Soccer Dad

Too focused on the why

I found this observation interesting (h/t Instapundit who emphasized a different aspect of the article):

In the near future, Davis expects continued coexistence of traditional media and blogs under the mutually beneficial arrangement where the former produces the news, and the latter provides commentary.

Well actually that's what's happening now and I think that's one of the reasons newspapers suffer.

Once upon a time journalism focused on telling a story. There are supposedly the 5 W's that instruct what a news story should explain: Who, What, Where, When and Why.

Of these five aspects to reporting, journalism focuses excessively on the "why" to the exclusion of the others. And the reason is simple. Explaining why doesn't require the same level of rigor that the other four W's do. Unless someone proclaims why he did something we really won't know for certain why it happened. Explaining why gives a reporter the greatest latitude in putting his own imprint on the story.

Increasingly we see stories marked "news analysis" is usually a different way of saying "front page editorial" where the reporter gets to offer his own explanation of events. Of course no reporter will shamelessly offer his own opinion. He'll consult an expert who agrees with him and then report what that expert said. It's not an opinion; the expert really said that! (And it's not just those lengthy "news analysis" stories where this happens, but those are the stories where this is more likely to happen.)

But explaining why is a murky endeavor. I don't need experts to connect the facts of a news story. And I can disagree with the way the reporter puts those facts together or spins them. The more the reporter focuses on "why" the more opinion that will seep into his reporting.

That's one thing that bloggers noticed. They were capable of doing one of the functions of journalism and letting the world (or at least a few dozen people) read their take on the stories of the day.

Newspapers still do more news gathering than bloggers but by emphasizing the why of stories they've compromised their focus in two ways: 1) reporting increasingly reflects the opinions of the reporters and 2) it made one aspect of reporting possible for anyone with an opinion, an internet connection and a computer to accomplish.

Take a look at Iran for example. There's an awful lot of reporting done one who will win the election for President. But much of the reporting focuses on who are the moderates in the election. The problem is that "moderate" doesn't really have a meaning in this context. Regardless of how analysts will spin the results of the election, Iran will remain a threat. Frankly I've gotten a better explanation of what Iran's up to from the Optimistic Conservative, than I've seen in any newspaper. And I also now know that Hezbollah, beyond a doubt, is a puppet of Iran. Again that's from reading blogs instead of newspapers, which will tout Hezbollah as a political party that also has a militia but is still working for Lebanon.

So it's not just the why where bloggers compete with newspapers, but also sometimes the what. Maybe if newspapers stuck to the first four W's they'd do better.