Missing: Don't Forget The Obvious

What's missing from this lede?

There is more missing than you think in the state of Michigan, with 57,152 reported last year by the U.S. Department of Justice.

Here's the problem: what is missing? People? Cars? Cats? What?

Let's not overlook the obvious, and let's make sure that ledes have all the information that is critical to understanding the basic gist of the story.

More Ledes: Don't Assume!

Like in this lede:

There are many fears that go through a bride's mind before their wedding. For Sara Howard, she never thought to worry about her husband's drive to the church.

Now, it's structurally fine. But the question I have is, how do you know she never thought to worry about her husband's drive to the church?

In the information you were given, you have no indication whether she wasn't worried, or that her fiancee was a shitty driver who had her constantly terrified with his lead foot.

Here, we went beyond the information you had, and made an assumption. We were being creative based on our guessing, not the facts. And we can't do that.

Now, as a journalist you would have been correct to find out if she ever though she'd have to worry about her fiancee's driving. And if she answered yes, then this lede would be perfect.

But we need to confirm the facts first.

More Ledes: Don't Assume!

Like in this lede:

There are many fears that go through a bride's mind before their wedding. For Sara Howard, she never thought to worry about her husband's drive to the church.

Now, it's structurally fine. But the question I have is, how do you know she never thought to worry about her husband's drive to the church?

In the information you were given, you have no indication whether she wasn't worried, or that her fiancee was a shitty driver who had her constantly terrified with his lead foot.

Here, we went beyond the information you had, and made an assumption. We were being creative based on our guessing, not the facts. And we can't do that.

Now, as a journalist you would have been correct to find out if she ever though she'd have to worry about her fiancee's driving. And if she answered yes, then this lede would be perfect.

But we need to confirm the facts first.

911: Don't Assume!

In one lede, you assumed by saying a 6-year-old girl saved her and her mother's life.

Now, certainly the mother was being brutally attacked. And the girl was in fear for her safety. Conventional wisdom gives you the right to label that as just that, in the same way the girl's actions can be viewed as heroic based on how she dealt with a horrible situation and how conventional wisdom would view that.

But can you say the mom would have certainly died without the 911 call being made? And do we know for sure the little girl was at risk of death?

I don't think so. This is a stretch. You can say the girl helped rescue her mother or helped apprehend her attacker, because those are based on facts. We simply don't have enough information to judge whether she would have been killed or just brutalized. There is a huge difference between the two.

Likewise, you can say the girl was terrified and at risk of harm because an attacker was in her home, but not that her life was certainly at risk.

Now, some of you said the girl potentially saved her mother's life (italics mine), or something to that effect. That's more reasonable. Certainly if she is being allegedly raped by a man with a knife, she's at risk of substantially-greater harm.

But we have to be precise in how we couch that. She may be at great risk, but she is not assured of death. Our language needs to make that clear.

In another instance, you made an assumption that the victim was someone the attacker had personally known.

You did know the victim was the suspect's neighbor, but does that automatically mean the knew each other? I mean, I don't know my neighbors. Maybe that's because I'm an asshole, but the rapist doesn't sound like the nicest neighbor, either.

Again, you're going a step further than the evidence at hand allows. Either get a clarification from sources that establishes your premise or back off to a claim better supported by the facts in hand.

Squirrels: Don't Assume!

In one story, we addressed the associate English professor as Dr. Oliver Brookes.

Here's the problem, how do we know he has a doctorate degree that allows him to be called Dr.? We don't have that information.

Being a professor doesn't automatically mean you have such a degree. I mean, technically I'm a professor and I'll I have is a bachelor's degree. Professor and Dr. are not interchangeable terms; you can be one without being the other.

In AP Style, under doctor:

Use Dr. in first reference as a formal title before the name of an individual who holds a doctor of dental surgery, doctor of medicine, doctor of osteopathic medicine, or doctor of podiatric medicine degree ... Dr. also may be used on first reference before the names of individuals who hold other types of doctoral degrees.

(There's also more details under the heading for academic degrees, FYI.) 

Now, in the dictionary on my desk, under professor:

A teacher of the highest rank in an institution of higher elarning; a teacher or instructor; one who professes.

Nothing in there about being a doctorate holder.

But we don't know whether he has a doctorate degree or not. We assumed. That assumption creates a fatal, in that we're giving Brookes a title we cannot confirm, and for which we have no basis to award him.

It's critical that we don't assume things so that we don't turn a fact into a fatal. It's critical that we use words and terms and titles correctly so that we don't unintentionally create a factual error. That's a big part of, journalism isn't about writing; it's about getting it right.

Either we know, or we don't. If we don't know, we need to seek answers to those questions. If we can't find answers, we can't assume and we go with what we have. What we do know, we need to find the right words and titles to correctly label something and not create an unintended mislabeling or misunderstanding on the part of the reader.

We had that Brookes was a teacher at LCC. We even had his title; that he was an associate professor of English. But we didn't have whether he was a doctor or not. So, as far as we know he's not a doctor until it can be proven otherwise.

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.

More Ledes: Don't Assume

Like in this lede:

There are many fears that go through a bride's mind before their wedding. For Sara Howard, she never thought to worry about her husband's drive to the church.

Now, it's structurally fine. But the question I have is, how do you know she never thought to worry about her husband's drive to the church?

In the information you were given, you have no indication whether she wasn't worried, or that her fiancee was a shitty driver who had her constantly terrified with his lead foot.

Here, we went beyond the information you had, and made an assumption. We were being creative based on our guessing, not the facts. And we can't do that.

Now, as a journalist you would have been correct to find out if she ever though she'd have to worry about her fiancee's driving. And if she answered yes, then this lede would be perfect.

But we need to confirm the facts first.

More Ledes: Don't Assume!

Like in this lede:

There are many fears that go through a bride's mind before their wedding. For Sara Howard, she never thought to worry about her husband's drive to the church.

Now, it's structurally fine. But the question I have is, how do you know she never thought to worry about her husband's drive to the church?

In the information you were given, you have no indication whether she wasn't worried, or that her fiancee was a shitty driver who had her constantly terrified with his lead foot.

Here, we went beyond the information you had, and made an assumption. We were being creative based on our guessing, not the facts. And we can't do that.

Now, as a journalist you would have been correct to find out if she ever though she'd have to worry about her fiancee's driving. And if she answered yes, then this lede would be perfect.

But we need to confirm the facts first.

911: Don't Assume!

In one lede, you assumed by saying a 6-year-old girl saved her and her mother's life.

Now, certainly the mother was being brutally attacked. And the girl was in fear for her safety. Conventional wisdom gives you the right to label that as just that, in the same way the girl's actions can be viewed as heroic based on how she dealt with a horrible situation and how conventional wisdom would view that.

But can you say the mom would have certainly died without the 911 call being made? And do we know for sure the little girl was at risk of death?

I don't think so. This is a stretch. You can say the girl helped rescue her mother or helped apprehend her attacker, because those are based on facts. We simply don't have enough information to judge whether she would have been killed or just brutalized. There is a huge difference between the two.

Likewise, you can say the girl was terrified and at risk of harm because an attacker was in her home, but not that her life was certainly at risk.

Now, some of you said the girl potentially saved her mother's life (italics mine), or something to that effect. That's more reasonable. Certainly if she is being allegedly raped by a man with a knife, she's at risk of substantially-greater harm.

But we have to be precise in how we couch that. She may be at great risk, but she is not assured of death. Our language needs to make that clear.

In another instance, you made an assumption that the victim was someone the attacker had personally known.

You did know the victim was the suspect's neighbor, but does that automatically mean the knew each other? I mean, I don't know my neighbors. Maybe that's because I'm an asshole, but the rapist doesn't sound like the nicest neighbor, either.

Again, you're going a step further than the evidence at hand allows. Either get a clarification from sources that establishes your premise or back off to a claim better supported by the facts in hand.

Squirrels: Don't Assume!

In one story, we addressed the associate English professor as Dr. Oliver Brookes.

Here's the problem, how do we know he has a doctorate degree that allows him to be called Dr.? We don't have that information.

Being a professor doesn't automatically mean you have such a degree. I mean, technically I'm a professor and I'll I have is a bachelor's degree. Professor and Dr. are not interchangeable terms; you can be one without being the other.

In AP Style, under doctor:

Use Dr. in first reference as a formal title before the name of an individual who holds a doctor of dental surgery, doctor of medicine, doctor of osteopathic medicine, or doctor of podiatric medicine degree ... Dr. also may be used on first reference before the names of individuals who hold other types of doctoral degrees.

(There's also more details under the heading for academic degrees, FYI.) 

Now, in the dictionary on my desk, under professor:

A teacher of the highest rank in an institution of higher elarning; a teacher or instructor; one who professes.

Nothing in there about being a doctorate holder.

But we don't know whether he has a doctorate degree or not. We assumed. That assumption creates a fatal, in that we're giving Brookes a title we cannot confirm, and for which we have no basis to award him.

It's critical that we don't assume things so that we don't turn a fact into a fatal. It's critical that we use words and terms and titles correctly so that we don't unintentionally create a factual error. That's a big part of, journalism isn't about writing; it's about getting it right.

Either we know, or we don't. If we don't know, we need to seek answers to those questions. If we can't find answers, we can't assume and we go with what we have. What we do know, we need to find the right words and titles to correctly label something and not create an unintended mislabeling or misunderstanding on the part of the reader.

We had that Brookes was a teacher at LCC. We even had his title; that he was an associate professor of English. But we didn't have whether he was a doctor or not. So, as far as we know he's not a doctor until it can be proven otherwise.

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.

More Ledes: Don't Assume

Like in this lede:

There are many fears that go through a bride's mind before their wedding. For Sara Howard, she never thought to worry about her husband's drive to the church.

Now, it's structurally fine. But the question I have is, how do you know she never thought to worry about her husband's drive to the church?

In the information you were given, you have no indication whether she wasn't worried, or that her fiancee was a shitty driver who had her constantly terrified with his lead foot.

Here, we went beyond the information you had, and made an assumption. We were being creative based on our guessing, not the facts. And we can't do that.

Now, as a journalist you would have been correct to find out if she ever though she'd have to worry about her fiancee's driving. And if she answered yes, then this lede would be perfect.

But we need to confirm the facts first.

More Ledes: Don't Assume!

Like in this lede:

There are many fears that go through a bride's mind before their wedding. For Sara Howard, she never thought to worry about her husband's drive to the church.

Now, it's structurally fine. But the question I have is, how do you know she never thought to worry about her husband's drive to the church?

In the information you were given, you have no indication whether she wasn't worried, or that her fiancee was a shitty driver who had her constantly terrified with his lead foot.

Here, we went beyond the information you had, and made an assumption. We were being creative based on our guessing, not the facts. And we can't do that.

Now, as a journalist you would have been correct to find out if she ever though she'd have to worry about her fiancee's driving. And if she answered yes, then this lede would be perfect.

But we need to confirm the facts first.

911: Don't Assume!

In one lede, you assumed by saying a 6-year-old girl saved her and her mother's life.

Now, certainly the mother was being brutally attacked. And the girl was in fear for her safety. Conventional wisdom gives you the right to label that as just that, in the same way the girl's actions can be viewed as heroic based on how she dealt with a horrible situation and how conventional wisdom would view that.

But can you say the mom would have certainly died without the 911 call being made? And do we know for sure the little girl was at risk of death?

I don't think so. This is a stretch. You can say the girl helped rescue her mother or helped apprehend her attacker, because those are based on facts. We simply don't have enough information to judge whether she would have been killed or just brutalized. There is a huge difference between the two.

Likewise, you can say the girl was terrified and at risk of harm because an attacker was in her home, but not that her life was certainly at risk.

Now, some of you said the girl potentially saved her mother's life (italics mine), or something to that effect. That's more reasonable. Certainly if she is being allegedly raped by a man with a knife, she's at risk of substantially-greater harm.

But we have to be precise in how we couch that. She may be at great risk, but she is not assured of death. Our language needs to make that clear.

In another instance, you made an assumption that the victim was someone the attacker had personally known.

You did know the victim was the suspect's neighbor, but does that automatically mean the knew each other? I mean, I don't know my neighbors. Maybe that's because I'm an asshole, but the rapist doesn't sound like the nicest neighbor, either.

Again, you're going a step further than the evidence at hand allows. Either get a clarification from sources that establishes your premise or back off to a claim better supported by the facts in hand.

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.

More Ledes: Don't Assume

Like in this lede:

There are many fears that go through a bride's mind before their wedding. For Sara Howard, she never thought to worry about her husband's drive to the church.

Now, it's structurally fine. But the question I have is, how do you know she never thought to worry about her husband's drive to the church?

In the information you were given, you have no indication whether she wasn't worried, or that her fiancee was a shitty driver who had her constantly terrified with his lead foot.

Here, we went beyond the information you had, and made an assumption. We were being creative based on our guessing, not the facts. And we can't do that.

Now, as a journalist you would have been correct to find out if she ever though she'd have to worry about her fiancee's driving. And if she answered yes, then this lede would be perfect.

But we need to confirm the facts first.

911: Don't Assume!

In one lede, you assumed by saying a 6-year-old girl saved her and her mother's life.

Now, certainly the mother was being brutally attacked. And the girl was in fear for her safety. Conventional wisdom gives you the right to label that as just that, in the same way the girl's actions can be viewed as heroic based on how she dealt with a horrible situation and how conventional wisdom would view that.

But can you say the mom would have certainly died without the 911 call being made? And do we know for sure the little girl was at risk of death?

I don't think so. This is a stretch. You can say the girl helped rescue her mother or helped apprehend her attacker, because those are based on facts. We simply don't have enough information to judge whether she would have been killed or just brutalized. There is a huge difference between the two.

Likewise, you can say the girl was terrified and at risk of harm because an attacker was in her home, but not that her life was certainly at risk.

Now, some of you said the girl potentially saved her mother's life (italics mine), or something to that effect. That's more reasonable. Certainly if she is being allegedly raped by a man with a knife, she's at risk of substantially-greater harm.

But we have to be precise in how we couch that. She may be at great risk, but she is not assured of death. Our language needs to make that clear.

In another instance, you made an assumption that the victim was someone the attacker had personally known.

You did know the victim was the suspect's neighbor, but does that automatically mean the knew each other? I mean, I don't know my neighbors. Maybe that's because I'm an asshole, but the rapist doesn't sound like the nicest neighbor, either.

Again, you're going a step further than the evidence at hand allows. Either get a clarification from sources that establishes your premise or back off to a claim better supported by the facts in hand.

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.

More Ledes: Don't Assume

Like in this lede:

There are many fears that go through a bride's mind before their wedding. For Sara Howard, she never thought to worry about her husband's drive to the church.

Now, it's structurally fine. But the question I have is, how do you know she never thought to worry about her husband's drive to the church?

In the information you were given, you have no indication whether she wasn't worried, or that her fiancee was a shitty driver who had her constantly terrified with his lead foot.

Here, we went beyond the information you had, and made an assumption. We were being creative based on our guessing, not the facts. And we can't do that.

Now, as a journalist you would have been correct to find out if she ever though she'd have to worry about her fiancee's driving. And if she answered yes, then this lede would be perfect.

But we need to confirm the facts first.