Ledes: Why the extra words?

There seems to be in vogue among reporters the need to throw a few chosen extra words in ledes to "liven them up" or make them seem chummy.

To often, however, they just get in the way and just fuel the idea that the reporter has an agenda. Like this:

State Democrats clamoring for the resignation of Lt. Gov. Ken Ard might get some help from an unlikely source: Republican Attorney General Alan Wilson. 

 Why is "an unlikely source" needed? Isn't that clear from specifying that Democrats might get help from a Republican? Actually, it would be more profitable if the writer had specified that Ard is a Republican, instead of making the reader connect the dots.

State Democrats clamoring for the resignation of Republican Lt. Gov. Ken Ard might get help from another Republican, Attorney General Alan Wilson.

I think readers probably are smart enough with that to figure out it's unusual, dontcha think?

Quotable

This is in a Roger Simon column about the hubub over Journolist. Simon bemoans how the now-defunct listserv of center to left-leaning journalists has given others ammunition to attack the craft:

[L]et me end with the words of Stanley Walker. He was a famous newspaper editor in the 1920s and ’30s and wrote the following, which I have edited for space. (And if he were writing today, I am reasonably sure he would have included women.



“What makes a good newspaperman? The answer is easy. He knows everything. He is aware not only of what goes on in the world today, but his brain is a repository of the accumulated wisdom of the ages.

“He hates lies and meanness and sham, but keeps his temper. He is loyal to his paper and to what he looks upon as his profession; whether it is a profession or merely a craft, he resents attempts to debase it.

“When he dies, a lot of people are sorry, and some of them remember him for several days.”


Or at least for several news cycles.

Would we have written she's a troll?

I thought we were beyond this. But in this day and age of Hilton, Spears, et al., why does it not surprise me that some major news organizations resorted to leading off their stories about Valerie Plame with these kinds of descriptions:

AP (Julie Hirshfeld Davis): Valerie plame lent a glamorous face and a personal story to Democrats' criticism of the Bush administration Friday ...

NPR (David Welna): Platinum blond and glamorous as a movie idol, Valerie Plame Wilson set off a storm of clicking camera shutters when she strode into the hearing room this morning. (nat sound of cameras) And then this woman who's kept a mysterious silence since having her identity revealed nearly four years ago finally spoke. ...

Someone please explain to me what those phrases lend to each story -- and certainly how they frame each story by being in the lede? Would we have written it if she were ordinary or even homely? Or if she were a he? NPR's case is especially egregious. Just start with her name. Oh, and someone remind Welna about "volition" -- she didn't have her identity revealed -- it was revealed -- in other words write since her identity was revealed ...

Was there a copy editor in the house?

This just in - another wire-service conviction

Yes, it truly is time saving when the AP dispenses with a trial:

LANCASTER, S.C. - State troopers say they have arrested a man who struck and killed a pedestrian last weekend and drove off without calling for help.

Could we at least get "who is alleged to have struck ... and to have driven" in there?

Why does this kind of stuff get me upset? Because it's a small but creeping breakdown in basic civility. I don't care what you think of the person -- someday he or she could be on your jury. Let's all respect each other by observing the niceties, huh?