| GLENS FALLS, N. Y., Aug. 17.--The | |Kaatskill House, for many years a popular| |Lake George resort, was completely | |destroyed by fire this forenoon.--_New | |York Times._ |
| The First M. E. Church of Chelsea, | |familiarly known as the Cary avenue | |church, was damaged last night to the | |amount of $7,000 by fire.--_Boston | |Herald._ |
(_b_) _The Amount of Property Destroyed._--The answer to _What burned?_ is not necessarily a building, for the building itself may not be worth featuring. The contents of the building may be more interesting, especially if the amount of property destroyed can be put in striking terms, such as $2,000,000 worth of property, or two thousand chickens, or fifty-three automobiles, or 7,000 gallons of whisky. These figures printed at the beginning of the first paragraph catch the reader's eye, thus:
| Five automobiles, valued at $5,800, and| |property amounting to $6,200 were | |destroyed last evening when fire broke in| |the repair shop of the G. W. Browne Motor| |company, 228-232 Wisconsin street, near | |the North-Western station.--_Milwaukee | |Sentinel._ |
=5. How.=--Very rarely the manner in which a fire burns is quite unique and deserves featuring. It is inconceivable that John Jones's house could burn in any very unusual way--"with many explosions," "with a glare of flames that aroused the whole city," "with vast clouds of oily smoke"--but some fires do burn in some such a way and are interesting only for the way they burned. The following story begins with the answer to _How?_ although the manner might be described more explicitly:
| Stubborn fires have been fought in the | |past, but one of the hardest blazes to | |conquer that the local department ever | |contended with gutted the plant of N. | |Drucker & Co., manufacturers of trunks | |and valises, at the northwest corner of | |Ninth and Broadway, last | |night.--_Cincinnati Commercial Tribune._ |
=6. Who.=--Just as it would be foolish to begin with "the residence of John Jones," since the building is not well known, it would not be advisable to begin with John Jones's name, no matter what part he played. John Jones is not well known and so to the newspaper he is just a man and is treated impersonally regardless of what he does or what happens to him. Our interest in him is entirely impersonal, and all we want to know about him is what he has done or what has happened to him. Therefore few reporters would begin a story with John Jones's name. However, let some man who is well known do or suffer the slightest thing and his name immediately lends interest to the story--and therefore commands first place in the introduction. If John D. Rockefeller should even witness a fire, or if President Taft should be in the slightest way connected with a fire, the mere fire story would shrink into significance behind the name. And so, very often it is advisable to begin a fire story with a name, if the name is of sufficient prominence. It is not necessary that the well-known man's property be destroyed or even endangered for his name to have the first place in the first sentence of the lead; if the well-known man has anything whatever to do with the fire his name should be featured because to the average reader the interest in his name overshadows any interest in the fire. In this example, the name overshadows a striking loss of property and the story begins with the answer to _Who?_