Alltop.com

These days in journalism, it’s like moving to a new house—a constant evaluation of what what do we keep? And what do we throw out? What will we actually need in a new era? Over on Science Blogs, there’s an interesting conversation of this nature: Is it time to do away with the inverted pyramid, a sacred pillar of journalism that guides the structure of a traditional news story? Author Ed Yong pulls a paragraph from Jason Fry to frame the thought succintly:

“Arrive at the latest newspaper story about, say, the health-care debate and you’ll be told what’s new at the top, then given various snippets of background that you’re supposed to use to orient yourself. Which is serviceable if you’ve been following the story (though in that case you’ll know the background and stop reading), but if you’re new you’ll be utterly lost.”

In the original post, Fry goes on to ponder whether sites such as Wikipedia—which give an abundance of context—will overshadow the news outlet as we know it today.

Part of me doubts whether it is time for the inverted pyramid to pass on. After all, the concept is based in the idea that the most important, most pressing idea comes first. So, if you are describing the health care debate, you don’t explain its germination first every time. Rather you first say it passed in the Senate. And this seems useful. The inverted pyramid doesn't exclude context either. In fact, often it comes right after the nut graph. Furthermore, the inverted pyramid isn’t the only type of article around. For years now, there have been infographics, time lines and sidebars that provide elegant context.

It is important practice to question whether it is time to throw old models away. But to fall on a cliche, let’s not throw out the baby with the bath water. I think the inverted pyramid—considered as a structure that places the most urgent and imporant events first—has a place in the world.

Keep a pulse on the latest in journalism.