| Writers should avoid the perverted pyramid
Author: Don Fry
Published: June 09, 1999
Last Updated: June 29, 1999
Printer-friendly version
Good writing
Recently two editors challenged me publicly on my lifelong campaign
to stamp out the inverted pyramid. Neither understood the form, so I would
like to take this opportunity to clarify why you should never print another
inverted pyramid.
First, a primer on how the inverted pyramid works. After a lead conceived
as a hook to grab the reader, the inverted pyramid presents information
in declining order of importance and interest. Since reporters find the
background the least interesting information they have, they put the context
near the bottom. The piece simply stops, probably because the copy desk
cut it from the bottom without reading. In short: hook, pile, stop.
Let’s contrast the inverted pyramid with what we know about explaining
things in words, by asking what form would produce maximum understanding
for the reader. The piece would have a beginning, a middle, and an end.
The middle would contain the information divided into sections by subject
with clear transitions. Whatever the reader reads first, sets expectations
about the rest, so the beginning would predict the middle in form and content.
If readers have a sense of ending, they can remember what a piece says
in general outline. Without a sense of ending, they cannot remember what
was said. So the ending cements the content into the readers’ memory. In
short: predict, contain, glue.
Who understands what
Let’s represent these two forms, pyramid and maximum, in diagrams:
Inverted Pyramid:
GREAT HOOK LEAD!
VERY IMPORTANT
IMPORTANT
not important
boring
context
dull
0
Maximum Understanding:
What's this about?
Section 1
Transition
Section 2
Transition
Section 3
Ending
If we consider Maximum Understanding as a series of tests, the Inverted
Pyramid fails them all. The hook lead does not necessarily tell the reader
what the story is about, and does not predict the content or form of the
middle. The body of the pyramid is not divided into sections by subject,
and the information is not presented in any logical order. The pyramid
has no ending, so the reader cannot remember what it said.
The inverted pyramid has a deadly assumption built in: The reader read
the paper yesterday or is a news junkie. The pyramid assumes the reader
knows the background, whereas we know readers do not read the paper every
day, look at very few of the stories, and read very little of the ones
they do look at. So the reader reads the top half of the pyramid without
the background to understand it.
“Whoa! Stop there, Don,” you say. “I read inverted-pyramid stories,
and I understand them.” Of course, you understand them. You’re a journalist
and a news junkie, and you know the background already. The only people
who can understand inverted-pyramid stories are journalists, sources, and
junkies.
What leads what
Many journalists confuse the inverted pyramid with the hard-news lead,
which is only part of the form, and also one of its problems. “Hey, it’s
a good idea to tell the impatient reader the news right at the top,” they
say. Yes, but we have to write the lead so the reader will understand it.
Take this typical one:
Senate Republicans scored a tactical victory Thursday by defeating
42-57, an attempt to kill an amendment overturning President Clinton’s
recent striker replacement ban on federal contracts.
Adios, reader.
Finally, leads have no hook function. The reader looks at the photo,
headline, cutline, and lead, in that order. The lead sits fourth in that
sequence, too late to serve as a hook.
Who likes what
If the inverted pyramid is such an explanatory disaster, why do you
keep printing them?
-
Because many journalists don’t know any other form, because many j-schools
keep teaching the inverted form as the form.
-
Because the desk can cut an inverted-pyramid from the bottom without reading.
-
Because journalists like it. Readers do not.
I attribute the steady loss of circulation throughout the world for the
last two decades to the simple fact that readers will not continue to pay
for stories they do not understand. That’s why you should never print another
inverted-pyramid story.
By the way, this column follows the Maximum Understanding form. Clear,
isn’t it?
Fry, an affiliate of the Poynter Institute, works as an independent
writing coach in Charlottesville, Va. Call him at 804/296-6830.
|
