JRN 200: Neutral Experts

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.” 

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!

JRN 200: 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?):

O'Donnell questions separation of church, state

By BEN EVANS, Associated Press Writer 

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 right

RFTM Chapter 17: Feature Stories

Feature stories (also known as human interest stories) often describe a person, place, process or idea rather than an event or issue. Such a story may read more like a non-fiction short story than a structured formulatic piece.

There is no single formula for writing a feature story. Such a story explores topics in greater depth than a usual news story, but like the latter still must be totally factual and objective. A feature may lack hard news value, with relevance being less important than simple interest.

How do we find a feature topic? Be curious and observant. Ask yourself, What's interesting? What's different? What's everybody talking about?

Consider topics involving "universal needs;" e.g., needs most people have in common, like food, clothing, shelter and home, sex and love, health, approval and belonging, self-esteem, work, entertainment and sports, and current events.

Types of feature stories can include profiles or personality features about a single individual's character and circumstances; historical features commemorating dates of important events and offering perspective on what past events mean now; adventure features that describe an unusual or exciting experience; and explanatory features that offer more detailed descriptions or explanations of things, trends or ideas in the news.

Also, there are how-to features that tell readers how to perform a task; occupational or hobby features that tell of jobs or niches that are different or interesting; personal experience or participatory features written in the first person voice; behind-the-scenes features giving readers an inside view of an event; medical features involving health or fitness topics; business features on a new person or aspect of local commerce, and seasonal features highlighting an annual season or holiday, among other types of features.  

Types of features ledes are less rule-laden than for straight news stories. You must interest people and lure them into the story. Often, alternative ledes work best. You can be much more loose and informal than with a hard news story, but like a hard news report everything must still be based on facts and what you have discovered.

The body of a feature story is also exempt from many of the usual rules. In organization, it simply must be coherent. Facts must fit together smoothly and logically. Emphasize lively details and action, and try to bring characters to life. Again, everything must still be based on verifiable facts, not opinion or imagination. You can be creative in writing style, but don't create things that didn't happen or that you can't verify.

The ending of a feature story, unlike a hard news story, offers a satisfying conclusion. (In a hard news story, we don't end with the ending because the lede is the ending, summing up end result and ultimate outcome.) The ending could be an anecdote or a quote, but it should wrap things up.

But DON'T end with a summary of what happened. You'll likely just state the obvious.

Robbery: The Peanut Barrel Rule, Revisited

There were plenty of decent ledes in the ROBBERY exercise. You made some good decisions on how to best use the space you were allotted in creating the highest and best ledes possible.

But some were better than others. Let's look at this one:

A 22-year-old college student was fired from his job for having a gun in the store against company policy.


This is factually correct. And it does go to end result in one sense; that he got fired. But it missed end result in another sense: that a man was killed. And it fails to grasp context: not just that he was fired for having a gun, but that he was fired for having a gun that he used to kill a man while defending himself.


Think about the Peanut Barrel rule: would you first tell friends that a man was fired for having a gun at work, or that he was fired for having a gun at work that he used to save his own life?


In that sense, even this lede fell short:

A convenience store clerk shot and killed a man who attempted an armed robbery yesterday in Haslett.


Is what makes this story unique and different from other robbery stories in this lede? I think not. It's missing what the first lede had: consequence for the clerk.

Again, let's think about a Peanut Barrel situation. You wouldn't tell your friends, "The cops found some dead dude" or "A dude lost his job because he brought a gun to work" or just "Some guy shot and killed a robber." You'd be all like, "Yeah, this dude killed another dude robbing a store, but the victim lost his job for having a gun at work!"

It's the combination of those things that makes this story stand out. Here's one lede/nut graf combo that's along those lines:

A robbery at O-Mart late Sunday ended with a dead robber and a fired store clerk.

Michael Layoux was working at the O-Mart at Haslett when around 11 p.m. an individual came in to rob the store. Layoux shot and killed the robber, who was later identified as Robert Wiess. 


Here's another really strong lede/nut graf combo that gets it all in:

A Lansing Community College student was fired from his clerk's job this morning after the district manager of O-Mart deemed his possession of a gun that potentially saved his life was against company policy.

Michael Layoux, 22, was the single employee working at the O-Mart at 1248 E. Forest Boulevard in Haslett Sunday evening when Robert Wiess entered the store and demanded Layoux empty the cash register while holding him at gunpoint.

After emptying the register, Layoux said he grabbed his .25-caliber pistol from under the counter and shot Wiess three times.


Still, I think I could top those ledes. I think I'd hit hard on the connection between saving his life and losing his job. If I decided to go straight with little color, I'd do this:

A Haslett convenience store clerk won't face charges for shooting and killing a would-be robber, but he lost his job for violating company rules of possessing handguns on the job.


Or if I wanted to get a bit colorful:

The same actions that allowed Michael Layoux to save his own life also cost him his job.


. . . or . . .
 



Michael Layoux didn't break the law when he shot and killed a robber last night. But he did break a company rule, and that will cost him his job.

How do my ledes adhere to the Peanut Barrel rule? Which works best, and why? Your turn to critique me.

JRN 200: Your Tuesday 6/27 Homework

Yep, another practice story!

You will write a story based on information from Ch. 16, Ex. 1, p. 341, #1. The slug will be SQUIRRELS.

For this assignment, the school in question is Lansing Community College. The city in which all this is taking place is Lansing. The name of a professor is spelled two different ways; the correct spelling is Brookes. The incorrect spelling is Brooks, and using the latter spelling will get you a fatal.

Your deadline will be no later than 9 a.m. Thursday to omars@msu.edu.

In filing, be sure that you put down your name, the due date, the assignment slug and the assignment page numbers in the upper left-hand corner of your Word document.

Also, please make sure you are, in fact, using a Word document, and not some other format that I may or may not be able to open or add comments to.

Also, in the email subject line, just put down the slug, and nothing else. Not your name, not anything. Just the slug,m which in this case is SQUIRRELS. Doesn't matter if it's upper-case, lower-case or a combination thereof.

Also, make sure you are reviewing the AP Stylebook and/or AP Style blog posts, as needed. I have begun grading you in part based on your adherence AP Style.

(And it wouldn't hurt to backtrack to blog posts regarding any subject area where you think you still need some work. Each blog post has a tag at the bottom that categorizes it. Clicking on such tags will bring up all blog posts with similar tags. So, if you click on one "AP Style" tag, the blog will pull out all blog posts with that tag.) 

Finally, keep working on your out-of-class story story pitch, as directed in an earlier blog post. Your tip sheets will be due via email to omars@msu.edu no later than 9 a.m, this Thursday.

Any questions? Call or text me at 702-271-7983, email me at omars@msu.edu, or schedule a time to stop by and say hello at my office at CAS 360.

RFTM Chapter 11: 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.

Robbery: Some Strong Examples ...

... of what a properly-sourced story with a good lede looked like, via one of youze.

The lede goes to end result and ultimate outcome, not only in that a man was shot, but the victim also lost his job as a result.


There's a strong nut graf, that helps explain the lede in greater detail: WHO was shot, WHO did the shooting.


In the narrative body of the story, there is frequent attribution, so the reader knows exactly where the reporter got his or her information from.

Is the story perfect? No. For example, it lacks a specific address for where the robbery took place.

Still, it is a decent example to look at and consider against your own work. Here we go:

A convenience store robbery late yesterday resulted in one man lifeless, and one clerk jobless after an act of self-defense. 

Twenty-two-year-old Michael Layoux was working alone at the O-Mart in Haslett last night when he shot Robert A. Wiess three in the chest and side.

Wiess walked into the convenience store just after 11 p.m. asking for a pack of Winston cigarettes when he then pulled out a gun and asked for the money in the register, said Layoux. 

Layoux said he gave the robber the money, but was then motioned to move toward the cooler.

“The only thing I could figure was that he wanted to shoot me, and he wanted to do it in some place where no one could see what was happening,” Layoux said. 

Being shoved towards the cooler, Layoux said he was scared.  He then shot the robber with the .25-caliber pistol he kept under the counter.

Layoux started carrying a gun to work after two clerks at another convenience store in the city were robbed and killed last year, he said. 

“Carrying a gun is against company policy, but I figured I had to protect myself,” Layoux said. 

The robber ran straight through the glass of the front door after the shootings. Police officers of the Meridian Township Police Department found Wiess dead in a field 200 yards away, Layoux said. 

The Ingham County District Attorney, Ramone Hernandez, confirmed that the shooting was self-defense, and Layoux would not be prosecuted. 

Because it is against company policy to carry a gun in the store, the district manager called and fired Layoux from his job, Layoux said. 

Layoux says he can understand the company rules. “He was dead, and now I’ve lost my job. But I wouldn’t do it any different,” said Layoux. 

***** 

Here's another strong example that offers a solid lede, a strong nut graf, and good attribution throughout. The big miss here? The exact time the incident took place:

****** 

Michael Layoux, an employee of the O-Mart convenience store in Haslett, was forced to act in self-defense when he was robbed late last night, according to the Meridian Township Police Department. 

The 22-year-old college student shot and killed the armed intruder, who has been identified as Robert Wiess. Layoux says Wiess came into the store asking for a pack of cigarettes. 

“I handed him a pack and then he pulled a gun and says, ‘you see what I got?’ He had a pistol and he held it low, level with his hip, so no one outside the store could look in and see it,” Layoux said. 

After handing him the money from the cash register, Layoux says Wiess started to shove him towards the beer and soda cooler located in the back of the store. 

“The only thing I could figure was that he wanted to shoot me and he wanted to do it in some place where no one could see what was happening,” Layoux said. “That’s where the two other clerks were shot last year, in a cooler in their store.”

Layoux said the 24-hour store has a history of holdups, particularly late at night when no one is around. Consequently he keeps a .25-caliber pistol under the counter to protect himself, which he utilized last night. 

“I shot him three times in the chest and side but I didn’t know right away that I hit him,” Layoux said. 

According to police, the body was found in a field 200 yards away after Wiess broke through the glass door of the store. 

Although District Attorney Ramone Hernandez confirmed that his office considered the shooting self-defense, Layoux still faces termination from his job. 

“I got a call at home from my district manager and he said I’m fired because it’s against company policy to have a gun at the store,” Layoux said. “It’s a real shame because I’m still a college student and I need the job.”

Regardless of losing his job, Layoux says he wouldn’t have acted any differently.