Against incomprehensible news writing

Back on November 2, I couldn’t make any sense at first out of an article about a Missouri woman who killed a man who had raped her the previous week and was breaking into her house to attack her again. I wrote to the reporter:

Bridget DiCosmo
Southeast Missourian

Dear Miss DiCosmo:

Thank you for this powerful news story.

However, I hope you don’t mind, but I found the opening few paragraphs of the article quite confusing and I had to read several more paragraphs and go back and forth before I could make sense of what had happened.

Here are the three first paragraphs of your piece, with my comments:

Before shooting and killing her rapist early Friday morning, a Cape Girardeau woman had never fired a shotgun in her life.
[When I first read this, I thought it was saying that she killed the rapist while he was raping her or immediately after. Of course, that’s not the case at all, she killed him when he returned to her house. ]

Though the woman, whose name has been withheld, lived alone, she’d always felt safe in her neighborhood, where she’d lived for the past four years.
[This paragraph doesn’t fit at all in any sequence. In the first paragraph you’re talking about her killing him, now you’re talking about how she feels safe in her neighborhood. It doesn’t make any sense where it is, and doesn’t belong near the opening of the article in any case. It’s secondary information, not primary. First get the main facts of what happened, not how she felt about her neighborhood.]

When Ronnie W. Preyer, a registered sex offender who was about to be charged with assaulting her a week earlier, broke into her home shortly after 2 a.m. Friday, she said a calm settled over her as she shot him in the chest before running to a neighbor’s to get help.
[This is completely confusing. The relation of this to the first paragraph makes no sense until one has read more of the article. Also, by referring to “assault,” rather than rape, you introduce a further confusion. Is this assault different from the rape already referred to?]

The main thing is the lack of chronological order in the opening three paragraphs. Nothing fits in any sequence, or at least it doesn’t seem to. The nature of the two separate incidents—the rape the previous week, and then, a week later, the second break-in and the killing—and their relationship with each other is not at all clear.

Here’s an alternative way of writing the lead:

When the man who had raped her the previous week and had threatened to hurt her if she told anyone about it burst into her house again on Friday morning, the Cape Girardeau woman was ready and waiting with a shotgun. Though she had never fired a gun in her life, she said that a calm settled over her as she shot him in the chest, killing him. Then she ran to a neighbor’s to get help.

All the key facts are provided in this lead paragraph. Further details, such as the perpetrator’s name, and the details of the rape, can be filled in. But the important thing is that the reader understands the key facts from the get-go. It’s not a frustrating puzzle that has to be pieced together.

Also, if my first sentence seems too long, part of it could be left out:

When the man who had raped her the previous week burst into her house again on Friday morning, the Cape Girardeau woman was ready and waiting with a shotgun. Though she had never fired a gun in her life, she said that a calm settled over her as she shot him in the chest, killing him. Then she ran to a neighbor’s to get help.

I hope you don’t mind the comments and suggestions.

Best wishes,

Lawrence Auster
New York, New York

James M2, who had sent me the article, and with whom I shared my e-mail, wrote:

I admire the fact that you took the time to do this. Would you please let me know if she responds to you?

I was annoyed by the style of writing in the article but I didn’t notice how confusing it actually was due to previously being oriented into it’s chronology by reading an account in the St. Louis Post. I linked you to the S.E. Missourian story because it included a few more details.

DiCosmo didn’t reply, but a month later, James M2 wrote back:

Your note to Bridget DiCosmo of the Southeast Missourian made a difference! Since your critique, I’ve noticed a marked improvement in the comprehensibility of her articles. I wish she didn’t have such an aversion to paragraphs, but hey, you can’t have everything.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at December 10, 2008 05:21 PM | Send