In honor of a class spent talking about apostrophes and contractions...

I share with you this amusing 2/18 New York Times article By Sam Roberts. See? Even a punctuation mark can become a news story.

It was nearly hidden on a New York City Transit public service placard exhorting subway riders not to leave their newspaper behind when they get off the train.

“Please put it in a trash can,” riders are reminded. After which Neil Neches, an erudite writer in the transit agency’s marketing and service information department, inserted a semicolon. The rest of the sentence reads, “that’s good news for everyone.”

Semicolon sightings in the city are unusual, period, much less in exhortations drafted by committees of civil servants. In literature and journalism, not to mention in advertising, the semicolon has been largely jettisoned as a pretentious anachronism.

Americans, in particular, prefer shorter sentences without, as style books advise, that distinct division between statements that are closely related but require a separation more prolonged than a conjunction and more emphatic than a comma.

“When Hemingway killed himself he put a period at the end of his life,” Kurt Vonnegut once said. “Old age is more like a semicolon.”

In terms of punctuation, semicolons signal something New Yorkers rarely do. Frank McCourt, the writer and former English teacher at Stuyvesant High School, describes the semicolon as the yellow traffic light of a “New York sentence.” In response, most New Yorkers accelerate; they don’t pause to contemplate.

Semicolons are supposed to be introduced into the curriculum of the New York City public schools in the third grade. That is where Mr. Neches, the 55-year-old New York City Transit marketing manager, learned them, before graduating from Tilden High School and Brooklyn College, where he majored in English and later received a master’s degree in creative writing.
But, whatever one’s personal feelings about semicolons, some people don’t use them because they never learned how.

In fact, when Mr. Neches was informed by a supervisor that a reporter was inquiring about who was responsible for the semicolon, he was concerned.

“I thought at first somebody was complaining,” he said.

One of the school system’s most notorious graduates, David Berkowitz, the Son of Sam serial killer who taunted police and the press with rambling handwritten notes, was, as the columnist Jimmy Breslin wrote, the only murderer he ever encountered who could wield a semicolon just as well as a revolver. (Mr. Berkowitz, by the way, is now serving an even longer sentence.)
But the rules of grammar are routinely violated on both sides of the law.

People have lost fortunes and even been put to death because of imprecise punctuation involving semicolons in legal papers. In 2004, a court in San Francisco rejected a conservative group’s challenge to a statute allowing gay marriage because the operative phrases were separated incorrectly by a semicolon instead of by the proper conjunction.

Louis Menand, an English professor at Harvard and a staff writer at The New Yorker, pronounced the subway poster’s use of the semicolon to be “impeccable.”

Lynne Truss, author of “Eats, Shoots & Leaves: The Zero Tolerance Approach to Punctuation,” called it a “lovely example” of proper punctuation.

Geoffrey Nunberg, a professor of linguistics at the University of California, Berkeley, praised the “burgeoning of punctuational literacy in unlikely places.”

Allan M. Siegal, a longtime arbiter of New York Times style before retiring, opined, “The semicolon is correct, though I’d have used a colon, which I think would be a bit more sophisticated in that sentence.”

The linguist Noam Chomsky sniffed, “I suppose Bush would claim it’s the effect of No Child Left Behind.”

New York City Transit’s unintended agenda notwithstanding, e-mail messages and text-messaging may jeopardize the last vestiges of semicolons. They still live on, though, in emoticons, those graphic emblems of our grins, grimaces and other facial expressions.

The semicolon, befittingly, symbolizes a wink.

Some outside advice on sources and reporting

Rosemary,

Saw your blog on sources. A few thoughts to pass along.

Don't get suckered, even if the source has been good in the past. An example is what happened at the Washington Post after Hurricane Katrina. An anonymous source at the White House told a reporter that Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Blanco didn't declare a state of emergency until after the storm. A few seconds on Google would have shown that "tip" to be false. The reporter didn't check his source, even though the information was easily verifiable. The source turned out to be Karl Rove. The reporter turned out to be a sucker.

I heard this line on "The Wire" last night: "A lie is not a side of a story. It's just a lie." Remember that when dealing with sources. Yes, everyone is entitled to tell their side of the story, but don't feel obligated to go with something just because a good source told it to you. See above example.

Get to know your sources, but don't get too attached to them. Feel free to have a beer with them, talk about their pets, kids or your pets and kids. The more familiar they are with you, the more likely they will be to share information. But, don't get blinded because you like the person.

Do not, under any circumstances, become romantically involved with a source. If you do, tell your editor and get switched to another beat or assignment.


And, here's some general reporting tips, for whatever they are worth:

Always carry extra ink (or pencil led). If you are in a competitive situation, don't count on a fellow reporter to bail you out by handing over a pen or pencil. And, you never know when your equipment will fail. Last year, I was at a house fire where 10 people died. The air temperature was about 8 degrees. My pens wouldn't write. Fortunately, there was a Kroger nearby. I bought pencils. They now reside in my car if the situation ever arises again.

Go early and stay late. If you are headed to a crime scene, scheduled event, court hearing or whatever. Arrive early and get a feel for who is there, what things look like and what is said. Introduce yourself to everyone and anyone. Don't leave until you feel you've gotten all there is to get and more. Just because the body is gone from a murder scene doesn't mean there aren't people around to talk to. You can also pick up a lot of color and details before and after something has happened.

Don't be afraid to ask the obvious. There's a story about Homer Bigart, the former New York Times reporter, who was known for going to crime scenes, seeing a body on the floor with a butcher knife in the back and asking "So, what was the cause of death?" Not asking is an assumption. And, by asking, you may elicit a good quote or information that's not quite so obvious.


That's what I can think of for now. Gotta get back to work.

Brett

Brett Barrouquere
The Associated Press
Louisville, Ky

A wired journalist

Blogger Howard Owens believes that the biggest need for news organizations today is to become more digital savvy. He recently offered top editors a plan to up the "digital literacy" of their organizations. It got a lot of attention as people began comparing this ideal to their own skill levels.

You may want to do the same. Here's is what the journalist of your generation needs to do to learn the new tools of the trade.

1. Become a blogger...and become a regular reader of five of six of the blogs in the fields you are interested in. Participate, leave comments and follow links.

2. Buy and start using a small digital camera. Take stills and video. Post photos on sites like Flickr or Buzznet.

3. Use the free video editing software that comes with your computer and edit the videos you take. Post them to YouTube. There are online tutorials for shooting and editing video.

4. Spent at least two hours a week for six weeks on YouTube. Search for topics that interest you and follow the trails . Pay attention to the most popular videos listed daily to see what interests people.

5. Join a social networking site. LinkedIn, MySpace, Facebook.

6. Use social bookmarking. Set up del.icio.us for yourself and use it every day. Check out Digg and Mixx and similar sites.

7. Start using RSS. Use it to keep up with the news of the day and the blogs you read. Make sure your blog as an RSS feed.

8. Use a cell pone with text messaging.

9. Learn to twitter...this technology could change information dissemination

10. Create a Google Map mashup. (Google this and use online tutorials)

11. Think about what your job will be like in 10 years. What will media be like in five years. How will news reach young readers in the next generation.

Research tool: Handy Google service

If you dial 800-GOOG-411 and answer the questions you will be prompted to respond to you can find out the the number of most businesses, including stores and restaurants.

If you say "Details" you can get the address and phone number of these places. And you will be connected, again with no charge for the information or the call.

This is pretty handy when you are looking for places and it's free, unlike 411. Put this into your cellphones.

A reminder about listening

Catching the attention of readers

We talk frequently about interesting readers in our stories. We are competing for their attention against other writing, sports, family, friends, TV... you get the idea.

Readers will ignore your work if it is not exciting, intriguing, engaging with lively text, graphics, art, audio enhancements and other bells and whistles.

In an interesting article for the Washington Post, Thomas Washington (that's his name; this is not a typo) who is a librarian for a school in McLean, Va. writes that the days when people would work through dense prose and difficult concepts for the sake of learning something important are over.

There are just so many books and other publications available easily now that students have adapted to "information overload" by getting very good at scanning, then tossing out the stuff they don't want to read.

"We've grown into a culture of searchers, not readers," he writes. They extract the main ideas from chunks of text, they move on to the next thing quickly.

This is different from not liking to read.

Readers, he said, are asking themselves: "What do we need to know? Why do we need to know it? And, given that by the end of our lives we will have absorbed and converted to knowledge only a sliver of the information available, should be bother knowing it?"

So, think about this the next time you are tempted to write a lot of verbiage that doesn't get quickly to the point with clear, simple words and doesn't makes it clear to readers quickly exactly why they should keep on reading.

Journalism school deans are making news, not necessarily in a good way

The deans of two of the country's most prestigious journalism schools have made headlines recently without intending to. This seems an echo of the John Merrill controversy that we talked about with journalism educators getting caught up in criticism of their own work.

John Lavine, head of the journalism school at Northwestern University was "caught" by one of his own student journalists using unattributed, possibly fabricated quotes in an alumni magazine. That apparent ethical/ professional lapse has caused an uproar. Read about it at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/22/AR2008022202794.htmlJohn Lavine heads the journalism school at Northwestern University

Nicholas Lemann, dean of the Columbia Graduate School of Journalism, inadvertently sent out to students a copy of his self-evaluation intended for the provost's eyes. It contains an articulate assessment of the state of journalism education in a world where journalism is changing and media are in disarray. Read about the memo at http://www.poynter.org/column.asp?id=45&aid=137927

I'd love to read your reaction to either or both of these. But at the very least can you tell me this: what exactly is a provost and what does one do?

Best of the Short Class Bios

Indecisive – but I might not be

Need to learn what I want

Loves the sun hates the rain

This one perplexed me the most: A Warwickian who loves new experiences.

This one is most like a singles ad: Fun fearless female who appreciates life.

How do you know if you have a good source?

This is an important skill for a journalist to acquire. People talk to journalists in order to get their side across, to get famous, to get attention, to confess and get things off their chests. All of those motives, and others, can cloud the truth in the mind of a person talking to you. So how can you possibly tell if a source is reliable?

Here are some clues:

1. Confirmability. Check the veracity of some small parts of their story. You can find out if the dates are right, perhaps or if the weather he describes actually did occur on the day in question. If he says he met with so-and-so about the matter -- check with so-and-so and ask if they met. Good reporters put some questions into interviews designed just for this purpose. If there are errors in any of these relatively inconsequential matters, be very wary.

2. Proximity. Check to be sure that sources you are using were actually in positions to know what it is they are telling you. Can they show they were in the city on the day they are talking about, or in the job and at a level where the information they are passing to you would have credibly come to them? Guards in the federal court building, for example, do not usually know what goes on in judge's chambers.

3. Believability. We have a sense usually immediately about whether someone we are talking to is authentic, stable, coherent, lucid. If you have a sense that you may be dealing with a loon, heed that sense!

4. Motive. You do not have to use only the information that comes from sources with clean motives, the people who want to do good and to help change the world for the better. These sources are nice, but rare. What you do have to do is figure out why anyone talking to you IS doing it. Find out what is driving them and you'll know their biases. That will help you compensate for their blind spots and to know what you must discount and what might be useful.

5. Perspective. This is slightly different than motive. Think about where a source stands in relation to the topic you are discussing. Were they a top boss or an underling? Were they in a place where they could see all of the action, or only a part of it? Sources may tell you truthfully all that they know -- but you still won't be able to get the whole of a story from them. Be very aware of this.

6. Track record. This won't work the first time you talk to a new source, of course. But you will get a sense over a short period of how good the information is from a source who begins talking to you. You'll be able to see how accurate he or she is about small details, how complete in the context and perspective they provide. You'll hear from people objecting to the information these sources have given you and you can judge whether there is anything to those objections.

Never, ever build a story on just one source, no matter how credible you believe that source to be. This is the best check again being deceived and the No. 1 Rule of sourcing.

Do not come to class on Wednesday, Feb. 27

Instead, you are to go to the Performing Arts Center at 3 p.m. to watch the documentary "The Paper" and to listen and participate in a question and answer with filmmaker Aaron Matthews.

If you cannot make the showing at 3 p.m. you should go to the Performing Arts Center at 4:15, the normal time for class, to hear the Q&A. You may then watch the documentary by taking it out on a three-hour reserve from the Library. The film is stored under Thomas Bass's Narrative Writing Journalism class.

Your assignment, due by class the following Wednesday, March 2, is a two-page news story. That is 500 words minimum. You may choose to cover the airing of the movie and the talk session after as a news event in itself, or you can compare the movie events with the running of the ASP here at UAlbany, or you could track down one of the characters in the documentary and talk to them now. All ideas and uses of imagination are welcome. Bottom line: I want a two-page story from you by March 2. (You should post to your blogs, please.)

You should be understanding by now that going into events you must cover cold is difficult, uncomfortable and generally results in a poor job. So, get ready for this movie and discussion with some research. Here is a good starting point: http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/paper

"Winter Wonderland"

Several of you used this cliche in describing the cold, wet scene that was UAlbany on Wednesday. Actually some of you used it as a direct quote from people you were interviewing. You see how cliches get around. But here's the question? What does this cliche really describe?

I picture a woodsy scene with towering pines wearing fluffy snow capes when I hear that expression, a rural scene like the photo above. To me the ice-slicked puddles and slippery banisters and shrubs leaking stalagtites on this cement campus did not make for a Wonderland.

It is possible that you or the people you talked to were using the phrase ironically, but you have to make this clear to your reader.

Kudos go to Alexandra Stevens who asked a junior studying in the library this great question: "If you had to describe to a blind person what it is like today when we walk outside on campus what would you say?

She got a nice answer, even if it does begin with that ambiguous cliche that makes it easy to see and feel what it was like here last week:

"It looks like a Winter Wonderland outside. All of the trees have ice on them with icicles hanging from everything. There are huge puddles on the floor and everything is slushie. You have to hold on and walk really slow because there is ice, puddles, and dirty snow all over the ground. The air is freezing on your face and you really have no choice but to wear gloves. Most people have their hoods up or hats on because it is raining on and off and are walking around trying to avoid puddles."

Hope Still scored the best quotes I think when she found Joseph Stepansky walking across the UAlbany tundra. "It's nice, if you find death pretty," he told her.

Checking out a hunch

Remember that poster I brought to class and asked, "Is this a story?" and, truthfully, none of us could tell?

The poster advertised a talk by Eduardo A. Vasquez, Ph.D., from the University of Missouri on "The Effects of Alcohol, Cognitive Load, and Provocation Salience on Triggered Displaced Aggression."

Remember, I said I wasn't sure because the language was inpenetrable but I suspected this was something about what sets off campus rage and terrorist incidents? We decided that you could find out by calling the Psych Department or checking online on the subject and the speaker or talking to him directly.

So, for the heck of it, I did all of that to see what I could find out.

Online, I found that Vasquez is on the board of something called the Society for Terrorism Research. Hmmm, my hunch there is a story here, or at least a source who should be cultivated feels stronger. I also looked up definition for phrases, "Cognitive Load," which turns out to mean basically: too much information too fast and "Provocation Salience" which means assaulting or springing forward.

The people in the Pysch Department didn't really know anything; they'd just put up the signs, they said. One woman there very nicely asked around but couldn't find anyone who'd been to the talk to tell me.

So I emailed Dr. Vasquez and politely inquired if he could explain for a layman a talk that I knew was intended for Psych experts. Here's excerpts from his response:

Dear Rosemary, Thank you for your interest in my work. I am happy to discuss the phenomena I study, though I don't know if I can explain much via e-mail. Yes, the talk was aimed at psychologists, and I condensed 2 studies. As a result,it was full of the unfortunate jargon that puts people off. So, I completely understand your students.

Basically, I conduct research on...triggered displaced aggression. Imagine that somebody provoked you, but you don't do anything about it. You get angry and would like to retaliate,but can't (for whatever reason). Your emotional reaction (anger, irritation, etc.)lasts for several minutes. If you encounter a second person who provides another provocation, you can become very aggressive against him/her, even if it's only a minor instigation. So, there are two provocations.

Several factors can further increase aggression in these situations. For instance,although your anger dissipates after several minutes, you might keep recalling the original provoking incident and thus keep anger levels high or easy to remember. Personality types who ruminate or think a lot about provoking incidents might be at risk of excessive aggression if they have additional personality characteristicsthat distort their thinking. A combination of personality and the situations that produce displaced aggression might put such individuals at risk for commiting terrible acts of violence.

Oppressive regimes that do not promote reasonable standards of living might help ininducing and/or maintaining negative affect/emotions in many citizens. Some of these citizens might blame others for their plight and attack them following certain offenses that would normally not produce high levels of aggression and violence.

To be honest, it is still unclear if the psychological processes that produce displaced aggression also produce mass killings and terrorist acts, but I suspect they do in certain situations that the social sciences have not yet examined.

I certainly want to investigate the potential links. I hope this help a bit. Please feel free to ask me more questions. I like the exchange of ideas and the chance to discuss my research.

Sincerely, Eduardo A. Vasquez

What do you think?

Another plagiarism example

Check The Romensko media gossip column at http://www.poynter.org/column.asp?id=45 to read about yet another case of suspected plagiarism that is under investigation.

From the column you can click onto both of the stories that led to this correction from the Miami Herald, which is also at the site.

A story about the Broward Sheriff's Office's semiannual awards ceremony, which appeared on Page 2B of the Broward edition on Feb. 6, included several paragraphs that should have been attributed to the South Florida Sun-Sentinel. Details and quotations from the Sun-Sentinel story, including the comments of civilian honoree John Clark, were used in The Herald's report on the event without appropriate attribution. This is a violation of The Miami Herald's editorial policies and is under internal review.

How do you think this could this have happened? Did a reporter get assigned to "follow" a story that a competitor had scooped him on? Did he get asked to rewrite a story and went too far?

BEST OF THE BLOGS 1

The best excerpts from class blogs over the past week:

1. The post about Pat Yack's advice to young people starting out in journalism makes alot of sense to me. I chose journalism as a minor because I have always like to read and write and have been pretty successful with English as my major. Yet, what I have found is that the journalism field is actually quite different than English and even a bit scary. My journalism classes are much more hands on and cut-throat, in the sense that if you don't have your brain constantly working and paying attention to whats going on in the world and shouting out ideas, you fall behind. In English, you can read the book and figure out something to write about it because the ideas are right there for you. Pat Yack's suggestions to know other languages and take other types of classes is great advice, and another one of the reasons Journalism seems scary to me--because you can't rely on anything but your own knowledge.

2. While doing research on John Merrill and the plagiarism incident I came across his e-mail and decided to ask him if he could give me his opinion on the issue first hand. This is what he replied:I am happy to elaborate somewhat on the "plagiarism" brouhaha. I am convinced that I did not plagiarize, that I only used direct quotes which I attributed to the two faculty members who said them. I'll admit that I could have--probably should have--noted that they came from a story in the student newspaper. I normally do that. But I know that column writers--and I have checked on this--do exactly the same thing that I did. I see it even in such papers as the New York Times. I did not "plagiarize a similar story" that appeared in the Maneater. My story was a "column," a reflection or spin-off of the facts of the Maneater story. During my 60 years of teaching and practicing journalism I have been a stickler for honesty in journalism. I have not wanted to "steal" anyone else's writing, believing that my own is as good or better. Plagiarism is a difficult subject and certainly one that needs a lot of study and semantic sophistication. Thanks for the interest in this incident. Best, John Merrill

3. I was just reading an article on Yahoo.com entitiled "Obama wins Ga. with strong black support," and it made me think of how the media is attempting to make race a major issue in this election. Most of Obama's wins during the primaries, the media has tried to justify it by saying he has a lot of support in the black community. Although this may be true, I don't believe that African-Americans are the only people that are voting for him. Obama has received strong support from people of all backgrounds, including a significant amount of support for young people. I do not think it is fair of the media to accredit his success only to the black voters. Besides race, there are many issues and beliefs that separate Clinton and Obama, and the media should take more time to focus on the issues rather than the superficial. Race did not have to become one of the main issues in this election, and I think it is disappointing that the media chose to perpetuate this idea.

4. Intro to explanation about creation of a law: How does an idea become a law? The process is more long than complicated.The formation of a law always starts with an idea. The formation of an idea is possibly the only chance for a citizen to get involved with the formation and implication of lawmaking. These ideas usually involve any human activity (basic or complex) from A-Z. Since the birthplace of an idea comes from a need, a change, or a desire, most ideas are proposed for the good of the general public.

5. R.S.S. came in handy for me during the SuperBowl last weekend. As a huge Giants fan, I was very excited to watch the game. Unfortunately, I had a massive paper due the next day which I had put off all weekend. Instead of sitting in my suite’s common room with my laptop, I went online and logged onto a website that followed the SuperBowl and provided users who downloaded R.S.S. with game updates. I clicked the R.S.S. icon and I was able to write my paper and follow the game. Not only did the website let me know how much time was left and who had posession of the ball, but it let me know if anyone scored and who did the scoring! I did not need to refresh the page once! Many websites provided users with the same thing on Super Tuesday. The websites let users know which candidate won what states without refreshing the page. It is obvious that R.S.S. is going to be the technology of the future!

Saying much using few words

I've been talking to you about writing so that you make things clear to a reader but without overwhelming him with information he doesn't need or already knows.

For example "Mardi Gras celebration" is a word too much. There are few Mardi Gras funerals.

And "the tragic drowning of three boys" is silly. Seldom is the death of three children a comic event.

An article in the Albany Times-Union this weekend led me to a website you should check out at http://www.smithmag.net/. It is a collection of memoirs by people famous and not -- all done in six words.

Six words to sum up a life. Can't be done?

The article says Ernest Hemingway inspired the site when he was challenged to write a six-word novel and jotted: "For sale: baby shoes, never worn." (Hemingway, by the way, is the master of short stories and of prose that balances on the edge of telling readers only what they must be told and nothing more.)

Look at how some of these entries evoke laughter or sympathy or other emotions. Just a half-dozen words:

“Cursed with cancer, blessed with friends”

“I still make coffee for two”

"I like big butts, can’t lie"

"Had two brothers, now just one. "

"Planned world domination. Not there yet."

This last item is an assignment in six words:

"NOW LET'S SEE YOU DO IT"

(Please post to your blogs by Monday morning. Thanks.)

Use your powers of observation and take this test

Terry Anderson as a hostage and as a national news star upon his release in 1991. He told the story of his 6-year captivity in a book Den of Lions.



Here in class we are concentrating right now on words -- framing meaty questions that elicit emotion and information and then listening closely to hear exactly what is being said or hinted at. Besides relying on their ears and tongues, good reporters use their eyes.

As we discussed in class, humans in what business and behavior writer Malcolm Gladwell calls a "blink" know a lot about other people they encounter. In a glance you are likely to be able to figure out whether a story subject is:

*attractive
*healthy
*married
*in or ever has been in the military
*is an expert on some subjet
*has a great deal of self-confidence, or the opposite
*cares about fashion
*smart
*a person with a sense of humor
*a person who reminds you of someone else (along with the qualities that you associate with that person)
*is a person you like or not



You pick up this intelligence on your subject almost before the first word is uttered and you can use it to shape questions and to make an approach to your subject that will get him or her talking more openly.



Observation also is an important tool in establishing a sense of place and in scene-setting in news articles. ALWAYS, ALWAYS, visit the location of the place you are writing about, the scene of the crime or the action, before you write about it. I cannot tell you precisely what you will find when you do this or what you should look for, but I can tell that you will find something or someone that adds to your story.

Write down or take a picture of what you see so you can think about it later. Stories full of specific details come alive.The more specific the detail the better. A "tree-lined boulevard" is a nice description but a "wide boulevard lined with chestnuts in red bloom" is better. Observation adds a level of complexity and texture to writing.

Back in 1985, American journalist Terry Anderson was kidnapped and held hostage by Hezbollah terrorists in Beirut. His captors at one point allowed his sister Peggy to visit and bring him a package from home. All the accounts of this visit talked about her carrying a big cardboard box, but only one account said that she carried him treats from home in a Girl Scout cookie carton. I remember this decades later because without stretching a muscle, the writer of this story added a poignant reminder of how far Anderson was from home, from all that was normal. He made readers feel the homesickness Anderson must have been feeling. It was, as editors say, an unexpected nice touch.



Now, take this test to see how strong your powers of observation are and tell me what score you got in your blogs. Just as you get better at note-taking by taking notes, you will get better when you practice observing.



http://www.oldjoeblack.0nyx.com/thinktst.htm

Out of the mouths of babes....

Children constantly ask the question Why? to the distraction of adults who often haven't thought about why the sky is blue or why you shouldn't run out into a street without looking. For adults it's all second nature. Children are trying to figure out how things work.

Why is a great question. Use it often in interviews as a rejoinder to many "explanations" or excuses you'll hear.

For example: "We didn't have money in the budget for that program."Why didn't you?

"I had to do it?

Why did you feel that way?

"I like Barack Obama the best of the candidates, though I haven't read a lot of their stands on the issues?
Why do you like Obama the best then? Why haven't you read up on the issues -- what are you considering instead?

Here's a quote I like that was used in a recent posting on the Word, http://tedsword.blogspot.com/, which puts out interesting insights on some common values in journalism and reporting.

"The word 'why' is, in my view, the most powerful word in the English language. It is the driving force of my profession, and it's also the driving force and at the heart of your professors, creative sciences, honest politicians and of good parents. Don't stop asking the word 'why' just because you’re leaving DePauw. All institutions, all endeavors, all relationships are improved by a good scrubbing using the word 'why.' In democracy it is the question we must all constantly be asking our government and our leaders. It is not unpatriotic to question the government; it is unpatriotic not to."
—John McWethy (1947-2008), a print and television journalist, from his 2003 DePauw University commencement speech

Listening is the key to good interviewing

You need more than just good questions and the ability to take comprehensive notes quickly to make an interview work. You have to listen to what your subject is saying.



If you are only thinking about your next comment or writing furiously, then you'll miss clues about what your subject thinks is important, when he is lying, how she thinks and what you really should be asking more about.



Americans have some bad listening habits. The UAlbany Academic Support Services recently ran a list of these habits, which can inhibit successful learning. With a little adaptation this list is also useful to aspiring journalists.



1. Calling a subject dry

If you write off something your subject is talking about as boring or not what you are really interested in, you tune out and probably give up on the interview.

If you listen, however, you'll be able to sift and screen out the stuff you don't need and zero in on the few points he might be making that you do care about.



2. Criticizing the speaker

I do want you to look at how people look and read their body language and judge how they deliver answers to your questions, but you must remain completely non-judgemental. Transmitting a negative view of someone to them is a sure way to be cut off from any information they may be able to give you.



3. Getting Overstimulated

You have to hear out a speaker or interview subject without reacting strongly. This may not only shut down your subject if you react in a way he doesn't agree with, but it also cuts your ability to listen. You become intent only on getting across your point of view and an interview is never about you.



4. Listening only for facts

I will tell you to go to interviews knowing exactly what you need from it. What information you will try to get out of a person. But if you only listen and wait for that material, you will fail. Listen to the subject's whole story, her main ideas and how she wraps up things. Facts only back sense when you hear and can explain to others the context for them. It is interesting that the most frequent complaint from people about reporters is not that they were misquoted -- that is, not that the words themselves were wrong, but that they were quoted out of context.



5. Don't be rigid about following your outline for the interview

This is a sure way to lose out on information your subject may be willing to give you. She will see your adherence to your own list of questions as a sign you don't care what she thinks is important. Be flexible. Go where the speaker takes you. And you are allowed to say, "I don't understand how this connects to what we were just talking about."



6. Faking attention

You know how in some lectures you prop your chin in your hand and gaze intently at the speaker to show you are listening but really you are thinking of weekend plans? This is a big problem in an interview. Interview subjects need to be coaxed into talking more. That's why you nod your head and write notes and occassionally say, "That is a good way to put it." The best advice is not to fake too much at all in an interview. If a subject asks you if you are familiar with a book, for example, that he wants to quote from, do not say yes unless you really are.



7. Tolerating distraction

Set up interviews in places where there is not a lot of distraction. If there is a problem -- noise from outside, other people nearby -- stop the interview and find a new place or at least discuss the problem with the speaker before proceeding.



8. Choosing only what's easy

Remember the Eisenhower exercise which many of you could not take good notes on? Here's a big reason why. We tune out on subjects or exposition that is difficult. Many of you will be talking to professors, scientists and scholars so you should be ready for this barrier to active listening. One way to handle it is to just say, I do not understand this. Can you break it down for me? Can you explain it as you would to a child? Smart people like to be teachers. They will.



9. Letting emotion-laden words get in the way

For me I hear the expression "think out of the box" and I don't even WANT to hear what's coming next. You have to fight this in an interview.



10. Wasting the diferential between the speed of speech and the speed of thought.

Americans talk at a rate of 125 words per minute in conversation (100 if speaking before a crowd). But you listen must faster -- you actually could absorb 400 to 500 words a minute.



This is a gap that can mean trouble if you use that extra time to daydream. What you need to do is use the advantage you have as listening to do this while your subject is still speaking:



*anticipate the next point. Where is the speaker going? And do you want to go there. If not, change the subject. If so, think of a followup question.

*evaluate what you are hearing. Did you expect this? Is she telling you something you didn't have any idea of. Can you get more?

*summarize what a speaker is telling you. Does it all fit or are there gaps in logic or truth you can ask more about.

Explaining without making readers and viewers feel stupid

This is often the job of a journalist -- to educate but not with a professorial tone. This piece from the Voice of America explains the "primary process" without using that deadly dull expression or any big words. It is clear and it is short. Not like a textbook.

I have qualms about referring you to a story from VOA because it is something of a public relations tool for the US. VOA explains this country to the world overseas but with a positive or affirmative slant.

Still, this piece is aiming more for clarity than for propaganda, so check it out. I particularly like the way the writer tell us right out --can you see where? -- that picking candidates to run for President is a crazy and complicated system. As a reader I am allowed to think, "Ah, no wonder I can't follow this. It's not because I'm stupid that I don't get all this voting."

(image from www.mclib.org)

http://www.voanews.com/english/2008-02-07-voa61.cfm

Words of wisdom

Pat Yack after decades in the news business this month departed his post as editor of the Jacksonville, Fla. Times-Union newspaper. Long-time newspeople are dropping out of the business in large numbers these days as younger people come in with fresh ideas and techniques. It was one of the things I most liked about the profession when I began back in the '70s. Seniority doesn't count, only your ideas and the stories you produce.

So, if he were giving advice to students just starting in journalism what would he say? Yack made this list.

1. Habla Espanol (I would add: or Arabic, Chinese, Swahili, French)
2. Take three courses in business: fundamentals; finance/banking; real estate
3. Work at the school paper or radio station
4. Study whatever you have a passion for now, because you won't have the chance again when busy with work and family

For another view of the Joshua Bell piece -- consider this

http://www.cjr.org/essay/what_would_you_do.php?page=1

Where to find a story

Go to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnOPu0_YWhw to see an imaginative piece of reporting by Washington Post Magazine writer Gene Weingarten.

Gene --who once worked in Albany -- noticed all the street performers he encountered walking through the Metro system walkways of Washington DC. That OBSERVATION run through his imagination came out as this question: what if the street performer were really really good -- would busy subway riders realize it?

Then he persuaded Joshua Bell, a world-class violinist whom classicial music and opera lovers around the world gladly pay $100 a ticket or more to hear, to help in his experiment.

Good story, good journalism and the only tricky part was the connection with and ability to talk the virtuoso into playing in a subway.

Comments?

Is it unethical for journalists to vote?

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/why-washington-journalists-should-cast/story.aspx?guid=%7B9FAEE183%2D6972%2D41E1%2D92D0%2DAE61345CABD1%7D

Gossip and News

What's the difference between the two and is one all bad and the other all good? Read this and give (that is to say, perhaps, blog about) your point of view.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/03/jobs/03career.html?_r=2&8dpc&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

A good idea -- but a bad source

Check out this link please to see a photo-essay that has been circulating around the Internet. Two friends in journalism jobs sent to me and I've found it in several blogs I look at.

http://m3.youneed2see.com/piles/?s=foodforaweek

I wanted you all to see this because it so cleverly illustrates the maxim that you don't always need words to tell a story. In just a few selected pictures and captions this piece grabs its viewer with a powerful message.

But there's a big problem with it. I cannot tell you whether the story told in these pictures is true or bogus? Do typical families in each of the countries used here really spend this amount per week? When was this comparison made? What were the rules of this story -- did the families get money to buy the food depicted? Most importantly, who did this story?

No where is the source of this information revealed. (I looked; if I'm incorrect and you can find it, please let us know otherwise.) How can you trust or believe this story?

In the end, I'm putting Foodforaweek here not only to suggest to you that photos, sound, smells, texture all can and should be used in storytelling but to warn you.

There is a lot of made up and unreliable material on the Internet. Do not pick up information to use without thinking about it, re-reporting it and checking it out thoroughly.

For better notes -- develop a shorthand

Looking through your class exercise of last week I found that many of you were aiming for letter-perfect notes. You have this mixed up. I do want your final stories to be accurately spelled and punctuated, of course. But the aim in taking notes is to get down as much of what your speaker is saying in his or her own words as you can while also actually listening to them and understanding. It's a trick, as you've now seen.

The better your notes, the better your writing will be.

So it's worth practicing this skill. In addition to taking journalistic notes during lectures in other classes I have been suggesting to some of you that you start using a form of shorthand in your notes. Don't try to get every word down perfectly. It takes too long. MILITARY should become "MIL" and EXPERIENCE "EXP," for example, or GOVERNMENT "GOV" and PEOPLE "P".

There's a much-circulated little paragraph going around FACEBOOK that shows exactly how messed up words can be and yet the human mind is capable of understanding them. The moral of this exercise is that -- basically get the first and past letter or a good chunk of the beginning and you can read the word.


CNA YUO RAED TIHS???

fi yuo cna raed tihs, yuo hvae a sgtrane mnid too Cna yuo raed tihs? Olny 55 plepoe out of 100 can. i cdnuolt blveiee taht I cluod aulaclty uesdnatnrd waht I was rdanieg. The phaonmneal pweor of the hmuan mnid, aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it dseno't mtaetr in waht oerdr the ltteres in a wrod are, the olny iproamtnt tihng is taht the frsit and lsat ltteer be in the rghit pclae. The rset can be a taotl mses and you can sitll raed it whotuit a pboerlm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe. Azanmig huh? yaeh and I awlyas tghuhot slpeling was ipmorantt! if you can raed tihs forwrad it

What did he say?

Taken from the Internet: a Yousuf Karsh portrait of the miltary leader Eisenhower and photograph of military critic Eisenhower at the end of his days in the White House in 1961.



Here's the text of Dwight Eisenhower's Farewell Address that we tried to take notes on in class 1/30/08. The difficulty of both understanding a speaker and capturing his words at the same time is a good reason to always use a tape recorder as a backup to written notes.

To hear (and see) the old President's delivery as opposed to mine, check out the site I took this text from:


http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/dwightdeisenhowerfarewell.html

It's a short address that has gotten much attention recently -- 47 years later -- because of its relevancy to the US war against Iraq.

SPEECH DELIVERED Jan. 17, 1961

Good evening, my fellow Americans.

First, I should like to express my gratitude to the radio and television networks for the opportunities they have given me over the years to bring reports and messages to our nation. My special thanks go to them for the opportunity of addressing you this evening.

Three days from now, after half century in the service of our country, I shall lay down the responsibilities of office as, in traditional and solemn ceremony, the authority of the Presidency is vested in my successor. This evening, I come to you with a message of leave-taking and farewell, and to share a few final thoughts with you, my countrymen.

Like every other -- Like every other citizen, I wish the new President, and all who will labor with him, Godspeed. I pray that the coming years will be blessed with peace and prosperity for all.

Our people expect their President and the Congress to find essential agreement on issues of great moment, the wise resolution of which will better shape the future of the nation. My own relations with the Congress, which began on a remote and tenuous basis when, long ago, a member of the Senate appointed me to West Point, have since ranged to the intimate during the war and immediate post-war period, and finally to the mutually interdependent during these past eight years. In this final relationship, the Congress and the Administration have, on most vital issues, cooperated well, to serve the nation good, rather than mere partisanship, and so have assured that the business of the nation should go forward. So, my official relationship with the Congress ends in a feeling -- on my part -- of gratitude that we have been able to do so much together.

We now stand ten years past the midpoint of a century that has witnessed four major wars among great nations. Three of these involved our own country. Despite these holocausts, America is today the strongest, the most influential, and most productive nation in the world. Understandably proud of this pre-eminence, we yet realize that America's leadership and prestige depend, not merely upon our unmatched material progress, riches, and military strength, but on how we use our power in the interests of world peace and human betterment.

Throughout America's adventure in free government, our basic purposes have been to keep the peace, to foster progress in human achievement, and to enhance liberty, dignity, and integrity among peoples and among nations. To strive for less would be unworthy of a free and religious people. Any failure traceable to arrogance, or our lack of comprehension, or readiness to sacrifice would inflict upon us grievous hurt, both at home and abroad.

Progress toward these noble goals is persistently threatened by the conflict now engulfing the world. It commands our whole attention, absorbs our very beings. We face a hostile ideology global in scope, atheistic in character, ruthless in purpose, and insiduous [insidious] in method. Unhappily, the danger it poses promises to be of indefinite duration. To meet it successfully, there is called for, not so much the emotional and transitory sacrifices of crisis, but rather those which enable us to carry forward steadily, surely, and without complaint the burdens of a prolonged and complex struggle with liberty the stake. Only thus shall we remain, despite every provocation, on our charted course toward permanent peace and human betterment.

Crises there will continue to be. In meeting them, whether foreign or domestic, great or small, there is a recurring temptation to feel that some spectacular and costly action could become the miraculous solution to all current difficulties. A huge increase in newer elements of our defenses; development of unrealistic programs to cure every ill in agriculture; a dramatic expansion in basic and applied research -- these and many other possibilities, each possibly promising in itself, may be suggested as the only way to the road we wish to travel.

But each proposal must be weighed in the light of a broader consideration: the need to maintain balance in and among national programs, balance between the private and the public economy, balance between the cost and hoped for advantages, balance between the clearly necessary and the comfortably desirable, balance between our essential requirements as a nation and the duties imposed by the nation upon the individual, balance between actions of the moment and the national welfare of the future. Good judgment seeks balance and progress. Lack of it eventually finds imbalance and frustration. The record of many decades stands as proof that our people and their Government have, in the main, understood these truths and have responded to them well, in the face of threat and stress.

But threats, new in kind or degree, constantly arise. Of these, I mention two only.

A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction. Our military organization today bears little relation to that known of any of my predecessors in peacetime, or, indeed, by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.

Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense. We have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security alone more than the net income of all United States cooperations -- corporations.

Now this conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every Statehouse, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet, we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources, and livelihood are all involved. So is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades. In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.

Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers. The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present -- and is gravely to be regarded.

Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.

It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system -- ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society.

Another factor in maintaining balance involves the element of time. As we peer into society's future, we -- you and I, and our government -- must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering for our own ease and convenience the precious resources of tomorrow. We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without risking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage. We want democracy to survive for all generations to come, not to become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow.

During the long lane of the history yet to be written, America knows that this world of ours, ever growing smaller, must avoid becoming a community of dreadful fear and hate, and be, instead, a proud confederation of mutual trust and respect. Such a confederation must be one of equals. The weakest must come to the conference table with the same confidence as do we, protected as we are by our moral, economic, and military strength. That table, though scarred by many fast frustrations -- past frustrations, cannot be abandoned for the certain agony of disarmament -- of the battlefield.

Disarmament, with mutual honor and confidence, is a continuing imperative. Together we must learn how to compose differences, not with arms, but with intellect and decent purpose. Because this need is so sharp and apparent, I confess that I lay down my official responsibilities in this field with a definite sense of disappointment. As one who has witnessed the horror and the lingering sadness of war, as one who knows that another war could utterly destroy this civilization which has been so slowly and painfully built over thousands of years, I wish I could say tonight that a lasting peace is in sight.

Happily, I can say that war has been avoided. Steady progress toward our ultimate goal has been made. But so much remains to be done. As a private citizen, I shall never cease to do what little I can to help the world advance along that road.

So, in this, my last good night to you as your President, I thank you for the many opportunities you have given me for public service in war and in peace. I trust in that -- in that -- in that service you find some things worthy. As for the rest of it, I know you will find ways to improve performance in the future.

You and I, my fellow citizens, need to be strong in our faith that all nations, under God, will reach the goal of peace with justice. May we be ever unswerving in devotion to principle, confident but humble with power, diligent in pursuit of the Nations' great goals.

To all the peoples of the world, I once more give expression to America's prayerful and continuing aspiration: We pray that peoples of all faiths, all races, all nations, may have their great human needs satisfied; that those now denied opportunity shall come to enjoy it to the full; that all who yearn for freedom may experience its few spiritual blessings. Those who have freedom will understand, also, its heavy responsibility; that all who are insensitive to the needs of others will learn charity; and that the sources -- scourges of poverty, disease, and ignorance will be made [to] disappear from the earth; and that in the goodness of time, all peoples will come to live together in a peace guaranteed by the binding force of mutual respect and love.

Now, on Friday noon, I am to become a private citizen. I am proud to do so. I look forward to it.

Thank you, and good night.