Interesting person, representing a microcosm of the subject at hand, does something quirky.
“A quote you probably wouldn’t expect from the subject of this article,” he says, “a follow-up line that subtly contradicts the first sentence.”
Explanation of the context of the above situation. Details of the situation, juxtaposed with typical expectations, to create a personal angle to the story that you wouldn’t find in a typical newspaper article.
Conjunction followed by a revelation meant to keep you reading past the 100 words.
Broader perspective on the issue at hand. A few statistics that vaguely keep your interest. The depth of the overview depends on how much space the editor needs him or her to cover. You don’t care about any of this information, but you want to know what happened to the interesting person from the first sentence.
Line break. Perhaps a series of asterisks or a horizontal line.
An alternate perspective of the issue comes from another interesting person, who represents the complete opposite of the initial interesting person. If the first person was described as skinny, this person is described as portly. If the other person was loquacious and jovial, this person is laconic and morose. If the article started out with this guy, you’d agree with him instead. But you don’t quite trust him.
“Complete contradiction of the first few paragraphs of the article,” he says. “Somewhat believable comment that now has you wondering who to believe.”
“Response from the first person,” the first interesting person says. Finally, we learn that the situation may never be resolved, and he is doing the quirky thing he was doing in the first part of the article.