executives, who are accustomed to ghostwritten quotes and p.r. puffery, think you’re not quoting them until you’ve asked for a “comment.”

14. THE EMOTIONAL OFFENDER. Generally, those who have physically harmed another person will be more emotional about the act than, for example, someone who embezzled money from a company. With the first type you might attempt to play upon their guilt. The second one, however, may feel little remorse and might be drawn out by a suggestion that the company would never miss such a small sum. (“With all the waste in this company why’d they pick on you?”)

15. LOOSE LIPS SINK REPORTERS. When that long-awaited Deep Throat calls one day and asks if you’re the ace reporter looking for dirt on Dr. Mal Practices, resist your immediate urge and calmly reply that you’re looking for any information, pro or con. Do not ever, even in joking among other reporters, say things such as, “I’d love to nail that guy” or “I know he’s guilty. I just can’t prove it.” Your libel lawyer will worship the ground you walk on.

16. THINK STRATEGICALLY. Some things will only be available to you while you’re on good terms with the subject – resumes, home phone numbers, corporate brochures, internal reports, ect. Ask for them early or during blissful interludes in your ruthless interrogation. Especially remember this if you need photos.

17. THE ELUSIVE TARGET. Some people will not speak to reporters, and no amount of magic will work. Try several times, and don’t get discouraged. But don’t completely give up until you’ve exhausted every method, including:

a. Emails, text messages, IMs, social media like Facebook, ect.

b. Contacting people away from their home city,  at conventions, perhaps.

c. If Target A won’t talk, interview his best friend or close business associate and be the very essence of charm. Word will get back.

d. Find an obscure detail about their background or family.

e. Beg, grovel, whimper, date their daughter, speak in tongues, move next door to them, promise them a co-byline, lose badly at poker, tickle their fancy, drop the names of girls they dated

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 ...

Backyard wedding? Sure. But what about a backyard burial?

The city Zoning Board says no.

Olivida Saleeby was denied permission last night to bury her late husband of 62 years in the backyard of their home where they lived for the entirety of their marriage.  

... and ...

Talk about timing.

State Rep. Constance P. Wei, an opponent of banning cell phone use while driving, rear-ended someone Wednesday while talking on her phone with another representative about postponing a vote on the ban.

... and ...

 

State Rep. Constance Wei didn’t want to miss a call, so she missed a red light instead while driving her car Wednesday evening.

She slammed into another car while she on the phone with a colleague, discussing a bill that would ban cell phone use while driving – a bill Wei does not support.

The latter three are alternative ledes with nut grafs, 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.