With many ledes, we want to emphasize the news over the sourcing;
that is, what happened gets priority over who it happened to or who said
it.
Let's look at this lede, where the sourcing comes first:
A
study led by sociologists at the University of Florida found highly
educated women are more likely to end up in a failed marriage compared
to women without degrees.
Now, that's a fine lede.
Very solid. But I would argue that it can amplify the main point a bit
more by what I call flipping the lede; that is, changing the sequence
from source-finding to finding-source -- essentially, just moving the
start of the lede to the back -- like this:
Highly
educated women are more likely to end up in a failed marriage compared
to women without degrees, a study led by sociologists at the University of Florida found.
Now,
you start right out with the news, and then get to who discovered it.
Notice I did not change, remove or add any words; it is exactly what you
wrote. Just in a different sequence.
Was it necessary? No. But I think it does improve the lede just a bit more.
Are
there times when you should have the sourcing first? Yes, when the
source itself is newsworthy, like if President Obama announces
something.
No comments:
Post a Comment