Fostering dialogue with civil society is crucial in constructive journalism, one of whose central aims is to go to the heart of social and political divides and try to bridge them. While journalists have always gone to the places of friction in society, too often the result is people slugging it out on TV and online. They’re trying to score a “gotcha” moment that might burnish their reputation among those who feel as they do. While this might make for dramatic video or a post with a lot of shares, it usually doesn’t move forward the debate or solve an issue. People become defensive, battle lines are hardened, and the other side is demonized.  

Another, more constructive approach is to try to build respectful, fact-based conversations between people about the issues that matter deeply to a society. Only by talking to others can  people find common ground and start tackling problems successfully. Of course, everyone will never agree on everything; there will always be strong differences of opinion. But getting people talking about even their deeply held differences is better than not talking at all. 

Pillar 3 of the constructive model focuses on starting a dialogue among leaders and decision-makers but also with and among people in the community (see Module 1, Chapter 2).  

In this sense, constructive journalism shares similarities with civic journalism (or public journalism). Widely discussed in the 1990s, it uses a bottom-up approach and sees community members as potential participants in public affairs, rather than victims or observers to be written about. It seeks to engage people and improve the climate of public discussion. These conversations are the basis of coverage since it encourages the communities to engage with issues that impact them.

Media outlet as facilitator: Constructive journalism aims to alter the relationship between media outlets and news audiences. In addition to being disseminators of information and interpreters, outlets with a constructive approach become catalysts and facilitators of conversations. These conversations give room for people to express their feelings and opinions or ask questions to those in power or to those living next door. 

In the traditional model, journalists ask for people’s stories, record their experiences and concerns, and then package and polish them to share with audiences. It’s often a one-way street without follow-up or asking what audiences themselves might need. This alternative model aims for a real conversation, uncovering what is meaningful to people. The result is a fuller picture told from many angles as well as a deeper relationship with the audience. 

Managing a constructive dialogue: It’s important that media outlets keep these conversations on a constructive path. That means not simply trying to pit one party against each other to watch sparks fly, but to keep the atmosphere calm and the tone respectful despite differences of opinion. Journalists should carefully consider how they ask questions to get people to honestly participate instead of retreating to their defensive bunkers (see Module 2, Chapter 1). Media outlets can facilitate constructive conversations and debates by: 

• Training staff to moderate constructively: Journalists might need to rethink how they ask questions and the kinds of questions they ask. Training journalists that show potential to be moderators using conflict resolution techniques can do a lot to boost the quality of any dialogue.   
• Going deeper: Introducing moderators/journalists to active listening techniques such as looping can help them get beyond the usual positioning statements and find out why someone believes the way they do (see Module 2, Chapter 1). 
• Embracing nuance, not conflict: Emphasize commonalities not differences.
• Connecting people with different viewpoints: The points of friction are where progress can be made but ensure that the people participating are willing to make a good-faith effort to discuss the issue honestly instead of just grandstanding. 
• Creating a de-escalating setting: Are people on neutral ground? Do they feel “safe”? 
• Give the mic to “common people”: Let community members speak. Give their opinions equal weight as those of politicians or others in powerful positions. 

Some news outlets following a constructive approach are putting this strategy to work. A few examples: 

Political debate without the toxicity: Norway’s national broadcaster NRK launched a political debate aimed at finding points of connection and agreement. In “Einig?”, or “Agreed?” in Norwegian, politicians were chosen to participate in the program who were willing to abandon political posturing for honest conversation. Personal attacks and talking points were frowned upon. The editorial team also offered advice on how to lead a constructive conversation. The program was recorded in a garage rather than a traditional election campaign studio to strip away the glamour and drama. According to the show’s editor, panelists who came on talk shows were often more civil and real with each other before or after the show when they were having a coffee. The goal was to recreate that type of atmosphere when the cameras were rolling.

Dialogue (and dining) across divides: Germany’s Die Zeit newspaper ran a series that included face-to-face discussions between people on opposite sides of a political issue. Germany Talks (Deutschland Spricht) matched people up who lived relatively close together but who held very different views on certain political and social issues, such as climate policy, vaccines and gender equality. According to Maria Exner, who helped develop the format, a project evaluation showed that even a two-hour conversation helped reduce prejudices between people of differing political persuasions. The political views of many participants also inched closer to each other in many cases. Such events can “encourage the center of society to remain open and willing to talk,” according to Peter Coleman, a professor of psychology at New York’s Columbia University. The idea has been expanded to a program called My Country Talks that has had participants from over 30 countries. The Guardian runs a similar series called Dining Across The Divide, where people with opposing views on some of the more divisive issues in the UK break bread together and talk. 

Boosting democratic engagement:
In Australia before federal elections in 2013 and 2016, citizens were asked through social media, meetings, publications and broadcasts what issues they wanted candidates in their districts to address. Then candidates talked about these issues at public meetings reported on by the media. Organizers found that there were issues flying under the media radar which did not figure in the public debate. The goal was to improve civic engagement and alter how journalists reported politics. This model is based on the “Citizens Agenda” project from Jay Rosen of New York University in which members of the public are not merely consumers or recipients of news, but co-creators who deserve to have a say in what journalists cover. 

Consideration of political, social factors: The ability of the above models to open a constructive dialog depend largely on local political, cultural and societal conditions. For example, the Norwegian program Einig? was effective due to that country’s strong democratic and egalitarian traditions. In other countries and different political environments, getting politicians to debate in such a manner might be impossible. In addition, some topics might be sensitive or simply taboo. Under authoritarian regimes, open communication can get people in trouble. The journalist attempting to create honest and open dialogue should carefully take the current political and social climate into consideration.