More Ledes: The Peanut Barrel Rule

There's nothing wrong with this lede. But it's still missing something. Here it is:

A 22-year-old man was killed in a car accident earlier this morning after veering to avoid a dog in the road, according to police.

Technically, it's correct. But let's consider something I call the Peanut Barrel Rule.

Here it is: Let's say you work at The State News, and one night you wrote this story for The State News and then headed down to the Peanut Barrel to meet friends who DON'T work at The State News and who don't particularly give a shit about journalism for a legal drink or two afterward.

So, you're there with your non-journo pals and then they asked you what you wrote about today. What would you say? More importantly, what would be first to come out of your mouth?

"Uh, well I wrote something abut a dude who got killed when he swerved his car to miss a doggie in the road."

I don't think so. What I think you'd say would be something like this:

"Dude, this was so effed up I don't believe it! Some guy was driving his car all crazy fast so he could make it to his wedding, but he CRASHED and DIED! On his WEDDING DAY! Soo effed up."

I really do think you'd certainly include the wedding angle. That's what made this crash unique and especially poignant and tragic.

If it's a fact or angle that would pass the Peanut Barrel test, then it's a good fact or angle for a lede. If your proposed lede doesn't pass Peanut Barrel muster, then try again until it does.

Obviously, you need to clean it up a bit for print. But the basics would remain the same: A 22-year-old man speeding at 100 mph crashed his car and died, just 10 minutes before his wedding was to begin. 

Again, I can't say your lede was incorrect. Clearly, it passes factual muster. But is it really complete? No. It misses context, like calling 9/11 just a plane crash.