The phenomenon Donald Trump - did the media cause it? | Ulrik Haagerup | TEDxLinz

Nowadays we are all scared; everywhere you look there are headlines about war, economic crisis, murder, etc. We live in a world where politicians and journalists follow media criteria to become popular, and this is how we build populists but not leaders. Look at the Pulitzer Prize or the World Press Photo. All the winning stories are about drama, war, and other bad things that happen around the world. Are there no positive stories to tell? Journalism should be an inspiration to solve problems and to see the world with both eyes.

Ulrik Haagerup is the Executive Director of News at the Danish Broadcasting Corporation, where he has established a "constructive journalism" program.

This talk was given at a TEDx event using the TED conference format but independently organized by a local community. Learn more at http://ted.com/tedx

I'm a journalist -
I know, sorry about that.

I think the world needs
better news more than ever.

I'm here today to tell you
how and why I have to change,

my colleagues and the news
industry has to change,

and how we can reinstall journalism

as an authority in societies
where there are none left.

It's not easy, but we need to do it.

Sometimes you need to step
in front of the mirror

and take the consequence of what you see.

Normally, in the news industry,
we just break the glass,

but maybe we need
to shape up a little bit.

And I went into journalism 30 years ago

because I wanted to tell
important stories to people

about their lives and the world,

in order for them
to make up their own lives.

And then my career went on,

and suddenly I realized
maybe I spent most of my time

doing stories that were good
for my career,

that my editors liked,

that created good headlines,

that were being quoted,

won me prizes,

and was part of the news culture
that I had become part of.

And that part of doing good for society -

maybe I'd forgotten that a little bit.

Not that I was telling stories
that were untruthful,

but my ambition about doing
something that was right,

maybe I'd forgotten that a little bit.

And that's the problem.

Have you ever thought
about journalism, saying,

"Why are you so negative?"

Have you ever thought about that?

If you do, you're not alone.

Millions of people around the world
have left traditional news

because they think
news is too depressing,

it is disengaging.

Especially women, especially young people,
turn their backs on traditional news

because now they have alternatives.

They just go on Facebook

and be reassured
about their picture of the world

from their 255 closest friends.

Is that good for democracy?

Maybe not.

Maybe we need to do something.

But each time somebody
has criticized me or my colleagues

for being too negative,
doing something wrong,

we just stonewall them.

And we say to politicians,

"You just want to avoid
our critical questions."

CEOs criticizing us - we say,

"You just want free airtime."

Professors in journalism,
whatever, academia comes and say,

"You do something wrong,"

we say, "You are sitting in your tower;

you know nothing about journalism.

You're not journalists;
we won't listen to you."

And our neighbors -
they're just plain stupid.

So all the time people
are accusing us of something,

we say we're just journalists,

and we do what journalists
have always done.

So shut up.

We know best.

I'm here today to tell you:

maybe not.

This is the fact.

Do you know Editors' Day?

We in Denmark, we have Editor's Day.

You know, the day of the cat,
the day of the dog,

the day of mothers,
and whatever - Mother's Day.

We have Editor's Day
where editors are good to editors

because that's the only time of year
anyone is good to editors.

So we do great speeches for each other
telling us we are in the trust business,

and everybody applauds.

But look at this -

this will go in your country as well,
but this is Danish figures.

Who do people believe?

Which professions do they trust?

And we go up here, and we see nurses.

And down here, where are we?

Real estate agents, journalists,
and car dealers, politicians.

If they had put prostitutes,
they would have been somewhere up here.

People don't trust us even though
we say we're in the trust business.

We are in trouble.

And if we keep on doing
what we normally do,

we'll probably end up getting
the same results that we've always gotten.

We need to change something.

I was lucky enough to talk
to Helmut Schmidt,

the former Chancellor of West Germany.

Two years ago,

he was at that time 95 years old,

he had just got
a new girlfriend - she was 80.

So I thought there is hope for everyone.

And this man,

knowing about democracy, politics,

and being a publisher of Die Zeit,
also about media,

he said something very important.

He said we live
in media democracies now,

where media have become
more influential than politicians.

Because in media democracies,

politicians care more
about their own reelection

than about solving problems of people
five years from now.

So they spend all their efforts
talking into the media's news criteria.

And if the media's news criteria
are conflict, crooks, drama, and victims,

which are the tabloid news criteria
being adopted by even serious TV stations

and serious newspapers
all over the Western world,

then journalism and politics
become tabloid.

And then Helmut Schmidt said,
"News media no longer help democracy.

It's so full of negativity,

and media democracies
produce populists, not leaders."

And then he mentioned one person -

it was Berlusconi -

as one example of a populist.

I was wondering if Helmut Schmidt
didn't die one year ago,

who do you think he would have mentioned?

And the question is did we create
Donald Trump in the media?

We were part of it.

Donald Trump got free airtime
in news media in 2015,

at a time when he was not big,

for 1.9 billion US dollars.

Even though he's a billionaire,

he didn't spend any of his own money,
because he got free airtime.

And as he said, "Media loves me."

Because why?

Because he creates conflict,

he creates drama,

and he divides everybody
into crooks and victims.

Crooks - that's the Mexicans
and the Muslims -

and the victims are all of you.

But you are losers; I'll make you winners.

Vote for me.

That was what happened.

We have to ask ourselves
important questions.

One is what is actually journalism?

Carl Bernstein of the Watergate coverage

once told me -

which I've never forgotten,

I think it's the best
definition of journalism -

"Journalism is not stenography.

Journalism is the best
obtainable version of the truth."

So my moment of truth
came one Friday night,

one year after I got my present job
as news director at DR.

So I was in charge
of all the news, also on TV,

and I was coming home late,
Friday evening.

You know, Friday evening,
you come home late.

"Ah, finally, weekend!"

And you are sitting there -

the wife is beautiful,
and the kids are clean,

and there's red wine in the glass,
and there's jelly in the jar,

and there's a movie later,
and who knows what will happen?

It will be a fantastic weekend!

But first, we have to watch the news
because that's what grown-up people do

in order to get the best
obtainable version of the truth, right?

So here it came.

Welcome to TV Avisen.

There's a terror threat against Denmark.

Shooting incident in Copenhagen.

New regional trains
not delivered on time -

they're from Italy; what did they expect?

Cervical cancer is now
a danger to young girls.

Strike among bus drivers continues.

Woman abducted and abused
in a cottage in Sweden -

we have the pictures ...

of the cottage.

The crisis in the Social Democratic Party.

An old man runs for President
in US in a crisis.

Court case about an airplane accident
with a few hundred dead people begins.

And suppressed North Koreans work out.

A giant mechanical spider
creates fear in Liverpool.

Finally, the weather forecast:
the rain continues.

Have a nice evening!

(Laughter)

And I was - I was watching this.

I was saying, "What is this?"

None of these stories

are not traditional good stories
fitting in sound news criteria,

but is that an accurate picture
of the world in Denmark that day,

or is it just what we call news?

The problem is that
I started reading newspapers,

watching satellite television
all over the world,

and I saw global illness.

All over the world,

we think a good story is a bad story.

The rest is not.

I went to the BBC to have a talk for them.

I was very proud,

and I took a screenshot
of that morning's bbc.com page

for BBC News to see -

because we all look at BBC

because what they do
is the right journalism.

So we went there, and I just said,

just see the world, the best obtainable
version of the world that day.

And you can go today,
and you will probably see the same thing.

But just see the words
they're using in their headlines:

it's all about misery, wars,
people being killed, bad weather,

whatever.

This is good news, bad news.

Who wins the prizes?

Every photographer in the world
wants to win this prize:

the World Press Photo competition.

So they point their cameras

to what they think is the right
filtering of the world, right?

So look at the category
"News Pictures" in 2015.

Fantastic pictures!

But it's the only kind of pictures
that we think are good journalism.

Pulitzer Prize Winners 2015.

Great journalism,
but just look at the words there.

None of the stories are bad;
it's great journalism.

But it's the only kind of journalism

that is the right kind
of journalism in our culture.

We have to understand
that journalism is a filter,

a filter between reality
and the public perception of reality.

So if we now look at
the public perception of reality,

what do we find?

Asking people in this country
or in my country,

"Are you now more secure or less secure
than you were 10 years ago?"

People say, "I'm less secure.
It's a very scary world."

And we ask them, "Why?"

They say, "Because of all the murders,

because of all the crime,
the terrorism, the wars."

And we say, "Where? In your city?"

They say, "No, in television.

And on headlines and online.

It's everywhere!"

And we say,

the facts of the world is the murder rate
has never been lower in Denmark.

The crime rate has never been lower.

The amount of traffic accidents
hasn't been as low

as since they invented the car.

In the history of mankind,

we have never had so few people
killed in wars as right now,

despite Syria.

But do people know that?

No, because we don't report it.

We haven't had so few deaths
due to terrorism in Europe since 1954.

Do people know that?

No, they don't
because we don't report it.

Not because we are telling lies,
but we forget to tell the perspective.

People have started looking into this.

Professors test people.

It does something to your mind.

Negativity controls news flow

and, therefore, also politics
and the public debate.

Apathy or fear is the result.

The risk is that people not only
deselect media as sources for news,

but also that they disengage
in the public debate.

And if I do that as a journalist,
as an editor, a news director,

I do a shitty job.

I have to do something different.

This guy does content analysis
all over the world -

what is printed as news,
what goes into TV and online.

And he concludes this:

"Negativity is an illness caught
by even serious newspapers,

magazines, and not the least,
TV news broadcasters all over the world.

The problem is not
that their numbers are wrong;

the problem is that
the picture, it's wrong."

Look at this.

Asking people in different countries
about important issues -

what are the facts,
and compare that to the facts.

Look at France, for instance.

How many people are Muslims in France?

The right number, in 2014
when this was done, is 8%.

Let's say it's 8 point something today.

But the average French voter

thinks that almost one-third
of all Frenchmen today are Muslim.

If you have in your mind that one-third
of your country has become Muslim,

who do you vote for?

Look at the United States -

1% Muslim population,

but the average American voter
thinks that the number is 15%.

And look at this -
how big is unemployment?

Look at Italy - they have
a big unemployment rate at 12%,

which is high.

But the Italians think that almost
half of the population are unemployed.

Where does that come from?

Look at the United States -

they had an unemployment rate of 6%.

During the American election,
it was down to 4.5%.

But the Americans think
that the unemployment rate is 32%.

Who do you vote for then?

Our news culture is still:

a good story is a bad story,
and if nobody gets mad, it's advertising.

We say - it comes from America -

"If it bleeds, it leads."

That's the idea.

Not anymore; it's not true anymore.

Things are going down.

So we need to change.

Einstein said, "Without changing
our pattern of thought,

we will not be able to solve
the problems we created

with our current pattern of thought."

Introducing constructive news.

What is that?

Is that some kind of North Korean
version of journalism,

where you ignore all problems
and paint the sky blue?

No, it's not.

It's not happy news.

It's not the cute little story
before the weather

about cats coming down from trees
and other cats on YouTube on skateboards

so we can help people kill time.

No, it's about serious matters.

It's a supplement.

There's a need to supplement
our news criteria.

People need inspiration to solutions -

stories that focus on ways out and hope.

And constructive news
is about possibilities

and people who do something
the rest of us might learn from.

It's about seeing the world
with both eyes,

not only the eye

that will confirm the angle we had
when we started researching.

That will be new.

Look at this:

News, breaking news -

more and more news organizations
are focused on speed.

We think we can beat Twitter.

We can't.

The focus on breaking news is now,

the goal is speed,

the questions are What? and When?,

the style is dramatic,

we play the role of police -
dramatic and conflict.

And investigative reporting
is something different -

I think there's too little
investigative reporting.

It's expensive; it's difficult.

But it's all about yesterday;
it's about placing blame

to find the guilty.

We ask the question Who? and Why?,

we've been critical.

We play the role of prosecutors

sometimes judge,
and we look for crooks and victims.

And constructive journalism
is adding to this.

It's about tomorrow;
it's about inspiration.

We ask the questions
Now what? and How?,

and we are curious,

and we are facilitators of a public debate
about a better tomorrow.

We focus on solutions and best practice.

When we do stories about lack of doctors
in rural districts in Denmark

we do all kinds of stories -

the consequences, people die
because there's no doctor.

And we ask the minister,
and they don't know.

They say, "It's not my fault,
it's my predecessor."

Or it's the regions, or whatever.

We do all kinds of stories.

The constructive angle
is looking at other countries.

Have they had the same problem?
And what did they do?

Look at Norway

How do you get people to move from Oslo?

2.400 kilometers up there,
there's a doctor.

It turned out, they had a problem.

People didn't want to live there
because it was dangerous -

no doctors.

They had to do something.

And we did a story about what did they do?

Lower interest rates low
for studio loans, and whatever.

And that enhanced the quality
of the public debate.

Journalism is a filter.

It's a feedback mechanism
to help society self-correct,

and we have to remember that.

Does it work? Yes.

93% of all people in Denmark
now use news for DR.

They didn't before.

We're now the most trusted news brand,
both on radio-TV and online.

And we're now also the biggest
news show on Danish TV,

and we weren't before,
I can assure you that.

This is a mega-trend.

People are trying to experiment
with this all over the world.

Not being very successful

because it's difficult
to change the culture.

Constructive journalism
answers the question

of why public media and
quality journalism matters to society.

It gives our news a clear purpose.

"People who relate to constructive stories

are more engaged in them
than traditional news,"

say people working at the Huffington Post,

which is why it's becoming
the biggest news provider in the world.

Even the BBC has now,

one month ago,

decided that they will implement
constructive journalism

because they could see they
have a problem.

They call it solution-focused journalism.

There's a book out - it's even in German,

now in Chinese,
Mandarin soon, very nice.

And as this changed,
this just took a rundown of our news.

The other day - eight years ago
since we started this -

the mindset changed,
the culture changed in our newsroom.

And just to see the words in there -

I won't go through them,

but just look at the weather
forecast at the end.

Even the weather is better!

(Laughter)

So nothing is more powerful
than an idea whose time has come.

And you know what?

Bob the Builder has a slogan,
which Obama stole from him.

[can we fix it, yes we can!]

And I think there's
a need for us to change,

and we need to do it more now than ever.

We need to remember
what journalism should do in society.

We need to be a trusted source for news
if we want to be meaningful.

Not because of journalism,
to save journalism,

not because to save the news industry

but to help democracy
and the societies we serve.

It's about time, and can we fix it?

Yes, we can!

Thank you very much.

(Applause) (Cheers)