Finding Solutions for Journalism

Despite what we like to think, none of us form opinions based purely on rational judgement. Social status, childhood experience, subtle shifts in our environment: our minds are a maze of filters. In the end, however, we understand the world according to what we are told about it. A terrorist attack in a faraway country does not make the world a more dangerous place until we learn (and worry) about it. Likewise, we develop views on issues like Brexit based on the narratives told by politicians.

Recent campaigns on both sides of the Atlantic, including Brexit, have shown how these filters can be assaulted. In an era of information overload, the facts of the news can be minor details compared with how it is told.

But what if not only the way stories are told is misleading? Are we also reading the wrong stories? Watching an evening news bulletin is a depressing task: headlines cling to tales of conflict, corruption, and political manipulation. The mantra of ‘when it bleeds, it leads’ persists. How does this impact how we, as readers, interpret the world?

A New Way...

Tomorrow, 25 June, a global initiative to promote a more constructive approach to news is taking place. Impact Journalism Day (IJD), driven by Sparknews, a French social impact outfit, is bringing together 55 leading newspapers to highlight ‘concrete and inspiring solutions’ to social problems. Rather than the traditional approach of explaining issues through critical analysis, they will put aside several pages for stories of constructive action: an orchestra born in the slums of Asunción, for example, or drones developed for safer swimming. Four Swiss newspapers are taking part: Tages Anzeiger, La Regione, 24 Heures, and La Tribune de Genève.

The IJD builds on a branch of reporting known as ‘solutions journalism’ (sometimes ‘constructive journalism’ or ‘impact journalism’). Disillusioned by the negative slant of traditional media, the champions of this approach believe that a shift is long overdue. They want journalism that does not stop at simply raising awareness of social problems, but offers concrete paths to fix them. Rethinking journalism as a catalyst of civic action, this type of reporting makes a conscious effort to avoid the traditional fixation on stories and personalities likely to produce feelings of apathy and negativity. David Bornstein, co-founder of the Solutions Journalism Network, a platform for like-minded journalists around the world, says that journalism is a ‘feedback mechanism for society’. And, for him, the question is ‘what kind of feedback is likely to enhance or diminish society’s capacity to solve problems?’

The approach is not without its critics. A clear worry is that it could compromise the traditional function of journalism as a check on the use and abuse of authority –to speak truth to power. Naive positivity may provide short-term upswings in public mood, but it does not tackle the real roots of social issues. Human-interest stories of unlikely characters beating the odds, even through innovative initiatives like ‘turning trash into tiles’, may be a catalyst for copycat social entrepreneurship. But the complex social forces of inequality and power that produce such problems in the first place continue, unchallenged.

Independence and integrity also need to be safeguarded. Selective criticism and bias have always been a problem in reporting, but a constructive model of promoting change can easily slide into advocacy. Which solutions are highlighted and which are not is a technical, even ethical, dilemma. Journalists are not policymakers. Again, for its fans, the evolution of solution journalism will learn this as it develops: the key is maintaining the same journalistic thoroughness which has always been a feature of the profession. Any proposed solution is not to be naively outlined, but also itself dissected and put in a larger context.

A Solution for Who?

Progress over the past decade is difficult to gauge. Few large-scale studies on the prevalence of solution-led stories in major newspapers have been completed. But such stories have, despite initial skepticism within the journalistic field, begun to slide into high-profile niches. The ‘Fixes’ section of the New York Times has been gaining in popularity since 2010, while the Washington Post followed suit by launching its ‘Optimist’ newsletter in 2014. Arianna Huffington is a fan. Last year, the Windesheim School of Journalism in the Netherlands was the first university in the world to launch an institute for constructive journalism.

As journalism shifts and adapts to rapidly-changing demands -of readers, publishers, and clients- such experimentation is natural. Collaborative communication platforms and mountains of blogs have downgraded the authority of the trained journalist: many are searching for the next model, and this could be it. One study by the Engaging News Project found that readers of a solutions-based story felt more informed, interested, and optimistic than after a comparative negative story. More importantly, they were more likely to seek out similar stories in the future. As writers grudgingly admit, the reader is king, and they need page views.

So, the question could be what this form of journalism is actually solving: is it a solution for society? Or a solution for a struggling journalistic profession? The motivations of its proponents are noble. But they could also risk being co-opted by the merchants of ‘clickbait’ (content aimed at generating online advertising revenue,often at the expense of quality or accuracy) who paper over problems rather than tackle them head-on. If solutions journalism can avoid this, and beat its own path as a dignified form of investigative journalism, the benefits for writing and for society could be great. We could all do with a more balanced diet of information.

Photo credit: thinglass via iStock