Question regarding the proper structure of a news article

Hi

I’m trying to figure out by looking at a simple news report how it is structured. I hope someone can help me with a practical guide that I could use for any simple article.
As I see it, an article has the following general outline:

  1. A headline encapsulating the core idea (may be in the form of a pun)/a hook
  2. First Paragraph…Matter -of-fact statement that summarizes an event/gets to the heart of the matter/issue/a contention
  3. Second Paragraph…Source of the matter/Who has done what?
  4. Third Paragraph…Background on the matter leading up to some contentious issue
  5. Consequences/repercussions of the issue on others/environment etc
    6/7. Expert opinion quoted on the situation as it stands and what actions are being taken. What should be done that isn’t being done.
  6. Matter-of-fact statement on the consequences if action is not taken (no quotations)

I look forward to your feedback. I am looking for a practical method I can apply any time and get the proper order. Who? what? where? when? why? and how? doesn’t help straighten out the information. There must be a better technique than that.
davidmich

Canal project proposed to reduce capital’s smog

1.Experts are questioning whether a proposed canal from Beijing to Tianjin would reduce the capital’s smog, as a new study suggested.
2.A bluebook by the Beijing Academy of Social Sciences said the 160 km canal, also capable of carrying ships, would start in southeast Beijing and end in the Binhai New Area of Tianjin.
3.This is not the first time the idea of building a canal has been brought up, but it has attracted attention because the bluebook said the canal may help reduce smog.
4.The microclimate effects the canal may have on Beijing can humidify the capital’s air, reducing fine particles from such sources as industrial spray and dust, said the bluebook.
5.“But research results have shown that visibility decreases as the humidity grows, when the concentration of PM2.5 - particulate matter smaller than 2.5 microns that can penetrate the lungs - stays at the same level, which means moister air may not always be good,” said Chai Fahe, vice-president of the Chinese Research Academy of Environmental Sciences.
6.He said it is laudable that experts from all areas are working on this issue, but every proposed method needs supporting data that have been scientifically demonstrated before jumping to a conclusion.
7.“Such a large body of water would certainly help regulate the microclimate of Beijing, but the water would have to be good quality and the project should not damage the existing ecosystem,” Chai said.
8.The seawater directed into the canal would salinize soil along the canal. The water coming from the Bohai Sea, if poor quality, would not help improve Beijing’s environment, Peng Yingdeng, a researcher from the Beijing Research Institute of Environmental Protection, told Beijing News

I took High School journalism way back when (1968/1969), so I’m hardly an Xpert, but I’ll take a shot at this:

I don’t think there exists any formal structural outline as detailed and explicit as your 8-point outline. That said, the outline you’ve given looks very good to me, but it needn’t be precisely like that for all and every article on every topic.

For sure, the first paragraph should tell, in summary, the whole story. All the rest serves to flesh out the details. Perhaps you’ve read news articles where you read and read and read and read and you still haven’t found out what the damn story is – because it seems that some writers feel the story should be written with suspense, like a good whodunit mystery, to get you reading and keep you reading. And perhaps after reading four or five paragraphs, and still not knowing what the story is, you’ve said Fuck it and moved on to another story.

Just don’t write your story like that.

Your item 6/7 in your outline (“Expert opinion quoted on the situation as it stands and what actions are being taken. What should be done that isn’t being done.”) might be a bit questionable as to whether you should include it.

One tenet of good journalism is that you should strictly separate factual news reporting from opinion reporting. (See any article on Yahoo News for an example of how NOT to write news.) Your item 6/7 doesn’t entirely stray from fact into opinion, but seems like it could push the limits. Quoting some expert opinion isn’t out of the question, but be careful with it that you don’t stray into editorializing. Unless, you know, you’re actually writing an editorial.

For the most part, your proposed article with the numbered paragraphs looks like it might be good, if you just leave out the numbers.

But note: Think twice about what your article is really saying, and ask if that’s the subject you really want to cover. Your headline tells of a canal proposed to reduce smog, but the article tells a different story: It seems to focus, instead, on several lines of thought disputing the value of the proposed project. That’s a different story. So decide if that’s the story you want to tell, and if so, focus on telling that story. (And write a different headline accordingly.)

I’m a journalism minor in college right now, and in class we learn about the inverted pyramid style of writing typically used in short articles (daily newspapers, etc.). You open with a lede somewhere in the first pagraph – a sentence that summarizes the entire article succinctly. Then you go from most important details (who, what, when, where, why, how) to least, ending with background info, contact information (if relevant), etc.

The writer produces that piece within a reasonable word limit. The layout editor then lays out all the stories of the day, eliminating paragraphs from the bottom up as they deem important. If your story isn’t that interesting or that important, chunks of it get cut off. Hence putting the most important stuff at the top.

But keep in mind that this is the same industry that is quickly dying, replaced by twitter, Facebook, and pretty web posts with images and videos and such. As consumer attention spans get shorter, what they teach you is not necessarily what sells anymore.

In long-form writing (magazines, serials, investigative pieces, etc.) there is considerably more leeway to tell a story in a more traditional narrative form that purposely does not try to follow the inverted pyramid style, but instead seeks to create a sense of intrigue earlier on that will keep people reading to the end. But again, the magazines that follow this traditional format (Newsweek, Time) are also dying.

Most of the news writing I see these days are extremely short summaries by Google News or the Bit of News bot. Human print journalists are by and large a dying breed, with a few holdouts clinging out to long-form investigative pieces that fewer and fewer organizations have the balls to fund. Most of the average everyday news instead comes from industry-specific bloggers and whistleblowers, who resort to mainstream media outlets mostly to reach their audiences rather than to do the fact-checking and copywriting.


So… it’s not necessarily a paragraph-by-paragraph rule that you must abide by. Journalism isn’t contract law, and your purpose is to get information across to interested audiences, not to abide by some overly rigid formula. So who is your audience? Why are you writing? That, not some immutable ruleset, should be what guides you.

I know little about journalism except as a consumer. I do not buy a printed paper these days, but I do subscribe to a “quality” online version.

Your example article reads more like a translation (which I assume it is) than an original piece. Take the headline: "Canal project proposed to reduce capital’s smog". It doesn’t actually make sense - yes I know that headlines don’t always follow grammatical rules but…? Canal Promises Smog Reduction. might be a better alternative.

The rest of the article also reads in a slightly awkward way, which I think makes it look more like an academic summary than a popular newspaper report.

My question is still the same. I would like a formula that would be simple, for a simple article, and above all repeatable. If algorithms/avatars can spit out simple articles, how hard can it be to formulate a simple formula for just about anything on a very simple level? My guess is that just like essay-writing, an article can be broken down into its parts.
The problem is articles do vary in structure. What I can’t figure out is how to express the overriding logic in a step-by-step fashion.
davidmich

In addition to the “inverted pyramid,” one journalist I know suggests always breaking up the story into chunks by inserting quotes at regular intervals. So it would go like this:

1st Line - Introduce topic, grab interest
1st Paragraph - Who, what, where, when, how
Insert Relevant Quote from Witness or Participant
2nd Paragraph - Why, other supporting details
Another quote from a witness or subject matter expert
3rd Paragraph - Less important details
Another quote

And so on

Thank you Chihuahua. Very useful tip.
davidmich

Also, always put the location between the headline and the article.

It is frustrating to come across a news article on the web and have no clue where the events took place. And just saying “Tri-state” or “Springfield” doesn’t help. Town and state/province at a minimum.

Then the date the article is written.

Datelines used to be a standard. I have no idea why they are usually dispensed with today.

Thanks ftg. Very helpful. Thank you all. If you have any other suggestions I look forward to them.
davidmich