(T)Editorial Comments #1

.

.

Random (T)editorial Comments
from Dr. Ted

An occasional series of newswriting tips culled from students’ writing—deobfuscating common AP style issues and common writing/construction problems. . . in no particular order . . .

1. WHAT HAPPENED???? Get the lead right!

EX: The Political Science Department at Utah State University sponsored a speech on how history repeats itself titled, “Déjà Vu All Over Again: Rise of the New Russia.” (when?)

This is a classic “The City Council met…” lead. So what? The fact that a meeting or speech took place is not the news—what happened at the meeting/what was said at the speech?

2. THAT/WHICH

EX: 200 people attended the speech which was sponsored by the political science department.

a) What’s AP style rule for numbers that begin sentences?
b) that, which—see Stylebook. This is important. Basically, use of “which” in a sentence denotes a nonessential (or parenthetical) clause and requires use of a comma; use of “that” connects to an essential part of the sentence. For example:

1. The dog that was brown bit Tom.
2. The dog, which was brown, bit Tom.

What’s the difference? AP says, if you can drop the clause without losing the meaning, use which and set the phrase off with commas. In the first sentence, the brown part is essential to ID the vicious dog. In the second, the dog’s color is a throw-away: oh, by the way, the dog was brown. The important thing in the second example is that the dog bit Tom. See Stylebook, “that, which” entry.

3. AP STYLE—You’re still making too many basic AP style errors. No “last night” or “yesterday”—use day name. Number/numeral errors. a.m. p.m.

4. ATTRIBUTION/QUOTES: You MUST attribute all fact statements to a source. Who says? Unless the statement features unassailable or commonly accepted facts (EX: It had been snowing all day… or “Slum Dog Millionaire” is set in one of the many huge slums that ring Mombai…), attribute the sentence to a source.

Ninety percent of the time, use said as the attribution verb: he said, the professor said, police said…. Remember to bury the attribution in the middle of a statement or quote if you can, usually at a natural pause in the sentence cadence: “Funding from the bailout package will begin to trickle down within the month,” the senator said, “as quickly as agencies can process proposals.”

DO NOT place the attribution at the front of the quote, unless absolutely necessary for transition:
• NO: The senator said, “Funding from the bailout package will begin to trickle down within the month, as quickly as agencies can process proposals.”

That’s lazy. Figure out how to make a transition into the quote, to alert the reader of a change of subject. Like this:

(transition/set-up): Despite Tuesday’s passage of the $800 billion economic stimulus package, officials say it may take several weeks before the first impacts will be felt on Main Street.
(leads into quote): “Funding from the bailout package will begin to trickle down within the month,” the senator said, “as quickly as agencies can process proposals.”

5. ABBREVIATIONS: Only on second reference (Utah State University first, USU subsequently; driving under the influence first, DUI later….); also, NEVER 1400 N—the name of the street in Utah cities is 300 East, 1450 West, 400 North, etc. (the East West North is part of the name, and so does not get abbreviated): “The accident at North Main Street and 1400 North sent two people to the hospital….” Because the name of the street is 1400 North (or 300 West), just like “Main” or Center” or “Fox Run” are street names, the North is never abbreviated: “He lives at 213 E. 1400 North…”

6. SHOW, DON’T TELL—Let facts speak for themselves. Don’t try to shove stuff down the reader’s throat.

EX: Juan Delgado, employee of store owner Marcus Gilbert, needs a new kidney desperately. If Delgado doesn’t receive a kidney soon, he will die of kidney failure….

Show, Don’t tell: Don’t tell us he’s desperate—let the facts demonstrate desperation (a kidney and impending death at 16 is pretty desperate…)
(Also note that this student used “kidney” three times in 26 words…)

7. NAME or LABEL IN LEAD?—Unless the subject of the story is well known (e.g., Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr., President Barack Obama…), it is better for the reader if you label or characterize the individual in the lead graf in news stories, and use her/his name later.

In the previous example, no one knows who Juan Delgado is, so call him a “16-year-old sandwich shop worker” or something on first reference.

NO: Walter P. Alley, 15, died in a freak traffic accident Wednesday.

Well, Fred will ask, “Who the heck is Walter P. Alley?”

Better to write this: A 15-year-old Logan middle school student was killed Wednesday…. And then use his name in the second graf.

BUT! While this is generally true in straight, hard news stories, you can get away with the name of an unknown in feature stories, using a “suspended interest” approach that teases the reader into the story.

EX: For Franceen Follicle, hairdo’s are all about fun—and go-go boots, strobe lights and disco music.

We don’t know who Franceen Follicle is, but the other details make the reader want to read on to find out.

Thus endeth this lesson. More to follow...

Building the Story

.
Covering the Bases: Bill Blundell’s Story Blocks
By Chip Scanlan
Poynter Institute for Media Studies

Covering all the bases. On any assignment, that’s one of the biggest challenges. Making sure before you get back to the keyboard that you’ve got everything you need to write your story.

As a young reporter covering fires and accidents, I carried a checklist to make sure I got all the information I needed, or at least could answer the questions my editor might have. (How many engines? What hospital? Charges?)

But when the story was more complicated than a two-alarm fire or a car crash with injuries, I needed more to make sure my story was complete.

That’s when I turned to the six elements that Bill Blundell devised for himself when he was writing page one stories for The Wall Street Journal and later shared as an influential writing coach.

Describing his approach in Best Newspaper Writing 1982, the year he won the award for best non-deadline writing, Blundell said he used these six areas to organize his material. “A few of these things are of interest, and others may not be, but I always consider all six of them,” he said.

They are:
1. History.
When did this start? Who started it? What are the pivotal events on a timeline?
2. Scope.
What is the extent of the problem? How many people are affected? How much money is at stake?
3. Central reasons.
Why is this happening? What are the economic, social or political forces that created it, influence it, threaten it?
4. Impacts.
“Who is helped or hurt by this,” Blundell said, “and to what extent and what’s their emotional response to it?”
5. Gathering and action of contrary forces.
“If this is going on, is somebody trying to do anything about it, and how is that working out?” Blundell said.
6. The future.
“If this stuff keeps up,” he said, “what are things going to look like five or 10 years from now, in the eyes of the people who are directly involved?”

For more, see Blundell’s excellent book, The Art and Craft of Feature Writing.

Blundell used the six points to organize his reporting before he wrote. I think they can be equally valuable earlier in the process. As a roadmap for research, reporting and interviews, they offer powerful assistance with the reporter’s daily dilemma: developing expertise on deadline.

The Parable of Michelangelo’s David

..
The Parable of Michelangelo’s David
An object lesson for the task-oriented

So Michelangelo was sitting in a bar . . . . Seriously. He was an artist. He must have gone out for a drink sometimes, right?

So Michelangelo is sitting in a bar, and suddenly the drunk four stools down notices him.

“HEEEYYYY! MichelANGeloh!!” the drunk exclaims happily and sloppily. “Heeeeyyyyy!!!”

Michelangelo edges back, looking wary.

“Heeeyyy! Michelangelo!” he slurred. “I chusht shaw your new shkulpture of David! Itsh amaszching!!”

He hiccups and lowers his voice. “It looksh jusht like DAVID! How did choo do it???”

Michelangelo puts down his cup and half turns on his stool. “Well,” he says, “if you buy me a drink—and stay down there where you are—I’ll tell you.”

So the drunk orders a round and settles in, blearily.

“It’s not rocket science,” Michelangelo says. “First, you have to have a vision of what you want to create. You need something that speaks to you, something you want to say. I found David. So you need your own David.”

“Then, find the best materials and tools you can: the purest block of carrera marble, the finest chisels and hammers.”

Michelangelo paused, and looked around significantly.

“Then you study David. You consider your tools and examine your medium—your block of carrera marble. You look at David. You reflect. You study the essence that is David….”

The listeners were rapt. They leaned forward.

“And then,” Michelangelo said, “once you know your David, once you really understand the central truth that is David….”

He paused and drank. Michelangelo looked at his audience.

“And then,” he said, “you take up your tools. You look again at David. You look at your medium. You look at David. And then . . . and then you take your hammer and your chisel, and you approach the carrera marble . . . . and you whack off everything that doesn’t look like David.”

The drunk fell off his stool.

Whaaaa???

I tell this parable to grad students who are pondering their research projects and theses, and it also works for newswriting students—or anyone, really, who wants to write a story.

What is the story’s essence, what is your David? The process of conceptualizing a piece of research or writing is a neglected art, and this shortcoming often shows up as muddy, mucky, poorly focused research or writing that does not reach its goal. Unless the researcher or reporter has a clear idea of what s/he wants to do, the story or piece of research that needs doing, the essential David of a project, the finished product will never look like David, and will always be a disappointment to both writer and reader.

An editor once told me that the first stage of the writing process is to “apply butt to chair” and, for him, to examine the ceiling tiles. Focus. Know what your “David” looks like before you touch the keyboard. Know your focus. Know the answer to the reader’s “So what?” questions, understand where your story is going, and the elements you will need to include, in what order, to get there.

So focus. If you understand these things before you start writing, you will be able to see your concept as you work with the mass of extraneous information that surrounds every writing project. And then you can start to knock off everything that doesn’t look like your David.

Thus endeth the lesson.

—Ted Pease