We had a few people end up writing ledes that really didn't get to the gist of the story: ones that centered on the legal debate on whether to allow cell phone use while driving, for example.
But that's not what the story was about. This lede I thought summed up the central point nicely:
A representative who opposes the banning of cell phone usage while driving caused a car crash Thursday evening while discussing postponing a vote on the bill.
Now, was that evident in the material you had to read? No. It was overstuffed with secondary and nebulous crap. And that was by design.
Rarely -- if ever -- is a news story easy and immediate to identify. Most of the time, you have to sift and root through information (much of which is irrelevant or secondary in nature) to find what is the latest happening, ultimate outcome and/or what is of most interest/relevance/utility.
So you had the info about Constance Wei trying to block a cell phone driving ban. You had some background on a fatal accident that prompted sponsorship of the bill. You have that Wei was driving and talking on the phone about that very same bill when she got into an accident. And you have there were minor injuries in the accident.
A lot of that info was there to distract you, just like in real life you'd go through a ton of info to get to what mattered. Your job was to take a full accounting of what you have, fix in on what was most newsworthy, and discard the rest.
And I think what was most unique,most immediate, most contextual and best adhered to the Peanut Barrel rule was what the aforementioned lede focused upon.
It's like having to find a needle in a haystack. It's hard, yes. But that's the job. Readers don't need us to tell the easy stories; they need us to cut through the clutter and report the hard tales.
But that's not what the story was about. This lede I thought summed up the central point nicely:
A representative who opposes the banning of cell phone usage while driving caused a car crash Thursday evening while discussing postponing a vote on the bill.
Now, was that evident in the material you had to read? No. It was overstuffed with secondary and nebulous crap. And that was by design.
Rarely -- if ever -- is a news story easy and immediate to identify. Most of the time, you have to sift and root through information (much of which is irrelevant or secondary in nature) to find what is the latest happening, ultimate outcome and/or what is of most interest/relevance/utility.
So you had the info about Constance Wei trying to block a cell phone driving ban. You had some background on a fatal accident that prompted sponsorship of the bill. You have that Wei was driving and talking on the phone about that very same bill when she got into an accident. And you have there were minor injuries in the accident.
A lot of that info was there to distract you, just like in real life you'd go through a ton of info to get to what mattered. Your job was to take a full accounting of what you have, fix in on what was most newsworthy, and discard the rest.
And I think what was most unique,most immediate, most contextual and best adhered to the Peanut Barrel rule was what the aforementioned lede focused upon.
It's like having to find a needle in a haystack. It's hard, yes. But that's the job. Readers don't need us to tell the easy stories; they need us to cut through the clutter and report the hard tales.
No comments:
Post a Comment