By Kelsey Lund
The reporters in the Star Tribune's story about two police officers' cars colliding summarized the most important information in the lead. The lead summed up that two officers were involved in a collision on their way to a robbery and one of the officers ended up in the hospital.
The story progressed to tell the injuries of the officers, the details of the crash, more details about what the officers were responding to, and finally even more details about the officers' years of service to the Roseville police force.
The reporters ordered the information by summarizing the most important overarching facts first, and then getting further detailed as the paragraphs went on. This was effective as the story was smooth and logical to read. By learning the facts about what happened first, I was ready to read more in-depth details about the officers and the crash as the story went on.
In the structure of the story, I thought it made sense overall. The fact blocks could have been arranged a little differently. The paragraph about the actual bank robbery the officers were responding to could have been put up higher, perhaps right after the paragraph detailing how the crash happened.
The robbery was the reason the police cars collided in the first place, and I found myself wondering what happened in the robbery as I read the article. The reporters could have mentioned the bank robbers who got away as a result of the crash, although that information may have not been available at the time of the report.