Linking

NYT story here.

Leads

Shirley Sharrod not returning to Ag Department

http://www.aolnews.com/nation/article/shirley-sherrod-not-returning-to-agriculture-department/19605907?ncid=webmail

The Associated Press (picked up by AOL)

WASHINGTON (Aug. 24) -- Shirley Sherrod, ousted from the Agriculture Department during a racial firestorm that embarrassed the Obama administration, rejected an offer to return to the USDA on Tuesday. But at a cordial news conference with the man who asked her to leave - Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack - she said she may do consulting work for him on racial issues.

This lead is two sentences long and covers too much ground. If some of the information could go lower in the story, the lead would have more impact simply because the reader would have less information to process.

Here are the elements I think could go lower in the story:

• " ... that embarrassed the Obama administration ... "
• "But at a cordial news conference with the man who asked her to leave - Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack ... "

If these elements were left out, we'd have a one-sentence lead that might go like this:

Shirley Sherrod, ousted from the Agriculture Department during a racial firestorm, rejected an offer to return to the USDA on Tuesday but left the door open to do consulting on racial issues.

As Harrower points out about leads, this one covers key W's:
Who: Shirley Sherrod
What: offer rejected
When: Tuesday
Where: It's in the dateline

Why and how are missing from the lead, but that's a blessing, given all the extra information it contains.