Dr. Martin E.P. Seligman—renowned worldwide as the “father of Positive Psychology”—has led visionary leaps in the scientific research, empirical data and personal understandings of human flourishing. This course explores the past, present and future of positive psychology as a journey through the key scientific leaps led by Dr. Seligman and his colleagues at the University of Pennsylvania's Positive Psychology Center and Master of Applied Positive Psychology program. There are no prerequisites.
Constructive Journalism
Loading...
From the course by University of Pennsylvania
Positive Psychology: Martin E. P. Seligman’s Visionary Science
1412 ratings
University of Pennsylvania
1412 ratings
Course 1 of 5 in the Specialization Foundations of Positive Psychology
From the lesson
Future Directions in Positive Psychology
In this module, Dr. Martin Seligman discusses some of the most inspiring recent and future developments in the field of Positive Psychology, in particular those that transcend individual experience and have the potential to transform our world.
Meet the Instructors
Martin E.P. Seligman, Ph.D.Zellerbach Family Professor of Psychology & Director, Positive Psychology Center
Positive Psychology Center
And so, what I want to do is outline where I think the cusp of progress in positive areas will be.
If you were a farmer in Nebraska 100 years ago and the Titanic goes down,
you wouldn't know about that for about six months.
But now, we are bombarded with news, almost all of which is bad.
If it bleeds, it leads.
I've wondered often about the epidemic of depression and anxiety in young people,
and I think it's at least partly that the news is so bad.
But strangely enough, even though many people think from the news that the world is worse,
by every statistic I know, the world is better.
But the question is, given that the world is better, why do people think the world is worse?
Now a lot of this has to do with journalism, and with what pays off in journalism.
The good life,the positive, is not just the absence of the negative.
So what is journalism's vision of a positive human future?
Where are the people who are being praised for bringing about a positive human future?
And so I think, positive journalism is a field that needs support
and needs understanding about why people are so...
why if it bleeds, it leads, when there is so much virtue and heroism in the world.
Hi, I'm Catherine Gyldensted.
I am serving as the director of constructive journalism at Windesheim University in the Netherlands.
I came into constructive journalism after having taken a MAP degree here at University of Pennsylvania.
Positive psychology has a lot to offer to journalism.
Even though it sounds controversial, it's a growing domain,
and I'm here to give you a little insight on what we're doing.
First of all, it's important to think about what are your ethical values when you report on the world.
Are you only here to point out what's wrong, and what's dissent, and where politicians disagree?
Or should journalism also be looking at where you can collaborate,
where politicians has visions for communities, and the citizens that they serve?
And could you also facilitate a more visionary, productive debate in journalism?
That is, in essence, what I'm teaching today.
Studying positive psychology made me understand that we in journalism,
but many people have blind angles in how we view the world.
Often we assume that people are victims to hardship.
Often we assume that politicians has to fight and disagree.
Often we assume that if a natural disaster happens,
it's all about misery and losing lives and setbacks.
But in the same scenes you will find people who collaborate,
people who help each other, people who grow from trauma,
and all of that was instilled in me when I started positive psychology,
and I'm now taking that into journalism because many journalists are not evil people.
They might just be ignorant to what positive psychology is studying,
and presenting them with the research and the research findings
from positive psychology offers a bigger outlook on the world,
that makes us portray the world more accurately.
This is some of the exciting things about this work,
because when you start this journey and you are trying to change your profession
and expanding or moving the fence poles of what your profession does,
you also start to think about how did it get like this?
And journalism think that by pointing out where things are not working,
we keep society healthy and well functioning.
But if you think about that, is that really true?
That society functions well if it only knows what's going wrong?
Or isn't it just equally, or even more important, to add where things are going well,
or could go better, or how things can progress?
Those are really, really important informations to add to politicians, decision makers, citizens.
So I am challenging what journalism thinks it should do,
and arguing that adding information about progress
and where things can be improved and are improving
is important for society, but it's also important for journalism if you want to portray the world more accurately.
Well, my turning point came when I interviewed a homeless woman,
in Washington D.C. when the recession hit in 2008.
I was doing a news story about all the people who lost their homes and their jobs in 2008.
And this woman was a great interview.
I asked her questions about how hard it was,
and asked her to elaborate on how she experienced losing her job and her home at the same time.
She was a strong interview.
She was very honest and bold.
But suddenly, she said, "But I've also learned something."
And I remember holding the microphone and thinking,
"What can you possibly have learned from this situation?"
And then I asked, "What have you learned?"
And out came this beautiful answer about knowing that she was stronger than she thought,
having gotten a better relationship to her son,
and knowing that there are people around her that actually stepped in to help her.
Inspiring answers, but I only got those answers because I started
to ask questions that were curious about that.
And I remember leaving that interview thinking, "What just happened there?"
She forced me to see her as something else than a victim.
And then I realized that I had, in all my years in journalism,
I asked questions to people assuming that they were victims
and overseeing if they had something else to offer.
And when I understood that I had framed the world like that,
not to be an evil person, but out of you could say ignorance to what people actually can be.
Then, it violated a principle in me wanting to portray the world accurately.
I didn't want the blind angles to come from me,
because I was framing the world in a specific way.
And when she challenged that, I wanted to change.
And then someone said, "Well, you should study positive psychology,
because these scientists and researchers are actually looking into how to not be a victim,
how to teach resilience, the well-being model of the world.
So, for me, that was a whole new territory, and it also offers the outlook that journalism is missing,
and that's informing my work now, so that was a turning point,
that homeless woman.
When I then did the story with some of the inspiring answers she gave,
I got a lot of reactions from listeners.
It was a radio piece.
And the listener said, "This is a serious story but it inspired me."
And I remember thinking, well there's something in this,
in the way that she tells a story that engages people much more,
that inspires them much more than usual.
And now I know that it is possibly the positive emotions,
the inspiration that she induces in people from a bad situation that makes them stop and listen
and be uplifted and feeling more engaged.
But I didn't know that at the time, but it made me think
this is something journalism needs to take seriously.
So, first of all, it's important to understand this bigger worldview.
In journalism, we know a lot about negative emotions.
We know a lot about positive traumatic stress.
We know a lot about victims.
What we, insiders, could call Learned Helplessness.
We know a lot about negative relationships, dissent and conflicts, and disagreement.
But we know less about all the positives.
But as you can see here on the upper half,
here are some of the fascinating constructs from positive psychology
that really opened my mind to how big the world is.
And I'm now teaching these constructs to journalists,
to enhance their outlook on the world.
So let me highlight learned optimism, resilience, grit, the concept of post-traumatic growth,
and the broaden-and-build principle, that positive emotions really expand your outlook
and fosters creativity and collaboration.
So, in making our sources being a positive emotion when you interview them,
actually gives us better interviews.
Where they say much more, they expand their thinking,
they reflect more, and they are able to actually work with you much more
than if you attack them with very critical and negative questions.
Know that's one of the criticisms that I get most often is that if bombs fall
on Syria or other conflict zones in the world, shouldn't we report on that?
And absolutely, we should.
We're talking about an extra dimension,
or an added layer to what journalism is reporting on.
So, in order to get a more accurate portrayal of the world.
And portraying the world accurately is a core fundamental ethical value in journalism.
And when my colleagues in journalism understands
that adding some of these approaches makes us stronger
in this more accurate portrayal of the world, they want to do it,
because it makes them better journalists.
For instance, I'm teaching how we can view these people differently.
These are refugees coming in from the Mediterranean, from Syria, into a lot of European countries.
They're walking on railway tracks as you can see here,
of course, in a horrible and difficult situation.
But if we in journalism only see them as victims,
we tend to interview them in a specific manner.
Not asking them for their hope, their resources, what inspiration they can give us,
what they are aiming to do with their future,
how they will create a more productive and happier lives for themselves and their families.
So, constructive journalism expands the interview technique
by working on the blind angles we used to have on, for instance, the so-called victims.
But the same goes for the so-called villains in journalism.
And, I don't want to sound politically biased, but it is very clear that
journalism has a certain way to portray politicians.
In this instance, Donald Trump, but it could be Hillary Clinton that I had a slide up, right here.
How are we interviewing politicians?
Very negative, very critical, talking truth to power.
But I think the outcome that we get from those kind of interviews are very negative,
not visionary, not collaborative, not looking at how things can be better,
and how politicians can work together.
So, journalism acts as a polarizer, instead of a depolarizer.
And I want to change that dynamic, and I think there's great potential for positive psychology
to go in and enhance journalism so it becomes more depolarizing.
Adding positive psychology scientific results into journalism offers a more accurate portrayal of the world.
Instead of a world that's going down the drain, we also look at progress,
where things are enhancing, where democracy is growing,
where education is rising, and where poverty is diminishing.
So when robust science from positive psychology is underpinning this methodology into journalism,
it's very, very important for us to also have clear definitions on what are uplifting happy stories?
What are constructive journalistic stories?
And here are the working definitions that I currently offer.
Positive journalism are happy, uplifting, and often meaningful stories,
but they tend to lack societal significance.
And they don't necessarily adhere to core functions in journalism,
like being the watchdog or alerting the public of potential threats.
Those are core functions in journalism.
Constructive journalistic stories are also meaningful and uplifting,
but they have high societal significance,
and they adhere to core functions in journalism,
like being a watchdog and giving the public important information about society.
Those are the definitions that we currently work with,
and would make us able to measure what is positive journalistic stories
and what are constructive journalistic stories.
Constructive journalism is a growing domain.
There's a lot of experimentation going on,
and depending on which newspaper or newsroom you ask,
they tend to do different experimentation.
Here is a summarization of some of the experimentation going on right now.
First of all, we see a lot of solutions-oriented framing of news.
So, if news stories are pointing to a problem, they'll also try to cover a potential solution,
or point to a solution, or look for a solution.
A constructive element in journalism is
also to facilitate a future-oriented debate,
instead of always looking back and being the detective,
how about facilitating a visionary debate amongst politicians or decision makers?
For instance, in an election cycle, asking questions about how to get a better tomorrow?
Where are we headed as a society?
How can we get there?
What will you do to get us there?
How will you collaborate with your opponent or your party members to get us there?
And the fascinating thing about this is that I've been looking into
what are the questions that moderators and anchors ask politicians in election debates,
and the majority of the questions are looking to the past, where journalist acts as detectives.
But when the voters get to ask questions to politicians,
the majority of the questions are oriented towards the future.
Voters, citizens, are interested in where we're headed.
They ask the candidates, "If I vote for you, where will we be in five years on health care?
If I vote for you, we will be in five years on education?" Questions like that.
So, for me, that's an eye opener,
where there's a disconnect between what journalism tends to think what is important
to investigate-who said what, when, and how in the past.
And the voters, the citizens, tend to be more interested in where are we headed, a future-orientation.
So constructive element in journalism is to add and facilitate a future-orientation
and facilitate a visionary future-oriented debate.
Lastly, I want to highlight interviewing technique.
How we enhance our interviewing, the questions that we ask.
All kinds of sources, not only people in power, but citizens, the so-called victims.
Because questions are very powerful.
Are you asking questions that are only directed to the disease model of the world, or disease thinking?
Or are you asking questions exploring learnings, resilience,
what can be achieved if you overcome something, visions, hopes?
And people tend to then go with you on that if you ask those kind of questions.
And that facilitates, you could say, a productive upward spiral,
and that's exactly what positive psychology also teaches us.
Are we looking at the well-being model of the world,
or are we looking at the disease model of the world?
So adding positive psychology into how journalism reports on the world adds this well-being model of the world.
And this is a growing domain.
Here I want to show you some citations or quotes from esteemed colleagues
who are working with constructive journalism.
This is Erika Bjerström from the Sweden's National Television. It's the Swedish BBC.
And yeah, here's what she's saying about it.
Here is a US colleague, Tina Rosenberg, co-founder of Solutions Journalism Network,
and her advice is always ask who's doing it right.
He's another prominent journalist, Alan Rusbridger,
the former editor-in-chief of The Guardian newspaper for 25 years.
When they covered climate change, he wanted to also add a future-oriented perspective
because it's such a difficult and serious story.
The world's climate and how will we solve this.
So adding a future-oriented approach in how they covered it was a constructive element.
He was criticized by this from the profession, but Mr. Rusbridger said,
"I don't really care about that.
This is too serious for us to not add a solutions-oriented focus and a future-oriented focus."
And lastly, I want to also introduce you to visionary young journalists,
here from a Dutch media company called De Correspondent.
He is the founder of De Correspondent, Rob Wijnberg,
very very progressive in the constructive elements they add.
And you can see what he's saying here.
You might be thinking, what is a future-oriented question?
What is a powerful future- oriented question?
And is it important for journalism to have this?
And this example is underlining the importance of it.
John Kerry got this question in 2014 on Syria,
whether or not we in the West should go and bomb Syria
because they had used chemical weapons on their own population.
And John Kerry got a very powerful future-oriented question
from one of the reporters at the press conference.
And in this video, you can listen to the question, hear his response,
and hear John Kerry's reaction on getting such a powerful future-oriented question.
For me, it's a strong example of how we can benefit
from adding future-oriented productive questions in journalism.
And lastly, The Economist, the very prominent journalistic magazine,
also have strong constructive elements in how they report on the world.
It's part of how they think of themselves as a news organization.
So here's the front page of a recent edition:
"How to manage the migrant crisis."
If you read it, you can see that they take the refugee situation very seriously,
but they also devote some of their coverage to how can we manage and solve it.
How can we make sure that our societies are not breaking apart because of this migrant crisis?
So this is another strong example of constructive elements in journalism.
Explore our Catalog
Join for free and get personalized recommendations, updates and offers.
Coursera provides universal access to the world’s best education,
partnering with top universities and organizations to offer courses online.
© 2018 Coursera Inc. All rights reserved.
