Implementing Peace Journalism in the Media

Peace Review A Journal of Social Justice

ISSN: 1040-2659 (Print) 1469-9982 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cper20

Implementing Peace Journalism in the Media Metin Ersoy To cite this article: Metin Ersoy (2017) Implementing Peace Journalism in the Media, Peace Review, 29:4, 458-466, DOI: 10.1080/10402659.2017.1381514 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/10402659.2017.1381514

Published online: 07 Nov 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 116

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cper20

Peace Review: A Journal of Social Justice, 29:458–466 C Taylor & Francis Group, LLC Copyright ISSN 1040-2659 print; 1469-9982 online DOI: 10.1080/10402659.2017.1381514

Implementing Peace Journalism in the Media Metin Ersoy

Wars and conflicts have become mundane and repetitively ordinary elements of our lives in the Middle East. We are continuously exposed to news about conflict and war in an unprecedented pace through various media outlets; hence, violence has risen to occupy an inevitably integral element of our lives. The intensity of such exposure has also profoundly impacted perception of violence and war by individuals. Inexplicably, we are not threatened by its immediate presence, but embrace it as a legitimate construct whose occurrence is conventionally normal. The rhetoric and language consumed by the media and news on conflict affirms to our mind that war and conflict is the sole source of constructing and maintaining peace. While the frames used in the news presentations vividly display the grounds for war and conflict, we as citizens are requested against our will to consent to those callously brutal scenes as “right.” Nonetheless, every precinct of war, conflict, and violence inhabits the logic of inhumane death, bloodshed, destruction, and decrepit lives and ruined cities.

B

y presenting the fundamental role of peace journalism in professional life of media practitioners, my first aim is to look at the issues that journalists could encounter working in peace, conflict, and war settings. Second, I will discuss the principles journalists should pay attention to while composing news items, and how they can potentially contribute to progressive resolution of such conflicts and wars through implementing the ethical values of peace journalism. There is an attempt by different factions to prove that peace journalism is an “imaginary” journalism approach that has “low practicability.” The emphasis here is that practicing peace journalism can be influenced at the micro level (by the correspondent), while macro-level factors (institutional, editorial, and ownership) can have confluence with such practice. In the Middle East, where Cyprus is geographically located, war and conflict occupy a major portion of the everyday news items in the media. The recent upsurge in conflicts in the region, especially such conflicts as the

458

Implementing Peace Journalism in the Media

459

ongoing intense conflict in Syria, the increased activities of armed parties in Iraq, and prevalence of Israeli–Palestinian tension, has worsened the state of affairs in the region. We are docile audiences and spectators who are implicitly or covertly brainwashed with dogmatic rhetoric of language used by the media tycoons. What is more dramatic is that we do not even feel obliged to question these constructed messages. The biased form of this language not only nurtures the logic of violence and war, but also generates a far reaching dangerous and silent peril: xenophobia. Since hate speech, alienation, prejudices, and dogmatic ideas are transferred from generation to generation throughout history, all these are frequently seen in the news. Even after many years pass, we still can trace the remnants of the seeds of “hate” planted in our brains from since early age. Humankind cannot acquire the rancid feeling of “hate” simply on his or her own faculties. They are transplanted through formal and informal ways: through our parents, friends, teachers, school, and media. This is an incessant learning process in which there is no room for questioning and criticism. Once a country labels the other as “enemy,” “bad,” or “deserving of hatred,” it becomes hardly possible to escape such stigmatization. In the face of this impregnated hostile rational, individuals tend to receive and accept the information they are supplied with as “normatively legitimate,” hence they defend the cause of war and violence as the standard course of action to maintain and sustain peace. When the vocabulary of war and violence is presented as “the norm of maintaining peace” and communicated in a regular fashion by media, one can deduct that the war and violence are learned constructs. Quite the reverse, we can strive to infiltrate this disparaging language and advocate replacing it with the language and logic of peace.

M

edia has a crucially important role in endorsing the construct of “peace” and “language of peace.” Although journalists have a hard time accepting this role since it overshadows the “objectivity,” at the end of the day, I believe that it would be correct to take advantage of the power of media to establish a peace culture and language. Therefore, we must say that the concept of “peace journalism” includes ethical values that would serve the interest of the media in many countries in which there are ongoing wars and peace processes. These ethical values are open to continuous improvement. We witnessed in the 1990s that peace journalism can be a prolific tool to promote peace in the areas that were politically problematic. Peace journalism can also be developed to present an alternative way of understanding war and conflict. It thus has an inherent mechanism of expressing, criticizing, and questioning the conventional methods of journalism. It has introduced ethical principles to journalism. It challenges isolation of journalism from society, corruption, and unhealthy social paradigms. It brought forward the notion that

460

Metin Ersoy

some news are not made behind closed doors, but rather made in a fair, transparent, honest, balanced, and qualified manner. In other words, with peace journalism, journalists are asked to play a more active role against the issues that interest the community. It tells us to use more resources when making the news, and to be equal and fair to all sides. It is desired for journalists to do more research and enlighten the society.

H

ow can one implement peace journalism at the micro level and how could the media contribute to build a language of peace in the occurrence of war and conflict? The article, “Reporting on Conflict,” published by Cate Malek, may be a guiding light for us. In putting together a news item, the immediate first question we must as for ourselves is, “Do you really understand what is going on?” What this question tells us is that a conflict/problem can be more complicated than it seems. The underlying pretext may not only be what leaders and politicians prescribed, but possibly much broader than that. As journalists we must endeavor to understand all sides of the problem. According to Cate Malek, as a necessity of good journalism, it is necessary to make a conflict assessment and to pay attention to the roles all parties can play that are involved in the course of war and conflict. Another question a journalist whose duty involves reporting in peace/conflict/war settings must ask when composing a news piece is: “What are the underlying causes of the conflict?” Conflicting parties use simple, selfserving terminology when talking about disagreements. Therefore, there is a tendency for parties to see the conflict differently. The journalists’ task here is to help them reveal the causes of the conflict in a multifaceted way and to include as many and varied sources as possible in the news. What is meant by trying to find the underlying causes of the conflict is not to “find out who threw the first stone.” On the contrary, it means to enable the parties to understand that the other party can have their own reasons when discussing a conflict, to approach the issue from multiple aspects, and to establish empathy so that the parties understand each other. One very decisive aspect that needs to be considered in the peace/conflict/war settings is the written, verbal, and other relevant sources we use when communicating the events. It can become cumbersome to access resources at certain times. Parties to conflict, however, have their own statements of what is “right” and what is “wrong.” Journalists should have a balanced and fair approach when retrieving the information from their sources. We would definitely miss some facts if we only excavated our resources from diplomatic offices. As journalists we must be actively engaged in creating a diverse resource pool that would equally reflect the stories of multiple parties. This would be offered impartially and unequivocally to the reader and audience.


461

T

he most important obstacle in compiling a news item about peace/conflict/war is the language of the journalism. The mainstream media usually dominates in this context. In the mainstream media environment where the elements of negativity and conflict increase the circulation, the news are still being written within the orthodox methodology of mainstream media. This leads to polarization and the emergence of group conflict among different factions in the society. At this point, the media’s power should not be underestimated. Peace journalism should not amount to concealing and ignoring the elements of conflict. On the contrary, it is to bring forward the elements that can cause conflict in the future and discuss them through the channels of media. Henceforth, the art of using the language of peace interplays with the fact that we could eliminate the biased presentation of the issues. This could further mitigate our analysis of the issue as we can easily be polarized and surreptitiously deceived about the actual causes of the conflict and war. This practice promises to build a stronger dialog and shared understanding of discourse of the conflict and war and help avoiding mind-traps in drawing our individual conclusions. Majid Tehranian claims that “ethically responsible journalism is a sine qua non of peace journalism.” It is of course difficult to add new responsibilities to our existing ones as journalists. But during the peace process, it is vital to ask the essential question of “What can I do to help de-escalate a conflict?” We must be more rigorously unbiased, balanced, and fair in every news item we prepare about peace/conflict/war. We should be careful and vigilant as every single word and lexicon we use will shape the public opinion inadvertently. We must develop the habit of investigating, discussing, and creating dialogue to present the multiple perspectives on a conflict, war, and violence situation.

T

he first question that arises in an environment where many conferences or journalistic debates take place is: “Is peace journalism a novel invention?” With peace journalism, the aim is not to invent a new type of journalism. Peace journalism does not have the voracious ambition of “re-inventing the wheel.” Johan Galtung, a professor of peace studies, who is the pioneer of introducing the term into the academic community, knew that such a separation was against the spirit of the concept of “peace.” In other words, while claiming that the conventional journalism style has problematic aspects, it would probably be the last thing to say in the academic field that “these are bad and old, but we are good and we are new.” If this had been the situation, those who developed peace journalism would “hoist with their own petard.” We cannot practice journalism by burying our head in the sand like an ostrich. Peace journalism must clearly and fairly report unbiasedly on any conflicts/events that can harm the peace. A responsible journalist realizes that

462

Metin Ersoy

conflicts that are not addressed or are not communicated with an intention to advocate peace would aggregate to violence finally, and violence will create violence. Hence, peace journalism aspires to bring any kind of news that has a potential to transform into violence and disrupt the peace of the societies. Peace journalists have the moral duty to bring aspects of those conflicts into light, instead of hiding them. Thus, problems can be discussed and resolved with common sense instead of being stigmatized by the orthodoxy of mainstream media.

A

s a guest on a television show I was asked: “Does peace journalism make peace propaganda?” Peace journalism is creating a prejudice among journalists because its connotation is wrongfully perceived. The first prejudice is the prejudice that peace journalism is “separate” from current conventional journalism. Peace journalism is not a “separate,” but rather, it is a “different” style of journalism. It can be argued that new journalistic ethics are developed and improved to alleviate problematic parts of current journalism practice. The second prejudice is: peace journalism merely values news about peace. Rather than the visible aspects, however, peace journalism is more interested in the invisible aspects of conflicts, wars, and violence incidents. It can be argued that ongoing debates on peace journalism can contribute to the journalism practice if they are carried out in terms of the content of the concept rather than the name of the concept. When one discusses the concept of peace journalism in terms of the conditions in Cyprus, the first thing that comes into mind is the “Cyprus Problem.” In its essence, peace journalism is in fact much identified with the political process. Examining the news pieces in newspapers about the Cyprus Problem, one can conclude that the most prevalent articles and news concern the Cyprus Problem and negotiations. One then can quickly presume that such a conflict is among the two communities (Greek and Turkish Cypriots). Therefore, we might conclusively assume that the peace journalism is about the political problem in Cyprus between two communities. Yet it is, on the contrary, more than the sum of its parts. It is encompassing a broader scale. It brings insight of every aspect of an incident that could potentially have multiple impacts on human life and environment. For example, after the earthquakes in any part of the world, only making news about the visible aspects is not sufficing to practicing peace journalism. Following the earthquake’s psychological and social problems (hunger, thirst, tent shortage, electricity, gas problems, etc.) falls within the scope of peace journalism. These kinds of problems are problems that are not obvious, but can cause trouble in the future. So, in addition to the questions “how many buildings were destroyed in the earthquake?” or “which politician said what?” peace journalism asks questions that will reveal the invisible impacts of the earthquake to all living species in the region.


T

463

ackling prejudices, peace journalism supports peace rather than war. This is already an accepted, shared understanding following the ethics meeting held by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) in 1978, and again in the “Collective Communication Declaration” by UNESCO, which was published after the conference in Paris in 1978. Peace journalism, however, does not have an extreme optimism that provokes us to perceive life through pink eyeglasses. As an example of ethical standards, one could easily say that “hiding” a problem/event that occurred between ethnic groups in the name of “protecting the peace” is not a journalism style adopted by a peace journalist. Peace journalists actually report and communicate these kinds of problems so that people can find solutions to avoid further repercussions and possible conflicts and insurgencies. Every day, journalists deliver messages to a people, individuals, and to the society itself. With the slight amendments and revisions in the language of these messages, we can make big changes in one’s life. Regarding a process as “bad news is good news” leads to a dispiriting and sweltering state after a while. We see that the rise in news regarding murder, theft, larceny, rape, etc. covers increasingly more space in the newspapers. And yet very few journalists are trying to find ways of how to prevent/resolve these social problems by handing the microphone to different sources; one can contribute to the resolution of the problem. The “I just do my job and the rest is not my business” attitude shows that you are only interested in the visible aspect of the problem, but not the crux of its real cause. As Thomas Hanitzsch mentions, “journalism can contribute to the peaceful settlement of conflicts, but its potential influence is limited.” Here is the first question journalists should ask themselves: “For whom do I do journalism for?” Any conscientious answer to this question will lead you to success. Afterward, if one continues with the ethical principles that are brought to the sector by peace journalism, then one makes a big mark of success. The media sector is in an unhealthy state. We must try to find a cure for this disease, to bring back the trustworthiness and reputation that journalists have lost. Then the people will be more generous in supporting the media, which is on their side. In order to implement peace journalism more extensively in the media, at the macro level, especially at institutional and editorial levels, we must face the fact that some structures must change in the ownership of media institutions. Majib Tehranian calls for a pluralism of media structures at all levels in the media sector. Obstacles of effectively implementing peace journalism in the conventional media are: making news with commercial concerns and setting the newsworthiness based on commercial criteria. In other words; in the context of “rating circulation culture,” events are trying to be presented in a more sensational and conflicting way in order to increase the interest of individuals and to make money.

464

Metin Ersoy

Another obstacle to the macro-level peace journalism is that peace journalism is not supported at the editorial level generally. If the editorial staff of an institution does not support the use of ethical values in collecting, selecting, writing, and publishing news, it is mostly difficult to make peace journalism at the micro level. In some instances, even if the editorial staff wishes to practice peace journalism, we can say that the ownership structure of traditional media does not allow this practice because of commercial or political concerns. For example, we can say that a newspaper closely tied with the government in Turkey has established an editorial policy identified by the government so that the commercial ties of the owners are not harmed. Therefore, it can be said that “monopolistic,” “politicized,” and “conglomerate” ownership structures of the conventional media create a pressure on the journalists. We should also remember that media institutions and politicians adopt a more nationalistic discourse during the peace/conflict/war process. We can define this as an “ideological” obstacle. Media institutions usually tend to follow the ideology set out by the politics during the peace/conflict/war process. In other words, it takes an ideological stance toward the maintenance of the status quo. Burkhard Bläsi defines this process as “emotionalized political climate.” Whether they like the official ideological discourse or not, all media institutions choose the side they regard as safe. This is often an ideological side full of nationalist discourses and hate messages, which makes the practice of peaceful journalism at the macro level problematic.

I

f we consider it as a whole, to practice peace journalism at macro level, the political atmosphere, ownership structure, and publishing policy should also be conducive. Despite these problems, we still possess a chance to encourage and venture ethics of peace journalism while collecting and writing news. This change in micro level can affect the macro level over time, and we can achieve a healthy and ideal journalistic practice. In conclusion, this essay discusses the topics journalists working in the peace/conflict/war process should pay attention to, and how they can contribute to the resolution of the process by practicing the ethical values of peace journalism. Emphasis was placed on the fact that different factions attempt to demonstrate that peace journalism is an “imaginary” journalism that has “low practicability.” And yet, it can be practiced at micro (correspondent level) and macro levels (institutional, editorial and ownership levels). Micro- and macro-level peace journalism’s ethical values need to be supported in order to give a chance to the language of peace in the media. Thus, peace journalists that practice journalism with an attitude that supports resolving the problems, adopting the language of peace, adopting a reconciliatory style, and establishing empathy would be those who would promote the peace regionally and globally. Journalists who are actively seeking to take part in this practice can make a positive difference in their news when they embrace peace journalism.


465

This difference in their journalistic style will affect the construction of the resolution in peace/conflict/war settings. Non-politicized, non-polarized, nonmonopolized, alternative media that broadcast far from commercial worries have the opportunity for implementing peace journalism more easily at the micro and macro levels. As Abigail Fuller says, “Arguably, alternative media organizations, structured democratically, help us participate now in building the just and peaceful society of the future.” Robert Hackett also argues that alternative media organizations need to be supported by nongovernmental organizations (NGO) for putting into practice the ethos of peace journalism. Recently, Turkish Cypriot politician Mustafa Akıncı made the statement “Greek [Cypriot] press is almost trying to manage the negotiation table.” What peace journalism understands from playing an active role is not journalists intervening in the negotiation table. The active role is to adopt the win-win principle through which both sides will win, protecting the interests of both societies in the news and not presenting the news partially and biased. A point to remember is that this process is holistic and must be embraced by politicians and citizens equally.

N

ongovernmental organizations can organize activities that will increase society’s awareness on peace culture, thus positively contributing to decreasing the conflicts. Likewise, offering peace journalism classes in local universities can educate future journalists who play active and positive roles as journalists in peace/conflict/war settings. Thus, a peace request erupting from the grassroots can contribute to reconciliation of the conflict at higher levels. Otherwise, solely waiting for journalists and opinion leaders to contribute to the peace/conflict/war process will prolong the process, and will fail to contribute to the establishment of a sustainable peace environment.

ORCID Metin Ersoy

http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5443-5291

RECOMMENDED READINGS Bläsi, Burkhard. 2004. “Peace Journalism and the News Production Process.” Conflict & Communication Online 3(1/2). Available at , last accessed October 11, 2017. Fuller, A. Abigail. 1993. “The Alternative Peace Press.” Peace Review 5(1): 103–108. doi:10.1080/10402659308425700 Galtung, Johan. 1998. “High Road, Low Road—Charting the Road for Peace Journalism.” Track Two 7(4): 7–10. Hackett, A. Robert. 2006. “Is Peace Journalism Possible? Three Frameworks for Assessing Structure and Agency in News Media.” Conflict & Communication Online 5(2). Available

466

Metin Ersoy

at , last accessed October 11, 2017. Hanitzsch, Thomas. 2004. “Journalists as Peace Keeping Force? Peace Journalism and Mass Communication Theory.” Journalism Studies 5(4): 483–495. doi:10.1080/14616700412331296419 Lynch, Jake. 2008. Debates in Peace Journalism. Sydney, NSW, Australia: Sydney University Press. Lynch, Jake. 2014. A Global Standard for Reporting Conflict. New York: Routledge. Lynch, Jake and Annabel McGoldrick. 2005. Peace Journalism. Stroud, UK: Hawthorn Press. Lyon, David. 2003. “Witnessing the Truth.” Open Democracy. Available at , last accessed July 15, 2017. Malek, Cate. “Reporting on Conflict: A User Guide to the Beyond Intractability Website, Built Specially for Journalists.” Available at , last accessed July 15, 2017. Shinar, Dov. 2004. “Media Peace Discourse: Constraints, Concepts and Building Blocks.” Conflict & Communication Online 3(1/2). Available at , last accessed October 11, 2017. UNESCO. 1978. Declaration on Fundamental Principles Concerning the Contribution of the Mass Media to Strengthening Peace and International Understanding, to the Promotion of Human Rights and to Countering Racialism, Apartheid and Incitement of War. Available at , last accessed July 15, 2017. Tehranian, Majid. 2002. “Peace Journalism: Negotiating Global Media Ethics.” Press/Politics 7(2): 58–83. Wolfsfeld, Gadi. 2004. Media and Path to Peace. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Dr. Metin Ersoy is from North Cyprus. He is currently an Associate Professor of New Media & Journalism in the Department at Faculty of Communication and Media Studies at Eastern Mediterranean University. Since 2012, he is secretary of the European Peace Research Association (EuPRA). His areas of research interest are peace journalism, Cypriot media, framing theory, news coverage, public opinion, agenda setting, conflict resolution, online media, and media literacy. E-mail: [email protected]