I feel like we need to have Journalists follow the rule of 5-whys. Ask 5 whys until you get enough depth to write an article.
But that's not because journalists aren't capable, its that these days audiences freak out when they see anything more than tabloid level detail in an article. In-depth discussions are glossed over, they don't fetch views and subscriptions. Masses want entertainment instead of information. So, there is no incentive to write deeply studied articles.
> "I hate the "5 whys" as they imply every event has a single root cause."
That's an implication you're imposing yourself: there's no reason why asking the answer to any single question looking for cause will only have a single cause. Even Wikipedia's cursory overview includes this:
> "Not all problems have a single root cause. If one wishes to uncover multiple root causes, the method must be repeated asking a different sequence of questions each time."
The issue is with the concept of root cause. Many systems are better understood as having influencing factors, yet none of them could be called a root cause.
If you can never say, "That's why it happened," then the 5-whys method fails.
Substitute "underlying causes" for "root cause" and be on your way. Yes, precision in language can be important, but letting it get in the way of being useful is throwing baby out with the bathwater. You can see the same thing happen when people get hung up on precise definitions of agile implementations or pedantically quibbling over terms like "serverless". I personally get annoyed when people misuse the phrase "steep learning curve" when referring to something that's difficult to learn. But you know what? I still know what they mean, and that's the point. I set my annoyance aside, move past it, and decide to focus on getting something done.
I can see your point, but letting those slide can cause trouble down the road. Today I had trouble with a codebase where the `Configurator` class was not doing any configuration. When the purpose changed, no one bothered to change the name. Careful naming prevents leaky abstractions, or at least they leak less. Call me a lawyer, but I appreciate precise use of language.
If an article answers those five then it's done. Any other details is seen as fluff and a waste of editorial space. Which is funny considering the internet actually means there should be a a lot more space for editorial.
If you clicked on the article, that's all the author needed. And to get you to click, all they needed was a catchy headline. It's the unfortunate reality of modern journalism. See the book "Trust Me, I'm Lying" by Ryan Holiday.
But that's not because journalists aren't capable, its that these days audiences freak out when they see anything more than tabloid level detail in an article. In-depth discussions are glossed over, they don't fetch views and subscriptions. Masses want entertainment instead of information. So, there is no incentive to write deeply studied articles.