How to provide the ‘Why’ 24-hours a day.

The way news is disseminated has particular implications for the PR profession. Specifically the way 'Why' is developed shapes the conversation more than any other portion of media. I wrote an essay for a competition this last week that discusses why Political Pundits are the 'ultimate independent journalists'. It's attached in full below.

The most important thing that can be gathered from the essay, is the conclusion that audiences demand a why. It is not enough anymore to simply give the who, what, where, when, and how. All to often when crafting our Press Releases we ignore the why portion, and news media is required to fill it in. If we can provide the Why for them, it allows us more control of the message.

"You’ve known the criteria since grade school: who, what, where, when, why and how. If you watch NBC News, read the New York Times, or listen to NPR, you will experience the same basic story. For example:

Washington DC: On September 19, Obama released his deficit reduction plan during a speech in the Rose Garden.

You are now informed. You have the who, the what, the where, the when, and the how. If you keep reading, you might even find out why. According to the New York Times, Obama gave his speech in response to falling poll numbers and an anxious base. Is that true? It must be. It’s on the front page. How do they know that though?

“The president laid down a marker today that is true to his beliefs,” said Jacob J. Lew…

This statement, found in the same article, seems to refute the original New York Times claim. It would appear Obama is simply doing what he believes. This creates a dilemma where either the New York Times is incorrect or Obama's spin machine delivered false information.

Neither the newspaper nor the president’s team is incorrect. The author is simply stating her opinion. Issues of this nature only occur when journalists try to pander their opinion as fact. More and more frequently this occurs. Audiences demand it.

When a news outlet attempts to add the why into their reporting, they do so at the risk of presenting absolutes. This is why we have editorial sections. This is why shows like The O’Reilly Factor exist. They exist to fill the void, to give us the why.

There does exist an error in this approach. How do you present these opinions in an ever-evolving 24-hour news cycle while avoiding confusion with facts? Fox News, MSNBC, and CNN have a precedent to deliver an editorial opinion during their hard news programs. They have found a way to do just that.

Individuals with in depth knowledge of the political process are called on to share their opinions on the latest political stories of the day. They await the beckon of the journalists and anchors in order to give the most controversial and imperative portion of the news story: why did this just happen, and why did it happen this way? These saviors of 24-hour cable news are known as political pundits, independent professionals.

Are political pundits always right? No. Do political pundits generally have an ideological bias? Yes. We all do. Yet they exist as the only solution.

Not only do they preform the research necessary for accurate interpretation of politics as part of their daily lives and routines, they also allow for the distinction of hard and soft news, of fact and opinion. We know that when they speak it is opinion shaped on their interpretation of the facts.

Although you could argue that pundits are not actually journalists, the independence and professional experience they provide allows them to be better news providers, and in effect the ultimate journalists."