Is the media’s view too negative?

«Only bad news is good news»: This slogan is well known. The media has a reputation for primarily reporting on the bad things in the world. Polls show that the majority of people see the world too negatively. They overestimate crime and underestimate progress in fighting world hunger. That bothered Han Langeslag. And it gave him the idea to start a magazine that would spread more hope. In 2016, Perspective Daily went online.

Mr. Langeslag, the world is going through difficult times: in addition to climate change and the corona pandemic, there is a new war very close at hand. Your medium wants to report more positive things – how does that fit together?

We don’t necessarily want to report positively, but constructively and hopefully. And that is especially important in a crisis. That one not only shows what is bad, but also asks: What are the ways out of the crisis? On a personal level, but also on a social level. We don’t just want to talk about problems, but also about solutions.

In the case of such major crises, don’t you first have to understand the facts and how they came about before talking about solutions?

Of course, and we want to cover that too. From neuroscience and psychology we know that constantly dealing with negative information does not persuade the reader to change anything. Suggested solutions, on the other hand, make people feel empowered.

That’s a pretty activist view of journalism, wanting to inspire people to take action. The role of the media is simply to show what is happening.

I see it differently. When I communicate, I share responsibility for how my counterpart feels, how the world perceives me. And media communicate with many people at once. So the responsibility they bear is enormous.

We know from surveys that people tend to have an overly negative image of the world. Is it the fault of the media?

At least in part. In surveys, people usually rate their own lives as okay, but the world as a whole as negative. This is because you know your surroundings firsthand. You know what is going well and what is bad. At the level of one country, the picture is already more negative, and even more so in foreign countries. Because we only know these places, apart from travel, from the news. And these are mostly bad. That takes us away. A study showsfound that the 2013 Boston marathon attack produced higher stress levels among people who learned about it from the media than among those who were there.

From neuroscience to journalism

Perspective Daily

Han Langeslag – CEO of Perspective Daily

Langeslag first studied economics, then psychology and finally began a doctorate in neuroscience in London. He discussed the negative tendencies of the media with Maren Urner, a colleague from his doctoral studies, and the two decided to do something about it. That’s why they founded the German-language online magazine for constructive journalism “Perspective Daily” in 2016. Because money is getting tight, Langeslag has launched a rescue campaign. The magazine needs 2,000 new subscribers to survive. At the moment there are 12,000.

The media have limited broadcasting space. When bad things happen, can’t you just hide them?

I’m not sure the news always shows the most relevant topics. But of course, if something important happens, like a big earthquake, you can’t go unmentioned. But you can still decide how to report. Do you only portray people as victims? Or do you show their resilience, how they deal with the challenges and make the best of it?

But isn’t it exactly objective to look for exactly those people in an earthquake area that convey hope?

Always striving for objectivity is an obsession, especially in German journalism. I think she’s failing. Media are never objective, there are always decisions for certain topics, for a framing. That’s okay, everyone has their own way of looking at the world. As a medium, we have opted for the constructive approach. We don’t have to look for the one hopeful example, it’s more important how you approach people, what questions you ask them.

How constructive do you find the reporting on the climate?

A lot has happened there! The fact that so little was reported about climate change in the media was one of the reasons why we founded “Perspective Daily” in 2016. As a career changer in journalism, we didn’t understand at all why this topic is dealt with so little. Sure, it’s never up-to-date, but latently important. And in the long term it will have a greater impact on our lives than much that is discussed on a daily basis.

The topic is now very present. Does the media strike the right note?

This is difficult. A certain alarmism is appropriate because climate change can be very dangerous. Our chances are not that good at the moment. At the same time, a mood of alarm spreads panic among those who are already concerned, while skeptics turn away. But I read a lot, not only from us, about the possibilities of how we can get out of the crisis.

If you look for solutions, then you run the risk of being taken in by PR. Then you hear about companies that are now putting beehives on the roof and selling it as a green innovation. Honey bees are not even endangered . . .

I am not a honey bee expert. Of course, solution-oriented journalism must remain critical. Specialist journalists work for us, and they always check whether an idea really makes sense. And we strive for a balance between lyrics about the little things you can do better yourself and lyrics that go to the system level.

Critics have complained that some of your articles are based on just one source. What do you say to the accusation that you reported one-sidedly?

This review is from our early days. It is true that lyrics are sometimes inspired by an idea or a book. However, it is not true that we do not use any other sources. The idea or the book only serves us as a springboard. But of course there are limits. We can never include all possible sources, positions and nuances in one article. It is therefore better to view our individual texts in the context of other articles on the same topic, some of which build on one another.

Another accusation goes in the direction that you report too close to the research, which sometimes makes the texts boring. Why do you rely so heavily on science?

Like good journalism, science seeks facts and truth. She also has solutions ready, she has a constructive approach. When I heard lectures from researchers during my studies, they always gave an outlook on what can be done specifically now. This inspiration is important to me: trying things out, experimenting, also improvising – but definitely doing something once in a while.

Overall, many readers are losing trust in the media. Do you think your constructive journalism is helping to counteract this?

That’s what we often hear. People are frustrated by all the bad news, they don’t feel represented. Many turn away, and some even end up with conspiracy myths. Others, looking for alternatives, find us and write us things like: «I couldn’t take any more all the bad things that were happening in the world. Because of you I have more hope. I know that not everything is great, but I feel inspired again.”

But you still need more readers to finance yourself. In the end, is it the case that people want to hear positive things, but then always click on the negative headlines?

It’s harder for us to get attention because we don’t want to be flashy. When something upsets and polarizes, emotions arise and draw the reader in. But you can develop an awareness of that. Excitement headlines are like fast food: attractive but unhealthy. When it comes to nutrition, many people make conscious decisions. And I think more and more people are doing the same when it comes to media consumption.