What started as trigger warnings before movies—designed to protect audiences from potentially harmful material—has now found its way into journalism. This evolution represents a fundamental shift in how we consume information about our world.
What is journalism? At its core, journalism is the process of collecting, verifying, and presenting news and information to the public through various media, aiming to inform and foster public discourse. By this bare-bones definition, your mom’s top 10 knitting needle blog post could technically count as journalism. But authentic journalism transcends such simplistic categorisation.
Journalism exercised through a free and independent press serves as a mirror to society. It critiques the world’s most powerful and holds bad actors accountable when they transgress against the public interest. Journalism is society’s voice—our last hope when the powerful begin tipping scales in their favor. When those with authority or wealth start to play rough and people get hurt, journalism holds them to account. It gives us hope that we won’t simply be flattened by elected officials or billionaires who could purchase small countries for their personal amusement. Journalism is our tool to expose wrongdoing and protect the public.
Unfortunately, this watchdog function means that most news we consume is negative. But this is the necessary consequence of telling real stories that actually affect ordinary citizens. Just as powerful films tackle uncomfortable truths about life, effective journalism must confront difficult realities—regardless of how unpleasant they may be.
Solutions journalism, however, represents the trigger warning concept on steroids—a fundamental reimagining of journalism’s purpose that may undermine its essential role in society.
The four pillars of Solutions Journalism
According to the Solutions Journalism Network, there are four main pillars that the solutions journalism framework is built upon: 1) Response, 2) Insight, 3) Evidence, and 4) Limitations. Let’s examine each of these pillars critically:
The Response
It seems telling that this framework begins with discussing the response rather than the actual problem—perhaps to shield readers from any undue harm to their mental health. By focusing on the response first, we’re primarily introduced to those trying to solve the issue, while those responsible for creating it conveniently fade into the background. This approach raises a crucial question: “Whose response exactly?”
That’s worth unpacking. Whose response are we examining? A response is invariably driven forward by specific groups with their own agendas. This type of reporting dangerously resembles puff pieces. Despite potentially noble intentions, training journalists to highlight the efforts of specific organisations rather than the issue itself—and those responsible for creating it—represents a slippery slope toward public relations rather than journalism.
Insight
This is where journalists are supposed to frame the reader’s perspective on why they should care about this specific issue. But insight without context can be misleading. When we prioritise solutions over problems, we risk presenting a sanitized version of reality—one where complex social issues are reduced to neat narratives about well-meaning interventions. The “insight” becomes not about understanding systemic problems but about celebrating incremental fixes that may address symptoms rather than causes.
Evidence
Traditional journalism is no stranger to evidence—facts and verified information form the backbone of credible reporting. However, in solutions journalism, there’s a much larger opportunity for confirmation bias to infiltrate the narrative.
Remember, we start with the response, not the problem. This framing predetermines the story’s direction. If the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is focusing on eradicating polio in poverty-stricken African countries, the foundation essentially controls the narrative: “We are working on eradicating polio” becomes the story. Within this framework, where can journalists objectively evaluate the facts? It transforms journalists into amplifiers of organizational messaging rather than independent investigators.
This approach leaves little room for critical examination of the issue itself. It becomes a tool for well-funded organizations to have their narratives disseminated by journalists under the illusion of objective reporting. By focusing predominantly on the response, the objectivity necessary to assess the underlying issue becomes compromised.
Limitations
Finally, we reach what appears to be an afterthought in these writing guidelines. After amplifying the response effort and praising those involved—often without sufficient evidence to support an objective narrative of the issue—journalists are instructed to acknowledge where the response effort might fall short.
Only now do we place the response effort into context, offering readers some indication of where the initiative might be inadequate. This relegation of limitations to the final pillar underscores how solutions journalism risks prioritising feel-good narratives over comprehensive analysis.
Solutions Journalism in the classroom
Perhaps the most concerning aspect of this trend is that the Solutions Journalism Network, backed by massive philanthropic organisations, has successfully lobbied to have its four pillars taught in university classrooms. We’re witnessing a fundamental shift where journalists are no longer merely instructed to produce these types of articles in the workplace; they’re being indoctrinated with this approach during their formative educational years.
Even more alarming is what appears when searching “What is Solutions Journalism” online. One of the first resources is a YouTube video produced by the Columbia Chronicle, the official student-run news publication of Columbia College Chicago. Rather than explaining the concept with clarity, the video primarily extols how this writing style can amplify voices from LGBTQ+ communities and spread awareness about mental health issues. The irony is striking: in a video titled “What is Solutions Journalism,” the actual concept of solutions journalism is barely addressed, while its supposed capacity to amplify ‘responses’ is celebrated throughout. There’s virtually no substantive discussion of how to implement solutions journalism or what the framework actually entails.
This trajectory raises profound questions about the future of news reporting. What immediately comes to mind is how accountability journalism appears to be fading into obscurity. The risk is palpable: corporations with sufficient budgets can now leverage their financial resources and influence to commission advocacy pieces disguised as legitimate journalism. These pieces muddy the waters by highlighting their purported societal contributions while effectively shielding themselves from meaningful criticism.
The voice of society—that essential function of journalism—is being muzzled before our eyes. Rather than pushing back against this trend or exposing the hypocrisy, many news publications appear content to cash in on this lucrative new model. The watchdog role of journalism isn’t merely being neglected; it’s being systematically replaced with a framework that prioritizes positive narratives over uncomfortable truths. In our quest to avoid distressing our audiences, we may be sacrificing the very purpose that makes journalism indispensable to a functioning democracy.
