Critique of USA Today's Life Section #4

          I'm going to change things up a bit with this weeks critique. Instead of discussing all the micro-editing issues, I will be discussing the macro-editing issues.  I at first skimmed over the paper as I usually do, then go back and read the stories that caught my eye first and read the rest last. I have picked two stories from this past week's edition to critique and macro-edit.
          In the first story, about actress Reese Witherspoon and her "jam-packed fall schedule," lacks substance. It is a basic interview with a celebrity about his or her current projects. The lede does not make sense whatsoever. "Reese Witherspoon has a jam-packed fall." Ok, where are the elements what, where, when, why and how? The second paragraph gives all these in back-up information style, but some of it should be answered in the lede, which is very cliche. The story is a basic informative interview. It lists Witherspoon's projects and how she is a mother, however there are points that have the author's opinion bleeding in. For example: "Unlike with some of her other more mature fare..." Who's to say it is mature and isn't? Is that not one's own opinion on what is mature and is not? I find a PG-13 film to be suitable for most, and a R-rated film to be mature. Some people find PG-13 to be mature. Again, its an opinion. There are no statements that can be considered libel. The author takes note to include Witherspoon's exact words even in mid-sentence, which is rather annoying. If it can be paraphrased, do so, if not quote it. There are quite a few holes in the story. Mainly it can be added to for it lacks substance and veers off the original subject, i.e. busy fall schedule to motherhood. There can be more added to about her other projects and more added to about her life as a mother. It was just to simple, it needs to be "filled in" for it is too short and choppy. Overall it is a basic story that gets the general idea across, but lacks more potential and interesting information.
          In the second story,  about the animated Star Wars television show, Rebels. We have here another cliche lede: Star Wars is in an Empire state of mind. I really just shook my head when I read this. The lede needs to be cut. The following paragraph should be the lede: "The nefarious galactic government that gave us Darth Vader, a couple of Death Stars, and a horde of marching At-Ats in George Lucas' original movie trilogy, returns in the new animated series Star Wars Rebels." This story does however get to the point as a preview and does not give any major spoilers, just small teasers to get readers and fans ready. However, the writer here, as in the other stories in the paper, plops quotes in mid-sentences instead of paraphrasing. If the writer did interview the  executive producer, or pulled it from a press release, there has to have been at least ONE good quote to actually use. The story is there, but like the Witherspoon story, it has potential to be more interesting and longer with more information. I would have suggested the writer contact fan groups, George Lucas, and others associated with the Star Wars franchise to get their say on the new animated show. veralp an ok story/preview.
           One final note, I know these USA Today writers are trying to keep it in present tense, but STOP USING SAYS and use SAID!

Critique of USA Today's Life Section #3

          This is a critique of the USA Today's Life section, Friday's paper.

          As with the first two critiques, the same things keep appearing. The writers use "says" instead of said. They try very hard to make it present tense, when they shouldn't. It just seems awkward. Another thing I noticed in the paper, is that they will have a direct quotation paragraph and not end with a quotation mark, and then the next paragraph is another direct quotation and it starts with the mark. I'm not sure if this is their style, but for one, it is rather annoying. Any direct quotation paragraph should end with the mark if the following one starts with the mark. Common sense.

          The main issue I had with this past week's paper, is that the stories are not well organized on the pages. The front page story is about Tony Bennet and Lady Gaga's duet album, which is being released next week. This was already covered on the Today Show, CBS Good Morning, and a few other newspapers/magazines. I understand that the USA ran the story because the album is about to be released, but  it's a bit old news, and should have gone on the third page. Also on the front page is a movie review of "This Is Where I Leave You." The review is a bad one, as are three of the four other reviews. The only good review is the 'Tracks" film review, which should be flipped with "This Is Where I Leave You," as it is a good review and people will read it and want to go see it, why put it on the second page? On the third page is a preview on the new series, "Gotham." This should have gone on the front page. One, it's a well-written preview, it doesn't give away spoilers, and it is on a brand-new show that has been said to be "the most promising new show this Fall." I would switch it with the Tony Bennet and Gaga story. 

         The rest of the paper is about travel, which is just the fourth and fifth pages. One of which is a feature story, which just describes and makes suggestions on "how to take romance on the road." To be honest, I only read half of it before saying, "I don't really care." 

Critique of USA Today's Life Section #2

          This is a critique of the Friday edition of USA Today's Life section. This will be my main focus date and section for the rest of the semester.
           As with last weeks critique, I did not find much wrong with the section's stories. There were again few typos and grammar mistakes throughout the section.
          One of the first mistakes I found wrong was on the the front page in the top sidebar tidbit. There is a hyphen between "Tony Award" and "and,"when there shouldn't be one. Also, in the same tidbit, the writer has capitalized "Main Stem", when it should be lowercased.
           The next mistakes/issues I found were in the main article previewing 'The Roosevelts' documentary. The lead is of one sentence, then a new paragraph starts backing up the one sentence. I think there should not be a new paragraph, as it should be with the one sentence. Following this, there is phrases in the third paragraph that aren't needed, I.E. "which in typical Burns fashion..." and "...once again, we and PBS are all the better for it." These two phrases don't add anything to the preview. Next, in the fifth paragraph, it has a sentence: "What makes the Roosevelt's important is that Teddy, FDR and Eleanor didn't just watch that transformation, they drove it." This lead me to ask a question: Is this a quote from the documentary? From the director or writer of the documentary? From the reporter? It reads like a quote, looks like a quote, seems to be a quote. Finally the only other typo/mistake I found was there was no space between a quotation mark and the word "so." The main article read more like book review rather than a TV documentary preview. It lacked quotes from the creator and from the crew/people that made it.
           On the second and third pages, I didm;t come across much mistakes or typos. A total of maybe five/six mistakes total. On the second page, in the "Dolphin Tale 2" movie review, they put "Fla." as the abbreviation for Florida, when it should be FL according to AP Style. On the same page, the bottom theatre review story starts off with: "NEW YORK It's morning in America,..."
The correct way should be with a new starting paragraph after NEW YORK:
"NEW YORK
  It's morning in America,..."
          Next, is the High Heel Museum story. The museum exhibit is listed as being on display through Feb. 15. What year? 2015, 2016? 2031? There should be a year included in the date. Also, an attribution of a quote has the person's title before her name, and they again use "says." According to AP Style, the title should be after the name, and it should be "said," not "says." Finally, at the bottom of the third page, there is a story in regards to Frontier Airlines doing a repaint and redesign. I immediately had the question of "SO WHAT?" No offense, but I do not care whether or not they repainted their logo or not. These were the mistakes/issues I had with Friday's edition of the USA Today's Life section.

Critique of USA Today's Life Section #1

First, when I commented on Professor Morris' blog as to which paper and day I would be critiquing this semester, I chose the Life section of the USA Today's Friday edition. Well I did not pick up a Friday edition last week. I will be doing today's edition and start doing Friday's edition next week.

Over all the section had minimum grammar errors. However, I did find errors that were not written according to the AP Stylebook, or how I was taught to write news stories.  Throughout the paper, every story had issues with the quotations. Instead of using "said" as the attribution, the papers has "says, recalls, remembers," and in one story not even an attribution for a quote, which left me asking "Did this person say it or was it the other person mentioned in the story that said it?" I.E. Parental Advisory: Keith Writes a Book For Kids. 

Other factors I noticed were typos/design flaws. The last sentence of a quote had been separated into its own paragraph, and they did not have it punctuated correctly. I.E. Pregnant Kate is feeling 'pretty poorly', first quotation in the first column. Another issue is the using of someone's quote as part of the headline. Why do that? The Pregnant Kate story just seems to be bland when I read that headline. This also occurred on the second page story, 'Happy Energy,' causal style. There are other ways of writing better headlines than using someone's quote from the story. There was also an issue with both of the Richards stories. They begin off by stating NEW YORK and then the lead begins exactly after that. I.E. "NEW YORK Keith Richards knows exactly what you're thinking...." 

The correct way should be the following: 

NEW YORK

      Keith Richards knows exactly what you're thinking...

Other than this issues, the edition was fairly well written. Some stories however I think should have been put on the front page and a few put on the others. Pregnant Kate should have been on the second page while 'Happy Energy,' causal style should have been on the front with a jump to the second/third page. 

USA Today’s Corrections Statement/Policy #2

USA Today’s Corrections Statement:

Listed in Section A of the USA Today and on the paper’s site, is the Corrections & Clarifications Information:

“USA TODAY is committed to accuracy. To reach us, contact Standards Editor Brent Jones at 800-872-7073 or e-mail accuracy@usatoday.com. Please indicate whether you’re responding to content online or in the newspaper.”

On the paper’s site, under Corrections and Clarifications, it lists the same statement and then has recent corrections/clarifications that were made below the statement. Also, on the newspaper’s site, listed under Editorial Polices, it states the following:

“Accuracy guidelines and procedures for making clarifications and corrections are attached. Random, regular questionnaires are sent to sources identified in stories to assess accuracy and are shared with appropriate staffers.”

Under these Policies it also lists information about content, sources, attribution, datelines, bylines, taglines, quotes, freelancers, photo illustrations, and even a protocol on addressing other issues/problems. This other information under Editorial Polices is a basic guideline for the paper and it’s affiliations.

In other words, the paper relies on its editors and readers for corrections and clarifications, and is to contact the Standard’s Editor about the content in question. It then reviews the information and posts/prints the corrections and clarifies any other material. This in itself shows that the paper is willing to be as accurate as possible, and that they are willing/want to be honest and are respectful to its readers. 

USA Today’s Corrections Statement/Policy

USA Today’s Corrections Statement:

Listed in Section A of the USA Today and on the paper’s site, is the Corrections & Clarifications Information:

“USA TODAY is committed to accuracy. To reach us, contact Standards Editor Brent Jones at 800-872-7073 or e-mail accuracy@usatoday.com. Please indicate whether you’re responding to content online or in the newspaper.”

On the paper’s site, under Corrections and Clarifications, it lists the same statement and then has recent corrections/clarifications that were made below the statement. Also, on the newspaper’s site, listed under Editorial Polices, it states the following:

“Accuracy guidelines and procedures for making clarifications and corrections are attached. Random, regular questionnaires are sent to sources identified in stories to assess accuracy and are shared with appropriate staffers.”

Under these Policies it also lists information about content, sources, attribution, datelines, bylines, taglines, quotes, freelancers, photo illustrations, and even a protocol on addressing other issues/problems. This other information under Editorial Polices is a basic guideline for the paper and it’s affiliations.

In other words, the paper relies on its editors and readers for corrections and clarifications, and is to contact the Standard’s Editor about the content in question. It then reviews the information and posts/prints the corrections and clarifies any other material.

For more information: http://www.usatoday.com/editorial-policy/ & http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2013/01/09/corrections-clarifications/1821023/