of the first piece of news, (3) interviews with prominent persons in regard to the event and its significance, (4) clues to the identity of unknown persons or to the unknown whereabouts of those who figured in the first news story.
Popular interest in the causes of fires, accidents, and disasters generally, make such causes good "second day" features when the explanation given in the first story is insufficient or unsatisfactory. Motives for crimes or for any significant action are to be sought for by the reporter. The important question always to be asked in connection with practically every piece of news is, Why? Every result of an event has new possibilities and should be "followed up." In stories of crime the identity of the culprit and his whereabouts, if not given in the first story, are, of course, of great news value for a "second day" story. Finally, the opinions of those concerned or in any way interested in the event, as obtained by interviews, make good material for stories following the first one.
In writing the lead of a "follow-up" story the reporter must not fail to give as many of the essential elements of the first story as are necessary to make the new details intelligible to those who did not read the first story, and to recall the main facts to the minds of those who did read it. This explanatory material is made subordinate to the latest particulars, but cannot well be omitted.
The way in which a story is "followed up" from hour to hour and from day to day by "featuring" the latest news and reporting in slightly varied form the same essential details, is made evident in the following leads of a railroad wreck, the developments of which had news value for two days.
