Quote Originally Posted by Mrs. P View Post
I thought this piece by Pyette was quite well written actually. Let's look:

A few things that stood out.
1.) Pyette obeys the ultimate rule of journalism "show don't tell" in his lead off here. In stead of pointing out that Cecile Dennis were just "beautiful" he specifically mention that she looked like Ava Gardner. (Of course many readers will know Ava Gardner as she was a popular Hollywood actress). That has a little bit of context---she wasn't only pretty -- she had the looks of a movie star. It also provides context -- in 1939, Ava Gardner was the height of her success, so a comparison to her made sense and made sense why Ken Davis wanted to meet her, which provided the venue to met his soon-to-be wife -- the younger sister. A moment of happenstance.

2.) Why should readers care? He captures it right here: "London is Tessa Virtue and Scott Moir country. The Olympic ice dance champs are the face of these hometown worlds.
But the city and this area also holds a special place in the heart of Davis, who, along with fellow Michigan native and partner Charlie White, stand as the greatest threat to the Canadians reign." Again context -- he explains (as I noted) that people know London as V/M territory, yet Davis has a tie to the area as well.
3.) I just love some of the details he captured in this piece.

I mean seriously, you are not going to find this detail in a news release. So many details in such a short paragraph -- Meryl and Marian's strong relationship, that they look alike and they share a love for literature (plus they enjoy reading literature in context!). This is good reporting on Pyette's part. He had to take the time to interview these people and not only that he managed to capture the most important points and put it together in this story. Also I really like the ending -- he doesn't go to the typical-end-with-a-quote technique but rather ends with a simple declarative sentence that says it all.

Thanks for humoring my analysis -- this is probably way too boring for most of you, but I felt as a fellow journalist that he needed to be given more credit then he was being given.
I like your analysis very much. I had noticed the good and lively writing of the piece (I commented on it earlier), especially the introduction, but you really broke it down into details and helped me see even more in the piece. You demonstrate that journalism doesn't consist just of one kind of article--it isn't just reports of important events. Profiles give readers a more in-depth look at the participants of events, making for better-informed readers.