An email from a member landed in my inbox in early June.
“I have been a huge supporter of the Guardian but am finding that you cover stories that are almost always about negative and/or fearful things,” she said. “Can you not at least have a good news section? As soon as I see a change I would love to come back.”
As luck (or good management? No, definitely luck) would have it the special projects team that I run at the Guardian had just created a “good news section” a few days earlier. We had felt that for too long people were not getting a fair reflection of all the constructive things going on in the world from traditional news media which clings to the old adage: “If it bleeds it leads.”
Since it launched on 1 June, the Half full series has published 29 pieces, attracting more than 1m page views and, more importantly, tens of thousands of social media shares. These are good, though not game-changing numbers. Industry wisdom suggests readers share positive stories more readily, and that has certainly been the case with some – though not all – of our pieces. Readers and members have also suggested dozens of ideas for us to pursue, from community efforts to tackle mental health to global moves to pick up litter.
We should stress this is not about “good news”. Constructive journalism aims to focus on innovation, initiative and inspiring people trying to make a difference. It can be found in the darkest tragedies – the hero reconnecting families after the earthquake, or the volunteers reaching out to refugees at their time of need. Sometimes it can focus on controversial things: initiatives to introduce a universal basic income, for example, or an alcohol rehab programme that offers addicts ... alcohol.
I must admit, not everyone at the Guardian thought Half full was a good idea. We had a lively exchange of views before taking the plunge. Several people warned it might create an open door for PR spinmeisters and puff merchants to peddle their saccharine message about products, services or aimless publicity antics. We would have to be astute to avoid becoming just another channel for churnalism.
But the events of this summer have convinced me that neglecting the constructive stories carries its own dangers. Because the British media failed for 20 years to show the constructive, positive achievements of the EU, it was all too easy for detractors to dominate the game, contributing to the Brexit referendum vote on 23 June.
The same is true of global conflict. Because the “only story in town” in Jerusalem involves the conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians, we have become accustomed to reading about never-ending confrontation and violence. It has become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Media reflects society, but also shapes it. Yet when we asked a journalist in the region to find examples of Israelis, Palestinians and Israeli Arabs working side by side, we were spoiled for choice. Conflict is only half the story.
That’s certainly the case with Africa. Stories of corruption, brutality and bad governance have become a lazy trope, rotating on a wretched merry-go-round of doom, confirming all our worst prejudices. Of course, serious news events like those that beset South Sudan and Central African Republic belong at the heart of our coverage. But we need to fight the stereotype that every African is a victim, a migrant or desperate, because clearly they are not.
In my view, it’s critical that we cover the Europe refugee crisis with the same approach. It is clear that in the months ahead there may well be more attacks on civilians. The clamour to search for the refugee connection will be great (even though virtually none of this summer’s terrorist attacks were perpetrated by recent arrivals in Europe). We have to show that most refugees bring far more benefits than drawbacks. Of course, a few will be bad people. But if we don’t focus on the good as well, we risk contributing to some people’s assumption that refugees are a threat.
It is also the case that some of these violent attacks will be perpetrated by people with mental illness. We have to fight generalisations here too: the vast majority of people with mental illness are capable, gentle individuals requiring our support, not our opprobrium. There are solutions out there for them too.
There’s a feedback loop at play here too. Increased coverage of positive news stories can also benefit the mental health of the audience, as Southampton Business School’s Denise Baden writes. “Our brains are not adapted to process the whole of the world’s horrors, selected and framed to present the most shocking and horrifying picture of the world. It is no wonder then that many try to turn off and those that do engage with it experience anxiety, worry and depression.”
Baden’s research and the results of more than 2,000 responses to her surveys, suggest that the negative presentation of news leads to “disengagement, avoidance, negative mood and anxiety”. Constructive journalism is a way to keep audiences tuning in, curious, engaged and ready to take the good with the bad.
Happily, our wavering member is enjoying the series. It would be great to hear the views of other members, so we can make an informed decision about whether to persist with Half full, or turn the glass around and go back to mainly scrutinising the half-empty bit again.
- Help fund our journalism by becoming a Guardian supporter.
Please share your suggestions of stories, trends, innovations and people that you’d like to see included in this series in the form below.
