Hello again, and welcome back. We’ve covered most of the basics on the WHO, WHAT AND WHEN ingredients for news stories , and now it’s time for HOW! “WHY?” you may ask.
Good start! WHY indeed. That’s what I’m talking about.
But WHY?
Well, BECAUSE WHY is elemental to a good news story.
In fact, many a news story begins with but a single question: WHY did that happen?
WHY is/isn’t X doing something about this problem?”
To go further, let’s start with a little bit of childhood reversion therapy.
Think back to the classic, elemental, one word question that children, usually 3-4 years old ask again, and again and again.
“Ok Fenrock, time to leave the zoo now and go to Auntie Grizzelmugger’s house.”
“Why”?
Well, because she want to snuzzle your nose.”
“Why?”
“Well, because she thinks you are her little lambie-pie.”
“Why?”
“Well because she just loves you to itty bitty pieces.”
“Why?” and so on the point of ever mounting merry go round, stop the world and let me off fatigue and futility.
But little Fenrock was just bursting with innate curiousity, and intuitively used the super-powered question word of “Why?”
We all did it, and we still do.
“Why did this happen to me….?”
“Why didn’t I win the door prize at the raffle. I need a new door.”
“Why is it always six hotdogs to a pack and eight buns to a bag?”
And so on with the massive questions of life.
But “Why,” in the context of news writing, is a bit more sophisticated. It is both an ask and an answer dynamic , meaning that the reporter’s job is to try and find out the reason or reasons of a given event, circumstance, action, reaction and so on, and then write those findings –or lack of them—into the story.
“Why” is fundamentally a question of cause and effect relationships.
X — the effect — from our standpoint, THE WHAT took place, and the WHY element of news reporting, seeks to identify the cause or causes of the WHAT.
Here is a brief look from Journalism history using several headlines reporting the same momentous, cataclysmic event from Aug 6, 1945
“Atomic Bomb Hits Japan” (LA Times)
“Atomic Power Unleashed On Japan” (Oregonian)
“Japan Hit By Atomic Bomb –Mightiest Weapon In History” (SF Chron)
“Hiroshima Wiped Out” (Erie Daily Times)
“First Atomic Bomb Dropped On Japan” (NYT)
In this case the event, in essence the effect being reported –again, for our purposes, the atomic bombing is the WHAT—really needs a WHY.
WHY did we resort to such an extreme?
What were the reasons –of which there are many—underlying the decision to use the most horrific weapon of mass destruction of the time, one which President Truman who made the decision privately termed “the most terrible weapon in human history?”
The surface reasons, stated right after the dire deed , THE WHY, was that the unleashing of the two bombs, one on Hiroshima and the other on Nagasaki, was to (1) ‘win the war quickly and (2) save American –and presumably Japanese– lives by precluding a bloody, long term land based invasion and ruthless, massively destructive fire bombing of cities of the Japanese Homeland.
But as more and more classified and behind the scenes facts surfaced over time, other answers to WHY became evident: Truman’s famed “Rain Of Ruin” speech given after the use of the first bomb, gives another rationale to the public, one that a reporter would have to be on heightened alert to detect and report.
You can determine the motive –the WHY—on your own. “The Japanese began the war from the air at Pearl Harbor. They have been repaid many fold. “
Deeper digs into historical evidence reveal the prospects of other motives as well, including the possibility that the U.S. used them as a political weapon to intimidate the Soviet Union during its campaign of expansion and territorialism in Europe and to prevent them from invading Japan as an ally of the U.S. to allow it to occupy territory (this is known as the atomic blackmail theory)
Another element of the WHY here is a bit more tricky: WHY did we use the weapon at all, and WHY did we use it WHEN we did, given that we knew through secret intelligence channels that Japan was earnestly seeking a way to end the war on our terms as proclaimed in the Potsdam Declaration? .
Could we have achieved a negotiated settlement, precluding the use of atomic bombings? Could that have achieved the same end result of Japan’s ‘Unconditional Surrender’?
WHY didn’t we?
That WHY, along with those related to the timing of both bombings, is for historians and history students to debate and for writers to write and speculate about.
But for our basic purposes in the world of news writing and reporting , the essence of WHY is bedrock .
The competent reporter has to dig to find out the WHY to the best extent possible.
That, may be no easy task, to be sure, as folks often don’t want to tell you their motives for reasons of privacy, embarrassment, risk, revelations of wrongdoing, incompetence, misdeeds, criminality, immoral or unethical motives, and so on.
Yes, WHY asks to probe into the prospects of cover-ups.
Nonetheless you have to ask WHY, and you ought to try and ask more than one source who may be in the know.
“What was your reasoning behind instituting this policy, taking these steps, underlying the decision, making this change ?”
“Do you have a motive in this case?”
“Why did you fire Carlston Tinkers?”
“Why did Anchor Steam Brewing shut down ?”
“Why does Elon Musk do whatever it is that he does?”
(Note, that some WHY questions approach the imponderable and inscrutable … but anyway, back to business)
Why, of course can also be used in the negative, to underscore what is NOT the case.
“WHY don’t we allow bicyclists and skateboarders to ride on the sidewalks of Park street given the lack of a dedicated bike lane, blockages created by car parking and Parklets and the dangers of riding amdist moving cars ?
Consider that a given answer to a WHY question might lead to a follow up question, an outcome you should anticipate: A city official might respond: “Because we need to prioritize pedestrian safety given that bikes usually move much more quickly than folks walk, people can’t see them when they come up from behind, and it’s not safe for the cyclist or boarder to have to navigate on the sidewalk when people are coming and going, sometimes in dense pockets of congregation.”
The follow up might be, “WHY then does the cyclist have to face the potential of being seriously injured by a car collision vs. the pedestrian being minimally injured with a bike strike? Isn’t a sidewalk injury preferable to a cyclist or skateboarder being run over by a car?”
Again, anticipate the likely answer: “It is better for the cyclist or skateboarder to walk the bike or board, and that way, no one is at risk.” and be ready to ask another follow up question or move on.
We will expand on some of this dynamic in a later lesson on “Question and Interviewing Strategies and Sequencing.”
Now one big caveat on WHY questions. Do your homework, aka, know what you are talking about before you craft a WHY question that presupposes or assumes something to be the case when it is not.
Try this one: WHY doesn’t the city have aesthetic standards for all of those ramshackle looking Parklets in our downtown business areas?
The source, be it a city official, spokesperson for the downtown business association or the restaurant owner would give you an answer that would make you feel uninformed and perhaps created the impression that you are unprepared.
Here is the opening of an Alameda City Public Works Permit Center notice from August of 2022: “ Parklets are intended to be an aesthetic enhancement to the overall streetscape and to provide amenities such as sidewalk extensions, seating, planting, and bicycle parking. They may also serve as outdoor dining areas.”
Now one can surely ask any number of questions as to whether or not Parklets live up to those criteria, WHAT the city’s enforcement processes are and if not, WHY they are allowed to look as they do or WHY doesn’t the memo specify what “aesthetic” means (but be careful, beauty is in the eye of the beholder….) but you don’t want to ask questions based upon mistake assumptions.
Despite your best efforts, you may not be able to get THE WHY, and when you don’t or can’t , you have to report that to your readers.
For example a NYT story reported in July of 2023 that The House Freedom Caucus voted to oust GOP extreme right wing firebrand Rep Marjorie Taylor Greene, could not pin down the WHY.
The reporter interviewed Rep Scott Perry who had been selected to publically announce her removal. QUOTE “ Mr Perry…declined to discuss the details of what led the group to remove Ms. Greene.”
Of course, the phrase “what led the group” –the motives or rationales behind the move —embraces the WHY, and may in fact echo a question the reporter asked to find out the answer: “Mr Perry, what led your group to remove Ms Greene?”
How then, do you indicate to the reader that you could not discover or verify the WHY?
“Department officials or Mr. or Ms. X etc. (THE WHO) did not disclose/ would not reveal/ chose not to comment/ would not specify why…/ dodged questions as to the reasoning behind/ did not respond to questions seeking what took place to lead to the decision / did not address… “ and so on.
The story, as it should have, did, however, go into detail on various frictions between her and the group, which suggest, but do not expressly state, the reasons behind her dismissal.
This allows the reader to be informed enough to formulate her or his own notions, without the story over-claiming that it has the answer as to WHY.
That end result is not be optimal, but it may be the best you can do.
At all costs though, you have to have the self discipline to avoid engaging in reporter speculation, which may safely fall into the realm of opinion writing, but is not the province of hard news journalism .
Never mind that so many cable talking heads, bloggers and even undisciplined folks who purport to be news journalists all too often speculate, spitball and spew their notions, fancies or conspiracy fictions in pursuit of promoting their agendas.
Suffice to say, keep on digging, as time goes by, for stories where the WHY is important, but realize that as you keep your hooks in the water that THE WHY may ultimately be a fish you will never get in the net.
Ok, breathe, breathe, breathe ……..and NOW FOR THE HOW.
Start with something close to home from those good old grade school and middle school years. That burning, pining, vexing, mysterious and pervasive question that causes a thrilling mix of heart pounding infatuation and tsunamis of anxiety:
“HOW can I get that girl/guy to even notice me? “ (tremble, shudder, angst shake)
Well, we are asking, fundamentally is for the key to make that very important something happen, THE WHAT of the moment, or emoment, if you will.
On the level of journalism, it gets a bit broader, but is essentially still the same.
HOW asks for the mechanism the technique, the strategy, the system, the mechanics, the scientific processes, the chemistry, the behavior, the logic, the steps involved, the words to use, the means to accomplish, the procedure and so on related to the WHAT.
How to get …?
How does…?
How focused questions may also call for speculation, aka hypothetical answers.
How are you going to…?
How would you do X/ stop or prevent X ?
How can you get elected, given factor x, y and z?
If you want a more firm idea, go to Youtube and just start keying in “How can…?” “How do…?” “How to,..? ”and so on.
The use of HOW, along with WHY, at the head of the question enhances question power, as it asks for detail or specificity that an open ended question does not.
Take, for example, this wide open-ended question
Will you win the election? vs. HOW will you/ do you plan to win the election?
The candidate might detail the strategy or game plan with the first one, but the second puts more of a thought burden on her or him, and puts her or him in the position of having to show the cards in hand, including how many and of what strength.
“How” can sometimes imitate “what” in some cases , as in “By WHAT means…?” or “WHAT did you do to ?”…. And that’s ok.
Consider them interchangeable, as either leads you to the kinds of content you are seeking for your story.
If you ask a What and get the HOW that’s fine.
There is also an overlap with WHY and HOW
For example, “How did that happen?” may get into the elements of causation leading to the effect.
“Well, Billy always had a grudge against Millie and he went into a tither before he let fly a mighty stream o’cusswords.
In this case, the “How” question ends up getting motive, a cause rather than a means, but again, that’s not a problem
One other thing about HOW that differs from WHY in a pretty significant way.
If I ask you, “Did this lesson help you?” vs. “HOW did this lesson help you?”
The second version assumes or presupposes that it did in some way or ways.
“Did this lesson help you?” is another example of an open-ended question that can be responded to with a one word answer. “Yes” or “No.”
The loading of “HOW” into the question, still leaves open the option for the respondent to say, “It didn’t. It was worthless,” but more likely than not it will generate some kind of thought process of review and analysis and you may end up with a more substantive answer.
We’ll do a whole lesson later to get into the types of questions you can add to your arsenal and some powerful strategies you can use to become a more effective interviewer.
Ok, You made it through another lesson, but before we break, I have just one little question for you to PROVIDE AS A WRITTEN ANSWER
WHAT is your single biggest takeaway from this lesson on the 5 W’s and one H?
Please limit your answer to no more than 70 words maximum, and label it MY TAKEAWAY.