I like narrative leads -- but not this one

Can't believe we're comparing 9/11 to domestic violence, but I'll continue to play along for the sake of journalistic debate because 9/11 did provide lessons in how we can tell the same story differently and more effectively.

I just reviewed Sept. 12 pages on newseum. Remember, most major metros had special editions hours after the attack with the gory play-by-play. I'm assuming NYT did, but didn't see it.

NYT Sept. 12 lead story, however, was the expected blow-by-blow recap, with times, flight numbers, etc. Well written, of course, and I'm sure Frank loved it. But there was absolutely nothing in the first eight graphs you didn't already know or hadn't already read. Hell, most of us saw the carnage live, beginning at 8:47 a.m. and watched nonstop the rest of the day. Not cracking on the Times. They are the rare paper of record for almost everything. However, there was no perspective or emotion in the Times' lead, just a timeline of events.

Other papers took a different approach. They knew you knew. They knew you watched, read, listened. They essentially wrapped the first eight graphs of the Times' story into one and looked ahead:

The AJC had only a photo and a column: "We occupy a different reality than we did a day ago."

The Miami Herald's lead story focused on Bush vowing revenge.

The Orlando Sentinel had a news story and commentary. Its news lead: "A pall of smoke, dust and sadness settled over lower Manhattan at nightfall Tuesday as rescue workers, police and firefighters pressed their desperate search for survivors of the worst terrorist attack in United States history."

(I can hear the desk screaming: Where's the ramming planes, goddammit? Get that in the f-ing lead!)

Point is, no one is suggesting seven graphs of silly or eschewing our responsibility to chronicle history.
But don't give me eight graphs of nothing new a day after everybody else, either.

 

guys, the newbie's right.
(I know you're not really new, hp, just a rare poster ... )

this is, for all intents, a follow-up story. this is the story that readers want to see. it's the story I want to see. when we're able to give readers more, we should.

this isn't being disrespectful to the people that died. these same stories are typically written in the days after something like this and there are no questions. it seems to me that the big problem some are having is that instead of running this a few days after, it's the first 'of-record' story.

personally, I think it's interesting and revealing of the kind of break this guy had. either that, or he had two very mirror-opposite lives. either way, I think it made the story better.

 

How'd that work for them, though? Broke new ground that solved the industry's problems? Apparently not.

The NYT not only won seven Pulitzers for its coverage but was the go-to source for actual news and circulation went ga-ga for a fairly long stretch. Their approach worked on every level.

Besides, why did the LAT use a hard-news hed on a soft-news lead? Obviously the news desk and city desk had some fundamental differences of opinion on what was important to readers. Usually, the goal of the headline writer is to reflect the tone of the story as well as its content. My guess is the news desk said, "Look at this shit. We gotta tell people what happened."

 

NYT's gripping gamer did not win a Pulitzer for breaking news, probably because its rehash to revelation ratio was about 100 to nil.
NYT's follow-up series won for Public Service, along with some breaking news photos and editorials, probably because its revelation factor was other worldly.

As fun as it is debating theory and practice with another former 1HPer, let's not lose sight of the bigger picture.

Do a lot of what Frank suggests, just do it quickly and online.
Then, after you've reported the hell out of it, tell us something we didn't know but need to the next morning.

 

The comparison to 9-11 is a non-starter for me.
Believe it or not, those were different times. So much so, there is a certain building for sale in Manhattan so they can pay some bills. Oh, the good old days of 2001...

 

It's gratifying that a simple post can spark such an interesting debate.

But gee, I just wanted to know eight people died somewhere in those six or however many paragraphs.

 

That was my thought throughout this thread. One strategically placed sentence among the top 3-4 grafs -- with the nut info -- would have made everybody happy. But it wasn't there.

 

Not sure that one graph would have satisfied those incensed over the lack of a straight news lede.
At the same time I can understand each view.

But, you can't complain -- Kevin Roderick included -- when the common chorus is we're unable to adapt or change. Then, when an attempt at altering an approach is taken, everyone throws their arms in the air and stomps their feet.

"Well, the New York Times does this..." "their straight news lede this..." "they won Pulitzer with this..."
Guess what? There is only one New York Times. And, their stock is shit, they fired 100 last year, and they are selling their building -- at the worst possible time -- in the search of some liquidity.

If you want to examine a shift in philosophy, examine their dissemination of the Eliot Spitzer scandal. When, at 2 p.m. in the afternoon, the NY Times released their findings....on their website.
That is a 2008 gauge. Not trying to pull parallels to Sept., 2001.

 

Not all stories are remotely appropriate for letting the newsroom play mad scientist. And we ought to be able to say that, too, without people trying to spin it as being against any change at all. This approach would be fine for some stories. Not this one, not even close.

 

Mad scientist? Pure hyperbole.
It's "past due" newspapers stop thinking of themselves as newspapers and as news outlets. It's a change in mindset that some are not willing to accept. I see that, I get that.
But, six reporters working on nine versions of a story with three photographers, two graphic artists and a video tech isn't a failure to the profession.
Your problem isn't with the journalism, it's with the medium. And, that's an erstwhile stance.

 

Is it possible that the nuts and bolts were handled in another story? Perhaps this was part of a multi-story package.

 

To be fair, the story in question was the main story. The lede of the paper.
The events of the day were handled in a timeline-type presentation.