You are writing a story about someone, let's call them X, who has a problem. X has a medical condition and cannot find or afford treatment; X is looking for housing and is unable to afford current rents; X is living in a neighborhood where police presence is sporadic and ineffective, and is afraid to leave the house.
By the most remarkable coincidence, X exemplifies the larger issues in the story you are actually writing, so after three or four paragraphs about X, you drop them, perhaps to return for brief mention later in the article, and write the nut graph that explains the issue that your article is really about.
But first you must write the essential transition: X is not alone.
The thing is that this device, known as the "anecdotal lede" in the paragraph game, has become so familiar to readers over the past quarter-century or so that no transition is really necessary. The reader grasps what the game is. That means that the "X is not alone" transition is something more than a gimmick; it has become a cliche.
When I was an editor at The Baltimore Sun and an "X is not alone" transition came across the desk, I immediately deleted it, to no harm to the structure of the article and no obstacle to the reader's understanding. We actually disparaged it in the house style guide, to which reporters paid fitful attention.
But the "monkey-see, monkey-do" tendency in journalism is powerful, and you will see "X is not alone" all the damn time.
On one occasion I deleted it from an article, and the next day the reporter asked for an explanation of the change. A writer is always entitled to an explanation of changes in editing, and so I patiently explained that that transition had become a stock device that was not particularly helpful to readers and that we had been discouraged from using.
The reporter answered: "It's not a cliche when I use it."
You see what editors are up against.
Did you tell that reporter, “But you are not alone”?
ReplyDeleteMy favorite is when writers begin with “So,” as in “So, when in the course of human events….”
ReplyDeleteThanks for the article! And as a bonus, I've learned two journalese words: lede and nut graph.
ReplyDeleteWhile it is certainly true that the explicit transition is unnecessary, so too is the anecdotal lede. A story about mortgage rates going up (or going down--it makes no difference) must open with a quote from Bob and Tammy in Tempe who are looking to buy (or perhaps sell--it makes no difference) their house and how the change will affect them. The belief apparently is that I, the reader, lack the capacity for abstract thought. The reporter must seek out persons I can presumably relate to, so I can grasp the concept that mortgage rates will affect real estate transactions.
ReplyDeleteI gather that reporters are expected to actually go find a Bob and Tammy for these stories, so they can get real quotes. (If Bob and Tammy don't give the quote they want, try again with Dylan and Amanda.) I wonder how much time is wasted in this, when using an explicitly hypothetical example would provide the same information. Also, put it later in the story. I miss the days when newspaper articles started with the most important bits and worked their way down.
Not sure it's so much a belief that readers lack the capacity for abstract thought as the addiction to narrative that besets almost all forms of messaging these days. If I never see another Linkedin posting for a marketing job that mentions "a passion for storytelling," I will still be way past my nausea limit. (Talk about monkey-see, monkey do behavior.)
Delete