When we're doing a lede, we have many options that are correct. But what we're looking for is the one that's the best; that covers the major bases and telling nuances simply and directly.
Let's look at some examples. First, this:
Rep. Constance P. Wei, an opponent to a ban on phone use while driving, was involved in a car accident while on her phone and driving, leaving the other driver with minor injuries.
It's a fine lede that covered the major bases. But it's missing a central irony. This lede had it:
While on the phone trying to postpone a vote on a bill banning cell phone usage while driving, Rep. Constance P. Wei crashed into a car on Wednesday afternoon.
Now, you get the extra irony: not only is she against the bill, she was talking about the very same bill at the time of the crash!
Context is one angle. The latest happening is the next. Did this lede have the latest news first?
A robbery and kidnapping occurred around 2 p.m. today at a convenience shop on 2752 Michigan Ave., according to Police Chief Barry Kopperud.
Structurally it's a sound lede, but it fails to go to end result and ultimate outcome: how did the crime end? This lede gets there:
A 6-month-old baby was found in her mother's truck 40 minutes after he mother was carjacked by a man who robbed a convenience store.
That lede gets to ultimate outcome, but this next lede gets even more up-to-the-minute:
East Lansing police are looking for a man suspected of an armed robbery and carjacking that resulted in a search for a 6-month-old child Wednesday afternoon.
This last lede is what I call a forward-looking lede, where it not only looks at what's happened up to now, but what's happening from here on out: police are continuing their search for the suspect.
Now, are any of these ledes wrong? No, none are. But I would argue the ones that go more to total context and end result are the best ones to use.
No comments:
Post a Comment