"State police at Greensburg said a would-be robbery victim fought back late Saturday night when he was attacked outside a bank in Westmoreland County."
"The Tribune-Review does not name alleged victims of sexual assault.
In 2007, Cynthia and Mark Pollard Sr., along with their children, Jonathan, Tabitha and Mark Jr., were charged with kidnapping and enslaving 19-year-old Emily Nicely in Greensburg."
--Sample Crime Reports
Although it was shorter and the wording was relatively cut and dried, I like the "Would-be robbery" article a little better than the "Plea deal reached" article. The lead was well-written in that it made me want to read the rest of the story, and since it was so short, people in a hurry wouldn't feel intimidated about reading it. Anytime you have a story about a potential victim fighting back, I think that speaks to readers because it's what I think most people would hope they could successfully do in a situation like that. There wasn't a whole lot the writer did to make the story sound more exciting (they really couldn't have on short notice and with relatively little information), but since the facts that are known are pretty interesting, there isn't that much need for embellishment. I suppose it could have been more boringly worded to emphasize the attempted robbery and not the victim fighting back, and the interesting emphasis is the biggest contribution to the story that makes it more interesting.
The other article was notable to me for doing things that I thought newspapers generally weren't supposed to do. For example, they mention the exact addresses of the people accused. Maybe the writer thought they'd mention the address to warn readers to be careful of the people living there, but they haven't even pled guilty. It seems like that's sort of against protocol, because now those people, guilty or not, have absolutely no anonymity. And speaking of anonymity, the quote I mentioned above really threw me off. They say they don't name victims of sexual assault, but in the next sentence they mention by name the victim of a similar crime. Perhaps the 2007 charges didn't involve sexual assault, but even if it wasn't formally charged, it really seems in poor taste to mention the name of someone in an extremely similar situation. Especially because those two sentences juxtaposed really make it look like they're violating their own standards. Overall, the second article just confused me over what you should and shouldn't do when reporting these types of cases. Another, perhaps more minor point, is the direct quote from Chuck Washburn is kind of unnecessary. It could very easily be paraphrased. I'm afraid this article seemed like it was kind of a mess to me.