While perusing my Romenesko e-mail update today (note: for non-journalists, or the media illiterate reporter, this is a regularly updated media newsletter provided by the Poynter Institute, through writer Jim Romenesko) I spotted this little ditty that detests anecdotal ledes --and rightly so.

Anecdotal ledes are like getting a blue balls, if you know what I mean. They are deceiving. It seems like the writer is going to tell you a story. Characters are employed. A scene is set. And a poignant dilemna emerges or a relevant issue arises. But then, once the reader's interest becomes piqued, the characters described just disappear. A bevy of heavy information is unveiled that may be useful but can cause stress, especially, when a sumptuous potential story is stifled beforehand.

While Will Shuck from Capitol Weekly, the newspaper of California government and politics, would rather have the straight-up info sans anecdotal lede to quicken communication of the actual news, allowing the reader to immediately approach the important facts, so as to avert the "fear of looking stupid for not knowing what's going on," I would argue differently. Yes, inverted pyramid structure is entirely appropriate for most news. Anecdotal ledes, however, are acceptable in one condition: if the entire article will tell a story. And more stories need to be told in newspapers to save them from foundering.

If there were less useless anecdotal ledes employed in what should be straight-up inverted pyramid reports AND more engaging, full-blown narrative stories, maybe newspapers would not "sit on counters and tables in reception areas, big piles of them, unmolested, undisturbed, unread, only to be replaced the next day by a new pile, more current events diorama than genuine info hub."

Anecdotal ledes could be useful to introduce a subject, some stats, or a trend, from a humanized angle, but should be followed by more anecdotes. Either the story being told in the anecdotal lede deserves a follow-through, or other anecdotes should be canvassed to explain all aspects of an issue. NO FALSE-FLAG NARRATIVE!