Thank you so much for the award, and thank you very much, too, for allowing me the opportunity to speak here today. I would like to use this opportunity to make us more aware of how more and more people in my own field of research, that is, journalism, are endeavouring to do what Signe referred to: namely, to become something more for more people.
But I'm not going to leave it at that. Because maybe all of us who work at a university - as researchers, as lecturers or in some other capacity - actually have something to learn from journalists when it comes to becoming even more relevant to an even larger part of society.
Let's see if we can't cover both. So let's get started:
Many of you may have already noticed it. But these days, we are witnessing a quiet revolution in newsrooms across the media world. There are no hails of bullets in the newspapers, no bomb craters in the TV studios, no wounded journalists in bandages, injured photographers in plaster casts or dead editors-in-chief being followed to the grave by huge processions of mourners.
No, the quiet revolution is just that. It is quiet. But it is also important, and it can affect how we all experience the world around us. Because the quiet revolution is about more and more news media, both at home and abroad, starting to reflect the world in new ways.
Historically, many news media's reflections of the world can perhaps best be described as what I call in a book from last year - the one you can see up behind me - the Devil's Mirror Syndrome.
Devil's mirror
This description was inspired by a local - now long dead - communicator, and perhaps there are some people here in the audience who can remember from where the concept of the 'devil's mirror' and this illustration of the mirror originated?
That's right. The drawing comes from one of the first editions of Hans Christian Andersen's The Snow Queen, which includes a mirror made by the devil himself. The devil's mirror has the extraordinary function that everything good in the world fades out and disappears in the reflection, and everything bad in the world stands out and is even magnified, making the world seem more... well, devilish.
This description of the devil's mirror in many ways matches the media's reflection of the world. Every day, new and urgent societal problems need to be found and communicated about. These problems are conflicts, they are disasters and many other forms of human misfortune that fill the news media.
But in recent years, more and more journalists and editors have started to reflect the world in new and more constructive ways. In real terms, this means that in more and more news media you can also find stories about things that are going well or things that we can all be inspired by. It could be a municipality that has found a way to solve childcare issues. A region finding new efficient ways to manage hospitals, or perhaps a company that has found new climate-friendly production methods. Because the world is also like that.
But the evolution of constructive journalism is not easy. It requires journalists to look at the world with a new, less diabolical eye. And how difficult it can be to look at the world with new eyes is something you will now have the opportunity to try for yourselves, and in this context I would like to give three specific examples of the difficulties journalists - and all of us - face when looking at the world in new ways and with new eyes.
Blind spots
First of all, it is important to understand that some things are simply invisible to the human eye. To exemplify this, take out the paper you were given, hold it out in front of you - with your right arm outstretched. The plus sign should be on the left side of the paper. As you see it on the screen behind me.
Now you should also cover your left eye with your left hand and, when I tell you to, slowly bring the paper closer to your face while looking at the plus sign. But try to watch the spot out of the corner of your eye as you move the paper closer. You can start now.
Is something happening? Yes, the spot disappears when you hold the paper at the right distance, and that's because all of us - including journalists - have blind spots. Including in a physiological sense. There are some things that we simply can't see and, therefore, that we can't tell others about.
Predisposed - Young Woman, Old Woman
Another problem with how journalists view the world is that we humans can be predisposed to see the world in particular ways. The illustration behind me is a well-known example of this. Many of you have probably seen this illustration before. The title reads: Young Woman, Old Woman. And in fact, the image contains both.
Can you see them both? If not, it might help your vision if I mention that the chin of the girl is the nose of the older woman? Or that the girl's ear is the woman's eye? What each of us is predisposed to can be caused by many things, but among students it's often the guys - without girlfriends - who see the girl.
But not only can journalists - and the rest of us - have blind spots and be predisposed to see the world in particular ways. We can also be indoctrinated.
Indoctrinated - Jesus figure
To experience what it's like to be indoctrinated to see the world in certain ways, take out the paper again. Now listen carefully.
When I say so, but only when I say so, look intently at the centre of the black blob on the paper. Do this for half a minute, and when the time is up, look up and look at something white. Perhaps the edge of the paper or the wall.
I'll keep track of the time, and it's important that you make an effort not to blink or look anywhere other than the exact centre of the blob. Are you ready? OK, let's begin.
The time is up, and you can look up. Is something happening? In my experience, when I do this exercise with journalists or journalism students, up to a third of them suddenly experience something appearing before their eyes.
It is, of course, Jesus. And don't worry: those of you who haven't seen Jesus yet will have the pleasure later. What often happens is that the face appears a little later. Maybe even in the middle of my face, and these experiences always give me a certain extra authority when I teach or lecture.
These three examples help to illustrate that we all have blind spots, that we are all predisposed or perhaps even indoctrinated to view the world in particular ways. Whether we are influenced by parents and teachers, spin doctors or professional sources and established working principles within a field.
Panopticon
For journalists, the consequence of these limitations in our way of looking at the world has been that for many years we have primarily focused on what is problematic. Every day, we have to find new problems. 'Bad news is good news,' as we like to say. Or as the Americans say: 'If it bleeds, it leads.'
But this diabolical view of the world - to borrow Hans Christian Andersen's words - are thankfully now being supplemented with new ways of reflecting the world. It is a task that involves finding new perspectives and approaches so that we can better understand what's happening around us.
The ambition is for journalism to become a kind of panopticon through which you can see most of the world in all its diversity. A panopticon that any of you who have spent time in a prison may be familiar with. Because prisons are designed to give prison officers the best possible overview of the prisoners.
How far should journalists go?
This type of constructive journalism, which also tells positive, enlightening stories, is gaining ground in many parts of the media world and is actually having a big impact here in Denmark. In my own research, I have sought to uncover, clarify and also illustrate what constructive journalism looks like today and how it is developing in an increasingly active direction.
For most constructive journalists, a good news story has become a story where a person, an organisation or perhaps another nation has solved a problem, and the coverage gives us a more complete view of the world and perhaps inspires us as readers, listeners and viewers. You could call it the angel's mirror, and it is a counterweight to the devil's mirror.
But there are also constructive journalists who go one or two steps further. Some journalists don't just talk about solutions and leave it up to citizens and decision makers to assess whether the solutions can and should be applied across society. No. Some constructive journalists actively keep pushing until someone outside the media does something to solve societal problems.
In some cases, well, journalists even start to get involved themselves and make an effort to help solve the world's problems - big or small. For instance, journalists can contribute to fighting climate change by finding more climate-friendly modes of transport when they go to meet their sources, or they can contribute as extra teachers during and outside of working hours if it turns out that children in their local area have trouble reading.
Proponents of constructive journalism will emphasise that you shouldn't just practice only one specific type of journalism. We need both the devil's mirror and the angel's mirror, and we need to uncover both problems and solutions, and maybe even in some cases engage ourselves directly in actually solving the biggest problems of our time - with the climate, with mental health and the like.
How far should researchers go?
Only time will tell how the journalists' reflections of the world will evolve. In journalism, a development is certainly underway. But maybe it's not only journalists who can start working with multiple approaches to the world, and maybe journalists are not alone in having blind spots, being predisposed or indoctrinated in terms of how we see the world.
In these times, I think a lot about whether we as researchers and whether we as a university can actually learn something from the evolution that journalism has been going through in recent years. Because maybe we also need to have a thorough discussion about how we reflect the world and whether we can work more constructively.
Can we also start moving to the right? Not in a political sense, and not because we need to get so far out there that we become activists. But perhaps we can also become a more directly constructive force in society without sacrificing our independence, neutrality, objectivity and other core values. Core values that we scientists share with journalists.
I haven't quite settled the matter myself. It probably requires - as we like to put it - more research. But it is perhaps worth remembering that we researchers actually have a great deal in common with journalists. In both fields we have to do research, and in both fields we have to communicate about our findings. Even though we researchers have an enviably larger amount of time for research and communication.
Maybe I'll learn something today. Maybe the conversations I will have during the rest of the Annual Celebration will make me realise how far we can go as researchers and as a university. Maybe my next book will be about that. In any case, I look forward to talking more about it. Both later this evening and when the celebration day is replaced by everyday life here at SDU.
But do give it some thought: whether we can actually become something more for even more people. Something that many journalists are working so hard for these days.
And with those words, it is time to say thank you. Thank you, again, for the award. Thank you for your patience during my speech. Thank you for contributing to my experiments, and good luck catching a glimpse of Jesus later tonight if it hasn't already happened for you. And first and foremost: have a really great Annual Celebration.