“Deadly Medicine” –Vanity Fair

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2011/01/deadly-medicine-201101

Leads are the author’s one shot to capture an audience, and putting a handful of facts and statistics in there is risky. The authors of the article gave many numbers to the reader to see the magnitude of the situation almost to shock them. In this case, it worked.

It is also apparent that the authors did extensive research on the subject, spoke with many experts and read primary source documents, including the research reports on the trials. Barlett and Steele explained, in depth, the specifics of the trials and named many of the harmful drugs, such as Celebrex and Ketek.

An in-depth investigation of various companies helps create a concrete argument about the unethical practices surrounding the FDA and pharmaceutical companies.  They analyzed the findings and practices of the reported findings and criticized the methods used. The position they took was not based on a moral standpoint but had depth because of the research they quoted. However, the story was more than a hard news piece because of the added elements of the hook lead, mixed chronology, and the focus of how the events are affecting people.

The authors also broke up the story into smaller subsections that more closely focused different parts of the story together. This helped improve the readability and helped the reader follow the story. For longer feature stories, this structure appears to be the most effective way to organize long stories and join pieces of the story that might not smoothly fit together.

Even though this story fit more into the investigative journalism category and focused heavily on research, it still told a compelling story that captured the interest of the audience.