This is One Sturdy "Structure"
The story I chose to analyze is the Star Tribune , story about the Minneapolis Institute of Arts (MIA) hiring their first female museum director.
Information that is vital to the story is in the beginning. Things like the fact that this is the first time that the MIA has hired a female director, her name, age, and where she worked before, are in the first and second graphs. The reporter summarized her name, age, where she worked before, and when she begins her new job all in one sentence. In that same graph, the reporter mentions who she is replacing and the new job the old director took.
The story was broken up into four different sections. The first was all of the vital information. The next was information on the process of how she was selected. The rest of the article was background information on the new director. I think it was good the reporter structured the story like this. I personally thought the article was easier to read because of the different sections. I was able to figure out where different information was in the article. The reporter could have just left out the headings of each section. I think it would have been just as effective. The headings kind of distract the reader sometimes because they draw to much attention. The background information could have been after the vital information instead of talking about how the committee chose her. That way the reader can learn more about the new director right away.