How bad is this Boston Globe lede?

Without defending this lead specifically, I would say that, in the course of an NBA season, not every game is about the game. You say you don't want a lead to distract from the gamer, but there are occasions when off-the-court happenings are the news of the day, not whether the Celtics won or lost one of 82 games. You've got to lead with what's most important.

I would argue this is a case where the news of the day -- Sam Cassell arriving in Boston -- is a bigger news hook than whether the Celtics won or lost. Maybe it could have been executed better -- I, too, have a problem with presenting a score other than the final first -- but the angle wasn't a bad one.

 

Instead of saying, whoa, that blows, perhaps we can try to rewrite the lede and see if we can make it more active, less passive, and less confusing.


BOSTON -- Sam Cassell, dressed in his street clothes (Editor's note: What's he wearing? A suit? A track suit? A t-shirt? A tie? What are street clothes, really?), leaped to his feet last night.

He'd just watched four Celtics touch the ball, whipping it aroud the horn, and seen Ray Allen punctuate a second-quarter possession with a net-snapping 3-pointer. Boston had just built a 15-point lead, bringing the crowd inside TD Banknorth Garden to its feet, and was on its way to pounding the Bulls 116-93.

The biggest smile, however, seemed to belong to Cassell, a free agent signing with two championship rings, and the player Boston hopes can cure its point guard woes. Cassell, making his first appearance with the team, pumped his fist, flashed a grin, and got a standing ovation from the Garden crowd when his face was shown on the arena's giant video screen.

He looked happy and comfortable throughout the night sitting on the bench, and his teammates looked equally at ease on the court, leading by as many as 28 points en route to winning their third straight game.


Now, that's not great, but it cleans it up a bit, while at the same time keeping the focus on Cassell, which was what the writer wanted.

I think it's always important to keep in mind when we critique gamers (here or elsewhere) that it's not easy to write on deadline. Sometimes, you freeze up and just need to get something in the paper for the early edition. I've had gamers where I've felt paralyzed for 40 minutes, then barfed up 18-inches in 10 minutes just to get something to the desk. Some nights you overthink, some nights you just can't pull the trigger, and some nights everything seems easy. Always consider what might have gone into constructing a story before setting it on fire. I think that 21 makes a fair point, in that a analysis of someone's work seems a lot more fair than "so-and-so is an asshole" because by publishing our work, we are opening up ourselves to critique, be it from fans, players or other writers. That's the most basic rule of writing for public consumption. But try to take all things into account. I have a few first-edition gamers burned forever in the nexis archives that I'm not proud of. We all do.

As for the score issue, yes I believe that the first score in your story should always be the final score. You can just as easily turn 51-36 into "a 15-point lead" and I don't think anything is lost. It's kind of tough to compare a tennis bagel job to a mid-season basketball gamer.

 

I like your idea Double Down. And I like what you did with the story. Is it award-worthy? Probably not. But is it a much cleaner portrayal of the moment the writer was trying to convey? Absolutely.

Instead of posting someone else's work and going, "ha ha, look at this looser!" we can say, "This was a really bad lede. Let's see if we can find out what the problems are and come up with something better."

I like the fact that the Writer's Workshop seems to be much more constructive in criticisms of other people's work. I also liked it when jgmacg would simply write "thanks for sharing your work." It reads like an acknowledgment that it sometimes takes courage to put our own work out here for public consumption and possible criticism.

I just wrote a story in which I just couldn't come up with the right approach to it. Try and try as I might, I could not get it the way I wanted. I was sitting here in the office, struggling against my mind's desperate desire to go home and get sleep and I just couldn't get the story right.

I finally decided to just get the thing written and not worry about perfection. If it didn't turn out perfectly, I decided it would turn out the best I could do with it. Perhaps it's overwritten. Perhaps it's underwritten. Perhaps I just went about it the wrong way. But I at least wanted to get it done so that we could get on with the business of putting out our week's newspaper.

Perhaps someone here will come across my story on the Interwebs and post it, saying, "look how awful this hack is! What's he doing even holding down a job?" But if that's my fate, it's a fate I accept knowing that I gave it an honest effort.

 

I guess the concerns I have with posting someone else's work for critique is our ability to be responsible. I don't doubt jgmacg's ability to monitor the Writers' Workshop board and to make sure it does not get out of hand. It can. I’ve seen it before and it was embarrassing.

I'm concerned if we're not careful, thread upon thread will simply be about "look at this horrible lede I found." Hell, I can find a shitty piece of writing in 30 seconds and have it posted with an accompanying derogatory comment.

I do like the mature conversations in the Writers’ Workshop. I would be confident knowing that if I would come across a thread that is calling out one of my ledes or stories, there would be insightful and helpful comments that would allow me to do better next time.

Of course, that would NEVER happen because my copy is soooo good.

All that being said, there is quite a few writers out there who are producing low-quality copy with poor habits. I hope at some point they find their way here. If they come across a thread in which we discuss a poor lede in the Boston Globe, they read it and learn from it, then we've done something good.

 

I think if you are good enough, and it works, you should forgo this cardinal rule. But, you have to be good, and it has to be worth it. Any copy desk guy who automatically switches things around (you know who you are) because of the SCORE always has to be first rule is not an editor but a robot.

Considering that by the time the story is read in print everyone and their mother knows the score and I don't feel the rule should be as strict. A prep gamer? Absolutely. A major pro game? Not so sure.

We have to allow the guy who covers the game to have some degree of creativity and latitude even if it is unorthodox.

If not, then why not run AP copy? Sometimes in a gamer the final score is not the most important or interesting thing that happened (SHOCKING). The newsworthiness of the score wanes in the print edition because of the internet and TV had it maybe 8-10 hours prior. Heck, the guy reading the gamer probably watched the game the night before.

Now, the writers' job is to get in deeper and tell a story. If that means some steadfast rules get broken then so be it. We have to adapt to conditions. The score is no longer newsworthy. This isn't the 1950s where people wake up and not know what happened with their favorite team the night before.

 

I've always followed the "rule" that says the first score should be the final score. But what about when the newspaper puts a scoreline atop the story, directly above the byline or in a scorebug in the first leg of the story? That's going to be the first thing the reader sees. Does that allow the writer to occasionally break the final score first rule?

 

I think that would depend on context. Is it a pro or major college game involving the team everyone and his brother follows, love or hate? Is the writer skilled enough to pull it off?

If you don't have those two things working in concert, final score first. If you have Double Down covering the Red Sox winning the World Series, I wouldn't care if he put the final score in the last graf. But if it's some greenhorn writing about the seventh grade junior junior varsity basketball team's inaugural game, that final score better be in the lede graf.

 

Would it really matter who's playing if the score is in a scoreline or a scorebug? Isn't that the reason behind the final score first rule? To avoid confusing the reader? If the reader sees the final score before he starts reading the story -- no matter who's playing -- isn't the possible confusion avoided?

Again, I've always abided by the final score first rule, even with a scoreline or scorebug. Just asking.

 

I think an inexperienced writer could create confusion in the reader if he or she lists a score other than the final score first. You have to be experienced enough AND good enough to be able to break the rule.

 

I wouldn't look at that as a reason to break the rule. While the score head may be in one of the decks in the paper layout, it may not have an equivalent when the story gets posted to the papers' website. If that's the case, you would still need the final score in there early for the online version.

 

About the online version, I agree completely. But I still think a scoreline gives a writer a (very) little leeway in print, even though I can't remember the last time I used a non-final score ahead of the actual final score when writing a story. And I damn sure edit it when someone else does it.

I always stick to the "rule" but I can see where a writer could argue the other way if a scoreline is clearly visible. And a scoreline is definitely NOT a reason to break the rule. It's just there in that rare, rare instance you need it.

 

Maybe it gives you a little leeway. A microscopic speck of leeway.

To be honest, I can't really think of a reason good enough to break the "final score first rule" in a gamer ... every instance I've seen, there's been a pretty simple way to follow the rule without losing anything from the copy.

If you're leading with a key play that "put Podunk up 21-7 in the third quarter" change it to "put Podunk up by 14 in the third quarter."