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.

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.

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.

 

Final Ledes: Don't Assume

I think we did in this lede:

Despite being involved in a minor car accident caused by cell phone distraction Wednesday, state Rep. Constance Wei continues to fight a ban on cell phone use while driving.

The problem I have is that, while we know that she's fought the ban up to know, we really don't yet know based on the information we have on hand that the crash has changed her mind. We're assuming it has.

And in journalism, we can't do that. Either the facts are there and we know, or the question is still unanswered and we don't know. This falls in the latter.

If this was a real story situation, probably the first question you'd want to ask Wei is if she has any second thoughts about her political position. I think there's a good chance that this lede would end up being right. But we're supposed to know we're right when we hit the "send" button.  

Let's be sure we go with what we know, based on the evidence on hand.

Final Ledes: Needle In A Haystack

We had a few people end up writing ledes that really didn't get to the gist of the story: ones that centered on the legal debate on whether to allow cell phone use while driving, for example.

But that's not what the story was about. This lede I thought summed up the central point nicely:

A representative who opposes the banning of cell phone usage while driving caused a car crash Wednesday evening while discussing postponing a vote on the bill.

Now, was that evident in the material you had to read? No. It was overstuffed with secondary and nebulous crap. And that was by design.

Rarely -- if ever -- is a news story easy and immediate to identify. Most of the time, you have to sift and root through information (much of which is irrelevant or secondary in nature) to find what is the latest happening, ultimate outcome and/or what is of most interest/relevance/utility.

So you had the info about Constance Wei trying to block a cell phone driving ban. You had some background on a fatal accident that prompted sponsorship of the bill. You have that Wei was driving and talking on the phone about that very same bill when she got into an accident. And you have there were minor injuries in the accident.

A lot of that info was there to distract you, just like in real life you'd go through a ton of info to get to what mattered. Your job was to take a full accounting of what you have, fix in on what was most newsworthy, and discard the rest.

And I think what was most unique,most immediate, most contextual and best adhered to the Peanut Barrel rule was what the aforementioned lede focused upon.

It's like having to find a needle in a haystack. It's hard, yes. But that's the job. Readers don't need us to tell the easy stories; they need us to cut through the clutter and report the hard tales.

Final Ledes: Who, What, WHEN, Where, Why

This is a pretty good lede:


State Rep. Constance Wei may find validating her opposition to a ban on cell phone usage while driving more difficult after slamming into another car as she talked on the phone. 

... but there's a pretty big miss. When did it happen? Today? Yesterday? Six months ago?

Often, with news we are trying to highlight that it is new. Prominently saying when helps us do that.

Let's be sure we're using the 5 W's as a sort of checklist, to make sure critical elements are making the lede. 

Final Ledes: Get To The End Result

In most ledes, we want to aim for getting to the main point; that is, the end result and ultimate outcome. How did things end up?

This lede doesn't quite get there:
 
Til' death do us part is still too soon for Olivida Saleeby, who requested that the East Lansing Zoning Board allow her to bury her husband of 62 years in their backyard. 

In it, we know what the issue was, but we don't know how it ended up. The news isn't that the board was deciding the issue; it's how they decided it.

This lede goes the extra, necessary step:

“Rest in peace” remains easier said than done for Olivida Saleeby after the East Lansing Zoning Board denied her request to bury her husband in the backyard of their home.

Again, the news isn't that the burial was requested; it's that it was denied.

Final Ledes: Writing With (AP) Style

When talking abut Constance Wei, is is State Representative Constance Wei; or State Rep. Constance Wei; or Constance Wei, a State Representative; or Constance Wei, a state representative?

It's State Rep. Constance Wei; or Constance Wei, a state representative. How do I know that? AP Style, under titles:

In general confine capitalization to formal titles used directly before an individual's name ... capitalize formal titles when they are used immediately before one or more names ...  the following formal titles are capitalized and abbreviated as shown when used before a name both inside and outside quotations: Dr., Gov., Lt. Gov., Rep., Sen., and certain military ranks listed in military titles. All other formal titles are spelled out in all uses. 

There are a ton of exceptions under titles, so that's a section you probably want to check frequently.

Also, as we noted earlier in a first reference we ALWAYS use first and last names: Constance Wei. But from then on we use only the last name: Wei.

This is what it says under names:

In general, use last names only on second reference.


Also, If someone's title precedes their name, then you capitalize: State Rep. Constance. Likewise, you capitalize a title when part of an entity's formal name: East Lansing Zoning Board

If someone's title follows their name, then it's lower-case: Constance Wei, a state representative. Likewise, if a title is not part of an entity's formal name, then it is lower-cased: the zoning board of East Lansing

When a title is used without a name, it's lower-cased: a state representative, a zoning board.

Also, titles in most cases should not be included after a first reference. You may start out by saying State Rep. Constance Wei, but in subsequent references it's just Wei, minus the State Rep. and Constance.

Under AP Style:

In subsequent references, do not continue using the title before a name. Use only the last name.


Moving on, when do you spell out avenue and street, and when do you abbreviate it?

In AP Style under addresses, it says to abbreviate when used with a specific street number, like 8397 Liberty Ave.

But when using just the street name without a number, it's spelled out, like Liberty Avenue.

Final Ledes: Lede And Let Die

Fatals? Yes. How to avoid 'em? Follow along:

1. Double-check dates! One of us wrote that the Constance Wei car crash happened this evening. In fact, the crash happened late Wednesday afternoon.

The facts given said the crash happened Wednesday, and at 5:37 p.m. (The date and time were posted in separate places). Evening is generally defined as the time between 6 p.m. and midnight.)

2. Double-check locations! Two of us wrote that the crash happened on Collins Avenue. In fact, the crash happened at the intersection of 29th Street and Melrose Avenue. Collins Avenue is where the victim resides. 

For those of you keeping score at home, six of 18 students in this class are now official members of The JRN 200 No-Fun-Fatals Club. We'll get tee shirts when we have more members.

Something that's important to note is that the three people who fataled this time around are three of the people performing pretty damn well sofar this semester. 


Early on in this class, I talked about how doing all the little routine things in journalism -- like thoroughly checking your work to make sure what you wrote was what you intended to write, and that it was accurate as compared to your notes and the facts -- was something that you could never take for granted. It's not.

Avoiding fatals has nothing to do with talent, just vigilance. In the same way America can have the best army in the world, it doesn't really matter if the one night the army takes the night off, Canada decides to invade us. Canada will kick our asses if we're snoozing,no matter how many nukes we have.

Or if we're trying to stay in shape, and instead of running our miles every day we start to cut corners and slack here and there. Eventually, the pounds will start showing.

The fact is, you could be the world's best journalist, and you still have to do all the little and annoying things -- like checking routine facts -- if you want to stay ahead of making mistakes. Because when you're processing thousands of words a day in a professional environment and on deadline, a mistake is always waiting to catch you at a lax moment and bite your ass.

It's why The New York Times has the best journalists in the world, yet they still have a copy desk.

So there's no big thing to learn from the fatals, other than if we want to do things the right way, we have to do things the right way completely and each and every time.

One more time: journalism isn't about writing; it's about getting it right. Let's not get into a hbit of taking short0cuts, because they will catch up to us. 

Take time before you start to write to make sure you understand the material, identify the key points and know how things went down. Take time after you finish writing to go over your story fact-by-fact -- and don';t simply run spell check! -- making sure what you wrote was what you intended to write AND is accurate.

Let's build some good habits here. 

JRN 200: Three Accuracy Checklists

As a public service, offered below are digital copies of the two accuracy checklist handouts I passed out earlier this semester, and a third digital-only list of proofreading tips. Please take a look at the suggestions here, and work them into a regular routine that best works for you.

*****

ACCURACY CHECKLIST FOR JOURNALISTS

Created by the Reynolds School for Business Journalism

Distributed by the Poynter Institute for Journalism

Instructions

After completing your story, use the down arrow on your keyboard to highlight and then complete each of these checks.

I. Facts

Check these first three items while your story is on the screen:

1. Run spell-check, review suggestions and correct any actual errors.
2. Click hyperlinks.
3. Call phone numbers.

Use a printout of the story for the remaining checks:

4. Put a ruler under each line as you read the text. Underline every fact, and then double-check each one, including:

a) Names and titles of people, places and companies - Also, does each second reference (Jones) have a first reference (Mary Jones)?

b) Numbers and calculations - Do the numbers add up? Is it millions or billions? Are the percentages correct?

c) Dates and ages - Watch references to “next month/last month” when the month is changing.

d) Quotes - Are quotes accurate and properly attributed? Have you fully captured what each person meant?

e) Superlatives - What’s your source that something is the biggest, oldest, etc.?

II. Grammar

5. Check each sentence for correct use of:

a) Subject-verb agreement - Also, are you consistent in your use of either the present or the past tense to tell the story?

b) Pronoun-noun agreement.


c) Plurals and possessives.

d) Punctuation.

III. Spelling

6. Read the story backwards, checking the spelling of each word. Use a dictionary.

IV. Fairness and context

7. Terms - Define or eliminate unfamiliar terms, such as acronyms and jargon.

8. Fairness - Have all stakeholders been contacted and given a chance to talk?

9. Missing - Does the story leave any important question unanswered?

10. Context - Does the reader have the context to understand the story?

V. Your own common errors (for example, if you have a habit of getting dates wrong, misspelling names, ect.)

11. ____________________________________________

12.____________________________________________

VI. Final checks

13. Read the story aloud.

14. Have someone else read it. 

15. Accompanying elements - Run the previous checks on the story's headlines, captions, sidebars, photos, graphics, videos, interactive media and podcasts. Check for inconsistencies.

*****


CHECKLIST ON AVOIDING ACCURACY PROBLEMS

Reporting isn't just about habits; it's also about a mindset that nothing is assumed and everything needs to be cross-checked for accuracy. This is a modified version of an editor's checklist on how to help reporters avoid inaccuracy problems by having the right skeptical mindset. I think there are some tips worth following. Let's take a look:

Problem: Not detail-oriented. Plan to ask at least five extra questions not covered in your assignment that go into greater detail; keep asking clarifying questions.

Problem: Making assumptions. Reports should back up statements in story with evidence; reporters should take their time and not rush during interviews; reporters should self-edit religiously and ask themselves if they can back up what they are writing; reporters should ask sources follow-up questions; reporters should ask the obvious questions to make sure they're not assuming; reporters should ask, "How do you know that? and "how do I know that?" of themselves and sources.

Problem: Interviewing confusion. Reporters shouldn't be shy about asking sources to slow down or repeat something; reporters ask "can you elaborate?" or say, "I don't understand"; reporters can repeat the information back to the source in their own words and give the source the opportunity to correct them; reporters can go back over direct quotes with the source; reporters can make a recording of events or interviews that can be checked.

Problem: Relying on out-of-date information. Never type something before you've checked it; always ask sources for an updated title; do research ahead of time; check Web sites for the last time they were updated and if it's been more than one year, then the information might be old; check the date on press releases.

Problem: Time constraints. Plan ahead for a long day -- start doing research the night before or get up early to get all your reporting done on time; overestimate the time everything will take; start writing what you know while waiting for that last callback, it might also help you find out earlier what you don't know; don't multitask during the editing process; keep fact-checking.

Problem: Exaggerating/using more powerful words than your reporting shows. Use precise language; use self-discipline and resist the urge to overwrite or overstate the facts; always attribute it. If you can't attribute some part of your story, then perhaps your words are wrong; reporters should use balanced reporting and make sure that it's reflected in the writing of the story; reporters should put the facts in the proper context.

Problem: Relying on unreliable sources. Reporters can ask sources for another source or documents to back up what they tell you; reporters should vet sources' credibility during interviews. Does what they're saying make sense? Always ask, "How do you know that?"



*****

Get Your Eagle Eye On: 10 Tips for Proofreading Your Own Work

A guest post by Leah McClellan of Peaceful Planet

The best blog post I read this morning—of many—is good. Very good, actually. It flows. It’s fresh. It has a rhythm that drew me in and made me want to read every word. The ideas are thought-provoking.
But how much more enjoyable would it have been if I didn’t have to reread certain sections to make sure I was getting the gist of things? How much better would the post be if I didn’t hesitate at it’s instead of its and there instead of they’re? How much intended meaning and power was lost over a lack of subject-verb agreement or commas that might have been better placed?
Tripping, stumbling, and hesitating over misspelled words or ill-placed punctuation is like watching a TV show with a shaky cable signal or trying to talk while a cell phone connection is breaking up—the reader is jostled right out of the story the writer is telling.

If the errors are too big or too many, I’m outta there.

This writer intentionally broke a lot of rules in his 1100-word article, and he broke them well. Sentence fragments clustered together as ideas to ponder, a long list of items without commas that symbolizes repetitive drivel, the same word repeated over and over in a few short sentences to pound in a point. Good stuff and well done, for the most part.
Some grammar and punctuation rules can—and should—be broken, when you know what the rules are and how to break them effectively. But the lack of solid proofreading in this piece is like cake without icing, pottery without glaze, or a fine piece of wood in need of a polish. The writer didn’t step back and get his Eagle Eye on.
“Come on,” you chortle. “It’s hard to proofread your own work. And who notices anyway?”
Believe it or not, lots of people notice unless they’re just scanning. And it’s quite possible that many of those scanners might linger on every word you write if typos and bloopers and unintentionally-broken punctuation or grammar rules weren’t making them stumble and wonder and lose their focus.

Typos and errors break up the “voice” that readers are trying to hear as they read your written words.

It doesn’t matter whether you’re a freelancer, a blogger, a student, or anyone who writes for any reason. Most of us don’t have proofreaders or a skilled family member or friend to help us out on a regular basis. And if you’re submitting work to an agent or publisher or a big blog for consideration, why let typos and mistakes clutter and cloud the brilliant work you want them to read?
Any time you write something, you want readers to enjoy and appreciate your masterpiece. It’s your baby, an extension of yourself. Take good care of it.

Writing and editing is art. Proofreading is science.

So says Rushang Shah, President of Gramlee.com, an online editing service with editors behind the scenes constantly proofreading and copyediting. Rushang says that “all proofreading and copyediting involves the human element, and that’s why computers cannot replace a proofreader.”
Proofreading your own work can be challenging, it’s true. You already know the story, you already have a picture in your mind of what to expect and, as a result, you tend to skim over words and groups of words. Plus, you know your own voice and, even if there are errors in your writing, you don’t “hear” them or see them because you’re in a hurry, and your mind fills in the blanks as you skim over things. You might be daydreaming—even if you’re reading out loud.
If you have a system, though, proofreading can be like doing a quality check on an assembly line. It’s just busy work, really, and not very creative at all. But it’s so important.

Here are some tips to help you get your Eagle Eye on and proofread your own work like a pro.

1. Don’t proofread until you’re completely finished with the actual writing and editing. If you make major changes while proofreading, even if it’s just within sentences, you’re still in an artistic, creative mode, not a science mode.
2. Make sure you have no distractions or potential interruptions. Shut down email and social media, hide the cell phone, shut off the TV, radio, or music, and close the door. Print your document if you need to get away from the computer altogether.
3. Forget the content or story. Analyze sentence by sentence; don’t read in your usual way. Focus on spelling, grammar, and punctuation. Work backwards, if that helps, or say the words and sentences out loud. Concentrate.
4. Make several passes for different types of errors. Try checking spelling and end punctuation on one pass, grammar and internal punctuation on another, and links or format on yet another pass. Develop a system.
5. Take notes. If you notice a format issue while checking spelling or if you need to look something up, make a quick note and come back to it so you don’t lose your focus.
6. If you do make a last-minute change to a few words, be sure to check the entire sentence or even paragraph over again. Many errors are the result of changes made without adjusting other, related words.
7. Check facts, dates, quotes, tables, references, text boxes, and anything repetitive or outside of the main text separately. Focus on one element or several related aspects of your writing at a time.
8. Monitor yourself. If you find yourself drifting off and thinking about something else, go back over that section again. Try slapping your hand or tapping a foot in a rhythm as you examine each word and sentence out loud.
9. Get familiar with your frequent mistakes. Even the most expreienced writer mixes up their, they’re, and there or too, two, and to. When I’m tried or writing fast, I right what I here in my mind and just get careless. Not a big deal. That’s what proofreading is for. You caught those errors, didn’t you?
10. Check format last. Every document has format, even an email, whether it’s paragraph spacing, text wrap, indentations, spaces above and below a bullet list or between subheadings and text, and so on. Leave this for the end because contents may shift during handling.
You already know better than to rely on spell-check, so I won’t belabor the point except to say that “wear form he untied stats” doesn’t bother spell-check but it might get an American in trouble at a customs checkpoint.

What if you don’t quite know what you’re looking for while proofreading?

Do you know basic comma rules, how to use a semi-colon, or when to use who or whom? You might have an excellent sense of what things should look like or sound like, especially if you’re an avid reader, but if you don’t know basic grammar and punctuation rules, proofreading might be guesswork, at best, with doubtful results, at worst. Why not make your life easier and your writing better? Take some time to learn basic rules from some online resources I consult when I need help:

Grammar Girl: Quick and Dirty Tips
Purdue Online Writing Lab: General Writing Resources
Oxford Dictionaries: Better Writing
GrammarBook.com

You can also download a free copy of The Handy-Dandy Everybody’s Guide to Proofreading over at my blog, Peaceful Planet.

Don’t let mistakes tarnish your work of art, whether it’s a research paper, a blog post, a query letter, or business communication. And remember, proofreading is not the same as writing and editing. It’s not about creativity; it’s a science that needs a system. Follow these tips and create your own system, and you’ll have your Eagle Eye on in no time.

Leah McClellan is a freelance writer, copyeditor, proofreader, gardener, vegetarian, and animal lover who dreams of world peace and writes about communication at Peaceful Planet.

RFTM Ch. 11: Quotations and Attribution

What do quotations do? They add color, interest and personality; they allow for a voice other than that of the writer; and they offer evidence of what the writer is concluding.

There are three types of quotations. The first is known as a direct quotation. That is a source's exact words, set inside quotation marks. For example:

Tom Izzo tells Omar Sofradzija, "You are a God-awful teacher." So, a direct quote of this would be, "You are a God-awful teacher," Tom Izzo said. Please note what is being said is EXACTLY what the speaker said, and the saying is entirely inside of quotation marks.


The second is an indirect quotation, also known as a paraphrase. This is when  the writer summarizes or paraphrases a source's words. A paraphrase is NOT placed inside of quotation marks. For example:

Tom Izzo tells Omar Sofradzija, "You are a God-awful teacher." So, an indirect quotation/paraphrase could be, Tom Izzo was critical of Omar Sofradzija's teaching skills. Please note that the sentence is a summary based on the quote, and no quotation marks are used at all.

The third is a partial quotation. This is when we select key phrases from a source's own words, setting just those phrases in quotation marks. For example:

Tom Izzo tells Omar Sofradzija, "You are a God-awful teacher," So, a partial quote could be, Tom Izzo described Omar Sofradzija's skills as "God-awful." Please note that the portion being used inside of quotation marks is EXACTLY what the speaker said, and is a portion that is critical in highlighting context and meaning.

When do we use quotations? To let a source essentially talk directly to a reader (it's not just the writer asking readers to take his or her word for it; he or she is sharing with the audience what was said directly from the source); when the writer can't improve upon the quotation or match its color, rythym, wit or emotion; to tie a controversial opinion or happening to a source; as evidence for the statement; and/or to reveal the speaker's character.

When do you use direct quotes? When such a quote illustrates a key point. The quote shouldn't necessarily tell the whole story.Often, we will summarize a major point, and then follow that summarization with a key quote to explain the idea or provide more specific detail.

For example:

Tom Izzo was promoted to MSU president Tuesday, and his first course of action was to fire journalism instructor Omar Sofradzija.

"You are a God-awful teacher," Izzo told Sofradzija.

See how the first graf sets up the second; the second underlines and supports the main point of the first, and the two grafs support each other?

When do you use indirect quotations? If a direct quote is weak, boring or confusing; when sources fail to state their ideas effectively or coherently, or when a source states the obvious.

For example, let's imagine the Izzo quote we've been using actually was "Omar, you know, uh, you're God-awful at teaching and stuff." Obviously, not a great quote to use, with all the "uh" and "you know" and what-not. So, perhaps you offer a summary that's true to the facts of the quote, like,  Izzo was highly critical of Sofradzija's teaching skills. No quote marks needed, intent expressed accurately but grammar cleaned up for clarity.

When do we use partial quotations? One could be used in the aforementioned situation by stripping a key, telling word or phrase from a shoddy or long quote, like this: Izzo described Sofradzija's teaching ability as "God-awful." We should use these very sparingly. Partial quotes can be awkward, wordy or unnecessary; they can be misleading or libelous if the partial quote changes meaning and context; and it leaves the audience suspicious of what you cut out.

Do you change quotations, to do things like correct grammatical errors? No. Never. NEVER EVER EVER. If it's inside of quotation marks, it should be EXACTLY what the person said. If Izzo said "I'm gonna fire you!" then it should be "gonna," not "going to." If the poor grammar bothers you that much or if you think it would be confusing to the audience, then consider a paraphrase or partial quote.

What is attribution? Attribution is labeling for your readers the person that was the source of information. For example, if we have a quote like, "I'm gonna fire you!" Tom Izzo said, the Tom Izzo said part of that is the attribution.

Attribution allows writers to rely on the expertise of their sources; for example, if you're writing a story about a house fire, attributing information to firefighters and witnesses and home occupants increases your credibility, because it's clear to readers that your information is coming from people who are very relevant to the fire. It builds credibility with readers.

It also allows readers to know and vet the reliability of your sources. (If you're doing a story about Tom Izzo quitting as basketball coach and statements are attributed to Tom Izzo, readers know it's solid. If it's attributed to his wife or assistant coaches, readers know it's from people who are in a position to know. If it's attributed to an eighth-grader living in Ann Arbor, not so much. If it's attributed to no one, who knows, then?)

What kinds of statements require attribution? For example:

Information you get from other people, such as from personal interviews: "I love donuts," Tom Izzo said.

Information you get from documents: Tom Izzo eats 150 donuts a day, according to medical records.

Information that was not offered to you first-hand, such as reports from other media: Tom Izzo was rejected as a Weight Watchers spokesman because of his donut-eating habits, according to CNN.

Information gathered online from Web sites: Tom Izzo has ballooned up to 400 pounds, according to ESPN.com. He is eating 150 donuts a day, Izzo said via his Twitter account.

Statements about controversial issues. Be sure to use quotes to make clear key story points: Izzo said donuts are healthy, contradicting scientific research. "If donuts were bad for you, they wouldn't taste so good," he said.

Statements of opinion. As neutral journalists, we need to be clear we're not offering an opinion; the people we're reporting on are: "Donuts are the greatest thing ever brought to earth by the little baby Jesus, which I prefer over the bearded older Jesus,"Tom Izzo said.

All direct and indirect quotations. We need to make sure readers know who is saying what, every time.

Pretty much every paragraph after the lede and nut graf. The lede and nut graf are usually a summary of things from various sources, but after that point we need to be specific on bits of info. We'll get into how to do this a bit more when we move on to how to structure a story in the very near future.

What kinds of statements do NOT require attribution? Very few, actually. For example:

Undisputed facts. Like, the sun rises in the East every morning.

Things the reporter witnessed. If you're covering a football game, you don't need to say, MSU beat Notre Dame, 104-0, the scoreboard said. You were presumably watching the game from the press box; you could simply say, MSU beat Notre Dame 104-0, and leave it at that.

Guidelines for the placement and frequency of attribution: Attribution can be at the beginning or the end of a sentence (for example, Izzo said Michigan sucks, or Michigan sucks, Izzo said.)

But it should not interrupt a sentence or thought (for example, don't say, The University of Michigan sucks, Izzo said, because they are wimps, with the attribution at mid-sentence. Instead, put the attribution at the start or end of the sentence, like this: Izzo said the University of Michigan sucks because they are wimps, or The University of Michigan sucks because they are wimps, Izzo said.)

Attribution should be placed at the start of any paragraph where there is a change in speaker, to avoid confusion on the part of the reader as to who is saying what.

So, let's say you had a paragraph where you were attributing things to Omar Sofradzija, followed by a graf where you're attributing Tom Izzo. That Izzo graf should begin with, Tom Izzo said, since there is a change in speaker from Omar to Izzo.

Word choice in attributing statements: 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.

There are different levels of attribution. The most basic one is known as on the record. That means everything the source says may be published and quoted directly, and that the source may be fully identified by name and title. Reporters should try to keep all or as much as possible on the record.

So, if for example you're interviewing Tom Izzo on the record, anything he says can be used in your story,  and can be attributed to him by name and title.

Then, there is off the record. And young journalists are usually confused on what this means, so please pay careful attention here: it means everything a source says CANNOT be used by a reporter. This is often confused with on background or not for attribution, which we'll get into in a moment.

Why would we talk to people off the record, if we can't use what they say? Often, it's done in an effort to gain context and confirm facts from sources that are not authorized to talk about something. Reporters should NEVER use off the record statements as the sole basis for news stories. Rather, use it as a springboard to corroborate facts through sources you can cite, like other sources or documents or whatever.

(For example, if Tom Izzo tells you off the record that Omar Sofradzija is being arrested for shoplifting, you can check police reports for such an arrest, or ask Omar's mom if he's in any trouble with the law.)

Now, let's get to on background or not for attribution, which young journalists frequently confuse with off the record. On background or not for attribution means everything the source says MAY be published and quoted, BUT the reporter may not attribute the statements to teh source by name. This is the typical anonymous source situation.

The reporter MAY describe the source by position in a general way that does not reveal a specific position incidentally, but that does indicate some level of credibility.

(For example, if Tom, Izzo tells you not for attribution that Omar Sofradzija is being fired, you could source it like, A high-ranking MSU official who asked for anonymity said Omar Sofradzija will be fired as a school instructor.)

(When doing so, make sure you don't reveal too much information about the source where you create a virtual identification. Case in point: a few years ago, a newspaper out West did an expose on a corrupt city hall, using an unnamed city hall official as the source. At times in the story, the source was referred to as she. Problem was, there was only one female employee in all of that city hall. Guess who lost their job, and then sued the newspaper for breaching a confidentiality promise?)

If you promise a source anonymity, then that promise is absolute. The only person you may tell is your editor, and then he or he is also bound not to tell anyone. And I mean anyone: not coworkers, not friends, not sources, and not judges, even when they threaten you with jail time for contempt of court (a situation most reporters never face, but one I faced twice early in my professional career).

In general, use anonymous sources sparingly. Please review guidelines on p. 291 in Reporting For The Media for tips.

Guidelines for capitalizing and punctuating quotations. First, where do we put the traditional double quotation marks (")? Quotation marks only go around the actual quote, and not the attribution. The attribution should remain outside the quotation marks. For example: "I love basketball," Tom Izzo said. Not like this: "I love basketball, Tom Izzo said."

When a quote is before attribution, then the quote should end with a comma, then the quotation mark, then the attribution, and then a period after the attribution, like this: "I love basketball," Tom Izzo said. Not like this: "I love basketball." Tom Izzo said.

When the attribution is before the quotation, then the attribution should be followed by a comma, then the quotation mark, then the quote, and then the period at the end of the quote, like this: Tom Izzo said, "I love basketball."

Now, there are times when you have a quote within a quote, like if Tom Izzo is quoting someone, and then you quote Izzo quoting the quote. When we have a quote inside a quote, the inside-quote gets single quotation marks (') and the full quote gets the traditional double marks (").

So, a quote-inside-a-quote combo could look like this: "Forrest Gump once said, 'I gotta pee,'" Tom Izzo said. The double quotation marks are around everything Izzo said, including the quote he quoted. And the quote he quotes from Forrest Gump is inside single quotation marks, which at the end creates the appearance of a triple quotation mark. Which looks weird, but it's correct.

Regarding capitalization, we should capitalize the first word in a quotation that is a complete sentence. For example, we would say, "That's my donut," Tom Izzo said, or Tom Izzo said, "That's my donut," with the first letter of the quote capitalized.

But we do not capitalize the first word in a partial quotation, unless it's at the start of a sentence. So, let's say we're partially quoting Tom Izzo saying "The Wolverines, you know, can suck it and stuff." If we had a partial quotation in the middle or end of a sentence, then we do lower-case: Tom Izzo said, "suck it" to the University of Michigan, or Tom Izzo said the University of Michigan can "suck it."

But if we start the sentence with the partial quote, then it's caps, like this: "Suck it," Tom Izzo said of the University of Michigan.

Any questions? Be sure to call or email or visit me.

More Ledes: What Does My Grade Mean?

Overall, nice work on the graded ledes exercise. Plus, for the first time you're getting very specific evaluations in numerical form. That's called a grade.

From the syllabus, here's a roundup of what the funny numbers cited in your returned work means:

4.0: Story could be published virtually as is. It shows superior command of the facts, news judgment, story organization, reporting and writing.

3.5: Could be published with very minor revisions. Generally well-written, accurate copy containing all relevant material, but requires minor editing for maximum precision and clarity.

3.0: Better-than-average story. The story was handled well. Copy needs some rewriting and polishing before it could be published.

2.5: A little above average. The story might have a significant problem with reporting, organization, completeness, ect. Certainly needs rewriting.

2.0: Average job. Not a story most readers would read unless they really needed the information. The story may have reporting, organization or writing problems.

1.5: A weak story. The story may have a buried lede, problems in news interpretation, problems in story organization, omission of some important fact or source. The story needs substantial revision.

1.0: A non-story. The story lacks news judgment, displays major flaws in reporting and writing, omits important facts. The story needs substantial rethinking. Also, a story with any fact error automatically gets this grade.

0.0: Story is late or failed to receive instructor's approval. Story is misleading or unethical. Organization of writing flaws make the story incoherent.

More Ledes: Ledes I Liked

Everyone did at least fine on this assignment, some by sticking to basic ledes, and others by trying alternative ledes.

Since you seem to have the former down pat, we'll look at the latter. Off we go:

Arrested? Prepare for a mug shot, fingerprints, and a $25 service charge.

It's basic and to-the-point, yet still a bit creative in terms of the question lede. It makes it sound a bit more conversational. So did this one:

In an attempt to cure East Lansing's financial troubles, committing a crime now costs offenders more than the humiliation of an arrest.


These next two one looked at the topic from a similarly-practical angle; what you may see as a result of the news:

Lions, elephants and giraffes may soon be found roaming a lot closer to home, as ecologists and biologists want to transplant African wildlife to the Great Plains of North America.

... and ...

While driving across the Great Plains of North America, how would you feel about looking out the car window and seeing giraffes, lions and elephants?





This next one had a bit of fun with word play:

A wild idea proposed for a transplant of African wildlife to the Great Plains of North America by Michigan State University scientists is stirring up controversy across the country.

These next two went straight to context:

What could have been the happiest day of Scott Forsythe's life turned fatal after he was killed in a car accident driving 100 mph on the way to his own wedding.

... and ...

Just 15 minutes before 22-year-old Scott Forsythe was scheduled to say "I do," a decision to save a dog's life took his own.

This next one very nicely went to end result and ultimate outcome: 

A 6-month-old girl was left unharmed in her parents’ sport-utility vehicle after it was carjacked by an armed robber at the Quik Shoppe convenience store Wednesday.










Now, which ones do you like, and why? Which ones don't you like, and how come?

More Ledes: The Peanut Barrel Rule

There's nothing wrong with this lede. But it's still missing something. Here it is:

A 22-year-old man was killed in a car accident earlier this morning after veering to avoid a dog in the road, according to police.

Technically, it's correct. But let's consider something I call the Peanut Barrel rule.

Here it is: Let's say you work at The State News, and one night you wrote this story for The State News and then headed down to the Peanut Barrel to meet friends who DON'T work at The State News and who don't particularly give a shit about journalism for a legal drink or two afterward.

So, you're there with your non-journo pals and then they asked you what you wrote about today. What would you say? More importantly, what would be first to come out of your mouth?

"Uh, well I wrote something abut a dude who got killed when he swerved his car to miss a doggie in the road."

I don't think so. What I think you'd say would be something like this:

"Dude, this was so effed up I don't believe it! Some guy was driving his car all crazy fast so he could make it to his wedding, but he CRASHED and DIED! On his WEDDING DAY! Soo effed up."

I really do think you'd certainly include the wedding angle. That's what made this crash unique and especially poignant and tragic.

If it's a fact or angle that would pass the Peanut Barrel test, then it's a good fact or angle for a lede. If your proposed lede doesn't pass Peanut Barrel muster, then try again until it does.

Obviously, you need to clean it up a bit for print. But the basics would remain the same: A 22-year-old man speeding at 100 mph crashed his car and died, just 10 minutes before his wedding was to begin.

Again, I can't say your lede was incorrect. Clearly, it passes factual muster. But is it really complete? No. It misses context, like calling 9/11 just a plane crash.

More Ledes: Alternate Ledes/Nut Grafs

In this exercise, you were asked to do just a lede, with no subsequent paragraph. But some of you did ledes that in essence acted as a combination alternate lede/subsequent nut graf, combined into a single graf.

What I did was split some of these ledes as follows, so you can see a concept at work: the nut graf.

A nut graf is the paragraph after the lede, and it usually answers critical questions created by the lede. With a standard lede, the nut graf usually fills in more specific details; for example, where a lede may refer to a victim as a 22-year-old local man, the nut graf will specify his name: Scott Forsythe. Very soon, we will get into greater detail on how to structure a nut graf with a conventional lede.

But when we do a nut graf with a unique and contextual alternate lede, it is usually followed by a nut graf that sounds more like a traditional lede that fills in the specific blanks left by your general contextual lede, and offers a strong transition to the body of the story.

Let's look at a few examples:

Freedom might not be free, but neither is detainment.

Police chief Barry Kopperrud is proposing cost cuts for the city, starting with a $25 service fee for incoming criminals.

The lede nicely sets context, then the nut graf explains the details behind the context.

Next:

It looks like someone's been thinking on the wild side!

A group of scientists are interested in a project that would transplant African wildlife to the Great Plains of North America.

The lede has fun with an odd concept, that of bringing Africa to America. So you reveled in the fun in the lede, then explained what was so unique in the nut graf.


Then, there's this:

Typically, 'til death do us part doesn't apply until after the wedding.

Scott Forsythe, 22, died in a high-speed accident around 8:45 this morning on Kirkmann Road after veering to avoid a dog. Forsythe was less than a mile away from the church where he was to be married today.

Certainly, the lede is creative, contextual and accurate. But let me ask you guys this: is it a bit too flippant and casual in noting the irony? Let's discuss.

Now, this is how you use a nut graf with an alternate lede. But it's a bit different with standard ledes. We'll get into that difference soon.

More Ledes: Fatals Recap

During this semester, we will review each and every serious fact error -- known as a "fatal" -- in hopes of learning lessons on what kinds of mistakes are common, and what we need to watch for and avoid.

Let's start with this lede: 

A unique idea, developed by scientists at MSU and other schools to transplant African wildlife to the Great Planes of North America, is being criticized for its many consequences. 

What we meant to say was Great Plains, which refers to a geographic area in the United States. But we said Great Planes, as in aircraft. (This exact mistake actually happened to two people on this exact same exercise in my spring class!)

And this reveals a principle that will be important for you to learn, ASAP: spell check will be of no help when your incorrectly-spelled word creates a correctly-spelled but unintended word.

That's why we don't simply run spell check, and we still check each fact, title, statistic and, yes, name. 

Remember the lesson: spell check is a supplement to -- but not a substitute for -- checking an article fact-by-fact with your own eyes.

The lede, structurally, is a good lede. But what we do is of no use to our audience if it's incorrect or confusing. We need to make sure our information is correct, and that we are using the correct words, correctly.

Is that being nit-picky? No; that's journalism. Giving people accurate information that has been carefully vetted is what we do. Early in the semester, I called journalism a "discipline of verification." This is what I meant.

Learning to write isn't journalism. Learning to organize information isn't all of journalism. Putting in a system of checking facts before, during and after writing and organizing information is what makes this kind of writing and organizing known as journalism.


Still, while this is discouraging, let's not get discouraged. The whole point of these exercises -- and getting fatals, too -- is to learn by doing, reviewing what was done, learning what could be done better, and then applying those lessons the next time.

And that's what we're going to do here, by redoubling our efforts to carefully fact-check everything we write.

Earlier this semester in a pair of blog posts, I posted an accuracy checklist and a list of ways to avoid inaccuracies. I would strongly suggest that you revisit those two blog posts, and begin incorporating its suggestions in your writing routines.

I've said it before, and I'll say it a bazillion more times before the semester ends: journalism isn't about writing; it's about getting it right.