That's a good way to write an essay, not a news piece. It's called an "inverted pyramid"; news style isn't supposed to escalate. You don't build to a climax; you start with the most important thing first, then the next, and so on and so on until the end is almost trivial.
So, your second example is actually the correct one:
When Trump was finally indicted they found his crimes included murder, sexual assault, tax evasion and littering.
Yes, it's anti-climactic, but knowing Trump murdered someone is more important to know that he littered. So, it should be listed first.
It was invented by American journalists during the Spanish American War; back then, both sides were cutting telegraph wires so their enemy's lines of communication were interrupted. War correspondents started putting the most important stuff first instead of writing pretty prose because they never knew when or if their editors would get the whole story. Newspapers then found out that their readers actually kind of liked getting their news up front like that, and the editors also liked getting stories that they could cut wherever if a story was running long or the issue was short on space.
So, I could edit your original statement too ...
When Trump was finally indicted they found his crimes included murder.
... and the main story is still there, just some details that were less important were omitted. The reader still knows the most important thing (Trump was indicted) and the second most important thing (Trump apparently murdered someone) and that there are further indictments.
Which isn't to say all news stories should be written this way; most people don't actually get their news from newspapers anymore, and articles like this are less about "breaking" the news and more about "providing context" for the news. Also, obviously, communication, even in war, is much better today, and with the Internet, space is less of an issue.
No, I don't know why they call it an "inverted pyramid", either.
That's a good way to write an essay, not a news piece. It's called an "inverted pyramid"; news style isn't supposed to escalate. You don't build to a climax; you start with the most important thing first, then the next, and so on and so on until the end is almost trivial.
So, your second example is actually the correct one:
Yes, it's anti-climactic, but knowing Trump murdered someone is more important to know that he littered. So, it should be listed first.
It was invented by American journalists during the Spanish American War; back then, both sides were cutting telegraph wires so their enemy's lines of communication were interrupted. War correspondents started putting the most important stuff first instead of writing pretty prose because they never knew when or if their editors would get the whole story. Newspapers then found out that their readers actually kind of liked getting their news up front like that, and the editors also liked getting stories that they could cut wherever if a story was running long or the issue was short on space.
So, I could edit your original statement too ...
... and the main story is still there, just some details that were less important were omitted. The reader still knows the most important thing (Trump was indicted) and the second most important thing (Trump apparently murdered someone) and that there are further indictments.
Which isn't to say all news stories should be written this way; most people don't actually get their news from newspapers anymore, and articles like this are less about "breaking" the news and more about "providing context" for the news. Also, obviously, communication, even in war, is much better today, and with the Internet, space is less of an issue.
No, I don't know why they call it an "inverted pyramid", either.