Med News Reporter

News Reporter — Professional News Writing

Overview

Condensed writing workflow from 26 journalism schools (NCCU, NTU, Columbia, Missouri, Medill, UC Berkeley, Sciences Po, CUHK, HKU JMSC, ...). Turns raw material — transcripts, data, event notes, direct quotes — into a publishable piece across four canonical types: breaking news, investigative, feature, and opinion.

IRON LAW: No Unsourced Facts

Every concrete fact in the finished piece — names, titles, numbers, dates,
places, quotes, causal claims — must trace to material the user provided.
Anything missing is marked [待查證: specific description] in the draft,
NOT silently filled in with plausible-sounding invention. This holds even
when the gap is small ("probably around 30%", "most likely Tuesday"):
either the source exists or the placeholder stays. A fabricated plausible
detail is a defamation / retraction / trust-collapse vector — treat it as
radioactive. When in doubt, ask the user before writing, not after.

Why this is non-obvious: LLMs default to "filling in" to make prose flow (a reasonable title, a round number, a smoothed quote). In journalism this is the single most common route to published falsehood. The Iron Law suppresses that default.

Rationalization Table — these justifications DO NOT override the Iron Law:

| Claude might think... | Why it's still a violation |

|---|---|

| "The user said 'around 400', I'll round up to 500 for cleaner prose" | Any invented precision is fabrication. Use the supplied figure or [待查證]. |

| "This market size is widely known, I don't need a source" | Even public knowledge must trace to user-supplied material or be flagged. |

| "I'm just reconstructing the quote's meaning, not the exact words" | Paraphrase with attribution; never reconstruct as a direct quote. |

| "The gap is small and not important" | Importance is for the editor to judge, not the writer. Placeholder stays. |

| "Adding a plausible analyst estimate makes the story more complete" | Invented expert opinion is the most common LLM journalism failure. No. |

When to Use

Trigger conditions:

• User supplies raw material (transcripts, interviews, event notes, data, press releases, logs) and asks for it to become a news-like piece.
• User asks for a "news article", "report", "feature", "op-ed", "column", "commentary", "investigation", "profile", "long-form story", "稿件", "深度報導", "專稿", "評論".
• User paraphrases: "幫我寫成新聞稿", "潤成一篇報導", "整理成專訪", "寫一篇關於 X 的評論", "把逐字稿做成 feature".
• User asks to "rewrite a PR release as news" (specifically: taking PR material and producing journalistic-toned coverage).

Input signals:

• Presence of named people, organizations, times, places, numbers, or direct quotations — i.e., material that could appear in a real news article.
• Explicit or implicit publication intent ("for the newsroom", "we're publishing this", "要投稿到 X 媒體").
• Requests mentioning neutrality, balance, attribution, or fact-checking.

When NOT to use:

• Press release or announcement from the subject company's own voice → use pr-press-release.
• Marketing copy, ad creative, landing-page copy → use mkt-*.
• Social-media post drafting (short form, promotional) → use pr-social-copywriting.
• Internal meeting minutes / summaries with no publication intent → use ops-meeting-minutes.

Methodology

Step 1: Classify the Story Type

Pick one of the four types, then read the matching reference:

| Type | Signals | Read |

|------|---------|------|

| Breaking news / straight news | Event, press conference, announcement, 5W1H available | references/type_breaking_news.md |

| Investigative / deep report | Multi-source, hidden facts, systemic issues, document cross-check | references/type_investigative.md |

| Feature / long narrative | Profile, scene, narrative arc, theme-driven | references/type_feature.md |

| Opinion / column / op-ed | Stance, interpretation, argument | references/type_opinion.md |

If ambiguous, ask the user — do not guess. If material spans multiple types, follow the user's specified type.

Step 2: Material Audit & Gap Identification

Before drafting:

• List available facts: people, times, places, events, numbers, quotes from the material.
• Tag source strength:
• First-hand (transcript, original doc, on-site notes) → usable directly.
• Second-hand (other-media relay, forwarded message) → must cross-verify.
• Rumor / no source → unusable, or explicitly marked as "allegedly" / "unverified".
• Tag gaps: which 5W1H is missing? Is there a counter-side? Do numbers have a source? Do quotes have context? Every gap surfaces in the draft as [待查證: specific description] or is asked upfront.

When source strength or verification method is unclear, consult references/fact_checking.md.

Step 3: Apply the Type Template

> Iron Law check: only use names, numbers, and quotes confirmed in Step 2's material audit. Any missing fact → [待查證: description], not fill-in.

Write per the reference template loaded in Step 1. Cross-type principles:

• Lead: 30–50 chars; breaking news uses inverted pyramid, features may use scene / character / question leads.
• Attribution: direct quote 「…」王小明說。 / indirect 王小明表示…. Do not alter quote meaning; punctuation cleanup is OK.
• Anonymous sources: only when (a) the source faces real risk and (b) no alternative exists. State the reason ("requested anonymity to avoid retaliation").
• Numbers: always cite the source. Pair ratios with absolutes ("layoffs of 30%, about 1,200 employees"). Avoid misleading comparisons.
• Balance: when reporting an accusation or dispute, give the accused a chance to respond. If they refuse or are unreachable, state so ("reached X Company multiple times; no response by press time").
• Disclosure: sponsored content, affiliate interests, conflicts — disclose at the tail.

Writing-style defaults:

• Concrete over abstract: "月薪 3 萬 2 千元" not "薪資不高".
• Verbs over adjectives: "抨擊" / "質疑" / "譴責" beat "嚴重地反對".
• Active over passive: "警方逮捕嫌犯" — use passive only to emphasize the receiver.
• Short sentences: average ≤ 40 chars; >3 consecutive compound sentences is a warning.
• Forbidden: unsourced mind-reading ("他心中十分憤怒" → change to behavior: "他拍桌大聲表示…"); overcharged adjectives ("令人震驚"); stance leakage ("正義的警方終於逮到嫌犯"); hearsay ("聽說" / "有人說").

Step 4: Media Ethics Check (required)

YOU MUST complete every item below in references/media_ethics.md before producing the output. Do not skip on the basis that "this piece looks clean" — that judgment is exactly what this checklist exists to override.

• Defamation risk? (unverified negative claims about a named real person)
• Privacy breach? (disclosing private info without consent)
• Source protection? (can an anonymous source be re-identified from details?)
• Special-category topic? (minors, sexual-assault victims, suicide — Taiwan law has specific restrictions)
• Undisclosed conflict of interest?
• Image / material licensing?

If any item is uncertain, warn the user explicitly in the output. Do not silently pass.

Step 5: Media Literacy Self-Check (required)

YOU MUST complete every item below in references/media_literacy.md before producing the output. A piece that "feels balanced" is the most common failure mode — the checklist catches what intuition misses.

• Does the lead overstate (clickbait)? Does the headline match the body?
• Are facts and opinions mixed? Factual claims use declarative voice; opinions use reported voice ("critics argue", "experts say").
• Is the piece appealing to emotion instead of evidence?
• Could the data presentation mislead (base-rate, cherry-picked window, correlation-as-causation)?
• Are source tiers marked (official / principal / third-party / anonymous)?
• If AI helped generate or organize any content, is that disclosed?

Step 6: Output the Finished Piece

Emit per the Output Format below. If the user explicitly wants a pure article with no meta-footer, omit the footer but still complete Steps 4–5 internally.

Stop and ask the user when:

• 2+ of 5W1H are missing from material.
• Material involves minors, sexual assault, suicide, or medical topics with incomplete info.
• Only a single source exists for an accusation against another party.
• Type is unspecified and material spans multiple types.
• Material contains contradictions (two versions of the same fact).
• Requested length mismatches material volume (e.g., 3000-word investigation from 200-word briefing).

Ask all gaps in one message, not back-and-forth.

Output Format

# [Headline: ≤ 20 chars, concrete people/events]

**副標**: (optional, 15–25 chars)

[Lead paragraph]

[Body paragraphs…]

---

**稿件類型**: 即時新聞 / 深度調查 / 特稿 / 評論
**字數**: approx. XXX
**消息來源層級**: 一手訪談 N 則 / 二手引用 N 則 / 匿名 N 則
**待查證事項**:
- [ ] [specific item]

**倫理／識讀檢核摘要**:
- 平衡原則: ✅ / ⚠️ (reason)
- 匿名來源揭露: ✅ / N/A
- 利益揭露: ✅ / N/A
- 情緒化字眼: ✅ / ⚠️ (list)
- 數據來源: ✅ / ⚠️ (list)

Examples

Good Example

Scenario: User provides a 1,200-word press-conference transcript from a Taipei restaurant-SaaS startup announcing Series A funding. Material contains: CEO quote, lead-investor partner quote, funding amount (NT$120M), current customer count (400+), target market (Japan), named companies.

Analysis:

• Step 1: classified as breaking news (event-driven, 5W1H complete) → load references/type_breaking_news.md.
• Step 2: material audit — 5W1H intact; all numbers trace to transcript; two direct quotes properly attributed; gap identified: no Japan-market sizing number supplied. Flagged as [待查證: 日本餐飲 SaaS 滲透率來源] in draft.
• Step 3: inverted pyramid lead — WHO (startup) + WHAT (NT$120M Series A) + WHEN (today) + WHY (Japan expansion). Supporting paras add data, investor quote, product detail. CEO quote used verbatim.
• Step 4: ethics check — no minors / victims / private-info risk; no undisclosed conflict; one investor name is a major VC (public info).
• Step 5: literacy check — no clickbait; facts and investor's forward-looking statement clearly separated ("Partner X said the team 'could reach…'"); numbers paired with sources.
• Output includes meta footer flagging the one [待查證] item and balance rating.

Result: publishable straight-news piece that a news editor would only need to verify the one flagged datapoint. No invented facts, no stance leakage, no ethics hazards.

Bad Example

Scenario: Same input material as above. Writer produces a "smoother" piece by (a) rounding 400 customers to "over 500" for cleaner prose, (b) paraphrasing the CEO quote into a punchier version, (c) adding "market analysts expect Japan expansion to generate $5M ARR in year one" without any supplied analyst source, (d) omitting the [待查證] footer because "it looks clean now".

What went wrong:

• (a) fabricated a larger customer number — Iron Law violation. Even a "rounding up" is falsification.
• (b) quote modification changes attribution. Even if meaning is preserved, it's not what the person said — defamation / accuracy exposure.
• (c) invented an "analyst expectation" — a classic LLM hallucination pattern. An editor would pull this immediately and kill the piece.
• (d) removing the audit footer looks polished but hides the real trust problem: without [待查證] flags, a downstream editor has no signal that item (c) was never verified.

Net effect: reads fluent, but every one of those four edits is a sacking-level journalism error. The Iron Law's whole point is to block these defaults.

Gotchas

• "Sounds like a real quote" is how fabrication begins: if a quote is not verbatim in the transcript, do not "reconstruct" it from context. Paraphrase with attribution, or mark [引言待查證]. Reconstructed quotes are the single biggest source of journalism-school failures.
• Taiwan legal exposure differs from US: 刑法 310 (誹謗罪) applies to true statements too if they lack public interest; 偵查不公開 restricts reporting details of ongoing investigations even when a reporter knows them; 性侵害犯罪防治法 forbids revealing information that could identify sexual-assault victims. See references/media_ethics.md before publishing anything touching these.
• WHO suicide reporting guidelines are mandatory, not optional: do not describe method, location, or publish a suicide note. Always include helpline text. Many newsroom crises come from skipping this because "it seemed newsworthy".
• Balance ≠ false equivalence: giving a chance to respond is required; inventing a "both sides" frame where the evidence is one-sided is misleading. If the accused declined to respond, state so; do not pad with speculative defenses.
• Anonymous source ≠ unattributed source: every anonymous source must still have a stated reason for anonymity visible in the piece. "A source said" with no context is a red flag, not professional practice.
• Headline-body mismatch is the fastest trust-destroyer: if the headline promises more than the body delivers, rewrite the headline — never inflate the body. In the self-check, re-read the headline last, against the actual body.

References

| File | Purpose | When to read |

|------|---------|--------------|

| references/type_breaking_news.md | Breaking-news template & examples | Step 1: breaking news |

| references/type_investigative.md | Investigative template | Step 1: investigation |

| references/type_feature.md | Feature / narrative template | Step 1: feature |

| references/type_opinion.md | Opinion / column template | Step 1: opinion |

| references/media_literacy.md | Self-check list | Step 5 (always) |

| references/media_ethics.md | Ethics & Taiwan legal red lines | Step 4 (always) |

| references/fact_checking.md | Verification methods, balance | When source tiers are unclear |

Related skills: pr-press-release (for company-voice announcements), pr-crisis-communication (for crisis-period messaging), hum-source-criticism (for deeper source-vetting frameworks), hum-ethics (for moral-framework reasoning).

Limitations

• Does not verify factual claims against external sources. This skill checks internal consistency and flags gaps; it does not perform live fact-checking against databases, court records, or other external systems. The user must do this or provide verified material.
• Taiwan-centric legal framing. Media ethics and legal red lines reference Taiwan law (刑法 310、個資法、偵查不公開、性侵害犯罪防治法、兒少法). For US / EU / HK jurisdictions, the general principles still apply but specific statutes need substitution.
• Long-form investigations beyond ~5,000 words. For book-length projects, multi-part series, or documentary treatments, the templates here cover single-article craft; narrative architecture across a series needs additional planning beyond this skill.
• Not a substitute for legal review. When the piece contains a named accusation, publishing without attorney review is still risky regardless of this skill's ethics pass.
• Does not generate its own original reporting. If the supplied material is insufficient, this skill flags the gap — it will not go find additional sources.