Keeping an eye on what people can tolerate

Bonn Institute founder Ellen Heinrichs on constructive journalism in times of war and crisis, her work at the Institute and why she hopes that someday the label “constructive” will no longer be needed.

Interview Laura Schameitat, DW editor

Ms. Heinrichs, the Bonn Institute was founded shortly before the start of the war in Ukraine. Promoting constructive journalism in times of war — is that an impossible task or a matter of now more than ever?

When Vladimir Putin’s army invaded Ukraine, our institute was barely four weeks old; our first seminars for journalists were still pending. Against the backdrop of war in Europe, we’ve set out on the challenging path to support media organizations that want to transform their reporting, so it includes more constructive approaches.

Let me be clear: Nothing about war is positive; there is nothing to sugar-coat. And constructive journalism does not mean simply spreading positive news — this is a common misunderstanding. Constructive journalism means reporting on both, problems and solutions, and including nuances and various perspectives into the coverage. In times of crises, that’s not only possible but extremely necessary.

How can your institute help analyze reader preferences?

To support our content-producing colleagues, the Bonn Institute will conduct a study on constructive journalism in times of war in the upcoming months. Our goal is to find out what users would like to read more of in the context of war reporting and which newsrooms and desks have best-practice examples that we can share with others as inspiration.

What could constructive war reporting look like in practical terms?

In trying to include various perspectives, we can ask ourselves who is affected by the war and how exactly. The more perspectives we include in our reporting, the more accurately it will reflect what is going on. Then we are in a position to not only ask how this war can be won and by whom, but also focus on efforts to achieve peace.

We also need to bear in mind that the average media user does not want to be preoccupied with the war all day long, as many of us journalists are. Their information needs to differ from ours. By focusing on their actual information needs — no matter how basic they may be — we can reduce their feelings of powerlessness.

And lastly, it’s important to remember that in real life, even in wartime, there is rarely just black or white. Shades of grey also exist in war. We should therefore use the little word “and” more often, because allowing for complexity brings us closer to the ideal of objective reporting.

What needs to change in newsrooms if they want to adopt constructive approaches?

First, they must acknowledge that truly comprehensive reporting is not actually possible, since selecting topics by definition means covering a mere section of what’s going on. Journalists should therefore ask themselves: If I can’t include everything anyway, why not consciously select constructive topics?

Second, they must do away with the image of themselves as “gatekeepers” who decide what is important for their audiences. This is because what we journalists think is relevant often does not correspond with what people want to read.

Let’s look at other topics, like the pandemic. Has this helped or hindered constructive journalism?

The pandemic has helped boost constructive journalism. Fact and data-based journalism has been in high demand and media outlets that have applied constructive approaches, have registered more time spent by users on websites with constructive journalism.

Every global crisis also has an impact right at home. During war, refugees are welcomed at a municipal level and it is local authorities that have to provide for them and help them integrate. During a pandemic, citizens need to be informed about local case rates, regulations and vaccination programs.

I believe constructive approaches provide local media with a unique opportunity. They are often in a position to pick up on different opinions and initiate constructive debates without much extra effort. A local media organization can mediate between individual groups, thus contributing to the extremely important task of combating societal polarization.

Where do you see constructive journalism in five years?

I am convinced that media companies cannot survive digitalization by focusing exclusively on technology. New distribution platforms are important, but we must also consider what kind of content we need to produce to make sure we are still relevant tomorrow. How can journalism contribute to society? How can it help people improve their lives? If media organizations increasingly take these questions into account in their daily work, we might not even need the label “constructive” at some point.

The Bonn Institute

was founded in March 2022 with the support of four partners: Germany’s international broadcaster Deutsche Welle, Rheinische Post publishing group, media company RTL Deutschland and the Constructive Institute at Aarhus University, Denmark. A non-profit organization, the Bonn Institute promotes journalism that is solutions-oriented and rich in perspectives and that seeks to facilitate public debate. It offers workshops for journalists, collaborates with newsrooms on projects and conducts studies that analyze the impacts of constructive approaches. The organization currently has a permanent staff of six. Ellen Heinrichs is the Institute’s founder and CEO. Before launching the Institute, she held various positions at DW.