Best and Worst Leads-Nick Tedesco

I was instantly drawn to this Washington Post article due to the descriptive opening lead.  The author, Simon Denyer, opens with a very dramatic, and sad representation of the poor conditions facing many Chinese families. In the first sentence, the author right away appealed to the emotions of the reader.  Although he didn't mention "why" and "how" at first, he created such an interesting and descriptive first sentence, that it made me want to continue reading, and figure out why and how this was happening.  The opening gives a list of the "detritus of their lives," telling the reader specific conditions of the poor elderly in China.  The detailed story that Denyer tells in the lead creates a great foundation for the rest of the article.  By telling the audience a dark example of the poor conditions in the lead, they already have enough information to understand the gist of the article, and can choose to read on or stop there.

Another lead that stuck out to me, was this CNN article about a train derailing in Virginia.  This article is a great example of the inverted pyramid.  Although a short article, all the necessary information is stated within the first sentence.  We find out who got hurt, when it happened, where it happened, and how it happened in the very opening sentence.  The rest goes on to explain specifics, such as the exact location it happened, and some details about the incident.  What is great about this lead is that it is simple and to the point.  If I was scanning articles quickly, I would know everything that is necessary to know about this article in a few seconds, just by reading the lead.

This lead in the Washington Post caught my attention because I saw words that said, "2,000 pound bomb," and "tiny pirate boat," in the same sentence.  However, when I read the lead, I was not only confused by the military jargon, but the author posed a question that I wasn't even sure was asking.  After reading it over again, I finally understood what he was saying, but it made me slightly disinterested.  If he just stated what the Air force was doing with the bomb, and that's it, then maybe I would have followed better.  The author also tries to add humor to the lead, which didn't really work and ended up making me more confused.  The article itself was not bad, and all around was actually funny.  But the lead itself did not work, and it should have been clearer what the author was going to be talking about.  I would rewrite the lead as:  "The Air Force tested out their 2,000 pound "Lancer" bombs on small motor boats in the Gulf of Mexico earlier this month."