“But there is also something I have learned.” It was this short sentence, uttered during an interview by a homeless woman in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, that acted as a turning point for journalist Cathrine Gyldensted. Her dissatisfaction with journalism, which had slowly been building up during her decade-long career as a TV correspondent, investigative reporter, and presenter came to a boiling point.

Gyldensted chose for a radical departure from journalism’s sole focus on highlighting existing problems and keeping a watchful eye on those in power. It was time for a new approach to journalism. Together with Karen McIntyre, an assistant professor in the School of Journalism and Communication at the University of Oregon, Gyldensted developed the concept of constructive journalism. Which is a way—or more precisely, many ways—to develop a journalism that tells the full story: not just the bad, but the good as well; not only the problem, but also the response.

More than a mirror

The interview with the homeless woman, whose name was Bonnie Jacks, remains a vivid memory in Gyldensted’s mind. Gyldensted recalls how she already had the answers she needed for the story and was wrapping up the conversation when the comment came. She asked what Jacks meant, to which she replied that there were multiple things she had learned through her homelessness: that she was stronger and more resilient than she ever imagined, that her confidence had grown, and that there are people everywhere who are willing to help.

Gyldensted reflects: “I saw her as a victim, and that shaped the kinds of questions I asked her. But now that she refused to be a victim, I was forced to ask different kinds of questions.”

Thus began Gyldensted’s journey, which culminated in the book ‘From Mirrors to Movers’. In it Gyldensted describes constructive journalism as “exploring possibilities.” “Constructive journalism examines dilemmas from all angles and suggests solutions. It does not ignore or downplay problems; instead, it focuses on how these problems can be solved.”

It’s possible to critique power through other pathways than only negative scrutiny.

According to Gyldensted journalists mistakenly see themselves as mirrors, merely reflecting what happens in society. She points out that journalists do, in fact, influence society through their stories: in their style of reporting, framing of topics, and choice of sources. These stories often shape public opinion and even political decision-making. And if the public only ever hears about problems, it becomes nearly impossible to envision solutions.

According to Gyldensted, constructive journalism does not need to come at the cost of hard-hitting reporting that holds power to account. Rather, it can do exactly that, just a bit differently. “It’s possible to critique power through other pathways than only negative scrutiny.”

Gyldensted addresses this topic nearly every day in her work as a trainer and advocate for constructive journalism, yet she remains as genuinely engaged as if she were just starting out. Her approach to journalism mirrors her character: open, constructive, and willing to examine things critically.

And although the surroundings were anything but – Gyldensted happened to be in a Copenhagen indoor mall during our video call- the conversation we had was an inspiring one.

What does constructive journalism add to the journalistic toolkit?

We’ve had a lot of back and forth in the community on this question. One area we all agree on is finding alternative ways to hold power accountable. For instance, asking: “Will you solve this? Here is someone doing positive work. Will you steer in that direction? Why or why not?” Another shared focus is on representing the world more accurately, which opens up many paths and methods that could be applied.

I know that’s a broad answer, but I’m actually trying to be precise. If I said it’s only a solutions approach, a style of interviewing, or a depolarizing technique, that would just be a fraction of the truth. Those are just a few techniques being used, but there are many more.

The German investigative reporting non-profit Correctiv, for example, are pioneering participative investigation methods like involving audiences in their investigations. They share their knowledge with people and ask them for input, also on solutions and paths forward concerning the issue they are investigating.

In the Netherlands, De Correspondent adopts a similar approach of co-creation and communication with audiences. They also share the learning curve: the journalists are transparent about what they know and what they don’t know.

So constructive journalism can involve a range of techniques and methods. What role does solutions journalism —reporting on solutions to problems—play in all this?

The Solutions Journalism Network, one of the main proponents, has a very systematic method. They have this rigor because, early on, they faced a lot of skepticism. They needed a watertight method to avoid being delegitimized by [journalistic] peers. Now, more than ten years later, it’s less controversial.

Sometimes I feel the strictness can discourage new thinkers from entering the field, as they think they need to follow twenty steps to qualify as solutions journalism. Personally, I prefer to see it more as a mindset. I believe individual journalists are equally equipped to develop their own constructive methods, just as those of us active in the field are.

Would that also be your message to anyone aspiring a more constructive form of journalism?

Yes, I would encourage journalists to think creatively about how to add elements that uncover things we currently overlook. Don’t be afraid to try your own methods or ideas. As long as we share the overall goal of asking ourselves: How can we portray the world more accurately? What’s missing here? How can we break the pattern of one-way communication and co-create more? And how can we keep power accountable through methods other than just negative scrutiny? If you ask yourself these questions, I’m sure you’ll find ways to create new methods.

In your book, you describe how journalists don’t just reflect the world but actively shape it through their storytelling. How do you think journalists should cope with the tension between being perceived as neutral and objective and the impossibility of this?

In From Mirrors to Movers, I argue that everything we as journalists put out into the world will influence it in some way; it will move something. We should be aware of this responsibility: if we are moving things, in what directions are we moving them? I’ve received a lot of pushback for pointing this out, perhaps because it gives journalists a much bigger responsibility than we have been able or willing to take on.

However, I think it’s much more authentic and trustworthy to share with your audiences what your position is, because then they’re able to assess you in a much more transparent way than when we claim neutrality, but aren’t really neutral.

So, transparency is the answer?

Yes, I personally think so. And I also think it’s a depolarizing approach, because if you don’t hide who you are and show that you are aware of your biases, you’ll reach a larger audience beyond those who already agree with you. People value transparency and honesty.

We ended the call by comparing notes about where to find information on lobbying activities in the Netherlands and Denmark. Both countries are less than transparent about this issue, so the topic would make for a great cross-border exposé, we speculated.

After all, old habits die hard.