City Ledes -- Don't Be Too Vague

Whaddya think of this lede?

A recent study reveals a horrifying connection between young boys and gun usage.

I have a couple of concerns: first, is "horrifying" justified, based on the facts? Or is it an embellishment not justified by the facts? Since you weren't writing a full story here, I can't say for sure. But I'll assume that you thought findings that indicate young boys ignore warnings about playing with guns is something that society in general would find horrifying. So I'll let that go.

My bigger concern is that the lede may be too vague. The news isn't that there's a horrifying connection; it's what the horrifying connection is.

Again, the limitations of this exercise prevent me from fully assessing this. Maybe this was a delayed-type of lede, and your nut graf would have spelled it out.

Now, let's look at this lede:

Two researchers put 50 children in a room that had drawers that contained guns testing the ineffectiveness of simple parental warnings.

The concern I have with this lede is that it focuses in on how the study was conducted, rather than what the study found.

Think of this scenario, but let's apply it to a football game. You wouldn't do this imaginary lede:

Two football teams met in a football stadium to find a champion of the Big Ten Conference.

You'd rather do a lede saying who won or lost, and what the final score was, right? That's focusing on ultimate outcome and end result.

The news isn't that something happened; it's why it's important or interesting or relevant or useful. Most of the time, those answers can be found by identifying and highlighting end result.