I had a favorite question when I was a kid: Why? It's still one of my favorites. What, more often than not, is self-evident. Or it is so subjective that it's less significant than Why.
For example, as a young reporter, when sent to cover a board of education or town council meeting, I'd compare my story to those of other news organizations that were there. Theoretically, we both saw the same What, but more often than not, there were divergences in the storytelling that highlighted the subjectivity of What.
The subjectivity comes across -- despite the good-natured journalistic intent of objectivity -- in intriguing ways: what each reporter chooses to omit, what they choose to focus on, what quotes they incorporate, what they choose to emphasize with the mechanics of punctuation. Just as the camera does not lie, it does omit what falls outside the scope of the lens. Explaining What works in a similar manner.
Why, on the other hand, is less subjective. Why gives What significance and context. Why is the engine that powers What. It is the very essence of human intellect.
Most important, Why also has the power to inspire. What, stated alone, reads like an order. It leaves no room for the reader or listener by means of intellectual engagement. It leaves no opportunity for buy in.
Why has the power to motivate, to inspire. Never lose sight of Why.