I like the LA Times, but this article on climate change and bunnies is silly. It starts with,
“Easter is still a great day for worship, candy in baskets, pagan equinox rituals and running around the yard finding eggs, but every year it gets quite a bit worse for bunnies”
and ends with,
“All of this gives new meaning to dressing up in a giant bunny costume this Sunday. Do it!”
Have a look.
I get the appeal - media’s gotta be clever to keep the audience engaged. So, maybe I’m feeling grouchy again. On the other hand, doesn’t this type of ‘reporting’ smack of wiki-laziness? What do you think?
The lead and the ending sentence aren’t even the most egregious writing fails of this article. For one thing, it’s horribly structured. I understand that news articles don’t necessarily need a thesis statement, but the journalist should have mentioned that he would be discussing four different types of rabbits and how each species is impacted by climate change at the beginning - I had to read it twice to understand that the entire article wasn’t about just one species.
I think the cutesy lead and end sentences are the product of an editor informing him that the article needed more human interest, because they are complete non sequiturs. The lead by itself isn’t so bad, but the end makes no sense whatsoever. Climate change shouldn’t be dressed up as something fun.
This is now reminding me of when I wanted to be a science journalist. Can I just be the rare (nonexistent?) scientist who writes about her own work for the public, instead of entrusting it to journalists with a deadline?
Also, to anyone who clicked on this thanks to my Twitter lead-in [The Easter bunny might not be around for much longer, thanks to CLIMATE CHANGE… dun dun dunnnn.] It’s supposed to be read like the introduction to a classic Hollywood monster, if that wasn’t obvious.