This is . . . Unfortunate

Headline:

Wyoming reporter caught using artificial intelligence to create fake quotes and stories

I wish it weren't true, but it appears to be so.

To sum up: A newspaper reporter used artificial intelligence to write stories, including fabricating quotes from people who on subsequent questioning said they'd never spoken to the guy.

Job is gone.

If you're going to use artificial intelligence in your professional life, rethinkg your approach and don't use it. Or use it judiciously. And disclose its use.

The Associated Press takes pains in the linked story to describe how journalists use AI -- in fairly vague terms -- but they also explain it's advisable to disclose how it's used.

And don't use it to make stuff up.

Conclusion Reached. Evidence to Come Later

Dazed, it seems, is living up to its name.

There's an attractive bit of writing there, under the title of "Why Don't Straight Men Read Novels."

I can't figure it out.

First of all, the writer (and likely the editors) decided they wanted to run novel-reading through the masculine tropes which proliferate on certain corners of the internet (they cite an anti-education screed by famed moron Andrew Tate as evidence of such) that if men are reading at all, it's non-fiction meant to improve their lives. (Why that's a bad thing, I don't really understand.)

They cite some evidence that women are the largest purchasers of fiction novels in the UK, US, and Canada. Conflating purchasing of books at the retail level with women being the only readers, I guess. Nevermind that people like me do most of their book purchasing on the used market.

But that doesn't fit the narrative.

And there may be some truth in the conflation, and some anecdotal proof that reading men are reading non-fiction over fiction. And based on my previous post, there are certainly some "uncomfortable truths and unexpected perspectives" that those who oppose Tate and his ilk and the "manosphere" are very uncomfortable with and would like to see "challenged" right out of existence.

Nor do they do what their headline suggests: They offer no evidence that gay men read more fiction than straight men, or that they read fiction at all. The article is here. I can find no reference to gay men, or homosexual men, in the article.

The thesis of the article in the headline is unsupported.

The thesis that men don't read fiction is supported marginally, but mostly anecdotally, and almost entirely by people who seem to have some kind of agenda or who want to conflate the useless "alpha male" movement with all males.

They also say this about the benefits of reading fiction: "reading fiction is the diametric opposite of the stale stoicism of the manosphere. It is a form of immersion therapy that demands you be present and forget yourself to a meditative end. You also become “part of a community,” which “helps you build mental companions as a bulwark against loneliness."

I've read plenty of nonfiction that has helped me become part of a community and helped me built mental companions as a bulwark against loneliness. Just because I'm reading about real things or real people -- you know, history and such -- doesn't mean I can't have those same feelings of community and mental companions.

Don't get me wrong: I love fiction. There's plenty of room, however, in my head for non-fiction as well.

I get the feeling, though, that I'm probably not reading the "right kind" of fiction (or non-fiction for that matter) to convince these others my argument is valid.

This is not journalism, it's tripe.

Herp and Derp

Over the weekend, I posted the following Facebook memory:

It rang true when I first read the quote in 2018, and it’s as applicable today.

Also as applicable: Journalism professionals, don’t take the easy route.* If you don’t know something, say so. While speculation fills word count and air time, readers and viewers would better be served by a shrug of the shoulders. It’s okay not to know.

Case in point: This story from Quillette.

In brief, Scandinavian Airlines apparently put out a commercial meant to communicate the point that getting to know the world outside of one’s own borders is preferable to blind nationalism. Or something like that. But the message in the ad was so terribly presented and researched, it was picked apart online by critics of just about every stripe.

The company and some media reactions?

The day after the ad was released, the airline wrote in a press statement that it was investigating a suspected “attack” on social media – a theory which was uncritically picked up by leading international outlets. “When analyzing the pattern and volume of reactions we have reason to suspect an online attack and that the campaign has been hijacked,” SAS wrote in its statement.

Some media immediately began speculating on possible Russian involvement, a theory which the company did nothing to deny. Reuters claimed that the ad was simply “ myths about Scandinavia,” yet had nevertheless become “victim of an online hate campaign, particularly form nationalist and right-wing groups.”

Which sounds right, except for one thing: It wasn’t.

[E]xperts have rejected the idea that the company was victim of a coordinated attack, either particularly by “right-wing groups,” or by Russia. And a number of mainstream Scandinavian media outlets and commentators had been among the most vocal critics.

But by evoking existing fears of right-wing extremism, online hate campaigns, and real threats to national security, the company was able to deflect basic journalistic scrutiny.

The company cried wolf, as the author says. And international outlets – where the rest of the world would source their news – failed at their job by parroting the company’s line, rather than looking to see if the claims of derpism were true.

Journalists, don’t respond to derpism with herpisms of your own. Readers are still going to get things wrong and fly off the handle and trot out any of their own weird little pet theories. But that is not your job, journalists. Your job is to get it right. Find out what’s going on. Don’t speculate. And if you don’t know, in the end, say that.

Credibility, I know from personal experience, is expensive to buy. And no matter how credible you may be on many an issue, throw your credibility away enough times and you can’t buy it back. And the critics are always circling. Some with their own herp and derp, to be sure. Don’t respond in kind.

*As a reformed journalist, I confess to taking the easy route many times. Trust me, it’s not the way to go.

An Excess of Certainty

Though this article in The Atlantic looks at the concept of political bias in social media through the lens of the recent elections in the United Kingdom (and focuses primarily on Twitter), what writer Helen Lewis has to say is important for any election, any electoral system, and any journalists or pundits or rank amateur political jibber-jabberers out there, whether from the left or not.

Twitter and its most active users, Lewis argues, exercise “outsize power to shape the political conversation.” Pretty sure we saw this when the left was shocked – shocked, mind you – to see Donald Trump win over Hillary Clinton in 2016. And it’s bound to happen again to the Democrats’ candidate running against Trump in 2020, no matter he’s an impeached president now.

I won’t re-hash all of her arguments and evidence here, but I will hit on the highlights:

1. Labour activists in the UK were convinced, listening to the Twitter Echo Chamber, Lewis says, that their party was going to win the general election, when in fact Boris Johnson’s conservatives handed them their worst defeat in almost a century.

2. The “echo chamber of social media reassures those extreme voices that they are in fact the mainstream.”

3. Freudian “narcissism of small differences” and legal scholar Cass Sunstein’s “group polarization” encourages divides even among like-minded individuals (and we’re seeing this locally, with the far right controlling the local Republican Central Committee and pushing far-right candidates, most of the time winning. This is all fueled by an “excess of certainty” that says even in defeat, “my side” certainly didn’t lose.

4. The opinions most commonly represented in mainstream outlets (Lewis says progressive outlets, but it works on both sides of the spectrum) are not held by the masses, including by the groups seemingly with the most at stake.

5. Far left progressive views, while not held by the mainstream, are shared by elite journalists. So the skew in politics enters into journalism. And this explains Fox News – only they skew to the right.

So, what are the lessons for the Weenie Man, such as I?



Don’t get all of your politic slop from social media. Or elite journalists. Think for yourself. Dammit.

Fake News is A Problem. And Some Journalists Are Making it Worse.

NOTE: I do not confess to being a good journalist; that’s why I got out of the business more than a decade ago. I screwed things up and made mistakes, but I never flat out made things up.

We know “fake news” is a problem. But when journalists make their own fake news, the problem becomes a thousand times worse.

Example: Not long after the inauguration of Donald Trump in 2017, German news magazine Der Spiegel sent award-winning journalist Claas Relotius to find a typical small American town and paint a picture for Germans of the America that sent Trump to the White House.

Unfortunately for real journalists everywhere, what Relotius wrote for the magazine was a lie.
It turns out it is one of at least 14 stories the journalist wrote for Der Spiegel that Relotius admits he made up entirely.

Even two residents of Fergus Falls, who might want to paint Trump supporters as less-than-savory, were appalled at what was written, and fact-checked the article themselves.

Michele Anderson and Jake Krohn, writing for Medium, agree there may be political tension, racism, and unsavory characters in their small town, what Der Spiegel published was at best a caricature of their friends and neighbors and at worse, a pile of German horseshit.

They write:

Yes, we have problems with racism here that he could have used real accounts of (the sign he mentions, “Mexicans Keep Out,” as far as we’ve asked other members of the community, was not seen by anyone else, and would have certainly generated a significant community discussion), but I would also have made sure he got the story of Fergus Falls residents who proudly attended the women’s marches in St. Paul or D.C., and displayed Black Lives Matters signs in our yards or buttons on our jackets, people who mentor immigrants and refugees in the region, people who grow their own food and bike everywhere in order to protect the environment and keep their families healthy, people who have chosen the simplicity rural life as a protest against the often extravagant necessities of city living.

This is just a hunch, but it seems to me that Relotius’ overseas readers might appreciate knowing that small American towns are more complex than they imagine — that die-hard liberals like me can still magically live alongside conservative Republicans — that sometimes we even find some common ground and share a meal together, and take the time to try to understand each other’s viewpoints. You see, we’re definitely not perfect here in Fergus Falls, and many of us feel a lot of responsibility right now, considering that our friends, family and neighbors voted against their own interests in 2016. But we also know how it feels to be ignored in policy and media for decades only to be lectured by ignorant articles such as this after so much silence about our challenges.

A small hunch on my part: Relotius probably figured no one from the hick town would read his article – Americans don’t know second languages after all,* and have never heard of things like Google Translate or, you know, actually KNOW foreign languages or at least someone who does. So why make it true to life when he could just write the kind of fiction he wants to write.

(There’s a link to Der Speigel’s investigation into Relotius’ fabrications in the Star-Tribune article, but it’s protected by a snarly German anti-ad blocker bot thing.)

When journalists and news organizations publish fake news, it makes the stupid cries of “Fake News” we hear coming from our President and his ardent supporters sound – bear with me here – at least somewhat plausible. Viz, via the Washington Post:

But at a time when political parties are deeply polarized on both sides of the Atlantic, the Spiegel controversy could also bolster those who now regularly portray reporting as “fake news.” As a publication that often allows its reporters to include subjective observations in their stories, Spiegel’s anti-Trump cover pieces had been widely shared in liberal circles in recent years. The fact that Relotius was initially exposed because of a story from the United States was immediately used to discredit the magazine’s wider coverage.

On Twitter, Germany’s far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) party wrote: “CNN Journalist of the Year 2014 is #FakeNews. Enjoy #TeamTrump.” The party’s regional branch in the southern city of Heidelberg went on to suggest that other stories published by the magazine must also be fabricated, given the scale of the scandal.

Even Trump’s supporters deserve better treatment than what they got in Fergus Falls.

*Just in my family alone are members who speak French (like myself) Korean, Spanish, Hungarian, Japanese, and Cantonese.

[Insert Good Headline Here]

Good headlines are like any other kind of writing -- you have to write thousands of them to get the good ones to come out.

And what do I mean by a "good" headline?

That all comes down to what headlines are for.

Headlines are hooks. They're the first bit of information you toss out to your readers. They're the first bit of information your readers judge to decide if they want to read the rest of the story.

Here are a few rules I follow (mostly unconsciously now) when I write a headline:

1. Be as specific as you can in the space you're allowed
2. Don't use journalism jargon
3. Use wordplay or puns, with two caveats:
       a. Don't force them
       b. Use sparingly
4. Bring your readers into your story
5. Not every headline you write is going to be great.

The most important rule to remember is No. 5. But the others help a lot.

Here are a few examples of what I mean:

1. Be as specific as you can in the space you're allowed

Headlines used to mean economy of words, particularly in newspapers. That real estate has loosened up over time with the advent of the Internet. Still, you don't want to go on forever in a headline (readers are impatient, and going on forever is what the story is for).

Here's a great specific headline (courtesy of the [Boise] Idaho Statesman:

This headline packs a lot of information in only 12 words. We get the who: Drivers. We get there where: Interstate 84. We get the what: Lane closures. And we get the why: Contributed to crash that killed 4.

Combined with the picture, this combination is one that I'll bet a lot of people read (also because it follows one of the oldest journalism rules in the book: If it bleeds, it leads.) The headline puts the reader into the story, and many were probably thinking, "Yeah, I drove I-84 before this accident, and the lane closures sure didn't make a lot of sense."

2. Don't use journalism jargon

I see journalism jargon in mostly newspaper reporters, though all of us are guilty of it from time to time. What do I mean? Things like this:

"Washington Girds for Battle Over Kennedy's Replacement"

Let me ask you a question: When you prepare for something, do you use the word "gird"? Ever use that word when you speak?

I don't. Unless I'm trying to be ironic.

Journalists always have people girding for battle. They always have police throwing a cordon around a crime scene. And it's almost always the Pontiff -- not the Pope -- who comes for a visit.

Better headline, same story:

No journalism speak. And I'll bet this headline got a lot more people riled up than what the Gray Lady presented on the same day.

Note: I'm not endorsing any kind of politics here. Doesn't matter if you don't like the NY Post, or the NY Times. This is about headlines. And truth be told, some of the best headlines I've ever read have been in the likes of The National Enquirer or the Weekly World News.)

3. Use wordplay or puns, with two caveats:
       a. Don't force them
       b. Use sparingly

Writing a headline like this is a once in a lifetime opportunity:

If you have the opportunity to write a headline like this and you don't take it, I probably won't like you as a person.

That being said, if EVERY HEADLINE you write is like this, your readers and your editors are going to be all:

Puns and wordplay help a good headline become a great one, but if you use puns and wordplay in every headline, you're going to dilute the effect. And some of the headlines you come up with will be mediocre puns at best.

So strike light lightning when you can. But don't overdo it.

4. Bring your readers into your story

We've seen a hint of this in an earlier part of the discussion. But let's continue here.

First, there's this:

Here's your typical Who What When Where headline, and it gets the job done. But the words harassed and threatened are pretty commonplace. Harassed how? And threatened to what degree? We have to read the story to find out. And with everyone across the nation either covering this story or using Associated Press copy of this story, a good headline can help one writer's story stand out.

Sometimes digging deeper into the story itself -- or even reading the story that's presented -- offers much better possibilities.

Consider this quote from the LA Times' story itself:

Now imagine the story with this headline:

But with better typography and kerning (I'm not a graphic artist).

By looking into the story, we find a headline that is more specific and draws our readers into the story that generic words like harassed and threatened just don't have the power to do.

One more look at this story in particular. Which headline here is better? And why?

5. Not every headline you write is going to be great.

This is at the same time the hardest and the easiest rule to follow. Hard, because we want everything we touch to be worthy to hang in the Louvre. Easy because if you're like me, you'll end up for years writing, as Dave Barry puts it, "boring stories on municipal government." There are only so many clever headlines you can write about local improvement districts, what diameter of sewer pipe the city should buy, and how well the local bowling league is doing.

And it sounds like most of you have hopes that take you beyond local journalism. But the same rule applies, just on a bigger scale.

Scan any national news outlet and for the most part, you're going to see run-of-the-mill, pedestrian headlines. Oh, a few will stand out. But the vast majority of them are just going to be there, doing the job, but punching out at 5 pm and going home to have a beer.

So don't stress about every headline, because not every headline is destined for greatness.

Permission to be Trolled, Sir!

STANDARD PREFACE: I’m no longer in the journalism business, and happy to be out. That does not mean I’m forbidden from writing occasionally on the subject.

A while back, I wrote about the growing practice of journalists using social media posts in their stories without first seeking permission from the poster to use them.

I can’t say it’s something I wouldn’t have done as a journalist – after all, this information and opinion is out there on a public forum, just the same as if I’d heard it shouted on the street or gotten it in a quote during an interview.

Or is it?

When I hear someone shout in the street, common sense – and probably a lot of editors – would tell me to go talk to that person, get their name, ask why they’re shouting and such. It seems the standard for social media reporting is just to take what’s said and use it.

By doing so, the reporter saves time, no doubt.

And can also end up using something put out there by one of these Russian election trolls we’ve heard so much about, such as was reported at Slate.com this week.

There’s a blend of fast-paced and lazy in this world – both are on opposite side of the coin. I most often fall into the lazy camp, as some of my former journalism colleagues would attest.

Better to be fast-paced.

I’m still haunted by my laziness and stupidity.

And so it goes.

The old saw goes “If your mother says she loves you, check it out.” Same ought to go for social media scraping. Lest ye be trolled.

That's Right, Boys! It's Dr. Venkman!

Whoever wrote this headline has probably been waiting since 1984 to find the perfect story to go with it.

Sadder but Wiser Man

Having exited the journalism industry on the heels of making some fundamentally stupid errors, I know from whence I speak: Reading about the Rolling Stone Oopsie of 2014 hurts.

Best details of the story, its implosion, and the aftermath are here (offered by Slate) and here (offered by the Washington Post by a writer who was offered the story before Rolling Stone, but who poked it full of holes and decided against pursuing it).

I know full well the feeling of writing, and then having published, a story that turned out not to be true. And I lost my job because of it – and rightfully so. So to hear this kind of thing boggles the mind (from Slate):

No one is getting fired. And the editors, despite lots of apologies throughout, wind up sounding indifferent. Dana ended by saying they don’t need new ways of doing things; they “just have to do what we've always done and just make sure we don't make this mistake again." And Coco McPherson, head of fact-checking, said, "I one hundred percent do not think that the policies that we have in place failed. I think decisions were made around those because of the subject matter."

And from The Huffington Post:

The authors walk through several reporting lapses and make recommendations, such as Rolling Stone considering not using pseudonyms and for fact-checkers to be more assertive in the editorial process. But the report falls short of making recommendations about which of the principals, if any, should lose their jobs over the debacle. Wenner told The New York Times that Dana and Woods would keep their jobs and Erdely would continue writing for the magazine.

Buzzfeed – of all places – is even more damning in its assessment:

Rolling Stone, in other words, has taken an idea native to the world of feminist advocacy, that of unconditionally believing and supporting rape victims, and used it as a shield for its own journalistic errors. Many rape counselors preach unquestioned belief to both encourage victims to come forward and create safe communities for them when they do — but this is not the role of reporters. And despite Columbia’s conclusion, Rolling Stone hasn’t stopped emphasizing how its mindfulness of Jackie’s status drove the failure to properly scrutinize her story.

They also add:

According to the report, Erdely could have also built the story around other alleged victims, instead of Jackie — but apparently none packed the same narrative punch Rolling Stone was looking for. The report states “Erdely’s reporting led her to other, adjudicated cases of rape at the university that could have illustrated her narrative, although none was as shocking and dramatic as Jackie’s.”

And people wonder why some cry about pre-programmed bias in the news media, when things like this happen. I don’t say this to say everyone involved in reporting has a preprogrammed agenda that will trump editorial standards, but it’s growing obvious that in this case, there was such an agenda.

I don’t wish the loss of a job on anyone. But to say it’s going to be business as usual after this kind of thing for both the magazine and the writer involved is puzzling, especially as the editor in charge had this to say to the HP:

Dana, who has been at Rolling Stone for nearly two decades, said the breakdown was both an “individual failure” and “procedural failure, an institutional failure.”

“Every single person at every level of this thing had opportunities to pull the strings a little harder,” he said, “to question things a little more deeply, and that was not done.”

I’m a sadder but wiser man now. It still hurts that I screwed up and let my newspaper down. I don’t regret their decisions, nor the path my life has led since. To see others make such mistakes is painful, in that it reminds me of my own errors. But to see them go blithely on, admitting fault without even considering a fix, shows the complacency that may allow such a thing to happen again.

Social Media is Winning the Breaking News War

On July 15, an intense rainstorm dropping nearly two inches of rain battered Rexburg, Idaho.

And bar none, the best on-the-spot reporting done on the flooding in town and on the campus of BYU-Idaho was done by individuals with social media accounts and cell phone cameras.

Witness this video:

(This video is of particular interest to me, as it shows the neighborhood where we used to own a home. I’m certain if it were still there – the house was demolished for student housing – the basement would be waterlogged.)

Here’s another video from the same individual who posted the first, this time showing flooding in a BYU-Idaho building:

More raw video – with a request from ABC News to use the YouTube footage.

Now is this the who-what-when-where-why reporting that represents the best of journalism? No, it’s not. There are no damage estimates backed up by any authority, there is no accounting for the weather that caused the flooding.

But they’re on the spot. They’re eyes and ears and cameras on the ground. And with Facebook and YouTube to distribute the content, they’ve got their audience. No one needs traditional news organizations any more.

Oh, they do if they want the gritty details.

But guess what’s getting disseminated?

Here’s the Idaho Statesman’s coverage. Note nothing from any news outlet – just the raw video provided by that well-recognized news organization, the BYU-Idaho Department of Music.

Here’s coverage from the Deseret News. They went with the bitty story from the local newspaper (more on that later) but relied very heavily on social media coverage of the breaking story for the best on-the-spot reporting.

Here’s TV coverage from Boise. This is all social media coverage, not local news coverage.

Here's one of our local TV station's coverage. And here. And here. And here. And here.

Here’s the local newspaper’s web coverage.

It’s sad. Two static images (fairly small ones at that) and nothing beyond a little who-what-where in the brief text treatment of what’s probably the biggest news event so far in Rexburg in 2014.

I can understand the restraint, however. In breaking news situations, situations fluctuate. Eyewitnesses give inaccurate information. One of our local TV stations had good coverage, balancing news gathering with social media video. Some of their news, however, was out of date as the events unfolded last night (power never was shut off, contrary to what the report says).

Still, the local paper could have done better. A lot better.

I’m not taking a look at print presentations of the news. I’m looking at the breaking news presentation. This kind of event is what screams for instant coverage, without the high-handed hand-wringing of “we can’t verify a rumor.” We’re not asking for rumors. We want to see these videos and hear from the folks reacting to the news as it happens, not a day later. By that time, we’ve seen all the videos. You can fill in the whys and there wherefores and address the rumors and officialdom then, and that works just fine. But it’s clear social media is winning the breaking news competition, hands down.

Even the big guys are stumbling.

To take a quote from Alan D. Mutter’s “Reflections of  A Newsosaur” blog, “Newspapers can’t merely dabble at digital.”

Nutter’s post discusses an internal New York Times report (leaked by BuzzFeed) detailing how the paper is failing at digital distribution of its news products. Nutter says: 

In one painful example, a Huffington Post editor told the Times team that their newspaper was “crushed” by the amount of traffic captured by his site when it repurposed NYT coverage of the death of Nelson Mandela. “I was queasy watching the numbers,” said the unidentified editor quoted in the report. “I’m not proud of this. But this is your competition. You should defend the digital pickpockets from stealing your stuff with better headlines, better social.”

In another example of digital tone-deafness cited in the report, the author of the sprawling Dasani series on a homeless family trapped in horrific public housing did not get around to tweeting about her own story until two days after the first installment ran. Curiously, noted the report, the newsroom controls the Twitter account but the “business side” runs the Facebook page.

On this Rexburg flood story, most news media was outfoxed by students or university employees with digital cameras and access to YouTube or Facebook. And here’s the thing: I’m sure none of them set out thinking “I’m going to beat the local news by covering this event.” They were merely recording what they saw and distributing it using tools any fool can use. News outlets, with access to those same tools, got beaten to the punch – because no one has yet figured out how to make money off such coverage. Which is, of course, the bottom line in the business, and why it’s getting screwed by ordinary folks with an Internet account and a camera.

"He's Bonafide!"

Pardon me if I “rasp poetic.”

I am, obviously, a blogger. I was also, for about ten years, a journalist. For the past eight years, I’ve worked as a technical writer. I teach English. I’m completing the third revision of a novel, one of many I’ve written (no, I’m not published yet, but give me time). I feel the sting of typos to the point I scout my Facebook history and my blog looking for things that need to be fixed. And I fix them. And have been called anal retentive for doing so. But I will continue to do it. I have a bachelor’s degree in journalism and mass communication and a masters degree in English. I am, as they say in the vernacular, bona fide.

Also, I try to practice what I preach.

And one of the greatest lessons I’ve learned in nearly 20 years as a writer is that writers live in glass houses. And shouldn’t throw rocks.

But that’s a lie, of course. Writers throw rocks all the time. Writers should, however, have better aim. And more polished rocks.

Here’s a journalist throwing rocks at bloggers. As I read her screed, I’m not sure how to write my own. Context, I keep saying. Context. A journalist is supposed to provide context. As this journalist rags on a blogger for not writing as a journalist should, there’s no context. No link to the offending blog so we can judge for ourselves – and bless me, we would judge – the content of said blogger’s character. The old saw goes that if your mother says she loves you, you should check it out. So if this blog is so bad, let your readers check it out. Seeing the evidence for themselves will help them believe what you say.

As it is, there is no link. No context. So we’re left to judge the character of the judger.

I know. I’m throwing rocks.

Polished rocks.

Here’s her version of events, factually laid out (at least in part) contrasting with the unlinked blogger’s nonsense:

The Caldwell police responded to calls from local residents that they may have seen someone on the foreclosed lot next to their home. The house has been vandalized in the past, so the police set up bright yellow police tape.

"We want kids and others to know they can't just trespass," said Caldwell police cheif James Bongiorno. 

In order to help the problem, the chief added, the borough is reaching out to the owners to take immediate measures to secure the house so there is no easy access.

Hm. Much, much too wordy for starters. Here’s what a journalist should have done:

Caldwell police want trespassers to know they’re watching the vacant home at ADDRESS.

“We want kids and others to know they just can’t trespass,” says Caldwell Police Chief James Bongiorno. He said borough officials are trying to contact the vacant home’s owner to ensure trespassers can’t get on the property.

Neighbors called police DATE AND TIME when they noticed someone on the lot. The home has been vandalized in the past.

We don’t need to know about the bright yellow police tape, or that the measures will be “immediate.” This journalist says she likes to “rasp poetic” and that “[a]dding in that poetic or inspirational writing is the art in journalism but not every journalist has those creative bones and can spin their words to "weave that sticky web of an irresistable (sic) news story." Sadly, either you have that poetic eye - or you don't.”

I don’t know if she counts the police setting up bright yellow police tape as poetic or inspirational, or spinning words to weave that sticky web of an irresistible news story. But it’s not necessary for a police blotter item. Stick to the facts, and keep the poetry and inspiration in the features. Police stories need to lean heavy on fact – such as the location of the house and the time and date the complaints were called in. Now, I have no way of knowing if this excerpt is the full story or not – again, there’s no context provided. Maybe she did a better job in the full story. She doesn’t provide me with a way of knowing.

Perusing other writing under her name at Jersey Tomato Press, however, shows many other examples of the poetry and inspiration getting in the way of the facts.

Example:

As my own unused (for years) AOL sends out meaningless emails to contacts - that were deleted 2 years ago - and Target takes a giant sigh of relief after their giant hacking into their systems, Michaels Stores, a fun family-friendly (sic) arts and crafts home store, announced late yesterday they had been hacked.

What’s the news? Oh, the Michaels data breach. But it’s buried under the poetic inspiration. I don’t care that her AOL account was sending out meaningless emails. And her mention of the Target hacking makes it sound like the company was hacking its own systems. And if Michaels were a grumpy, adults-only arts and crafts home store, would she put it that way?

Example:

Acting Essex County Prosecutor Carolyn A. Murray announced today that the former Glen Ridge Borough Registrar of Vital Statistics admitted to stealing $82,981 from the Borough over a three year period.

Tresor Gopaul, 30, of Montclair pled guilty today before the Honorable Peter V. Ryan, Judge of the Superior Court, to second degree theft by unlawful taking.

Wow. Three very, very long titles in two short paragraphs. Here’s what a journalist would have done:

A former Glen Ridge Borough registrar pleaded guilty in superior court DATE to stealing $82,981 from the borough over three years.

Tresor Gopaul, 30, of Montclair, pleaded guilty to second degree theft by unlawful taking, according to Acting Essex County Prosecutor Carolyn A. Murray.

Who cares who the judge was? If the judge had something significant to say about the crime, then include his name and honorable title. Otherwise, it’s unnecessary information. It’s important that the guy pleaded (not pled) guilty. The rest of the information, including his title, can come later in the story.

The story has other problems – two individuals identified by the last name of Wells – is it the same person, or two Wells? The second Wells isn’t identified by title or by connection to the case.

And if you’re going to criticize bloggers, don’t write like a blogger. This piece just oozes blogginess. A real journalist would not continue to insert herself into the story, no matter how poetic or inspiration she might be feeling. She has a significant story here. She should step out of its way.

Yes, I know it’s easy to sit here and armchair quarterback news stories for a news organization that confesses in a blog post it has no copy editor. Just as easy as it is to armchair quarterback bloggers for doing what they do without really considering the blogger’s reach (probably very small) and their motivations (sometimes like looking into an empty room, yes, but more often than not they have a sincere desire to do something, whether it’s to share the news, feel involved, shout into the darkness or write scattered commentaries on the state of journalism versus blogging). It’s all relative.

I congratulate the Jersey Tomato Press on its willingness to work hard at journalism. But invest in an editor, as some of  your commenters have said. Someone used to editing newspaper stories. Then preach against bloggers all you want, after those rocks of yours are polished.

And yes, I took a butt-first exit from the industry in 2005. I don't claim to be a perfect journalist. I don't claim to be a journalist at all now. But I have my bonafides in professional writing, and I ain't afraid to use them.