Journalists have to be critical. I have come across this phrase many times. But what does it mean to be “critical”, what does critical reporting actually look like and to what extent does it even contribute to us making hasty judgments?
In second grade, my report card read: “Ninjas questioned the facts critically.” Third grade: “She followed the lesson attentively and critically.” I remember being a little offended when I read that. I saw myself as a curious eight-year-old who had a lot of questions and wanted to understand everything in detail. My teacher also questioned things critically: “Your mother wrote that essay,” she once railed in front of the whole class. The fact that we had only been given the topic for class work in class didn't bother her in her argumentation. Her explanation: Ninja found out the topic in advance and told her mother, who wrote the essay at home, which Ninja then memorized to write it down during the class test.
The word “critical” has many faces and I think we need to look carefully at the nuances, when we use it to describe our work as journalists. “Critical” can mean both ‘carefully scrutinizing’ and ‘disparagingly judgmental’. In terms of journalistic work, it refers to the neutral point in reporting. It is important that we do not believe everything we are told. At the same time, we must be careful not to make our judgment before we speak to someone. The intention of critical reporting is a good one. For some time now, however, I have been observing a tone in texts and headlines that has slipped into the realm of disparagingly judgmental and is justified by the fact that we report critically and neutrally.
In my opinion, the word “critical” is due to its wide range of interpretations not the best match for the neutral point. In my search for a replacement, I came across the word “differentiated”. For me, differentiated means that we neither act like the spokesperson of the people we report on, nor twist their words around, that we neither whitewash or glorify nor dramatize and denounce. Last week, I read in the Spiegel Newsletter “Die Lage am Sonntag” that journalists have to be unpleasant. Be rather a jerk than too cuddly, editor-in-chief Dirk Kurbjuweit wrote. That sounds as if there's no middle ground in between. I think it's perfectly possible to have a constructive dialog, include multiple perspectives and treat your counterpart with respect without being uncritical or cuddly. And I can also do thorough research and question things without being an ass.
One example of this is investigative reporter and author Souad Mekhennet, who spent years as a security correspondent for the Washington Post looking behind the front lines of jihad and interviewing leaders of Al-Qaeda, the Taliban and IS. On the back of her book “I Was Told To Come Alone: My Journey Behind the Lines of Jihad”, journalist and news anchor Claus Kleber commented: “Her great book taught me not only facts, but what we obviously lack more than anything else: understanding.”
Political journalist and author Charlotte Wiedemann already wrote back in 2012: ” I argue for a humble and respectful journalism. Humble means that we are aware of the limits of our knowledge and the relativity of our judgments. Respect is first and foremost for those we write about [....] and at the same time for media users, who today are exposed to a numbing and sickening onslaught of contextless news.”
The Illusion of Knowledge
With so much information circulating in the form of snackable news, we think we know about people and situations. We forget that this scarce information is mostly superficial. “Hyper information gives us the illusion of knowledge”, said Elif Shafak recently at the opening of the Frankfurt Book Fair. We actually know nothing, or at least very little. But we don't like to admit it. “To say: 'I don't know' was an important starting point for philosophy, for literature, for communication and we lost that,” says Elif Shafak. Overestimating one's own knowledge and abilities in order to present oneself as competent is known in psychology as the Dunning-Kruger effect. Where maximum arrogance meets minimum self-doubt lies “Mount Stupid”. We like to stand on it and judge. That is human. It is much easier to judge people and their decisions than to examine their motives. Being empathetic is more complex. Since we humans like to be comfortable, we take the easy way out. And we journalists? We pave this path and make a beaten track out of it when we ourselves stand on “Mount Stupid” with preconceived opinions and continue to fuel the outrage spirals with our headlines.
Instead, we should use our access to people and background information to ask deep and honest questions, to understand better and to report in a differentiated way. Today, we call it “constructive journalism” when we include multiple perspectives, when we engage in constructive dialog with emphatic interest or include possible solutions in our articles instead of just complaining about the status quo. Christian Rickens criticized constructive journalism in the Handelsblatt Morning Briefing on 11.10.24. He said that talking to individual interviewees about possible solutions runs the risk of focusing too much on their agenda if, for example, they want to distract from a problem. He said he found constructive journalism difficult. At the same time, he promoted the current future issue of Handelsblatt, which follows exactly what constructive journalism demands and looks at opportunities from different perspectives. “60 ideas that will move Germany forward” is the title (very refreshing edition btw).
I understand Ricken's point about being careful not to slip too far in the direction of “whitewashing”. It´s valid. I also believe that, given our already strong focus on problems and our tendency to make hasty judgments, we need a move towards a more nuanced reporting. I think, the podcast episode shows how many people still misunderstand constructive journalism. It's not about Good News Only. Constructive journalism isn't a spiritual woo woo movement. It's rather a return to the basics of journalism such as “due diligence” and “respect for human dignity”, which we tend to overlook sometimes in the attempt to be neutral and critical and the pressure to keep our particular medium profitable.
Kommentar schreiben