A Constructive Habit
By Kristina Lund Jørgensen, external lecturer in Journalism (SDU) og Jakob Risbro, editor at TV2 News.
Several news organisations are running targeted projects to promote constructive journalism. But if management loses focus before the change becomes firmly embedded, all that project work may go to waste. We have a proposal for how to prevent that from happening.
Making Constructive Journalism Stick
In 2019, the then CEO of TV 2 Fyn embarked on a clear mission: the regional broadcaster was to become Denmark’s most constructive media organisation Journalists needed to focus on solutions, bring nuance to their stories, and get closer to their audience – working with the people of Fyn to make the island a better place to live. Several measures were introduced to achieve this: an editor for constructive journalism, training in the discipline for all staff, KPIs for constructive stories and for greater public involvement in journalism, events to encourage audience participation, and a professor from the University of Southern Denmark who monitored how staff responded to and acted on management’s agenda.
During the three-year project, the share of constructive content rose from 19.4% in August 2019 to 28.1% in February 2023. We previously wrote about this development in a blog post on the Constructive Institute website. Now, using both quantitative and qualitative research, we have examined what happened after management shifted its focus and constructive journalism lost its place on the strategic agenda. We have done this to identify the tools and practices needed to sustain the production og constructive journalism, once the project phase ends and the managements sharp focus disappears.
Research Overview
Research Overview
Our main case study was TV 2 Fyn. We conducted a quantitative analysis of all its content on web and carried out three qualitative interviews with selected staff members, who remaines anonymous in this paper, about the project and what happened afterwards. Our aim was to use their statements in our work to develop the set of recommendations for the maintenance of constructive journalism.
To strengthen the basis for our final ecommendations, we also included two comparable case studies in our qualitative research: NRK (the Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation) and Fyens Stiftstidende, a regional newspaper. Both organisations had previously worked intensively with constructive journalism but had since moved away from that focus. At NRK, we interviewed three senior staff members; at Fyens Stiftstidende, we interviewed one.
For the quantitative analysis, we examined constructive journalistic content published on tv2fyn.dk in February 2026 and compared it with previous measurements. The results showed a decline in constructive content from 28.1% in February 2023 to 8.1% in February 2026. Further details about the methodology can be found in the fact box at the end of the article.
A significant decline
We received assistance with measuring the constructive content published on TV 2 Fyn’s website. The Constructive Institute has developed an algorithm called Constructive Mirror, which can measure constructive content on websites. Clement Peters, a data specialist at the Institute, used Constructive Mirror to calculate the share of constructive content on www.tv2fyn.dk.
As mentioned above, measurements showed that the proportion of constructive content rose from 19.4% to 28.1% during the project. The latest measurement, however, shows that constructive content on TV 2 Fyn’s website had fallen to 8.1% by February 2026.
New strategies, new workflows, the absence of established formats and structures, and changes in staffing have all contributed to pushing the new habits aside. Despite three years of focused work on constructive journalism, we see that the organisation failed to achieve lasting cultural change. Journalists no longer produced constructive journalism to the same extent as they had when management made it a strategic priority. The same challenge — maintaining new habits once the spotlight moves elsewhere — emerged in our qualitative interviews with staff at NRK and Fyens Stiftstidende, the two comparative case studies in our research. Poul Kjærgaard, editor-in-chief of Fyens Stiftstidende, explains:
When management lets go of its strong focus, there is a tendency for the pendulum to swing back towards familiar practices unless the change has been firmly embedded.
Thomas Funding, CEO of TV 2 Fyn, is not surprised either that production declined once management’s focus shifted.
It wasn’t an active decision, we took. I think the change simply wasn’t embedded deeply enough. It was a well-intentioned project, but now we are focused on that our strategi needs to support our wider mission. The state provides us with DKK 80 million every year because we are expected to facilitate democratic debate, and we can only do that if we reach people. That is why the digital transformation is our overriding priority right now,” says Thomas Funding
TV 2 Fyn does, however, have plans to renew its focus on audience participation and closer relationships with users. These were key elements of the constructive journalism project, during which people across Fyn could submit questions for journalists to investigate and answer for example during the Covid pandemic and in the broadcaster’s election coverage during local elections.
I believe audience involvement can help us fulfil the current that mission. It can help us build stronger relationships with users in a digital environment. That means audience involvement will become a strategic priority for us going forward,” the CEO explains.
He also believes the three project years have left an important legacy: a greater awareness of constructive journalism, and that TV 2 Fyn can now draw on that experience as it pursues its new strategic goal of greater public participation.
Proposed solutions
So what happened when constructive journalism disappeared from TV 2 Fyn’s website, NRK’s platforms and the pages of Fyens Stiftstidende? And what does it take to hold on to new practices when management’s strategic focus shifts elsewhere?
These are the research questions we set out to answer in our examination of this matter. Our findings have led us to develop a set of recommendations for sustaining constructive journalism, even when management inevitably has to turn its attention to new challenges facing the media industry. challenges that are simply part of working in journalism. Before we present the five recommendations, we will walk you through some of the findings from our study regarding the sustainability of constructive journalism after a project phase has concluded.
Five pitfalls — and how to turn them into opportunities for lasting change
When the three media organisations launched their constructive journalism initiatives, the work facing their managers and project leders was a classic exercise in change management. There is already extensive research into how organisations can manage change successfully. Our approach draws inspiration from the influential american scholar John P. Kotter, who developed an eight-step model for change based on the mistakes he repeatedly observed in organisations leading change and attempting to achieve major transformations.
We want to offer a similar, simpler model through our five recommendations: a practical guide to moving from change to sustainable adoption. The aim is to help media organisations make constructive journalism a natural part of everyday work — and to sustain its production long after a project has ended. In other words, the goal is to change the culture of the newsroom.
1. Make sure everyone understands why the change is necessary
At TV 2 Fyn, not all respondents understood why change was necessary. In Kotter’s terminology, they lacked an understanding of the urgency — the compelling reason for change, often described as a “burning platform”.
Kotter considers this a crucial prerequisite for getting employees fully committed to a change process. We agree. That is why our first recommendation is to communicate the need for change clearly and consistently throughout the process – even after the project phase is over.
At the same time, we recognise that management has the right to pursue change even when there is no scientific evidence that it will lead to more readers, viewers or listeners, higher advertising revenues or more paying subscribers. Change can also be driven by ideological beliefs or organisational values that management wants to put into practice. Whatever motivates the change, the reasons must be clearly communicated.
2. Make sure management speaks with one voice
Our second recommendation stems from indications that there was not always agreement within management about whether, or to what extent, constructive journalism should be prioritised. This is a well-known challenge, which Kotter also describes:
“Perhaps worst of all are bosses who refuse to change and who make demands that are inconsistent with overall effort.”
Such contradictions can create uncertainty among staff and undermine the entire process. Our second recommendation is designed to prevent precisely this pitfall: everyone in management must be clearly and consistently committed to the change.
3. Build structures that make constructive journalism part of everyday work
Our third recommendation is to establish structures and frameworks that actively encourage constructive journalism.
All three respondents from TV 2 Fyn pointed to the model used to represent and guide the change as an effective tool for producing constructive journalism in everyday work.
That model was the LINK Compass: a tangible symbol of the change and a set of editorial values or news criteria reflecting TV 2 Fyn’s ambition to be Løsningsorienteret (solution-oriented), Involverende (inclusive), Nuanceret (nuanced) and Kritisk (critical).
Respondents across all three organisations, TV 2 Fyn, NRK and Fyens Stiftstidende, also highlighted KPIs as a way of embedding and sustaining change.
At TV 2 Fyn, the daily news bulletin was required to include at least one constructive story. At Fyens Stiftstidende, the newsroom worked with constructive formats for several years and was expected to produce a set number of stories in those formats. When the formats disappeared, the number of constructive stories declined, according to editor-in-chief Poul Kjærgaard.
This illustrates why structures matter. Our third recommendation is therefore to build practices that support the desired change as part of everyday work. These might include established editorial formats, changes to the structure of newsroom meetings, or KPIs specifying the number of stories that should take a constructive approach. Without such structures, constructive journalism risks becoming an individual ambition rather than an organisational practice.
4. Give people responsibility for keeping the change alive
Another clear pattern across all three case studies was that constructive journalism output declined when the person responsible for driving the initiative left or moved on. Journalistic culture appears to be so firmly rooted in the six traditional news values, often summarised by the Danish acronym AVISK, that journalists and editors tend to return to those criteria alone once constructive journalism is no longer a priority.
Our fourth recommendation is therefore to train ambassadors who can carry constructive journalism into every corner of the organisation. Ideally, these should be people who already play an important role in shaping the organisation’s culture and who can influence both the flow of news and the wider newsroom environment. We also recommend appointing a cross-organisational editor or coordinator who acts as the day-today champion of constructive journalism.
Helje Solberg, NRK’s Director of News, explains the value of having someone dedicated to the task of implement and maintain the production of constructive journalism:
“The most important measure we took was to have a dedicated person working across the entire organisation, travelling around to explain what we mean by constructive journalism, showcasing good examples and working through the management structure.”us build stronger relationships with users in a digital environment. That means audience involvement will become a strategic priority for us going forward,” the CEO explains.
A dedicated coordinator, supported by staff ambassadors, can help ensure that constructive journalism remains visible and relevant even when other priorities compete for attention.
5. Make constructive journalism a lasting management responsibility
Our fifth and final recommendation addresses an unavoidable reality: after a period of intense focus on constructive journalism, management will eventually need to turn its attention to new and pressing development priorities.
When that happens, someone in the leadership team must remain responsible for ensuring that constructive journalism survives beyond the project phase.
Our findings suggest that this responsibility cannot simply be left to individual journalists or a coordinator without sufficient backing. Someone in management needs to ensure that the coordinator remains active, that the ambassador network is working as intended, and that the structures supporting constructive journalism remain in place so that constructive stories continue to reach the organisation’s platforms. As one of the Norwegian respondents put it:
“It takes an incredibly long time to change your habits, and you need someone to keep reminding you and taking responsibility for it. What we are talking about here is changing a culture — an entire profession, really.”
At NRK, work is currently underway on a new model for promoting constructive journalism. Helje Solberg says management will likely appoint a coordinator as part of this effort. At Fyens Stiftstidende, the newspaper is considering reviving Café Stiften, an audience engagement format where readers can meet journalists and other guests to explore issues and gain new insights together.
This all put together leads us to recommend these five recommendations for embedding lasting cultural change:
#1 Communicate clearly and consistently throughout the process why the change matters.. Speak out on why should your organisation prioritise constructive journalism? You cannot overcommunicate the reasons.
#2 Make sure manegement speaks with one voice. Everyone in management must be clearly and consistently committed to the change.
#3 Establish clear, non-negotiable structures that support the change in everyday practice.
These could include:
#4 Appoint a cross-organisational editor or coordinator to safeguard the new habits and structures, and train staff ambassadors to carry the change throughout the organisation.
#5 Appoint a member of senior management to take responsibility for the continued development of constructive journalism when top management turns its attention to other priorities.
Constructive News Mirror
Constructive News Mirror
Read more about The Constructive News Mirror:
What did we measure? Our analysis focused on content published on TV 2 Fyn’s website. It did not directly measure the content of the broadcaster’s daily television news bulletins.
However, we would argue that the results also provide a reasonable indication of the organisation’s overall output because TV 2 Fyn works across platforms, with content from television reflected on its website. This approach is described in the broadcaster’s 2024 public service report.
The earlier measurements, taken at the beginning, in the middle and at the end of the project, were also based on content published on tv2fyn.dk. Using the same approach for all measurements strengthens the validity of the comparison.
Limitations of the algorithm
It is also important to note that the algorithm was trained on articles averaging around 600 words. When articles are much shorter, the algorithm can become less reliable: individual words may carry disproportionate weight in determining whether a piece is classified as constructive. TV 2 Fyn’s website contains long, medium-length and very short articles, which may affect the results.
However, because we used the same measurement method on all four occasions and are primarily interested in tracking changes in constructive journalism output over time, this limitation is less significant than it would be if the measurements had been conducted under different conditions.
When were the measurements taken?
• August 2019 — the first measurement.
• February 2021 — the second measurement.
• February 2023 — the third measurement.
• February 2026 — the fourth and most recent measurement.
These are our proposals for journalists and editors who want constructive journalism to become more than an exciting project that is quickly forgotten once the project phase ends. For those who want to create a genuine cultural shift that lasts, we hope these recommendations will prove useful. If you or your media organisation would like to know more about this topic, please contact us at:
KristinaLundJoergensen@gmail.com
jakob@risbro.dk