2 Leads and a Mislead

I knew exactly what I was going to read about in this Politico article because the lead perfectly summed up all the points the article was going to hit on. Although it is a little on the lengthier side, it still manages to avoid excess words. The lead gives the titles of Sen. John McCain and Russian President Vladimir Putin for those readers who may not know who they are. It also tells the reader why McCain released the op-ed instead of assuming that readers knew Putin recently had an opinion piece in the New York Times. Right away the reader knows exactly how McCain felt as the lead uses such words as "accusing [...] of corruption, repression, and self-serving rule." This lead was easy to read and was a great introduction to the rest of the article.

My next great lead comes from Fox News. This lead does a great job in catching the audiences attention. Ending with the phrase "bodies of six people listed as missing for decades" really makes the reader want to read on. It is also very concise, which helps contribute to the impact it has in making the reader want more. By putting "missing for decades" as opposed to saying "missing since 1970 and the late 1950's or 1960's" not only makes the lead more concise, but it makes it far more appealing and mysterious. I love this lead.

The lead I found that I felt could use a little fixing comes from The New York Times. The lead sentence is as follows: "You would think that Netflix, HBO and the like don't think too highly of video piracy Web sites." I can think on my own and do not want someone telling me what I am thinking. Furthermore, the reader still has no idea what the article is going to discuss; there was not much of a hook. Even after reading the entire introduction paragraph, the reader is still unsure as to what the article will be talking about. What a turn off. I believe a better lead would have been something like, "Netflix and HBO have come to love an unlikely partner: video piracy Web sites."