Lyle Andersen Defends his 4 "Ws" of Journalism

Lyle Andersen: What, where , when and who are consider the facts of the store. Why, is not alway available. Is sought after in the story. 

Wrong as usual. In the majority of the news segments that I've watched, and in the majority of the news articles that I've read, I've seen/read the 5W's.

I'll give you an example, an NPR article on Brian Williams stepping away from the anchor desk.

Who: Brian Williams
What: stepped away from the anchor desk
When: around the time the announcement was made
Where: NBC nightly news
Why: the comment he made about being shot at while in a military helicopter in Iraq

Even if you don't have the "why" to the story, and if you have to get it after the initial "breaking" story, that initial story is updated to include the "why." That "why" is not indefinitely left out. Hence, the 5W's.

In this article that I looked at, they were not specific as to the "when" other then he "has" stepped away from the anchor podium. Based on your logic, we would have to reduce this to the "3W's" of "journalism." We could "assume" that the action is taken "now," but your next comment will work against you if you try to argue against this point.

Lyle Andersen: True Journal ethics says it is best not to say why by conjecture.example the car slid off the road because the roads are extremely icy or was the driver texting. Don't know do you. (STRAWMAN)

First, this is a strawman argument. You made the statement about the "4W's"of  journalism. I corrected you and informed you that there were "5W's" of journalism. We're not arguing about "conjecture", or its possibility, just to include the fifth "W".

Second, if this was to appear in the story, all that information would be there in terms of the 5W's. Those are the 5W's that the readers would be thinking about as they read the article. Why? People want to know the full story, and if you don't provide it to them, they'll get it from a competitor.

If a reader of the above example newspaper scenario normally drove in the same area that accident occurred, he/she would also want to know why the driver slid off. The "why" of your scenario would be included in the story.

Third, any of the 5W's could be subject to "conjecture" when in the hands of people like you. That's not the point behind the fact that you were wrong about the W's of journalism.

Lyle Andersen: When stating a fact it is best to state your sources. 

So, if I were to tell you that the Earth orbits the sun, you won't believe me until I show you my source of information for that? First, the facts that I provided you are researchable. All you had to do was to get off your lazy "face" and do that research. Second, you've provided no resources to back your arguments relative to the argument.

Lyle Andersen: No I do not have a journalism degree. 

You don't know what you're talking about on this thread either.

Lyle Andersen: my sources are Harl Andersen associate press for 32 years. Vic Andersen Rochester New York. Mark and Erin editors Lincoln star paper. 

You could find my sources, on the 5W's, by simply doing a Google search. So far, the majority of the results talk about the 5W's of journalism. This is based on the following being typed in the search field: "Ws of journalism."

You could also see the 5W's in play as a story develops.

Lyle Anderson: Generally agree distraction good journalism. Is business degrees and others wanting easy answers.

Whether you like or not, it's the 5W's of journalism. If you read a news article, or watch it on the television, you'll see the 5W's in play. If one of those are missing, an update is immediately generated as soon as that missing W is discovered. This is in addition to any other updates. That update completes the initial story in advance of any updates that happen later down the road.