Practice Ledes: Peanut Barrel Rule

When you think about the Peanut Barrel rule, a part of what you consider is what stands out most to a story, where it would be the first thing out of your mouth when talking about it to your friends.

Another aspect that often overlaps the first premise is that of end result and ultimate outcome: how did the story end? After all, the lede of a news story is usually the ending, wrapping up all the loose ends. That's a major way journalistic writing differs from other forms of writing.

This next lede meets the first aspect but not the second:

Arobbery went from bad to worse when the robber of the Quik Shoppe on Michigan Avenue stole a car with six-month-old Megan Perakiss still inside.


If this happened to be a delayed lede, where in the next paragraph you immediately get to end result, then you are fine. If not, then the lede can be improved upon.

This next lede was predicated on end result:

A six-month-old baby girl was found in the back seat of an abandoned getaway car Wednesday afternoon, 40 minutes after a man had robbed the Quik Shoppe and stolen the vehicle.

Often, the Peanut Barrel rule is simple and to the point. But it can also pre-emptively answer an obvious question created by your reporting, like, why the hell would they do that? This lede correctly anticipates such a question, and offers an answer:

Michigan State University ecologists and biologists want to bring African wildlife to th eGreat Plans and American West, due to the declining habitat in Africa.

Another approach would have been to hook the lede not on the reason, but the reaction: that some scientists and ranchers feared the impact those animals would have here. I think either approach is a good one. In journalist often there's more than one way to do a story correctly. It all depends on what you think your readers would consider most interesting, relevant and useful. And in this case, I think it's extremely subject to interpretation. There is no obvious single right answer.

Except maybe this one, where one of you rolled it all into one lede, with both reason and reaction:

African wildlife may find a new home on American soil in order to prevent extinction, despite some scientists' worries that this plan could be harmful to the fate of native species.

Another one of you decided to have fun with this lede, like this:

Rawr might be a common sound on the Great Plains of North America if a group of Michigan State University ecologists and biologists succeed in placing African wildlife there.

That lede certainly sets context: what would it mean for people here? Which of these do you think works best? Why or why not?

Moving on, a few of you struggled with the lede on using cell phones while driving, where you wrote about state officials arguing over whether or not to ban cell phone use while driving.  Even though that information was listed first and most prominently, what makes something most newsworthy is if it stands out, and not how much information we have or where that information is placed. You look at the whole of information, and then decide what stands out.

And the whole was this: that a state representative opposing a cell phone driving ban got into a car accident while talking on her cell phone! That's the Peanut Barrel rule, right?

And here were a few of your ledes along those lines:

Constance Wei, a Michigan state representative known for her opposition to banning cell phone usage, was involved in a car accident while talking on a cell phone.

This next lede took things a step further by noting the relevant topic of that phone conversation: 

A Michigan state representative got in a car accident on Wednesday while talking on her cell phone about postponing a vote on a bill to ban phone use while driving.

 A couple of you used the phrase ironically in noting the cause and Wei's intent, and I'd say that's fair and wise. After all, the facts indicate it was the definition of irony: someone who is for something gets into trouble because of that same something.

One of you noted the irony this way:

State Rep. Constance P. Wei, a known adversary of the ban on cell phone usage while driving, may want to reconsider her lack of support after her car accident on Wednesday.

Obviously, this lede would have to immediately be followed by a graf detailing the irony: that she was on her phone when the accident happened. Beyond that, what do you think of the "reconsider the lack of support" line? Fair notation of context based on the facts -- like calling this ironic -- or does it corss the line into being opinionated, which would be a no-no?

Either way, it does tread the line. What do you think? And why?