Is it the responsibility of journalists to uncover and report solutions to social problems? Solution-journalism proponents argue “yes.” Solution journalism is a news model that treats the media as the answer to, not just the bearer of, negative news. It’s a seemingly straightforward idea, but it’s spurring more debate than its advocates may have expected.

The notion of solution journalism says that the news should not simply expose the world’s problems, but also offer examples of creative ideas and models that can be used to solve them. The media, when solution-oriented, can actively function as a platform for social innovation and positive change.

Newly emerging, solution journalism is not a widely recognized model in today’s media system. Instead, standard news reports, whether printed or broadcasted or transmitted online, primarily focus on conflict—and all of the death, destruction and disparity that comprise it.

But this system falls short, solution-journalism proponents argue, and is ultimately failing the public.

According to one major solution-oriented news organization called Dowser, the current status quo of journalism does a good job of showing people what’s wrong, but is much worse at explaining how things can be made right.

“[A]t Dowser, we believe that journalists need to go a step further: if we’re going to spend energy exposing serious problems … we should also present examples of how these problems can be solved,” Dowser reporter Blair Hickman writes in a June 9 article for the online news group.

As advocates like Hickman purport, reporting on conflict, though important, isn’t enough to guarantee anything other than a disgruntled mass of news consumers who feel more put off than inspired by the news they consume.

Indeed, a 2008 study conducted by The Associated Press confirmed this argument, revealing “the widespread belief that ‘all news today is negative.’”

“Over and over again in the study, the negativity of the news – tragedy, crisis, war, terror – added to the desire to tune out,” the AP stated in its report.

This “desire to tune out”, also known as news fatigue, is characterized by a less and less satisfying news experience that is causing the public to feel more and more powerless in changing it.

According to the AP study, many of its participants felt “so overwhelmed and inundated by news that they just did not know what to do.”

“Ultimately, news fatigue brought many of the participants to a learned helplessness response,” the study said. “The more overwhelmed or unsatisfied they were, the less effort they were willing to put in.”

And the public is experiencing a learned helplessness response not just toward the news, proponents of solution journalism say, but also toward the world at large.

Thus, instead of looking for ways to improve their local and global communities, people feel resigned to accepting the world’s shortcomings. In devoting so much news space and time to social problems, advocates believe, the media is fostering the viewpoint that people are stuck in a broken world with little hope of fixing it.

Without providing a set of possible fixes, solution-oriented reporters assert, journalism is failing to meet its most meaningful objective: to initiate progress.

Most people would hardly put down the ideal of social progress. And most would agree that good, in-depth reporting can and should be a part of that progress. The real question, though, is how actively? How purposefully? And with how much power?

All journalists hope their work will inform the public, raise social awareness and be a catalyst for change. But traditional journalists question whether it is really their job to track down and report specific ways of enacting that change. Some argue that doing so goes beyond their professional realm of responsibility and could even violate their professional code of ethics.

According to Kevin Z. Smith, chair of the U.S.-based Society of Professional Journalists’ Ethics Committee, the notion of solution journalism raises some interesting ethical questions about reporters’ role in effecting social change.

The primary danger of solution journalism, Smith says, is the very fine line that separates it from advocacy journalism, something most reporters know to be unethical. Advocacy journalism demands that journalists choose sides and give up their objectivity.

“[T]here are clear problems with advocacy in news reporting and that, of course, calls into question your intentions, who you think you're best serving and your motivations,” Smith told CIME.

If journalists begin presenting solutions, doing so without bias requires offering the bad solutions along with the good. Smith questioned whether journalists are prepared to do this.

“No one will likely argue that peace isn't a clear social issue to advocate for, but from which viewpoints and perspectives?” Smith said. “As [journalists] provide solutions, are they willing to hear the solutions from all sides or just the ones they think work best? And when that happens, then it's not news reporting anymore but editorializing.”

But while some conventional journalists question whether solution journalism constitutes ethical and objective reporting, its advocates argue solution journalism is not as radical or revolutionary as skeptics believe.

Dowser, along with other solution-oriented news groups like Worldchanging, views solution journalism as just another form of investigative journalism. As Hickman sees it, both solution journalism and investigative journalism are motivated by the belief that the media should be a device for correcting society.

“Most reporters seem to believe that exposing problems and bringing a critical eye to bear on events are the primary – even the only – ways to fix things,” Hickman writes in a July 15 Dowser article. “But as we’ve said before, a big part of effecting change is showing people what’s working. … That gets to the essence of journalism’s theory of change: providing information to society that allows it to self-correct.”

Jina Moore, a U.S.-based freelance journalist, offers a similar opinion, likening solution journalism to traditional journalism in that both, in their best forms, are simply investigating what works and what doesn’t, not advocating for or against any particular solution.

“[I]f we learn about an interesting approach to a problem, investigate how it works, and also ask tough questions about whether it’s really as good as its evangelizers claim – among other tough questions – then we’re operating as old-fashioned journalists, and I don’t see a dilemma,” Moore told CIME.

Smith agrees that some of the key elements driving solution journalism – being critical of how the media reports problems, demanding reporters ask better questions and wanting to see a different approach to stories – are all ways the public can improve modern media. However, Smith does not believe solution journalism is the same as old-fashioned reporting or that it will be accepted by the journalism community as such.

“[Outlining a] path to betterment … is a completely different take on journalism than most people in journalism see as being their sacred role,” Smith said. “One of the things that journalists are taught to ask in every story is ‘What's next?’ They are not expected to ask ‘What is the solution and how do I help you reach that?’”

Whether solution journalism is the best model for today’s reporters to follow is certainly a difficult question to answer. But as Moore puts it, more relevant than debating “whether solution journalism is abstractly and inherently a troubling animal” is this question: "Is this piece of journalism a good piece of journalism?"

Photo by joey.ganoza.