“Western” principles of journalism have over decades dominated journalism education in the Global South – principles that were deeply rooted in traditions and political realities of Europe and North America. The concepts of constructive journalism are one response to the global crisis of media in the digital age, but have mainly been developed, again, in Europe and the United States. Can they nevertheless be relevant for media professionals in other parts of the world?

Some similarities: Both digital disruption and journalism cultures that follow the “if it bleeds, it leads” principle are found in newsrooms across the Global South. However, there are a range of realities in these regions that will impact the possibilities and potential of constructive journalism as well as its implementation in the local context. Some are below. 

Societies in conflict: In a context of violence and high tension, journalists must take great care when considering the language and framing they use. These choices can exacerbate volatile situations. In such cases, constructive journalism approaches should be combined with elements of conflict-sensitive reporting.

Examples: The Danish media development organization International Media Support and the Constructive Institute carried out two constructive journalism projects. The first one, located in Colombia, looked at the protracted war there and how it was reported. It also considered a recently signed peace agreement and the need for journalists to engage in democratic conversation about the country’s future. A guidebook was also published (in Spanish).  The second project was a curriculum developed with the American University in Beirut which taught both constructive and conflict-sensitive journalism in one class of Lebanese journalism students.

Levels of democracy: The stated ambition of the constructive journalism model is that its reporting will contribute to and support democracy. In authoritarian regimes, there is a high risk that constructive journalism could be misused and many urge reporters to use caution. According to some experts, there is often a problematic demand for “positive”, uncritical news about governments. Constructive journalism should be separated clearly from notions of uncritical journalism. Instead of increasing trust, a constructive approach here might do the opposite as it could be perceived as “airbrushed” news, biased and even propagandistic. The promotion of dialogue and engagement, pillar three, could be difficult or dangerous under authoritarian regimes. But even in an authoritarian environment, a constructive approach on the local level with local issues that are not politically sensitive might well be possible.

In young and relatively stable democracies in the Global South, media experts see opportunities for journalists to work constructively and act as the fourth pillar of democracy. According to journalist Cathrine Gyldensted, constructive journalism is “holding power to account by asking them to solve, collaborate, seek a civil debate – instead of usual conflicts, disagreeing, polarization”. Some media professionals are concerned that when people are encouraged to fix their problems on their own, government officials might be tempted to lean back and stop making any effort at all.

Constructive = complacent? In an interview with the World Editors Forum 2014, Prof. Anton Harber from WITS University South Africa expressed his fear that journalists would try to be positive at the expense of truth telling. “News is only constructive if you want a sleepy, complacent society, not if you want active, engaged citizens.” According to Harber, constructive journalism undercuts the journalist’s central role of calling the powerful to account. However, constructive journalism proponents counter that ethics and standards, good reporting skills and a critical eye are all key elements of their approach.

Post-colonial heritage: Sanne Rotmeijer analyzed local journalism on the Caribbean island of St. Maarten and found a culture in which people live in small communities, are related to many others in those communities and fear outspokenness – a  reflection of the colonial past. Constructive stories about local businesses that seek to foster economic development could easily become PR. To her it seems counterproductive that local journalists use words of inclusion in news stories, while the same local journalists do not have the capacity or the courage to address ongoing policies of exclusion. Under such circumstances, and they might be similar in other post-colonial societies, a journalistic focus on social stability would reproduce “the local ‘sugar coated’ community and may play into the hands of the ones in power”.

Building bridges: Many societies in Africa and the Middle East are highly polarized. This makes it extremely difficult for journalists to avoid being used by one side or the other. Often, they are led into a toxic cycle of accusation and name calling by political and business elites. But when the media objectively reports on problems and solutions and offers nuanced coverage that acknowledges both sides’ viewpoints, officials and leaders can no longer argue that the media has an agenda since it reports on wrongdoings and on solutions regardless of who is behind them. Journalists can also build bridges between communities and guide democratic discussion into areas which directly impact audiences, such as education and climate change.

Initiatives in the regions:

The Middle East: Young journalists and small media startups are starting to get interested in the constructive approach even though there are hardly any best-practice examples of constructive journalism to be found in Arabic. In 2020, former BBC journalist Dina Aboughazala launched Egab, a solutions journalism initiative for local journalists in the Middle East and Africa. The aim is to help journalists in these regions successfully pitch to international news outlets. Egyptian by birth, Aboughazala wants to shift how her region and others are perceived both at home and abroad. Egab’s name is derived from the Arabic word Egabiya (positivity) and Egaba (answer). “Egypt is always in the news for the worst reasons. People think that countries in my region – the Middle East & Africa – only offer problems and there’s no chance anything will be fixed” she said.

Africa: Even though constructive journalism is still not very widespread in African countries, more and more young media outlets or platforms like Africa No Filter (bird stories) have started to tell African stories differently. They have stopped copying the perspective of international media from the Global North and begun countering stereotypes and providing inspiring and solutions-focused stories. Same for African Arguments, a pan-African platform for news, investigation and opinion that seeks a diversity of voices. The Kenya-based Mobile Journalism Africa network of journalists takes a similar approach while shrinking the gap between reporters and sources with mobile devices. Many experts complain about a lack of professionalism and a lack of transparency regarding media ownership. But over the last years, media initiatives in many African countries have set up fact-checking and verification platforms and trained other media professionals. First steps in constructive journalism could build upon these initiatives and the journalists they have trained. After some best practices are in place and a few success stories publicized, more media managers and editors could become interested in the approach.

South Asia: Media practitioners and analysts in South Asia see the benefits of constructive journalism in their region similarly as proponents in Europe and North America do: countering a conflict-only narrative that has taken hold in the media and giving room to stories of solutions and even inspiration. There is already some engagement with the constructive approach in South Asia, particularly in India. Two online operations there, The Better India and The Quint, regularly do constructive stories, although the former sometimes veers into positive journalism.

Given the stretched resources of most South Asian news operations and the traditional attitudes shared by many experienced journalists, small experimental steps at the beginning will be important as well as convincing media house owners and editors of the value of this new approach. One risk is that constructive stories could be perceived as PR. If news coverage puts the government or military in a good light, observers from Pakistan pointed out, there would be suspicions that the news organization was trying to curry favor with those in power. Local issues and local media are the most promising testing grounds for a constructive approach, and young people are likely to be more open to it in general. They are underserved by the media and rarely see their concerns addressed.