By Michael Schwirtz
New York Times
Lede - "A powerful explosion tore into a minibus in Russia's tumultuous Caucasus region on Thursday, killing at least eight people in what investigators said might have been an act of terrorism, possibly by a female suicide bomber."
I love this lede. I has active, engaging words like "powerful explosion" and "tore" that really draw me in as a reader. It also answers the what, where, when, who, and attributes the information.
While the article seems to be trying to answer the "so what" question with the fact that it's not clear whether or not this was a terrorist act, it seemed to me the real purpose of this article was revealed in the 10th paragraph, almost at the end of the article.
"North Ossetia, which also shares borders with Chechnya and Ingushetia, two violence-plagued Russian republics, has been the site of major attacks in the past." I think the whole point of the article is to draw attention to this dangerous area and what is going on there, since people haven't though of Russia until very recently as a very violent place.
I have problems with the article's attempt to bring up the question of whether or not the tragedy was a terrorist attack. One of the few quotes in the piece mentions, after already stating it in the lede, that the theory is the attacker was female. The whole piece seems to be saying, "is it a terrorist attack if it's done by a woman?," which I find offensive and a poorly thought out. I would suggest rethinking that quote, both for its implications as well as the fact that it could easily have been summarized by the author of the piece. It did not need to be direct.
