Ledes from The Globe and Mail, February 11th, 2014

The Globe and Mail, February 11th, 2014

The lede paragraph of a news story must do a few things at once. It must (a) engage the reader by building interest in the story and (b) provide a basic overview of the main facts of the story (who, what, where, when, why and how).

Depending on the type of lede being employed (i.e. hard news lede vs. anecdotal lede), the author may try to accomplish (a) and (b) in varying amounts. For instance, an anecdotal lede will usually be more experiential than informational. The opposite is true for hard news ledes.

With that said, a strong lede of either kind will accomplish both (a) and (b).

The following is an analysis of two ledes from The Globe and Mail newspaper on February 11th, 2014. The first is an example of a good anecdotal lede. The second is an example of a hard news lede that could be better.

Still delivering: Why Japan's presses keep rolling, for now by Nathan Vanderklippe

"It’s a cool 2 a.m. in a downtown Tokyo back alley washed in orange street light. A small truck pulls up to the Ebisu office of ASA, a newspaper delivery service, loaded with morning editions. The still of night vanishes in a flurry of quiet activity. What ensues is the kind of scene news executives the world round drool over: A vibrant effort to get news to tens of millions of readers still hungry for newsprint."

This lede does a few things well. It engages the reader with a descriptive narrative. It provides basic information to give context to the reader (who, what, where, and when). And it's well written.

Overall, I think this is a good example of a lede which is both very informative and engaging.


From underdog to Westminster by Amberly McAteer

"An underdog story if ever there was one: A puppy from an abandoned hotel in middle-of-nowhere South Carolina, picked up by an all-kill shelter where owners have 48-hours to claim a dog before it is euthanized. With only hours left, this dog’s fate is changed by a woman many kilometres away."

This lede could be better for a few reasons. It provides basic information to give context to the reader (who, what, where, when and how). However, it's confusingly written (I don't like the author's choice of phrasing) and, as a result, not very engaging.

Overall, I think the author tries to present too many facts in the lede - some of which are of secondary importance to the story. I also think that the author would have done better to change the phrasing of the lede. A confusing lede makes for an un-engaging lede.