An article by Paul Sullivan sets out to countdown the "top ten moments from a lost season." I was interested in reading the article initially because the picture attached to it was one of Lou Pinella, the now ex-Cubs manager, standing on the field at Wrigley with tears in his eyes, how cute. But I was quickly surprised by the text that followed, which began by explaining Pinella shouting profanely. I was annoyed by this because I think Sullivan should have picked a different picture then, seeing as the picture is what people look at usually when going to read an article. The lead and the picture clashed too much. Also, I wasn't sure how the lead even connected to the top 10 moments topic, if I had known the article would focus around Pinella only, I probably wouldn't have even opened it to read it. Sullivan describes the season as a "lost season" but doesn't really give background as to why he calls it that. When the list of top 10 moments began, Sullivan didn't state who decided on these moments, and if it was in his opinion, he should have written that. The top ten moments were all quite repetitive and mostly Pinella quotes. All in all, the article should have been named "Top 10 Pinella moments", not "Cubs top 10 moments..." I think Sullivan is a good writer, but he should definitely think about the extras (corresponding photo, title etc.) the next time he writes a story.
Sullivan's Article
The editors and designers are the ones choosing photos, headlines and design. What's a reporter to do?
ReplyDelete