I like narrative leads -- but not this one

So ... isn't that in the headline?

I mean, I am a stickler for getting the score as close to the lede as possible, but won't the story's packaging establish the hard news, just-the-facts facts? Won't the reader then enter the story knowing that eight are dead, he wore a Santa suit (bastard), etc?

 

I'm sure the headline and/or deck took care of the gory details.
I'll say this: I read about 10 versions of this story from AP to CNN to whomever, and I learned more in this story than the others.
I read this already knowing 8 were killed. You knew that, too. The writer knew you knew that, too.
Could it have been tightened? Sure.
Would he have written it this way five, 10 years ago? Definitely not.
But today? It works.

 

The LA Times story is a superior read for the person who has a vague idea of what happened, and if you didn't, the hed and deck took care of that.
If I was giving prizes for breaking news coverage, this story would get an award.

 

I don't see the headline as a factor, or whether people already knew that eight people (actually nine) were killed. Nine people were killed by Santa Claus on Christmas Eve. It doesn't help anyone -- reader, or the newspaper's image -- to take a ludicrous "let's jazz this up a bit" approach on this type of story. The nine bodies are barely cold, and it's presented as if the ghoulish writers are already thinking Movie of The Week script. (Maybe in L.A. that's cool.) It looks to me like a knee-jerk reaction: Must ... have ... narrative ... lead. They ... said ... so ... at ... Poynter ... seminar ... last ... year.

Classic case of out-thinking themselves. Nine people slaughtered by Santa Claus on Christmas Eve does not require an alternative approach that day as the lead story. It is totally nuts to believe people would stop reading after the first graph if the lead told them a bunch of people were killed by Santa Fucking Claus on Christmas Eve. The only thing that would have made the NYT lead any better would be if it told us the gunman ate reindeer ribs, served rare, before going on the spree. His having been a church usher does not cut it as lead material. This is not rocket science.

 

People already know the facts.
So why not give them the second day story on the first day?
That's what the LA Times did, the NY Times might have taken the same approach if they weren't four hours behind.
Of course you go with the straight news lead when the clock is ticking, but if you have the time, give the reader something they didn't know.
That's exactly what the reporters did. Great effort and great hustle.

 

Uh, no. This is not a football game between two 5-10 teams. The news is the news on a major story, which this is. Would you have wanted newspapers to have approached 9/11 or Columbine with a second-day lead? It is disrespectful of the gravity of the story ... and of the readers' desire to know the facts in the order of the importance.

 

I don't think this is necessarily true. For one, this happened on Christmas Eve -- many people are out of town, out of their routines, away from the nightly newscast or even a local paper, or just plain not paying attention because they're spending time with their families.

And even if it were true for some stories, such as a highly watched sporting event, etc., I don't know that the mainbar of any jaw-dropping news story -- especially one with grave circumstances and/or fatalities -- should be "featurized" in the lede. Contrary to your statement above, I think a lot of people don't already know the facts, and I'm not so sure that we should assume they do.

 

I'm on the side of those who didn't like the LAT version. The story has to stand on its own. I wouldn't want to rely on the head and deck to save my story.

 

I thought it was fine. It's a folo to a story that's more than 24 hours old by the time it hits the driveways.

 

I don't have a problem with the idea of a narrative lede. I just think in this case, the LAT crammed less interesting facts into the top of the story. Could have cut to the chase quicker AND still done the narrative idea. The stuff about renting a car? Yawn. And when they wrote about the shooting of the 8-year-old girl, they could found a way to mention there that, uh, 8 people died by the time he was done with his handiwork.

 

I don't think a narrative lede is that bad. The NY Times is acting as a first source for people outside the LA area.

If you get the LA times, then you probably heard of this story before you read the paper.

It is an interesting argument. But, I think the way the news cycle worked in the LA market, it was the correct format.

NY Times was writing for people who were learning of the deaths for the first time. LA was writing for those who wanted to know how it happened, not just that it did happen.

I don't think the LA Times was off base. This was essentially a second day story for the Times.

 

I liked this lede a lot, though I agree the writer should have tucked in the number of people killed earlier. But of all the ways newspapers are selling themselves out these days -- superficial blogs and twitters and useless videos made by people whose skill comes from the written word -- this, to me, is doing what we should be doing to separate ourselves from the pack:

Use the unique skill that comes from print.
We can tell a story like no one else.
They can get the straight facts (and probably already have these days) a million other places. TV, the 'Net, etc. Those places cannot do what this story did, which is offer it in a compelling fashion that makes you not just hear the facts, but feel them.
I think in no way was this disrespectful or some type of gimmick written after attending too many seminars. I think it was a carefully crafted story that gripped me and offered perspective. I love the detail of where the guy would normally be.

Again, I agree you can't bury the news quite that much and the number of dead needed to be inserted into the narrative. But to rip this story and just want straight news is to ignore a way we can -- and should -- try to separate ourselves from TV and the web.