An unfortunate pattern I see with rookies (I don’t mean to criticize, I used to do this myself) is to report on a meeting or a speech.
Meetings and speeches are not news – what is voted at the meeting and what is said at the speech is news.
In the future, think: “Here I am at this meeting or speech. What is the real issue here?” Report on that – either what was accomplished or voted at the meeting, or the key points said in the speech.
Too often I see headlines such as:
Leaders meet to discuss issues
or
Conference president speaks Saturday afternoon
These headlines and their subsequent story do not answer the question of “Why?” A reporter needs to answer the question of what leaders accomplished and why the issue was worth gathering leaders together, or why the conference president spoke?
More effective headlines would report the story, not the façade of the meeting or speech:
Leaders vote to curb spending by 5%
or
Conference president calls for renewed community outreach emphasis
I cringe when I look back at a headline I wrote while in college:
Watergate reporter Woodward speaks at UC Davis
A more effective headline would have lead with one of his key points:
Woodward: Hillary difficult to pinpoint in White House race
In the media, I’ve never seen headlines that read:
Red Sox Play Yankees
or
Court Conducts Case
These ineffective headlines report meetings. Again, effective headlines report results:
Sox’s 9th-inning Homer Beats Yankees
or
Smith Found Guilty
Here’s a classic example of how the previously untrained writer covers an event, particularly for a religious publication. Consider the following ineffective lead:
On June 3, thousands gathered at the Southern Judea Conference retreat center to hear Jesus of Nazareth speak on the weekend’s theme “Sermon on the Mount.”
He spoke and answered satisfactorily questions on topics such as spiritual weakness, grieving people, and salt.
“This was a great speech, all of us were truly blessed,” said Saul Lubstein, Southern Judea Conference president.
This type of lead makes me want to scream, "WHAT DID THE GUY ACTUALLY SAY???"
This type of lead makes me want to scream, "WHAT DID THE GUY ACTUALLY SAY???"
Suggestions:
Delay the date. While the question When is important, it’s not as important as What or Who and should generally not lead a first sentence. This ineffective lead begins with the date and the meeting. To better see beyond the meeting façade, lead with Who or What instead of When or Where. ex: http://pacificunionrecorder.adventistfaith.org/issue/48/5/653
Who’s that? The subject’s name isn’t as important as who he is – offer a title or some context first. Say “Entertainer Bob Hope” or “News anchor Brian Williams.” ex: http://news.adventist.org/en/archive/articles/2010/06/23/city-of-atlanta-welcomes-adventists-during-press-conference
What did they say? Most importantly, first report the answers given instead of just the topics or questions asked. ex: http://news.adventist.org/2010/05/in-east-central-afri.html
Now see how cutting through the façade of a meeting allows you to identify the real news with a more effective lead:
A Nazarene carpenter claiming to be the messiah is turning religious tradition on its head by accusing leaders of worshiping rules instead of the loving Creator behind them.
Jesus of Nazareth blessed the mentally weak and grieving at the Southern Judea Conference retreat center on June 3, saying that they, not religious zealots, would inherit salvation.
"Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven," Jesus told the crowd of roughly 5,000.
I’ll have more on this topic in future posts, but for now, think: “What can I do to see beyond the façade of this meeting or speech? What is the real issue and conclusion that should lead my story?”
Answer the questions, "Why," and "So what?"
Answer the questions, "Why," and "So what?"
