How news editing has made me dislike stupid people

OK, so maybe the title is a little harsh.

The semester is winding down now and we have learned a lot. But what I have noticed through the semester is that people make mistakes in their writing and in their speech often. And now that I know the mistakes, I have become much more aware of them when I see people making them.
These are some of my biggest pet peeves:
- 'toward,' instead of towards
- 'more than,' instead of using 'over'
- 'farther' is used for distance, not 'further'
- 'compliment' is for saying nice things, not 'complement'
- misusing 'than' when 'from' is correct

I know this list is just a sample of commonly misused words, but these are some that really bother me when I hear or read them. I'm sure that this list is going to grow as I continue to write and edit in my career. Still, I'm very thankful for this class because hopefully I will not make a common mistake in front of a knowledgeable editor.

What are some of your biggest editing pet peeves?

OK, what's with CNN?

I've been trying to catch up with the blogs tonight, and I kept noticing a common theme that many of the posts come from CNN.com.

Admittedly, I go to CNN.com for my news too. I find it easy to use and it is the national news Web site I have used during my time in college. The site always has a lead story and then a list of other top stories that is easy to read through. There are the 'most popular' lists and multimedia that accompanies many of the stories.

But what about sites like the Drudge Report? No multimedia, no most popular lists, nothing fancy ... only a few photos with links to other stories. But it does have a lot of news on it.

So I've just been wondering, why do you choose the news Web sites you do? Can you explain why or is it just a habit?

Pirates in the 21st century

When you hear the word "pirate," what image pops into your head? Johnny Depp and Orlando Bloom? Eye patches and bottles of rum in the 18th century? Sitting on a slow moving boat through a ride in Disney World?

I know when I first heard about the Somalian piracy problem, that's what I thought of. When you are not educated about a story, you might think it's a joke, or a "bright" for the page. Disney has taught us that pirates are fun and entertaining. People dress up as them for Halloween. Video games are made about them.

But these modern-day pirates are serious.

They are hijacking ships with oil, taking hostages and asking for ransom money. If ships have to be rerouted, the cost of oil is going to increase because the cost to deliver the oil will increase. They are living lavish lives and costing countries a lot of money.

As editors, we need to think about the effect one word can have on a reader. We need to make sure headlines are clear and written to convey how serious the story is. We need to make sure stories are edited so that the point of the story is transparent.

Online news judgment

Yesterday in class, we talked about what stories we would put on our A1. We had to weigh what the most important stories were for our readers. But when looking at news Web sites this afternoon, it got me to thinking: How do editors choose what should be at the top of their Web sites?

News judgment for online has many of the same aspects of newspaper judgment. One must consider what the reader must know. But since the Internet is so much more fluid, editors can choose to put lighter stories up for just a little while, and take them down if something more important breaks. Newspaper editors must consider what the most important news will be when the paper is printed, but online editors get to tell readers what the most important news is at that exact moment. And that is a large benefit to be able to tell readers what they need to know when they need to know it.

But do editors put certain items higher on their sites because they know they are going to get a lot of clicks? CNN.com ranks their stories in one section of their site by the 10 most popular. At the time I am writing this, the top story is about Obama reversing Bush's policies, Gun sales spiking after the election gets second place, and the 10 healthiest grocery stores gets first. It's interesting that the top two deal with politics and the third is a lighter story. So how do we learn proper news judgment for online journalism?

gchat for journalists

I'm pretty sure I'm not alone when I say that when I log on to any computer, I immediately go to gmail.com. I check to see if I have any new messages and then create a new tab for whatever other Web site I go to.

In the past two years that I've had gmail, it's become a minor obsession. I can easily see when I have a new message. And the best part of gmail? Gchat.

For anyone who doesn't have a gmail account, gchat is very much like AOL instant messenger. The difference is that once you e-mail someone with a gmail account from your gmail account, their name shows up in a "chat" box on the left side of the screen. One can then message any of their contacts when online. In AIM, one has to ask for a screen name and add the person manually. But gchat does it automatically and you talk to 'Joe Smith' instead of joeysmithdawg35 on AIM.

So how does this relate to journalism? E-mail is of course used to stay in touch with sources. And when both the reporter and the source have gmail, they are in each other's contact boxes. This summer, I had a source gchat me with something he forgot to tell me during the interview (I just saw his name in my chat box, which made me think of the idea for this post). It caught me off guard. But it was helpful.

I think it is OK for a source to tell me something quickly on gchat, or set up an interview if I was somewhere quiet and I had met the source previously. But if this is a trend and it continues, I think gchat might become a sort of crutch for journalists, just like some people like to use e-mail instead of picking up a phone.

The heart of journalism <3

It's hard to go a day without hearing about media bias, corrupted journalists, the shrinking market and how our jobs will be unnecessary in a matter of years.

False.

People can say these things, but the truth is, the public will always need what is at the heart of journalism. Reading this article tonight on cnn.com reaffirmed that thing I have always believed about (and initially drew me to) journalism, but I often forget when I worry about when I'm working to build my resume. Journalism is about the people and for the people, and nothing will ever change that.

This article is about a photographer who, in 1984, began a project to take photos of all 676 residents in Oxford, Iowa. These photos are now in a book called "The Oxford Project," with photos of as many of the same people as possible 20 years later. In his second time around, he brought a journalism professor to get their life stories. The following quotes really stood out when I was reading the story:

Bloom says journalists these days too often talk to the nation's power players and too few times to working-class people.

"The idea was not to talk to the decision makers, but talk to the people whose lives are affected by the decision makers," he says. "My job in Oxford was to talk to the voiceless, to people who don't have any voice who are the backbone of America."

"People will talk if you're willing to listen," Kristi Somerville says. "They're not small-town stories. They're human stories."

Her mother adds of Bloom's at-ease style. "He said, 'Tell me about your life.' How often does somebody ask you that: Tell me about your life?"

"I walked away from this knowing that life turns on a dime," Bloom says. "I realized that life is really dependent on moments, and you don't know when those moments are going to take place when you wake up. And sometimes when you go to sleep at night, you don't realize those moments have taken place."

We forget that journalism is about people, and when we write about real people, we make a connection. And that's the coolest job in the world. Maybe this post is a little cheesy, but I guess I needed an article like this to remind me why I decided to major in journalism in the first place.

In case you missed it in class...

So when is it OK to use an 'AMer' story?

In case you missed my part of our discussion in class, it is appropriate to use an 'AMer' story when it is the only information you have and an update is intended for later in the day with more context in a 'PMer' story.

The AMer vs. the PMer business story

I read this short article on the Tribune's Web site from the Associated Press:

Dominick's owner sees slight rise in 3Q profit

The Associated Press

12:05 PM CDT, October 7, 2008

Higher gas sales and a boost from its more upscale stores helped grocer Safeway Inc. -- the California-based owner of Chicago-area chain Dominick's Finer Foods -- post a slight rise in profit in its third fiscal quarter.

The nation's second-biggest grocery store said Tuesday its profit rose nearly 3 percent to $199.7 million, or 46 cents per share, for the three months ended Sept. 6, from $194.6 million, or 44 cents per share, last year.

Its sales rose nearly 4 percent to $10.17 billion from $9.78 billion, helped by higher gas sales and contributions from its more upscale Lifestyle stores.

Analysts polled by Thomson Reuters expected earnings of 47 cents per share and sales of $10.08 billion.

Pleasanton, Calif.-based Safeway plans to continue cutting costs and expects 2008 profit to at least match Wall Street expectations.

Its shares rose $1.05, or 4.8 percent, to $22.82 in morning trading.

I think this is a good example of what the stylebook calls 'The AMer," which is the story when the news first hits. It doesn't speak to the people that made this change in stock prices happen or how it affects them. It's only what happened, and focuses highly on the numbers instead of why the numbers are the way they are.

But the stylebook says that the numbers are made by the CEOs and the decisions they made. By using real people that affected and will be affected by the reported numbers, the story is framed better.

To transform this story into a "PMer," I think one would have to draw on the sentence that says, "Its sales rose nearly 4 percent to $10.17 billion from $9.78 billion, helped by higher gas sales and contributions from its more upscale Lifestyle stores."

In a time when businesses are struggling, why is it that this company saw an increase in sales? Are people eating at home more often? Did Dominick's make some sort of decision that increased interest in their product? Did some workers get laid off?

Sometimes it is important to get the news to its readers as fast as possible. But many times, it is more important to put that news into some sort of context to make the reader understand and care about what we are giving them as the news for the day.

Responses to difficult photo choices

Photo 1: A boy grieves for his dog after it was hit by a car
This photo is not particularly bloody or gruesome, but it does evoke a great emotional response. I would only run this photo based on the news value of it. Is this pair well known in town? Was there something special about the dog? Has reckless driving been a trend in this town does this photo illustrate the effects of it? This photo has the power to make a statement, if it has a statement to make, which is the issue my decision would hinge on. If it is a small story about a boys dog hit by a car, I do not think it is worthy of A1.

Photo 2: A rescue worker tries to console the family of a boy who just drowned in a lake
I would probably choose not to run this photo because the dead boy is visible and it is clear that he is dead. One must also consider the family of the boy. Yes, it illustrates exactly what the emotion of the family was at that moment, and that is what a good photo sets out to do. But that is a very private moment, and if I were in their situation, I would my face the moment when I was grieving my son to be printed for my community to see. This would be especially pertinent if this was a local story and the entire town would see their pain. I think an explanation of how the boy drowned (and if other children are at risk in that lake) along with a mug shot of the boy may work well as a substitution for the photo.

Photo 3: State treasurer of Pennsylvania kills himself at a press conference
If I had to choose between this photo and one that showed him after the bullet had gone through his head, I would choose this one. However, I would rather have the photo of right before he shot the gun if it was available. I'm sure everyone would be wondering what the room and the situation looked like when they heard the news. I think a photo of right before the gun went off would be more clear because it seems as if he is laughing at first glance. So if this was a series of photos, I would be less and less inclined to run each photo as the series progresses. This situation is difficult because you have to weigh the fact that he is a public figure with the fact that he still has a family that will see and have to relive these photos. This story is newsworthy throughout the state of Pennsylvania and I'm sure attracted media attention throughout the country. If this photo is going to run, it is going to run on the front page and so the effects it will have on his family as well as on people who have no connection to him. This is going to be the first image of suicide for a lot of people and that be scarring for anyone who happens to pick up the paper the next day. We need to remember that we don't give readers the choice to see the photo or not. If they pick up the paper, we have already made the decision. I think a good alternative would be the crowd's reaction to the man killing himself.

Photo 4: A printing plant employee lies dead after a former employee of the plant shot him
I would choose not to run this photo because I do not think it tells the story. It shows a man dead. It doesn't show the motion or emotion, or action and reaction that photojournalists are taught to capture. Why show this man instead of the other seven or 13 killed? This man's family members will have this vision burned into their memories, and that is not fair for them. The people that read this story are going to wonder why the man decided to kill these people and how it was possible. How did the survivors get out and how did they react when they were free? I think a graphic explaining where the killer went in the plant along with mugs and short bios of the people killed or a shot of the aftermath (bodies carried out in body bags for example) would be more appropriate and tell the story better than this photo.

Photo 5: Fifteen-year-old climbing a fence when he fell
If this story had significant news value to the community where it was published, I would probably print this photo. But if I found this on the AP wire from a far-away state, I probably would choose to not run it. The photo is graphic and does evoke a gut reaction from viewers. But the fact that the boy survived this feat is impressive. The photo could have been much more gruesome if it went through his head and he was killed by it. Running the photo is probably going to have an effect on the boy and his family, but I do not think it is as scarring as say the previous photo of the dead man or the state treasurer with the bullet in his head. I do not know that this story is worthy of the front page if it happened in a large community, but I would not rule out running this photo.

Photo 6: Mardi Gras riot
I think this photo was the most difficult to look at and the most difficult to choose whether or not to run. It is newsworthy because women need to be aware of the situations that can happen at Mardi Gras. But it is also extremely graphic and the woman in the photo would have to relive that awful moment if she ever saw that photo again. So it's putting the safety of other women against the privacy of one specific woman.
It's possible that someone would be able to tell who that blurred face is. I don't have any compassion for the men grabbing her in the photo, but it is possible for those men to be affected from other people who will see the image. I think this photo would be most difficult to decide if you were local because there is more of a chance for identities to be revealed in that situation. In the end, I would probably choose to not run this for the reason that it is so graphic and can be jarring to children or even young adults who may not understand what is happening in the photo.

For most of these choices, I felt like I needed to know more about each photo and the other alternatives before I could make the decisions. In each case, I felt like there was some sort of "if" statement, which makes me feel like I really didn't have enough background on each of these to make the right choice.

Hate it or love it: the redesign that's here to stay

Last week I watched this video on the Tribune's Web site about their redesign and their reasoning of why they did what they did. The video says that they "were given the mandate to make the paper much bolder, more colorful." The paper is supposed to bring the newspaper into the 21st century, with smarter and better editing, more visual story telling and more stories that affect the reader.

This video tries to cover up the fact that the paper is and has been downsizing and mentions nothing about the reduction of the physical size of the broadsheet. Like we learned in lecture, this is something that a lot of people have lost their jobs over and many people are going to think that this is the 'dumbing down' of the newspaper to try to salvage what is left of the declining industry. But as much as the editors were beat up on Chicago Tonight, the Trib's redesign is not that drastic compared to what is going on in newspapers throughout the country.

This summer, I went to a workshop about alternative story forms (or ASFs), which introduced many of the concepts the Tribune is using in their redesign. An ASF is meant to tell the story in a way that is clear, edited tightly and in a way that the reader is able to take something from it immediately, as opposed to reading a 20-inch story about the same thing.

Some people may not like the idea of an ASF because they think it is 'dumbing down' the newspaper. But it's in fact, the opposite. When editing an ASF, everything has to be tight. The only facts and quotes that get through are the ones with importance. It really is editing for the reader. I don't want to say that editing for an ASF is tougher than editing for a regular story, but there is no doubt that it takes skill to edit a story in that way.

The page at the top of this post is Tuesday's front page from the Sun Sentinel from Ft. Lauderdale, Fla. The entire front page is devoted to the bailout problem we saw on Monday. The graphic on the top explains what happened throughout the day on Wall Street and the text is a Q & A about what this really means. Both of these are techniques presented at the workshop I attended and I think both of them work well. It may not have as much news as a typical front page, but it does attack the questions that were on everyone's minds Tuesday morning.

The Tribune may receive a lot of criticism about their new look, but it is nothing groundbreaking. Some people may not like the idea of ASFs, but the truth is that it they make the paper look better and this is the way a lot of newspapers are now trying to present information. For these reasons, I think the redesign of the Tribune is going to be here to stay.

The importance of transparency

I was reading an article tonight ( http://www.chicagotribune.com/features/lifestyle/green/chi-greenest-person-0923_qsep23,0,6678000.story )about the greenest man in Chicago. Ken Dunn is considered the person in Chicago with the smallest carbon footprint.

Sounds great. But how on Earth can something like that be determined out of the three million plus people (including suburbs) that live near Chicago?

In the online story, there are two accompanying links: How we did it and How to be green.

The how we did it was the one that caught my eye.

The Tribune says it asked local green groups for people that are living green lives, only focused on personal lives for calculations and then used a Web site to calculate the amount of carbon these people produced. The people then submitted shopping and energy use information to the Tribune.

I think the most important part of this story is that the Tribune was transparent in telling the reader how this particular person won the title. Maybe there was a better way to find the greenest person, but I think that by telling the reader how it was done, it makes the story more credible by ensuring the reader that this person was not arbitrarily chosen.

This lesson can be learned for other news stories. Not every story has to contain a link to 150 more words describing how it was reported. But for stories where the reader would be left with unanswered questions, I do not think it is a bad idea to add a link to how the story was reported as well as the reporters involvement with sources.

In a time when people seem to not trust the news and reporters' credibility, transparency is a way to fight that stereotype.

News value in photos of people with puppies

When I was on the News Gazette Web site tonight, this caught my eye:


http://news-gazette.com/scene/gallery/505

In case you are not familiar with it, the News Gazette makes photo galleries from time to time of people posing at community events. I've seen this section before, but I got to thinking about it tonight. Why are pictures of people posing with their dachshunds appropriate to put on a news site.

I see both sides to this argument. The truth is, 30 snapshots of people with their dogs at a festival doesn't fit the traditional definition of news. It's not going to win a Pulitzer or considered a work of great journalism. It's something to look at and probably won't have much of an effect on the viewer.

Or will it?

I love dogs and that small thumbnail photo at the bottom of the page attracted my attention (and I looked through the whole album). But if I were one of those people at Daschiefest 2008, I know I would be drawn to the News Gazette site to see if my face made it to the Web. And if it did, I would probably show my family and friends. And then they would all go to the site, too. And then suddenly, the news site has more traffic and maybe they click on one of the other articles and learn about something else the paper produced. Suddenly, the simple photo effected the viewer, even if in a small way.

In a time with budget cuts and layoffs in all parts of the industry, we have to learn to adapt. We have to learn what the people want and give it to them. If posting pictures of locals at events is the way to draw people to a site, then so be it.

Writing a headline that's interesting, but true?

In a Chicago Tribune article (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-fermilab-explainer_bd07sep07,0,1577860.story) from Sunday, Sept. 7, the headline reads,

"Why the earth could actually end when the new collider fires up"

This headline is meant to catch the readers attention — and it did for me. The article goes through to explain how a new particle accelerator may be strong enough to form tiny black holes. Some fear that the black holes will multiply, creating a bigger black hole that could swallow the earth. But it's not probable, scientists say.

By reading the headline, it sounds like the earth will be pending some sort of doom this week. After reading through the entire article, it's clear that the world will still exist after the collider starts. But is it right to have a headline like that when pending doom is not true?

For this particular story, I think it is OK because the entire story has a slightly relaxed tone.
It has lines like: "The most far-out fear is that the device's little black holes could blossom into big ones, with gravity so strong that they swallow first the collider, then the Swiss-French countryside, then the Earth as a whole. Burp."

And also: "If the collider does manage to produce tiny, short-lived black holes, most physicists think that would be . . . pretty sweet, actually."

The headline serves its purpose in getting the reader interested in the subject. I think that is more important than telling the reader exactly what is in the story, because then the reader actually has to read the text to understand.

Rewriting a headline that doesn't say much

The lead headline on Tuesday, Sept. 2 sport's front reads, "Rivalry shows teams ability," with the subhead reading, "In spite of loss, game was night of firsts for Illini."

The headline is not specific and will not draw the reader into the story. I think the subhead is better than the headline, but I think both could use work. By saying words like "team" and "Illini," the reader would have no idea what the story was about if it were not for the photo directly to the right of the headline. The space given for the headline would be difficult to work with, since it has large text in two columns to work with. I think switching the ideas of the headline and subhead may have worked better.

For the headline, I would have tried something like, "Not all lost in football's defeat," and changed the subhead to refer to the rivalry and more opportunities with something like, "Mizzou match leaves team ready for season"

Reworking headlines with certain key words can make a big difference to the reader and the writer because the writer's story may have a chance of being read from start to finish.