Analysis of Follow on St. Paul Hit and Run
The first Star Tribune article about the hit and run accident in St. Paul that left a 59-year-old woman dead began with a lead that described the scene shortly after the accident. Not many details were known when the article was written so the lead took more of a story-telling approach, not stating clearly what had happened. The rest of the story focused on a witness who helped the victim. It included extensive quotes from the witness and her thoughts about the accident to bulk up the report. It briefly mentioned that a man, Terrance Oliver, had been arrested in connection with the accident. Because there weren’t many known facts, the story gave accounts from people who did not see the accident about how busy the street is.
The second Star Tribune article gives much more detail about the accident itself and about the arrest of Terrance Oliver. The lead tells why Oliver says he hit the woman (the sun was in his eyes) and summarizes the accident. It is a hard news lead where the lead for the first story was not, probably because the reporter knew more facts at the time of the second writing. The witness who played such a large part in the first writing isn’t mentioned in the second writing because more important information than her thoughts and concerns was discovered.
This story also gives much more detail about the victim, now stating her name as Margaret (Peggy) Prowse and giving her specific injuries. (The first story just said her limbs were mangled, a recount from a witness). We also get specific information on Oliver, that he was driving without a license and that he had many violations for driving without a license in past years. This story also relates that Oliver was not breaking any traffic laws when he hit Prowse. (The first article didn’t make this clear.) Oliver’s previous criminal background is also given, as well as details that led to his arrest.
In the first story, most facts are attributed to the witness. In the second, the facts are attributed to police officials or documents.
In general, the second story gives the why and how. The first story just told the what, when, and where. More details were discovered, and hence, more detail was given in the second writing.
The second story was not a reaction to a report from another news organization.