Comparing Leads...

Since the shootings at Fort Hood, Texas, three different articles have been written about the incident. Two from the New York Times and one from the Washington Post. I'm going to use this blog entry to compare the leads in these three articles.

Post: "An Army psychiatrist, trained to treat soldiers under stress, allegedly opened fire Thursday in a crowded medical building at Fort Hood, Tex. When the assault ended minutes later, the attack had become what is believed to be the largest mass shooting ever to occur on a U.S. military base. Twelve were killed, 31 wounded."

Times 1: "An Army psychiatrist facing deployment to one of America’s war zones killed 12 people and wounded 31 others on Thursday in a shooting rampage with two handguns at the sprawling Fort Hood Army post in Central Texas, military officials said."

Times 2: "WASHINGTON — Born and reared in Virginia, the son of immigrant parents from a small Palestinian town near Jerusalem, he joined the Army right out of high school, against his parents’ wishes. The Army, in turn, put him through college and then medical school, where he trained to be a psychiatrist."

I think the article that provided the most information was Times 1. The lead is short and to the point, but gives the all the relevant information in a simple way. The Post lead is also good, although a little wordy, but it doesn't talk about the "why." You can argue that because we don't know the reasons why Hasan shot at the crowd yet, it shouldn't be included but the fact that he was soon to be deployed seems important to me.

The second times article's lead is nothing like the other two. We can't figure out 'everything we need to know' from this lead at all. The article, unlike the other two articles, focuses on Hasan, his history and possible reasons for his actions. Without the other Times article, this article would be useless, because it doesn't explain what happened at all. I happened to read this article first, and was very confused by the end.