The Why Factor

   In a previous posting, I wrote that reporters use the Famous Five W's to describe an event, trend, or situation -- the Who, What, Where, When and Why. Unfortunately, many fail to pursue the Why, often the most important to the quintet. This failure may be due to lack of time, lack of expertise, lack of interest, or even lack of competence.
   In a breaking story, there may not be time to probe every aspect of an event, and the audience or readers may care more about the emotions involved -- love of one country and/or fear of another, for example.
   Consider Ukraine. Media coverage has dealt very little with the historic and economic background of the Kiev demonstrations or of the Russian movement into Crimea. Doing so would mean probing the Why Factor, the most important of the Five W's. It's also the most important and the most difficult.
   So why the rush to coverage, at the expense of omitting that most important aspect of the story? One reason is the perceived importance of being first, which means emphasizing the flashiest elements of the story. A second reason extends the first, picking up on the sizzle and ignoring the steak. In turn, this attracts more readers and viewers.
   In the Ukraine example, there is a strong base of emotional support for protesters (Americans typically root for the underdog), plus a residual fear of Russia, going back to the Cold War era and the widespread fear of Communism 
   Result: Western news media stressed the emotional aspects of the story while ignoring the economic and historical background that led to the protests in Kiev, the downfall of the Ukraine government and the intrusion of Russian forces into the predominantly Russian-speaking Crimean peninsula.
   Interconnected with all this is the emotional preference of viewers and readers for a hometown win. To that extent, war and the potential for war are treated much like sports stories. The difference, of course, is that in sports competition, the athletes don't die and spectators are not killed. Nevertheless, similar metaphors are used in reporting victory or defeat.

   Reporters may or may not be ready, will and able to describe the background issues that led to the crisis in Ukraine, but that presents a challenge: Make it interesting, to get past the apathy of history. However, it remains a media responsibility to present the Why Factor in ways that readers and viewers grasp the details and implications quickly and easily.
   It can be done. Journalists are not bound by the strictures that often make academic writing boring. People may think they care only about a home team victory. But journalists have a duty not only to satisfy that craving, but also to explain both sides, even when -- or especially when -- viewers may not want to hear it.
   It's a difficult job, and the easy path would be to cater to the tastes and preferences of the audience. But just as marketers persuade consumers to try something new, journalists can persuade their news consumers to consider alternative viewpoints. Otherwise, they are broadcasting propaganda for one side.
   This is not to say, Change their minds. That would indeed be propaganda, which has a negative reputation, even as marketing does not. Yet. Mostly.
   Either way, news is a commodity, a product that is marketed to viewers and readers. And, like any commodity, there is a variety of tastes and preferences for the product.