When I arrived at the Metro section of today’s issue of The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, my eye immediately landed upon a lone picture of an exotic-looking fish. The accompanying article, “Lionfish growing like kudzu on state’s coast,” caught my attention due to its unusual subject matter, but, as a whole, it contained serious structural issues that left me feeling confused and dissatisfied.
I wondered how this subject could be relevant to landlocked Atlanta. The story is in the Metro section, but since the headline explicitly mentions the “state’s coast,” Atlantans were likely bewildered by it. The headline and lede suggest that the article is about the lionfish’s burgeoning population, but the caption above the photo and the sub-headline advertise it as a report on an exhibit at Atlanta's Georgia Aquarium.
It’s understandable that The AJC wants to add some local spin, but this article’s said “spin” is too brief. Writer Leon Stafford only addresses the Aquarium exhibit at the beginning of the story, mentioning the exhibit’s opening date and surface details (e.g. size of tank, amount of lionfish) and nothing else. He merely restates what the sub-headline already said: the exhibit will attempt to “educate visitors about invasive species.” He doesn’t mention how it will achieve this, nor does he refer to the Aquarium again in the remainder of the article (save for one trivial graph about how to catch lionfish).
The bulk of the story reads like an environmental piece that lengthily discusses the lionfish crisis and its effect on the region. This information may be important to some, but Stafford fails to make it locally relevant. Another problem: aquariums, according to researchers, caused this lionfish outbreak — a sharp contrast with the exhibit’s goal to discourage such practices. Not to mention that it’s ambiguous who the “researchers” supplying this information even are, detracting from the story’s credibility.
Aside from the deceptive headline (conveniently patched up in the online version), the article has no semblance of flow, suffering from a surplus of disjointed quotes and jarring, awkward transitions. To illustrate: The lede has nothing to do with the subsequent graph, which jumps from the exhibit to the lionfish’s unwanted presence in the next. Suddenly it’s discussing the exhibit again before abruptly segueing back to the lionfish crisis via an out-of-place quote about ditching animals in non-native habitats. I understand what Stafford was trying to accomplish, but organizationally it’s a mess.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
John,
ReplyDeleteGreat critique of the story structure. How would you go about fixing the organization?
I also read this article in the AJC and felt the same way about the trivial graph (as you put it) about how to catch these fish. That piece of information was random.
ReplyDeleteI really didn't see a problem with the article's failure to describe how the aquarium will “educate visitors about invasive species.” They probably just have some posting over the tank displaying this information as they do with most exhibits. Also, the article implies that there's still debate over how the lionfish ended up off Georgia's coast, whether it was through aquariums, irresponsible pet owners or Hurricane Andrew. (Some researchers say the displacement was caused by aquariums but only after they released the lionfish into Florida's waters, who is to say that the Georgia Aquarium will make this same mistake?)
I have to completely agree with your critique of the structure and organization. The transitions between graphs and topics are very choppy. I wasn't sure if I was reading an article on the aquarium's new exhibit or the invasion of the lionfish. Like you said, the "spin" attempted by Stafford was too brief.