Police say....(attributing)

[ISTHISTHINGON?]

...or Authorities say, or etc.
If you've got 20-30 seconds to tell a story....take a murder....do you attribute by saying "Police say" or "Sheriff John Doe says".
Basically, I'm curious if you actually use a name for detail, or just a generic "authorities say" type style?

[newz2me]

I don't understand the question. If you only had 20-30 seconds how much more time would it take to actually say the person's name instead of authorities say? A half a scecond more? Does he have a 15 syllable name or something?
Either way, using a general "authorities say" is rather cliche and overly abused. If you have a name attribute your info to that name.

[Diplomat]

Do all these "authorities" and "officials" sit in a room and "say" all day?

[adam & doctor drew]

yes, especially when they're "speaking out."

[John M.]

Either way, using a general "authorities say" is rather cliche and overly abused. If you have a name attribute your info to that name.

I disagree. If you're reporting accusations police have made against someone, a viewer doesn't need the attribution to a specific person and it will make your copy sound cumbersome to include it.

TAMPA POLICE SAY JIM BOB WORTHERMILLER ATTACKED HIS NEIGHBOR WITH TOENAIL CLIPPERS DURING AN ARGUMENT.

TAMPA POLICE SPOKESPERSON LAURA MCELROY SAYS THAT JIM BOB WORTHERMILLER ATTACKED HIS NEIGHBOR WITH TOENAIL CLIPPERS DURING AN ARGUMENT.

But either one is better than the useless "allegedly." Not only is it not conversational, it's not the safeguard from libel too many people think it is.

[Sultanosurf]

...or Authorities say, or etc.
If you've got 20-30 seconds to tell a story....take a murder....do you attribute by saying "Police say" or "Sheriff John Doe says".
Basically, I'm curious if you actually use a name for detail, or just a generic "authorities say" type style?

Give the most details you have, especially if it's the actual sheriff. And if they were to talking to you, it's not self-aggrandizing to say it, it's simply another validation on the information chain for the viewer.

Even when you use 'sources' (Which is usually to protect a source that wants to remain anonymous) you need to say 'a source/or sources inside the ____ PD, or attorney's office' or whatever.

Simply using 'authorities say' or 'sources say' is too vague.

[ISTHISTHINGON?]

I don't understand the question. If you only had 20-30 seconds how much more time would it take to actually say the person's name instead of authorities say? A half a scecond more? Does he have a 15 syllable name or something?

I ask because I see all the stations in my market(including mine) using the generic "Police say Joe Smo is the triggerman. They say he went into the store and shot the clerk " to show attribution.
Obviously, that's just an example...but the debate I'm hearing is that there's no need to use someone's name(who told you the info by interview/press release/etc) because the public doesn't know who they are, or adds too much wordage. That simply saying 'police say' is enough.
I seem to remember being taught to add the most 'credibility' you can to a story.....and to hear 'police say' to me doesn't really sound very concrete.
As Sultan kind of eluded to...."sources say" isn't really enough(to me). It sounds tabloidish. And if "sources say" sounds tabloidish.....'police say' isn't too far behind when looking at the immediate credibility. Thanks for the insight my friends.:)

[Diggin' Bear]

I've always gone by a simple rule: after you write 'police say' in the first or lead and establish an identity as to who is leading the investigation, I'd try to vary the identifier.

Such as:

investigators
police
detectives
officers

....you get the idea. I rarely used a specific officer's name and NEVER a spokeperson's name unless there was a real reason to do so.

[overthehill]

From Journalism 101:

Basic Attribution Rules:

MUST ATTRIBUTE

---All opinion and controversial statements from newsmakers/sources
---Events or situations in which the writer does not have eyewitness knowledge

MAY ATTRIBUTE

---To add credibility/authenticity
---To protect the writer/reporter/broadcaster/media outlet
---To protect the newsmaker in your story
---To avoid confusion in your story over who said what

NO ATTRIBUTION NECESSARY

---When the information can be independently verified or several sources say exactly the same thing

---Some “common sense” events and information do not need attribution

Bottom line re: attribution to specific names in broadcast copy.
--Does the addition of the name (Sheriff Bob Jones, Detective John Smith) help the understanding of the story or add more credibility/believability?

[Sultanosurf]

And we super the Pope, right? (Kidding)

[Jane Craig]

Preferably a double decker:

Benedict XVI
Pope

[Another side]

I was told early in my career never to use "authorities" because it implies government officials are on a higher, more vaulted plain than the readers. And I stuck by that.

The problem I have with "police say" is that it suggests more than one ... while identifying none of them.

My view is, always be as precise as possible and time permits, and names take a priority.

And as far as "alleged" (or variations, i.e. "reportedly" "accused") two observations, both arguable: (a) Many law enforcement agencies (and prosecutors) now include the term in press releases and public statements, and (b) using "allegedly" won't guarantee protection against a libel suit succeeding ... but it won't hurt your case either. While it would'n't be wise to write or report, "Joe Smith was arrested today for robbing the First National Bank" in the absence of a jury verdict convicting him of "robbing the First National Bank," I'm aware it's written or said frequently.

And it's a terrible habit to get in to and could one day bite you right in the butt. My advice would be to always protect yourself and your employer -- attribute when you can, and use "alleged" and its semantic cousins liberally -- because it's the truth: the arrestee has only been "accused" and the charges against him are only "alleged." And while "the truth" is no longeer an absolute defense, either, it's still best to try and stick to it.

[Sigonfile]

"unconfirmed, reliable, sources, that wish to remain anonymous, have told me..."

[Consider This]

Preferably a double decker:

Benedict XVI
Pope

Close. You should clarify what he is pope of in the second line.

;)

[adam & doctor drew]

"unconfirmed, reliable, sources, that wish to remain anonymous, have told me..."

I once saw a sports guy say, on air, "Coach so-and-so told me off the record...."

[Sultanosurf]

The words "allegedly" and "reportedly" should never appear in your copy. Ever. Government press releases include the word because they're written as poorly as much broadcast copy ...

There's a difference between allegedly and allege, which is still a great word in proper context. And don't even get me started on media releases from cop shops. it's usually better, but not always, in larger markets. But half the time 'details are scarce' (Like that one?) in the actual release so you've gotta call the IO, which seems counter-productive all around. S'OK, you couldn't pay me enough for that job. Which is probably why the problems exist...

Close. You should clarify what he is pope of in the second line.

;)

Then the anchor can further reference - "That guy there, the one in the tall hat. Behind all the supers..."


BTW, it's always good to see some dialog on actual media issues...

[photogguy]

But either one is better than the useless "allegedly." Not only is it not conversational, it's not the safeguard from libel too many people think it is.

You're joking, right?

There's this little document, the Constitution, that says "innocent until proven guilty".

If a newsroom doesn't throw in "allegedly" in a script before a jury convicts the person, they're setting themselves up for a lawsuit.

[Spike]

If a newsroom doesn't throw in "allegedly" in a script before a jury convicts the person, they're setting themselves up for a lawsuit.

I don't think John was suggesting that you accuse someone of a crime. He was saying that it's better to attribute the claim to a person or organization than to use the word allegedly.

And he's right. Allegedly doesn't tell us who is doing the alleging. The word, by itself, is not an attribution. At most all it tells the viewer is that you're spreading something that you claim to have heard elsewhere. It's weak. Further, many people in your audience have no idea what the word actually means. Ironically, since they usually hear it in connection with accusations made against people, and since it has an "official" sound to it, the effect of the word is often to make you sound more accusatory rather than less so.

I have no problem attributing charges or claims to a specific police department rather than to an individual. Usually the cop is speaking for the department as the department's agent. What the cop says IS what the department says. For example, if a detective accuses a man of murdering someone, he's usually not accusing him as a private individual, but as a representative of his department. You should make it clear which department is doing the alleging.

You should never use "authorities say," because you haven't identified which authorities. If a city police officer tells you a suspect murdered his wife, he is speaking on behalf of his department. He is NOT speaking on behalf of generic "authorities." He is not speaking on behalf of the sheriff's department, or the state police, or police in another city. He is not speaking as anyone's agent except for his own department. Thus, if you just say "authorities say," you haven't really attributed anything.

[John M.]

The words "allegedly" and "reportedly" should never appear in your copy. Ever.

(a) Many law enforcement agencies (and prosecutors) now include the term in press releases and public statements, and (b) using "allegedly" won't guarantee protection against a libel suit succeeding ... but it won't hurt your case either.

If "allegedly" is your defense in a libel suit, don't worry. You don't have a case.

Government press releases include the word because they're written as poorly as much broadcast copy -- probably by ex-TV newsies whose careers failed because of too liberal use of words like allegedly.

Police do not arrest someone for allegedly (or reportedly) robbing a bank. They arrest someone because they have enough evidence to believe the person did it.

Please don't misinterpret that to mean that I'm saying you don't have to attribute the charges to a source. You do. I'm saying that the words "allegedly" and "reportedly" don't do that for you. All they do is clog your copy with non-conversational garbage.

"Police believe..." "the Prosecutor says..." or "Joe Smith faces charges of..." aren't perfect but they will shield you and they're much closer to words people might actually utter.

[s'news]

You're always wise to attribute. There's no such thing as over-attribution.

[Diggin' Bear]

I was told early in my career never to use "authorities" because it implies government officials are on a higher, more vaulted plain than the readers. And I stuck by that.
Absolutely. I hate the word because NOBODY talks like that.

"Say, Mary...let's call the AUTHORITIES on those thugs over there, shall we?"

The problem I have with "police say" is that it suggests more than one ... while identifying none of them.

Legally speaking, police are one. Same with indictments, even though a grand jury is normally 18, fine, upstanding citizens. As in, "The grand jury indicted so and so today..."

My view is, always be as precise as possible and time permits, and names take a priority.

Depends. If I'm writing about a golf tournament, it's important to talk about who shot 68. If it's a police story, I'll write 'police say' and let the super identify whoever is acting as the talking head.

And as far as "alleged" (or variations, i.e. "reportedly" "accused") two observations, both arguable: (a) Many law enforcement agencies (and prosecutors) now include the term in press releases and public statements, and (b) using "allegedly" won't guarantee protection against a libel suit succeeding ... but it won't hurt your case either.
I have no problem with anything here.

While it would'n't be wise to write or report, "Joe Smith was arrested today for robbing the First National Bank"
I'd throw this out and rewrite it for one reason: it's passive. The sentence should read:

'Police arrested Joe Smith today, or, a Pittsburg man stands accused of, or, a Prince George County man is in jail tonight, accused of robbing a bank,' ....

...or any attributed product thereof. I know it sounds picky, but S-V-O makes the copy move better, and it's not false present tense.

And it's a terrible habit to get in to and could one day bite you right in the butt. My advice would be to always protect yourself and your employer -- attribute when you can, and use "alleged" and its semantic cousins liberally -- because it's the truth: the arrestee has only been "accused" and the charges against him are only "alleged." And while "the truth" is no longeer an absolute defense, either, it's still best to try and stick to it.

Yup. You're right.

[Sultanosurf]

'Police arrested Joe Smith today, or, a Pittsburg man stands accused of, or, a Prince George County man is in jail tonight, accused of robbing a bank,'

Problems there, since you wanna write how people talk up top, then give us 'stands accused' which nobody says, and isn't fully descriptive. Is he standing? Nah, probably kickin' it on a bunk. And he is the accused, but isn't it more technically correct to tell the viewer he's charged with robbing the bank?

If experience serves, in some states, being accused is legally the same as being charged, but not in all. And knowing the actual charge, or knowing whether a charge has actually even been filed, is just as important in protecting your ass legally as it is in relaying it to the viewer.

[Another side]

I agree with some of both of your points (Diggin' Bear ... Sultan):

*The super would identify the spokesperson, so the use of "police say" would be appropriate;

*Active voice is ALWAYS better than passive;

*There's a world of difference between "arrested" and "charged," and new reporters working their first few crime stories frequently confuse the terms.

[Diggin' Bear]

*There's a world of difference between "arrested" and "charged," and new reporters working their first few crime stories frequently confuse the terms.
You could write a chapter on that one. You have no idea how many arguments I had with producers when we saw a guy taken into custody but had no confirmation if they were a witness or a potential suspect. So, when I wrote the words 'potential suspect' they wanted to change it to something far more definitive.

Ugh.

[ISTHISTHINGON?]

*The super would identify the spokesperson, so the use of "police say" would be appropriate;

What if it's just a VO....no interview so no super. Would you use "Police say" or "Lt. John Doe says" or is the overall thought that you don't need to use the name of the person who gave the info?

[Diggin' Bear]

What if it's just a VO....no interview so no super. Would you use "Police say" or "Lt. John Doe says" or is the overall thought that you don't need to use the name of the person who gave the info?

For a vo, we'd likely write 'police say' in the script for attribution, then use a three-line super with a snipe.

cg=Update/Police Accuse Man of Murder/Hooterville

[Spike]

What if it's just a VO....no interview so no super. Would you use "Police say" or "Lt. John Doe says" or is the overall thought that you don't need to use the name of the person who gave the info?

As long as you identify which police department, there's no need to identify the individual, because the individual is an agent of the police department and can speak on the department's behalf. As long as he's in that uniform, what the officer says IS what the department says.

[Head Janitor]

You're always wise to attribute. There's no such thing as over-attribution.

Have to disagree. One of my reporters loves to attribute everything.

"Jennifer says she loves to ride her bike." What, are you worried she's lying?

"Police say this is a heinous crime!" Don't even get me started on this one.

"Sheriff Smith says he's never seen storm damage like it!" Once again, why do we need to say it, when he can.

[ISTHISTHINGON?]

Have to disagree. One of my reporters loves to attribute everything.

"Jennifer says she loves to ride her bike." What, are you worried she's lying?

"Police say this is a heinous crime!" Don't even get me started on this one.

"Sheriff Smith says he's never seen storm damage like it!" Once again, why do we need to say it, when he can.
These examples are not questionable or dangerous to write. Actually, it's just plain poor writing. We're talking more along the lines of something that can get you sued. But we have one of those writers here too;) .

[Another side]

What if it's just a VO....no interview so no super. Would you use "Police say" or "Lt. John Doe says" or is the overall thought that you don't need to use the name of the person who gave the info?

My view is, particularly in crime/police stories, you attribute to a name whenever possible.

[Another side]

As long as you identify which police department, there's no need to identify the individual, because the individual is an agent of the police department and can speak on the department's behalf. As long as he's in that uniform, what the officer says IS what the department says.

Please don't follow this advice. It's categorically untrue and a reckless approach to police/crime coverage -- not all officers in uniform are authorized to speak on the department's behalf.

That doesn't mean you take the department's official statment at face-value -- if your instincts tell you there's more to the story, then pursue your sources within the department and return to the chief/spokesperson with questions about the information you've acquired anonymously or off the record.

But please don't believe every officer in uniform is entitled to speak on behalf of the entire department. It's simply not true.

[Another side]

Have to disagree. One of my reporters loves to attribute everything.

"Jennifer says she loves to ride her bike." What, are you worried she's lying?

"Police say this is a heinous crime!" Don't even get me started on this one.

"Sheriff Smith says he's never seen storm damage like it!" Once again, why do we need to say it, when he can.

Because you can't always use all the SOTs you want.

Your first example sound like a feature lead and, to me, it works (depending, naturally on where it goes from there) and is not offered for fact or determination of "truth."

The second shouldn't be allowed in news of any sort, print or broadcast. It's worthless.

The third screams for attribution, and if you can't attribute it there's no point in using it.

[Another side]

For a vo, we'd likely write 'police say' in the script for attribution, then use a three-line super with a snipe.

cg=Update/Police Accuse Man of Murder/Hooterville

To each his own ... but I'm not a fan of three-line supers.

[Diggin' Bear]

The third screams for attribution, and if you can't attribute it there's no point in using it.
Heck, if you don't show the video for this one and let the viewer decide from themselves, you might as well do radio!

[Spike]

Please don't follow this advice. It's categorically untrue and a reckless approach to police/crime coverage -- not all officers in uniform are authorized to speak on the department's behalf.

Under the law governing agent-principal relationships, a uniformed officer has apparent authority to act on behalf of his department. If he exceeds his actual authority by speaking, that's the department's problem. If they try to come back to you and complain, "He wasn't authorized to speak!", you might remind them that they should provide better training and discipline to their employees.

Whether you believe any particular officer is a matter of your own journalistic judgment. But this thread was about attribution. You can attribute the words of an individual officer to the department as a whole because the individual officer, acting in his capacity as a police officer, is an agent of the department and can legally stand in for his principal.

[Another side]

Under the law governing agent-principal relationships, a uniformed officer has apparent authority to act on behalf of his department. If he exceeds his actual authority by speaking, that's the department's problem. If they try to come back to you and complain, "He wasn't authorized to speak!", you might remind them that they should provide better training and discipline to their employees.

Whether you believe any particular officer is a matter of your own journalistic judgment. But this thread was about attribution. You can attribute the words of an individual officer to the department as a whole because the individual officer, acting in his capacity as a police officer, is an agent of the department and can legally stand in for his principal.

"Under the law govern ... blah, blah, blah ..."

The bottom line is, you want to get it right and accurate the first time. You don't flirt with the possibility of having to to go back and tell them it was THEIR fault you got it wrong or discuss legal principals or who's an agent or who's got proper training or who didn't.

And you don't have to. All you have to do is speak with someone authorized to provide the information. It's not that difficult.

[Another side]

Heck, if you don't show the video for this one and let the viewer decide from themselves, you might as well do radio!

Ha! Good point.

[Diggin' Bear]

"Under the law govern ... blah, blah, blah ..."

The bottom line is, you want to get it right and accurate the first time. You don't flirt with the possibility of having to to go back and tell them it was THEIR fault you got it wrong or discuss legal principals or who's an agent or who's got proper training or who didn't.

And you don't have to. All you have to do is speak with someone authorized to provide the information. It's not that difficult.

It depends on what you're referring to. Both of you are actually correct. The question is: when do you stop after you talk to a cop on the beat?

If it's a traffic accident or a crime and he's talking about something on the scene, you're reasonably well protected, as long as that officer represented himself as the point of contact.

If you're talking about departmental policy and a street cop gives you his take on it - especially those sensitive kind of policies - you're better off checking with the higher ups.

[Spike]

"Under the law govern ... blah, blah, blah ..."

The bottom line is, you want to get it right and accurate the first time. You don't flirt with the possibility of having to to go back and tell them it was THEIR fault you got it wrong or discuss legal principals or who's an agent or who's got proper training or who didn't.

And you don't have to. All you have to do is speak with someone authorized to provide the information. It's not that difficult.

I didn't suggest otherwise. As I've written repeatedly, and you seem unable to grasp, I was talking about ATTRIBUTION.

Jesus, can you get any more dense?

[Another side]

Same old blowhard. Some things never change.

This is what you said:

As long as you identify which police department, there's no need to identify the individual, because the individual is an agent of the police department and can speak on the department's behalf. As long as he's in that uniform, what the officer says IS what the department says.

And what I said was you shouldn't attribute just anyone in uniform on the basis because he's in uniform he's also an agent and approved spokeperson for the department. That's just ludicrous.

I'm not dense at all. I tend to let most of your strange ravings pass and I even chuckle from time to time when others fall for your bombastic, arrogant, presumptious takes on every topic under the sun.

The problem you and I have is that I know you are a fraud, you know I know you are a fraud, and you know you are a fraud. You've got others conned or bullied -- I'm not one of them.

The fact is, not every officer on a department is authorized to speak for the department or even the inident in which the media is interested. That's never been how it works, and is not how it works today. It's really that simple.

[Spike]

And what I said was you shouldn't attribute just anyone in uniform on the basis because he's in uniform he's also an agent and approved spokeperson for the department. That's just ludicrous.

I did not suggest that. What's ludicrous are your reading comprehension skills.

[Sultanosurf]

You can attribute the words of an individual officer to the department as a whole because the individual officer, acting in his capacity as a police officer, is an agent of the department and can legally stand in for his principal.

Wow, are you really suggesting that as a plausible path?

[Spike]

Wow, are you really suggesting that as a plausible path?

I am saying that it is not necessarily necessary to name an individual officer in every story because attributing the information to the officer's specific department accomplishes the same thing. Might you want to attribute to the individual officer in some situations? Sure. Might it be desirable to attribute to generic "authorities"? Never.

But there is no proscription on attributing an officer's words to his specific department, because the officer is an agent of that department and, in the absence of specific information otherwise, is presumed to have authority to speak for that department. Otherwise, why would you be speaking to him in the first place? Unless it's a situation where the cop has something newsworthy to say as an individual that runs counter to the department's position, in most cases you'll be looking for the guy who does have the authority to speak on behalf of the department.

[Sultanosurf]

Wow, again, problems, even with all the verbiage.

A-S refuted it well. There's no way you can have a blanket rule to attribute one patrol officer's take as representative of a whole department. Maybe on an incidental basis, but on broader issues? Not only are you risking having unverified info, but you're also risking your working relationship with that department. There's a reason departments have IOs, just like we have standards.

I've had police say things I had to use that I knew was gonna make them look bad, but it's not a good habit. (That includes a Deputy Chief who headed their Information Office, who went off on such a borderline illegal tirade on a suspect that I had to ask if he really wanted it on record, and was stunned when he said hell, yeah) Our job isn't to cover their ass, but I can damn well reassure you there'll be some heated moments if you start playing cowboy outside their chain.

So on two fronts, I don't think what you're advising works.

[Consider This]

But there is no proscription on attributing an officer's words to his specific department, because the officer is an agent of that department and, in the absence of specific information otherwise, is presumed to have authority to speak for that department.

Dude, you're getting killed on this one.

And using words like proscription aren't going to save you.

[Spike]

There's no way you can have a blanket rule to attribute one patrol officer's take as representative of a whole department.

I didn't say that. Do you and AS think that repeatedly attributing things to me that I didn't say will help you win the internet?

[Sultanosurf]

I didn't say that. Do you and AS think that repeatedly attributing things to me that I didn't say will help you win the internet?

No, and I think you have good intentions, but hopefully people are following a different path.

Hey, I work in this business. I know just how wrong I can be. Plus I've got kids, who tend to remind you daily...