In the face of a record level of distrust, particularly in older democracies, journalists must succeed in convincing their social utility. What about countries less saturated with information? Why should journalism prove its usefulness? The question may seem incongruous or controversial. A survey by the Hirondelle Foundation (1). Access to information as well as the research and dissemination of information and ideas are recognized as inalienable and universal rights, just like access to health or education. This is the purpose of Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the member states of the United Nations General Assembly in 1948. Yet, this issue is now more relevant than ever. People around the world trust journalists, and the media they work for are historically low: an average of 43% worldwide, with low levels of 31% to 33% in countries where the media sector is highly structured, such as Australia, Japan, France, or the United Kingdom. The confusion between information, propaganda, rumor, or opinion has never been greater, even in the wealthiest countries with the best educational systems. Social networks have given the illusion of “information” being free, accessible to all, and capable of doing without professionals responsible for producing and verifying it. Conversely, many journalists question their responsibilities in this situation. The election of Donald Trump as President of the United States or the election that led to Brexit were, for them, examples of popular votes that were not informed by the knowledge of the facts they were tasked with reporting. In this context, several reflections emerge to give journalism a legitimacy that it seems to have lost with the general public: from “constructive journalism” promoted by the Constructive Institute and Aarhus University (Denmark) (2) to the definition of a “journalistic mission in times of crisis” carried out by the British daily The Guardian, they attempt to revitalize the media by rethinking their ethics. Very popular in information-saturated Northern countries, can this reflection remain confined to them? Does it not benefit, on the contrary, from the contribution of media experiences in societies where factual and pluralistic information remains a rare, even precious asset, particularly in countries in crisis or undergoing democratic transition?
Manifesto for Constructive Journalism
Former head of news at Danish public television, Ulrik Haagerup founded the Constructive Institute in September 2017 to “combat the trivialization and degradation of journalism.” He shares his views on what needs to change in this profession today. Ulrik Haagerup Hirondelle Foundation: In September 2017, you founded the Constructive Institute (1) in Aarhus (Denmark) to promote “constructive journalism.” How would you define it? What kind of issues does it intend to address?Ulrik Haagerup: Constructive journalism is a solution to the dominant media culture, which primarily produces information about bad things, information that generates clicks, that wins awards and recognition from other journalists. Over the past few decades, the media has focused mainly on covering conflicts and crises. Just as there are “war entrepreneurs” who have more economic interest in maintaining conflicts than in winning them, there can also be a kind of “war journalism” that constantly responds to a public demand for impressive and easily marketable information. When I was head of news for Danish public television (DR), many people asked me: “Why do you give such a negative image of the world?” Initially surprised, because that was not our intention, I began to analyze our news. In fact, I mostly saw train accidents, murders, weather disasters… We used to send teams to cover conflicts in Africa, but rarely to cover the various aspects of the rapid improvement in living standards on that continent. Our stories were accurate but, one after another, they were depressing. If most media practice the same thing, it creates an ever-widening gap between reality and public perception. Even though in many ways the world is better (average life expectancy has never been higher, fewer people die in conflicts, etc.), people no longer want to follow the news. They feel that the world is collapsing, that they should read something more comforting on social media. This situation is a tragedy for democracy. FH: The title of your book, Constructive Information: How to Save Media and Democracy with Tomorrow’s Journalism (Aarhus University Press, 2017), is ambitious. How can “constructive information” save democracy?UH: When I was a young journalist there about 30 years ago, reading the media often was a sign of civilization. Today, people distrust the media: according to the Edelman Trust Barometer 2018, only 43% of respondents worldwide trust the media. This figure is even lower in democracies: 42% in the United States and Germany, 33% in France, 32% in the United Kingdom and Japan, 31% in Australia… Similarly, only 43% of respondents worldwide trust their government, while trust in businesses (52%) or NGOs (53%) is slightly higher. When such distrust of democratic institutions spreads, people are ready for populism, as shown by the election of Donald Trump or the Brexit vote. Journalists cannot change institutions, but they can change themselves. It is time to listen a little more to people and restore their trust, for example, by finally covering how the problems we used to cover can be solved. That is what constructive journalism intends to do. We aim to combat the trivialization and degradation of journalism by focusing on more accurate, balanced, and solution-oriented reporting. We want to focus on the future and inspire society, which involves establishing a feedback mechanism from society. FH: For example, what actions has the Constructive Institute already taken?Let’s mention two of them. First, if distrust of politicians and the media is also strong in Denmark, we organized discussions between party leaders represented in Parliament and media editors. Both categories of actors expressed their frustration: politicians, for having access to the media to discuss their proposals only when they are controversial; the media, for mainly dealing with communication speeches with little political substance. So, how can we get out of this situation? We decided to hold joint public meetings to find ways to improve media coverage of political life in Denmark. A second action focuses on media coverage after conflicts: after covering conflicts, how to keep media attention on the recovery of societies, peace processes, security strengthening, and improving care? This action is led by our international office in Geneva. FH: Is there not a risk that “constructive journalism” will be tempted to undermine “bad” news?UH: Journalism is not about giving “good” news: once again, accuracy is one of our key principles. Moreover, we are fully aware that, to name just a few, climate change, biodiversity collapse, and terrorist attacks are major issues facing the world today. But much media coverage has already been given to attacks. If we give even more, will it not contribute to the feeling of fear that terrorists want to spread? This is the kind of situation we are trying to assess. FH: What do you think is the main responsibility of a journalist today?In a recent article titled “A Mission for Journalism in Times of Crisis,” Katharine Vier, editor-in-chief of the British daily The Guardian, calls on the media to “develop ideas that help improve the world” and to “use clarity and imagination to build hope.” These principles, accuracy and the search for solutions, are good. Based on them, it is possible, while the Guardian and other innovative European media work on this, to publish investigative articles that are read in the end by a wide audience. This type of publication is good for business. It is good for journalism. And it is good for democracy.
The Guardian: “A Mission for Journalism in Times of Crisis” In her November 2017 article titled “A Mission for Journalism in Times of Crisis,” Katharine Vier, editor-in-chief of the British daily The Guardian, describes the main missions of journalism since the early 19th century in England. After twenty years of digital revolution, including ten years of “We must constantly examine our assumptions, our biases, how the world is changing, what it means. To this end, we will follow five principles: we will develop ideas that help improve the world and not just criticize it, we will collaborate with readers and others for greater impact, we will diversify to have richer stories from a representative newsroom, we will make sense in all our work and, above all, we will investigate accurately about people and powers and establish the facts… This is a time of inquiry for editors, journalists, and citizens – but also a privilege to ask these questions, to be able to contribute to transforming this era for the better, as our founding manifesto states. And to continue doing what the Guardian’s mission has been since 1821: to use clarity and imagination to build hope.
Edelman Trust Barometer 2018: Media Focus
Every year since 2000, Edelman, based in Chicago, publishes a barometer that assesses global trust in four types of institutions: governments, media, businesses, and NGOs. The 2018 survey was conducted in 28 countries among 1150 people aged 18 and older. It examines all media, including newspapers, audiovisual, websites, and social networks. Globally, it concludes that trust in the media is historically low (43%). 59% of respondents believe it is becoming increasingly difficult to know whether information has been produced by a reliable media source, and nearly 70% fear that false information could be used as weapons. Trust in journalism (59%) remains higher than trust in social networks (51%). Note: media trust is particularly low (31% to 42%) in most democracies, with the exception of the Netherlands (55%). Conversely, it is higher in more authoritarian regimes such as China (71%), the United Arab Emirates (56%), and Singapore (52%). **
Journalism Can Recreate Links in a Crisis Society and Experience
Based on 23 years of institutional experience, Caroline Vuillemin, executive director of the Hirondelle Foundation, analyzes the challenges of journalistic production in conflict or crisis countries. Caroline Vuillemin For 23 years, the Hirondelle Foundation has been providing information to populations facing crises. What are the main information issues for you in these contexts?Caroline Vuillemin: What is most often lacking in societies facing major crises is reliable information, that is, information that can serve as a reference for people to make decisions in their lives when all other institutions are failing or destroyed. It is therefore necessary to produce this reliable information, on the one hand, because it is rarely available despite the growing means of digital access to information, and on the other hand, because it helps rebuild the trust that these societies need. The media sector in conflict or crisis societies is a reflection of them: fragile, fragmented, polarized. In this context, we try to meet information needs, paying particular attention to two constraints: the need to ensure the safety of journalists, sources, and all stakeholders in our media programs; the need to ensure the journalistic and technical skills of the people we work with. To address these needs and challenges, what are the working principles of the Hirondelle Foundation?CV: To ensure accessibility and balance, we work in the languages of the country, with journalists from the country and representative of the diversity of the country where we work. Beyond the factual treatment of news, we produce debate programs where the journalist is the facilitator of a live dialogue between different actors – government, opposition, NGOs, other stakeholders… – who also do not have the opportunity to talk to each other in a trusted environment. To describe our approach, I would be pleased to speak of “responsible journalism.” Our main concern remains the verification of information, as in conflict zones, the issue of the reliability of information can be a matter of life or death. We are very attentive to how we publish information about violence and armed conflicts: rather than delivering it raw, we organize a dialogue around this information with a plurality of actors representative of the social and political components of the country, which helps to mitigate the concern or division that this information could have on the audience. Do you think this “responsible journalism” should go beyond strict media coverage and help individuals take action to overcome the crises they face?CV: I am convinced that beyond simply stating the facts, the role of journalism is to increase knowledge and understanding of each person, and then to enable everyone to act. This is not unique to conflict or crisis countries. In these contexts, on the other hand, the journalism we practice accompanies the audience in the form of a reassuring human presence: “Radio Ndeke Luka is our friend,” we hear in the Central African Republic. We strive to give a voice to all, including the silent majorities often excluded from power circles (women, youth…) and underrepresented religious or ethnic minorities in institutions. The project we are launching in the second half of 2018 in the Rohingya refugee camps in Bangladesh aims to support these traumatized and uprooted communities by providing them with practical information to facilitate their daily lives and cultural programs that help them relieve their suffering and share their situation and history with other members of their community. When a crisis has dismantled a society, journalism can indeed help recreate social ties.
Media Pluralism Has Brought Tunisians Closer to Politics/Testimony
