Just finished reading an article on the Michigan/Notre Dame game. The sports writer first described the last play of the game, then the next to last play of the game, then a play which tied the game at 7 apiece, then a game that tied the game at 14, then who passed to whom and who ran the ball.
Why start at the end, go to the middle then to the beginning and then start towards the end, then start describing the same plays again from the running backs perspective versus the coach's or quarterback's angle?
I could make more sense of what happened during the game if the writer would start at the beginning and describe what happened up until the end. If one starts with the end of the game, then just leave it there and quit the flash back crap. Writing in circles just makes the article harder to understand and I most often don't bother to finish reading it.
I know one is taught in journalism school to get the most important stuff up front and then fill in the details later in case the article needs to be shortened but there has to be a better way. How about something like, after three tie scores and five lead changes, Team A pulled an upset in overtime with a fake field goal.
There, everthing important is there.
No comments:
Post a Comment