"Down with anecdotal ledes!"

[Pulitzer Wannabe]

So says California political paper writer:

http://www.capitolweekly.net/article.php?xid=wqidp6yx2i8m3m

Interesting thoughts, particularly when narrative style is being emphasized these days as a way to keep readers.

 

[lone star scribe]

Sorry, not buying it. There's a time and a place for anecdotal ledes -- for example, just about any feature -- and a time to dive right into the hard news with an AP lede. And if you've read the wire lately, you'll see the old-fashioned AP lede is done away with when you have optional ledes, etc.

 

[Frank_Ridgeway]

I think it's way overdone. I think it has its place in maybe one or two pieces on each section front, but as with a lot of things, we overreact and try to make decisions by formula and apply it to everything. The whole idea of "making the reader want to read" -- whether via anecdotal leads, indirect, obscure headlines or cluttered "multiple points of entry" or all three -- is self-important and disrespectful of people's time. Some stories are just minor stories and should be treated like minor stories. It's just ego on our part. Want to make someone want to read? Have interesting story ideas. Don't try to make dull **** interesting by telling it slower. You just bore people even more.

 

[JR]

I think it's way overdone. I think it has its place in maybe one or two pieces on each section front, but as with a lot of things, we overreact and try to make decisions by formula and apply it to everything. The whole idea of "making the reader want to read" -- whether via anecdotal leads, indirect, obscure headlines or cluttered "multiple points of entry" or all three -- is self-important and disrespectful of people's time. Some stories are just minor stories and should be treated like minor stories. It's just ego on our part. Want to make someone want to read? Have interesting story ideas. Don't try to make dull **** interesting by telling it slower. You just bore people even more.

Thank you, Frank.

Get to the ****ing point, boys and girls.

As a reader, the last thing I want to have to do is figure out what the hell the story's about after three paragrpahs.

 

[Some Guy]

I think there's a fine line.

I want a story to get to the ****ing point.
I also want a story to tell me why the **** I should care, and how the **** it could affect me. Often, though not always, this is best accomplished with an anecdotal lede. In philosophy, I am all for personalizing a story that otherwise would have been inaccessible.

Like I said, fine line. You can separate the good writers from the bad ones by how well he or she can tread it.

 

[expendable]

Ron White: I never had much of a vocabulary. In fact, my friend Bob Schnieder would still be alive today if I'd known the difference between "antidote" and "anecdote". He got bitten by a copperhead, and I'm telling him funny stories out of Reader's Digest. His head started to swell, I said "This ain't working". He goes, "READ FASTER!!"

 

[Bob Cook]

Ron White: I never had much of a vocabulary. In fact, my friend Bob Schnieder would still be alive today if I'd known the difference between "antidote" and "anecdote". He got bitten by a copperhead, and I'm telling him funny stories out of Reader's Digest. His head started to swell, I said "This ain't working". He goes, "READ FASTER!!"

Alas, my wife once worked for an editor who informed her she should use more "antidotes" in her stories. And he said it an-tee-dotes.

 

[Left_Coast]

I think it's way overdone. I think it has its place in maybe one or two pieces on each section front, but as with a lot of things, we overreact and try to make decisions by formula and apply it to everything. The whole idea of "making the reader want to read" -- whether via anecdotal leads, indirect, obscure headlines or cluttered "multiple points of entry" or all three -- is self-important and disrespectful of people's time. Some stories are just minor stories and should be treated like minor stories. It's just ego on our part. Want to make someone want to read? Have interesting story ideas. Don't try to make dull **** interesting by telling it slower. You just bore people even more.

Totally agree. It's like seeing a headline playing off the photo. It has it's place now and then. But when overdone -- and I see it a lot -- I want to gag.

 

[broadway joe]

I think there's a fine line.

I want a story to get to the ****ing point.
I also want a story to tell me why the **** I should care, and how the **** it could affect me. Often, though not always, this is best accomplished with an anecdotal lede. In philosophy, I am all for personalizing a story that otherwise would have been inaccessible.

Like I said, fine line. You can separate the good writers from the bad ones by how well he or she can tread it.

Exactly right. Like any other device, anecdotal ledes aren't appropriate for every story and can be a waste of time in the hands of a poor writer. But sometimes they are the perfect way to engage a reader. Example: I read a story a while back about MRSA, the drug-resistant bacteria that's a growing health hazard among athletes. The story began with an anecdote about a small-college wide receiver who caught three TDs on Saturday and was dead from this infection by the following Wednesday. If it had skipped the anecdote and just gotten straight to the point -- MRSA starts out seeming harmless but can be lethal in a hurry -- it probably wouldn't have been compelling enough to keep me reading.

 

[silentbob]

If we're actually discussing the opinions of a California political writer, we truly have lost our way.

 

[GBNF]

I disagree completely.

I enter every story like I have to do my best to get a reader hooked. And a reader sure as **** aiin't hooked with: Podunk High beat Valley High 7-4 last night in girl's soccer." If it takes me two paragraphs to describe the look on a coach's face, and how his reaction was warranted given the loss, so be it.

 

[SF_Express]

I disagree completely.

I enter every story like I have to do my best to get a reader hooked. And a reader sure as **** aiin't hooked with: Podunk High beat Valley High 7-4 last night in girl's soccer." If it takes me two paragraphs to describe the look on a coach's face, and how his reaction was warranted given the loss, so be it.

Ah, sometimes those stories have to get to the point pretty quickly, GB -- especially if there are space issues.

There are places for everything -- we shouldn't throw out anecdotal leads, and we shouldn't do them when there's no time or space to accommodate them.

 

[Idaho]

I guess that time I wrote a story about a pro cyclist and started out detailing the dinner he was eating (massive amounts of fatty foot to celebrate his off season) would have been a big no-no.

Oh well, my editor and -- I think, based on the emails I received -- the readers seemed to approve. Good thing I don't write for the California Political Times.




That said, sports and political writing are different animals. So much of what we do is feature and color, even when it's a gamer. Anecdotes, when used in moderation and not in cliche form, are fine. Hard news doesn't have that luxury most of the time.

Anecdotal/cutesy lead in a football game advance? OK.
Anecdotal/cutesy lead for a city council meeting? Not so much.

 

[Pulitzer Wannabe]

I'm always really impressed by a writer who can put a really straight lede on a feature, and then sustain the story for 3,000-4,000 words (you'll often see this in mags like "The New Yorker," which, of course, also uses anecdotal ledes quite often).

I think even more annoying to me than anecdotal ledes on everything is the cutesy headline epidemic. You put a headline that doesn't say anything, then follow with a 10-graph anecdotal lede - and it's splashed on the A1 line, then I start to get a little annoyed.

I've been around writers who just can't write straight openings no matter how hard they try. I know at least one guy who got fired at a big city paper because of it.

 

[SF_Express]

I guess that time I wrote a story about a pro cyclist and started out detailing the dinner he was eating (massive amounts of fatty foot to celebrate his off season) would have been a big no-no.

Well, in that instance, that would be a good thing -- except to this guy.

I actually don't think even he is being as extreme as he says.

I think it's fair to say that an 8-inch football game story doesn't need a three-inch anecdotal lead, and that there might be a little overwriting on that front.

 

[Some Guy]

I think there's a fine line.

I want a story to get to the ****ing point.
I also want a story to tell me why the **** I should care, and how the **** it could affect me. Often, though not always, this is best accomplished with an anecdotal lede. In philosophy, I am all for personalizing a story that otherwise would have been inaccessible.

Like I said, fine line. You can separate the good writers from the bad ones by how well he or she can tread it.

Exactly right. Like any other device, anecdotal ledes aren't appropriate for every story and can be a waste of time in the hands of a poor writer. But sometimes they are the perfect way to engage a reader. Example: I read a story a while back about MRSA, the drug-resistant bacteria that's a growing health hazard among athletes. The story began with an anecdote about a small-college wide receiver who caught three TDs on Saturday and was dead from this infection by the following Wednesday. If it had skipped the anecdote and just gotten straight to the point -- MRSA starts out seeming harmless but can be lethal in a hurry -- it probably wouldn't have been compelling enough to keep me reading.

Now that's an anecdote that could have used an antidote.

 

[clutchcargo]

Those of you who say a story should clearly state "how it affects me (i.e. the reader) and why it's important" still baffle me. What does that mean, exactly, when it comes to a sports story?

I like good enterprise that is timely and localized when appropriate. I want to know what the latest behind-the-scenes stuff is with the likely Santana trade; I want to know the particulars of Vick's sentence; I want to know why and how the Patriots were able to put away the Steelers relatively easily; I want the latest on which local high school studs are committing to which school, etc. I want to know the scores, game analysis, and to scan the boxscores. I love to read witty, insightful columns.

That to me is what a daily sports section/web page is, and how any of that has anything to do with affecting me or justifying its existence in print or on the Web is beyond me. Good sports coverage is great reading, and I can't think of the last time that any of it had an effect on me.

 

[Magnum]

Guess this guy's not a fan of the Wall Street Journal.