Writing Help – Page 7 – Survive Your Job In Television News

Getting around allegedly

This one word, is the biggest no-no you can write in TV news other than an actual fact error. Why? It does nothing to protect you legally. Saying something “allegedly” happened or a person “allegedly” did something is only calling attention, to the fact, that your facts are probably unclear and you may not be able to defend your statement.

So how do you get around the word “allegedy” or the phrase “the alleged?” Here are some simple ways.

Avoiding “allegedly”

Attribute information to source
Do not name names
Name person with the specific charges

So let’s spell these out for you. When police tell you a place was broken into, or a man confronted a clerk, or the clerk fired a shot at the man and missed then the man ran away, write it that way. These facts often end up with the term “allegedly” or “alleged” in the sentence descriptions. Same thing if you have security video of the actual robbery. Don’t say: “You can see the alleged robbers in this security video.” The guys with the guns in the video are the robbers. So you should say it: “You can see the robbers holding up the place in this security video.”

How about this one? “An alleged break in at a store in Mayberry today.” Sound familiar? Did police call it a break in? Was something actually taken? Do you have video? If you can say yes to these questions then the break did not allegedly happen. It happened for real. So you should say: “A break in today at a store in Mayberry. This video, released by investigators, shows you (describe what viewer sees).. ” If you know the answer to police calling it a break in, but do not know if anything was taken and there is no video, then write: “Police say someone broke into a store today in Mayberry.” See the difference? Police are calling it a break in. You are taking their word for it a bit, right? So state where you got the information. Another way to attribute both scenarios is “Police need help finding out who broke into a store in Mayberry today.” Again, you attribute.

When police tell you a man confronted the clerk, the clerk shot at the man, and then the man ran away, you do not need the word “allegedly” either. Often you will hear copy that reads, “The man allegedly confronted the clerk.” Or “The clerk allegedly shot at the man but missed.” And lastly “The man allegedly ran away.” No, no and no. “Police say a man confronted the clerk.” Or better yet if you have surveillance video: “Watch the man confront the clerk. Investigators tell us (and provide a detail about the exchange).” As for the clerk firing a shot and missing, “Police say the clerk fired a shot and missed.” If you have video of it: “Investigators shared this video where it looks like the clerk shot at the man and missed. “ (If you are still nervous about declarative statements.) And remember, the man who broke in, is a man. He is not a “suspect” if we don’t know his name, and police haven’t declared him a “suspect.” But during a break in a person doesn’t “allegedly” get away or run away. A person does get away or run away, unless you know there’s been an arrest. Then the person arrested becomes a “suspect.”

The next most common reason why “allegedly” is used, is because you have a name and want to use it. When you really stop and think about it, the majority of stories do not need to name names to be highly relevant. It is most often the action that is interesting, not the person. You can call the person, “the man” or “the woman.” You do not have to use a name even if you have it, especially if charges are pending. Usually the story is what interests viewers, not the name of the person, unless it is a public figure. The person who shot other people in a parking lot, is not an “alleged” shooter. Again you should say: “A man shot some people.” or “A woman, shot some people.” The term “alleged” shooter doesn’t work.

If the person is charged and you want to name names, use attribution again and list the charge. “JOE SCHMO is charged with burglary tonight” or “Police charged Joe Schmo with…” If you use a name, have a charge by it. It just protects you.

So there you have it, ways to get around “allegedly” and “the alleged.” Here’s to never seeing those words in news copy again!

Want a great writing critique? Ask a photojournalist.

Yes, you read the title of this article correctly. If you want a really great writing critique, ask the guys and gals who focus on the images. Why? Because, in television news, the words are dependent on the images. The video and sound should truly tell the story. This is even true when using graphics to explain a subject. The visuals, combined with sound and words, are what makes this medium such an incredible pull for viewers. (despite the smaller screen you are using to read this article.)

Photojournalists really understand the powerful connection between the images and the words. They also know a lot of tricks to help you work around it when the stories are not as visually appealing as you would like. If you ever get a chance, sit down and watch a newscast with a photojournalist. It is fascinating to hear their rants vs. the rants of non-photogs in the business. Will you agree with everything? Probably not. But you will gain a lot of insight from the thought processes of a very visual mind.

So while you listen to the critique, keep an ear out for how many times the photojournalist mentions that a story did not make sense. My guess is you will hear that pretty often. Then take a closer look at the story. Chances are your copy and the visuals do not mesh at all. It really is fascinating to watch how often that happens in TV news. There is a large disconnect, especially in vo’s and vosots between the visuals and the words being used to describe the story.

Photojournalists help you understand just that. Your words describe the story. They don’t simply tell it. There is a difference in TV news. Let a photog help you see that for yourself. Get a critique. Who knows, the insight could make your writing style even better.

Faking the present: When what’s happening now, really isn’t

A morning producer recently posed this question: What do you do with the phrase “police are looking” from the previous night’s copy? Do you keep the phrase present tense? Immediately other morning producers jumped in stating you need to write present tense. No question TV news is designed for the here and now. But let’s get realistic for a moment. In early morning and late evening newscasts, the expectation that all the news is here and now is not possible for multiple hour shows. The biggest offenders perpetuating this idea that everything is all new and all happening right now are Newsies. Too often during morning and late evening newscasts, I hear “false present” tense. The anchors always look uncomfortable reading this “faked” tense because it is not natural. Viewers get that everything you tell them is not happening right that minute. They just want you stop pretending it is. Harsh? Not when you spend time with non-newsies. If I had a dollar for every time I was asked “Why do you news people have to act like something is happening right then when it’s not?” well, I would not be writing this article. I would be sipping Mai Tai’s on a tropical beach, fulltime!

So what’s the work around? First, let’s look more at false present. Popular examples, “the President authorizes a bill”, when showing video of him signing it the day before or “the Olympics start in London” when they actually started the day before. Just because the video shows the signing or opening ceremony doesn’t mean it’s happening at that moment. Viewers know when events like that happened. This is also called headline speak and it is frustrating to hear and read. So why is it drilled into TV journalists to write in present tense and only in present tense? Because that is an easy way to try and force you into sticking to what’s new in a given story. Yes, if you are putting a story in your newscast there should be a new element that you can explain in the first sentence. Yes, use present tense if you possibly can. But remember, viewers do not watch every day and they do not watch every newscast. You must include enough “background” so they have a clue what you are talking about. Use past tense when providing the background, when appropriate. This is especially true if the story is a follow up from the day or week or month before. Often, I hear headline speak in these type of follow ups as well. Journalists leave out the verb in these “follow up” sentences. You get weird, title like, descriptions such as “the July 9^th shooting”… or “the mill fire.“ Unnatural and uncomfortable.

Now let’s look at the phrase the producer brought up: “Police are looking.” Unless there’s been a mass murder or a police officer was shot, odds are police are not actually out physically searching for the people responsible at 4:30 a.m. You can keep this present tense if what police were looking for is still relevant later that night or the next morning (i.e.- they really are still on the street actively looking). Write it this way instead: “Police hope to find…” or “Police want to find…“ That would still be true and you are not emphasizing an act that isn’t really happening at the time of your newscast. There’s also nothing wrong with showing video of the search and saying “Police looked for 3 hours, with no luck yesterday. They hope for more leads today.”

The big takeaway here is that every sentence in your copy does not have to be present tense. Conversational writing changes tenses naturally. When you tell someone a story, you provide background information for context. I guarantee when you do, you use past tense, because that’s when the background information happened. The “write present tense rule” doesn’t mean deny past tense completely, no exceptions. It is a generalization. Remember the reason behind it. Focus on new. If you do, while still providing context for the stories, you will legitimately focus on the present, while not denying the past.

Sell vs. Surprise: Why there is a difference

I was visiting with an accomplished storyteller recently who was complaining about the producer stealing the surprise in his package. The producer “gave it away” in the anchor intro. Sound familiar? This isn’t the first time frustration over producer’s ruining the story in intro’s has come up. In fact “ Taking ownership from the first line of the anchor intro “was written to urge producers to be cognizant of the whole picture. That said; there is another side. As I spoke with this reporter it struck me. The reporter was confusing the sell with the surprise in his story. I thought back to many heated copy editing sessions where I would try and explain to reporters, over and over, that a certain element had to be in the intro. Often I was dealing with seasoned reporters who consistently crafted compelling pieces.

As this industry continues to push the marketing side of things to maintain and grow audience, understanding the sell of your stories is going to get increasingly important. Producers are being pushed to turn newscasts that look different. Understanding what consultants and managers term “the sell” and “the surprise” in stories is crucial. So let’s define both.

The sell is the reason you are doing the story. It is the reason you think the audience will continue to watch the story instead of change the channel. You need to capture the audience’s attention in the anchor intro so there’s no chance to turn away. That’s why the sell has to get into the anchor intro. Producers will fight you and will win the battle to have the sell in the intro. It cannot be totally saved as the surprise.

The surprise is the part of your story that will leave an imprint on the audience. It is the fact that they will not stop thinking about. It is the irony, the emotional connection, the incredible image, the climax of your story. See the difference?

So why isn’t the sell the same as the surprise? The surprise is the exclamation point. The sell is the subject of the sentence. The sell can allude to the surprise, but isn’t the actual surprise. Here’s an example of how to preserve the sell and the surprise when they are closely linked. Let’s say an amazing artifact was dug up at a construction site in your city. You can say just that in the anchor intro. “Construction workers dug up an amazing artifact today.” The actual artifact can be the surprise. Do not show an image of it in the intro or teases. The fact that it’s something amazing and was dug up is the sell. Strong story tellers will have that little extra, that goes beyond just saying what the artifact is. Remember the surprise is the emotional connection. What if, for example, you have an amazing sound bite that really explains why this artifact is incredible. Maybe someone has been on the hunt for this artifact for years, and can finally see it and tell the viewer why he spent a lifetime looking for it. That may be one of the surprises. Then you can “giveaway” the actual artifact in the anchor intro. You allude to that surprise in the pitch.

Often reporters would get angry that I or my producer wrote that an artifact was found, or possibly list what the artifact was. It was the sell. The story of why a man spent a lifetime trying to find it and the way the construction worker came across the artifact are the surprises in the reporter’s piece.

One final thought. As a reporter you want to make darn sure the anchor intro to your piece is strong enough that the audience is waiting with anticipation for your story. To do, that you have to give away some of the goods to get them to see your hard work. The sell is the no brainer to do that. Use that knowledge to your advantage so the surprises you craft truly wow the viewers.