Editor’s note: Is there a space for constructive journalism in covering the war? The answer might be up for debate, but a new report from the Bonn Institute makes a good case. The Fix’s contributor Amélie Reichmuth spoke with the report’s co-author and summarised key findings. You can find more stories of how journalists from across Europe are covering Russia’s war against Ukraine on The Fix’s website and in our weekly newsletter.

Launched in 2022, the Bonn Institute is a non-profit that aims at sharing knowledge on constructive and user-oriented journalism with media professionals across the globe. In its latest publication, the Institute investigates how constructive media coverage can make a difference in times of war.

Countering news avoidance in the face of the war

Over the last years, journalism has been confronted with major challenges as the Reuters Institute’s annual Digital News Report reveals: people are increasingly avoiding news in the face of the grim news agenda, and the trust in news media is decreasing.

Russian invasion of Ukraine accelerated news avoidance. After an initial phase of the war that drew unprecedented attention, news fatigue emerged last spring. Tracking services like Newswhip showed that worldwide interaction (likes, comments, shares) with social media news articles on the war against Ukraine had dropped considerably since February.

As the Bonn Institute’s report points out, news avoidance in this case is not a sign of disinterest, but rather a self-defence strategy to cope with psychological stress. Thus, news publishers need to reflect upon how to cover war comprehensively while countering the trend towards news avoidance.

The Bonn Institute’s starting hypothesis is that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine represents an opportunity for media professionals to question established approaches and use constructive journalism as a framework to report differently — and hopefully better.

“Constructive war reporting has the chance to keep people motivated in order to stay informed. A functioning democracy relies on the fact that citizens do not turn away from world events in sadness, despair or anger, but want to stay informed and get involved”, the repor’s co-author Katja Ehrenberg said in an email interview with The Fix.

The 55 pages long study investigates what needs and wishes media consumers have in terms of war coverage and how news publishers can address them. For that, the authors conducted 28 qualitative guided interviews between May and July 2022 among German news consumers (including those who’ve experienced war and displacement) and journalists (including war correspondents).

Readers and journalists don’t have such a different perspective after all

During the interviews, the majority of consumers described themselves as interested in news, but their individual consumption of information and media varied. Still, nearly all of them used public service broadcasters to inform themselves, and half also used social media and messaging services.

When it comes to their experience of the media coverage of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, almost all emphasised that distressing pictures or videos caused them emotional stress, an even stronger experience for individuals who had experienced war firsthand or been forced to flee because of it. Consequently, many of them chose to limit news intake, or even avoid media coverage of the war at all. Nonetheless, many participants also underscored how important the work of war correspondents is.

When it comes to the perspective of media professionals, all the participants already had prior knowledge of constructive journalism, and even already used some of its approaches in their work, emphasising the solutions-oriented approach as its key characteristic. Most interviewees emphasised the importance of combining various perspectives to provide context and explain connection.

In that sense, the participants’ understanding of constructive journalism clearly fitted with the criteria for good journalism as expressed by media consumers. However, they had diverging views about how this approach could be integrated into war coverage. About half of the participants believed that it could be used in any situation, while the other half expressed doubts, arguing that it would be both impossible and inappropriate for war coverage.

How war reporting can (really) be constructive

In the study, both readers and media professionals identified possible solutions to make the war coverage more constructive:

1. Achieving representation and diversity by sharing personal stories

First of all, consumers emphasised the importance of presenting different points of view and different life situations in the war coverage to include “normal people” in the discussion. They also suggested sharing more personal stories that show the challenges people face in war zones and how they cope with these. This observation was also raised by media professionals, who emphasised the importance of finding relevant personal stories, without romanticising war related events.

Since the beginning of Russia’s war against Ukraine, the Bonn Institute noticed that “after German media had focused very strongly on politicians as active players, the fate of the civilian population is now also being strongly covered. This is a positive development, because this is exactly what the media users have a great interest in: They want to understand how completely normal people – people just like them — deal with all the challenges that war brings”, Katja Ehrenberg says.

2. Solutions-oriented journalism as a form of respect

Secondly, many consumers said that they were expecting more solutions-oriented reports that would answer concrete questions, such as “What’s the quickest way to end the war?” or “What can I do to help?”.

Media professionals also called for constructive journalism as a way to empower the people directly affected by war, instead of victimising them, but also encourage the public to engage with these events in a more reflected manner.

This mindful reporting applies even more to war imagery. Several consumers said they would like to see trigger warnings before being exposed to distressing images, so that they can actively choose to see them or not, even though showing them is important in order to not to downplay “what war really means.”

The interviewed journalists tended to agree with this point of view, arguing that showing footage of human bodies and explicit violence should be the exception rather than the rule in war coverage, even though they also underscored it was important to show the reality of war.

The same carefulness should be shown for language. Readers shared that they expected journalists to question the wording they use, for instance when referring to military jargon or foreign terms, so that their language is easily understandable.

The reporters agreed on the fact they should reflect upon the language they use since it impacts the framing of the war and can even impact its outcomes.

As Katja Ehrenberg points out, “constructive journalism is about highlighting different perspectives on a topic, more nuanced and with more background in order to contribute to a deeper understanding of complex issues. This creates a richer basis and more space for constructive debates – which can even lead to the realisation of how serious a situation is”.

3. Even more emphasis on transparency

Finally, some consumers suggested adding embed links, so that people interested in knowing more could access further information about mentioned individuals or organisations. This is especially true for social media companies, which are generally less trusted. Interestingly, they also asked for more transparency from the journalists’ side, in cases where information cannot be verified, for instance, to create trust and expose dis/misinformation.

In the last part of the report, the Bonn Institute also specifically lists examples of constructive war coverage in various formats that have been published since February 2022, such as:

Deutsche Welle’s report on the elementary role of the postal service in the frontline area that Ehrenberg says “show[s] commitment and moving personal stories from on the ground”.
Pieces that examine possible solutions like Vox’s article on how its readers can practically help Ukrainians and Al Jazeera’s coverage of “the hospital train helping Ukraine’s sick and wounded”

A promising yet demanding approach

If consumers and journalists alike have identified constructive reporting as a tool to improve war coverage and already know how this approach works, why can it be difficult to implement in practice?

Interviews of media professionals conducted for the study revealed persisting challenges that tend to be even stronger during war times.

First, most newsrooms are forced to adapt their daily routines when conflicts break out, while facing a double challenge – time pressure and extended research effort, beyond only breaking news. These two factors do not only impact the reporting, but also the psychological stress and fatigue journalists experience.

Consequently, media teams do not have time to question their practice, and tend to avoid experimenting with constructive journalism approaches. This is also reinforced by the common belief within the profession that “objective journalism and neutral reporting” really are possible, while constructive reporting can be perceived as positive “Good News” or “Happy End” journalism.

To successfully use constructive reporting in their daily work, many media professionals emphasised the importance of education and training, but also personal exchange. In that sense, the challenges in implementing this practice can be connected to broader challenges within the media industry, such as the lack of diversity.

Nevertheless, the majority of respondents expects the management to take the lead in order to implement this shift by creating favourable conditions and dedicating the necessary resources to do so. That being said, business considerations are likely to influence the decision-making process of editors, and constructive reporting might not be perceived as productive and rewarding in the short term, despite the fact that recent research shows how successful constructive journalism can be in terms of relevance and monetization of media businesses.

Despite the study’s limited scope, the overall findings provide food for thought: War, like any other crisis, appears to be a moment of truth that reveals underlying structures. In this context, constructive journalism, if truly understood and implemented with the dedicated resources, can contribute to make the media industry more sustainable in the long run, and ultimately, fit for the future.

Katja Ehrenberg can see that “the psychological stress that media users have been complaining about for several years has now also arrived in the newsrooms. At the latest since the outbreak of [Russia’s] war against Ukraine, more and more journalists feel sometimes overwhelmed and tend to show more understanding for people who avoid the news. The prospect of the worsening climate crisis is doing the rest to stimulate readiness to rethink the traditional journalistic trade in the newsrooms”.

the Bonn Institute

Latest in the Bonn Institute

The case for constructive journalism amidst Russia’s invasion of Ukraine