Well, the Economist is a good example. The BBC World Service is doing a lot on this and it is because they want to portray the world more accurately. It's violating a journalistic principle when the professional understands that we are only seeing the world with one eye, you could say. The Guardian, the British news organization, is doing this across many of their newsrooms. The Dutch media, online media called De Correspondent is doing this very, very progressively and boldly. They are actually going into being activistic about some issues, creating events in real life to make people make other choices. So they're actually also taking on the role of facilitating societal change in real life. And that is controversial in journalism because journalism tends to be detached from that. We are mirroring the world, not moving the world. But that's another thing that I'm saying to my profession, that's a myth. Mirroring something means that it's not changing. But journalism influences thinking, decisions. So we are not mirroring things, but we're moving it in. But in what direction? In an upward spiral, or in a downward spiral? As polarizers or community builders? Yeah. So that's a big reflection for journalism. It's a strategic choice because the word "positive" is such a loaded word for journalists. They stop listening when you say the word positive, because they equal it with being fluff, or holding the microphone, or being uncritical. So we all know that that's not true. But by choosing "constructive" as the word in my framework, I'm also making a distinction between uplifting content that doesn't have societal value and uplifting content that has societal value. Constructive. Constructive elements in journalism. So that's some of the thinking behind the choice of words. But we also when we measure whether or not this story is constructive or this story is positive, we are looking at whether or not it has societal value and whether or not it lives up to some core functions in journalism- being critical and being factual, being fair and balanced, for instance. So those are some of the thoughts behind the choice of words. Well, I did my, in my thesis, I wrote the same news story over the interview I did with the homeless woman in different. So highlighted from a very positive story, to a neutral version of the story, to a very negative version of the story, and tested it on 720 participants. And some of the robust findings were that the positive version of the story was deemed untrustworthy. The readers didn't believe that. So that's a good finding I would say, because that's not what we would want. That's propaganda you could say, or overlooking that, of course, there are negatives to being homeless and losing your job. And the one, the story that had a positive ending left people more engaged. They wanted to learn more. They wanted to act on it. And that's something that journalism and the industry is very interested in. What is it in a story that engages audiences. What makes them want to connect with the story, act on it, learn more. Because in this media landscape with social media, Facebook, we in journalism need to understand how we engage our audiences into quality journalism, and how to invite them in and engage instead of disengaging. That's really a big question for journalism, and I think the answer lies in psychology and positive psychology research. I used to work as an investigative reporter, so I like to dig deeper and understand underlining forces. So trying out research is continuing that detective's work and digging deeper. So I really enjoy to look into how adding another ending on a story changed the emotions and the engagement in readers, and their outlook on the world just by changing one paragraph, or adding another ending, or highlighting an inspirational message. That's fascinating. To try to understand how powerful it is to--in telling a story, what power you hold in influencing people's thinking and influencing their engagement. So, well I think it's fascinating, and it's, there's a lot of work still to be done for sure, researching this. But I'm ready to do it and a growing number of my colleagues are ready to do it. So that's fascinating. Well, my thinking hasn't ended. I think it's expanding together with what positive psychology is also doing. For instance, prospectsion, perspective psychology looking into the future. How does that influence the thinking of individuals, the creativity, visions. That's directly applicable into journalism I would say. I see a clear parallel in perspective psychology and facilitating political debate. Looking into the future, asking future-oriented questions to our decision makers or citizens to make them think ahead, think more visionary thoughts, creative thoughts, than just steering their attention and thoughts to what has happened and what didn't succeed, or what was said five years ago. So that's a very easy parallel to what positive psychology is doing and how that would fit into journalism. But another very clear parallel is just challenging the victim-orientation of people, or their view of being a victim. Positive psychology teaches us that you're not always a victim of a situation. Most often you are not, depending on the thoughts that you choose to have, how resilient you are, that resilience can be taught. And when I learned about that that was really an "Aha!" moment for me as a journalist, because I didn't know that that was possible before, and if you don't know if that's possible, you tend to over-report on what you know. Post-traumatic stress for instance, or assuming that people are always victims of a difficult situation. So just understanding that science has uncovered this whole other positive world expands your outlook, and makes you more aware of that in real life. And therefore, you as a journalist grow your outlook and your choice of stories, and it challenges your blind angles and unconscious biases you might have. So, much of this work is also about educating my colleagues about what positive psychology has uncovered and what positive psychology is studying, so they get a bigger and more accurate outlook on the world. I've been spending a lot of time speaking into the profession, and getting them to understand that they should change, and why they should change. But now I'm starting to think that it's, maybe I should direct more of this focus to the citizens, the people, so they are the drivers of this change. Because journalism should serve society and citizens, and if they want this change, or they are seeking this kind of content, then the profession will change as well. But constructive journalism can flourish if it's successful in proving that journalism becomes more robust, becomes more engaging, becomes strengthened in how it reports. And maybe if it also succeeds in getting us better interviews and answers from politicians, then we are successful, then I think it will flourish a lot. I would like to see 10 to 20 years from now whether or not adding this layer into journalism, does that foster a more productive societal change? Do we see more solutions? Do we see more progress? Do we see less polarization? Do we see these changes in society? That's a long-term scope and results that I would like to see measured, because that's the overall vision of adding this into journalism. A more accurate portrayal of the world, and changing the world for the better. So that's a long-term goal for research in constructive journalism for sure. Well, first of all, I think if you start to reflect on this, you cannot see a newscast or listen to any news story without noticing that people are often portrayed as victims, victims of a situation, and then somebody - an institution, the state, or somebody higher up - has to solve it for you. So first of all, that's, noticing that, and then asking: how could this be reported differently while still being accurate and factual? What other questions could be asked to this person? No matter whether it's the victim, the so-called victim, or the power holder. How could we ask other questions about resources, collaborations, a better future, how to get there. So interviewing and asking other questions is a fundamental first step. And it's fun to sit and play with that, and maybe not only thinking about it but next time you interview or you talk to someone, think about the questions that you ask and what kind of thinking you facilitate with your questions. Do they belong in the deceased model of the world, or do they belong in the you could say, productive, well-being model of the world? That's fascinating to experiment with that. Well, journalism is a profession in crisis, and we are listening to what the people out there are saying and telling us. So offering your opinion on what you think is missing in the, in the way that news journalism is covering the world is beneficial. Or even just sharing stories that you find productive or inspirational. But we see this already. We see positive constructive stories being shared much more on social media than the classical negative ones. And I would say it's because the positive emotions are so strong, you want to share this with others. You are being inspired instead of being depressed, or detached, or feeling a sense of hopelessness. So continue to do that, but make your opinion known, let news organization know that you are tired of the polarizing debate, or the hopelessness in the debate, or the conflict-oriented approach in debates. And I think, I know that they are listening. They are listening. So that's the first step. So with that I hope that you got a sense of how positive psychology is informing this domain in journalism, and how it's growing, and some examples of how it's applied.
