A new theory of news

Explaining "So What?"

News, generally speaking, fits into one of three buckets.¹

1. “What”: Literally what happened.

2. “Now What”: What’s around the corner

3. “So What”: Why does any of this matter?

The news business, as presently constituted, is centered around the “What.” A bridge collapses. A hurricane is building in the Gulf of Mexico. There’s been a(nother) school shooting. Kevin McCarthy (still) can’t get the votes to be the Speaker of the House.

This, of course, makes sense. Without the “what” there is no “so what” or “now what.” It is the spine of what we do as journalists. Any major news organization needs a robust “what” center — a group of journalists whose job it is to get the facts and present them in as clear a manner as possible. It’s the first job of journalism.

But, it’s not the ONLY job of journalism. The “what” is central, yes, but without context it’s robbed of some (maybe lots) of what it actually tells us about who and where we are as a country.

Take a school shooting. Any one is a tragedy. But when you see how many acts of violence have been committed with guns in the last year alone, you begin to understand the depth and breadth of our problem with guns and schools (and the broader society).

Or, McCarthy’s recent struggles (and struggles) to get the number of votes he needed to become the Speaker in the 118th Congress. Yes, each losing vote for McCarthy was like having a tooth pulled without any numbing agent.

But, without the history of McCarthy’s past struggles to win over conservatives, his self-abasing trip to Mar a Lago to pay homage to former President Trump and what the promises he was making to win the Speakership actually meant, you didn’t have the full understanding of just how brutal what you were watching truly was.

The relationship between “what” and “so what”/”now what” has always existed in the news business. Back in the day, a paper like the Washington Post would tun the “what” story on, say, a Monday. By Wednesday or so, they would have one of their senior reporters come back at the issue with a piece aimed at scratching the “so what”/”now what” itch.

What’s changed in the past decade or so is the pace at which readers want the “so what”/”now what” content served to them.

I noticed the change while I was writing a blog for the Washington Post. Initially, after a big moment in politics — usually a presidential debate or something like that — I would wait about 24 hours and then produce a big piece of analysis, often in the form of a “winners and losers” column. The timing was specifically designed to let people process the “what” and then move on to consuming the “so what”/”now what”.

As time wore on, however, we started noticing that the closer we posted my “so what”/”now what” piece to the actual event, the better it did. And the better it did with younger audiences (always a goal of any news outlet!).

Why? Because people no longer wanted their “what” first and then their “so what”/”now what” at some later date.

They wanted to know what it meant (or at least what I thought it meant) as soon as the event was over. They wanted their "so what”/”now what” served at the same time as their “what.” They wanted their analysis, their context with the news itself.

None of this means that news organizations should (or will) abandon the pursuit of the “what” in their coverage. As I said above: Without the “what” there is no “so what” or “now what.”

But, most news organizations are oriented to spend 85-90% of their time, money and energy on the “what” — leaving only a small percentage of those resources for the “so what” and “now what”.

I would propose a rethinking of that split to something that more accurately reflects what we know users want from us as journalists. I don’t know the exact right split between “what” and “so what”/”now what” but I would think something like 65.356 or 60/40 would be around right.

For me, I am dedicating 100% of my time on this site living in the “so what”/”now what” space. I believe it’s what you readers want — and I aim to deliver it.

1. *This theory of the news is the brainchild of Erik Rydholm, the creator and executive producer of “Pardon the Interruption” on ESPN. He is, without question, the smartest thinker about our news environment I have ever had the chance to talk to.