Very frequently news artlces will start with (and/or incorporate later) a quote, or a paraphrasing of a quote, followed by the source.
For example (made up):
An apple a day might keep herpes away, says Dr. Whoever of Wherever.
In journalism schools, I imagine there’s a reason given for writing in this manner. What is it?
I have a pet theory that writing in this manner is meant to unconciously influence people. A lot of people, on some level, expect unbiased, factual information from news sources. So when you read a statement from a newspaper before the source of that information, your mind starts to unconciously be imprinted with that information. Whereas if you heard the source first, and the information second, you would take the information more in context.
So, for instance, the line: “Guns are more likely to kill cute toddlers than hardened criminals, says Ban All Guns, Inc.” would be interpreted differently by the mind than “Ban All Guns, Inc. claims that guns are more likely to kill cute toddlers than hardened criminals.”
The first, the idea is imprinted without context. The second is read differently, due to context being established first. As such, a writer could present the ideas differently depending on whether they intended you to view the information with skepticism or acceptance.
Anyway, I find myself curious as to the official explanation for that form of writing that they teach - I assume they teach it, since it seems very pervasive.
No plot going on. It’s the inverted pyramid at work.
I don’t see how phrasing it one way or the other, including the same information in the sentence, but presenting it differently, really falls under what that web page says.
For the same reason scholarly writing puts the cites in footnotes. The important thing is the information. The source is provided to enable the reader to judge the information. But it’s not what the sentence is “about.”
J-school grad and working journalist checking in.
The simple answer is that putting the information first and the source second puts the emphasis on the information you’re trying to convey. That’s usually the goal --conveying the information, rather than the source. The particular source of the info is usually of secondary importance. (The inverted pyramid plays on the same idea, but for the story as a whole.)
But there certainly are times when the source of the information is important enough to put first. Consider these examples.
“Smoking causes cancer and is a vile curse on our society,” says John Smith, president of People Against Smoking.
Jack Jones, president of tobacco giant Phillip Morris, says “Smoking causes cancer and is a vile curse on our society.” (Here, it’s a surprise that this guy is saying such a thing, so putting him up front brings attention to that.)
And when you note that:
you’re absolutely right. This is one of many, many ways that you can subtly influence the reader to think what you want them to think. Read skeptically.