Should news be reported or explained?

Should a newspaper article be reported straight, with little interpretation, or should it be presented in an interpreted, 'explained' way? What do people think?

As an editor and a journalist, I'd be interested to know what you think.

The advantage to straight reporting is that it leaves it up to the reader to draw a conclusion. The advantage to interpretive reporting is that it is more digestible and more entertaining.

So which would you prefer to be prioritised by us in the media: reporting or explanation?.

I posed this question on Twitter and got many interesting replies. People were split almost 50-50 on the question.

Please leave your thoughts below.

Comments

[@elliottucker]

A list of facts is a bit dull. Ideally interpretation without opinion + comment through a separate channel.

I need a learned person to tell me the significance of a bomb in Lahore as opposed to another part of Pakistan.

(I feel like i'm repeating myself :D )

[Cyril Moloney]

That is the million euro question. It is the bus accident analogy: The web tells you an accident has happened, the broadcast tells you when and who was involved and the print tells you why. Most UK titles seem to be bulging with commentators. They help put context on the story and make it relevant to our daily lives. Great examples have been the Ryan Report, where the broadsheets helped explain the situation. The budget is another. Depends on the news and what info needs to be inparted.

[Imran Anwar]

To author:

In a tweeted-news world more traditional "news" sources will have to provide interpretations to add value or be irrelevant.

To Commentator above:

Lahore bombing by Taliban types was more instrumental in waking up Pakistanis than bombs "over there" near Peshawar

regards

Imran
http://imran.com/media/blog/

[Paddy Hughes]

Adrian,

Reporting or explanation? There is a place for straight up reporting and there is a place for interpretation, as long as the interpretation / explanation is informed and responsible, and there is proper analysis associated with same. Sadly not enough thorough analysis in mainstream Irish media (in my view). Lots of bias and responding to what media think is the mainstream view / or what they want the mainstream view to be. I get worried when the word "entertainment" is used when it comes to interpretation ... Is hard news entertainment? Should it be? I personally don't think so. Again, there is a place for entertainment when it comes to reporting.

Cheers,

PADDY

[dahamsta]

Explained.

[Ronnie Simpson]

Good example is Irish Times. News is reported but then clear distinction between opinion and analysis sections.
The need to analyse and interpret could be the saviour of print media. We get the news online or through social media (as in the case of the second English Leaving paper debacle) but read the print media to get analysis.

[Adam]

I think news does need to be explained but it's important that there's a distinction between explanation and opinion.

Context is often required - why has this happened, what does it mean etc. - but there is a thin line between that and opinion where it's a question of what it could mean, which is slightly more iffy territory.

The truth is if facts were just given to us with no context even the biggest news addict would get lost from time to time. Strictly speaking if news was made up entirely of facts newspapers would be 4 pages long and news stories would be 100 words each at maximum.

Analysis is required but it has to be based in fact to ensure it avoids assumptions, guesses and bald predictions.

[Emmet Ryan]

I remember with the findings of the case last year or the year before over the abuse case in Dun Laoghaire from the 70s (y'know the one involving the dead baby being found etc) that the news sections of papers were both far less informative and explanatory than the feature sections. I only got a clear picture from reading the piece in the Irish Times news supplement (forget its name) on the Saturday. Remarkably, of all the pieces written, it was the one written in the most standard informative news style of them all and thus proved far more explanatory.

[Adrian]

My own view on this is that the Irish people much prefer news to be explained rather than reported. The biggest selling organs (tabloids, Sindo, Mail, Indo) all opt for this approach. And their sales figures don't lie.

[Genevieve]

Not sure this adds anything logical to your debate but it's certainly entertaining for anyone relying on newspapers for a living.

Daily Show visits NY Times:

http://gawker.com/5286813/the-daily-show-visits-the-new-york-times-purveyors-of-aged-news

[Neil O'Gorman]

Explained. There are so many news sources now that once you get the basic news overview in the morning online or on radio, it's good to get an informed opinion or greater explanation of same in your dailies and weekend papers. Some stories are more interesting than others and some are more complicated than others. So it depends on the story. Also, some print titles are better at reporting than others and manage to mix explanation into the process. This works for me.

[c0ldfyr3]

I think the reports themselves should be 50/50, the straight facts should be spat out at the start and then let the reporter interpret it in their own eyes so the reader can either agree or disagree but they still receive the facts.

[pass a drug test]

I subscribed to your blog when is the next post,Thanks for such a nice post.