?When an inexperienced journalist gets assigned to a military unit fighting in the second US civil war, he will have to fill the unlikely role of diplomat in order to prevent the war from reaching his home town.?

This could be very interesting. What is it about the town that makes it deserve so much protection? And who will enforce it when a nation's survival is at stake?

Shadow,

Let me parse your latest version from my viewpoint as an outsider:

>>>When a journalist gets assigned to a military unit fighting in the second US civil war...

I would view this as the setup. I don't see it as the inciting incident. Because his assignment by itself is not a game changer. It's just another reporting assignment with the usual requirements and expectations -- whatever those are is in the context of the situation.

>>>he will have to fill the unlikely role of diplomat

Entailed in this is his life changing decision at the end of Act 1 that thrusts him into a new role -- one he did not expect, a role he would not assume if he could avoid it. Right?

And why must he play this unfamiliar role? What has triggered this new direction in his story?

>>>to prevent the war reaching his home town.

It seems to me that entailed in this phrase is the inciting incident. Something totally unexpected -- and unwanted -- happens that changes everything for him, that forces him to respond. Only the inciting incident is stated rather generally and comes at the end of the logline when it should come as near as possible to the start of the logline.

So it seems to me that the inciting incident that changes his role, and his life, needs to be stated with more clarity and should be the kick off of the logline instead of the kicker.

Hope this helps.

That's a good point. I think I was trying to give a sense of how uncorrupted the journalist is by his company and society in general. He has always had to fend off the aggressive propaganda of this future society and has always tried to do what felt right to him. The more experienced journalists who have been at it for years are all so ingrained in the system that they are completely unable to give unbiased, and 100% factual news anymore.

However, I agree it's not essential for the logline:

When a journalist gets assigned to a military unit fighting in the second US civil war, he will have to fill the unlikely role of diplomat in order to prevent the war from reaching his home town.?

Every word counts!

You assign the journalist a flaw of "inexperienced". Inexperienced as what -- a journalist? If so, how does being an inexperienced journalist jeopardize his "diplomatic mission"?

It would seem that "diplomatic mission" requires him to do something that even if here were an "experienced" journalist he would have no competence, no training to do. Conducting "diplomatic missions" is not in the job definition of a journalist, not a core subject in the curriculum.

In other words his experience or lack thereof as a journalist seems irrelevant to his "diplomatic mission".

Rather than getting hooked I think it will confuse people.

Think of the reader as a first time encounter with the concept as such this logline assumes far too much in order to pass as a clear and believable plot.

Sound advise given above.

Best to clarify the nature of the grand conflict in a grounded and believable premise that helps the suspension of disbelief instead of working against it. Further this concept needs its stakes balanced out because the personal stakes are undervalued when compared to the bigger stakes of a whole nation.

Hope this helps.

I see what you mean dpg, I guess I can hope that when they linger on this logline due to thinking about the 2nd civil war it'll get people hooked and thinking about the entire logline more instead of just immediately dismissing it.

Thanks for the help and cheers!