First Ledes: Overall

On this assignment, since it's the first one I gave you a 4.0 simply for finishing the assignment without any fatal fact errors, as defined by the syllabus (if you did have a fatal, sorry but that's an automatic 1.0) and if you did assignment parameters correctly, like doing the correct items or staying within the 30-word limit (each such mistake resulted in a 1.0 deduction).

And you weren't graded for AP Style rules, though I did note them in your returned graded work (in which my comments were inserted in BOLD FACE/CAPS). 

In future assignments, we will actually grade every item. But for this first one, I wanted you all to get used to writing on deadline, and for us to have some blog material to go over to see what we did well (and why it was good), and what we could have done better (and how).

So after we do a particular assignment, it's critical that we review ALL related blog posts to go over those points. Not just ones with your work or random ones. All the posts on the same assignment should get a look-see from you, every time.

One more thing: in your graded work I may have used the word sted. It's sometimes a journalistic editing abbreviation for instead, FYI.

Off we go, then: 

First Ledes: Ledes I Liked

This one was straight and to-the-point, containing who (two children), what (died), when(Saturday night), where (in a bedroom of their home), why (as a result of a fire) and how (caused by matches the children were playing with).

Two young children died Saturday night in a bedroom of their home as a result of a fire caused by matches the children were playing with.



This one did the same, but specified the names of the children:

Krista and Jeremy Lewis were found dead after a fire consumed their bedroom while a babysitter cared for them Saturday evening.


This one did a nice job of emphasizing a telling point from the larger story: 

Women who have achieved a graduate degree are found to get divorced more frequently than women without higher education, according to a study done by sociologists at the University of Florida.

This one, too:

Marital disruption is more likely among highly educated women, researchers said in a new study released on Monday.

This lede said everything people needed to know about this story, without having to read any further. The rest was just detailing the major points already offered by the lede:

A family of three was taken to the hospital after their car was struck by an oncoming train on Monday night, but no one was seriously injured. 

This next lede emphasized end result not in terms of what, but why and how:

 A failure to have warning lights at a train crossing on Michigan Avenue resulted in a vehicle carrying a family of three getting struck by an eastbound train.


Here's a nice 1-2-3 package by one of youze, which nicely go to end result, ultimate outcome and a summary of what people absolutely need to know about what happened, and how it all ended up:

1. A car crashed into a moving train on Monday, causing minor injuries to a family of three. 

4. Highly-educated married women are more likely to end up separated or divorced, according to a recent study conducted by the University of Florida. 

5. Two local children started the fire that claimed their lives Saturday evening, according to fire officials. 

First Ledes: That Didn't Take Long

I'm sorry to say that with this assignment we had our first fatal fact errors, in which we offered inaccurate facts as defined by the syllabus.

And, in the interest of learning from each other this term, we will review most fatals so (hopefully) we can learn from the mistakes of others -- and avoid such mistakes ourselves, going forward.

Here's samples of the first bunch:

In one case, we identified the place doing the marriage study as the National Institute of Mental Health, when in fact it was the University of Florida. The NIMH paid U. of F. to do the study. (Two people fatales this way.)

Yes, that's a fatal. And yes, the vast majority of fatals are something simple and basic that was overlooked and/or misinterpreted.

Like day of the week. One of us wrote that the train-SUV crash happened this evening, when in fact it happened Monday. (Two people fatales this way.)

In another case, we wrote that a study looked at marriage distribution, when in fact it looked at marriage disruption. That, too, is a fatal, since distribution is not what the study considered.

(And this is an example of where spell check wouldn't have caught the mistake, because the unintended word is correctly spelled. This is why we need to use spell check as a supplement to -- but not a substitute for -- checking your story fact-by-fact with your own eyes, and checking against your notes -- or, in this case, against the information in your text.)

We get this idea that fatals are a HUGE error, but the reality is overwhelmingly fatals are simple mistakes. Like forgetting a word. That's why we urge such stringent fact-checking.

So please, be vigilant. After you finish writing be sure to double-check every name and age and title and date and, yes, city spellings.

No matter how well you did -- and the people who fataled did otherwise do well -- any fatal gets a 1.0 for the whole assignment. 

Seriously, it's that serious. Like I've said, journalism isn't about writing; it's about getting it right. Let's make sure we build good fact-checking habits so this is a rare circumstance.

First Ledes: The News Is The News!

News isn't that someone did something or something happened; it's what, exactly, was done and/or happened.

For example, we'd never write a lede about a football game like this ...

The Spartans played Notre Dame in a football game Saturday.

... because that lede doesn't say anything of substance. That's because the news isn't that a game was played; it's who won or lost.

The lede we'd do would be something like this:

The Spartans walloped Notre Dame 107-0 Saturday.

Keeping that in mind, does this lede work?

A research study conducted by sociologists at the University of Florida revealed new information Monday regarding marriage stability in relation to women’s education level.

I'd argue it does not, because while it tells us there's new information, it doesn't tell us what the new information is. A better lede tells us what happened, like this one:

Marital disruption is more likely among highly educated women, researchers said in a new study released on Monday.

Now, the reader doesn't simply know that researchers discovered something; they know what the something is. 

First Ledes: Flip The Lede

In most instances, we want to emphasize not that someone told us something, but what the person said. That is, we want to put substance ahead of attribution.

In this lede, we put attribution first, then the news:

A recent University of Florida study has shown that one-third of women who entered graduate school after marriage faced more marital disruption such as divorce or separation. 
   
And that's okay. But I would argue that it would be better to flip the order of news and attribution, so that the news comes first and the attribution last, like this:

One-third of women who entered graduate school after marriage faced more marital disruption such as divorce or separation, a recent University of Florida study has shown.

Please note the only difference is that I flipped the sequence of news and attribution, and eliminated an extraneous "that." Outside of that, it's exactly what you wrote, but with the news being the first thing the reader gets to.

First Ledes: Who, What, When, Where, WHY

This lede went like this:

Two children were found dead after firefighters responded to a 911 call Saturday evening on Maldren Avenue.

I think a big question people would like answered right away -- as it does go directly to end result and ultimate outcome -- is why? Why are they dead? Why did the firefighters get called there?

Because of a fire, right? So, let's say, Two children were found dead after firefighters responded to a 911 call of a house fire Saturday evening on Maldren Avenue. 

If you're wondering if you have the right amount of 5 w's answered in your lede, ask yourself this: do you have the bare minimum of what people need to know about the gist of the story, without reading any more of the story?

If so, then your lede is probably sufficient. If it's missing a major W, then fill in the blank.

First Ledes: Say What You Mean, Mean What You Say

Does this lede say what we meant to say?

A pregnant woman, her husband, and their 3-year-old daughter were struck by a train while crossing on Michigan Avenue.

I would say it does not.What we say here is that three people were struck by the train. But that wasn't the case; they weren't hit by the train; the SUV in which they were riding was hit. (If they were hit, they'd be squashed like bugs, right?)

Keep in mind, someone reading the lede of a story don't know anything yet about what we're writing about, so they are going to take your words as being literal. That's why we have to be precise in our writing, and especially when writing ledes.

What we meant to say was, A sport-utility vehicle carrying a pregnant woman, her husband, and their 3-year-old daughter was struck by a train while crossing on Michigan Avenue.

Say what you mean, and mean what you say.