So, there we were: 19 journalists from ‘rival’ organisations seated in a circle on a sunny autumn morning in April. Usually, there might be a touch of reticence – side eye, even. After all, it’s a competitive business we’re in; and, while reporters like to ask a lot of questions, we’re often cagey when it comes to divulging information about ourselves, having had it drummed into us ‘you’re not the story’.
Not here, though. Here, on this autumn day, a different operating procedure was in place and it was not standard. We introduced ourselves. There were journalists from the ABC, SBS, Choice, The Herald Sun, 9News, Queensland independent The Pineapple, News.com, CNN Indonesia and Jakarta outlet Kompas. There was a Gamilaroi journalist and author, a freelance science writer, editors from The Guardian and The Conversation, and me and a couple of colleagues from The Age and The Sydney Morning Herald. Our shared mission: to find out about constructive journalism.
IMAGE of the Constructive Institute Asia Pacific Hub 2026 fellows by Neary Ty
It turns out we’d all (pictured above) been pondering similar things, in our own ways: the global uptick in people avoiding news, conversations becoming polarised, how to create and deliver stories that connect with people. Yes, these are the questions facing media organisations the world over.
There’s a well-worn adage in newsrooms, ‘If it bleeds, it leads.’ Constructive journalism takes another tack. It’s an approach that focuses on nuance (rather than combat) and on interrogating potential solutions to problems (rather than getting stuck on the problem itself), all in a spirit of openness and curiosity, the better to facilitate good-quality debate in our communities.
It’s an idea that, for example, prompted a radio-show host in Oslo to change her program’s format from a yelling match between two usual suspects to a measured discussion of policy by decision-makers who really knew their stuff – and who, as a condition of coming on the show, had to report back in a later episode on the solution they had found to the issue. It was, from all accounts, a big hit with Norwegians.
Ulrik Haagerup founded the Constructive Institute in Denmark
Then there are the Danes. Ulrik Haagerup is the former director of the Danish Broadcasting Corporation, a job he left to start the Constructive Institute for Journalism in the university town of Aarhus in 2017. As a veteran journalist, he’d regarded keeping up with news as a self-evident virtue, ‘like eating broccoli’, until he realised it could be a bit depressing and, well, shouty. It turns out some other people in his line of business knew what he meant; the institute now works with news outlets around the world to help them turn down the volume on debate so we can all hear ourselves think.
On a recent visit, Ulrik spoke to the National Press Club in Canberra, pictured above. In that speech, he said that, while a study tour to the United States was once ‘a must’ for journalists wanting to be ‘at the forefront’, soon he would be taking his own institute’s cohort of fellows, journalists from Scandinavia and Greenland, elsewhere – to Australia.
Which brings us back to the 19 journalists in a circle: curious and open types, we are participating in the first fellowship run by a partner of Ulrik’s institute, the new Asia Pacific Hub for Constructive Journalism at Monash University, headed by former ABC head of news Kate Torney.
The Constructive Institute Asia Pacific
During the fellowship, Kate is putting us in touch with leading innovators in our field. This is how I came to be introduced to Ellen Heinrichs, pictured below, who in 2022 founded the Bonn Institute for Journalism and Constructive Dialogue in Germany.
IMAGE of Ellen Heinrichs supplied by The Bonn Institute
I first spoke with Ellen on a Zoom call, the morning sun streaming through her office window in Bonn as dusk fell around me in Melbourne. She told me how she had worked for Deutsche Welle, Germany’s international broadcaster, first helping lead it into the digital era then becoming its head of trends and knowledge (a great job title) before deciding to start up this new institute. I liked Ellen’s description of constructive journalism as a “compass” and her guiding question: How do we put people’s needs at the heart of journalism? So I asked if she would speak with all of us in this newsletter and, to my delight, she said yes.
Ellen, how did you come to set up the Bonn Institute?
As a journalist, though I absolutely loved being a reporter, I’d always felt a certain discomfort with the dominant culture in our industry – an often assertive, opinion-driven style – and the idea that journalism is a one-way form of communication. For me, that was never fully satisfying. I kept asking myself: could journalism be done differently?
Later, at Deutsche Welle, for some time I was genuinely excited. New technologies allowed us to reach more people than ever before. But new problems appeared and I realised that, in the digital world, people were overwhelmed by the sheer volume of news.
Many struggled with the strong focus on negative events. People still did not feel that their perspectives were seen or heard. It was clear to me that journalism was facing not only a technological challenge but an editorial and cultural one. So, in 2022, with financial support from our regional government, I founded this institute. It is an independent organisation that works with media companies to help shape the future of journalism.
What’s the institute’s central mission?
Our aim is to evolve journalism as a service for people in increasingly complex societies. We ask: What do people need in order to make informed, meaningful decisions – and to feel connected to one another?
Human centred journalism
While one part of the media industry is focused strongly on the potential of artificial intelligence for journalism’s future, the other part is exploring what I would call human-centred journalism: focusing on dialogue, solutions, and diversity in perspectives. Our institute is among those helping to shape this second field. We provide training and fellowships for journalists, advise media organisations on editorial innovation and audience trust, conduct research, and organise what has become Europe’s largest community-focused journalism festival – which also brings together civil society and media leaders from many different countries.
You prefer not to talk about readers or audience. What’s better?
People. Journalism is a relationship business. The people we serve do not only have information needs. They also have the need for orientation, for new perspectives, for connection, inspiration and sometimes even relief or joy. Journalism still has to challenge, investigate and sometimes confront uncomfortable truths but it should do so from a place of genuine curiosity and respect.
You’ve said journalists need to take emotions seriously. What do you mean?
Emotions are not the enemy of reason. In human communication, they are often the gateway to attention, understanding and trust. For a long time, journalism has operated on the assumption – often still today – that trust is built by repeatedly asserting factual accuracy and insisting “you can believe us because we are right”. What we have largely overlooked is that trust is a feeling. Why do people trust certain politicians who are clearly untruthful? Because those politicians understand something fundamental: people want to feel seen and heard, and they want to connect emotionally.
Journalism can do the same – but for constructive purposes. Every headline, every image choice, every interview, every editorial decision creates an emotional response. If journalists understand that their work always triggers emotions – which can be frustration, fatigue or mistrust – then they can also consciously aim to evoke other emotions: trust, agency, and a sense of community. For me, this is ultimately about democratic resilience. Societies need people who feel informed but who are also capable of acting, participating and imagining a future together.
The word ‘dialogue’ has come up a lot in our chat. Why?
Dialogue is essential for democracy because it keeps societies capable of disagreement without disintegration. In polarised times, the ability to stay in conversation despite differences is not just a ‘nice to have’.
At the same time, there is a growing gap between public expectations and journalistic self-understanding. Research in Germany shows that 73 per cent of people want journalists to actively foster dialogue with the public. Yet only 39 per cent believe that journalists see this as part of their professional responsibility. This gap raises questions about role perception. Do journalists see themselves primarily as observers and reporters of conflict – or do they also contribute to the quality of public discourse and social cohesion?
At the Bonn Institute, some of us have also been trained in mediation, the craft of helping people to resolve their own conflicts by supporting them to lower their stress levels through listening, slowing down and structuring conversations. I’m not saying that journalists should become mediators. But their role could be to help society listen, understand different perspectives and find a way forward that includes many voices.
So, will there be a time when media outlets will broaden their perspective beyond news?
I think this time has already come. News and information are still the core business of media companies. But at the same time, innovators are already moving forward and establishing their brands as helpful intermediaries of public discourse and connection. In Europe, live events – public debates, “reporter slams” and live podcasts – are attracting larger crowds. They’re also becoming a significant source of revenue for some journalism organisations.
This article first appeared in Nine Publishing’s Explainer newsletter.
IMAGE of red haired woman reading news on her phone at top of story by Diana Grytsku
