What is constructive journalism and why has it gained relevance in recent years? Support your arguments by analysing an example(s) of constructive journalism.
Written as part of my BA (Hons) Journalism course
Constructive journalism is an emerging approach to news coverage that employs a public-oriented perspective while adhering to traditional journalistic values. It aims to establish “a more complete, balanced and engaging coverage of world affairs” (Hermans and Gyldensted, 2019) by acting as a flexible framework with multiple applications that can augment traditional journalistic practices rather than replacing them entirely. This approach offers solutions for challenges in the contemporary media landscape, such as news media avoidance, increased polarisation, and damaged trust in journalism. This essay will explore and evaluate the practice of constructive journalism and, with the use of a case study, why it has gained such relevance in recent years.
Constructive journalism builds upon the older concept of public or civil journalism, coined by Rosen and Merritt in 1994. Public journalism emerged as a response to mainstream media’s failure to meet traditional democratic expectations, instead acting as a one-way information provider and excluding citizens from civil participation. This approach sought to reinforce the facilitative normative role of journalism by promoting meaningful public discourse and equipping people with the information needed to participate effectively in the public sphere, thus understanding that “the purpose of the press is to promote and indeed improve, and not merely report on and complain about, the quality of public or civic life” (Glasser, 2016, p. 1).
The distinction is that constructive journalism specifically implements positive psychology strategies in order to counter the negative aspects of ‘bad news’. The 20th century saw a rise in negativity bias in news reporting due to the prioritisation of cynical and negative reporting rather than more productive solutions-focused coverage (McIntyre and Gyldensted, 2018). Whilst ‘bad news’ is an established news value (Harcup and O’Neill, 2017), negative coverage can have damaging effects on consumers, which goes against ethical journalistic responsibilities (McIntyre and Glyndsted, 2018, p. 21). For example, consumption of overwhelmingly negative news can harm individual well-being by creating the cynical impression that hope is futile, the world is dangerous and bleak, and that people are selfish and untrustworthy (Andersen, Djerf-Pierre and Shehata, 2024; McIntyre, 2015, p. 5). ‘Bad news’ also harms journalists and news publications as people are more likely to choose to engage with news if the coverage is overwhelmingly negative (Toff and Nielsen, 2022). Constructive journalism has gained relevance in recent years as it works to address these issues by implementing positive psychology in the selection, framing and production of the news process whilst allowing journalists to take responsibility for the impact their work has on people.
The criteria for identifying constructive journalism is disputed. McIntyre and Gyldensted identified four branches of constructive journalism, composed of preexisting forms of news coverage that employ positive psychology elements and consequently fall under the umbrella of constructive journalism (2018, p. 23). These include peace, restorative, prospective and solutions journalism, each of which incorporates a different combination of positive psychology elements in order to improve journalistic quality and meet its public-oriented goals. Whilst the establishment of a constructive journalism umbrella and subsequent branches help recognise the preexistence of public-oriented news coverage, it is limiting in aiding journalists to implement constructive journalism into their work.
Constructive journalism was later characterised by six elements suggested by Hermans and Gyldensted (2019), including solution-oriented reporting, forward-focused narratives, diverse perspectives, empowerment, contextual depth, and active engagement with the audience. Hermans and Gyldensted (2019) acknowledge that these characteristics are not necessarily new or revolutionary (and, in fact, are readily exercised by many major news outlets, such as the BBC and The New York Times), but when used as a framework, they can ensure a higher quality of journalism that better serves the public. By having constructive elements translated into practical tools, Hermans and Gyldensted also demonstrate how journalists can supplement their traditional news practices without changing them entirely, thus making the news landscape more public-oriented.
Constructive journalism differs from traditional journalism by challenging the established notion of objectivity and its indispensable role in news reporting. Objectivity has always been a pivotal element of professional journalism, differentiating it from other communication professions and thus playing a role in maintaining the credibility and authority of news organisations. According to Hackett and Zhao’s regime of objectivity, “journalists should take a stance of detachment, neutrality, impartiality, and independence”(Hackett and Zhao, 1998, p. 83) in order to prevent their work from being perceived as advocacy. Despite this, the traditional practice of objectivity does not acknowledge that journalists are required to make inherently subjective decisions in the news production process (van Antwerpen and Fielding, 2023). Therefore, when practised passively, objectivity can fail to intercept source or journalist bias, thus prioritising impartiality over accuracy. In contrast, constructive journalism embraces an active practice of objectivity and a more participatory approach from the journalist. Objectivity is adhered to by “prioritising thoroughness, accuracy, fairness and transparency”(van Antwerpen and Fielding, 2023) in order to provide a balanced portrayal of the world while engaging with journalism’s democratic responsibilities.
Conflict reporting is especially susceptible to bad news bias due to the “if it bleeds, it leads” belief that violence and conflict attract attention. Peace journalism is an alternative form of reporting that values non-violent responses and resolutions to conflict, aiming to be more productive than traditional war journalism (Lynch and McGoldrick, 2005, p. 5). The majority of coverage of conflict uses a reporting model that is comparable to sports or court journalism, by focusing on numbers and military advancements and presenting the idea that winning is the prime objective (Galtung, 2003). This only prolongs the violence and ultimately fuels polarisation and an us-versus-them perspective by dehumanising the other side. In contrast, peace journalism focuses on human stories from conflict and showcases peaceful solutions. While peace journalism predates constructive journalism, McIntyre and Gyldensted (2018) classify it as one of four suggested branches of constructive journalism.
It can be argued that war journalism, whilst more traditional, adheres less to the regime of objectivity than peace journalism. War journalism is often advocative due to it being victory-oriented rather than solution-oriented (Galtung, 2015). This can result in coverage that is passably propaganda due to a narrative skewed in favour of one side and the dehumanisation of the other side. Constructive forms of journalism, such as peace journalism, aim to portray a more balanced picture of an issue and recognise responsibility and suffering on both sides. This would ensure that human stories from conflict are not forgotten and that nuanced perspectives are emphasised. Due to the globalised nature of news and the increased interest in foreign conflict, constructive journalism has become more relevant in recent years. For example, the Israel-Palestine conflict has attracted a wide range of coverage and commentary due to its emotive, complex and violent nature. A majority of news coverage on the conflict falls under the category of war journalism or ‘bad news’, with a lack of focus on human stories and peace reconciliation (Bhowmik and Fisher, 2023).
Unapologetic: The Third Narrative is a podcast that came about to combat the polarised perspectives about the Israel-Palestine conflict that dominate mainstream media and the lack of moderate voices that are platformed. It is hosted by two Israeli-Palestinians, Amira and Ibrahim, whose mission is to break down barriers and promote a ‘third’ more moderate narrative that allows for nuance, in order to help pave the way for long-term peace. The hosts analyse and discuss recent events in the war and the global impressions of the conflict, such as the Islamic Republic’s missile attack on Israel and the escalation of campus protests in the West, as well as talk about the root issues of the conflict and long-term goals. In the first episode of The Third Narrative, the hosts express frustration with feeling unrepresented in traditional media despite being directly affected and connected to the war. They argue that this underrepresentation contributes to a broader misunderstanding of the conflict and a failure to pursue genuine peace. Reflecting on the motivations behind starting the podcast, co-host Ibrahim states:
We're sick of it [war] and we need a new rhetoric, we need the West to help us to bring a new voice... We need long-term solutions... We need a call for the West to push for a real resolution. (Ahmed, 2023, 11:08-11:45)
The Third Narrative is a great example of constructive journalism in practice. For example, episode 23 of the podcast specifically explores a range of solutions to end the conflict by interviewing different peace activists. This focus on solutions rather than simply dwelling on current problems makes it future-oriented, one of the characteristics of constructive journalism suggested by Hermans and Gyldensted (2019). It can also fall under McIntyre and Gyldensted’s (2018) prospective journalism branch, which incorporates positive and prospective psychology to shift the focus to exploring future possibilities, solutions and broader implications of current issues rather than just repeating problems. Evidence shows that imagining possible futures and focusing on goals is an effective way to catalyse positive change (McIntyre and Gyldensted, 2018; Seligman et al., 2013).
The hosts make it very clear from the first episode that their objective is not to advocate for a specific solution but rather to raise awareness about different perspectives on achieving sustainable peace, create a platform for dialogue, and promote mutual understanding and empathy. This approach challenges the polarised narratives perpetuated by traditional war journalism, which frames conflicts as binary struggles between opposing sides competing for victory (Galtung, 2003). By adopting a more nuanced reporting style, the podcast exemplifies the principles of peace journalism, thus highlighting the effectiveness of constructive journalism and illustrating why it is growing in use.
The podcast also incorporates aspects of restorative journalism, initially coined by Mallary Jean Tenore and later identified as a branch of constructive journalism. Restorative journalism shares stories of “recovery, restoration and resilience in the aftermath, or midst of, difficult times” to “reveal universal truths that awaken a sense of human connection” (Tenore, 2014). The hosts use constructive interviewing techniques when talking to the guests to facilitate open and empathetic conversations, demonstrating how journalism has the constructive potential to go beyond reporting facts to promote connection and healing.
A significant focus of The Third Narrative podcast is platforming excluded and marginalised voices in the conflict. Some episodes include interviews with guest speakers, such as Palestinian peace activists, a member of the Druze community residing in Israel, and an Ethiopian Jewish woman. These perspectives challenge the polarised narratives promoted by mainstream media outlets by demonstrating that there is far more complexity to the war than two sides that are both fixated on ‘winning’. Instead, there is ample space for nuance, and there is a potential for agreement across perceived divides. For example, Ahmed Fouad Alkhatib, a Gazan peace activist, shares his insights from living in the Gaza Strip, a perspective that is often excluded in discussions due to the tight media control in the region. He provides a nuanced and moderate analysis of the wider conflict and the ongoing war, acknowledging the role of both parties and sharing anti-Hamas sentiments. This aspect of the podcast embodies the diversity element of constructive journalism and demonstrates how it can be used as a tool to prevent polarisation and strengthen democracy through the public sphere (Hermans and Gyldensted, 2019).
Alkhatib also provides guidance for activists in the West on how they can effectively campaign for Palestinian liberation and sustainable peace while avoiding self-serving slacktivism and Manichaean narratives that harm the people they claim to support. By providing listeners with actionable steps they can take, the podcast exemplifies the empowering and co-creative characteristics of constructive journalism (Hermans and Gyldensted, 2019). This is reinforced by the hosts’ invitation for listeners to contribute their opinions in the comments section to broaden discussion and promote critical thinking.
Constructive journalism offers solutions to several challenges confronting contemporary news media. One such challenge is a rise in news media avoidance and a subsequent decline in political interest and civic participation (Espeland, 2024). Constructive elements in journalism, such as diversity of perspectives and the use of positive framing, can help reach people who are less engaged with traditional news (Hermans and Gyldensted, 2019). Increased engagement with news content would strengthen the public sphere and help fulfil journalism’s democratic responsibilities by supporting an informed public and encouraging more people to exercise their right to vote. Furthermore, by incorporating a diversity of voices, emphasising balance and nuance, and providing essential context, constructive journalism combats the polarised media landscape and the spread of misinformation fueled by the digital age. For example, the Unapologetic: The Third Narrative podcast platforms marginalised and unrepresented voices in the Israel-Palestine conflict to encourage critical thinking to counter polarised narratives and strengthen the public sphere. Finally, constructive journalism can play a pivotal role in the restoration of trust in news media, which has been significantly damaged in recent decades (Fink, 2019; Holcomb, 2024). In the ‘post-truth era’ where objectivity is increasingly questioned as a measure of journalistic quality, a constructive approach to news production could redefine and strengthen the authority of professional journalism (From and Nørgaard Kristensen, 2018). Additionally, research shows that focusing on solutions in news stories could help regain the trust of media audiences (Thier et al., 2021).
Despite its indisputable benefits, constructive journalism is subject to criticism. One concern often raised is when constructive journalism is conflated with ‘happy news’ or news that is overly positive by omitting possibly upsetting or negative elements. ‘Happy news’ is arguably just as ineffective as ‘bad news’ as both can fail to portray a balanced picture by oversimplifying complex issues. Constructive journalism still focuses on meaningful information and facts but uses them in a way to report critically. The positive psychological techniques used in constructive reporting don’t aim to uplift the audience but rather encourage hope and increase engagement. For example, The Third Narrative podcast doesn’t avoid difficult and upsetting topics and conversations but uses solution- and future-oriented framing to leave listeners feeling motivated and informed. Another critique is that constructive journalism is derivative of traditional professional reporting, and most constructive elements have always been the standard. However, Mäder (2023) highlights how these elements are being forgotten in contemporary journalism due to a changing news landscape, and so a constructive framework can be useful in maintaining high-quality reporting.
Constructive journalism offers an opportunity to reform traditional reporting to better suit the evolving contemporary media landscape whilst maintaining journalism’s foundational principles and values. In a time characterised by declining trust in professional reporting, audience fatigue from ‘bad news’, and a growing demand for solution-oriented narratives, constructive journalism provides a pragmatic way to rebuild trust and promote engagement. Hermans and Gyldensted’s suggested framework can provide guidance to journalists on how they can implement constructive elements into their work without a complete shift to a strictly constructive model. While it may be unrealistic to expect the majority of future journalism to fully embrace all constructive elements and positive psychology techniques due to it requiring more time and funding, even partial adoption of the constructive framework could have a positive impact. Prioritising public-oriented reporting and reemphasising the democratic responsibilities of journalism will ultimately strengthen the public sphere, rebuild trust in news media, and revitalise journalism’s role as a catalyst for meaningful change.
The Third Narrative is a great example of constructive journalism in practice. For example, episode 23 of the podcast specifically explores a range of solutions to end the conflict by interviewing different peace activists. This focus on solutions rather than simply dwelling on current problems makes it future-oriented, one of the characteristics of constructive journalism suggested by Hermans and Gyldensted (2019). It can also fall under McIntyre and Gyldensted’s (2018) prospective journalism branch, which incorporates positive and prospective psychology to shift the focus to exploring future possibilities, solutions and broader implications of current issues rather than just repeating problems. Evidence shows that imagining possible futures and focusing on goals is an effective way to catalyse positive change (McIntyre and Gyldensted, 2018; Seligman et al., 2013).
The hosts make it very clear from the first episode that their objective is not to advocate for a specific solution but rather to raise awareness about different perspectives on achieving sustainable peace, create a platform for dialogue, and promote mutual understanding and empathy. This approach challenges the polarised narratives perpetuated by traditional war journalism, which frames conflicts as binary struggles between opposing sides competing for victory (Galtung, 2003). By adopting a more nuanced reporting style, the podcast exemplifies the principles of peace journalism, thus highlighting the effectiveness of constructive journalism and illustrating why it is growing in use.
The podcast also incorporates aspects of restorative journalism, initially coined by Mallary Jean Tenore and later identified as a branch of constructive journalism. Restorative journalism shares stories of “recovery, restoration and resilience in the aftermath, or midst of, difficult times” to “reveal universal truths that awaken a sense of human connection” (Tenore, 2014). The hosts use constructive interviewing techniques when talking to the guests to facilitate open and empathetic conversations, demonstrating how journalism has the constructive potential to go beyond reporting facts to promote connection and healing.
A significant focus of The Third Narrative podcast is platforming excluded and marginalised voices in the conflict. Some episodes include interviews with guest speakers, such as Palestinian peace activists, a member of the Druze community residing in Israel, and an Ethiopian Jewish woman. These perspectives challenge the polarised narratives promoted by mainstream media outlets by demonstrating that there is far more complexity to the war than two sides that are both fixated on ‘winning’. Instead, there is ample space for nuance, and there is a potential for agreement across perceived divides. For example, Ahmed Fouad Alkhatib, a Gazan peace activist, shares his insights from living in the Gaza Strip, a perspective that is often excluded in discussions due to the tight media control in the region. He provides a nuanced and moderate analysis of the wider conflict and the ongoing war, acknowledging the role of both parties and sharing anti-Hamas sentiments. This aspect of the podcast embodies the diversity element of constructive journalism and demonstrates how it can be used as a tool to prevent polarisation and strengthen democracy through the public sphere (Hermans and Gyldensted, 2019).
Alkhatib also provides guidance for activists in the West on how they can effectively campaign for Palestinian liberation and sustainable peace while avoiding self-serving slacktivism and Manichaean narratives that harm the people they claim to support. By providing listeners with actionable steps they can take, the podcast exemplifies the empowering and co-creative characteristics of constructive journalism (Hermans and Gyldensted, 2019). This is reinforced by the hosts’ invitation for listeners to contribute their opinions in the comments section to broaden discussion and promote critical thinking.
Constructive journalism offers solutions to several challenges confronting contemporary news media. One such challenge is a rise in news media avoidance and a subsequent decline in political interest and civic participation (Espeland, 2024). Constructive elements in journalism, such as diversity of perspectives and the use of positive framing, can help reach people who are less engaged with traditional news (Hermans and Gyldensted, 2019). Increased engagement with news content would strengthen the public sphere and help fulfil journalism’s democratic responsibilities by supporting an informed public and encouraging more people to exercise their right to vote. Furthermore, by incorporating a diversity of voices, emphasising balance and nuance, and providing essential context, constructive journalism combats the polarised media landscape and the spread of misinformation fueled by the digital age. For example, the Unapologetic: The Third Narrative podcast platforms marginalised and unrepresented voices in the Israel-Palestine conflict to encourage critical thinking to counter polarised narratives and strengthen the public sphere. Finally, constructive journalism can play a pivotal role in the restoration of trust in news media, which has been significantly damaged in recent decades (Fink, 2019; Holcomb, 2024). In the ‘post-truth era’ where objectivity is increasingly questioned as a measure of journalistic quality, a constructive approach to news production could redefine and strengthen the authority of professional journalism (From and Nørgaard Kristensen, 2018). Additionally, research shows that focusing on solutions in news stories could help regain the trust of media audiences (Thier et al., 2021).
Despite its indisputable benefits, constructive journalism is subject to criticism. One concern often raised is when constructive journalism is conflated with ‘happy news’ or news that is overly positive by omitting possibly upsetting or negative elements. ‘Happy news’ is arguably just as ineffective as ‘bad news’ as both can fail to portray a balanced picture by oversimplifying complex issues. Constructive journalism still focuses on meaningful information and facts but uses them in a way to report critically. The positive psychological techniques used in constructive reporting don’t aim to uplift the audience but rather encourage hope and increase engagement. For example, The Third Narrative podcast doesn’t avoid difficult and upsetting topics and conversations but uses solution- and future-oriented framing to leave listeners feeling motivated and informed. Another critique is that constructive journalism is derivative of traditional professional reporting, and most constructive elements have always been the standard. However, Mäder (2023) highlights how these elements are being forgotten in contemporary journalism due to a changing news landscape, and so a constructive framework can be useful in maintaining high-quality reporting.
Constructive journalism offers an opportunity to reform traditional reporting to better suit the evolving contemporary media landscape whilst maintaining journalism’s foundational principles and values. In a time characterised by declining trust in professional reporting, audience fatigue from ‘bad news’, and a growing demand for solution-oriented narratives, constructive journalism provides a pragmatic way to rebuild trust and promote engagement. Hermans and Gyldensted’s suggested framework can provide guidance to journalists on how they can implement constructive elements into their work without a complete shift to a strictly constructive model. While it may be unrealistic to expect the majority of future journalism to fully embrace all constructive elements and positive psychology techniques due to it requiring more time and funding, even partial adoption of the constructive framework could have a positive impact. Prioritising public-oriented reporting and reemphasising the democratic responsibilities of journalism will ultimately strengthen the public sphere, rebuild trust in news media, and revitalise journalism’s role as a catalyst for meaningful change.
Bibliography
Andersen, K., Djerf-Pierre, M. and Shehata, A. (2024) ‘The Scary World Syndrome: News Orientations, Negativity Bias, and the Cultivation of Anxiety’, Mass Communication and Society, 27(3), pp. 502–524. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2023.2297829.
Bhowmik, S. and Fisher, J. (2023) ‘Framing the Israel-Palestine conflict 2021: Investigation of CNN’s coverage from a peace journalism perspective’, Media, Culture & Society, 45(5), pp. 1019–1035. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/01634437231154766.
Espeland, E. (2024) ‘The Dynamics of Political Interest and News Media Avoidance: A Generational and Longitudinal Perspective’, Journalism Studies, 25(12), pp. 1476–1497. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2024.2366338.
Fink, K. (2019) ‘The biggest challenge facing journalism: A lack of trust’, Journalism, 20(1), pp. 40–43. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/1464884918807069.
From, U. and Nørgaard Kristensen, N. (2018) ‘Rethinking Constructive Journalism by Means of Service Journalism’, Journalism Practice, 12(6), pp. 714–729. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/17512786.2018.1470475.
Galtung, J. (2003) ‘Peace Journalism’, Media Asia, 30(3), pp. 177–180. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/01296612.2003.11726720.
Galtung, J. (2015) ‘Peace Journalism and Reporting on the United States’, The Brown Journal of World Affairs, 22(1), pp. 321–333.
Glasser, T. (2016) ‘Public Journalism Movement’, in The International Encyclopedia of Political Communication. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118541555.wbiepc203.
Hackett, R.A. and Zhao, Y. (1998) Sustaining Democracy? University of Toronto Press. Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.3138/j.ctvg254hx (Accessed: 9 January 2025).
Harcup, T. and O’Neill, D. (2017) ‘What is News?: News values revisited (again)’, Journalism Studies, 18(12), pp. 1470–1488. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2016.1150193.
Hermans, L. and Gyldensted, C. (2019) ‘Elements of constructive journalism: Characteristics, practical application and audience valuation’, Journalism, 20(4), pp. 535–551. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/1464884918770537.
Holcomb, J. (2024) Media Mistrust Has Been Growing for Decades—Does It Matter? Available at: https://pew.org/3Nl4wYc (Accessed: 13 January 2025).
Lynch, J. and McGoldrick, A. (2005) Peace Journalism. Gloucestershire: Hawthorn Press.
Mäder, A. and Rinsdorf, L. (2023) ‘Constructive Journalism as an Adaptation to a Changing Media Environment’, Journalism Studies, 24(3), pp. 329–346. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2022.2159859.
McIntyre, K. (2015) Constructive Journalism: The Effects of Positive Emotions and Solution Information in News Stories. University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Graduate School. Available at: https://doi.org/10.17615/g6sg-8p47.
McIntyre, K. and Gyldensted, C. (2018) ‘Positive Psychology as a Theoretical Foundation for Constructive Journalism’, Journalism Practice, 12(6), pp. 662–678. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/17512786.2018.1472527.
Mohammed, A. and Ahmed, I.A. (2023-2024) ‘Unapologetic: The Third Narrative’. Available at: https://open.spotify.com/show/5CT8QicPO31pe7AX0jA4Wp?si=6fe5e3c23d0a43dd.
Rosen, J. and Merritt, D. (1994) ‘Public Journalism: Theory and Practice’, An Occasional Paper of the Kettering Foundation [Preprint].
Seligman, M.E.P. et al. (2013) ‘Navigating Into the Future or Driven by the Past’, Perspectives on Psychological Science: A Journal of the Association for Psychological Science, 8(2), pp. 119–141. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691612474317.
Tenore, M.J. (2014) ‘Restorative Narratives: Defining a New Strength-Based Genre’. Available at: https://1619education.org/sites/default/files/2024-09/Restorative%20Narratives_%20Defining%20a%20New%20Strength-Based%20Genre%20by%20Mallary%20Jean%20Tenore.docx.pdf.
Thier, K. et al. (2021) ‘A narrative solution: The relationship between solutions journalism, narrative transportation, and news trust’, Journalism, 22(10), pp. 2511–2530. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/1464884919876369.
Toff, B. and Nielsen, R.K. (2022) ‘How News Feels: Anticipated Anxiety as a Factor in News Avoidance and a Barrier to Political Engagement’, Political Communication, 39(6), pp. 697–714. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2022.2123073.
van Antwerpen, N. and Fielding, V. (2023) ‘Constructive Journalism: Techniques for Improving the Practice of Objectivity’, Journal of Media Ethics, 38(3), pp. 176–190. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/23736992.2023.2228313.