Reading Journal 9/14/2011

For this assignment I chose to compare two different concert reviews, the first, a NYT review of the Das Racist show on September 12, and the second, a Star Tribune review of a private Foo Fighters show held yesterday in Minnesota.

The Times piece, “Order Moves In On Chaos, As Rappers Go Legit,” by Jon Caramanica, seems very much like a singular expert’s opinion, which the author makes explicitly clear from the beginning. The basic argument he puts forward in his first few paragraphs, can be summarized in one sentence, “the members of Das Racist are going legit.” Caramanica asserts that Das Racist concerts in the past were frenzied and chaotic spectacles (he calls them “anti-concerts), but that as the band as evolved there’s been a discernable shift in their live performances. Unfortunately (or perhaps not, depending on how much you trust the author), Caramanica doesn’t even attempt to marshal in any outside evidence to back up his claim, but suggests instead that the reader is just going to have to rely on his word. Of their frenetic live shows, Caramanic writes, “It had to be believed to be seen.”

Going forward, Caramanica doesn’t really use any outside sources in this story: he doesn’t speak to any concertgoers to ask what they thought of the performance, interview the members of Das Racist, or even quote past reviews of the hip-hop outfit. What Caramanica does have going for him is an authoritative voice that commands respect from the reader, and he backs this up with strong details from the night of the concert. Caramnica makes the claim, for example, that, “The polyglot group also thrives when toying with its heavily white audience, acknowledging the tensions of inclusion and exclusion.” Here he reinforces that assertion with a comical anecdote from the show: “Midshow Mr. Suri asked the crowd to wish his cousin a happy birthday: ‘Can you various Americans say ‘Divya?’’ The Crowd chuckled, and the D.J. reminded them: ‘W-W-W-White demons.’ Laughs all around.”

I think that in the specific case of music reviews that are written in this style, from the vantage point of an ‘expert’, a lack of outside evidence/opinions can be compensated for if the author really asserts him/herself from the beginning as someone the reader can trust, but again that’s not always easy to do.

By comparison the Star Tribune review “Foo Fighters pick core crowd for apple orchard gig in White Bear Lake” is written in a completely different style. The tone, as one could rightfully assume from the corny headline, is incredibly informal.

The lede is, “The winners didn't know the location until the van came to pick them up. Even 93X's longtime program director Wade Linder -- who will have a lot less friends once they find out he didn't hook them up -- swears he also was kept out of the loop.” In this case, we can tell from the lede that the tone of the article will be very casual, but the focus of the piece is on the experience of the lucky winners who were chosen to attend this intimate concert, not the voice of the author. The author doesn’t even really devote any time to talking about the Foo Fighters as a band, or what their music is like, he really only covers how “cool” the experience was for people who attended.

“"It was such an intimate performance; I was just entranced the whole time," gushed Cool, who sounded even more impressed of what happened afterward. Like when Foo frontman Dave Grohl "photo-bombed" some lucky girls posing for a friend (jumping in the background behind them with his middle finger raised).” While I guess this is a noteworthy detail given the angle of the piece, I’m not particularly impressed with hearing about how Dave Grohl photobombed a couple of teenagers. It’s probably a good thing that the article doesn’t dig much deeper, because based on what I’ve read so far I wouldn’t trust the author farther than I could throw him, and I certainly wouldn’t want to hear his opinions about whether the band’s performance was a departure from past shows, or if they’re continuing to evolve as a band.

Reading Journal 9/7/2011

For our first blog assignment I decided to focus on how different papers and journalists tackle ledes, because they’re one of the most important parts of a news story, and also because I’m not very good at writing them. Ledes are crucial to a story not only because they set the tone for the entire article, but also because they’re responsible for catching the reader’s attention (or not!), and if a reader isn’t interested in your lede they’re not going to bother to read the rest of your story.

What I noticed in a lot of the front page stories from The New York Times throughout the past week, was that although they obviously differed widely in content, many of the ledes they employed shared a similar formula. The author would begin with some kind of an assertion that seemed pretty logical and straightforward, and then immediately either contradict it, or give the reader some version of “but this is what is happening instead...”

An article on the front page of the Times today, begins this way: “DAMASCUS, Syria – As protests broke out across a restive Syria on a recent Sunday, and crowds were dispersed yet again by gunfire that left many dead, the conversation dwelled not on the uprising but rather on nails, along with the choice of polish and hair color and the latest in makeup trends.” I think this is an effective lede because it surprises the reader (we don’t expect an article that begins with news of violence and rebellion to segue into nail polish and makeup), and also sets up the rest of the article.

The story continues on in the next paragraph: “It does not take long to realize that there is a disconnect between Damascus and the rest of Syria.” I really liked the way this author introduced the story, and thought there was a smooth transition from an anecdote about Syrian life, into harder news. My only concern with it was that the bit about the makeup and nail polish could maybe have been perceived by readers as a slightly trivializing introduction into a story, that there really wasn’t anything cute about.

Another article in the Times, below that one, starts off with a similarly structured lede: “Here’s a back-to-school math problem: There are 62 kindegarten seats at the Trinity School this fall, and 756 children wanted them. What percentage made the cut?” The author lets you consider these odds for a second or two before going on: “The answer seems straightforward: 8.2 percent. But private school admissions are hardly straightforward.” Again, I liked how the lede teases the reader with a piece of startling information that grabs their attention, but also sets an appropriate tone for an article which is about changing practices of nepotism at private schools.