The New York Times's 29-page memo to its staffers calling for improved writing and fewer clichés (posted on Gawker) contains this surprising suggestion about anecdotal openings for articles from Dean Murphy, who covered the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks for the newspaper: "There should be a particular effort to avoid using people in these sorts of ledes with names that, at best, will cause the reader to stumble and, at worst, stop reading any further." Gelf is all in favor of curbing anecdotal journalism, but we're not sure such a measure should be based on the unwieldy names of people who, at best, had no control over their lineage from certain countries.

Gelf imagines Janice Quinci, Lily Velazquez, and the Nilmeier family—all stars of Murphy anecdotal ledes—would agree. Perhaps, in order to ensure that diverse voices get into the newspaper's first paragraphs, they could go by easier-to-digest pseudonyms like Janice Smith, Lily Jones, and the Newmans.

For the memo, the Times asked staffers to critique 10 days of front pages. Yet just about all the staffers felt the need to soften their criticism with praise for the paper (perhaps because they knew Gawker would post the memo within milliseconds). For instance:

"ThereĀ's no question that the front page is often home to good writing."

"This newspaper is really good."

"In the interests of space, IĀ've focused on criticism, but it goes without saying that nearly every story, including those I might have, or even definitely would have, approached differently, met a high standard."

(By the way, it's hard not to wonder what the memo about this gelflog post's lede would have said; too dry, perhaps, certainly too long. Fortunately, Dean Murphy's name won't cause anyone to stumble, so we're good on that count.)