How Journalism erodes our resilience

“If it bleeds, it leads!” is a famous proverb in journalism illustrating how newspapers choose and present world events. With articles focused on sensationalism, they pursue their commercial goals. But are we really being presented with an accurate picture of the world? Psychologists respond to this question and accuse journalism of being one of the causes of depression across the world.

Professor Martin Seligman, the founder of positive psychology, asks the question “Why do people today have a negative worldview?” His answer immediately follows: “By reporting only one side, journalism widely contributes to the propagation of a negative worldview.” A view made up of misfortune, brutality, and despair.

Indeed, according to journalists, the world is doing very poorly. The horrors of war in several regions across the world, the threat of terrorism, refugees overrunning Europe by the hundreds of thousands, weighing on a shaky European unity, a worrisome President of the United States and North Korean dictator, and the atrocities committed by ISIS in the Middle East and Boko Haram in Nigeria are but a few of the disastrous topics making up the daily core of information. All of this must certainly be reported, but is that all? And is this the only way to deal with these topics? It’s no surprise that the majority of people have an opinion of today’s world fraught with pessimism. However, Seligman asserts that all the statistics he’s aware of show that the world is changing for the better.

It is all about a change in perspective

Cathrine Gyldensted is the director of the Constructive Journalism Department at Windesheim University of Applied Sciences in the Netherlands. She studied positive psychology under Seligman at the University of Pennsylvania.

An interview she conducted with a victim of the 2008 subprime mortgage crisis who lost both her house and her job proved to be revealing. To her astonishment, the woman said that she learned positive things from her misfortune. “What did you learn?” asked the journalist. Someone who seemed to have lost everything in one day told her that she’s happy to have discovered that she’s stronger than she thought, to feel support from so many people around her, and to have a better relationship with her son. For Gyldensted, the revelation is that she was seeing and treating this woman only as a victim, whereas the woman herself had a more balanced view of her situation. She had included the positive consequences of her unfortunate experience in her perspective. It is this perspective that should inspire modern journalism.

Newspapers seem to think that by pointing fingers at everything that’s going wrong, we will keep society good and fair. According to Gyldensted and many other journalists who agree with her reasoning, this assumption is severely inaccurate. It lacks positive angles on what’s going right in the world or what could be better by offering solutions or asking good questions. It’s not about hiding what’s wrong but about taking a more balanced approach to events by including positive facts as well as the potential for progress and the opportunities provided by each situation: an approach that goes beyond simply “pointing fingers,” information that does not limit itself by insisting on the dramatic and brutal sides of events, information that incorporates different perspectives and provides options. This information would then be very useful for politicians, decision-makers, and citizens. This is how constructive journalism could contribute to a more accurate, more positive worldview and foster a climate of trust.

The link between optimism and resilience

A climate of trust is an increased resilience of individuals. This is one of many things we learn from positive psychology. Unlike traditional psychology, positive psychology proposes focusing on measures capable of creating and fostering well-being instead of focusing only on the bad. This new paradigm defines health as the presence of well-being rather than just the absence of disease. Treating and curing disease is good, but preventing individuals from contracting disease is better. Aaron T. Beck, another American psychologist, explained in 1979 that a negative perspective of the future is one of the three factors leading to depression. Meanwhile, other scientific studies have shown that pessimistic individuals are predestined for heart attacks and that optimism greatly reduces their risk. Similarly, it has been scientifically proven that people who are fundamentally happy are better protected against common diseases like cold and flu.

Therefore, the new paradigm implies that we must constantly focus on creating the necessary conditions to develop well-being by improving the context in which we evolve. Knowing that the context in which we live has a decisive impact on our physical and mental vulnerability, this paradigm takes on a very profound meaning. Growing up in a harmonious family setting, a positive professional atmosphere, and a balanced societal environment play a key role in individuals’ resilience. The economy and businesses can greatly benefit from this assumption. Increased resilience can reduce the costs of absenteeism and increase productivity.

The era of constructive journalism has begun

The perception that individuals have of their living space influences their well-being. This is where a new type of journalism, constructive journalism, can play a primary role. Some journalists and media sources have already set things right. Gyldensted names several, including Erika Bjerstrom, from Swedish national television, and Tina Rosenberg, founder of the Solutions Journalism Network in New York.

Gyldensted shares an anecdote about Alan Rusbridger, the former editor-in-chief of the Guardian: While the editing of the Guardian focused on the topic of global warming, his intent to add prospects for the future and offer solutions was clear. His response to critics of the profession was “I don’t care about your critics. The subject is too serious for us all to not include a focus on prospects for the future and solutions.”

“We refuse to speculate about the latest scare or breaking story”

The Dutch newspaper De Correspondent provides another example of constructive journalism. It defines its mission as follows: “De Correspondent provides an antidote to the daily news grind – shifting the focus from the sensational to the foundational, and from the attention-grabbing headline to the constructive insight. We refuse to speculate about the latest scare or breaking story, but work instead to uncover the underlying forces that shape our world.” And even in Switzerland, the new website created this year by a group of French-speaking journalists under the name “Bon pour la tête” claims to be constructive. “The interest is to break away from ‘It goes without saying’ and offer a reflection that goes beyond common connections and spheres of influence,” one of them tells us (www.bonpourlatete.ch). Journalists have to become aware of the fact sensationalism and the perception that it

Conclusion

Of course, today’s journalism is not the world’s only source for pessimism and depression. But it is clear that, as an agent of influence, it bears a significant part of the responsibility. Journalists must realize that this influence is too often negative and triggers bad emotions to the point of being a factor of illness. Therefore, they must portray a more balanced view of the world and promote sources of optimism, where they exist. At the risk of repeating ourselves: An individual’s resilience and health are largely dependent on their living situation. The major role that the media play in impacting the way we perceive our environment and its consequences on an individual’s well-being is undeniable. The solution is constructive journalism, which is the cornerstone of a happier and therefore, more resilient society.

Author: Noureddine Yous, intermedio

Comments

Leave A Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.