Common prejudices and misconceptions
Although the concepts of solutions journalism and constructive journalism are now well established, they are still relatively young and there are still many preconceived ideas and misconceptions about them. We have compiled and refuted the most common of them here.

Prejudice 1: Constructive and solutions-focused journalism ignores problems
Anyone who has spent even a little time looking at constructive reporting will quickly realise that it does not ignore problems. After all, every solution entails a problem, and to understand the solution, the respective problem and its context must be explained. Problems and challenges are the reason for seeking solutions. The difference is that one does not stop at describing the problems, but instead searches specifically for solutions and analyses them.
Prejudice 2: Constructive journalism sees the world through rose-tinted glasses
As explained above, familiarity with solutions goes hand in hand with an understanding of problems. If solution-focused journalism is done properly, there is no danger of whitewashing. It is true that reporting on solutions creates a more positive overall picture than the negative picture created by reporting almost exclusively on scandal and disaster. But the latter is often not at all realistic. In fact, studies have shown repeatedly that the preponderance of negative stories in the media leads many people to have an exaggeratedly negative view of societal developments (for example, when respondents state in surveys that crime has increased, even though it has in fact decreased). Solutions journalism can actually help in this case to arrive at a more realistic perception of social reality.
Prejudice 3: Constructive journalism is uncritical
The idea that constructive journalism is uncritical is another common misunderstanding. A critical attitude, careful questioning and the clear identification of weak points are essential in constructive journalism – just as they are in any other form of journalism. One of the four criteria of the Solutions Journalism Network for solutions journalism is to address the limitations of solutions. Many solutions are still in their infancy, while others face hurdles in regard to financing, scaling challenges or political opposition. Pointing out difficulties and drawbacks when describing good ideas and projects does them no harm. On the contrary, it is important for getting a realistic picture, putting them into context and assessing how much potential they represent for change.
Prejudice 4: Constructive journalism is merely PR
A press release describes an event from a single perspective, namely its own, and tends to leave out any unpleasant details. Avoiding this kind of reporting is an essential part of good journalism, and constructive journalism is no exception. The policy of including a variety of perspectives and critically analysing the limitations of an approach, means the accusation of engaging in PR is easily refuted. This certainly does not mean that good approaches should of necessity be talked down. Grumbling reflexively is no more a mark of quality than is exaggerated whitewashing.
Misconception 1: Constructive journalism seeks to completely replace journalism as we know it
No, that is not the case at all. In fact, Constructive journalism is about strengthening certain elements of journalism and broadening the focus: reporting solutions in a technically sound way, including marginalised actors, finding new formats for discussion and debate, and making the overall mix of topics more constructive.
Misconception 2: Constructive journalism is simply the reporting of ‘good news’
In recent years, several media outlets have created a ‘good news’ section to make their own news mix more positive. Does that constitute constructive journalism? Not necessarily. Simply producing positive news on a variety of topics without clear criteria is not constructive journalism by a long shot. And who decides what is positive and what is not? It is certainly true that reports about credible solutions for societal problems are often perceived as positive. If the problems involved are clearly identified and analysed, this kind of solution-based journalism also conveys knowledge of the negative issues society faces. However, the coverage can appear particularly positive when, alongside a problem, it reports on a workable solution that has been found. Conclusion: constructive journalism is usually perceived as positive. However, not all positive news is constructive journalism.