This week I read an article from the Huffington Post regarding Brian Williams and his return to television with MSNBC.
This article did a really good job of briefly explaining Williams’ past and the controversy his career faced. It gave enough information so the reader knew what was being talked about, but not too much to the point where the article seemed to only be about old news. Then, it focused on his new job at MSNBC, what he will be doing there, and his first story on the Pope’s United States visit.
I thought the headline and lead worked very well. The headline left the reader wondering . . . not talking about himself? What is he talking about?
The lead summarized very well what was in the article. The only issue is that it was not overly intriguing to someone who may not care about television news or Williams’ story. It just summed up the who, what, when, why, how.
Overall, this was a very well-written, informational story. The author did a great job of being objective, especially on this subject matter of whether Williams was really in the wrong and if he should get another chance or not. It gave the information readers need without carrying the story on for pages.
The lead begins with Williams’ name, suggesting he is well-known and recognizable. Is he? It’s in the headline, and there’s a picture of him above the text, so maybe it’s all redundant. The lead does put the emphasis on his return, rather than the past, which was a good choice.