How much background is necessary?
Maybe I have been under a rock but I have not been following the news of the riots surrounding the carrying of the Olympic torch. Today, I happened to see the headline “Protesters disrupt Olympic flame relay in Paris“. I was curious, so I opened it.
I was shocked to see how much hell the people carrying the torch have gone through. I have just been out of touch with this news, so as I read on I was wondering, “Why the drama?”
I looked toward the end of the story for more background, but there was barely any. It just said that protestors were rioting against China’s relationship with Tibet. Has this been an ongoing issue? What else is the issue?
It makes me feel somewhat ignorant not knowing these important events that are taking place, so I look toward the media to tell me more. Should this article tell me more? Should it also go into more background or did it do enough? How much background, if any, should articles include?
Sometimes a story may have several different versions and a person will not read every one. Like in this case, the first story I read did not give me all of the background information I needed. However, I am sure if I look through the other articles I will find out more.
Another example is in my hometown newspaper about a conman who ravaged people in Sweetwater. One new article discusses how there has been a third arrest in the case. The article does not give any background, so if a reader saw this for the first time, and had been under a rock they would be completely lost.
It gave the important names but failed to discuss what and why and the past of the situation. However, it does give a tip to read a related article that has more about the situation. I guess that is how a writer can save space, stay in the word limit, without giving all the history of a story.
I just don’t understand how you know when to put in background and when not to include it.
