3 ms·

I was struck by the same feeling, that this piece was a gripping read on what was already a gripping story to tell. His "brain was oozing out" was a point I sto

by sosuke 12y ago

I was struck by the same feeling, that this piece was a gripping read on what was already a gripping story to tell. His "brain was oozing out" was a point I stopped and read again. What changed the style of reporting I wonder?

Zikes 12y ago
Most likely the decreasing relevance of printed news. Most major events were soon known more quickly thanks to radio, then television, then internet.
drb311 12y ago
I googled the question. Weirdly, the answer uses Lincoln's assassination as an example. It was the fulcrum event between new and old. Here's how the inverted pyramid report of his death began: "This evening at about 9:30 p.m. at Ford’s Theatre, the President, while sitting in his private box with Mrs. Lincoln, Mrs. Harris and Major Rathburn, was shot by an assassin, who suddenly entered the box and approached behind the President. "The assassin then leaped upon the stage, brandishing a large dagger or knife, and made his escape in the rear of the theatre. "The pistol ball entered the back of the President’s head and penetrated nearly through the head. The wound is mortal." http://www.poynter.org/news/media-innovation/12755/birth-of-the-inverted-pyramid-a-child-of-technology-commerce-and-history/ http://www.poynter.org/news/media-innovation/12755/birth-of-... The technological driver wasn't the addition of new media but the telegraph, which meant news stories took on a new urgency -- and editors had to make quick cuts to stories close to print time as they decided which stories deserved most column inches. Will the Internet kill the inverted pyramid approach? There is no longer any cost associated with column inches printed or characters transmitted.
- moioci 12y ago
  The cost is measured also in reader's attention. The implicit contract with the reader is that if you just read the first paragraph, you won't miss the essential fact in para 5.

by sosuke 12y ago

Zikes 12y ago

Most likely the decreasing relevance of printed news. Most major events were soon known more quickly thanks to radio, then television, then internet.

drb311 12y ago

I googled the question. Weirdly, the answer uses Lincoln's assassination as an example. It was the fulcrum event between new and old. Here's how the inverted pyramid report of his death began: "This evening at about 9:30 p.m. at Ford’s Theatre, the President, while sitting in his private box with Mrs. Lincoln, Mrs. Harris and Major Rathburn, was shot by an assassin, who suddenly entered the box and approached behind the President. "The assassin then leaped upon the stage, brandishing a large dagger or knife, and made his escape in the rear of the theatre. "The pistol ball entered the back of the President’s head and penetrated nearly through the head. The wound is mortal." http://www.poynter.org/news/media-innovation/12755/birth-of-the-inverted-pyramid-a-child-of-technology-commerce-and-history/ http://www.poynter.org/news/media-innovation/12755/birth-of-... The technological driver wasn't the addition of new media but the telegraph, which meant news stories took on a new urgency -- and editors had to make quick cuts to stories close to print time as they decided which stories deserved most column inches. Will the Internet kill the inverted pyramid approach? There is no longer any cost associated with column inches printed or characters transmitted.

moioci 12y ago
The cost is measured also in reader's attention. The implicit contract with the reader is that if you just read the first paragraph, you won't miss the essential fact in para 5.