The constructive continuum: Roles, responsibilities, and notions of objectivity in constructive journalism

Constructive journalism has gained ground worldwide, but despite its growing influence in newsrooms and classrooms, it remains contested and ill-defined concept. Proponents of constructive journalism have not agreed on a single definition, and even supporters diverge in their understanding of its core principles. This lack of conceptual clarity has fueled myths, misunderstandings, and even derogatory labeling. While some degree of conceptual flexibility may have helped the movement gain traction, it has also become a hindrance—prompting some journalists, editors, and executives to coin alternative concepts and develop their own approaches. This article seeks to advance conceptual clarity by relating constructive journalism to the roles and responsibilities its founders have emphasized from the outset. It begins with a review of existing research on journalistic roles and then—based on a close reading of key works by the main proponents of the movement—proposes a new typology: the constructive continuum. This typology delineates similarities and differences between various forms of constructive journalism and more traditional approaches. The article concludes with a discussion of how constructive roles—and their embedded responsibilities—intersect with evolving understandings of objectivity among both practitioners and researchers.