Peace Journalism

Opposing Side-Taking

Peace journalism uses conflict analysis and transformation to achieve fairness and accuracy in reporting. As suggested here, traditional journalism seeks to present opposing sides to a problem; the peace journalist hopes to encourage the understanding of multiple positions to each potential conflict. Peace journalism advocates explain that journalism as it has been practiced in America encourages the taking of sides even when that is unnecessary. Because of this craft tradition, reporters who cover war are blind to anything except a polarized presentation of the news. In turn, this polarized approach accelerates conflict. (See peace journalism model in Lynch and McGoldrick, 6.)

Practical tips and suggestions for changing the way a reporter covers conflict are included in a textbook written by British former war correspondents Jake Lynch and Annabel McGoldrick. As they present the material, among the first steps in analyzing conflicts is a process they call “mapping the conflict.” Wisely pointing out the effects of language choices of winning and losing, they offer simple lessons in empathy—discovering common ground and common visions for the future and looking beyond slogans and positions to identify opportunities for dialogue.

Lynch and McGoldrick use modern examples which help explain how peace journalism has defused or could defuse conflicts. A useful example is Britain and Ireland and how that conflict has evolved from historical bloodshed to a kind of transcendence. As they note, stopping the fighting does not bring harmony nor does it mean that all disagreements have been resolved.

Many of the tips for reporters who would follow peace journalism's processes are framed in ways to “avoid” certain patterns of speech which lead to the escalation of violence. Examples are the avoidance of the following: assessing the merits of a violent action in terms of policy; letting parties define themselves by quoting a leader's demands or positions; asking about what divides the parties; only reporting violence and describing the horrors; assigning blame and highlighting the fears and grievances of one party; and most importantly, using victimizing language such as “destitute,” “defenseless,” or “pathetic.” Other language to avoid is the imprecise use of emotive words (“genocide,” “decimated,” “massacre”), adjectives such as “vicious” or “brutal,” and labels such as “terrorist,” “extremist,” or “fanatic.”

...