There seems to be an apparent deficiency in inquisitiveness within today’s media.
Decades ago, as a student at the University of North Carolina’s Journalism school, the faculty in the Journalism department all shared one essential teaching element. They instilled in us the significance of addressing the Who, What, Why, When, Where, and How factors.
In our news writing classes, inadequate answers to these six queries in the introductory paragraphs resulted in poor grades. An impartial stance was expected of us unless we were tasked with creating editorials.
Upon my graduation, I was lucky to secure several opportunities that allowed me to compose not only purely factual news articles but also opinionated editorials, feature stories, and even some advertising content.
While editorials and features allowed me some creative latitude, I was consistent in addressing those six essential questions in the first two paragraphs of my news articles.
This used to be the approach taken by seasoned reporters. They kept their audience in the loop by providing essential information about an event. The teachings of contemporary journalism schools are beyond my knowledge. I’m not even sure if the ones delivering our news reports qualify as journalists. However, it’s evident that they rarely provide thorough answers to the crucial questions of Who, What, Why, When, Where, and How.
This situation leaves me exasperated, as my curiosity knows no bounds. Regardless, whenever I consume news content, either through reading an article or watching a TV report, I’m left with a plethora of unresolved queries.
Today, while tuned into a morning news program on television, an engaging journalist was conducting an interview with a father who had tragically lost his daughter in a horrifying crash, the unfortunate aftermath of a high-speed police pursuit.
The authorities were on the heels of a lawbreaker who collided with the young woman’s vehicle, ending her life. The depth of the father’s grief was obvious, the journalist displayed empathy, and the severity of the incident hit harder upon viewing the wreckage.
However, this report left me with several lingering queries.
What’s the protocol for high-speed pursuits in our region’s law enforcement? Did the police infringe upon these guidelines? Who was the perpetrator? I couldn’t even ascertain whether the driver was male or female or the reason behind the police hot pursuit. What were the speeds involved?
In essence, what truly transpired?
I was left in the dark about these key specifics and I yearned to uncover them all.
The subsequent news broadcast was equally exasperating. It covered the devastating incident of a domestic fire that claimed the life of a young girl. Images of the innocent girl and the blackened remnants of the house were displayed. The journalist noted that a firefighter endured a sprained ankle in the attempt to rescue her from the burning building. A crowdfunding campaign via GoFundMe was initiated to support the distressed family.
“What about the girl’s family?” I queried my husband, who was also tuned in to the same news program. “Did the parents manage to escape? Perhaps they weren’t home. If they were present, how did they survive? What caused the fire? Was the little girl asleep when the tragedy struck?”
“They didn’t communicate clearly,” my spouse expressed, indicating confusion.
News presenters on the television tend to share a pair of similar attributes – captivating looks and an apparent lack of inquiry.
Likewise, the writers of news pieces are seldom seen posing significant questions. In case they do, they generally do not receive sufficient responses. I often go through comprehensive reports enriched with personal narratives, viewpoints, and an excess of trivial facts. Yet, critical queries remain without any satisfactory response.
Through intensive research and reading every piece of information available about the cargo vessel that collided with the Francis Scott Key Bridge in Baltimore Harbor, I uncovered numerous details. The vessel’s crew transmitted an urgent SOS signal just moments before the disaster. The cargo vessel encountered a power failure. Casualties of the incident were immigrant workers on the bridge. The ship was moving at an excessive velocity, and there was barely enough time to halt vehicles from proceeding across the bridge.
Yet, plenty of mysteries remained unsolved.
Who helmed the ship? Who was the commanding officer? Why were their insights not pursued? Why did they choose to remain onboard for several days post the catastrophe?
In different circumstances, eyewitness accounts from the crew would have been broadcasted on news channels the very next day following such mishaps. It’s difficult for me to accept that the press is merely honoring individual solitude and fresh shock, considering the countless instances where journalists have disregarded personal boundaries and emotional distress.
Chronicles of Reportage in the 1970’s
Treading the path of a journalist in the 70’s, I would’ve been lost if I failed to answer every question. There was an occasion when I reported the outcome of a study without providing the total number of participants. Once the paper was published, I was inundated with queries from readers who craved additional details about the research and how the outcomes were deduced.
One thing was crystal clear; if I didn’t make a full, accurate report of all the happenings at a contentious town meeting, I would be met with dissatisfied readers the next day. My publisher, a stalwart of traditional journalistic principles, echoed the maxims of my former professors – always provide readers with the who, what, where, when, why, and how.
There were times I had to dig beneath the surface for answers. I took to conducting interviews at town hall meetings and made weekly visits to the police station for conversations with law enforcement. I was tenacious, inquisitive, and most importantly, driven by an unquenchable curiosity.
Presenting: Contemporary Media
It’s unclear as to the period at which our current generation of reporters started showcasing a noticeable absence of inquisitiveness. This might have been triggered by the relentless news cycle, characterized by subjectivity, discourse, and trivialities. Alternatively, perhaps tighter parameters in today’s world limit what journalists can divulge without inviting the ire of media powerhouses.
The tendency of media channels to excessively hammer an intriguing story is also prevalent, covering it repetitively for consecutive days.
One apt instance is the eclipse. Eclipses are captivating occurrences. I recall driving for two hours, seven years earlier, to be directly under the eclipse’s path, and it was a remarkable experience. However, this year, I’ve been bombarded with so much repeated information regarding the eclipse that I’ve become quite weary of it.
When the media clings to a story, it almost appears as if nothing else worthy of attention is happening globally.
This might be one of the factors leading to a diminished viewer base for the news. A study group from Reuters has been questioning people about their news consumption habits over the years. Their most recent poll, as cited in a Washington Post article, revealed that 38 percent of participants claimed they sometimes or frequently avoided the news.
Summing Up
It’s often said that public faith in media outlets is diminishing, with claims of excessively negative reporting, an apocalyptic slant, or a propensity to incite feelings of frustration or despair.
While these feelings are understandable, I can’t personally envision myself steering clear of the news. My inherent curiosity propels me towards understanding current affairs, despite the challenge of decoding the same narratives repeatedly.
My daily consumption includes The Washington Post, a subscription I cherish not only for its news content but also for its comment section, which provides excellent insights into public sentiment. The New York Post also features in my reading list, offering a contrasting viewpoint to The Washington Post.
However, paywalls limit the scope of my readings; subscribing to multiple outlets is not economically feasible. While TV news can be vexing, it occasionally finds a place in my schedule.
My one hope for journalism is a return to its roots. Prioritizing the Who, What, Where, When, How, and Why over the superficial charm of the anchor or the reporter’s personal bias was a time that I miss dearly.
