The inaugural roundtable was held in March 2020, in the lead up to the first anniversary of the deeply tragic mosque attacks in Christchurch. Reflection on this event prompted a desire within the media to have a sincere dialogue about its agency and civic responsibility to report free from racial, religious or ethnic prejudices, and more fully explore its role in helping to strengthen social cohesion in the public sphere.
A pre-circulated concept note provided the basis for the conversation, inviting dialogue and reflection in connection to the questions for discussion. The themes from this concept note explored: a shared sense of identity; human solidarity and recasting notions of power; and the quest for truth and the role of the media.
The group of journalists, editors, academics, students, community members and those from civil society organisations, reflected on how developments in technology and social media have heightened our sense of interconnectedness. Consensus emerged that disproportionate emphasis on our differences in the media have distorted conceptions of who we are as a society, when in fact we share a common humanity. The discussion examined the implications of this approach to reporting, and the potential for it to fray our social fabric. By reviewing the creativity of the Australian media during the 2020 Bushfires, and also in New Zealand in the aftermath of the Christchurch Massacre, the conversation further explored the power of collective action by both journalists and the community during times of crisis.
A key point raised during the discussions was that some media responses in times of crisis can offer examples of what it means to respond with common meaning and purpose and a heightened sense of compassion for one another. In such moments, media narratives can reflect back what emerges when communities work together with consensus and collective action. This approach enables reporting that looks beyond friction points as the dominant narrative and extends focus to the power of human solidarity and hopeful action.
It was also observed that the challenge is not to wait until moments of crisis but look to constructive efforts taken by society and build this into everyday reporting practice. Through this lens, our common humanity becomes “more than just an afterthought” and the media, as a social institution, can help to strengthen the life of society. It was identified that these two approaches do not stand alone and work in concert with each other. What emerged was the need to continually identify and address the challenge of commercial imperatives, including the development of creative and authentic approaches to media content in order to strengthen audience engagement, as well as greater transparency from the media to address declining levels of trust.
The discussion addressed prevalent business models that support public interest journalism and their sustainability, as well the rise of misinformation and disinformation. Philosophical questions such as “to what extent do the means justify the end?” helped unpack the ethical dimensions of media reporting that need to be explored in order to better identify how the media can play a constructive role in responding to social challenges.
One pathway suggested was extending current approaches to reporting by looking to ‘solutions’ or ‘constructive’ journalism, as part of a “full-cycle” of reporting. Regardless of public interest or commercial journalism, news journalism may not need to be limited to stereotypical extremes (clickbait populist versus responsible, “worthy but boring” journalism) but can, and should, explore reality in ways that engage audiences and inspire our common humanity both at once.
Detailed contributions have been captured in a highlights document as an aid for ongoing reflection on journalism practice.