From Scott H.Greenfield at Simple Justice:
Stephanie West Allen sent me a link to a wikipedia page the other day to alert me to a new “thing” called “Constructive Journalism.” At the top of the wiki page, it read, “This article has multiple issues.” That was an understatement.
Why? Because it was front loaded with malarky.
Constructive Journalism is an emerging domain within journalism that is slowly getting grounded within academia and involves the field of communication that is based around reporting positive and solution-focused news, instead of revolving around negative and conflict-based stories. It aims to avoid a negativity bias and incorporates findings from positive psychology research to produce novel frameworks for journalism.
Therefore, instead of solely reporting on conflicts and problems, constructive journalism aims to gain a more comprehensive portrayal of the issues at hand. It aims to expose core causes of problems but also to report on emerging ideas and developments to shift society towards more impartial and sustainable paths. Constructive journalism aims express how change is possible and highlights the role each member of society may play to foster it. Additionally, it strives to strengthen the ethics code of journalism by avoiding the distortion of information in order to provide a more real portrayal of the world. Constructive Journalism attempts to create an engaging narrative that is factually correct without exaggerating numbers or realities.
Or, to put it in TL;dr terms, “constructive journalism” wants to spin information to manipulate readers into believing it’s substantively legitimate while promoting an agenda. It’s part Happysphere, part bullshit, all rationalization for lying while calling it truth. More.
Reality check: In a progressive environment, malarky is pretty much the only news game in town.
Real journalism, of course, is never constructive. It is transgressive by nature. It tells us what Top People do not want us to know.
See also: Why rubes don’t trust traditional media any more Because we can get wrong information without paying for it.