I despise the inverted pyramid structure, at least as it was practiced in most newspapers. Starting with the BLUF is good practice, but after that the article becomes a disjointed smattering of factual tidbits, quotes from random people, rehashing of previous information with no flow or continuity and the reader is left to piece together the story on their own.
I much prefer writers who organize the information in an article according to what makes it easiest to understand and flows best. You still start with a brief summary, but then it diverges from inverted pyramid. Sometimes this means putting things in chronological order, which means mixing more important and less important information as you go. Other times it means giving background information early on which helps to understand later information, which inverse pyramid would would put at the very end.
It means the article can't easily be edited by chopping off the end, and it puts the onus on the writer to decide what information to include and what to cut, what background to summarize and what to link, and how to organize the content. But the result is much more readable.
I much prefer writers who organize the information in an article according to what makes it easiest to understand and flows best. You still start with a brief summary, but then it diverges from inverted pyramid. Sometimes this means putting things in chronological order, which means mixing more important and less important information as you go. Other times it means giving background information early on which helps to understand later information, which inverse pyramid would would put at the very end.
It means the article can't easily be edited by chopping off the end, and it puts the onus on the writer to decide what information to include and what to cut, what background to summarize and what to link, and how to organize the content. But the result is much more readable.