Who, What, Where, When and Why – The 5W's of Journalism

If there is one thing that I as a former reporter/editor can say to the reader side of the media street, it's this. NEVER trust an article that does not contain the 5Ws of Journalism. For those not in the know, they are right up there in the headline: Who, What, When, Where and Why.

If I could say another, it is to barrage the publisher of any article with email/letters and public scorn until their reportage conforms to all five of these crucially important pieces of information. Having been on that side of the desk, I promise you that as long as you the reader/consumer continues to read/consume the drivel passing itself off as 'news and information' without a peep of dissent, expect to get an increasing dosage of said drivel. Even if you do, you'll probably be fed purest propaganda anyway, but it never hurts to make your position as an 'informed' consumer known.

“Who” : This is the person/place thing; the subject of the article. Without it, you have no article obviously, but be wary for 'unnamed sources. That's often a reporter injecting his opinion. It can also be his fellow reporter feeding him what he wants to hear so he can write those words and be technically truthful.

“What” : This is what “Who” did, is doing, or will do. Also the subject of the article. Pretty obvious in purpose.

“Where” : Locations, cities, buildings and other physical locations. Again, standard stuff. If Babe Ruth hit a monster home run way back when, it kinda helps add to the interest to know what stadium he did it in.

“When” : Plenty of room to wiggle here and this can change the entire context of a story. “When” makes all the difference in everything from legal issues to meeting times. “When” is an integral part of any story and can utterly make or break (read that 'cloud) the context.

“Why” : Did President Obama do X? Does the article tell you why? Did Nancy Pelosi emit another nonsensical “Open it to know what's in it” comment? Did the reporter ask her why? Did anyone in the DC Press Corpse (spelling is correct) ever ask Bill Clinton WHY he couldn't get a hotel room with Monica and WHY he felt the highest office in the land was an appropriate place to have sexual relations with that woman? It is the lack of such questions that results in all the 'misspeaking'. It allows the media circus to perform endless 3-ring acts without ever coming to a decisive answer. And it allows politicians to occlude the issue, kicking the can doe the road of 'evolution'.

These are the basic. These are a 100% crucial part of any piece of information qualified to be called news. If the articles you consume do not contain answers to those questions, then it is the duty of you, the reader to ask those 5 questions of the reporter and the media outlet feeding you an incomplete story.

And this applies to Chris Matthews or Rush Limbaugh. MSNBC or Brietbart. Glenn Beck or Sheppard Smith.

The biggest problem with the unnamed source is that in reality, my source on a story covering Obama may be Joe Biden (hypothetical of course), but the reader does not know that. Nor do I have any way to do so without naming him and providing a recording with witnesses. That source may be 100% truthful and accurate, but the reader just does not “know”.

That said, there are indeed instances where use of them is the difference between an article or none at all. This then starts down the fuzzy path. Would I personally use one? Only if I could provide corroborating evidence from documentation or another named source backing the unnamed one. Did I ever? Not in my newspaper career. I never reported on something so important to warrant using one. I did when doing motorsports coverage at another job, however that is entertainment, not news.

The unnamed source IMO leaves, nay, invites the kind of tactics used by the Dem party and libs. Any counter can be brought to bear and there’s almost no way to disprove that Counter. Best practice IMO? Hold the story until you can prove/verify it or if it’s a Watergate level of import, clearly tell your readers that XX is a RUMOR at this time that you are working to verify. But label it truthfully.

Today, the unnamed source is little more than a literary device. Or an out so that no one can be held to account dor anything. And most people free from blowback will SAY ANYTHING to feed their ego. They may be the ‘unnamed’ source, but they will have ‘friends in the media’ to tell their buddies about and broker their own power that way.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.