This week, I feel we started to slip a bit.
It's not enough to talk to one side of a story; we need to talk to the people whose actions are driving an issue AND people who are actually affected by the issue. Too many stories had one but not the other. For a refresher on range of sources, please click here to review the earlier blog post on range of sources.
Here are some of this week's stories with nice source ranges:
I get that getting a hold of sources is a major headache. I know it's not easy. It's time-consuming. You have no idea who will call back, and who will blow you off.
But the job of a journalist is to solve those problems and get a hold of a good range of sources. That's what we do. It's not writing or shooting video or taking pictures that's hard, it;'s getting to people who give us something to write and shoot.
So, if 12 neutral experts blow you off, it's up to you to contact 13. That's the job.
When I was still a journalist, I had an editor in las Vegas who responded to my bitching about source difficulty like this:
Don't tell me why you can't do it; tell me how you're gonna get it done.
That's the question we have to answer each week.
Now, regarding other areas we can stand to see improvement ...
* Remember to have a neutral expert. A neutral expert is someone who has knowledge of the subject you're reporting on but who doesn't have a stake in the outcome. Regarding the police shootings story, the police official is an expert but he is not neutral; he's the one whose profession will look good or bad depending on what you find out. Everyday people are neutral but they are not expert.
In that story, the professor who studies police shootings can contextualize what details police offer and what generalizations everyday people share by comparing things to what happens elsewhere, what his research says is normal and abnormal and good and bad, etc. And like a referee, he or she will offer objective analysis because he or she is in a position where he or she is not affected by the outcome.
For a refresher on neutral experts, from earlier this semester look at this post first, and then this one. And look at the two stories linked to above and find the neutral experts they used.
* Use various mediums, and don't just write. We need pictures of what you're writing about; charts and graphs visualizing information you have in your story; hyperlinks to more information on your topics.
And hyperlinks are easy! Many times, you can simply link to some of your own information sources, like the story about things to do in Lansing did. Click on the hyperlinks and get a sense of how they help build upon what you did, so if a reader is interested in learning more they can simply click on what you provide, making your story a one-stop shop.
* Include data! Some stories made a point, like having an official saying something was better or worse. But then we lacked the data showing us the proof for that. By having data, we show (via data) and tell (via quotes). We want both. Think about how to quantify your stories. A good source for that are your quoted sources; ask them, how do you know that? and do you have any data for that?
* Proofread for AP style! And proofread in general. Lots of little AP style goofs and grammar mistakes. Please make sure you are taking the time to go over your work before you turn it in for AP style adherence; for good grammar; and for fact-checking.
* Go over the work of others, especially those on your team. See if that helps give you ideas on journalistic points you want to emulate or not, and if it gives you ideas for future stories.
Again, our sites are Listen Up Lansing and Spartan Dispatches.
* Don't miss your deadlines. A couple of people missed the weekly story deadline, and that can NEVER happen. Ever.
The first reason is practical: of our first seven weekly stories, each is worth 7 percent of your final grade. That means missing just one story would make it impossible to get a 4.0 in this class, even if you 4-point everything else! And a 3.5 would be pretty much out of reach. It blows that big of a hole in your final grade, folks.
Now, the reason for that isn't that I'm trying to be mean; it's because in media, missing deadlines is an unforgivable sin. Have you ever flipped on the 11 o'clock news and seen the anchors say, hold on a minute; we're still finishing our scripts? Of course not. That's because anyone with even a whiff of missing deadlines is either fired right away or never hired in the first place. We must be perfect in this regard.
That means you're better off turning in a piece of hot garbage than nothing. Again, this reflects a real-worfd idea: an editor can work with a piece of junk and try to massage it to life, but an editor can't work with nothing. And either way, there is still a one-minute slot to fill for the news at 11. Your editor will be mad at you for turning in junk; your editor will fire you for turning in nothing.
Plus, in this class you're MUCH better off turning in less than stellar work than nothing! Everything we do in class adds to a points scale that determines our final grade. When we 4.0 we get 100 percent of possible assignment points; a 3.9 is 99 percent, a 3.0 is 90 percent, etc.
If you do the worst story imaginable but turn it in on time and get a 0.1 on the assignment -- I have never graded someone with a 0.1 but you never know -- they would still get 61 percent of assignment points. If you turn in nothing you get a 0.0 and zero points. So at a 0.1 you're closer to a 4.0 than a 0.0!
Again, that's to encourage a journalistic habit: never turn in nothing.
If you're having any problems and need an answer within 24 hours, email me at omars@msu.edu. If you are having issues you need fixed in an hour or two call or text me at 702-271-7983. If you need to go into detail about a need, schedule an appointment to see me at my office at CAS 360. Don't be shy; I'm here to help, remember?
Yes, I expect much out of you this summer. But I'm here to help you achieve that. I can't help you if I don't hear from you.
Good luck, everyone.
No comments:
Post a Comment