September 18, 2007

I'm Sorry...

...but I had to chose this article. Come on, with a headline like "Man Says Wild Sex Caused SUV Accident", you have to read that.

However, I was sadly disappointed with the article. It seemed to follow the Gomez article's formula of really just giving the basic facts, and that's it. I understand that with a common accident story, as with the Gomez article, there really isn't much to tell. But come on- one would expect a little more out of the other article!

The two accident stories failed to include any "hard-hitting" element to them...since there wasn't any. Unless it's a major event, it seems like papers regard accidents as common events and treat them as such- by writing just factual blurbs.

Posted by VanessaKolberg at September 18, 2007 9:34 PM | TrackBack
Comments

I'll admit, if I saw that headline, I'd stop and read it too.

But you're right, the story didn't live up to its title, I guess that's safe to say, haha.

I'm sure the reporter thought that, that title would attract attention, so you would think that because of that it would give him more of a reason to write a better story.

Posted by: ChelseaOliver at September 18, 2007 10:17 PM

I agree. The Gomez article was just a common accident, but you would at least expect a little more substance. Isn't there a journalistic rule that says something along the lines of "make it interesting". I know I've written about subjects for the Setonian that weren't too terribly exciting, but I at least made an effort to make them more interesting. I don't think the writer did so.

Posted by: Daniella Choynowski at September 19, 2007 12:16 AM

I was also completely fooled into reading this story/blurb because of the title. There was very much to the story, but I guess the title beats out "Carny wreaks truck." Maybe articles jazz up the titles to get readers. Don't know, but the story, besides having a fun title, didn't do much in the news department. I felt a little used.

Posted by: Mitchell Steele at September 19, 2007 7:06 AM

I, too, read the story because of its title, but I still think the body of it was interesting. I mean, two people were having sex in the backseat while someone else was driving. And apparently they were so "into it" that, in their enthusiasm, they tipped the car into a pole. If that's not interesting, it's at least funny. I will admit that the reporter could have added a little bit more to the article, maybe by getting a quote from either Frank or the two people who were in the backseat, but those would probably have been extremely awkward interviews that only resulted in extremely awkward quotes. The reporter also might have been laughing to hard to focus on what he was writing.

Posted by: Ellen Einsporn at September 20, 2007 12:33 PM

Oh how I wanted the story to meet the headline. That blew. I do agree that the rest of the story was a little drab. With a headline like that, it should have been a saucy article. It wasn't.

Posted by: Jeremy Barrick at October 1, 2007 1:07 AM

I feel tricked by the headline...they reeled me in but left me hanging. Oh well, I guess the headline did what it was supposed to- make someone read the article. After all, we did, didn't we?

Posted by: Nessa at October 14, 2007 2:08 PM
Post a comment









Remember personal info?