第一句好像是It's once for you and me ，后面还有I open my eyes，是个男生唱的_百度知道
第一句好像是It's once for you and me ，后面还有I open my eyes，是个男生唱的
我有更好的答案
Bad Meets Evil与Bruno Mars合唱的,前面那个名字可能错了,但你查Bruno Mars-Lighters也可以找到,这首歌上个星期刚上BILLBOARD单曲榜,在十多名,你查BILLBOARD也可以找到.一定是这个
采纳率：26%
歌曲：lighters
演唱：Eminem 和 Bruno Mars
lighter Eminem
歌曲：lighters 　　演唱：Eminem 和 Bruno Mars 　　翻唱：Jason Chen,Mars,Matty B这个我也喜欢~[Bruno Mars] 　This one's for you and me, living out our dreams 　这首歌是送给你和我的，跳出梦境让梦想成真 　　We are right where we should be 　　我们该在哪里？我们就在那里 　　Lift my arms out wide, I open my eyes 　　敞开双臂，我睁开双眼 　And now all I wanna see 　　现在我想看见的 　Is a sky full of lighters 　　是布满火光的夜空 　A sky full of lighters 　　一个布满火光的夜空
Heal the WorldMicheal Jackson 歌词：There's A Place InYour HeartAnd I Know That It Is LoveAnd This Place CouldBe MuchBrighter Than TomorrowAnd If You Really TryYou'll Find There's No Need To CryIn This Place You'll FeelThat There's No Hurt Or SorrowThere Are WaysTo Get ThereIf You Care EnoughFor The LivingMake A Little SpaceMake A Better Place...Heal The WorldMake It A Better PlaceFor You And For MeAnd The Entire Human RaceThere Are People DyingIf You Care EnoughFor The LivingMake A Better PlaceFor You And For MeIf You Want To Know WhyThere's A Love ThatCannot LieLove Is StrongIt Only Cares ForJoyful GivingIf We TryWe Shall SeeIn This BlissWe Cannot FeelFear Or DreadWe Stop Existing AndStart LivingThen It Feels That AlwaysLove's Enough ForUs GrowingSo Make A Better WorldMake A Better World...Heal The WorldMake It A Better PlaceFor You And For MeMicheal JacksonAnd The Entire Human RaceThere Are People DyingIf You Care EnoughFor The LivingMake A Better PlaceFor You And For MeAnd The Dream We WereConceived InWill Reveal A Joyful FaceAnd The World WeOnce Believed InWill Shine Again In GraceThen Why Do We KeepStrangling LifeWound This EarthCrucify Its SoulThough It's Plain To SeeThis World Is HeavenlyBe God's GlowWe Could Fly So HighLet Our Spirits Never DieIn My HeartI Feel You Are AllMy BrothersCreate A World WithNo FearTogether We CryHappy TearsSee The Nations TurnTheir SwordsInto PlowsharesWe Could Really Get ThereIf You Cared EnoughFor The LivingMake A Little SpaceTo Make A Better Place...Heal The WorldMake It A Better PlaceFor You And For MeAnd The Entire Human RaceThere Are People DyingIf You Care EnoughFor The LivingMake A Better PlaceFor You And For MeHeal The WorldMake It A Better PlaceFor You And For MeAnd The Entire Human RaceThere Are People DyingFor The LivingMake A Better PlaceFor You And For MeHeal The WorldMake It A Better PlaceFor You And For MeAnd The Entire Human RaceThere Are People DyingIf You Care EnoughFor The LivingMake A Better PlaceFor You And For MeThere Are People DyingIf You Care EnoughFor The LivingMake A Better PlaceFor You And For MeThere Are People DyingIf You Care EnoughFor The LivingMake A Better PlaceFor You And For MeYou And For MeMake it a better placeYou And For MeMake it a better placeYou And For MeMake it a better placeYou And For MeMake it a better placeYou And For MeHeal the world we live inYou And For MeSave it for our childrenYou And For Me Heal the world we live inYou And For MeSave it for our childrenYou And For MeHeal the world we live inYou And For MeSave it for the childrenYou And For MeHeal the world we live inYou And For MeSave it for the childrenYou And For MeHeal the world we live inYou And For MeSave it for the children
其他3条回答
为您推荐：
其他类似问题
换一换
回答问题，赢新手礼包
个人、企业类
违法有害信息,请在下方选择后提交
色情、暴力
我们会通过消息、邮箱等方式尽快将举报结果通知您。豆丁微信公众号
君，已阅读到文档的结尾了呢~~
扫扫二维码，随身浏览文档
手机或平板扫扫即可继续访问
Dangerous Lovers
举报该文档为侵权文档。
举报该文档含有违规或不良信息。
反馈该文档无法正常浏览。
举报该文档为重复文档。
推荐理由：
将文档分享至：
分享完整地址
文档地址：
粘贴到BBS或博客
flash地址：
支持嵌入FLASH地址的网站使用
html代码：
&embed src='http://www.docin.com/DocinViewer-4.swf' width='100%' height='600' type=application/x-shockwave-flash ALLOWFULLSCREEN='true' ALLOWSCRIPTACCESS='always'&&/embed&
450px*300px480px*400px650px*490px
支持嵌入HTML代码的网站使用
您的内容已经提交成功
您所提交的内容需要审核后才能发布，请您等待！
3秒自动关闭窗口Access denied | wordingwell.com used Cloudflare to restrict access
Please enable cookies.
What happened?
The owner of this website (wordingwell.com) has banned your access based on your browser's signature (3e97c4afaf016e02-ua98).‘Memmos’: Memmott’s Missives & Musings | NPR Ethics Handbook
‘Memmos’: Memmott’s Missives & Musings
Standards & Practices Editor Mark Memmott writes occasional notes about the issues journalists encounter and the way NPR handles them. They often expand on topics covered in the Ethics Handbook.
From the Standards & Practices Outbox
It’s ‘Brinkmanship,’ Not ‘B’ And ‘Data’ Are Almost Always Plural
Another week, another shutdown showdown. In searching for ways to describe what’s going on with the negotiations, we’ve occasionally turned to a word that’s something of an old favorite at times such as these. But, we haven’t always got it quite right.
“Brinkmanship” is the word to use if you have to, not “brinksmanship.” The former is the preferred version in our dictionary and it is by far the more common usage according to . (H/T to .)
While we’re nagging, here’s a reminder from our style guide about something we’ve reminded everyone about before.
“DATA (DAY-tuh): A plural noun, it usually takes plural verbs and pronouns: The data have been collected (individual items). But it can also be used as a collective noun, which takes a singular verb: The data is sound (regarded as a whole unit).”
(“M” Feb. 7, 2018)
Tips From Some Pros On Prepping ‘Everyday People’
First, take a couple minutes and . It’s been in my head all day.
I’ll wait.
OK, you’re welcome.
Now, about those “everyday people.”
This post is basically about those we’re looking to book for two-ways or as podcast guests.
Not everyone we interview (live or recorded) is used to being on the air or as part of a podcast. They may not know much about how we work, what we’ll do with the material we gather or that there are words they shouldn’t say (unless those words are essential and we’ve warned listeners they’re coming).
There are staffers on all the shows and desks who have years of experience walking guests and interviewees through the process. If you’re new to the world of pre-interviews and booking or just want some advice, pick their brains. That’s what I’ve done. Here are some tips from Liz Baker, Miranda Kennedy and Viet Le, and from Jonathan Kern’s book Sound Recording: The NPR Guide To Audio Journalism And Production:
- “If we are putting a fairly green guest on the air,” Miranda writes, “it’s a good idea to say we want to run through some tips with them to help them sound their best and most natural, while also sticking to some basic guidelines for broadcast.”
She often tells such guests “it’s especially important to be straightforward in a radio interview. Imagine you’re talking to someone who only cares a little about your topic, and is only half-listening, because they are driving or brushing their teeth.”
Miranda sometimes reminds folks “that live radio has a few basic rules, including to try to stay away from overly sensitive topics or words. One way to put this: if you’re not sure your friend or aunt would like her kids to hear that topic or word, just don’t use it.”
- “If it’s a first-person narrative we want,” Viet says, “I ask them to think of some anecdotes.
If it’s supposed to be a fun interview, I’ll remind them to be fun (sometimes people forget.)
If it’s a complicated idea, I’ll ask them to think of a good metaphor.
If a person had long answers in the pre-interview, I’ll remind them to try and keep it succinct.”
This may sound basic, but Viet notes it’s also important to make sure it’s clear to guests whether they’re on live or being taped. Yes, sometimes need to hear that.
- Liz says her main advice “is to always do a long pre-interview (at least 10 minutes).” That could reveal a potential issue: “If the person is using [foul] language in the pre-interview, chances are they’ll let it slip in the real one too- even if they say things like ‘don’t worry I won’t say this on the radio.’”
When doing pre-interviews, she believes in being “a normal person having a normal conversation” and being sure to “admit right away when you don’ t know something or are confused.” Guests, she says, are more at ease with the idea of coming on the air when they know we’ve taken the time and care to understand their stories before the interview.
- One of Jonathan’s tips in Sound Recording is that during pre-interviews it’s important to “listen for people who have interesting things to say and novel ways to say them.”
“The fluency of the guest,” Jonathan writes, “is most important when the guest is going to be on live.” One key step in such cases, Justine Kenin tells him in the book, may be “to get people clear about their thinking before they’re even on the air.”
It’s critical, adds Jonathan, to eliminate confusion – not just about why we want to talk to this person and what we’re doing, but also something as basic as when we’re going to do it. “Go over the time precisely,” he advises.
Those are just a few tips. As I said above, there are experienced hands across the shows and desks who can be consulted. Talk to them.
Now, back to Sly and the Family Stone.
Bonus content from NPR Training:
“”
(“M” Feb. 5, 2018)
Guidance On ‘Chain Migration,’ ‘Family Reunification’ And ‘Children Brought Here …’
that “when language is politicized,” we should “seek neutral words that foster understanding.”
In the immigration debate, one side has latched on to an old term that in the past seemed neutral: “chain migration.” The other side talks about “family reunification.” , they’re arguing over “the visa program through which immigrants already residing here can bring their family members over.”
On “chain migration,” , “you can say it in a neutral way,” or it can sound “horrible.” You could make the case that “family reunification” can be used the opposite way depending on the tone and context.
In our reports, we should explain how the two sides are using the phrases, or attribute the phrases to them. Use action words, as John did, to describe what it is they’re talking about. But we shouldn’t simply adopt one or the other.
Related: When describing those known as Dreamers, of which 800,000 or so have been DACA recipients, we can say they “were brought to the country as children” or “came to the country as children.” Notice that the word “illegally” is not in those lines. That’s because some came legally, but no longer have that status.
You might, of course, qualify the reference by saying “many came illegally …” The goal is to be accurate and not assume they all entered illegally.
(“M” Jan. 24, 2018)
Guidance on DACA and “Dreamers” and a note about the “three branches” of government
When reporting about the debate over the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) policy, we shouldn’t make it sound like the number of DACA recipients is equal to the number of people commonly referred to as Dreamers. In fact, there are an estimated 3 to 4 million people who came to the country as children and are here illegally (the “Dreamers”). The number of DACA recipients totaled around 800,000, of which about 700,000 are still in the program.
In other words, DACA recipients are a subset of those known as Dreamers. Don’t simply conflate the two.
Meanwhile, don’t say Republicans control “all three branches of government.” They control two branches, the executive and legislative, but not the judicial.
(“M” Jan. 22, 2018)
Consider This A ‘So-Called’ Ban
If you’re tempted to write or say “so-called,” stop. Don’t do it.
The odds are far too high that many will think you’ve decided that whatever it is you’re saying is “so-called” has been “inaccurately or questionably designated as such” (Webster’s New World College Dictionary). They would have a point. The synonyms for so-called that come up in a
search include “supposed,” “alleged” and “purported.”
Alternatives include simply saying “called” or “known as.”
Can you come up with an exception? I’m sure you can, Korva. Please be ready to make a strong case. Otherwise, just kill it.
(“M” Jan. 22, 2018)
‘First Anniversary’ Is OK; ‘One-year Anniversary’ Is Not.
We are not coming to the “one-year anniversary” of the Women’s March. It will be the “first anniversary.”
How’s that?
The word “anniversary” , or “miraculous year.” That makes saying “one-year anniversary” redundant. We don’t like redundancies. (You may recall the earlier warning about “.”)
If you feel the need to remind the audience that the Women’s March was one year ago, you can simply say it’s the “first anniversary.”
(“M” Jan. 19, 2018)
Guidance On The Vulgar Word Attributed To The President:
These notes were sent to NPR journalists on Jan. 12, 2018:
1. With the president having now addressed the reports, we feel is it necessary to say the word “shithole” so that listeners have the full context.
But, the word should be heard very sparingly. No more than one use of the word each hour in the main shows is enough. Newscast, as you always do, stagger the reports.
Don’t include it in the body of spots that will be repeated throughout the day. Do give listeners a heads-up that a vulgar word is coming their way. We of course will continue to add the context that makes clear why this is important. Obviously, the president’s tweet is important information.
There are strong editorial reasons for taking this step and we should be clear about those reasons in the discussions we have on the air. The reports about the language used in the meeting have affected negotiations over DACA, they have had diplomatic repercussions and they are renewing charges of racism aimed at the president. For the audience to understand what’s happening, given the president’s denial, we feel it’s important for them to get all the information.
2. Don’t put the word “shithole” in NPR-branded tweets or other social media posts that pop into our audience’s feeds. It’s basically the same thinking we have about not putting the word in headlines or teasers. We don’t want the word to pop into folks’ feeds. They should have to click to open up a story where it will be. On window titles: if the word is in the body of the story, you may use it in the window title. Otherwise, do not.
And on the Jan. 12 All Things Considered:
“”
(“M” Jan. 17, 2018)
No Joke: We’re Making Too Many Mistakes
Read through .
We’re not doing a good enough job checking some basic things, including:
- Historical records
Mistakes will happen. But it is a shame that otherwise excellent stories have correction notes attached because we’ve gotten a senator’s state wrong, misspelled someone’s name or didn’t get the math right — those and other things that are easy to check. Readers and listeners question our credibility if we get the “small stuff” wrong.
In most cases, we can’t fall back on “it’s live radio” or “I misspoke.” Mistakes are being written into scripts or Web stories and read by editors before being recorded or published.
We all have to concentrate.
Correspondents and producers: ; don’t double- challenge sources about their “facts.” Basically, apply this old rule: “.”
Editors: do those things and more.
We’re doing great work. So many people are working so incredibly hard. Let’s do all we can to avoid unforced errors.
(“M” Jan. 3, 2018)
10 Words Or Expressions Not To Live By In 2018
If you’re looking for compelling and clear writing, we’ve got it.
- Listen to and read .
- Take a look at
the “chained” consumer price index and its importance.
- Hear from and see the people in Puerto Rico .
We could continue.
But instead, we’ll move on to what you’ve come to expect from the Standards & Practices editor — nagging.
Here are 10 words or expressions we could do without next year:
- “Literally.” Don’t ask for more time or space for your story if it has “” like that.
- “Actually.” Be careful with that word. It can sound as if you’re casting judgment.
- “Virtually.” There’s disagreement about whether that’s a good synonym for “nearly.” Webster’s New World says it means “in effect” or “for all practical purposes.”
Side note: Notice the “ly” endings in the first three entries? They remind us that in the vast majority of cases, adverbs ending with “ly” should be killed … ruthlessly.
- “Vast majority.” Oh yeah, , you’re probably wrong – or at least unclear – if you say “in the vast majority of cases.” Be precise, please. Is it “two-thirds?” Maybe “three-fourths?” Or “nine out of 10?”
- “Accident.” The train derailed. The plane crashed. The cars collided. The ship sank. You get the idea. “Accident” can sound soft and insensitive when used to describe something terrible.
- “Some say” (and its cousin “many say”). Be more specific, please.
Those expressions can make it sound like you don’t know for sure how many people are saying something.
- “Refute.”
- “Data … is” (and “media … is”). No, they “are.” Those are plurals.
- “So” at the start of a sentence. , it’s still bugging many listeners.
- “Anxious.” Korva is eager to spike this “Memmo.” She’s not anxious about doing it.
Scroll back through
if you’re interested in seeing other notes about words we can live without.
(“M” Dec. 27, 2017)
Updated Guidance On References To Facebook And ‘NPR Live’
Starting Jan. 1, Facebook will not be paying NPR for any videos we put on the social media site.
In stories we do about Facebook the next few weeks, we should still err on the side of disclosure. The line can be something like “until recently, Facebook paid NPR to produce videos that run on the social media site.”
Then, beginning the week of Jan. 29, in almost all cases such disclosures won’t be necessary. The most likely exception would be in a story specifically involving Facebook’s video ventures. Then, the line could be something like “from 2016 through 2017, Facebook paid NPR and some other news organizations for the videos they ran on the social media site.”
Consult with the DMEs or Standards & Practices editor if this issue comes up.
This replaces .
(“M” Dec. 26, 2017)
It’s That Most Punderful Time Of The Year. Let’s Just Say Snow To The Clichés
With winter barreling down on the nation’s heartland like a runaway freight train and the ho-ho-ho holidays upon us, here’s your annual lump of coal.
Don’t say or write these phrases unless your tongue is firmly frozen in your cheek:
– “ ‘Tis the season to …” No, it ’tisn’t.
– “Big chill …” Big whoopie.
– “ ‘Twas the night before …” It ’twas?
– “Brave the elements …” Only if you’re trekking to the Pole.
– “Over the river and through the woods …” It’s been a while since we rode a sleigh to grandmother’s house.
– “Hunker down …” Have you ever hunkered?
– “Bah, humbug.” Be miserly with your references to Dickens.
– “Old man winter (or Ol’ Man Winter) …” Let’s ban him and his cousin, Mother Nature.
– “White stuff …” Just say snow.
– “Oh, the weather outside is …” Don’t put that song in my head!
– “Jack Frost …” What, are we doing nursery rhymes?
– “It’s beginning to look a lot like …” Not that song either!
– “Deep freeze …” We get it, it’s cold.
– “Yes, Virginia.” No, Korva.
– “Nipping at our noses (or anything else) …” Nip that one in the bud.
– “Christmas came early for …” Really? Seems like it’s always on Dec. 25.
– “Enough is enough …” Yes, we’ll all be tired of winter at some point. Don’t remind us.
– “Jing-a-ling.” Jing-a-don’t.
– “First flakes …” See “superlatives and why they’re almost always wrong.”
– “A Christmas Grinch stole …” Every burglar doesn’t have to be be turned into a Dr. Seuss character this time of year.
– “Bone-chilling …” That’s the kind of look Korva just gave me.
– “Santa’s elves …” They’re everywhere! But not on our air!
– “Snowpocalypse …” What, are we The Weather Channel all of a sudden?
– “Snowmageddon …” See “Snowpocalypse.”
– “On the Xth day of Christmas …” The song is boring enough as it is.
– “Winter wonderland …” You like it so much? Fine, then you shovel me out.
(“M Dec. 8, 2017)
If Strangers Want To Talk About NPR? Assume You’re Being Videotaped, ‘Washington Post’ Editor Would Advise
During today’s , here at NPR headquarters, Washington Post editor Martin Baron had this to say about what he’s told his staff since the :
If strangers start talking to you about your newsroom and how you do your work, “assume that it’s going to be on video.”
The takeaway: As always, it’s important to remember that when we’re in public (and when we’re on social media), we represent NPR. And it seems we must understand that not everyone is who they say they are, or does their work as we do — “.”
(“M” Dec. 4, 2017)
Recommended Reading And A Couple Thoughts About That Effort To ‘Infiltrate’ The ‘Post’
If you haven’t already, please read this story:
“”
Here’s the top:
“The failed effort by conservative activists to plant a false story about Senate candidate Roy Moore in The Washington Post was part of a months-long campaign to infiltrate The Post and other media outlets in Washington and New York, according to interviews, text messages and social media posts that have since been deleted.”
One thought that came to mind is how that effort to infiltrate so clearly violates one of the core principles that we and other credible news organizations live by. :
“Journalism should be done in plain sight, and our standards are clear. When we are working, we identify ourselves as NPR journalists to those we interview and interact with. We do not conceal our identities, pose as someone or something we are not, use hidden microphones or cameras to collect information, or record phone calls without the permission of all parties on the line, except in the very rarest of circumstances”
What might qualify as a rare circumstance? Basically, if someone’s life is at stake. .
The story also reminds us that we’re constantly being judged and, perhaps, tested.
Fortunately, we know how to conduct ourselves.
One of the first statements in the handbook is that “we hold those who serve and influence the public to a high standard when we report about their actions. We must ask no less of ourselves.” We go on to write about always remembering that “you represent NPR.” We remind everyone at several points to keep opinions about the issues of the day to ourselves, whether it’s when we’re out in public or when we’re posting on social media.
Someone may try to spin this note as a warning that “they’re coming after us.” That’s not what I’m saying. This is about being glad to work at a real news organization where journalists do their best to uphold important principles, and about pointing to the difference between us and “them.”
(“M” Nov. 30, 2017)
FYI: ICYMI Is An I Snafu Is An A They’re Both Abbreviations
If an abbreviation formed from the first letters of several words is pronounced as one word, it’s an acronym. Gif, laser and snafu are examples.
If such an abbreviation is known by its letters, it’s an initialism. Think ATM, BBC and FBI.
“Email” is an abbreviation. It’s also what we will get if we call an initialism an acronym or an acronym an initialism.
(“M” Nov. 28, 2017)
Who, What, When, Where & Why. But What About Wifty?
Merriam-Webster’s
is wifty, which it defines as “eccentrically silly, giddy, or inane : ditzy.”
A search indicates we’ve never used the word, even though we’ve covered many wifty stories.
Well, Korva?
For other weird words we should find uses for, , where the word-of-the-day is bezoardical, an adjective that means “all-curing, antidotal.” They’re also pointing to “driffle,” which is best known as slight rain or snow but also can be “a large quantity of work completed hastily.” Isn’t driffling what we do every day?
(“M” Nov. 21, 2017)
‘Spree,’ ‘Even,’ ‘Still’ And Other Words We Should Stop Using The Way We’ve Been Using Them
The Standards & Practices inbox is filling up. Let’s clear some space:
- We’ve used the phrase “shooting spree” to describe what happened Tuesday in Northern California. Let’s not call such an event a “spree,” which Webster’s New World defines as “a lively, noisy frolic … a period of drunkenness … [or] a period of uninhibited activity (a shopping spree).” It was a mass shooting, a rampage or a series of deadly attacks. We need to keep using words and phrases that underscore the severity of what happened.
- Please keep in mind that the accusations against Roy Moore include alleged sexual assaults. To only say he’s accused of “misconduct” or “inappropriate” behavior does not reflect the seriousness of the accusations. Also, we should be clear that his accusers were “girls” at the time if they were under 18, not “women.”
- If you’re tempted to write or say that “even such-and-such now admits” or “so-and-so still hasn’t dropped out” or “despite the latest news …” stop and consider the words “even,” “still” and “despite.” They can come off sounding judgmental — as if you’re trying to say “can you believe that?” Or, maybe, “can you believe this guy?”
- Speaking of “guy,” check out who we’ve referred to as “a guy” in the recent past: Thomas Edison. Donald Trump. Barack Obama. Pope Francis.
Come on guys folks. It’s one thing to want to be conversational, but let’s be careful about who’s a “guy.” Related observation: We don’t seem to use “gals” this way. Would we refer to a “gal named Hillary Clinton?”
- Question: Unless the other person is clearly speaking to us on a telephone, why are we saying they’re “on the line?”
The inbox now has room for more suggested topics. Thanks.
(“M” Nov. 15, 2017)
Words We Live By
Friends and family are asking us about . Like you, I’ve been sharing my anger and frustration. I’ve also been noting that every day I see and hear NPR journalists applying these principles:
“Our journalists conduct their work with honesty and respect …”
“We hold those who serve and influence the public to a high standard when we report about their actions. We must ask no less of ourselves.”
“Journalists who conduct themselves honestly prove themselves worthy of trust.”
“Everyone affected by our journalism deserves to be treated with decency and compassion. We are civil in our actions and words, avoiding arrogance and hubris. “
“We will fulfill the high standard we owe the public if we hold true to our principles.”
“We believe it is our shared responsibility to live up to these principles.”
Many thanks to all who live those ideals.
They’re spelled out, by the way, .
(“M” Nov. 6, 2017)
Thumbs Down (Not Hands Down) On ‘Meddling’
Many thanks to all those who helped entertain and inform the Traveling Memmotts as they put 3,200 miles on the odometer the past two weeks. We didn’t listen to the news every hour (sorry, Korva). But when we did, it was a pleasure to hear your voices and the stories you told.
But — there’s always a “but” — one word that came up a few times didn’t feel quite right: “meddling.” As in “Russian meddling in the 2016 election.” I could imagine George Carlin doing a riff on how soft that sounds. As the Washington Desk advises, meddling is something your nosy neighbor does — not a rival (enemy?) nation that’s trying to sway the results of the U.S. election.
“Interference” is a word that works.
Meanwhile, today’s news has raised the question of whether it’s correct to say an indictment has been “handed down” or “handed up.” You’ll hear it both ways, but
that indictments are handed “up” to the bench, while verdicts are handed “down.” As often is the case, the best way to go is probably to avoid either phrase. How about “issued?”
(“M” Oct. 30, 2017)
Compare: New Social Media Guidance From The ‘Times’ And Our Update From Earlier This Year
Today’s release of “” from The New York Times offers this opportunity to plug the updated guidance we issued earlier this year. As I’m sure you know, .
Please reread our version. Compare it to the Times‘ if you wish. The thinking is similar on most points.
As always suggestions are welcome.
(“M” Oct. 13, 2017)
Listen: It’s Not Always Necessary To Name The Shooter
After mass shootings there are calls for the news media to not report the name of the attacker. , “it’s easy and convenient for politicians to beat the press up by accusing them of glorifying a bad person.”
We agree with McBride and others that news organizations need to report about the person in order to understand what happened and that the name is an important part of such stories. We have and will continue to report about the man who carried out the attack in Las Vegas and will use his name in our reports.
But Martin Kaste and Steve Inskeep showed this morning that we don’t have to repeat the name in every audio story we do.
about what investigators have learned concerning the way the gunman prepared for the attack. His name, which had been heard elsewhere in Morning Edition and during our Newscasts, is not said during the conversation. I don’t think anything was lost because of that.
The takeaway is that we can use our judgment. The name does not have to be in every story we broadcast about the killer. We can be respectful of the feelings of those in the audience who find it disturbing to hear the name over and over, and respectful of those who sincerely believe that repeating the name somehow glorifies a horrible person.
Meanwhile, as we’ve been doing, we can tell the stories of the victims — with their names, of course.
(“M” Oct. 4, 2017)
Take Care With The Word ‘Refugees’
The people in Puerto Rico who have had their lives turned upside down by the hurricane are U.S. citizens, as we all know and as we’ve been careful to note. That means the word “refugees” can be misleading if it adds to a sense that these are “foreigners” (a word that definitely should not be used) or are in some way “others” who are leaving one country to seek shelter in another. Puerto Ricans who move to Florida are not leaving one country for another.
That said, many are certainly seeking refuge. And people who are now living in shelters on the island
We don’t need to ban the word refugee from our coverage. Just please watch how it sounds or reads in the context of a story and ask whether it makes it seem as if the people of Puerto Rico are not U.S. citizens.
(“M” Oct. 3, 2017)
Thank You, And A Few Things To Keep In Mind About The Las Vegas Mass Shooting
The language we’ve been using about the mass shooting in Las Vegas has been precise and carefully attributed. Thank you.
Please continue to:
- Attribute the death toll and number of injured to police or other credible authorities. As you know, the numbers are expected to change. We need to keep reminding the audience where the figures are coming from and that we will be updating as needed.
- Characterize this as apparently the worst mass shooting in “modern” or “recent” U.S. history. As we’ve unfortunately been reminded in recent years, there were some horrible mass killings in the 1800s:
- Be careful about describing the weapon or weapons. As Steve Inskeep noted this morning, the gunshots sounded as if they came more rapidly than one person could pull a trigger. That could mean it was an automatic weapon or a rifle that was modified to be automatic. But as we’ve also noted before, the weapons used in mass shootings are almost always “semi-automatic.” We should get our guidance from the police and other investigators. Keep in mind, though, that even the authorities sometimes make mistakes in the early hours of investigations.
We should also keep in mind that the guns used in such shootings are sometimes “assault-style,” but almost never “assault” weapons. There’s more guidance about how to describe weapons here:
The AP Stylebook has a substantial entry for “weapons” that has good guidance. If you’re on our intranet, you can get to the Stylebook here:
- Here’s An Effective Way To Talk About The Deaths And Injuries
It’s possible that many of the people injured in Las Vegas were hurt not by gunshots, but during the rush to escape the scene. It’s also possible some people died from such injuries. The Two-Way has done a good job describing what is known at this hour and its approach can be adapted for other platforms. It wrote that the gunman:
“Fired down upon thousands of people attending a music festival Sunday night, in a brutal attack blamed for at least 58 deaths, police say. In the mass shooting and panic that ensued, some 515 people were injured.”
- On ‘Automatic’ Weapons
While we should NOT say whether the weapons used in Las Vegas were or were not “automatic” because that information has not surfaced yet, we also should be careful NOT to flatly say that automatic weapons are illegal. Their availability is severely restricted, but there are legal ways to obtain such weapons, including in Nevada. Here’s more on that:
(“M” Oct. 2, 2017)
Here’s How Teamwork Produced An Effective Response To A ‘False’ Tweet
there is “no guarantee of coverage for people with pre-existing conditions” in the Graham-Cassidy health care bill, this tweet popped up :
@NPR FALSE. Under the bill, states must ensure that individuals with pre-existing conditions have access to adequate & affordable insurance.
Steve Mullis suggested NPR should respond. Alison Kodjak, whose story the senator was questioning, and her editors (Gisele Grayson, Nancy Shute, Joe Neel) got to work. The goal would be to respond calmly. The forum would be Twitter, where the senator made his charge. The response and how we got there, is worth revisiting.
Some key points:
- We followed our mantra: “Stand with the Facts.”
- It was known that we might decide not to go ahead if we couldn’t strike the right tone — and that would be OK.
- The teams that knew what to do, from the best way to engage to the best way to explain the story, led the process.
- We moved quickly, but we didn’t hurry. Everyone who needed to weigh in did, but no one held up the process.
Or, read through how tweets rolled out:
- Sen @BillCassidy called our reading of his health care bill on pre-existing conditions false. Here’s how we read it:
- Prior to ACA, insurers routinely excluded care for cancer or mental health or made the coverage so expensive that it was out of reach
- Current law (ACA) guarantees coverage for 10 “essential health benefits”—in every exchange policy in every state
- Those EHBs are central to pre-existing condition protections because they define what an insurance policy is required to cover
- #GrahamCassidy allows states to opt out of EHBs. That cld mean a person with diabetes can be charged extra for a plan with Rx drug coverage
- Allowing states to opt out of EHBs under #GrahamCassidy cld also mean a person w/ depression may not find a plan with mental health coverage
- Sen. @BillCassidy says his bill ensures that people with pre-existing conditions have access to “adequate & affordable” coverage
- With no EHB requirements and no subsidies, “adequate” and “affordable” is left up to states and does not guarantee coverage
Thanks to all involved in crafting this response.
(“M” Sept. 25, 2017)
Peter Overby’s Story Gives Us More To Think About When It Comes To Think Tanks
Please read and listen to Peter Overby’s story headlined “.”
As Peter reports, think tanks are being “pulled away from their academic heritage” by several forces — including the pressures that come from being funded by “wealthy business people — in modern jargon, philanthro-capitalists — notably many from the tech industry.”
His story underscores why we’ve previously said that:
JournalistResource.org’s “ About Think Tanks.”
(“M” Sept. 20, 2017)
Guidance On How To Discuss Other News Outlets’ Reports
When credible news organizations are reporting things that we have not confirmed or knocked down and we decide it’s important to let our audience know about those reports, our language has to be precise.
- Clearly attribute the news to those other outlets (or “multiple” news outlets if that’s the case).
- Summarize their sourcing. For example: “intelligence officials with first-hand knowledge.”
- State that NPR has not independently confirmed the reports.
- Make sure in later references that we DO NOT make it sound as if things have been confirmed. A line such as “investigators found the stolen thumb drive in Coleman’s Manhattan pied-à-terre,” sounds like a fact without the additional phrase “according to The Daily Planet’s sources.” In other words, attribute, attribute and attribute again.
As for whether and when we report about other news organizations’ significant scoops, those discussions have to involve, at the least, the DME on duty.
(“M” Sept. 19, 2017)
Sports Talk: Reminders On Potentially Offensive Names And Images
The NFL season is under way. Just in case the team from Washington does something that warrants reporting, please remember that we avoid saying its name. .
Meanwhile, the baseball team from Cleveland is setting records and could end up in the World Series again. We should avoid using photos that include images of the team’s longtime mascot, Chief Wahoo. :
“At NPR, the policy on ‘potentially offensive language’ applies to the images posted online as well. It begins by stating that ‘as a responsible broadcaster, NPR has always set a high bar on use of language that may be offensive to our audience.’”
If you come across other potentially offensive team names or logos, apply the same thinking as we have in these cases.
(“M” Sept. 14, 2017)
This Won’t Go Untold: We’ve Made Some Excellent Word Choices While Covering The Storms
We’ve watched, read and listened with deep respect and appreciation as colleagues have gone into dangerous and difficult situations in Texas and Florida the past two weeks. Meanwhile, others have put in even longer hours than usual to get that fine reporting ready for broadcast and the Web. Many thanks to all.
Embedded within the stories have been key words, well-turned phrases and simple explanations that are worth pointing out. Here are some examples:
- Leila Fadel, using an appropriately sensitive way to describe someone’s medical condition: “They spent the storm in a shelter to make sure they could care for Matthew’s sister, who lives with cerebral palsy.”
- Nate Rott, choosing three words — “still drying out” — that say much more than just “recovering”: “Earlier this week, there were even concerns that the Federal Emergency Management Agency would run out of money just as Irma is forecast to make landfall in South Florida. A $15 billion disaster relief package, passed Friday by Congress and signed by President Trump, has quelled those concerns. But it does little for the on-the-ground crews that are still drying out from a massive response to Hurricane Harvey just a couple of weeks ago.”
- Chris Joyce, explaining in plain English how climate change exacerbates hurricanes: “Heat drives storms. The more heat you have, the bigger storms you have. What happens is hot water creates water vapor. You know, a cup of coffee — it’s got vapor coming off it. So the water vapor rises. You get convection. It creates these circulating winds. And that’s what creates the conditions for a hurricane. … Hurricanes feed off of this fuel. And the hotter the oceans, the more fuel you’ll get for the hurricane.”
- Kirk Siegler, avoiding the almost always misused word “countless”: There are, he said, “an untold number of downed trees and power lines” across the Keys.
- Camila Domonoske, telling readers a lot
in just a few words about one elderly man’s feelings about not being able to get home: ” ‘It’s over. We made it out,’ Ward said, with an unhappy laugh that verged on tears. ‘But we can’t get out.’ ”
- Adrian Florido, describing Hurricane Harvey’s impact on one vulnerable community: “Houston is home to some 600,000 immigrants without legal status — 1 in 10 Houstonians does not possess the right to live in the U.S. — and in the storm’s aftermath, many of them now find themselves teetering on the edge of destitution.”
- Melissa Block, using short, declarative sentences to bring home some key points: “Now, as hurricane Irma approaches Florida, the Houstonians are talking with the restaurant community there, sharing what they’ve learned from Harvey. Organize as much as you can ahead of time. Line up kitchens and transport and volunteers. Social media will be your best friend. Above all, don’t wait.”
We could go on, and more examples will turn up in coming days. Thanks.
(“M” Sept. 12, 2017)
‘Out West’ Is Out Of Date
Saying that something’s going on “out west,” “down south,” “up north” or “back east” can make it sound as if we’re peering at the rest of the nation like astronomers, rather than covering the news from where it’s happening. It can also make it seem as if we’re talking about “other” people or places.
Be more specific. Include names of the affected states or regions and avoid words such as “out” or “up” that suggest to the audience that we’re reporting from a fixed point in the mid-Atlantic states.
It remains OK to say that Korva’s dancing is out of this world.
(“M” Sept. 6, 2017)
On Crises And The People We Meet At Them
We aren’t first responders and we go to dangerous scenes and natural disasters such as the one in Texas to report, not rescue. There are others trained to do that work. We don’t have their skills and we don’t have their equipment.
That said, if we find ourselves in situations where another person is in danger, we can try to help if no one else is there or our assistance would make an important difference.
As Reveal host Al Letson
about why he jumped in to shield a white nationalist being beaten by anti-fascists:
“I don’t want to be a part of the story, at all. And I believe in all of those journalistic ethics and all of that — but I also think that, before that, I’m a human being.”
It’s worth repeating that we don’t go into situations looking to do the work that first responders are trained to do. We also don’t go looking to insert ourselves into a story.
Again, we go to report about what’s happening and about the people who are directly affected.
But as Letson said, we’re also human beings — who, , treat “everyone affected by our journalism … with decency and compassion.” That’s an important principle to keep in mind.
(“M” Aug. 29, 2017)
We’re Barreling Toward A Perfect Storm Of Clichés; Let’s Dodge That Bullet
Since this is the calm before the storm,
to rain on everyone’s parade and suggest that we should avoid hurricane-related clichés like the plague.
Please remember that:
- There’s no law requiring that we say a hurricane is “barreling” toward shore.
- Hatches are probably not being battened in many homes.
- Mother Nature isn’t furious.
- Communities that escape serious damage didn’t dodge any bullets.
- Cats and dogs will not be falling from the sky.
- Pounding isn’t the only word to describe what’s going to happen.
- Not that many people peel back sar that’s a reference only grampa may get.
I’ve probably missed the boat and forgotten some. Feel free to stick a fork in any others.
(“M” Aug. 25, 2017)
Can We Agree That Not Every Interesting Thing Or Person Is ‘Iconic?’
The word “iconic” shows up 1,840 times in a search of NPR.org for the past year.
It appears 194 times in a search of just what we’ve broadcast since last Aug. 22.
Movie scenes. Photos. Athletes. Animals. Apps. Godzilla*. We’ve heard and read that all those, and more, are iconic.
It’s been said that iconic is among the English language’s .
Overuse dilutes the word’s impact. Let’s save it for references to true icons. That is, those people or things that are “revered” or that embody “the essential characteristics of an era, group, etc.” (Webster’s New World College Dictionary)
There are many other words to choose from. Last year,
these 10: “legendary, pioneering, incomparable, signature, trademark, definitive, unmatched, unforgettable, unparalleled, one-of-a-kind.” (Of course, if you use superlatives such as one-of-a-kind
that person or thing really is one-of-a-kind.)
*Save your outrage. I’m not saying Godzilla isn’t iconic.
(“M” Aug. 22, 2017)
No One Label Fits The ‘Alt-Right,’ So Use Their Words And Actions To Show Who They Are
The coverage from and about this weekend’s attack and violence in Charlottesville has been impressive, starting with the breaking news coverage on digital and on-the-air Saturday, right through Sunday’s reports and this morning’s step-backs.
Many thanks to all those involved.
A couple things to note:
We’ve done well on this point, but it’s worth a reminder that () it’s not enough to simply refer to the “alt-right” and then move on. First, that label feels like a euphemism. Second, there’s much more that has to be said about the people who say they’re part of that movement.
Within the ranks of those who call themselves the alt-right there are:
- White supremacists.
- White nationalists.
- Neo-Nazis.
- Anti-Semites.
- Racists.
There are also those who say they are none of those things, but contend that whites are suffering economically because “others” are being given unfair advantages.
Here’s the thing: The positions people hold, the things they do and the politicians they choose to support say a lot — more than labels, it can be argued.
What do we do? As much as possible, we should “show, don’t tell.” For instance, we described what the people at the “unite the right” rally were doing, saying, carrying, throwing, etc. Their words and actions spoke loudly. The descriptions then allowed for later references to “white supremacists,” “white nationalists,” “neo-Nazis” and others as being among those there. “White supremacists and others” is an appropriate catch-all.
The second thing worth noting is that when someone says something that’s clearly not true, we should point that out as soon as possible. Check how it was done, twice,
about a man who supports the way President Trump addressed the violence.
When the man claimed that Black Lives Matter was “another hate group,” Brian came right in to note that “in fact, Black Lives Matter has no history of violence or racial bigotry comparable to America’s far-right militias, neo-Nazis or Klan groups.”
When the man said he never heard President Obama call for unit, Brian immediately pointed out that “in fact, Barack Obama did call for national unity numerous times during his presidency, especially during times of racial conflict and violence.”
Again, good work all around. Thanks.
( Aug. 14, 2017)
Wise Words From A Wise Man About The Work We Do
“Attempts to restrict press freedom are becoming, for some, a national sport, but the real battle begins at home — on the local beat with aggressive reporting, progressive editing and united defending of the First Amendment.”
John C. Q Jan. 8, 1973
Wednesday at the Newseum, journalists who worked with John Quinn remembered USA Today’s first editor. He died last month, at the age of 91.
If you were with Gannett in the ’70s, ’80s or ’90s, you knew Quinn — or knew of him. He was the consci the editor who set standards and pushed everyone to do their best.
And if you’re among the 1,400 or so journalists who have passed through the
(named for Quinn’s son), you probably can’t say enough good things about him.
explains his impact.
At Wednesday’s gathering, retired Gannett executive Phil Currie read from some of Quinn’s “Wire Watch” weekly notes that went to all Gannett journalists, not just those at USA Today. The quote at the top of this post is from those notes. It’s as relevant today as it was in 1973; as are the others below. Quinn was talking about newspapers, but the advice applies to all types of news operations:
- “A newspaper must be factual, and the true fact is that our readers face an indulged and difficult life.
Like a parent, we must educate.
We must reach them by giving them what they need to know in a form they can accept and what they want to know in a manner they can appreciate.
We must help them realize that this is all part of our duty to them.” Dec. 3, 1973
- “Responsible news people have come out of the closet with their corrections and clarifications, and they showcase their sins to be as effective as possible in setting the record straight. The best efforts to right a wrong, however, still run a very poor second to avoiding the error in the first place, a goal that no news staffer dares to forget.” April 9, 1978
- “If newspapers cover their entire communities and deal with all of the concerns fully and fairly, then their readers will be reminded that they are indeed fortunate to have a free press, that it is an important part of their freedom, and they will join in the fight for its life. If, on the other hand, newspapers fail to deliver a free press which reflects all quarters of their communities, then they shall forfeit their claims to free press status and shall lose the support of those they should serve. Gannett newspapers and all in their communities must prove to each other daily that we are lucky to have each other.” March 25, 1979
We could change just a couple words, put new dates on those quotes and send them out today.
(“M” Aug. 10, 2017)
Let’s Call A Truce On ‘War Of Words’ References
We get it, the rhetoric is hot. Things are heating up. There’s a “war of words” underway.
But let’s can that phrase and other clichés. Our stories don’t need them and there are so many other compelling ways to describe what’s going on.
Also, we’re doing some excellent work. We don’t want yet another clanger of a cliché to be the thing listeners or readers remember.
(“M” Aug. 10, 2017)
Reminder On The Word ‘Teenager’
Wednesday marks three years since the shooting death of Michael Brown. In stories about that, he should not be referred to as a “teenager.” Brown was 18 — an adult.
still applies:
- Cite his age.
- Avoid labels. If you have to use one, “young man” is OK.
Weekend All Things Considered .
(“M” Aug. 7, 2017)
From The Visuals Team: Guidance On Taking Shots With & Of The Stars
Editor’s note: This “Memmo” comes from Ariel Zambelich and Emily Bogle.
As journalists, we sometimes find ourselves in the same room with famous and powerful folks.
We encourage photography of our reporters in action: , , and occasionally seeking comment from .
However, we ask that you be cautious about taking photos with the subjects of your stories. Posed grip-and-grin portraits and selfies may be OK for your personal collection (we’re looking at all you scrapbookers out there). But we shouldn’t be using them to promote the journalism we do.
Remember: While we’re friendly to those we encounter (whether they’re famous or not) we are not their friends. Our job as journalists is to report the facts, tell important and compelling stories, and remain detached. Posting that photo of yourself with Sen. Soandso, former President Suchandsuch or champion swimmer Flipandkick can make it look as if you’re on their “side” or are so darn thrilled about interviewing them that someone might question your objectivity.
That said, the Visuals team is excited to work with you to create high-quality imagery to accompany your stories online and to add to social promotion. Loop us in early if you have something that could use visuals – it can sometimes take a little bit of prep to figure out the best way to facilitate.
Here are some kinds of images we’re looking for, in order of priority:
- Portraits of interview subjects when they come to HQ (before or after the interview).
- Environmental portraits of the interview subjects in a place that’s relevant to your story.
Action shots of the interview subjects doing the cool thing you’re featuring.
Sense of place pictures to show where the story is happening.
- Action shots of the interview happening (in the studio or in the field).
You can take these kinds of shots, too! We’ve got some great resources on the
and offer monthly training sessions to help you build up your image-making skills.
So remember: selfies are pictures, too, but they’re not the ideal way to promote your stories.
(“M” July 31, 2017)
Please Read Our New And Improved (We Think) Guidance On Social Media
Wright Bryan, Lori Todd and I – with input from others – have updated and reorganized the .
The basic principles remain the same. But there has been a lot of change in the social media world in the five years or so since the handbook was first published. It was time to add some guidance and tweak our thinking in a couple places.
Please read through it. Like the rest of the handbook, it’s more a discussion of how to think things through rather than a set of rigid rules.
As you see, the guidance is attached to the handbook. If you want to compare it to the previous section about social media, .
Related: You’ve heard that Wright is leaving NPR. His last day is Friday.
I’m glad this update comes before Wright departs because it gives us all the chance to thank him for being a wise guide to the social media world. His thinking is woven throughout NPR’s principles.
You might say he’s set us on the Wright path.
(“M” July 26, 2017)
Update: Guidance On Immigration
It’s been three years since
on the language to use and avoid when reporting about illegal immigration.
Since then, a couple references have worked their way into common usage and no longer seem to fall into the category of loaded language.
Here, then, is updated guidance:
- The debate is still about “illegal immigration” and what to do about it. “Illegal immigration” remains an acceptable term when we’re reporting about the issue.
- When we’re reporting about the people at the center of this story, it’s still best practice to begin with action words, rather than labels. Two examples: They are “in the country illegally” or have “entered the country illegally.”
- In subsequent references, we now think it’s OK to mix in the phrases “undocumented immigrants” and “unauthorized immigrants.” They are now in common usage. And, unlike the label “illegal immigrants,” they are not phrases sometimes used to hurt others. (Our approach on this language is similar to what
– it is best practice to first refer to the law Republicans want to replace as the “Affordable Care Act”. Then it’s OK to say “Obamacare.”)
- “Undocumented” is also OK in headlines.
For an example of how to handle immigration language, see John Burnett’s report on “ ”
(“M” July 25, 2017)
On ‘Trafficking’ And ‘Smuggling’
has two words being used interchangeably. It’s not yet clear that they should be used that way.
Smuggling, in this context, is the illegal transporting of people into the U.S.
Trafficking involves “.”
As of now, the driver of the truck has been .
It might turn out that the people in that truck were also the victims of “force, fraud or coercion.” But we don’t know that yet. So “trafficking” isn’t the word to use at this point.
(“M” July 24, 2017)
We Must Check Our ‘F’ Mistakes Are Piling Up Again
Take a look . We’re making the same kinds of mistakes over and over. Names. Numbers. Titles. We’re getting those, and other things, wrong.
This month has been especially busy. From reporters to producers to editors, it’s clear that we aren’t always double-checking the basics.
The result is that some great stories have corrections notes attached to them. That’s a shame.
- Be sure about “facts” you put into DACS, scripts, promos, blog posts or basically anything that could find its way onto our website or onto our airwaves. Remember, your keyboard is a live mic.
- Double- or triple-check everything, and never assume that the next person in the process is going to do it for you. If you write it, say it or approve it, you own it.
John Wooden, arguably the greatest men’s college basketball coach, would show his players . His point was that if they didn’t do those things correctly, they would get blisters — blisters that could put them on the bench and hurt the team.
. But we’re also getting too many blisters.
(“M” July 18, 2017)
Let’s Not Leave Alaska Off The Continent
If we refer to Washington, D.C., and the 48 states that are south of Canada as being the “continental United States,” we’re leaving something rather large out of the picture.
Alaska is, after all, part of the North American continent.
The states south of Canada are within the “contiguous United States.”
Or, and this is a word that not even Korva has ever used on the air, they are “conterminous.” (Think she can do it?)
(“M” July 5, 2017)
Hate Speech Is Offensive Too: Some Thoughts And Guidance
We worry about references to bodily parts and bodily functions. We obsess about which of the various uses of the word “ass” have to be bleeped. We wonder why “effing” is OK but the F-word isn’t. We give our audience warnings before they hear such words, as well as many others.
Then, sometimes without much discussion beforehand, we in the media print or broadcast comments from those who engage in what most people would agree is hate speech.
We do not want to sanitize such comments or shield the audience from them if they are important to our stories. We do, though, want to give the question of whether to include hate speech in our reports the same sort of careful thought that we give to other forms of offensive language. The framing, for instance, has to be correct. Is a warning or other type of heads up needed? Is the audience owed an acknowledgement that what they heard is highly offensive? How should the speaker be challenged about what was just said?
The point is simple. Our position is that as a responsible broadcaster, NPR sets “a high bar on use of language that may be offensive to our audience.” If we’re going to be concerned about a mild oath or a scatological reference, we should be equally or more concerned about hate speech.
Talk with senior editors about such material and how it will be handled. The DMEs and/or Standards & Practices editor should be consulted as far as possible before broadcast or publication.
(“M” June 20, 2017)
Thanks For Getting So Many Things Right
When news is breaking, we tell listeners and readers that we’ll do our best to be accurate – but that it’s a developing story and some things that get reported may later turn out to have been wrong.
Wednesday’s shootings in Alexandria tested us again. From this vantage point, it looks like we did remarkably well. Some important things were kept in mind (and are important to remember for the next time):
We went to eyewitnesses and kept the discussions to “what did you see?”
We stuck close to the language that police officials and other authorities were using to report what was “known.” Rumors and comments beginning with “I’m hearing that …” weren’t passed along.
When the shooter’s name started to appear in other media, we worked our sources to confirm rather than go with what others were saying.
As the shooter’s Facebook page started to circulate, we tapped the expertise of our social media team to do what we could to verify it was his. And we were careful to use such words as “purported to be” when there was any smidgen of doubt.
We used our Visuals team to think through how to handle the videos and other material that were popping up on social media and other news sites.
Speaking of social media, we steered clear of unverified accounts – but followed what was being posted to get leads that we could run down ourselves.
We stuck with words such as “suspect” and “alleged” a little longer than many other outlets. That’s OK. It’s better to be cautious than to have to go back to correct.
There wasn’t unfounded speculation about a motive in our reports. We kept to the facts as they came in.
I’m surely missing many other important steps we took to keep things straight.
(“M” June 15, 2017)
Guidance: How To Handle Tweet Mistakes
Editor’s note on July 27, 2017:
to go to an updated special section about the do’s and don’t's of social media.
When a tweet containing verifiably incorrect information (beyond a minor typo or something easily corrected in a follow-up tweet or reply) goes out from an NPR account, here’s what to do:
1. Take a screenshot of the offending tweet,