Positive Journalism?

Whenever bad things happen, count on the journalist to be there. Be it disasters, famine, economic meltdowns; whenever and where ever it happens, we'll cover it.

In fact, the news industry pretty much thrives on bad events -- It is bread-and-butter to us. While reading about some student winning an international award is all nice and good, readership really spikes when controversies arise. As journalism students, we are taught that conflict makes a good story: maid versus employee, foreign workers versus locals, government versus the people.

Negativity sells, because somehow deep in our hearts, we are thrilled when bad things happen to other people.

The reason why I wrote this blog post was because my friend Yong Xin asked me this question one day: why can't journalism be more positive? It's a question I've asked myself, but never quite thought much about, until now. Why indeed?

This is my take on the issue: maybe we've been asking the wrong question all along. Instead of asking, "Should journalism be more positive," we should ask: "Is it serving society well?"

There is value in negative news. Conflict stirs debate, debate leads to reflection, and reflection leads to positive change. The government improves their policies based on what is reflected in the media. Readers are educated about class struggle, discrimination, and morality through the media, and this leads to a more enlightened society. I don't believe reporters should downplay a bad event simply for the sake of fluffy positivity. While I believe there should be some dramatisation to draw readers, reporters should make no attempt to exaggerate a bad event. 

Also, negative news should be weighed based on its value to the readers. For example, in the case of a young girl's toe who was ripped off by the escalator while she was wearing Crocs, the article has value because it warns readers about the potential dangers of Crocs. Also, it results in positive action, with the shoe-maker placing "escalator safety" messages on its shoes to inform customers.

Having said that, perhaps it is inevitable that there is more negativity in the media, if it's role is to expose the unsavoury side of society. The media can therefore be said to be both a mirror and a magnifying glass of society. It serves as a mirror because it should try to portray the world as accurately as possible. It serves as a magnifying glass because it should attempt to highlight the pressing problems in society.

That is where the editorial/opinions section of the newspaper comes in. Negative news should be placed into context by an opinion piece. And my next sentence might frighten some: hit the government hard if you have to, but don't be afraid to sing its praises as well. Credit should be given where it is due, but be critical when you have to. 

Reporters should also avoid a doom-and-gloom perspective. In the case of the economic meltdown, it is unhelpful for writers to only point fingers all the time; writers should be obligated to offer the light at the end of the tunnel, and serve to calm down for anxious readers.

Personally, I advocate the Libertarian-Social Responsibility role of the press. The press should serve as a check on the government, to ensure that it is doing its job properly. Also, the press should serve the interests of the wider society, giving voice to the voiceless,  hope to the hopeless, guarding against rampant capitalism and political tyranny.

While I don't believe in the press becoming merely a stage for PR, I do believe in positive journalism -- which is simply the ability to derive positive outcomes out of negative news. 

On a side note, here is an article about how some journalists do see some good news arising out of the economic recession.