One of my frustrations in watching local and national news on
television is the lack of depth in reporting. Seldom does a segment last more
than thirty seconds. Yes, we get the basic what, who, when and where (only four
of the five Ws of reporting). The fifth W, WHY,
is often omitted or superficially given. Even watching programs like Face the
Nation do not seriously deal with “why” of actions. Why did the officials in
Flint, Michigan take the actions which ruined the water supply? Why, if the
national legislators repeal the Affordable Care Act, is there not a
comprehensive replacement plan available for immediate consideration? We are
told we should not guess at the motivations of others. Is it not the
responsibility of those in authority to be transparent about their reasons, the
why, for their actions? Without knowing the “why” trust in leadership devolves.
The level of reporting and public debate is, at best,
superficial. A trusted definition of
superficial includes the following denotations: a (1): of, relating
to, or located near a surface (2): lying on, not penetrating below, or
affecting only the surface; b presenting only an appearance without substance
or significance. (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/superficial)
As long as reporting on actions, either by the actors or news organizations,
only the give the public the what, who, when and where information without the WHY, clarity and transparency are
lacking. The public does not need fake news or fantasy explanations.
It is not only in local and national governments where actions
are taken without a thorough explanation of WHY. It happens in the
Church/church, also. When programs are changed, or eliminated without a sufficient
explanation about the “why” we are only left with the option of guessing. Why
was it necessary to change for what an offering is designated? Why are changes
to the organizational structure being made? Why did the pastor really decide to
accept a call to a new location?
From personal experience and observation, the “why” is either
not given or glossed over due to a desire to avoid conflict. Conflict is often seen
as something which is to be avoided, at all costs. Conflict can provide an
opportunity for clarifying organizational values, which then provide a solid
basis for positive greater unity and positive organizational outcomes.
It is the responsibility of those
in leadership to propose a change and to give a coherent statement of WHY the
change is proposed. When the public is given an opportunity to consider the change
and the WHY, even if in disagreement with the change or the why, trust in the leadership
can be built. Trust goes from superficial to having depth.
