“It’s kind of like a bricklayer knowing he needs to bring certain tools to the job to build a wall,” Schuh said. “He doesn’t think about, do I need a trowel…do I need a mixer, my pickle bucket? No, he just brings all that stuff and then he looks at the blueprint of a job and figures out what kind of wall am I building today.”  TV journalists, he said, need to be so certain about the tools of their craft–the shots and sound they need to do the job–that they can focus on simply telling a good story. As Schuh put it, “Once you’ve aced the mechanics of how you build a story, then you can worry about the story line and the plot, the quest, conflict and resolution, the reveal, all these other parts.”

With all the necessary elements in hand, Schuh has one simple goal when he sits down to write: “to get out of the way.”

The truth can be painful, can’t it? In doing a search for the video, I also stumbled across a couple of more serious resources on this topic that I thought were worth sharing.

So have a laugh, but then take a minute to learn a little, too!

Meeks Mixed Media How-To

E-How How-To

College journalism teachers tell me their students often need remedial help with the basics because they never mastered grammar in high school. Even schools that require a passing grade on a grammar exam for admission to journalism school find they’re up against some deeply ingrained bad habits. And it’s tough to convince students they need to break those bad habits, especially broadcast students. We want them to write conversationally, of course, but we don’t really want them to write the way they would speak to a friend. If we did, we’d be okay with a script that reads, “Her and a friend arrived just before the shooting.”

It doesn’t do much good to suggest that people who speak this way consult a style guide when they write. If they don’t have a clue that what they’re saying is wrong, they probably won’t bother to look anything up.

Practice can help, and there are plenty of online resources available, like Newsroom 101, with free exercises in grammar, usage and style. But if those exercises feel like drudgery, take heart. The funny folks at The Oatmeal have come up with a guide to one of the most misused punctuation marks ever, the apostrophe. Check it out and never confuse it’s and its again.

Not the stories that came with those labels attached, but the way they’re written. It’s shocking how many worthless adjectives are being crammed into the average newscast! Tragic to think that many writers may not know better. And unbelievable that nothing is being done about it.

Television newscasts these days are awash in hyperbole. Could that be one reason the audience is floating away? Listen to almost any news program, network or local, and you’re bombarded with words and phrases so overused that they have become meaningless. In a 15-minute span one morning, reporters and anchors on one channel promised “stunning new developments” that weren’t in the least bit astonishing, described a Vatican gathering of visibly delighted Cardinals as a “solemn ceremony,” and discussed the possible punishment for a “heinous crime” without ever mentioning what had actually happened.

This kind of writing violates a bedrock principle of broadcast news: It is better to show than to tell. “You can say she’s a devoted mother, or you can show a child jumping into her lap,” says Mike Mather, a reporter at WTKR-TV in Norfolk, VA. “Which is more effective?”

Great writers seek and use specific details, not shopworn generalities, to convey information and emotion. Instead of telling the listener there’s been a tragic fire, provide the facts: Six members of one family were killed. The only survivor is a six-month-old boy, burned beyond recognition. And it happened on Christmas morning. Let the listener decide if that’s tragic.

Boyd Huppert, a reporter at KARE-TV in Minneapolis, put this principle into practice in a story about a spreading grass fire. Instead of telling viewers that the situation was frightening, Huppert described the scene through the eyes of the fire chief: “He had men out there, and he couldn’t see them.”

Writers who turn every car crash into a horrifying accident and every tornado into a killer twister seem more concerned with selling their stories than with telling them. These writers may believe they’re engaging viewers and conveying emotion by using adjectives like devastating, terrifying or alarming. But what they’re really doing is instructing listeners and viewers how to feel about the story, effectively robbing them of the chance to feel anything at all. Telling viewers the next story is “unbelievable” simply invites them not to believe it. Announcing a “surprising” turn all but guarantees that no one will be surprised.

Adjective-stuffed copy is flabby and indigestible, at best. It’s not the way most of us talk, so the result is anything but conversational. Often, it’s just plain silly. How many worthwhile murders have you reported on lately? What’s the point, then, of calling any crime “senseless?” Have you ever heard anything actually whop? Why, then, are we so often told about a “whopping increase” in prices? If the victims were taken to a hospital far away, that might be news and worth mentioning, but why bother telling us they went to a “nearby hospital?”

Sometimes adjectives are simply redundant. Close proximity. Freezing mark. Fatal murder. That kind of writing makes a broadcaster sound ignorant. It undermines credibility and wastes time besides. Does this mean all adjectives must go? Of course not. Just the ones that add no meaning, or worse yet, distort the truth. If you habitually describe all victims as “innocent,” for example, you’ll be wrong when it turns out one particular victim was wanted for armed robbery in four states.

Superlatives are particularly dangerous. If you call a program “unique” you’d better be able to prove it. The same goes for first, last, best and worst. Consider this advice on writing from Turner Catledge when he retired as executive editor of the New York Times: “Play it straight, keep it short, and never use the word ‘unprecedented.’” Or to put it another way, as Charles Kuralt once did: “Just plain old declarative sentences seem to serve best in this field.”

Overcoming adjective addiction isn’t easy. Great writers have struggled to break the habit. The author Willa Cather told an interviewer in 1915, “It was a painful period in which I overcame my florid, exaggerated, foamy-at-the-mouth, adjective-spree period. I knew even then it was a crime to write like I did, but I had to get the adjectives and the youthful fervor worked off.”

Better start now by making time to revise your copy. Before you go on the air, go on an adjective hunt. Set your superlative detector on stun. Give your delete key a workout. The science f Robert J. Sawyeriction writer uses his word-processing software to launch what he calls “a seek-and-destroy run” for unnecessary words like “very.” Create your own list of wasted words. Capture them. Kill them. Show them no mercy.

Brutal? Perhaps. But tragic? Never.

This article was originally published by RTNDA Communicator magazine, June 2001.

Sourced from: NewsLab

But with practice and coaching, you can improve your baseball skills. The same goes for multimedia journalism.

I’m often asked to offer feedback on stories, which I’m happy to do as time permits, but it’s occurred to me that it might be more productive to share those critiques so others can apply the suggestions to their own work, if they find them useful.

Along came Kevin Torres, who’s just accepted a new job as a backpack journalist at KUSA-TV in Denver. He asked for feedback on this story he shot for WSYR-TV in Syracuse, NY:

After I sent Kevin my comments, he agreed to serve as a guinea pig and let me share them. So here goes:

You structured the story well, kept it moving and revealed some surprises. Well done. She’s a fabulous character, and I’m glad you let her speak her mind in the story without feeling the need to sanitize her salty language. The nat sound is really nice and so is your framing.

I think your delivery is just a tad too fast. I had to listen to the story a couple of times to make sure I caught it all, and I’m watching it in a quiet office without any distractions. My advice would be to slow it down. If you’re speeding to keep the story within a time limit, cut something instead of reading faster.

When you introduce a character by name, I like to see the person’s face. Boyd Huppert calls it “a handshake shot.” You’re asking me to meet someone, so I’d like to see what they look like. In this story, we don’t see her face in today video until 30 seconds in. Too long to wait, I think.

The still photo of the woman isn’t up long enough for me to see the injury. Or perhaps, since it’s the first time we’ve seen her face, we have nothing to compare it to. Either way, she doesn’t look that bad.

Not sure about the “body swelled to the size of her medical bill” line. I know what you’re trying to do but I think it overreaches.

I like the standup idea. Using the ruler tied it in to the rest of the story. Maybe it would have worked better with a few additional words: “one hundred miles, one foot at a time.”

That last shot left something to be desired. I know she’s back in the shadows, but all I saw the first time was the leaves. I’d have preferred to see her more clearly there.

Kevin has been in the TV news business for almost five years and he’s obviously doing very good work as a solo journalist. I wouldn’t have nit-picked his story quite so much if he’d just been starting out. Hats off to him for putting himself out there for this public review.

Oh, and one more thing. If you ask someone to critique your work for free, be sure to thank them even if you don’t like what you hear. It’s just plain rude not to.

This post adapted from NewsLab

Smaller staffs, shorter deadlines and more platforms to feed. Is it any wonder mistakes get on the air and online? In today’s short-handed, 24/7 newsrooms, it’s more important than ever for anyone involved in producing content to double check it for accuracy. Don’t think someone else will catch even the most obvious errors. They won’t. Just ask the New York Times.

This ten-point checklist is designed to help.

1. Confirm information that could be in doubt

* Any unattributed information (information that has no name attached to it) is a red flag, demanding further investigation. Even two sources may not constitute confirmation, because one source may have learned the information from the other. Always ask: How do they know what they know, and why are they telling me this?

* Make sure that anyone claiming to be an eyewitness actually was at the scene and in a position to observe what they are telling you. In breaking news situations in particular, people often sound authoritative when they are actually passing along unconfirmed rumors.

2. Clarify context

* Make sure the soundbites or quotes you choose to use fully capture what each person meant to say. A survey of people who were sources in television news stories found that one person in three said important information was left out of a story and one in five complained that his or her interview was taken out of context.

* If you need to, add information in your narration/track to put comments into context.

3. Look for what might be missing

* Review your story with an eye to significant information or points of view that have not been included. Look at each quote or soundbite, in particular, and ask: Who would disagree or take a different position?

* Contact people whose views are not reflected in the story and give them a chance to talk. If they decline, make mention of that in your story.

4. Review for focus

* Make sure your story backs up your lead. Have you over-reached or over-stated the story?

* Restate the focus of your story, and review the script to see if you have stayed on point or strayed from your focus. (A bonus: This is a good way to find places where you can trim the script to save time.)

*Plug your entire story into a word cloud generator like Wordle to see if your content reflects your focus.

5. Check names, places, titles

* Be sure you have attributed information to the correct source in every case.

* Make sure you have checked the spelling of proper names. If possible, check directly with the source. Press releases can be wrong. Even business cards may not show a current title.

6. Check spelling, grammar, usage

* Spelling and grammar count–especially in this age of graphics, closed captioning and Web usage. If you are not positive about a spelling, look it up. This list of commonly misspelled words can help.

* Read scripts out loud to find and fix grammar and usage problems. If in doubt, ask a colleague or check a reference guide.

7. Do the math

* Stories with numbers must be checked to make sure the numbers add up. Recalculate percentages, percent change, ratios, and the like, no matter where you got them. Online calculators make this much easier than it sounds.

* Check with an expert not involved in the story if you have any questions about how the numbers were calculated.

8. Fact check graphics

* Make sure the information you provide to graphics is correct–especially numbers. Call to confirm all telephone numbers and visit all Web addresses.

* Look at the completed graphic before air to catch mistakes.

9. Be precise about pronunciations

* Make a habit of checking the pronunciation of names and places while you are in the field. Ask people to say their names on tape, so you can go back and listen, if necessary. Use this list of commonly mispronounced words to find land mines in your script.

* If you are new to an area, be extra careful with names and places that may look familiar but could be pronounced quite differently from what you expect. Nothing raises more doubts about your credibility than mispronouncing a word your audience thinks you should know.

10. Screen the finished story

* Be sure that your words and pictures are telling the same story.

* Be sure the narration and soundbites match the finished script, and that mistakes have not crept in during tracking or editing.

Sourced from: NewsLab

The New York Times may have found some answers by scouring data from its Web site. The Times online has a “look up” function that allows readers to click a word to get a definition, so it was a simple matter to count the clicks and come up with a list. According to an internal memo obtained by the Nieman Journalism Lab, the top five words on the most-looked-up list were: sui generis, solipsistic, louche, laconic and saturnine.

Deputy news editor Philip Corbett’s memo notes that Times readers are an educated lot, but “they probably don’t carry an unabridged dictionary along with the newspaper as they take the subway to work.”

I’m not suggesting that we should ban these or any challenging words. Some uses may be perfectly justified. But let’s keep in mind why we’re writing and who’s reading, and under what circumstances. And let’s avoid the temptation to display our erudition at the reader’s expense.

Erudition. You know: ” extensive knowledge acquired chiefly from books,” according to Webster’s.

The YouTube Reporters’ Center is a new resource to help you learn more about how to report the news. It features some of the nation’s top journalists and news organizations sharing instructional videos with tips and advice for better reporting.

NPR’s Scott Simon does a good job on the subject of storytelling and both Katie Couric and Tavis Smiley offer interviewing tips.

Of particular interest to multimedia journalists are the segments on how to shoot breaking news with your cell phone and how to shoot interviews – both on-the-fly and in a more formal setting.

1.  Distance – According to Hallman, stories suffer if your audience is kept at arm’s length by your writing.  ”If you look at your notebook and have nothing but quotes, then you have a problem,”  says Hallman.  He believes you need to bring the reader in close with descriptions — of sound, gestures, perhaps the look of a room.  By focusing on all the senses “writers give the reader the chance to know the character, and that makes those good quotes even better because they’re placed in context.”

2.  Stories about things – Hallman says the best stories are built around people, not a spokesperson.

3.  Direction – Hallman says great stories give readers a sense “that the story is headed someplace, that something is about to unfold.”  He suggests you should know “what emotion you want your reader to experience.”

4.  Pacing - Don’t get locked into the two-sentence paragraph.  “Sentence length and paragraph blocking are two important ways we can slow a story, or speed it up.  A long paragraph followed by a short one draws attention to the short one.”

5.  Theme -” The best stories touch the universal.”

6.  Voice -  This doesn’t mean first person, rather Hallman says you strive to give your audience “a sense of the narrator behind the story.”

7.  Strong middles and powerful endings – Though openings are important, Hallman says, “The body of the story is where we keep the reader interested.  The ending is the payoff.”

Richards told the Washington Post’s John Kelley that he sees errors everywhere and finds them “very annoying.”

I think that grammar is a valued part of our civilization. I don’t like any attempt to diminish it…The point is getting it right. If there’s two ways of doing something and one is wrong and one is right, why do the wrong thing?

The rules for apostrophes are simple, Richards says, so why not follow them? The Society’s Web site lists everything you need to know about how to use an apostrophe:

• To denote a missing letter.  (It’s instead of it is.)
• To denote possession (The dog’s bone.)
• Never, but never, to denote a plural.

Alert contributors have sent the Society scads of photographic evidence of apostrophes being inserted where they don’t belong…

…and left out where they do…

Shocking!

Okay, maybe not. Even Richards admits that English is an evolving language, and some changes may be an improvement.  But he believes a lot of change is due to “laziness and ignorance.” And when journalists misuse apostrophes in news stories or TV graphics, they’re not just setting a bad grammatical example. They’re unintentionally sending a message that they don’t care all that much about getting things right. Not good.

I’m on Richards’ side on this. It’s not that hard to get it right. Let’s stamp out apostrophe abuse so we can pay attention to other egregious errors. Subject-verb agreement, anyone?