Okay. We know that subject dictates the way an article is written. But why? What makes us go after an article? I’ve discussed in the past what makes us continue reading one, but what makes us actually latch onto it to begin with?
Both of these article caught my attention because they are subjects that are important to me. That’s a starting point. But then what? Lots of things can be considered important, right?
The filibuster was urgent, breakingly important. It really can change things, throw a wrench in things, improve things… whatever your view, it is urgent. This leads to it being written as a breaking news article. We need all the information we can get quickly. A split in the Republican party is important. I want as much info as my brain can ingest in the shortest amount of time possible so that I know what is going on. The traditional style for writing this type of article does just that, and this article portrays it well.
Now, law schools. Lots of people want to go to law school. Frankly, as long as people are dying, lawyers will be needed… however, just how many? So they’re starting this program of opening their own firm. That’s good to know. Maybe it will expand. It will likely expand. But this isn’t something that is going to change my day to day living, or plans, or outlook on my country. The issues with the filibuster have the potential to do that. A news analysis type story gives more general and even entertaining information. In this case, it’s just a cool tidbit of knowledge to have… but it doesn’t change day to day.
And that, perhaps, could be one of the most integral pieces to them being written differently. They serve different needs, and meet different ends.