I just finished pointing out to a commenter that short and to the point is better than seeing how many words you can use to make a point. Then I spotted this item from Greyhawk at Mudville Gazette. It shows both the short and to the point thing, but also shows how news can and is slanted by the MSM rather thoroughly.
When you give a speech, your opening remarks set the tone. You must make your key points early (and often) or risk them being lost on all but the most intent listeners. The same is true for writing – or reporting. Your opening paragraphs establish your story. This may in fact be even more important in writing than in speaking – readers can easily move on to something else without the stigma of appearing rude in public, and if you haven't made your point early you've lost them.
Then Greyhawk take apart coverage of a speech by the Washington Post.
Those lead paragraphs were so fundamentally at odds in meaning I honestly thought at first they must have been reporting on a different speech. In fact, those Post quotes must have come from ad-libbed remarks, questions and answers following the actual speech, or the reporter's faulty memory of the event, in which the only reference to civil war is in this context: "A precipitous Coalition departure could unleash a sectarian civil war…". It is a shame that the Post reporter couldn't find anything in the Ambassador's prepared remarks worthy of a newspaper headline.
This is worth the read, including following the links over to the Belmont Club.
