On Jan. 21, the Athens Banner-Herald published a story called
"Police on lookout for sandwich bandit." The story is posted under the Police Blotter and I assume it was written quickly to inform people about the robbery. When I initially read the story, I found the lead rather confusing. The beginning of the story might confuse readers because it does not clearly report whether or not the robber's original intentions were to buy a sandwich or to only rob the sandwich shop. How does reporter Roger Nielsen know the robber really wanted a sandwich, but suddenly changed his mind? Since the man has neither been caught nor questioned, it is difficult for the reporter to assume his intentions were to buy a sandwich, but rob the shop instead. The story would be less confusing if it began with a clear statement about the sandwich shop in Winder that was robbed. I believe the reporter was trying to be creative with his lead and it just backfired, making it more confusing for the reader. When reporting stories about crime, I believe it benefits the reader if the story is simplistic and factual, rather than a creative masterpiece. The reporter included a description of the robber, his possible car, the amount of money stolen, where the incident took place, and at what time. The reporter also included the phone number of the local sheriff's office for people who have information about the incident. By providing readers with all of this information about the robbery, the reporter is being loyal to citizens.
What I found interesting is that the newspaper came out with another
story on the sandwich bandit later that day. I was pleasantly surprised and pleased to see that the lead was different. The lead in the updated story is more informative and less confusing. The reporter or his editor must have realized the lead in the initial story was misleading. The remainder of the story is the same.
As far as issues with AP Style, the reporter did not have any problems.
Lauren,
ReplyDeleteGood job noting the flaws in this story and then going back to find it edited later. I've pointed out in lecture that pressure to get information online quickly has resulted in significantly reduced, and sometimes nonexistent, editing of stories in their earliest stages. Maybe a busy editor glanced at the original story before it went online, or maybe it went up without any review at all. You must be correct that someone later noticed the story needed work and took the time to update it.
You shouldn't conclude from this unsuccessful attempt at creativity that only flat and technical approaches are appropriate to crime stories. Most leads that try to be cute or clever come off that way and don't work very well, but reporters who use their creativity to portray the most interesting facts in unique ways can make even three-paragraph briefs worth reading. One of the most successful crime reporters ever, Edna Buchanan, is famous for her use of key facts to create stark and surprising leads.
Perry