If I were to teach a course today in journalism this is what
I would call it. There was a time when a version of this phrase – in its
pre-Internet form – said it all when it came to news. It amounted to rank order
topics of interest: The Who, What, Where, and Whys of my day – the 1970s –
actually constituted a primer for how to be an informed and responsible
citizen.
The “Why” kicker always coming back to the core. Why do we
care about the topic? Hopefully that answer reflected on what you intend to
expose to make the world around you a better place. To comfort the afflicted
and afflict the comfortable. Who, What, Where were the preamble; Why, the
essence of the citizen constitution.
Now, though, in our ironically “connected” world, that
pre-Internet “Why” has been replaced by WiFi. A story isn’t a story unless it
has an extra life in social media. Reporters don’t have a platform to say anything
unless they have a gazillion “followers.”
Take the New York Times Magazine makeover. Why do the editors
choose to allow a comic-writer clown of a Russian American, Gary Shteyngart, to
write his impressions after bingeing on Putin-era TV? Because he is getting to “Why?”
No. Because he has a gazillion followers. And those followers will bring the
new nyt magazine to the conversation: Hastag nyt. Relevance? Not in the noble
tradition of Who, What, Where and Why but the ignoble one of Who, What, Where
and WiFi.
When it comes to Who, What, Where and WiFi, journalists
aggregate followers first and then the news. Actually report the news, bring a
critical vision to public affairs? That’s not a journalism class; it’s a
history class.
Next: Running for Your Life: Draft dodging in Canada, circa
2015
