You Buried the Lede, Madame!

Dear Madame L,

What's wrong with you? You should have learned in Journalism 101 not to bury the lede.

First, you buried the main point of your article about Romney and Bain.  The point was that MITT ROMNEY MUST BE LYING ABOUT WHEN HE WAS REALLY IN CHARGE AT BAIN, AND MAY EVEN HAVE LIED IN SEC AND ELECTION FILINGS, SO HE DID SEND AMERICAN JOBS OVERSEAS.

Then, you buried the main point of your tirade on Romney's tax returns. The point was that McCain chose Palin over Romney not because of the 20 or more years of tax returns Romney gave him in 2008 but because HE THOUGHT PALIN WOULD MAKE A BETTER VP THAN ROMNEY WOULD!

Then, you buried the main point of your rant about buying the election. The point was that SHELDON ADELSON, WHO HAS ESSENTIALLY ADMITTED TO ATTEMPTING TO BUY THE 2012 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION, APPEARS NOT UNCOINCIDENTALLY TO HAVE VIOLATED THE CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT.

Then, you buried the main point in your explanation of Michele Bachmann and her gang'crazy conspiracy and anti-Muslim theories. The point was that THE LYING RAVINGS OF THESE CRAZY PEOPLE ARE BEING USED AGAINST THE U.S. IN OTHER COUNTRIES, TO OUR DETRIMENT.

Please, Madame L, give us the meat of the story, not so many trimmings.

Sincerely,

Hello, Madame L, Where Did You Learn To Write?

Hello Dear Reader/Writer,

Thanks for pointing out this huge mistake on Madame L's part. Madame L happens to agree with you that each of these four recent "rants," as you call them (not a bad characterization, by the way), could have led with --- and should have focused on --- another part of the story at hand.

Madame L has only one explanation and one excuse for this journalistic faux pas: 

Explanation: Madame L sometimes gets carried away by a story and it's only in retrospect that she sees that one part of it was actually more important than the part she started with.

Excuse: Madame L has never taken a journalism class. 

(By the way, for Madame L's other non-journalism majors, here's an explanation of the term "bury the lede.")

On the other hand, Madame L would like to point out that there were other points to each of these stories. For example:

In the Romney/Bain story, another major point which Madame L was trying to make was that Romney has an unfortunate history of lying about essentially every aspect of his political life, from his support-to-condemnation of women's health rights to his business practices.

In the Romney/McCain/Palin story, another major point is that Romney was willing to give 20 years of tax returns to the McCain campaign 4 years ago, but thinks two years worth is enough for the rest of us.

In the Romney/Adelson story, another major point is that Adelson and other rich folks are able to buy candidates while the rest of us can have no motivation to contribute our paltry pittances to any campaign.

And in the Bachmann/Muslim Brotherhood story, another major point is that Michele Bachmann is just one of a large number of conservative conspiracists and, yes, crazy people, who hate everyone who isn't just like themselves and will do anything they can to stir up the ignorant masses to agree with them, minus any facts or logic.

Still, thanks for the corrections,

Madame L