{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.025870033877425317, 'fraction_numerical': 0.008623344625808438, 'mean_word_length': 5.72463768115942, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 1, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 1, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Why Do We Suddenly Talk So Much About Constructiveness?

The talk about “constructive journalism” is currently gaining a great deal of attention in the newsrooms of many broadcasters, newspapers and online news sites—and increasingly also in the academic discussions. Here “constructive”means that journalism should focus not only on social problems but also on the possible solutions and spaces of action in their coverage. This would, it is argued, lead to positive social impact and to committed readership through better audience engagement (Haagerup 2014; Gyldensted 2015). The self-corrective ethos of the idea centers on challenging journalism’s tendency to focus on negativity. Crime, conflict, accidents and all kinds of threats are likely to make the headlines, while positive developments are often less dramatic and therefore go unnoticed under the news radar. This is seen to paint an overly gloomy picture of social reality, which contributes to the sense of hopelessness among audiences, who easily turn away from the news that cause them anxiety (Haagerup 2014). Constructive journalism draws inspiration and techniques from positive psychology to create engaging and inspiring stories that would provide the audience views forward (McIntyre 2015). Therefore, it underlines the role of emotion, solution formation and future orientation in news coverage (McIntyre 2015). In the European context, the idea has received positive resonance among journalism professionals, especially in public broadcasting companies. The “constructive movement” is thus largely formed on the basis of professional networking: for example, The Constructive Institute is an independent organization that works closely with Aarhus University in Denmark, providing research and training (https://constructiveinstitute.org/). Several schools and universities teaching journalism have added courses on “going constructive” in their curricula; for instance, Windesheim University of Applied Sciences in the Netherlands has a chair for a Professor of Constructive Journalism. In addition, European Public Broadcasting Union is currently organizing master classes in constructive journalism. Partly stemming from these networks, several academic and professional conferences on constructive journalism have taken place in the past two years. In the United States, similar ideas circulate and networking takes place under the title of solutions journalism (e.g. Solutions Journalism Network, www.solutionsjournalism.org). Some talk about solutions and constructive journalism as interchangeable; indeed, also solutions journalism questions the negativity and problem frames in news journalism and seeks to engage audiences by providing them with tools for action. Here, the main argument is that journalism should highlight existing models, solutions and responses that are showing results against the most pressing problems (Dyer 2015). The clearest difference to constructive journalism arises, however, from the fact that the argument is not similarly rooted in psychology (McIntyre 2015). The idea of constructiveness seems fresh and old at the same time. From the perspective of journalism studies, constructive journalism can be placed among several other