Five Ws

featuring interrogatives The Five Ws is a checklist used in journalism to ensure that the lead contains all the essential points of a story. As far back as 1913, reporters were taught that the lead should answer these questions about the situation being reported: * Who? * What? * When? * Where? * Why? Journalism students are taught that these are the fundamental five questions of newswriting. Reporters also use the "5 Ws" to guide research and interviews and to raise important ethical questions, such as "How do you know that?".

featuring interrogatives]] The Five Ws is a checklist used in journalism to ensure that the lead contains all the essential points of a story. As far back as 1913, reporters were taught that the lead should answer these questions about the situation being reported: Who? What? When? Where? Why? Journalism students are taught that these are the fundamental five questions of newswriting. Reporters also use the "5 Ws" to guide research and interviews and to raise important ethical questions, such as "How do you know that?". ==Origins in antiquity== The Five Ws are rooted in the seven questions used in ancient Greece to communicate stories clearly: Although long attributed to Hermagoras of Temnos, in 2010, it was established that Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics is in fact the source of the elements of circumstance or Septem Circumstantiae. Thomas Aquinas had much earlier acknowledged Aristotle as the originator of the elements of circumstances, providing a detailed commentary on Aristotle's system in his "Treatise on human acts" and specifically in part one of two Q7 "Of the Circumstances of Human Acts". Aquinas examines the concept of Aristotle's voluntary and involuntary action in his as well as a further set of questions about the elements of circumstance. Primarily, he asks "Whether a circumstance is an accident of a human act" (Article 1), "Whether Theologians should take note of the circumstances of human acts?" (Article 2), "Whether the circumstances are properly set forth (in Aristotle's) third book of Ethics" (Article 3) and "Whether the most important circumstances are 'Why' and 'In What the act consists'?" (Article 4). For in acts we must take note of who did it, by what aids or instruments he did it (with), what he did, where he did it, why he did it, how and when he did it. For Aristotle, the elements are used to distinguish voluntary or involuntary action, a crucial distinction for him. These elements of circumstances are used by Aristotle as a framework to describe and evaluate moral action in terms of What was or should be done, Who did it, How it was done, Where it happened, and most importantly for what reason (Why), and so on for all the other elements: Therefore it is not a pointless endeavor to divide these circumstances by kind and number; (1) the Who, (2) the What, (3) around what place (Where) or (4) in which time something happens (When), and sometimes (5) with what, such as an instrument (With), (6) for the sake of what (Why), such as saving a life, and (7) the (How), such as gently or violently…And it seems that the most important circumstances are those just listed, including the Why. For Aristotle, ignorance of any of these elements can imply involuntary action: Thus, with ignorance as a possibility concerning all these things, that is, the circumstances of the act, the one who acts in ignorance of any of them seems to act involuntarily, and especially regarding the most important ones. And it seems that the most important circumstances are those just listed, including the Why In the Politics, Aristotle illustrates why the elements are important in terms of human (moral) action: I mean, for instance (a particular circumstance or movement or action), How could we advise the Athenians whether they should go to war or not, if we did not know their strength (How much), whether it was naval or military or both (What kind), and how great it is (How many), what their revenues amount to (With), Who their friends and enemies are (Who), what wars, too they have waged (What), and with what success; and so on. Essentially, these elements of circumstances provide a theoretical framework that can be used to particularize, explain or predict any given set of circumstances of action. Hermagoras went so far as to claim that all hypotheses are derived from these seven circumstances: In other words, no hypothetical question, or question involving particular persons and actions, can arise without reference to these circumstances, and no demonstration of such a question can be made without using them. In any particular act or situation, one needs to interrogate these questions in order to determine the actual circumstances of the action. It is necessary for students of virtue to differentiate between the Voluntary and Involuntary; such a distinction should even prove useful to the lawmaker for assigning honors and punishments. This aspect is encapsulated by Aristotle in Rhetoric as forensic speech and is used to determine "The characters and circumstances which lead men to commit wrong, or make them the victims of wrong" to accuse or defend. It is this application of the elements of circumstances that was emphasised by latter rhetoricians. ==See also== Cluedo – Game about establishing the basic facts of a crime

Text derived from https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=1377514906 under CC BY-SA 4.0; modifications have been made.