Testing a modular approach for Solutions Journalism
How the four pillars of Solutions Journalism — Response, Evidence, Limitations, and Insights — map onto what readers actually want to know
The Solutions Journalism Network defines four editorial pillars:
- a response to a problem
- evidence that it works
- insights into the mechanism
- and a frank account of its limitations.
The Modular Journalism framework operates from a parallel premise: that readers arrive at a story with specific, information needs, and that good journalism answers them directly and if it doesn't then it's dysfunctional. When the two frameworks are mapped together, a pattern emerges. Readers asking "Is there a solution?" or "How can someone affect what happens next?" are in the Response pillar. Those asking "What evidence would falsify the main claim?" or "How large is the sample?" are in Evidence. The diagram below makes the alignment explicit. This, of course, does not mean the mapping won't need further research and testing.
At Buffalo's Fire 🔥, we are testing this concept to produce what I believe may be the first user-needs-based content management system. Contributors will answer core questions ("What are the key facts?" "Why is this important?" "What do key people say?" and "Who is particularly affected?"). Then, an AI agent we trained for trauma-aware reporting will parse the information and suggest other questions to go deeper into the story. Contributors have the freedom to answer any questions, but the AI mediation may make the process smoother. The result is a modular-first story with a solutions journalism approach.
We custom-built our modular backend to integrate seamlessly with the JSON architecture used by our content management system, Payload.
Thank you to Ashley Hopkinson from Solutions Journalism Network for her insights, and to Jodi Rave Spotted Bear for championing this. She is perhaps the first Editor-in-Chief to actually take modular journalism for a spin to build a story.
What's in the diagram below:
Each line connects a SoJo pillar (left) to a user information need (right). Needs are grouped by their primary pillar and sorted by editorial priority: core questions first, then important, then supplementary. Some needs appear under more than one pillar—these are cross-pillar connections where the same question serves multiple editorial functions. Tap on any need to see its full definition in the reference table.
Response
We categorized both systemic inquiries ("How can we fix it?", "Is there a solution?") and personal, actionable inquiries ("Where can I find support/services?", "How can I contribute/help?", "What rights do I have?") under the Response pillar.
Solutions Journalism is about reporting on how society or a system is attempting to solve a problem. It is not inherently advocacy or a service directory for the reader. Grouping personal legal aid questions with systemic responses dilutes the pillar; however, we chose to extend the scope here, taking into account the stories we want to tell at Buffalo's Fire.
Insights
In SoJo, an "Insight" is a replicable lesson—a takeaway that another community or organization could use to implement a similar solution. Historical context and timelines are essential for a good story, but they are foundational background, not the "insight" derived from the solution itself.
The sole exception is for the question, "Are there relevant related events?", which can capture insights in the form of context.
Evidence
The Evidence pillar risked acting as a catch-all for general scientific or data literacy. While data literacy is vital, the Evidence pillar in SoJo specifically demands proof that the response is actually working. The only exception is for "What is the methodology?", which should be interpreted as the methodology used to track the solution's success, rather than just the general reporting methodology.
Limitations
While this pillar seemed the most straightforward mapping with existing user information needs, it is also the one where we have a few questions that simultaneously serve as both evidence and limitations. The preference would be for unique mappings, so this will be put to the test and reevaluated.