Police: Peanut Barrel Rule

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.

Robbery: The Peanut Barrel Rule, Revisited

There were plenty of decent ledes in the ROBBERY exercise. You made some good decisions on how to best use the space you were allotted in creating the highest and best ledes possible.

But some were better than others. Let's look at this one:

A 22-year-old college student was fired from his job for having a gun in the store against company policy.


This is factually correct. And it does go to end result in one sense; that he got fired. But it missed end result in another sense: that a man was killed. And it fails to grasp context: not just that he was fired for having a gun, but that he was fired for having a gun that he used to kill a man while defending himself.


Think about the Peanut Barrel rule: would you first tell friends that a man was fired for having a gun at work, or that he was fired for having a gun at work that he used to save his own life?


In that sense, even this lede fell short:

A convenience store clerk shot and killed a man who attempted an armed robbery yesterday in Haslett.


Is what makes this story unique and different from other robbery stories in this lede? I think not. It's missing what the first lede had: consequence for the clerk.

Again, let's think about a Peanut Barrel situation. You wouldn't tell your friends, "The cops found some dead dude" or "A dude lost his job because he brought a gun to work" or just "Some guy shot and killed a robber." You'd be all like, "Yeah, this dude killed another dude robbing a store, but the victim lost his job for having a gun at work!"

It's the combination of those things that makes this story stand out. Here's one lede/nut graf combo that's along those lines:

A robbery at O-Mart late Sunday ended with a dead robber and a fired store clerk.

Michael Layoux was working at the O-Mart at Haslett when around 11 p.m. an individual came in to rob the store. Layoux shot and killed the robber, who was later identified as Robert Wiess. 


Here's another really strong lede/nut graf combo that gets it all in:

A Lansing Community College student was fired from his clerk's job this morning after the district manager of O-Mart deemed his possession of a gun that potentially saved his life was against company policy.

Michael Layoux, 22, was the single employee working at the O-Mart at 1248 E. Forest Boulevard in Haslett Sunday evening when Robert Wiess entered the store and demanded Layoux empty the cash register while holding him at gunpoint.

After emptying the register, Layoux said he grabbed his .25-caliber pistol from under the counter and shot Wiess three times.


Still, I think I could top those ledes. I think I'd hit hard on the connection between saving his life and losing his job. If I decided to go straight with little color, I'd do this:

A Haslett convenience store clerk won't face charges for shooting and killing a would-be robber, but he lost his job for violating company rules of possessing handguns on the job.


Or if I wanted to get a bit colorful:

The same actions that allowed Michael Layoux to save his own life also cost him his job.


. . . or . . .
 



Michael Layoux didn't break the law when he shot and killed a robber last night. But he did break a company rule, and that will cost him his job.

How do my ledes adhere to the Peanut Barrel rule? Which works best, and why? Your turn to critique me.

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.

Police: Peanut Barrel Rule

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.

Robbery: The Peanut Barrel Rule, Revisited

There were plenty of decent ledes in the ROBBERY exercise. You made some good decisions on how to best use the space you were allotted in creating the highest and best ledes possible.

But some were better than others. Let's look at this one:

A 22-year-old college student was fired from his job for having a gun in the store against company policy.


This is factually correct. And it does go to end result in one sense; that he got fired. But it missed end result in another sense: that a man was killed. And it fails to grasp context: not just that he was fired for having a gun, but that he was fired for having a gun that he used to kill a man while defending himself.


Think about the Peanut Barrel rule: would you first tell friends that a man was fired for having a gun at work, or that he was fired for having a gun at work that he used to save his own life?


In that sense, even this lede fell short:

A convenience store clerk shot and killed a man who attempted an armed robbery yesterday in Haslett.


Is what makes this story unique and different from other robbery stories in this lede? I think not. It's missing what the first lede had: consequence for the clerk.

Again, let's think about a Peanut Barrel situation. You wouldn't tell your friends, "The cops found some dead dude" or "A dude lost his job because he brought a gun to work" or just "Some guy shot and killed a robber." You'd be all like, "Yeah, this dude killed another dude robbing a store, but the victim lost his job for having a gun at work!"

It's the combination of those things that makes this story stand out. Here's one lede/nut graf combo that's along those lines:

A robbery at O-Mart late Sunday ended with a dead robber and a fired store clerk.

Michael Layoux was working at the O-Mart at Haslett when around 11 p.m. an individual came in to rob the store. Layoux shot and killed the robber, who was later identified as Robert Wiess. 


Here's another really strong lede/nut graf combo that gets it all in:

A Lansing Community College student was fired from his clerk's job this morning after the district manager of O-Mart deemed his possession of a gun that potentially saved his life was against company policy.

Michael Layoux, 22, was the single employee working at the O-Mart at 1248 E. Forest Boulevard in Haslett Sunday evening when Robert Wiess entered the store and demanded Layoux empty the cash register while holding him at gunpoint.

After emptying the register, Layoux said he grabbed his .25-caliber pistol from under the counter and shot Wiess three times.


Still, I think I could top those ledes. I think I'd hit hard on the connection between saving his life and losing his job. If I decided to go straight with little color, I'd do this:

A Haslett convenience store clerk won't face charges for shooting and killing a would-be robber, but he lost his job for violating company rules of possessing handguns on the job.


Or if I wanted to get a bit colorful:

The same actions that allowed Michael Layoux to save his own life also cost him his job.


. . . or . . .
 



Michael Layoux didn't break the law when he shot and killed a robber last night. But he did break a company rule, and that will cost him his job.

How do my ledes adhere to the Peanut Barrel rule? Which works best, and why? Your turn to critique me.

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.

Police: Peanut Barrel Rule

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.

Robbery: The Peanut Barrel Rule, Revisited

There were plenty of decent ledes in the ROBBERY exercise. You made some good decisions on how to best use the space you were allotted in creating the highest and best ledes possible.

But some were better than others. Let's look at this one:

A 22-year-old college student was fired from his job for having a gun in the store against company policy.


This is factually correct. And it does go to end result in one sense; that he got fired. But it missed end result in another sense: that a man was killed. And it fails to grasp context: not just that he was fired for having a gun, but that he was fired for having a gun that he used to kill a man while defending himself.


Think about the Peanut Barrel rule: would you first tell friends that a man was fired for having a gun at work, or that he was fired for having a gun at work that he used to save his own life?


In that sense, even this lede fell short:

A convenience store clerk shot and killed a man who attempted an armed robbery yesterday in Haslett.


Is what makes this story unique and different from other robbery stories in this lede? I think not. It's missing what the first lede had: consequence for the clerk.

Again, let's think about a Peanut Barrel situation. You wouldn't tell your friends, "The cops found some dead dude" or "A dude lost his job because he brought a gun to work" or just "Some guy shot and killed a robber." You'd be all like, "Yeah, this dude killed another dude robbing a store, but the victim lost his job for having a gun at work!"

It's the combination of those things that makes this story stand out. Here's one lede/nut graf combo that's along those lines:

A robbery at O-Mart late Sunday ended with a dead robber and a fired store clerk.

Michael Layoux was working at the O-Mart at Haslett when around 11 p.m. an individual came in to rob the store. Layoux shot and killed the robber, who was later identified as Robert Wiess. 


Here's another really strong lede/nut graf combo that gets it all in:

A Lansing Community College student was fired from his clerk's job this morning after the district manager of O-Mart deemed his possession of a gun that potentially saved his life was against company policy.

Michael Layoux, 22, was the single employee working at the O-Mart at 1248 E. Forest Boulevard in Haslett Sunday evening when Robert Wiess entered the store and demanded Layoux empty the cash register while holding him at gunpoint.

After emptying the register, Layoux said he grabbed his .25-caliber pistol from under the counter and shot Wiess three times.


Still, I think I could top those ledes. I think I'd hit hard on the connection between saving his life and losing his job. If I decided to go straight with little color, I'd do this:

A Haslett convenience store clerk won't face charges for shooting and killing a would-be robber, but he lost his job for violating company rules of possessing handguns on the job.


Or if I wanted to get a bit colorful:

The same actions that allowed Michael Layoux to save his own life also cost him his job.


. . . or . . .
 



Michael Layoux didn't break the law when he shot and killed a robber last night. But he did break a company rule, and that will cost him his job.

How do my ledes adhere to the Peanut Barrel rule? Which works best, and why? Your turn to critique me.

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.

Police: Peanut Barrel Rule

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.

Robbery: The Peanut Barrel Rule, Revisited

There were plenty of decent ledes in the ROBBERY exercise. You made some good decisions on how to best use the space you were allotted in creating the highest and best ledes possible.

But some were better than others. Let's look at this one:

A 22-year-old college student was fired from his job for having a gun in the store against company policy.


This is factually correct. And it does go to end result in one sense; that he got fired. But it missed end result in another sense: that a man was killed. And it fails to grasp context: not just that he was fired for having a gun, but that he was fired for having a gun that he used to kill a man while defending himself.


Think about the Peanut Barrel rule: would you first tell friends that a man was fired for having a gun at work, or that he was fired for having a gun at work that he used to save his own life?


In that sense, even this lede fell short:

A convenience store clerk shot and killed a man who attempted an armed robbery yesterday in Haslett.


Is what makes this story unique and different from other robbery stories in this lede? I think not. It's missing what the first lede had: consequence for the clerk.

Again, let's think about a Peanut Barrel situation. You wouldn't tell your friends, "The cops found some dead dude" or "A dude lost his job because he brought a gun to work" or just "Some guy shot and killed a robber." You'd be all like, "Yeah, this dude killed another dude robbing a store, but the victim lost his job for having a gun at work!"

It's the combination of those things that makes this story stand out. Here's one lede/nut graf combo that's along those lines:

A robbery at O-Mart late Sunday ended with a dead robber and a fired store clerk.

Michael Layoux was working at the O-Mart at Haslett when around 11 p.m. an individual came in to rob the store. Layoux shot and killed the robber, who was later identified as Robert Wiess. 


Here's another really strong lede/nut graf combo that gets it all in:

A Lansing Community College student was fired from his clerk's job this morning after the district manager of O-Mart deemed his possession of a gun that potentially saved his life was against company policy.

Michael Layoux, 22, was the single employee working at the O-Mart at 1248 E. Forest Boulevard in Haslett Sunday evening when Robert Wiess entered the store and demanded Layoux empty the cash register while holding him at gunpoint.

After emptying the register, Layoux said he grabbed his .25-caliber pistol from under the counter and shot Wiess three times.


Still, I think I could top those ledes. I think I'd hit hard on the connection between saving his life and losing his job. If I decided to go straight with little color, I'd do this:

A Haslett convenience store clerk won't face charges for shooting and killing a would-be robber, but he lost his job for violating company rules of possessing handguns on the job.


Or if I wanted to get a bit colorful:

The same actions that allowed Michael Layoux to save his own life also cost him his job.


. . . or . . .
 



Michael Layoux didn't break the law when he shot and killed a robber last night. But he did break a company rule, and that will cost him his job.

How do my ledes adhere to the Peanut Barrel rule? Which works best, and why? Your turn to critique me.

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.

Police: Peanut Barrel Rule

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.

Meeting: Did You ...

... write about everything that happened at the meeting? Or just the things you thought were most newsworthy?

And how would you rank the newsworthiness of the items that took place at the meeting? These were the things, in order of occurrence, at the school board meeting:

1. Retiring teachers honored
2. New budget approved that includes construction of a new school, pay raises
3. Board keeps summer school intact
4. Board decides to keep current biology textbooks and not teach creationism
5. School volunteers honored


Does the order of importance match the order of occurrence? How would you rank these things, in terms of importance?

The importance ranking should match your order of presentation, regardless of the order in which things took place. 

And when we talk about importance, think about what things are the most interesting or relevant or useful to your audience. Think about what is most unusual that took place. Think about what would have the most impact. Think about what people would be most curious about, or wanting to know about.

If you're not sure if your ranking of items based on newsworthiness is the best, here's a good rule of thumb: the item you wrote about the most is probably the one worth the best placement. The one you wrote about the least should probably be presented last, or maybe even not at all. 

I'd argue these were proper orders of importance. From the school meeting: 

1. Board decides to keep current biology textbooks and not teach creationism

2 or 3. New budget approved that includes construction of a new school, pay raises
3 or 2. Board keeps summer school intact
4 or 5. Retiring teachers honored
4 or 5. School volunteers honored


Our job as journalists isn't to necessarily record everything, and put things in the order in which it took place. That's stenography. Rather, we decide what was most important, and rank things in the order of importance.

What did you do, and why?

Robbery: The Peanut Barrel Rule, Revisited

There were plenty of decent ledes in the ROBBERY exercise. You made some good decisions on how to best use the space you were allotted in creating the highest and best ledes possible.

But some were better than others. Let's look at this one:

A 22-year-old college student was fired from his job for having a gun in the store against company policy.


This is factually correct. And it does go to end result in one sense; that he got fired. But it missed end result in another sense: that a man was killed. And it fails to grasp context: not just that he was fired for having a gun, but that he was fired for having a gun that he used to kill a man while defending himself.


Think about the Peanut Barrel rule: would you first tell friends that a man was fired for having a gun at work, or that he was fired for having a gun at work that he used to save his own life?


In that sense, even this lede fell short:

A convenience store clerk shot and killed a man who attempted an armed robbery yesterday in Haslett.


Is what makes this story unique and different from other robbery stories in this lede? I think not. It's missing what the first lede had: consequence for the clerk.

Again, let's think about a Peanut Barrel situation. You wouldn't tell your friends, "The cops found some dead dude" or "A dude lost his job because he brought a gun to work" or just "Some guy shot and killed a robber." You'd be all like, "Yeah, this dude killed another dude robbing a store, but the victim lost his job for having a gun at work!"

It's the combination of those things that makes this story stand out. Here's one lede/nut graf combo that's along those lines:

A robbery at O-Mart late Sunday ended with a dead robber and a fired store clerk.

Michael Layoux was working at the O-Mart at Haslett when around 11 p.m. an individual came in to rob the store. Layoux shot and killed the robber, who was later identified as Robert Wiess. 


Here's another really strong lede/nut graf combo that gets it all in:

A Lansing Community College student was fired from his clerk's job this morning after the district manager of O-Mart deemed his possession of a gun that potentially saved his life was against company policy.

Michael Layoux, 22, was the single employee working at the O-Mart at 1248 E. Forest Boulevard in Haslett Sunday evening when Robert Wiess entered the store and demanded Layoux empty the cash register while holding him at gunpoint.

After emptying the register, Layoux said he grabbed his .25-caliber pistol from under the counter and shot Wiess three times.


Still, I think I could top those ledes. I think I'd hit hard on the connection between saving his life and losing his job. If I decided to go straight with little color, I'd do this:

A Haslett convenience store clerk won't face charges for shooting and killing a would-be robber, but he lost his job for violating company rules of possessing handguns on the job.


Or if I wanted to get a bit colorful:

The same actions that allowed Michael Layoux to save his own life also cost him his job.

. . . or . . .

Michael Layoux didn't break the law when he shot and killed a robber last night. But he did break a company rule, and that will cost him his job.

How do my ledes adhere to the Peanut Barrel rule? Which works best, and why? Your turn to critique me.

Final Ledes: Needle In A Haystack

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 Wednesday 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.

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 crap 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.

Police: Peanut Barrel Rule

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.

Meeting: Did You ...

... write about everything that happened at the meeting? Or just the things you thought were most newsworthy?

And how would you rank the newsworthiness of the items that took place at the meeting? These were the things, in order of occurrence, at the school board meeting:

1. Retiring teachers honored
2. New budget approved that includes construction of a new school, pay raises
3. Board keeps summer school intact
4. Board decides to keep current biology textbooks and not teach creationism
5. School volunteers honored


Does the order of importance match the order of occurrence? How would you rank these things, in terms of importance?

The importance ranking should match your order of presentation, regardless of the order in which things took place. 

And when we talk about importance, think about what things are the most interesting or relevant or useful to your audience. Think about what is most unusual that took place. Think about what would have the most impact. Think about what people would be most curious about, or wanting to know about.

If you're not sure if your ranking of items based on newsworthiness is the best, here's a good rule of thumb: the item you wrote about the most is probably the one worth the best placement. The one you wrote about the least should probably be presented last, or maybe even not at all. 

I'd argue these were proper orders of importance. From the school meeting:

1. Board decides to keep current biology textbooks and not teach creationism

2 or 3. New budget approved that includes construction of a new school, pay raises
3 or 2. Board keeps summer school intact
4 or 5. Retiring teachers honored
4 or 5. School volunteers honored


Our job as journalists isn't to necessarily record everything, and put things in the order in which it took place. That's stenography. Rather, we decide what was most important, and rank things in the order of importance.

What did you do, and why?

Out-Of-Class #1: How To Write It

I recently was asked how we were supposed to write the out-of-class story; in a structure similar to the practice stories?

The answer was -- and is -- absolutely!

The reason we've done all these practice stories was to initiate you into a journalistic style or writing and information organization. Essentially, the out-of-classers are like your midterms and finals, in that that's where I get to evaluate in a more definitive way what you've learned.

So, let's make sure our out-of-class stories have ...

>>> No fatals! Like I've said a million times, journalism isn't about writing; it's about getting it right. So, our first and highest obligation is to make sure we've double-checked not only our work to make sure what we wrote is accurate to our notes, but also double-check our sources against other sources, to make sure what we were told by our original source is verifiably true.

There's a rule of thumb in journalism that goes, if your mother says she loves you, check it out. What that means is, if your mom says she loves you, don't simply take her word for it. Seek evidence that supports what she claims.

For example, if your mother says she loves you and you're trying to verify it, you can go by documented evidence (such as, birthday cards she went you every year, in which she wrote how much she loves you) and historical evidence (like, she never missed any of your sports games in high school, and always rooted loudly for you) and source/witness evidence (like friends and relatives, who say she never shuts up about how much she loves you).

Like Ronald Reagan used to say about dealing with the Russians: trust, but verify. That's what journalists have always done. We don't just write down what people say; we check it out. It's not that we think they're lying; we're just making sure what they're saying is fully accurate and contextual, with nothing misinterpreted or left out.

>>> Strong ledes, whether it be a summary lede getting to the main point of the story, or an alternative or anecdotal lede that offers a humanizing example of the greater issue, before backing into strong nut grafs hammering home the main point.

>>> Thought given to the Peanut Barrel rule in crafting those ledes, so that readers can quickly get what is most interesting/relevant/useful about your story.

>>> A focus on what is most newsworthy, in sequential order, rather than simply listing things as they unfolded.

>>> Lots of quotes, introducing human voices into your stories.

>>> Interviews you did yourself! Not stuff you found online, or something CNN reported. All info -- even background info -- should be from first-hand sources you spoke with.

This is the difference between writing a term paper and writing a news story. With a term paper, you start with a conclusion, and then find evidence from second-hand sources like Wikipedia or whatever to support your main point.

But in journalism, we start out with a theory, and then fact-test our starting point by doing first-hand interviews and seeing what we can discover that confirms or rebuts our starting assumptions, or even takes us in a whole new (and newsworthier) direction. We folow teh facts, not necessarily the original expectation.

Only then -- after we have done our first-hand interviewing -- do we determine what the main point of our story is, and we write it based on what we discovered and the facts we gathered and verified, rather than what we started with.


>>> Solid attribution, so that the audience knows exactly where you're getting your information from, and leveraging the expertise of your sources in a transparent way. For attributing statements, just use said.

>>> Short paragraphs, with only one main point OR one supporting idea OR one supporting quote per graf. Not all three; not even two of three. Just one per graf. This is done so that main ideas and supporting points can stand out (like in an outline), and for ease and clarity of reading and editing.

When in doubt, hit the "return" key and start a new graf. There's no such thing as too small a graf in journalism,but there are grafs that are too big.

If you have any questions, please see me sooner rather than later. A reminder: your deadline is no later than 9 a.m. Thursday, July 2, at omars@msu.edu.

And please be careful, thorough and timely. Each out-of-class story equals about 10 percent of your final semester grade, or roughly equal to all the practice stories we've done sofar, put together.

Again, these are our midterms and finals, so treat these out-of-classers with the same level of importance.