Lawsuit: A Good Example

Consistent attribution, consistent use of allegedly and a lede/nut graf sequence that zeroes in on the main point:

Two parents are suing the Kennedy High School principal, superintendent, and East Lansing School District for $500,000 in Ingham County Circuit Court for the alleged faulty education of their son.

Parents Thaddeus and Laura Dowdell allege that their son James Dowdell has not learned enough to be graduated from high school and that this is the failure of Principal Marvin Ferrell, Superintendent Greg Hubbard and the school district.

James Dowdell, who has attended Kennedy High School for the past three years, has allegedly been told that he will graduate from the school on or around the beginning of next June, according to the lawsuit.

The problem is that James Dowdell’s parents allege that he can barely read or do simple arithmetic and has not learned enough to be graduated from high school or to successfully function in a society as complex as ours, according to the lawsuit. 

Thaddeus and Laura Dowdell allege that the fault does not lie with son James, who according to tests administered by guidance counselors at Kennedy High School has an average IQ of 94, according to the lawsuit. 

The Dowdells allege that it is the failure of the defendants to employ competent teachers, to maintain discipline, to provide remedial help and to provide an atmosphere in which learning might take place, according to the lawsuit.

Along with $500,000 in compensatory damages, the Dowdells are also demanding that James Dowdell be retained at the high school until he further masters the skills expected of a high school graduate, according to the lawsuit.

The plaintiffs are also demanding a trial by jury, according to the lawsuit.

Rescue: Attribution

How do we know this?

The tunnel kept collapsing on rescuers, Chenn said.

Is it because Chenn said it to us?

No, it's not. It's because Chenn put it in his report, and then we read the report. So, proper attribution would be something like this:

The tunnel kept collapsing on rescuers, Chenn said in his report.

Let's not forget attribution to the actual source from which we learned of what we are writing about.

Attribution needs to go with everything we didn't witness, and needs to be attributed to the source of information. Often, that source is someone we interviewed. But in other cases, like here, it's the fire report we read. Be sure to cite it, so people know from where you got your information.

So, if your source is a fire report, treat attribution to that report in the exact same way we would treat attribution from an interview subject. And that's true whether our source of information is a person or a report or a stone tablet or graffiti on a wall. 

In this story, odds were you should have offered a repeated, according to the fire report over and over again, in graf after graf. That's okay. Just like human source attribution, we simply need to be consistent and thorough, even if it is a bit repetitive.

Also, in this story it would have been wrong to attribute things to the responding officer. That's because you didn't get information from the officer, you got it from the report he wrote.

If we talk so someone, we attribute the person. If we get it from a report the person wrote, then we either attribute it to so-and-so-wrote in a report (or, in the case of witnesses, so-and-so said, according to the report), or we simply attribute it to just, the report said.

Police: Some Good Examples

Note a good lede that gets to what the latest news is, a strong nut graf that sums up what happened that brought us to the point of the lede, short paragraphs with each turn of events getting its own graf, and good and consistent attribution throughout: 

One man is in police custody and another is on the loose after the duo’s attempted robbery of a 24-hour convenience store went awry early this morning.

Jiffy Foods employee Terry DaRoza managed to fend off two men with nothing more than his cane after one of the men pulled a knife on him in an attempt to rob the 24-hour convenience store in Okemos. 

According to the Ingham County Sherriff’s Department’s police report, DaRoza said the two men arrived at approximately 1:15 a.m. and asked to use the restroom at the store, located at 4010 Holbrook Drive.

According to the police report, DaRoza then went behind the counter to get the key to the bathroom but was followed by one of the suspects, local resident Timothy Keel, 19, who then allegedly pulled out a knife.

DaRoza, who was still wearing a cast due to an injury he had suffered recently, used his cane to bludgeon Keel, hitting him repeatedly in the face, according to the police report.  

The blows caused Keel to fall to the floor, which is when the suspect still at large attempted to grab the cane from DaRoza, who proceeded to beat him with it, causing the suspect to flee, according to the police report.

A customer then entered and helped DaRoza tie Keel up using their belts to secure him until police arrived, according to the police report. 

Keel is now in police custody and is suffering from a broken nose and jaw from the beating he took at the hands of DaRoza. Keel is being charged with armed robbery and resisting a merchant, according to the police report. 

The police also said to be on the lookout for a brown, ’94, two-door Toyota Celica which the second suspect fled in.  
**** 
Here's another one worth reviewing: 

**** 

This morning a store clerk in Okemos apprehended one of the men who tried to rob the 24-hour establishment.

Terry DaRoza a full-time clerk at the Jiffy Foods, 4010 Holbrook Drive, subdued an armed assailant at approximately 1:15 this morning and with the help of a customer tied him up until police arrived.

DaRoza stated that he was cleaning a popcorn machine when two men entered Jiffy Foods around 1:15 a.m., according to an Ingham County Sheriff's Department report. 

They asked to use the restroom, and when he went to get the key from behind the counter one of the men allegedly pulled a knife, the report said.

The man who allegedly pulled the knife has been identified as Timothy Keel, the report said.

DaRoza uses a cane due to his leg being in a cast from a recent injury he obtained at construction job accident, the report said

DaRoza said that he swung his cane multiple times as hard as he could at Keel's face, according to the report.

Paramedics said that Keel's jaw, nose, and other bones in his face were broken, according to the report. 

At this time the unidentified second suspect attempted to grab DaRoza's cane, at which point DaRoza began to hit the suspect with his cane, the report said.

As the second suspect fled, Stuart Adler entered Jiffy Foods and proceeded to help DaRoza bind Keel with their belts, the report said.

Officers from the Ingham County Sheriff's Department arrived on scene around 1:30 a.m., the report said.

  

DaRoza said he was not injured in the incident, according to the report.

Keel was charged with armed robbery and resisting a merchant, the report said.

Police: Attribution

How do we know this?

DaRoza said that he swung the cane as hard as he could into Keel's face.

Is it because DaRoza said it to us?

No, it's not. It's because DaRoza told the cops, and the cops put it in their report, and we read the report. So, proper attribution would be something like this:

DaRoza said that he swung the cane as hard as he could into Keel's face, according to a sheriff's report.

Let's not forget attribution. Attribution needs to go with everything we didn't witness, and needs to be attributed to the source of information. Often, that source is someone we interviewed. But in other cases, like here, it's the police report we read. Be sure to cite it, so people know from where you got your information.

So, if your source is a police report, treat attribution to that report in the exact same way we would treat attribution from an interview subject. And that's true whether our source of information is a person or a report or a stone tablet or graffiti on a wall. 

In this story, odds were you should have offered a repeated, according to the police report over and over again, in graf after graf. That's okay. Just like human source attribution, we simply need to be consistent and thorough, even if it is a bit repetitive.

Also, in this story it would have been wrong to attribute things to the responding officer. That's because you didn't get information from the officer, you got it from the report he wrote.

If we talk so someone, we attribute the person. If we get it from a report the person wrote, then we either attribute it to so-and-so-wrote in a report (or, in the case of witnesses, so-and-so said, according to the report), or we simply attribute it to just, the report said.

Missing: Did You ...

. . . use Sabrina Diaz's last name?

Why? Didn't you promise her that you would not?

If you didn't use her last name, did you tell readers WHY you weren't?

In our "Elements of Journalism" blog posts at the start of the semester, we talked about being transparent with readers. Part of that transparency includes telling readers why we aren't fully identifying somebody.

You really needed a disclaimer like . . .

. . . said Sabrina, who spoke on the condition that her last name not be used.

Now, at the same time we didn't want to create an incidental identification, by offering so much specific information that a reader could identify the person without much trouble. 

One of us did that by including Sabrina's exact home street address with her name. Armed with that information, anyone could find out exactly who she is. Let's be sure we don't reveal someone incidentally by giving out secondary information that's too specific in nature.

Also, let's not make up names for people. Generally, that's bad form, and could accidentally impugn someone who has nothing to do with a story. So, rather than make up a name, use a partial name, or no name at all. 

Now, considering we haven't done much with how to handle anonymous sources, did I grade you tough in this regard? No, not at all. But I hope you having to think about what to do, and your consideration of general journalistic values that we have discussed throughout the semester, helped you get an appreciation for this aspect of daily journalism.

Missing: How Do You Know ...

... so many people went missing last year? Did you count them yourself? Did you just make it up?

No. You got that from the U.S. Justice Department, right?

Well, how are your readers supposed to know that? Through attribution, of course.

So, offer the data and then attach, according to the U.S. Justice Department.

How do you know Jason Abare was found after a drunk driving arrest to have skipped out on child support? Were you riding shotgun with him and saw the whole thing go down?

Of course not. You know because he told you. So, if you were paraphrasing Abare's situation, you needed to say, Abare said. Pretty much everything not witnessed by you should have some sort of attribution. He said; she said; according to records; whatever.

Make sure you have properly attributed everything in your story. Basically, every paragraph after the lede and nut graf should have some sort of attribution affixed to it.

I know that's gonna look a bit weird, having graf after graf with so-and-so said this and this other dude said that and so on. But we do it as journalists to make sure that readers know exactly where we got our information. It promotes transparency and illustrates the factual basis for a story.

Missing: Second References

In first references, we often use the full title of an organization, in caps: the U.S. Justice Department, Michigan State University, etc.

But in subsequent references -- after we established the group in the first reference -- we can use a generic version in lower case or an appropriate common acronym: the justice department, the department, MSU, the university, etc.

Squirrels: A Story I Liked

With each of these lede/nut graf sequences, the writers followed by offering the fact/quote sequences that we talked about earlier. So does this story -- which I will show you in its complete form -- that starts with an alternative lede, then goes to two nut grafs, then launches into the compartmentalized individual examples. This is a good structure which to aspire to:

       In Lansing, there is a new addition to the squirrel’s diet — electrical wires.

       The squirrels on Lansing Community College’s campus have been making homes and feeding on the electrical wires in cars on campus.

       The damage from the squirrels is costing students and staff money to replace ruined wires.

       LCC dietitian Linda Kasparov said an attendant at a service station found a squirrel’s nest as the cause of broken a oil-pressure gauge, speedometer and headlights on Kasparov’s car.

        “The attendant put up the hood and then jumped back exclaiming, ‘My God, what have you got in there!’” Kasparov said.

       Kasparov said the attendant found three baby squirrels in a nest built of string, sticks and plastic bags. 

       Kasparov said the damage cost her more than $400.

       Laura Ruffenboch, a wildlife professor at LCC, said the soybean-based insulation on many electrical wires may be appealing to the squirrels.

        Ruffenboch said squirrels building nests in a car which is used regularly is an uncommon phenomenon.

       Oliver Brookes, an associate professor of English at LCC, also said he found a squirrel’s nest under the hood of his car.

       “There was a big squirrels nest in the corner where the light wires were,” Brookes said.

       Brookes said the squirrels chewed through the headlight wiring in his car, which cost more than $180 to replace.

Squirrels: How Do You Know ...

... Brookes spent $184 to get his car's wiring replaced?

Were you there when he had the wiring replaced? No.

Did you pay for the repair bill? No.

So, how do you know?

It's because he said so, right?

So, why not let readers know your sourcing? Brookes said he spent $184 to get his car's wiring replaced?

How do you know Kasparov was driving home one night when her car fritzed out? Because she said! So add "she said" as attribution.

How do you know how her mechanic found squirrels under the hood? Because she said!

Pretty much everything not witnessed by you should have some sort of attribution. He said; she said; according to records; whatever.

Make sure you have properly attributed everything in your story. Basically, every paragraph after the lede and nut graf should have some sort of attribution affixed to it.

I know that's gonna look a bit weird, having graf after graf with so-and-so said this and this other dude said that and so on. But we do it as journalists to make sure that readers know exactly where we got our information. It promotes transparency and illustrates the factual basis for a story.

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.    

Robbery: How Do You Know ...

... Layoux was alone in the store? Were you there with him (in which case he wasn't alone)?

No. You know it because he told you. So it's Layoux said he was alone in the store.

How do you know Layoux was fired from his job? Did you can him?

No. You know it because he told you. So it's Layoux said he was fired by store management.

Don't ignore attribution. Every graf in the body of the story, every time.

Robbery: Be Clear

After talking about a back-and-forth between Layoux and the robber, this is what one of you wrote:

When he told him to get in the cooler, he shot him.

Uh, who shot who?

In situations where you have multiple players acting at once, it's best to go overboard on literal names and more specific identifiers, like this:

When the robber told Layoux to get in the cooler, Layoux shot the robber.

Now there's no question or confusion or a reader having to guess. It's clear.

RFTM Chapter 10: 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. Teh 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.

Lawsuit: A Good Example

Consistent attribution, consistent use of allegedly and a lede/nut graf sequence that zeroes in on the main point:

Two parents are suing the Kennedy High School principal, superintendent, and East Lansing School District for $500,000 in Ingham County Circuit Court for the alleged faulty education of their son.

Parents Thaddeus and Laura Dowdell allege that their son James Dowdell has not learned enough to be graduated from high school and that this is the failure of Principal Marvin Ferrell, Superintendent Greg Hubbard and the school district.

James Dowdell, who has attended Kennedy High School for the past three years, has allegedly been told that he will graduate from the school on or around the beginning of next June, according to the lawsuit.

The problem is that James Dowdell’s parents allege that he can barely read or do simple arithmetic and has not learned enough to be graduated from high school or to successfully function in a society as complex as ours, according to the lawsuit. 

Thaddeus and Laura Dowdell allege that the fault does not lie with son James, who according to tests administered by guidance counselors at Kennedy High School has an average IQ of 94, according to the lawsuit. 

The Dowdells allege that it is the failure of the defendants to employ competent teachers, to maintain discipline, to provide remedial help and to provide an atmosphere in which learning might take place, according to the lawsuit.

Along with $500,000 in compensatory damages, the Dowdells are also demanding that James Dowdell be retained at the high school until he further masters the skills expected of a high school graduate, according to the lawsuit.

The plaintiffs are also demanding a trial by jury, according to the lawsuit.

Rescue: Attribution

How do we know this?

The tunnel kept collapsing on rescuers, Chenn said.

Is it because Chenn said it to us?

No, it's not. It's because Chenn put it in his report, and then we read the report. So, proper attribution would be something like this:

The tunnel kept collapsing on rescuers, Chenn said in his report.

Let's not forget attribution to the actual source from which we learned of what we are writing about.

Attribution needs to go with everything we didn't witness, and needs to be attributed to the source of information. Often, that source is someone we interviewed. But in other cases, like here, it's the fire report we read. Be sure to cite it, so people know from where you got your information.

So, if your source is a fire report, treat attribution to that report in the exact same way we would treat attribution from an interview subject. And that's true whether our source of information is a person or a report or a stone tablet or graffiti on a wall. 

In this story, odds were you should have offered a repeated, according to the fire report over and over again, in graf after graf. That's okay. Just like human source attribution, we simply need to be consistent and thorough, even if it is a bit repetitive.

Also, in this story it would have been wrong to attribute things to the responding officer. That's because you didn't get information from the officer, you got it from the report he wrote.

If we talk so someone, we attribute the person. If we get it from a report the person wrote, then we either attribute it to so-and-so-wrote in a report (or, in the case of witnesses, so-and-so said, according to the report), or we simply attribute it to just, the report said.

Police: Some Good Examples

Note a good lede that gets to what the latest news is, a strong nut graf that sums up what happened that brought us to the point of the lede, short paragraphs with each turn of events getting itss own graf, and good and consistent attribution throughout: 

One man is in police custody and another is on the loose after the duo’s attempted robbery of a 24-hour convenience store went awry early this morning.

Jiffy Foods employee Terry DaRoza managed to fend off two men with nothing more than his cane after one of the men pulled a knife on him in an attempt to rob the 24-hour convenience store in Okemos. 

According to the Ingham County Sherriff’s Department’s police report, DaRoza said the two men arrived at approximately 1:15 a.m. and asked to use the restroom at the store, located at 4010 Holbrook Drive.

According to the police report, DaRoza then went behind the counter to get the key to the bathroom but was followed by one of the suspects, local resident Timothy Keel, 19, who then allegedly pulled out a knife.

DaRoza, who was still wearing a cast due to an injury he had suffered recently, used his cane to bludgeon Keel, hitting him repeatedly in the face, according to the police report.  

The blows caused Keel to fall to the floor, which is when the suspect still at large attempted to grab the cane from DaRoza, who proceeded to beat him with it, causing the suspect to flee, according to the police report.

A customer then entered and helped DaRoza tie Keel up using their belts to secure him until police arrived, according to the police report. 

Keel is now in police custody and is suffering from a broken nose and jaw from the beating he took at the hands of DaRoza. Keel is being charged with armed robbery and resisting a merchant, according to the police report. 

The police also said to be on the lookout for a brown, ’94, two-door Toyota Celica which the second suspect fled in. 
**** 
Here's another one worth reviewing:

**** 

This morning a store clerk in Okemos apprehended one of the men who tried to rob the 24-hour establishment.

Terry DaRoza a full-time clerk at the Jiffy Foods, 4010 Holbrook Drive, subdued an armed assailant at approximately 1:15 this morning and with the help of a customer tied him up until police arrived.

DaRoza stated that he was cleaning a popcorn machine when two men entered Jiffy Foods around 1:15 a.m., according to an Ingham County Sheriff's Department report. 

They asked to use the restroom, and when he went to get the key from behind the counter one of the men allegedly pulled a knife, the report said.

The man who allegedly pulled the knife has been identified as Timothy Keel, the report said.

DaRoza uses a cane due to his leg being in a cast from a recent injury he obtained at construction job accident, the report said

DaRoza said that he swung his cane multiple times as hard as he could at Keel's face, according to the report.

Paramedics said that Keel's jaw, nose, and other bones in his face were broken, according to the report. 

At this time the unidentified second suspect attempted to grab DaRoza's cane, at which point DaRoza began to hit the suspect with his cane, the report said.

As the second suspect fled, Stuart Adler entered Jiffy Foods and proceeded to help DaRoza bind Keel with their belts, the report said.

Officers from the Ingham County Sheriff's Department arrived on scene around 1:30 a.m., the report said.

  

DaRoza said he was not injured in the incident, according to the report.

Keel was charged with armed robbery and resisting a merchant, the report said.