Writing for peace

(First of two parts)

TAIPING, Malaysia – Twelve print journalists and media communicators from the Southeast Asia region are learning the ropes of writing for peace through a conference/workshop organized by the Asian Media Information Communication Centre (AMIC) Singapore, and supported by Friedrich Ebert Stiftung. They all seem to be the "dove" type, and so it is not difficult for them to grasp the idea of helping win the peace – not through sensational, exaggerated reporting of events taking place in their countries, but through a "new approach to conflict reporting" that is "a broader, fairer and more accurate way of framing stories, drawing on the insights of conflict analysis and transformation."

The choice of conference participants is so apropos, as they come from countries that have been experiencing conflicts the reporting of which calls for sensitive and responsible treatment by journalists. In a session on conflict areas, Indian and Pakistani editors and senior reporters talked about the "dense and complicated" dispute over Kashmir; Indonesians about the Free Aceh Movement in Aceh; Sri Lankans about the bloody war between the Tamils and Sinhalese, and the Filipinos about the Moros’ struggle for liberation in Mindanao.

The conference participants related their experiences in reporting those eventsand were challenged by the resource persons to spread the word about what peace journalism is all about – that it can help win the peace instead of aggravating the wars in their countries. These were Dr. Cris Maslog, visiting professor, School of Communications and Information of Nanyang Technological University of Singapore; Dr. Anwar Fazal, senior regional advisor, UNDP, Malaysia; Dr. Stephen Rendahl, director, School of Communication, and professor of Peace Studies at the University of North Dakota; Norbert V. Hoffman, head of the Friedrich Ebert Stiftung, Office of Regional Cooperation in Southeast Asia; and Jose Ma. G. Carlos, secretary-general, AMIC, Singapore.

* * *

Worth sharing is the concept of peace journalism, which Dr. Maslog described as "an idea whose time has come." His paper on the topic brought up startling facts about war and conflict and how media reported them.

Since the end of World War II, Maslog said, the world has seen between 150 and 160 wars, resulting in the deaths of 7,200 soldiers. The post-World War II conflicts slaughtered 33-40 million civilians. The most prominent of these conflicts were the Korean war of 1951, the Vietnam War of 1965-1975, the Iran-Iraq War, the Soviet War in Afghanistan, the Cambodian War, the series of Israeli Wars vs. Palestine and the Arabs, the Gulf War, and the Yugoslavia War. At the beginning of the 20th century, 90 per cent of all war casualties were from the military, while today, 90 per cent are civilian casualties.

* * *

The performance of mass media in the reporting of conflicts has been remarkably remiss in promoting their resolution. Historians and media analysts say that media played a pivotal role in the outbreak of the Spanish-American War in the late 1890s. Historian Jon Baker claims that in February of 1898, two incidents, heavily involving the press, put Spain and the United States onto an "inescapable path to war." And, wrote Maslog, national news media coverage has had the effect of exacerbating conflict as a result of conscious political strategies by political activists. The new technologies also have helped make reporting less insightful and more sensationalist.

Quoting media analysts, Maslog said that wars are partly what the media make them. "This is so in the sense that the media can shape military strategies and the intensity of fighting." To a large extent, the term "war" is ascribed to situations by journalists in such as way as "to accord them a degree of status." In fact, often the use of the term "war" implies that "killing is at least partially acceptable, and sometimes a choice about referring to violent events as war has a political dimension."

* * *

To cite an example of media’s negative role in reporting conflicts, Maslog brought up a study made by Melinda de Jesus of the Philippine Center for Media Responsibility, which said that in the coverage of the military campaign against the Mindanao bandits, the Abu Sayyaf, in 2000, the press did not deepen war reporting by examining the related issues of conflict; that it stretched the hostage story beyond the story’s actual development, playing up pictures and other related aspects of the victims and relatives, and exploited the victims’ plight by playing up the beheading of victims or the possibilities of more beheadings and gave the gang’s leader, "Commander Robot," prime space and time as he "played up to the media, issuing statements on radio and managing to hold media attention even when the story lagged."

* * *

Peace journalism can help promote a culture of peace, said Maslog. The concept of peace journalism, he said, was first proposed in 1970 by a Norwegian professor of peace studies, Johan Galtung, who drew an analogy between disease journalism and medicine journalism, and then war journalism and peace journalism. War journalism is disease-oriented, while peace journalism looks at the total picture — the disease, the causes, the cure, as well as the prevention of disease.

* * *

Below are some of the differences between peace journalism and war journalism as proposed by Galtung.

– War journalism is war/violence-oriented and reactive. It waits for war to break out before reporting it. On the other hand, peace journalism is peace/conflict-oriented and proactive, reporting on conflicts before violence starts and examining causes of conflicts and possible solutions and giving a voice to all parties to the conflict, the goal being the prevention of war.

– War journalism focuses solely on the visible effects of violence such as deaths, the wounded and material damage. Peace journalism focuses on the invisible effects of violence such as trauma and gore, and damage to structure and culture.

– War journalism is propaganda-oriented and wants to expose the untruths and cover-ups and lies of the other side and is usually one-sided. Peace journalism is truth-oriented, trying to expose untruths on all sides and uncover all cover-ups.

– War journalism is elite-oriented, giving names to the evil-doers and focuses on elite peacemakers. On the other hand, peace journalism is people-oriented, focusing on the suffering of women, the aged, children, the voiceless.

– War journalism is victory-oriented, and its formula for peace is victory plus ceasefire. But peace journalism is solution-oriented, and its formula for peace is no-violence plus creativity. It highlights peace initiatives and focuses on structure, culture and the peaceful society, It focuses also on the aftermath – resolution, reconstruction, and reconciliation.

* * *

E-mail: [email protected]