I like narrative leads -- but not this one

I still maintain the story deserves an award for breaking news coverage.
And I'd add a textbook example of how to cover big news in the unholy marriage of print and online.
Constantly update the web story, nine times we're told and when the print edition hits the streets give the reader something they didn't know.
That's what the Times did and I think it was fantastic. We can quibble over details and if the piece lacked the gravity of a hard news story, but it was a gripping read.

 

No, my problem is with a climate in which there is no longer any such thing as a dumb new idea, or even a dumb old idea that's now being proposed as new but really isn't. Because, of course, any change has to be good. There is no possibility of there being a change that could, theoretically, do more harm than good, especially not irrevocably. And, of course, anyone who's critical of an idea must, by definition, be stuck in the status quo. That's the problem I have. Because, just looking at the record, we ought to consider the possibility that some innovations over, say, the past 5-10 years have been not very good ideas and thus there might be good reason to be skeptical of current ones. I find the "with us or against us" mentality a bit hard to swallow.

 

We disagree. It's not personal. We've disagreed before, we'll disagree again.
I, too, have so many problems -- so many -- with direction and course in the last decade. My love for this profession is nearly extinguished. I will always love the journalism. But, I abhor the outlastism.
If there is to be survival, I truly believe the mission needs to change.

 

The issue isn't approach, climate, style, ethics, honoring thy deceased, professional protocol, traditional vs. non-traditional, corporate mandate or any other such j-school b.s. you might wish to include.
The issue is timing.
Timing dictates direction. With this story and every story.
This story broke at 11:30 Wed. night.
Before, there was no choice; you had to wait until Friday to print the news. Now, you write the almighty first draft of history and post it online. It still counts.

You simply can't go straight news lead in print 30 hours after the fact, 20-some hours after your web site and every other news outlet in the free world began providing the straight news and updating throughout the day.
You do, and you get your ass kicked twice.

 

Well stated.

 

Haven't gone through the whole thread, but I'll say this: as someone who already knew the basic facts of the story, the LAT story is the one I wanted to keep reading. The NYT story did not keep me.

 

Few readers have time to read a narrative for every front-page story, no paper has room to print that many narratives, and no staff has the manpower to do that many narratives. There's no getting around the fact that you are going to have some straight news stories in the paper, and on Page One. If you can't convey a sense of urgency on the major stuff, no one is going to pick up the paper at the newsstand, much less read the storytelling in it.

Your argument assumes there can be no new information in the newsprint hard-news lead. What, there was important new information in the eighth and ninth Web updates, but the only fresh news in the newspaper story is that the killer missed his church usher gig, so they have to bury news so they can lead with trivia? Sorry, paying customers -- we done used up all the good stuff on the freeloaders! And the reader is going to say, "Holy cow, Agnes! That mofo was supposed to be in church instead of killing a bunch of people! They sure didn't have that on KRAP's Action News! This must be the fresh stuff that didn't go on the newspaper's Web site the 20 times we checked it."

Again, if they were making the (wrong) assumption that everyone knew the basics because they were constantly checking latimes.com throughout the day, why did the LAT go with such a hard-news hed instead of a second-day hed? Seems like they were hedging their bets on trying something different. Push came to shove, they decided the cover needed that sense of urgency in order to sell on the street. And that urgency comes only from news.

 

With all due respect, Frank (and I mean that, because you normally make some of the most intelligent posts on this board) I don't even know what your argument on this is anymore. You've taken it to such extremes and used so much hyperbole that it gets increasingly difficult to take it seriously. The LA Times approached this as essentially a second-day story, which, given the timing, was a perfectly reasonable thing to do. What you describe as hedging its bets with the straight news hed is actually a nod to your way of thinking. The Times was saying to its readers, "The overwhelming majority of you are probably already aware of the basics of the story, but for those who aren't, here they are. Now, instead of repeating those same facts in the lede, we're going to try to go beyond what you already know and do so in a compelling way." Seems to me the Times struck a nice balance. We can quibble with some of the execution, like the number of deaths not being higher in the story, but I don't see why the basic approach is so objectionable.