The Ideal and Practice of Constructive Journalism: How South African Journalists Perceive Their Roles

ABSTRACT

This article enters into a growing conversation in the literature around the notion of constructive journalism as a normative paradigm for journalism practice. Literature on constructive journalism has largely been dominated by perspectives from the Global North. Focusing on the developing Global South context of South Africa, this study asked: What are the perceptions and attitudes of South African editors and journalists towards constructive journalism in online news? Qualitative semi-structured interviews were conducted with a purposive sample of five journalists and three editors working for digital news outlets representing a range of editorial approaches and target audiences. The article moves beyond an application of the notion of constructive journalism to the particular context, to engage the notion of constructive journalism on a theoretical and conceptual level. It does this by drawing on interview findings to propose an alignment between the notions of “development journalism” and constructive journalism.

KEYWORDS:

• Constructive journalism
• development journalism
• solutions journalism
• journalistic role perception
• South African media
• developing democracy

Introduction

There is a growing concern in the scholarly literature with the relatively novel notion of “constructive journalism” as a viable normative addition to older, more established frameworks for journalism practice. “Constructive journalism” is a broad term for approaches that offer a better balance of progress and problem reporting in the overall news cycle than typically found in mainstream news, while remaining true to journalism’s core functions (Bro and Gyldensted 2021; What is constructive journalism 2022). Constructive journalism’s guidelines to report critically on credible efforts to find solutions are seen as holding the potential to push the conversation forward, engage and empower audiences, and report more effectively on societal problems (McIntyre Hopkinson & Dahmen, 2021). Since research on constructive journalism has largely focused on media systems in the mature democracies of the Global North, it is important to also find out more about the framework’s potential in the context of fragile emerging democracies in the Global South (Rotmeijer 2019). These evolving political and social systems (like South Africa) require the vigilant monitoring of power, typical of watchdog journalism, but also frequently need healing of deep social and cultural schisms inherited from a colonial or authoritarian past. Constructive journalism points to a way in which journalists may play a more constructive and facilitative role to contribute to improvement of such critical societal problems. For this reason, this study explores the perceptions of South African journalists and editors around constructive journalism and its applicability in the country’s developing democracy. Focusing on the developing Global South context of South Africa, this study asks: What are the perceptions and attitudes of South African editors and journalists towards constructive journalism in online news?

Developing Global South contexts can provide particularly useful insights into constructive journalism’s benefits for polarised societies more generally. The intention of constructive journalism to supplement, rather than replace, more established monitorial journalism practices (Hermans and Gyldensted 2019, 538), can potentially render it a valuable normative addition in historically divided and unequal societies like South Africa, where monitorial/watchdog journalism remains an essential check on political power, alongside the need for forms of journalism that can facilitate dialogue.

In recent years, monitorial, investigative (watchdog) journalism has played a critical role in South Africa. It has been acknowledged to bring “democracy back from the brink” by exposing rampant corruption and “state capture” (Harber 2020). Yet watchdog journalism also stands accused of being elitist, deepening polarisation through foregrounding of violence, disregarding the voices of the poor, and lacking analysis of causes, contexts and resources available to address social problems (Malila 2019; Wasserman, Bosch, and Chuma 2018). Constructive journalism’s aim of going beyond problem-based narratives offers several techniques to potentially address some of the challenges associated with watchdog journalism, especially as these pertain to highly unequal, divided societies. These constructive journalism techniques encompass the inclusion of multiple voices and perspectives, placing issues in a broader context, de-polarising debate formats, and interviewing that shifts from accusatory to open-minded and curious (Hermans and Gyldensted 2019; McIntyre and Gyldensted 2018; What is constructive journalism 2022). Examples of the techniques to depolarise traditional TV debates include requiring participants to listen actively without interrupting and try to understand opponents’ motivations, as seen on the Norwegian prime time political show Einig? (“Agreed?”) (Best practices How to do constructive journalism 2024).

Given this background, a first study examining editors’ and journalists’ views on constructive journalism’s applicability in South Africa becomes especially relevant. Because there were almost no formally acknowledged constructive journalism practices in South Africa, a content analysis of the form’s manifestation in current digital news was conducted first. Findings from this content analysis served as a starting point to interview journalists and editors (involved in the creation and editorial decisions of the articles) about their perceptions of constructive journalism. A sample of articles from three online news outlets written during the country’s first lockdown due to the coronavirus pandemic in 2020 (Fölscher-Kingwill, 2023), was used in the content analysis. Its findings, illustrating that the most distinctive principles of constructive journalism were largely absent from the article sample, served as springboard to interview editors and journalists about their perceptions of constructive journalism and its potential in the context of South African online news.

Literature Review

Constructive Journalism

Since its inception at the end of the millennium’s first decade, constructive journalism has grown significantly as a practice and research field, especially in the Global North. Yet after more than a decade of expansion and maturation, agreement on one single, clear definition of the form is still elusive. Many studies, including this one, turn to key principles or techniques (Van Antwerpen and Fielding 2023) as conceptual anchors to research different aspects of constructive journalism. Scholars call for clarification of constructive journalism’s conceptualisation (Bro and Gyldensted 2021), refining of its position along related and divergent types of journalism (Bro 2018; Mast, Coesemans, and Temmerman 2018), and additions to limited studies about the applicability (or not) of the framework in post-colonial and developing democracies around the world (Rotmeijer 2019). Given previous work delineating constructive journalism alongside characteristics of other public-focused journalism frameworks (Hermans and Drok 2018), it has become important to consider how frameworks which historically have been prevalent in the Global South—such as development journalism, communitarian journalism and indigenous communication philosophies like ubuntu—also relate to constructive journalism.

According to Aitamurto and Varma (2018), constructive journalism adds a new normative role, namely a “constructive role”, to Christians et al.’s (2009) core taxonomy of journalistic roles, namely monitorial, facilitative, radical, and collaborative roles. The understanding of constructive journalism as a third phase in the overall news cycle, meant to supplement—not replace—the monitorial role of watchdog journalism (Haagerup 2014) is an significant part of conceptual understanding of constructive journalism, especially in developing contexts, as will be seen later in the review. It is also important against the background of enduring criticism of a lack of conceptual clarity that have plagued constructive journalism since inception (Bro and Gyldensted 2021). The form is accused of resembling good news journalism or “fluff” (Mast, Coesemans, and Temmerman 2018), leaning towards activism and advocacy (Bro 2018; Wasserman in Tullis 2014) and stopping journalists from being critical of those in power (Rotmeijer 2019; Tshabangu and Salawu 2021). In this sense, criticism of constructive journalism as supposedly uncritical resembles some of the much earlier criticisms of development journalism as being too soft on authority (Ogan 1982).

Aitamurto and Varma (2018, 709) argue that scholars reduce constructive journalism’s potential to stimulate social progress by claiming that it is “primarily an enhanced monitorial press”, when, in fact, constructive journalism moves practitioners beyond impartial detachment about the future towards actively seeking evidence that persistent problems need not continue. However, there is a different nuance in constructive journalism theorists’ positioning the form as a third phase in the overall news cycle, making it possible for journalists to follow breaking news and critical investigation of problems with critical investigation of efforts to find solutions (Haagerup 2014; McIntyre and Gyldensted 2018). A helpful addition to the discourse is Van Antwerpen et al.’s study on constructive journalism’s application during the Covid-19 pandemic (2022), where media practitioners emphasise that critical solution investigation must include clear distinction between knowledge, fact and opinion (Van Antwerpen, Turnbull, and Searston 2022).

Debates about constructive journalism’s relationship to journalistic objectivity (arising from a lack of definitional consensus) are especially relevant in developing and transitional contexts with histories of strife. For instance, Rotmeijer (2019) found that although constructive journalism was practised to enhance social stability on the island of St Maarten in the Caribbean, journalists were severely constrained by local political, economic and socio-cultural power structures and feared speaking out. Equally, in Tshabangu and Salawu’s (2021) Zimbabwe-based study, constructive practices at the state-controlled The Herald were seen as propagangistic and they failed to result in intended outcomes. In both studies authors argued that the respective developing contexts needed disruptive rather than constructive journalism. In studies in countries such as Croatia (Kovacevic and Perisin 2018), Egypt and Tunisia (Allam 2019) and Rwanda (McIntyre & Sobel, 2017), conceptual perceptions and evaluation of constructive journalism were more mixed, recognising both possibilities and challenges for the emerging form in the respective media contexts.

Wasserman (in Tullis 2014) points out that it is particularly important that constructive journalism is clearly separated from notions of uncritical journalism in the Global South, since there has been a problematic demand—often from politicians or goverments—for uncritical, “positive” news that supports rather than criticises post-colonial governments.

The manner in which constructive journalism has been associated with state-run Chinese media to increase China’s so-called “soft power” in Africa (Marsh 2016) is especially controversial. This association is however flawed. Contrary to the investigative, critical and multi-perspectival character of constructive journalism (What is constructive journalism 2022), Chinese-media outlets are often criticised for lacking objectivity and independence (Zhao & Xiang, 2019), promoting specific agendas, and obscuring criticism of important subjects (Jenkins 2021).

Constructive Journalism and Development Journalism

Scholarly debates about the issue of journalistic independence in constructive and development journalism are similar. Development journalism is understood to call on journalists to serve as agents of social change and to support government development goals in the societies they serve (Kalyango et al. 2017). As such development journalism aligns with Nyamnjoh’s call for journalistic models inclusive of African values of development, democracy and ideas of personhood and agency (Nyamnjoh 2010, 19–20). There is considerable evidence in journalistic role conception literature that journalists from countries emerging from political turbulence support development journalism’s goals, albeit with regional differences (Hanusch and Uppal 2015). Yet, as Skjerdal notes, African governments are often eager to interfere with media practices (2012), often using the imperative of “development” as an excuse. This abuse by political leaders of notions of development for their own purposes (Hanusch and Uppal 2015) has contributed to a negative view of “development journalism” in African contexts.

In post-apartheid South Africa, where journalists embraced their monitorial role with vigour, it has been no different. Development journalism has been controversial for what is seen as the threat it poses to journalists’ new-found freedom of expression (Wasserman and De Beer 2009). Although there is wide recognition that press freedom was linked to certain responsibilities for the media in the new democracy, the idea that this meant a kind of self-censorship, or that “responsibility” could become a smokescreen for government pressure on journalists to toe the line, led to resistance from journalists (Wasserman 2010). Nevertheless, more recent studies (e.g., De Beer et al. 2016) indicated that South African journalists do not see the monitorial and developmental roles as mutually exclusive.

Thus we see that both constructive and development journalism are criticised as compromising watchdog ideals of objectivity and detachment, yet in both constructive journalism (Haagerup 2014; McIntyre and Gyldensted 2018) and development journalism (De Beer et al. 2016) it is argued that neither form is mutually exclusive of watchdog journalism. Since development journalism also shares important constructive journalism features of being inherently forward-looking and aimed at positive social change, development journalism can be reasonably be considered as a form aligned under the constructive journalism umbrella.

Constructive Journalism and Ubuntu Journalism

Within African contexts, notions of communitarianism, drawing on African cultural paradigms, have often been proposed as an alternative to the dominant Western frameworks (Skjerdal 2012). One such framework has been that of ubuntu journalism.

Drawing on the communitarian philosophy of ubuntu (broadly translatable as a communitarian ethic founded on the understanding that human beings are intrinsically relationally oriented, or, “I am because you are”, Christians 2004; Metz 2015), scholars suggested a journalism that would encompass human dignity and respect, aid nation-building, represent the will of communities, and see journalists as active participants in their communities, rather than detached observers (Blankenberg 1999; Fourie 2008). However, critics have warned that “community” is difficult to define in the contemporary media environment and that the notion of ubuntu is too abstract to employ as journalistic framework (Rodny-Gumede 2015). Wasserman (2021, 124) flags the stifling of free speech, cultural essentialism, and exclusions based on group as further potential problems of the indigenisation of media ethics.

This does not mean that other features of communitarian journalism forms such as ubuntu are not aligned with the conceptually broad notion of constructive journalism. In fact, on the African continent, some aims of constructive journalism, such as strengthening connection with audiences, especially in polarised communities (What is constructive journalism?, 2022), would necessitate thorough understanding and consideration of African cultural values embedded in communitarian forms of journalism such as ubuntu.

Constructive Journalism and Solutions Journalism

Solutions journalism is a prominent storytelling technique that is aligned with the constructive journalism umbrella (Lough and McIntyre 2021). It has gained significant traction in the US, Western Europe, Africa and elsewhere. Its clear focus, to report on “workable responses to societal problems with emphasis on evidence, insights and limitations” (McIntyre Hopkinson & Dahmen, 2021, p. 8) has produced a large body of research and training that has added to the development of theory and practice under the constructive journalism umbrella. Bornstein’s (2022) argument that solutions journalism strengthens journalists’ ability to hold power to account is particularly important in developing constexts where journalists monitor governments’ adherence to developmental goals.

The interviewing technique “Complicating the Narrative” (CTN), introduced to the Solutions Journalism Network by Ripley (2018), has specific relevance for developing contexts like South Africa. CTN uses techniques from mediation and conflict resolution to help journalists overcome the inclination to create lean, binary narratives that entrench polarisation, to instead use sources from divergent groups and to “cover issues more thoughtfully, with the aim of revealing deeper truths and finding solutions” (Dame Adjin-Tettey and Garman 2021, 2–3). This technique has the potential to overcome rather than deepen political, social and economic divisions in African societies and to help build consensus around solutions to societal problems (Dame Atjin-Tettey & Garman, 2021, p. 1).

Impact Studies

Numerous studies show that a negative bias in news leads to negative affect, societal stress, news avoidance and reduced intentions among audiences to take action to address issues (Baden, McIntyre, and Homberg 2019; Bennett 2016). News avoidance is a growing global phenomenon (Newman et al. 2020), and also manifests in South Africa, where 47% of respondents in a largely urban sample considered the news too negative and not relevant to them (Roper, Newman, and Schulz 2019).

There is broad evidence that constructive journalism stories counteract negative worldviews by fostering positive affect and reducing negative affect among audiences (Baden, McIntyre, and Homberg 2019; McIntyre 2019). While Van Antwerpen et al.’s recent study measuring constructive journalism’s effects on mood, comprehension and trust (2023) confirms the form’s positive impact on audience emotions, it casts doubt on the proposition that the form improves engagement with and trust in news (Van Antwerpen et al. 2023). Among 238 Australian participants in a study employing a randomised-controlled repeated-measures experimental design, no significant differences in trust in article content or in journalism as an institution were present between the readers who read articles employing a comprehensive set of constructive techniques and those who read the same articles without constructive features (Van Antwerpen et al. 2023). The authors highlight the need for further research to calibrate “techniques which balance the positive effects of constructive journalism with its ability to convey information” (Van Antwerpen et al. 2023, 2295).

In terms of commercial impact there are some signs that audiences want more constructive news (Baden, McIntyre, and Homberg 2019; Rusch et al. 2021), and that increasing constructive content may result in a growth in audience ratings (Rusch et al. 2021, 2225) and subscriber numbers (Griffin 2022). Yet financial constraints loom large for most news organisations. The lack of strong evidence that constructive journalism will enhance profitability will inevitably affect media owners’ and editors’ attitudes to the form—especially in developing contexts in economic crisis, like South Africa.

The South African Media Context

The complexities of the post-apartheid media environment offer fertile ground to extend our understanding of constructive journalism’s possibilities and challenges in developing contexts. Media regulations, ownership, norms and journalistic roles in South Africa’s fragile democracy continue to be contested (Wasserman 2010). The local journalism industry is beset by interlinked financial, procedural, regulatory and value-based problems (Harber 2021), a situation similar to other contested developing democracies.

Economic and Structural Factors

Like the news media globally, the digital disruption in South African media has resulted in significant loss of revenue, shrinking newsrooms and dwindling print media (Wasserman 2018). The Covid-19 pandemic accelerated print media cuts and boosted pre-existing growth in online news platform users (Vollgraaff 2020). Regardless of major shifts in post-apartheid media ownership and the regulatory environment to democratise access to the media’s economic-political power, the media’s role remains circumscribed by economic interests of conglomerates (Wasserman 2020), contributing to a preference for “click-bait” stories over reporting embedded in communities and limiting the ability to do investigative reporting (Harber 2021; Tolsi 2020).

Normative Factors

As mentioned earlier, journalists embraced their role as monitors of power with enthusiasm after years of repression under apartheid (Wasserman 2010). The watchdog role has become an increasingly critical mechanism to expose corruption: reports on “state capture”, undermining of the Constitution, exploitation and bribery, and corporate malfeasance have dominated headlines in the third decade of democracy (Harber 2020; Wasserman 2020). Yet watchdog journalism has also has also been subject to significant criticism. Alternative approaches that have been suggested in the South African context include a widening of the watchdog role to include analysis of causes, contexts and resources available to address social problems like service delivery (Malila 2019) and a “listening” approach that would avoid the sensationalist foregrounding of extreme viewpoints and foreground marginalised voices (Garman and Malila 2017; Wasserman, Bosch, and Chuma 2018).

Purpose and Research Question

The purpose of this study was to establish the perceptions of journalists and editors about the potential of constructive journalism in online news in South Africa. To address this aim, the main research question was:

• What are the perceptions and attitudes of South African editors and journalists towards constructive journalism in online news?

Interviews with journalists and editors were preceded by a content analysis exploring the manifestation of constructive journalism in a sample of articles from three online news outlets varying in editorial approach and target audience (Fölscher-Kingwill, 2023). Interview participants were selected according to their involvement in editorial decisions (in the case of editors) and the creation of articles (in the case of journalists) in the sample. For the empirical work in both the content analysis and the qualitative interviews discussed in the current article, four overarching principles for practice of constructive journalism were drawn from the literature. These four principles combined elements from two overlapping schools of thought. First, McIntyre and Gyldensted’s (2018) proposed six-entryway framework for constructive journalism applied, namely 1. Solutions focus; 2. What now? (facilitate a future orientation); 3. Constructive interviewing; 4. Factfulness (Are we looking at progress or setback?); 5. Depolarising debate formats; and 6. Co-creation with the public. Second, the Constructive Institute’s specific emphasis of constructive journalism as a third phase in the overall news cycle, not replacing, but adding to breaking news and investigative reporting, was important to include in a developing context like South Africa, where watchdog/investigative journalism plays an especially vital role.

Thus the four principles used as conceptual anchors for empirical work, were the following:

1. When investigating important societal problems, include coverage of possible solutions in the overall news cycle, staying critical, investigative and factual.

2. Place the issue in its relevant, broader context.

3. Expand journalistic interviewing to cover nuance and complexity.

4. Strengthen connection and co-creation with the audience.

Methods

As mentioned, this study follows and is interlinked with a preceding content analysis exploring the manifestation of constructive journalism in South African online news reporting on evictions during the first five months of the country’s Covid-19 lockdown period (Fölscher-Kingwill, 2023).

In the content analysis of a sample of 134 articles from three divergent news outlets (News24, Daily Maverick and GroundUp), four principles were operationalised as initial codes (see Literature Review above). The content analysis was followed by semi-structured qualitative interviews conducted with journalists (who had written some of the articles in the preceding study’s sample) and editors (who are involved in the editorial approach of the selected news outlets), which form the basis of this article. The typology of four principles informed the findings of the content analysis and the interview guide, and was sent to interview participants in a pre-interview information page about the study’s framing of constructive journalism (Appendix A).

Sampling

Eight journalists were interviewed, including two editors (News24, GroundUp), one associate editor (Daily Maverick) and five journalists (spread over the three organisations). Interviewees were selected purposively according to the breadth and frequency of their reporting in the content analysis sample (in the case of journalists) or their involvement in the editorial approach of the three news outlets (in the case of editors). The aims of the preceding study and the reason for inviting them to take part in interviews for the second study were discussed in phone calls and emails when they were first contacted.

The South African media system consists of three tiers, namely public (broadcasting, in the form of the South African Broadcasting Corporation), commercial (print, broadcasting and online) and community (print, broadcasting and online). The study selected online journalists to interview to correspond with the content analysis of digital journalism which had preceded this study. For that content analysis, online journalism platforms were selected largely for convenience purposes, as broadcast and print content would be less easily accessible. The selected outlets are well-known and influential news brands. Although it would be speculative to attempt to answer how journalists from other platforms would respond differently, in our view what is important is less the choice of platform, but the editorial approach (breaking news, investigative, community oriented), as these different editorial positions are more likely to yield different attitudes to the notion of constructive journalism. The three news outlets from which the interviewees were drawn, represent a range of editorial approaches and target audiences from commercial and community outlets: one commercial (News24), attracting the largest, across-the-board audience with its focus on breaking news and an in-depth news offering to subscribers; one independent, (mostly) donor-funded (Daily Maverick), focusing on in-depth news, analysis and opinion; and one smaller and community-focused (GroundUp), a non-profit working closely with reporters and freelancers embedded in communities, making their articles available for republication. Sample selection was aimed at sources that would produce rich, maximum diversity of data to address research purposes (Babbie and Mouton 2015).

Interviewees’ length of experience in journalism ranged from 2 to 34 years. Interviews of approximately 60 minutes were recorded between June and August 2022, online via Zoom or in person at offices. The sample provided sufficiently rich information for the study, reflecting diverse viewpoints according to the respective target audiences and editorial approaches of outlets, and each editor/journalist’s unique experiences of the industry and its audiences. Data saturation was reached.

Some participants had previous knowledge of constructive journalism, some had a vague idea and some had none. To ensure a similar level of knowledge, participants were sent a pre-interview information page explaining the (larger) study’s framing of constructive journalism, including the four principles for practice drawn from literature (see Appendix A). The literature shows that awareness and understanding of constructive journalism, as an emerging framework, vary in different parts of the world (Mast, Coesemans, and Temmerman 2018.) The inclusion of interview participants who had little or no previous knowledge of constructive journalism is important in this sample, since it is a situation that researchers will invariably encounter, especially in developing contexts where there is less research and fewer examples of officially acknowledged constructive journalism practices than in the Global North. The interview responses of novices to the form are an illustration of the misconceptions that can arise when journalists first confront the broad principles currently defining constructive journalism. Their responses are also examples of how understanding of the concept can develop through further exposure, for instance through interview processes (see Theme 1).

The process of designing the semi-structured interview guide corresponded roughly with the interlinked stages suggested by Kallio et al. (2016). A framework was developed using comprehensive knowledge of constructive journalism gained through the literature and the findings of the first content analysis. Main themes covered the main content and followed a progressive logical order, as recommended by Kallio et al. (2016). Questions were open-ended and aimed at eliciting spontaneous, in-depth and unique answers from each participant (Kallio et al. 2016). To refine the guide (Appendix B) in keeping with the subjective and emergent design process of qualitative study (Creswell 2013), two rounds of pilot interviewing were conducted with two journalists excluded from the study.

Data Analysis

After verbatim transcription of interviews, hard copies of each interview were printed and read repeatedly, noting on paper initial thoughts that emerged from the data. The transcripts were then imported to NVivo and coded in an inductive, data-driven way through further development of initial handwritten notes into themes and sub-themes. The themes were generated and refined in a concept- and data-driven way as different levels of meaning of the texts emerged (diagram of overall application of qualitative interview analysis: Appendix C). At this point quotes illustrating themes and sub-themes were printed out, and used with the original hard copy of transcripts for a “closer feel” to the material as themes and sub-themes were further collated and refined. Seven themes with sub-themes emerging from interviews were collated and refined in tables using Microsoft Word.

In the interest of brevity, the seven themes were summarised in four themes for this article, representing findings related only to the first three constructive journalism principles defined for the larger study.

Findings and Discussion

Below, we discuss our findings to the main research question “What are the perceptions and attitudes of editors and journalists towards constructive journalism in online news?”. The findings are presented in four themes that emerged from a qualitative interview analysis. The themes are a synthesised summary of findings related to the first three of four constructive journalism principles used as foundation for a preceding content alanysis (Fölscher-Kingwill, 2023), which also informed the interview quide (see conclusion of Literature Review). Findings related to the fourth principle (“Strengthen connection and co-creation with the audience”), were excluded from this article in the interest of conciseness.

Theme 1: Role for Constructive Journalism to be Introduced Alongside Watchdog Journalism in Overall News Cycle Recognised

In a pattern familiar to other post-authoritarian democracies emerging from histories of strife, South African journalists find themselves monitoring a fractured and mistrusted government three decades after liberation. Interviewees emphasised that journalists’ exposés on corruption and state capture have become increasingly vital to protect democracy. They described watchdog journalism as their primary role and the cornerstone of their societal responsibility:

It’s the essence of the job. You don’t get journalism without holding power to account. Journalists should shine a light on the truth, especially on things that are hidden. (Senior investigative journalist, Daily Maverick)

Yet, across the sample journalists expressed grave concern about the lack/slowness of socio-political change, despite journalists’ successful exposures of abuses of power.

State institutions are so weak and corrupt that often I feel we’re recording things for prosperity, not to get them fixed. (Editor, GroundUp)

Participants’ recognition of a role for constructive journalism to be adopted ranged from supporting the form as an essential addition to the vital role played by watchdog journalism, to seeing constructive journalism as a “nice to have” in the overall news cycle.

It is necessary to clarify that participants’ knowledge of constructive journalism varied at first contact and they were sent a pre-interview information page to ensure a similar level of understanding (Appendix A). Initially, one participant, the editor of GroundUp, saw constructive and watchdog journalism as mutually exclusive. At the start of his interview the editor said constructive journalism was “foggy to me, very abstract”. During the interview he said that he understood the concept better and his view of the form changed to constructive journalism as “nice to have”, but difficult to implement practically.

Despite the editor’s recognition of constructive journalism as one of the ways in which journalistic effectiveness could be expanded, he concluded that his community-based outlet would continue its single focus on human rights abuses. At the country’s largest commercial news outlet, News24, the realisation of a necessity to “show another side of things” came organically from within the newsroom. Journalists asked to not only expose problems, but to also write about people’s efforts to keep society going. It challenged news editors—typically schooled in “if it bleeds it leads” newsrooms—to expand their definition of what is newsworthy (Editor, News24). For the donor-funded Daily Maverick, with its voluntary subscription model, including solution coverage was an intentional editorial decision.

The entire Daily Maverick pivot assumes that offering solutions to people is a good business model. The Daily Maverick later this year entirely focuses on fixing the country, webinars often have that focus, we have our Home Affairs project. So we’re betting the house on that. (Associate Editor, Daily Maverick)

Themes 1A–1B show motivations that emerged for journalists’ support for constructive journalism.

Theme 1A: Societal Negativity

Across the sample, participants revealed a sense of distress about the exceptional negativity in society. They said high volumes of bad news contributed to feelings of hopelessness, anxiety and apathy.

You can feel it, it’s tense everywhere. It feels as if literally every article you read, it’s not good news. […] It’s the general feeling of hopelessness that just spills over to everyday life […] We feel there’s nothing that we can do about these things. (Senior parliamentary journalist, News24)

The observation aligns strikingly with numerous studies in constructive journalism theory linking a negative bias in news to negative affect, news avoidance and reduced intentions to act to address issues (Baden, McIntyre, and Homberg 2019; Newman et al. 2020). Interviewees were concerned about the increase of news avoidance worldwide, as reported by the Reuters Institute for Digital Journalism (Newman et al. 2020):

That report is telling us people want their journalism to be different. We have to find ways of doing things, of drawing them back in, making them feel that this is a place where you can get information to live a better life. That’s the task of the moment. (Associate Editor, Daily Maverick)

Audience feedback through public and on-the-job engagements showed interviewees that communities wanted information from the media to help them find solutions to the serious problems they face. To note:

People were desperate to tell us their Home Affairs stories, desperate […]They really saw us as “You can help us, help us find solutions for this”. For me this is so integral to what our function in society is. (Associate Editor, Daily Maverick)

The editor’s description of a constructive role for journalists as “integral to what our function in society is” confirms Aitamurto and Varma’s thesis of constructive journalism constituting a separate normative role for the press “which orients itself around hope, potential for change, and situates itself as close to—though still observing—a community” (Aitamurto & Varma, 2018, 700).

Theme 1B: Politicians’ Empty Promises

Participants across the sample recognised that in South Africa’s struggling democracy, people cannot rely on politicians to implement vital societal changes, yet politicians (and celebrities) are given prime position in mainstream news. In striking alignment with the change in media systems Haagerup (2014) calls for, constructive journalism was seen as a way for journalists to start a complete change in news culture:

We need an independent ecosystem to take these things forward and just really tackle the problems we have. And I don’t think we as journalists have done enough to do that […] I think constructive journalism is the future […] The sooner we tell people, this is the problem, but this is how you can look at fixing it, the sooner we give them the options of how to fix whatever is wrong, the better for all of us. Not just us as media companies, but the better for us as a country. (Senior parliamentary journalist, News24)

News24 and Daily Maverick interviewees realised that there was already a recent swing towards including constructive journalism in parts of their organisations’ output, even if not labelled as such. At both outlets there has been a significant increase in online webinars and large scale live public forums to engage the public in discussion and debate addressing the country’s most critical problems. These events are often specifically advertised as opportunities to seek solutions. A close relationship between constructive and facilitative journalistic roles (Aitamurto and Varma 2018) is evident when relating this finding to journalistic role theory.

Aitamurto and Varma described the facilitative role in Christians et al.’s (2009) framework of journalistic roles as “agnostic” and less content-specific than a constructive role (2018, 700). Recognising that journalistic role description is not an exact science and that normative boundaries are often permeable, it is notable in journalists’ description of public events that a significant overlap exists between facilitative and constructive journalistic roles. Journalists and editors do take up the facilitative role—as described by Aitamurto and Varma—by providing forums “for debate and conversation” and “managing the discourse” (2018, 700). But interviewees described their own role as active and probing at these events, where they not only provide the forum and manage the discourse, but engage with the public to investigate “working and actionable solutions remedying social problems”, as seen in Aitamurto and Varma’s formulation of a constructive role (2018, 700). In the literature, constructive journalism has been associated with a facilitative role embedded in preceding public-oriented forms such as public/civic journalism from a Global North perspective (Bro and Gyldensted 2021). This example of the close similarities between the two roles from South Africa’s unstable and pressurised media context adds to our knowledge of constructive journalism’s applicability in developing democracies.

Theme 2: Operational and Conceptual Challenges to Implementation of Constructive Journalism Seen as Interlinked and Substantive, But Not Prohibitive

Industry challenges and misunderstandings of constructive journalism emerged as the most important obstacles to the form’s implementation in South African online news, but some of the challenges were also revealed as possibilities. The challenges are explicated in Themes 2A–2B.

Theme 2A: Lack of Financial Resources and Specialist Skills in Shrinking Newsrooms

Interviewees attributed most of the industry pressures they experienced to their newsrooms’ battle to ensure long-term financial viability. The lack of resources, the battle for consumer attention and the ever-increasing pace of the news cycle meant newsrooms struggle to cover the basics of newsbeats. Interviewees said constructive journalism would probably require too many additional resources to make it financially viable.

Solutions would require specialist knowledge […] We don’t have senior journalists specialising in investigative journalism and other specialisations. (Senior Investigative Reporter, Daily Maverick)

A lack of funding to train younger journalists and a lack of time to develop proper research skills emerged as serious challenges in the industry. The result, it was said, was that many journalists struggled with the very basics of watchdog journalism:

The first part, the identification and description of the problems, is in a very poor state […] Often as a result of having too few people in a newsroom, huge underinvestment in the actual resources required in a newsroom—like experienced editors. People lose the thread of a story. When encountering government spend, they are bewildered by it because they haven’t had the time to properly understand the depth of a topic. (Senior journalist, GroundUp)

Most participants echoed the view that journalists needed to be trained in reading legislation, financial reports and policy documents to be able to report with depth on complex societal issues and resources available to address them. Since many of the country’s most critical problems arise from government failure to implement developmental policies and politicians abuses of power, the shortage of specialist skills and resources to train journalists are correctly identified by participants as a substantive obstacle to the implementation of constructive journalism.

Theme 2B: Broad Definition of Constructive Journalism a Challenge

The literature shows that the lack of exact lines of demarcation in constructive journalism has resulted in criticisms of the form as “sunshine” or “positive news”, activism or advocacy, and uncritical journalism (Bro 2018). The inherent challenge to easily and fully grasp a concept that lacks agreement on one single clear definition, is illustrated in this study. All interviewees read the same pre-interview information page, yet some displayed a good understanding of constructive journalism principles, while others, who were exposed to the concept for the first time, did not fully grasp or accept the approach easily (See Theme 1). Some journalists (mis-)interpreted constructive journalism’s aims as journalists forecasting the future and proposing solutions. For instance:

It’s not a journalist’s job to move society forward. A journalist’s core job is to inform. You are not government, you are not supposed to be an activist and if you start being an activist journalist that’s a slippery slope to being partisan and biased […] Also, doing a forecast of something is not traditionally what South African journalists do about something, and it opens you up for making mistakes, which we definitely don’t want to do because we are already under pressure. (Senior investigative journalist, Daily Maverick)

Yet, theorists call on journalists to stay critical, factual and investigative when reporting on forward-looking perspectives and people’s efforts to find solutions, and it is stipulated that journalists should never attempt to define the best solution for a problem (Bro and Gyldensted 2021; Hermans and Drok 2018).

The risk of journalists misinterpreting a constructive role as an easy add-on to reporting habits was also picked up in interviews:

If it means two calls to some NGO person who is always in the media, it’s not constructive journalism. Sometimes people think that is constructive. It’s actually really boring. Constructive journalism is something more challenging […] It’s detailed and depth, knowing your stuff. Understanding policy, making sure you’re talking to the right people. So that what you finally have is a work of such authority and heft it can’t be ignored. (Associate editor, Daily Maverick)

Perhaps the most serious risk flowing from conceptual weakness of constructive journalism (especially in the current South African context) is that it potentially enables manipulation of the form by partisan media for political gain. It is a risk that has been highlighted in relation to China’s controversial use of constructive journalism to expand China’s “soft power” into Africa (Marsh 2016) and in Tshabangu and Salawu’s (2021) assessment of constructive practices in the state-controlled The Herald in Zimbabwe.

All participants in the current study expressed serious concern about ongoing threats to press freedom in South Africa. The significant take-over of the Independent Media Group by interests close to a faction of the ruling party was seen to erode post-apartheid gains in press freedom:

The capture of Independent Media by Iqbal Survé had a terrible impact on the media landscape. It’s an incredible threat to our integrity and the normal trust people have in the media. (Editor, News24)

With their journalistic independence already threatened in this way, it is understandable that some interviewees expressed scepticism towards a journalistic form which (they believed) could slip into advocacy or activism, or be manipulated for political gain. Interviewees cited the case of Chinese state-controlled media output in Africa as a warning of how the form could be manipulated, emphasising that a free press in South Africa is critical.

Theme 3: Polarisation Inevitable, But Can be Mitigated

A strong theme emerged from interviews that conflict reporting often fell into simplified and binary “good guy/bad guy” patterns. Journalists attributed these reporting habits to the strained working conditions of journalists and the fact that time-pressured journalists go into a situation with only an ingrained template of the binary conflict model available to them.

Interviewees cited various examples of how polarisation is deepened through the journalistic habit of focusing on extreme viewpoints and the “loudest” voices to catch readers’ attention. The theme went further, showing that polarisation often becomes entrenched because many journalists want to “brand” people, portraying them as one-dimensional, static people who are unable to change their mind. Participants described how this approach by the media forced public personalities into hard-line positions and fed into a process of confirmation bias with audiences.

As seen in the literature review, the interviewing technique “Complicating the Narrative” (CTN), introduced to the Solutions Journalism Network by Ripley (2018), has particular relevance for this South African study. Scholars highlight CTN’s potential to build consensus in highly divided African societies where the media is often accused of deepening political, social and economic divisions rather than helping to build consensus to solve societal problems (Dame Adjin-Tettey and Garman 2021). CTN uses techniques from mediation and conflict resolution to help journalists overcome the inclination to create lean, binary narratives that entrench polarisation (Ripley 2018).

Notably, interviewees were interested to learn further skills from conflict resolution and mediation practices, especially in the African context:

For us as African journalists, having the kind of knowledge and insight that comes from conflict resolution and mediation will improve the work we do and our line of questioning—how we could deal with conflict better […] You need voices to just sort of de-escalate things, bring it back to a level where we can take it forward and say: Listen here, this is actually the problem, this is what went wrong, this is how we can fix it. (Senior Parliamentary Journalist, News24)

Theme 4: Suggestions for Building Constructive Journalism Praxis

In findings so far a tension emerged between two of the main themes addressing the research question. On the one hand, journalists recognised a role for constructive journalism to compliment watchdog journalism in the overall news cycle. On the other hand, considerable challenges to the implementation of the form emerged from responses. Under the final theme, participants’ suggestions for building constructive journalism praxis paint a picture of the overall potential of the form in online news. It is a picture that addresses/partially addresses some important challenges and continues to support the vital role of watchdog journalism in the country’s fragile democracy. Some of these suggestions are already in progress, and others reveal innovative thinking on how constructive journalism could be operationalised.

Interviewees recognised that an ingrained binary mindset in conflict reporting is problematic and contributes to deepening polarisation in South Africa’s fractured society. This mindset also challenges the implementation of constructive journalism. Constructive journalism shows how to change this pattern. It is therefore significant that journalists wanted to learn more about incorporating expanded interviewing skills proposed in constructive journalism (drawing on the disciplines of conflict resolution and mediation). It could foreshadow changes in praxis to tell conflict stories differently. If the skills of deep listening and asking different questions to counter confirmation bias (as proposed under the constructive journalism umbrella [Ripley 2018]) make their way into newsrooms, it would be real progress in addressing the challenge of binary reporting and the polarisation it causes.

A significant theme emerged that constructive journalism should be established collectively in the South African media industry. Suggestions on how this should be done overlapped and culminated in the proposition that newsrooms should combine forces to tackle a few critical “big issue” projects through an interwoven investigative/constructive approach:

We’re going to have to learn from how the media did the Gupta Leaks, where three really big newsrooms got together and put their people together to do it. We have to use that model to choose a couple of big choice things of social impact. That’s how you can hopefully shift a journalism culture. (Associate editor, Daily Maverick)

The proposal of combining forces between newsrooms to tackle chosen “big issue” projects through an interwoven watchdog/constructive approach could be a helpful example to consider in other developing media contexts. It illustrates that while the broadness of constructive journalism conceptualisation holds definite challenges, it also allows context-specific adaptations to implementation, which is necessary in diverse developing contexts.

As seen throughout this study’s findings, the lack of financial resources is at the root of many of the issues identified as challenges to the implementation of constructive journalism. The next statement could therefore be seen as a potential game-changer for the prospects of constructive journalism in South Africa, while at the same time addressing the lack of specialised skills in the industry:

There’s lots of funding available for “great projects”. And if we frame them as a mix of investigation and solutions, so that you can create teams for a short while, with dedicated focus to do this, it would change the landscape. Then should you have impact, you can do it again and again. So that you keep building up this body of specialisation. But you need to give it time. (Associate editor, Daily Maverick)

Conclusion

The purpose of this study was to establish the perceptions and attitudes of journalists and editors towards the form in South African digital news. A sample of editors and journalists from three divergent news outlets recognised a role for constructive journalism to be introduced alongside watchdog journalism in the overall news cycle in online news. Journalists’ views ranged from supporting constructive journalism as a necessary and valuable approach that would strengthen watchdog journalism, to seeing the form as a “nice to have” in the overall news cycle. Interviews revealed acute awareness of the effects of intensifying societal problems and relentless negative news on audiences, and added a South African angle to increasing scholarly searches for forms of journalism that go further than the exposure of problems. The study adds to discourses about constructive journalism’s applicability in developing contexts and its position vis á vis journalisms arising from these contexts by proposing that development journalism is aligned under the constructive journalism umbrella, but that the communitarian form of ubuntu journalism is misaligned. As such, the study can provide a starting point for future research to build on, especially with regards to more comparative work between (a) different Global South contexts and (b) different normative approaches and paradigms.

Challenges associated with the lack of a single definition for the umbrella concept of constructive journalism (Bro 2018) were confirmed in the study. Interviews exposed risks for the form to be misinterpreted, or manipulated by partisan media for political gain, as previously identified in studies about Chinese state-controlled media’s use of constructive journalism in Africa (Jenkins 2021) and Zimbabwean state-controlled media (Tshabangu and Salawu 2021). For most journalists it was important to realise that constructive journalism was an additional step in the overall news cycle and was not meant to replace their watchdog role, as argued by proponents (Hermans and Gyldensted 2019). It is recommended that the appending position of constructive journalism in the overall news cycle should clearly be indicated in definitions of the form. This may require a conscious and concerted effort to build a broader knowledge base about constructive journalism’s key concepts, founding principles and examples of good constructive journalism practice. Such a knowledge base could be integrated into journalism schools’ curricula, and included in normative frameworks of journalists. For such efforts to be successful, proponents of the form will have to engage with academic institutions, leaders in the journalism industry such as the South African National Editors’ Forum, and normative bodies such as the Press Council of South Africa and the Broadcasting Complaints Commission of South Africa. Through these engagements, a clearer understanding could be developed of the key tenets of constructive journalism—such an understanding would be a prerequisite for further substantive, informed debates about the suitability of the form for South African journalism.

Financial constraints and a lack of specialist skills pose significant, but not prohibitive, challenges to the implementation of constructive journalism. Editors and journalists from two news outlets proposed that a few newsrooms join forces to tackle chosen big-issue projects through creating and training joint investigative/constructive teams for periods of time. This proposal indicates methods to strengthen the vital role of watchdog journalism in the fragile democracy, share scarce resources and begin to build a body of constructive journalism skills in the industry. It could be a helpful example of context-adapted implementation of constructive journalism for other resource-poor developing media contexts.

As a new addition to South African and African normative and empirical journalism debates, the research shows that constructive journalism offers methods to add nuance and complexity to the current form of watchdog journalism practiced in digital news, as called for in literature (De Beer et al. 2016). The study suggests options for processes and production of news that could offset some of the harmful impacts of the pervasive negative news on readers.

Disclosure Statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).