Fasten your seatbelt and welcome to Constructive Institute

What a ride it has been being a fellow at the Institute. I sit here at my table in the office next to the lounge overlooking the beautiful park at Aarhus University thinking back on this year meeting so many new and interesting people.

In front of me I have a little black book. It was handed out the first week where Orla Borg, Head of the fellowship program urged us to take notes, knowing we would after 10 months we might not be able to remember all that what we  had learned this year.

Flicking through the book I think he was right. 

My project was to explore  how media covers the outskirts of Denmark. If you as a journalist live in a big city, do you then know what is important covering areas in the countryside? You may think you do. But I have among a lot of other things learnt that young people love to live in the big cities. So when the government put a lot of effort into moving for example the dental education to the northern part of Jutland that might not be a good idea.  And I have also learnt that when settling down, many couples seek for space outside the big cities. You can see that in the numbers from Denmark’s statistics and this summer the department Build at Aalborg University is digging into the numbers to understand more about why they make that decision.

I have also tried to come up with some new ideas to engage the audiences  at my radio station P4. Particular I focused on cohousing which I think can be the solution to many of the problems we have in today’s society. I have not found all the answers to that question, but I now know in what direction to look. 

There are so many ways people can be engaged.  An example. We had a guest Christian Erfurt who was asked to help create an app which could assist blind people. Being blind you need help with some simple daily tasks; washing your clothes if you don’t want to mix colors, or reading the timetable for the bus. Normally you have to call a friend or a family member. But the people behind the app Be My Eyes thought it would be great to have a big group of people helping. They therefore asked for volunteers: Today they have reached 6 million people who help blind people with their daily problems and they are just a phone call away. The able sighted volunteers do it for free. See, that is an amazing story with a lot of hope for the future in it. 

During the fellowship we have been discussing our profession and  the goal for us journalists when we get up in the morning and go to work. Is it to make the frontpage story with a hard angle?  Or is it to bring in some nuances and make the world a better place? 

It has been a pleasure meeting so many great people who have broadened my mind. I was ready to go on this journey, having worked for more than 25 years as a journalist from the day I left the school of journalism. I was hungry for something new and to learn to listen again. We have one mouth and two ears. I guess the reason for that is that we as human beings should listen more than we talk.  But sometimes it seems that we have forgotten about that. When did you last time meet a person asking you a question instead of telling his or hers own story or experience on top of yours?

Before entering the Institute I did not know much about constructive journalism. But having had the time to discuss it I feel I can go out and spread the word. 

Now I am going back to my work at DR and I am again in love with my profession.  I have rediscovered that being a journalist is one of the best jobs in the world. Some people are critical of journalists and cynical about our motives, sometimes we share this cynicism. But most journalists I know go to work trying to be the best obtainable versions of themselves. I have rediscovered that being a journalist is one of the best jobs in the world.

I now having a new language to talk about journalism. Can we as journalists look for solutions after having pointed out the problems so that we are still relevant for the citizens of Denmark and remember to put things in perspective. To be the ones to start the conversations and to steer them in a good and constructive direction. That’s the pillars our society should be build upon.

And should I forget something I can open my black book who is filled with names and quotes from many hours in the lounge and from classes at the university. Or I better caul Orla.

80, on a scale from 0 to 100

This constructive interview took place on the 13th of June 2022. The interviewer, Kenneth Lund, is a journalist at Politiken and a fellow at Constructive Institute 2021/22. The interviewee, Ewen MacAskill, is a Scottish Pulitzer Prize-awarded journalist who worked for The Guardian for 22 years. From January to June 2022, they both joined the Listen Louder-project at Constructive Institute. The project listed new journalistic formats and tools that might improve the public conversation and reduce polarization. 

Ewen MacAskill, thank you for being here.

»It’s alright«.

I’ve been asked to write a personal essay for the institute’s annual report, but Orla Borg, Ulrik Haagerup and the staff at Constructive Institute have told us, repeatedly, that journalists shouldn’t express their personal views, shouldn’t be subjective. Do you see the dilemma?

»Totally. I’m a reporter and I always try to take my own opinion and bias out of it. I’m always uncomfortable writing comments«.

Actually, I was hoping you would be the commentator here. You are a Pulitzer Prize winner, you have followed Constructive Institute for six months, and I believe we share the same thoughts on journalism …  

»So, you want me to say what you think and let me take the blame? Well, that’s what reporters do, ha-ha«.

Exactly. According to Orla and Ulrik, constructive journalism should always begin with defining ‘the problem’. In your eyes, what’s the biggest problem with constructive journalism? 

»I think the biggest problem is the name. In Britain, and certainly America as well, doing ‘constructive journalism’, ‘solution-based journalism’ or ‘peace journalism’ is like having the plague. Most journalists don’t like it. It’s not considered to be proper journalism. Of course, I’m sympathetic to the idea of constructive journalism. That’s why I’m here. I believe we should point at solutions as well as problems, I just recoil from the name«. 

Why do you hate the name?

»The problems started back in the 1990s. There was a BBC presenter, Martyn Lewis, who said that there was way too much negative news, and we needed more positive news. Almost all journalists at that time were up in arms and said, ‘This is ridiculous, this guy is not a real journalist, he’s just reading from an autocue. Of course, news is about war and famine. What does he want? Stories about a cat stuck in a tree, rescued by firemen?’. Martyn Lewis put off a whole generation of British journalists«.

»Also, journalists shouldn’t cross the line into advocacy. When I hear the word ‘constructive’ I think of advocacy, of activism. Reporting from a fixed standpoint. That’s why I’m instinctively opposed to the word ‘constructive’«.

It sounds a bit old-school. Do you believe that journalists are able to report the news objectively?

»I don’t believe in objectivity no, but we should try staying neutral. Remain fair. I’m not saying that journalists should only write ‘he said, she said’ after a standard news story formula. Journalists should still be passionate and show the readers that we care. At The Guardian we call it writing with an attitude. But we can never cross the line into activism«.

Now let’s focus on solutions. We’ll delete the word ‘constructive’. What would be a better name?

»Institute for Better Journalism. I would be more comfortable with that. We are here to rethink journalism. What’s bad, what needs to improve«. 

Constructive journalism is also about catching the nuances. Where would you put constructive journalism on a scale between 0 and 100 where 0 is ‘sheer bullshit’ and 100 is ‘God’s gift to mankind’?

»Around 80«. 

Not bad. But what should change – apart from the name – for it to get a higher grade?

»I think the advocates should do more to emphasize the importance of investigative reporting. Here, the emphasis is mostly on solutions but to me the absolute core of journalism is investigative journalism, exposing hypocrisy, corruption, and misdeeds, and holding power to account. I know Orla and Ulrik agree with me on this, but they should put more stress on it«.

Not a big whisky drinker 

Constructive journalism is also about engaging the audience. Now, I’ve got a question from a reader, Kurt Strand from Copenhagen. He writes: ‘Dear Ewen. I was just wondering: do you think we should drink more whisky in Denmark? Best wishes from Kurt’. What’s your answer to that?

»I’m not a big whisky drinker. I used to drink whisky with my father when I was at home and I enjoyed it, I like the smell. But I can go from one year to the next without drinking whisky. Because I’m Scottish, people are always giving me presents of bottles of whisky, but I don’t drink it. So, my answer to Kurt is ‘no’«.

Maybe, Kurt should practice asking questions …

»I drink Guinness. People at The Guardian know that. Before I left for Hong Kong to check out the Edward Snowden story, one of the Guardian editors said I would need a codeword for our phone calls. She said: ‘If the story stands up, just say the Guinness is good’. I also like trying local beers when we are at bars here in Aarhus. But I prefer Guinness«. 

Before we finish, I want to ask you about the Listen Louder project here at Constructive Institute. What are you most proud of – the Listen Louder booklet or your Pulitzer Prize awarded Edward Snowden coverage?

»To me, the Snowden story is just one story among the others. There are many stories that I’m proud of. About the Israel-Palestinian conflict, about Obama becoming president. The Listen Louder project is different. It’s a collaborative project, more than half a dozen have been involved in it. And that’s what I like about it. That’s the strength of the project. We’ve all added different ideas – even ideas I initially didn’t understand. But that’s the beauty of it. I’m proud of it«.

Thank you for helping me with this essay, Ewen.

»No problem«.

Bio

Ewen MacAskill has been a journalist for almost 50 years now and has worked all around the world in various publications. For half of his career, Ewen worked on The Guardian starting as the chief political correspondent covering British politics. Later he became the diplomatic editor and travelled around the world covering various conflicts. After this, Ewen then became the Washington DC bureau chief and later the defence intelligence correspondent. Most famously, Ewen covered the Edward Snowden affair.

Kenneth Lund has been working at Politiken since 2009, the last seven years as opinion editor and journalist at the opinion desk. Previously, he was a political reporter at Christiansborg (2012-2014) and online opinion editor at Politiken.dk (2009-2012). As a fellow at Constructive Institute, Kenneth has looked for new ways of engaging more young people in the public debate. 

Read more about Listen Louder at: www.constructiveinstitute.org

A Constructive Journey

“In my opinion, critical and constructive journalism are not opposites – as long as there are perspectives, as long as it is founded on knowledge, as long as the curious questions and answers drive things forward, give hope and maybe even solutions. Constructive journalism is not tame journalism – it is the opposite, it requires courage to speak to the king in the reader, listener or viewer, instead of the bum.” 

That was my main reason for applying for the fellowship at The Constructive Institute – now, after having completed it, I still strongly believe this to be true. And more than that: To be able to immerse yourself totally in journalism for 10 months, would of course be a gift to anyone – for me it has been a very, very special time in my career, where I have had the time to think, discuss and reflect over the profession that has been an important part of my life for the last 25 years – maybe for the first time. And not only with my colleague fellows, but also the students and professors at the courses at the University of Aarhus, where the subjects varied from integration and polarization to public administration.

In everything I have done, I have always strived to be constructive. Remember, still not opposite critical journalism. And not with the mission of praise, just for the sake of it – I am not about that, and this should not be perceived as a cheap salute to The Constructive Institute. I profoundly believe in the concept and that we, as media, constantly need to reinvent ourselves and set aside the sometimes default grumpy attitude. Because what we do is important for us all. 

If I have learnt one thing, and only one thing the last 10 months, it is this: What we do is crucial for our communities. So much incredibly good, important and well-written journalism is produced every single day. That I already knew. But there are also some completely wild deviations, which in the individual case are not necessarily so fatal for the media, but are far from cost-free for those involved, it can be expensive, it can be fatal, life-changing.

I love journalism, knowledge and new perspectives. It is a privilege to be able to meet the world around me with a curious question, in search of an answer. I have long been in the world of media – but I am game for much more. I have the urge to learn new things and become wiser, and I have the energy and motivation to further develop myself and others. 

Thank you for a Constructive Journey.

Old wine, new friends and expanding what good journalism is 

A tingling in my stomach, sweaty hands and a big smile on my face. The smile is often there. But that day it was the nervous kind. I was in the lounge at Constructive Institute about to do a presentation about my personal and professional life to my new fellow colleagues. 

I remember being asked “Why did you become a journalist?” A simple question but for some reason I found it hard to answer. There were many nuances to that answer that I wanted to express. But I was in a room with 11 bright and experienced reporters who I assumed expected a clever, clear and original answer… 

Well, I couldn’t give them that. But why was that? I decided I had to figure that out. 

Ten months later I know why. Why I became a journalist and why I had a hard time answering the question.

But before we get to that let me tell you about my fellowship project. 

Working as a TV reporter doing news stories for the evening broadcasts I was longing for time to dig deep and reflect on my own work. I have a big interest in covering health and going into this fellowship I wanted to investigate the recruiting problems in the elderly care sector and if or how the media coverage is affecting the recruiting. 

Today, 76,000 people work as care workers in Denmark. To keep up with the demographic changes, that number must grow to 145,000 in 2045 according to FOA if we are to maintain the level of care as it is today. Unfortunately, the number of people going into social and healthcare training has decreased over the last few years while the elderly population has been growing. 

Because of that this topic gets a lot of attention in the media. But what I’ve learnt from analyzing this field is that journalists, including myself, often fail to understand and report the nuances in news stories concerning the care sector. 

My biggest takeaways from my studies are: 

• Reporters often fail to understand the very complicated legislation on this area and as result of that we don’t ask the right critical questions. 
• We tend to underestimate how complex the care worker job is. We often assume that our audience knows what the care worker role contains and as a result of that we often don’t describe the actual work or describe the simplest part of it.  
• When doing solutions oriented journalism in this area reporters usually don’t challenge the solutions with the same effort as they would put in investigating the problem. 

All the sources I’ve talked to during the last ten months don’t blame the media for the insufficient recruiting. But everybody agrees that the media coverage is powerful and sets the tone for the public opinion. 

Realizing this, it’s clear to me that there’s a need for more constructive journalism that puts problems into context. There’s a need for more journalists who work with dedication and serious attention to potential solutions, dialogue and nuances in this field. This is not only about changing habits and focus. For this to happen journalists must also get the needed time to take the constructive stories to the next level.   

What I also realized this year is that there’s many nuances to constructive journalism. It’s the journalism of tomorrow in more than one way. If you think of it as presenting solutions to a problem it makes great sense to think of it like a GPS showing the possible ways forward. But to me the constructive approach is also about expanding what we think critical journalism to be. 

For me constructive journalism is first and foremost journalism produced by critically thinking journalists. It’s facilitating a space where people and decisionmakers can learn from and be inspired by each other. It’s when curiosity and not conflict is the main driver.

And this is a perfect bridge coming back to why I became a journalist.

I want to do good. I simply want to make the world a better place. Naive? Yes. Original? No. That’s why I didn’t want to burst it out in the lounge that day in the beginning of my fellowship. It sounds like such a fluffy and big task that it almost seems unambitious.
And the plan for how to succeed making the world better is still under construction. But after this fellowship program I’m better equipped than ever. I want to do journalism that makes people wiser about the world , so they’re able to live reflective and informed lives. This will not be achieved by the absence of critique or conflict in my journalistic work, but by creating more space for the layers in news stories that connect us, create recognition and point to solutions. 

It’s been a privilege and an honor to be a fellow at Constructive Institute. I’ve been in the best company all year long with my co-fellows, explorer colleagues and the CI staff. All of them have contributed to making this year full of learnings and laughs, discussions and different perspectives, old wine and new friends.   

The Fellowship of the CI

In J.R.R. Tolkien’s epic masterpiece The Lord of the Rings a fellowship is formed. The fellows are different from each other and each has their special set of skills. They set out on an epic journey to destroy the ring of power and bring an end to Sauron’s reign. And it’s not easy. Many miles are traversed, before they dripping in blood, sweat and tears finally destroy the ring. Upon returning home they are not the same anymore. Life can’t go back to the way it was – they simply have changed.

More ambitions than just “thank you for joining”

”Sorry for asking, but what do you have there?”.

The question was asked by a twenty-something young student in a rhetoric class at Aarhus University on a grey November day 2021. She pointed at my A4 sized notebook and had probably noticed that I was the only one in the room using handwriting combined with small drawings, arrows, and connected dots. Not taking notes instantly and tapping on a computer was obviously a strange thing, and the fellow student was asking because she was curious to know about my way of remembering the lecture and what was discussed.

I had a seat in the classroom because being a fellow at Constructive Institute also includes going to the university ‘gift shop’ to pick courses to attend from amongst the hundreds of academic subjects. Being (an almost) 66-year-old man at the beginning of my fellowship that in itself was very privileged. Not just for the often-complicated theoretical inputs, but also due to the meetings and discussions with bright students from different fields.

Two now completed notebooks of 125+ pages prove the outcome of courses attended. So do academic books on rhetoric, narratives, and conflict solving. And, not to forget, stacks of printed pdf files with yellow underlining markings and notes in mostly narrow margins. 

My courses were chosen to fit my Constructive Institute project. In short, it was about finding new ways and concepts for public debates. Being a journalist for more than 40 years, I had begun to realize how unambitious most debates in the media business are. I found that trench digging very often was the only outcome instead of trying to find at least just a small stretch of a common ground. On top of this, the tone in the public debate had evolved into something which excludes dialogue and understanding. The explosion of social media has significantly changed the public space, it promotes hate speech and is in some ways undermining some of the core values in a democratic society.

Could I, as a one-man band playing only few strings, change this? Of course not. But my aim was to contribute and help traditional media to play a more active role as moderators in public discussion. Offering good examples for debating, but also by being more active on their own social media profiles and online comments . By taking more responsibility for the way we all talk and perhaps most important, by inviting and including local communities in the public conversation.

Fortunately, I met a lot of open doors. Several media businesses are working hard to try and renew debate formats, but still, they are searching for functioning concepts that can be implemented as usable journalistic tools. For that reason, this was the focus during the second part of my fellowship, working together with not only a fellow fellow from the Danish newspaper “Politiken”, but also bright journalists from the Norwegian public service broadcaster “NRK”, the British “Guardian” and the German “Süddeutsche Zeitung”. 

Together we gathered good concepts and tools. It is not a complete list, but an inspiring beginning. A 60-page book was presented and distributed at a constructive journalism conference in Bonn, Germany, June 2022. And at the same time a webpage, hosted by the Constructive Institute in Aarhus, was opened with an invitation to journalists, editors, and others working in the business to contribute with their ideas and examples on how to change the traditional way of doing public debates.

A month earlier, I was invited to talk and present some of the findings at a journalism school teachers conference in Aarhus. Until now, late June 2022, I have done a handful of talks for other journalists and editors, three were held for fellow students at university courses, and one was for people working with debates. On top of this, I held talks at public meetings organized by a local church, a community club, and a peoples high school.

Later this year I will follow up with courses, training and talks for journalists and editors. A book diagnosing the public debate, explains how conflicts deepen, and how alternative concepts and new tools can make a change is expected to be published spring 2023.

I too often used a sentence to finalize debates during my 35+ years anchoring tv- and radio formats – “I can tell, you will not get any closer to at least some kind of agreement… but thank you for joining us tonight” –hopefully this will never be repeated. At least not by me, and not by colleagues in the business who step by step work to raise the bar for more ambitious public moderation. 

From illusion to solution 

During my year as a fellow a picture of the future of media started to grow in my head. Now it’s time to let the rest of the world know what it’s all about. 

Nic Newman is one of those people who can make numbers and graphs appear exciting. Like a piece of music. However, the charts Mr. Newman is touring worldwide are anything but easy listening. As the lead author of the Reuters News Report, his job is to measure and convey where journalism is going, and if you love journalism, it’s a rather heartbreaking melody.

I’m about halfway into my first week as a Fellow at Constructive institute, and I’m in the lounge with my new co-fellows listening to Nic Newman present his latest findings. I ask him if he thinks it’s likely that anyone under 25 will ever read a newspaper or turn on tv-news. His answer is a straightforward “no.” In past generations, youngsters would adopt the news habits of their parents, but the social media natives of today are so culturally removed from the storytelling and formats of traditional news that they will never make that adoption.

During my yearlong fellowship, certain defining moments have stuck with me. The Nic Newman answer was one of them. I became a fellow in order to figure out how to help journalists better envision alternatives to social media. And to help journalists efficiently describe the measures we can take to counter polarization, distrust, and manipulation created by the surveillance capitalism of Facebook, Google, and other tech giants.

I have spent most of my career creating journalism for the Internet because this medium has the potential to enlighten and connect humanity like no other before. It is the printing press on steroids. However, I experienced first hand how the Internet turned from enlightenment of the masses to enrichment of the few. I decided to become a Fellow and take a  a deep dive into how this development can be altered. It starts with realizing that there has been a tectonic shift in how new generations connect with news and stories; if we don’t adapt to this, we will never reach them.

Journalists often complain that social media is destroying journalism and point out that our liberal democracies are suffering as a consequence. However, the tech giants never took anything away because nothing was there in the first place. The traditional media industry never had an answer to the news-hungry social media generation. Hence, the new generations had to turn to Facebook and the rest of the silicon-valley pack.

The consensus in the media is that politicians should regulate the tech giants, and the hope is that this will push a larger audience and earnings towards traditional media. While fundamental regulation can tilt internet media mechanics in favor of those who believe in enlightenment and unity, it’s improbable that regulation will save journalism. Only innovation will save journalism. We must develop new ways of reaching generations with a different media language.

During my fellowship, I learnt what this might look like. I took classes with leading experts in teenagers’ media habits, with experts in using data, and read papers on how we design media to manipulate our perception of the world. In addition, I had the opportunity to engage with numerous thought leaders and media practitioners in our weekly lounge meetings. This new food for thought was half of the equation. The other half was taking time to reflect and digest two decades of success and failures in my career. Through this, a picture of the future of journalism started to emerge.

First, journalists must realize that traditional newspapers and broadcasts are part of an era long gone. For years the music industry insisted that music should be heard on CDs bought in physical record stores, while the audience was streaming digital tracks on Napster and Kazaa. Eventually, the music execs woke up to the future of streaming. Of course, there are still vinyl records used by connoisseurs. Likewise, newspapers and broadcasts will remain for a niche audience. This pivotal moment of realization has yet to happen broadly in media.

The new journalism audience operates in a world without a clear line between consumer and creator. One day you are viewing a feed from the frontlines of Ukraine, and the next day you are mixing it into your coverage, which you share with your audience. Secondly, the idea of linear storytelling is gone. We have been used to editing news media with top stories, less important stories, and sections of stories in a carefully crafted flow. Today this flow is in the hands of algorithms and the audiences, who browse through a myriad of loosely connected clips to furnish their own media architecture. This changes everything from telling the stories to the business models that fund the content.

We need to completely accept this new reality and mix it with a deeper understanding of emerging technology like Blockchain, Non-Fungible Tokens, and Artificial Intelligence, and add a splash of historical knowledge of internet media. Then we have the foundation for constructive criticism of social media. We can start to describe how the future should be different and ask better questions to legislators and the executives of big tech companies. And we can ensure that the alarming graphs of Nic Newman will be a relic that we look back at and smile with a sigh of relief.

How seven years went by in ten months 

When I had my very first day on boarding school many years ago, we all got a t-shirt saying; “one year at boarding school is like seven years without”. At my very last day I cried and understood exactly the meaning of those cheesy words. Boarding schools and peoples’ high schools shapes you for live in such a short period of time that it’s simply overwhelming.

My ten months as fellow at Constructive Institute can be described just as that. These opportunities are rarely giving to you as an adult and therefore I have also lived this year with an extra amount of gratefulness. The combination of a broad, professional program and talented people who are sharing your mission but have completely different experiences and skills to add to the discussions is what creates the magic. 

Deadlines and standard expectations are erased for a year, but your brain does not stop working because of it. You realize, in some situations it works better. The process adds just enough naivety to allow yourself to dream, you can do better than you did yesterday. 

To me that meant building an app for high school students together with one of my co-fellows, Bjarke Calvin. I’m not sure how the two of us would have met outside this fellowship with absolutely no shared friends, a 20-years age difference, him living in Copenhagen and me in Odense. But Bjarke and I share the exact same mission, creating a new type of social media that will engage young people in storytelling using the values and very best tools from journalism. The goal is creating a safer, creative space that’s driven by enlightened instead of algorithms feeding polarization. We call it ‘Yournalist – the school paper of the future’ and it’s made by us but mostly by the students we have met during this year.

When I return from my fellowship, TV2 Funen have agreed to do a pilot project together with us and one of the most innovative high schools at Funen to test the potential of Yournalist and the idea of taking journalism into the schools. I really couldn’t ask for more from a fellowship, and it feels right moving in this direction on behalf of the young generation.

Getting where we are already with this project and where I am with my mindset would normally have taking years. Perhaps seven years as it said on the t-shirt I still have in my closet. But it took ten months and a bunch of brilliant people. And even though I’m just as critical as I were before the fellowship (I’m still a journalist, you know), I feel much braver and more optimistic for what the future brings for our business and our audience.