Why Context is King

When the folk group Bread released the song Everything I own in 1972 from the album Baby, I’m a Want You, people thought it was a love song about a relationship breaking up.

“And I would give everything I own,

I’d give up my life, my heart, my home,

I would give everything I own,

Just to have you back again”

Years later when the writer and lead singer of Bread David Gates revealed it was a song written soon after his father’s death and the song was referring to his father, people’s view of the song changed.

It’s all a question of context.

Context comes from the Latin word “contexture” which means “to weave together” One official definition is ‘context refers to the circumstances, surroundings, or background information that surround an event, statement, or idea, providing the necessary framework for proper understanding and interpretation’.

Here are some examples of different types of context:

· Historical Context: Understanding a 17th-century play like Macbeth requires knowing the politics and beliefs of that era, such as ambition and the divine right of kings.

· Cultural Context: In some cultures, specific noises made by taxi drivers, which might seem rude elsewhere, are recognised as a standard way to get a passenger’s attention.

· Social Context: A comment made at a formal memorial service has a different meaning and impact compared to the same comment made at a casual party.

· Environmental Context: The surroundings, such as lighting, noise, and the physical location (e.g., a quiet library vs. a loud factory), affect how a conversation is perceived.

When it comes to grabbing the attention of an audience you need to give them context, a framework within which they can process the information. Context comes before the information, and information has no real value unless there is context. This applies to anyone who wants to engage an audience, from public speakers, story tellers, presenters, journalists etc. For radio announcer’s context helps to keep the audience listening longer but more on that in another article, for today I want to focus on context in terms of reporting the news.

In an era of 24/7 news cycles, social media amplification and quick analysis, the absence of context frequently turns reporting into speculation, or at worst simply gossip and the result is opinions are formed without having any context. We are witnessing a great example of reporting where there is little or no context with the current Kyle & Jackie O vs ARN lawsuits. For those who are unfamiliar, the dispute, unfolding in Australia’s Federal Court, involves two of radio’s biggest personalities—Kyle Sandilands and Jackie “O” Henderson—suing their former employer, Australian Radio Network (ARN Media), the owner of KIIS FM. The cases centre on the termination of their separate $100 million, 10-year contracts (combined $200 million through 2034) following a February 20, 2026, on-air argument. Public facts are emerging through court filings, but the full picture remains incomplete.

I’m not going to comment on the case or the void they have left in Sydney and Melbourne now that their radio show is no longer on the air but plenty of journalists and commentators are. Some are being upfront and stating that their comments and analysis are speculation however most are claiming to know the facts and many people consuming this reporting are expressing their views based on what is nothing more than gossip. The reality check is there are critical gaps in context. No one outside the parties (and now the court via discovery) has seen the full contracts and therefore specific clauses on “serious misconduct,” termination triggers, co-host obligations, dispute resolution, or force majeure-style provisions etc and we don’t know the exact internal deliberations at ARN, any mediation attempts, or private negotiations, and while we have selective segments of studio/off air audio we don’t have the the full studio/off-air audio. Court documents are releasing information incrementally (Jackie’s prior complaints surfaced publicly only in early April and ARN’s defence only recently), so the narrative is evolving. This scenario highlights the points about context’s role: it separates verifiable events from interpretation, prevents oversimplification, and enables people to form credible opinions.

Without context people fill in the gaps with assumptions, leading to several problems: misinterpretation and distortion of information, speculation, and amplification of bias or sensationalism, which sees details being selectively used for clicks leaving out the all-important context. This contributes to polarising opinions as people interpret events through the lens of information without context.

Despite the lack of context though, people still consume the story, which is getting extraordinary coverage, and form strong opinions on the basis of hearsay, anonymous “insiders,” unnamed former employees, or speculation, and the reason is rooted in psychology, biology and sociology. We humans evolved in small groups where threat detection (via rumours, or social signals) gave us survival advantages. Today, gossip and rumours provide a form of social currency which people use to ‘survive’ in the various social situations they find themselves in, like the workplace, group gatherings etc. Also, hearsay and or ‘insider accounts’ often serve to reinforce tribal views, confirming what people already believe and repetition across social circles creates a form of social proof making unverified claims or speculation feel accurate. There are also well-documented cognitive biases that make low-context, emotionally charged information appealing and easy to process. We prefer quick judgments over in depth analysis, especially when we are trying to cope with information overload in life generally. There is obviously a lot more to it but in essence, we consume and form an opinion on incomplete news because it aligns with our survival instincts, cognitive efficiencies, emotional rewards and social bonds—all in an environment where full context is not provided or available.

Back to the example of the Kyle & Jackie O case, context here is not optional background; it is what distinguishes journalism from gossip and analysis from the armchair critic. Context provides clarity and when people form their opinions with context, they can form opinions based on facts, not on speculation or gossip. If people form opinions without context, while it might serve their needs in terms of social interaction or supporting their tribal view, the bottom line is information without context is essentially irrelevant.