[blaesus]

Former journalist here. This structure is also known as "inverted pyramid"[0]. CIA has a book[1] that details the process to apply the structure recursively to build an article.

Beware of the potential pitfalls of "stating the key first":

1. The key point might be complex and requires a build up – rushing to the point could confuse your readers;

2. What's "most important" depends on the reader and if you write for a wide audience, it is not always obvious;

3. If you design your writing to be "modular", readers could be more likely to abandon your work prematurely;

4. Sometimes the most important detail is that you are taking the time and being patient to communicate, and making a point with little context could alienate;

5. You could feel lazy and not control the complexity of your article because "I already made it easy for the readers to skim and skip!".

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_pyramid_(journalism)

[1] https://cdn.ymaws.com/www.scip.org/resource/resmgr/White_Pap...

[blablabla123]

It's funny that this has even a name and is so wide-spread. One can also apply this principle to talking and I used to work with people that were obsessed with this style. I totally agree with you that there are pitfalls and probably one could even add more to the list.

Probably there is a good reason why people usually talk the way they do: build up a context, make the listener (or reader) familiar with what is going on and why we are talking about this. And then explain what we are actually talking about.

This inverted pyramid talking style is so artificial and makes me question whether the advocates of it are just using it as an excuse to not read or listen to anything. It makes people indeed just hurry through communication.

[blaesus]

Writing formulae are like design patterns. They give us names to think and talk about structures, but too often become dogmata.