Ulrik Haagerup is CEO and founder of the Constructive Institute, an independent organization promoting constructive journalism.
AARHUS, Denmark — The coronavirus pandemic is putting journalism to the test.
The first challenge was survival. Some parts of the news industry haven’t made it through the global lockdown: Local papers are going under, and hundreds of journalists have been laid off.
Those that have made it through are now facing tough questions. As the world starts to eye the next phase of the pandemic and move out of lockdown, we urgently have to ask ourselves: What have we learned, and how do we avoid returning to bad newsroom habits that — already before this crisis — eroded trust in journalism and in democracy?
Since the start of the global outbreak, millions of scared, confused and isolated citizens from Milan to Melbourne and Michigan have turned to traditional media outlets for information free from the lies, half-truths, rumors and fake news that have spread like a digital virus during the health emergency. In many countries, including Denmark, news media have seen page views for their online news sites double.
If the media landscape becomes consumed once again in a fight for attention, clicks, views and shares, we’ll automatically give airtime and headlines to the rudest and the loudest voices.
As Marco Zatterin, deputy editor-in-chief of Italy’s La Stampa, put it: “We are isolated, we lose money, and staff members are infected, but we fight. Because people out there want us to tell them our stories based on journalistic principles and values.”
Just as politicians seemed, for a while, to press pause on infighting and attention-seeking and put the needs of their citizens first, the news media moved away from the usual “fly in the soup” kind of stories — stories that focus on drama, conflict and the extreme.
Instead, we were busy reporting the story of our lifetime. Editors and reporters, often working from their own homes, strove to give people the best obtainable version of the truth. In doing so, they proved to the public, publishers and others in the industry why curated news and responsible journalism media is such a valuable public good.
The crisis has reinforced the importance of our core mission as journalists: to provide readers with facts, uncover problems, ask critical and curious questions. But it has also highlighted something that is too often missing from the discussion: that part of our mission must also be to inspire potential solutions to the challenges facing all of us.
Journalism is a filter between reality and public perception of that reality. As journalists, we have to decide: Do we only chase the most dramatic, most fear-inducing stories to hit our short-term performance goals and attract clicks and likes? Or do we also seek to highlight opportunities, fresh perspectives, ways out, reasons for hope?
This type of journalism — so-called constructive journalism — is not about embracing a North Korean version of news, where the gray sky is painted blue. We have to count both the dead and the saved. But constructive journalism offers a new vocabulary for what quality journalism is and what has been missing — namely inspiration, nuance and engagement.
This is no easy task. Anybody who has tried to stop smoking knows the power of bad habits. And as our societies slowly try to maneuver themselves out of the health crisis, there are signs we’re falling back into familiar patterns.
We see it in the rhetoric of politicians, who are back to criticizing their opponents rather than putting forward ideas. We see it in the news stories that lean into political conflict and disagreements between experts rather than advancing the debate or shedding new light. And we see it in our audience numbers online, which are slowly dipping back to pre-coronavirus levels, to a time when the terms “news deserts” and “news avoiders” were already being thrown around in discussions about the death of the press.
Now is not the time to slip back into pre-virus habits. The coming economic downturn will demand rigorous, difficult public debates in the months and years ahead. If the news media switches back to autopilot and conducts these debates as blue corner/red corner boxing matches with only winners and losers, the consequences will be dramatic.
We can’t allow the old newsroom culture to take over again. If the media landscape becomes consumed once again in a fight for attention, clicks, views and shares, we’ll automatically give airtime and headlines to the rudest and the loudest voices.
Journalists document a protest in Chicago | Scott Olson/Getty Images
This risks polarizing our societies at a time when we need solidarity more than ever. And it will pave the way for a new generation of populists that will make U.S. President Donald Trump look like a statesman.
Never has trust in the media and the financial models funding journalism been under so much pressure, and never has the world needed us more. The stakes are high: When journalism does not work, democracy breaks down.
It’s crucial now that we put in the work. Independent journalism is so much more than a product to be sold — it’s the core of society’s conversation and progress.