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 appreciate your desire for deeper analysis, but 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."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_whys
Particularly if you're aware of a tendency to limit to a single root cause, you can actively work to ensure you don't fall into that trap.
If you can never say, "That's why it happened," then the 5-whys method fails.
Which goes, Who, What, When, Where, Why and How.
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.