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.
No comments:
Post a Comment