I'm kind of surprised that few of you cited something that to me
stood out like a sore thumb: the fact that the cane-wielding victim was
almost 6 1/2 feet tall, while the would-be alleged robber he beat was
fit but not much over five feet tall and weighed less than half as much as the
victim.
Isn't that a Peanut Barrel-type of item?
Isn't that sharp contrast in size what takes an out-of-the-ordinary
robbery story (unusual in that the victim beat off the attacker) and
make it even more unique?
I'm not shocked that many
of you didn't weave it into your ledes, because to do that is doable
but a bit complex. I'm just surprised few few of you noted that bit of
interest.
Any explanations?
As
journalists, it's important that even when we are looking at what we
think is a routine event, that we are always on the lookout for
something that makes it a bit different and a bit more interesting. Even
if that bit of interest is buried in the nuances of a police report.
Some of you did, however, note the victim's disability-turned-advantage. This lede did that, smartly:
A man with a cane should not be underestimated.
No comments:
Post a Comment