Filling the gap of so much “Bad News”

The mantra of “If it bleeds, it leads” seems to define the kind of journalism people have been used to. From famous and leading media channels in the U.S. to the growing sector on the African continent, there is an impression of preference for covering saddening and heartbreaking stories of violence, crime, corruption, and disasters daily. The results can be also depressing. People become used to bad news, and their attention to the sector becomes fallow. Therefore, there’s a need of balancing so much bad news with some good news. And that’s the gap that Solutions Journalism is trying to bridge.

This new way of doing journalism is defined as critical reporting that investigates and explains credible responses to social problems. It offers the potential of providing less depressing stories to the audience, and ultimately engaging people into action. Our reading on The Power of Solutions Journalism highlighted three areas where this field holds encouraging promises. These are: heightening audiences’ perceived knowledge and sense of efficacy, strengthening the connection between audiences and news organizations, and catalyzing potential engagement on an issue. Those are the strengths of Solutions Journalism. The fact that audiences find solutions-oriented stories less tiresome indicates the need and width of the gad that is to be bridged.

A Solutions Journalism story tries to fill the gap by trying to answer the following questions:

1. Does the story explain the causes of a social problem?

2. Does the story present an associated response to that problem?

3. Does the story refer to problem solving and how-to details?

4. Is the problem-solving process central to the story’s narrative?

5. Does the story present evidence of results linked to the response?

6. Does the story explain the limitations of the response?

7. Does the story contain an insight or teachable lesson?

8. Does the story avoid reading like a puff piece?

9. Does the story draw on sources that have ground-level expertise, not just a 30,000 foot
understanding?

10. Does the story give greater attention to the response than to a leader, innovator, or do-gooder?