so what’s your point?
At least three times this month I’ve overheard someone say, “I don’t read the news.” It’s too sad, too depressing and frankly all too understandable.
In a time of such rampant mis- and disinformation, rigorously fact-checked and skillfully crafted journalism upholds the flow of knowledge in society and plays a crucial role in sustaining democracy. And yet, the idea of an objective truth in present-day culture feels downright impossible.
Outrage with mainstream media is a sentiment shared across party lines. As the Guardian reports, “digital platforms, smartphones and the ubiquitous surveillance they enable has ushered in a new public mood that is instinctively suspicious of anyone claiming to describe reality in a fair and objective fashion.”
Journalists are taught it is their duty to create an informed public by reporting on the imminent dangers of the world. As Kendra Pierre-Louis says, “the idea motivating journalism is, if we tell you there’s a problem we’ve done our job, and it’s up to society to figure out what the solution is.” But is that sufficient anymore – or successful?
In an interview with Krista Tippett, journalist David Bornstein poses a provocative question: What happens to people when you keep feeding their fear and anxiety with threats but never nourish their sense of agency? “It’s like expecting your children to get better if you point out their deficits every morning. It simply gets human behavior wrong.”
Let’s look at a problem that many people are concerned about, like climate change. According to Media Matters, U.S. corporate broadcast TV networks (ABC, CBS, and NBC), aired a combined 8 hours and 25 minutes of climate-change coverage in 2025, down from 2023 at 17 hours. That’s less than 1% of overall news programming. No wonder 62% of U.S. adults say they “feel a personal sense of responsibility to help reduce global warming,” but 51% say they don’t know where to start.
This breaking news approach presupposes that armed with the facts people will take action. But in his book Moral Ambition, Rutger Bergman explains this illusion of awareness: that most news junkies, for example, who consider themselves “politically engaged” don’t do anything remotely resembling true political activity.
The “if it bleeds it leads” approach is also thought to satisfy the brain’s incessant search for threat, therefore completing the transaction and satisfying the consumer’s need. The sensational headline will catch our attention, sure — but it will almost always simplify complexity for the sake of a succinct angle, and it most certainly will not leave us feeling satisfied. With our brain’s threat system stuck in the on position, we also become both less effective and more suspicious, which in turn can foster a distorted sense of reality.
Not really a great model for generating repeat and satisfied customers.
Perhaps that’s why we’re so susceptible to content creators who peddle conspiracy theories on who to blame, or grifters-come-entrepreneurs selling a cure, or politicians who provide a strategy for removing a threat. They clearly define The Problem, and they offer The Solution. They satisfy our need for a story with a clear trajectory; a narrative with a beginning and an end.
Bornstein specializes in a style called solutions journalism, which shows that when news reveals what’s working (or promising), it “elevates the tone of public discourse by making it less divisive and more constructive... [which] allows communities to see better options and build agency and hope.”
But many journalists, as Bornstein notes, fear offering solutions will place them squarely in the realm of Activist: an identifier worth aversion, seen to carry a more radical bent and an inability to be objective. In her book What if We Get it Right, Dr. Ayana Elizabeth Johnson says this is similar in academia, where scientists grapple with how far they can go before their objectivity is challenged, “as if caring about coral reefs would make you less reliable in studying them.”
But I wonder if the threat newsmakers should be more concerned with isn’t seeming unserious but being ineffective. Something is broken in their relationship with the consumer, and I believe the solution lies in them offering one.
Solutions journalism offers a way to rebuild trust and engagement in an increasingly cynical world. A unifying vision that bonds enemies and makes real change feel possible.
In summary: you, who “can’t do the news?“ It was never a you problem, babe. You just need better sources.
The journalists I’m reading these days understand their job is to be in relationship with me, the reader: not a passive observer, but a participant. They dignify our entanglement with recognition that their job is not complete unless they have doubly made me care and offered me an avenue to do something about it.
In times as backwards as ours, true knowledge and critical thinking are essential. We need to stay informed about what’s happening in the world and also inspired. We have an unimaginable excess of news and content and we need to be critical of where to look, what to focus on and who to trust. Here are some outlets I am loving the deserve your time and attention; ones that provide dividends on your investment and will leave you feeling hopeful, resourced, and well-connected:
For action-based news in Canada: Giant, 350 Canada and Ecojustice
This ridiculously comprehensive directory from the Solutions Journalism Network’s directory, where you can filter by interest, type, and just about anything
Local news! It keeps us connected to our community and offers information on how to participate. You can also pitch them stories. Find them and invest in them as they are a dying breed here and everywhere
Stay interested, friends. The world is full of problems, yes – but there are solutions, don’t forget.