Writing for peace, not war

(Second of two parts) TAIPING, MALAYSIA – Early in their professional career, journalists find out that the cardinal rules they took to heart as cub reporters fresh from journalism schools, will have to be thrown out the window so they can be effective harbingers of profit – or change. They will have to make compromises to get the facts for stories from sources, the sources of whom may have mastered the art of manipulating media to their advantage.

The journalists begin to realize that they may have to slant their stories to sell their paper. And so they go around the edges of objectivity as they also learn the techniques of journalistic intervention.

But the serious journalists may also discover that running counter to time-honored journalistic principles may be useful in their practice of Peace Journalism.

The participants in a conference/workshop on peace journalism being held in this town whose name, incidentally, means everlasting peace, are polishing a manual on peace reporting, and a truth being bared is that objective journalism may have to be sacrificed in the reporting of conflicts. (This principle is being espoused by the gurus of peace reporting – Annabel McGoldrick and Jake Lynch.)

The manual states that "there is no such thing as complete objectivity. Even before a journalist writes a news story, he has to decide on an angle that will, of course, capture the essence of the story, and also sell the story. This is only the first of many subjective decisions that the journalist will make before the story is finished. The journalist will have to select the facts that will support his lead, and these selections are subjective.

So journalists, according to McGoldrick and Lynch, have really been angling, or framing, their stories all the time. In the case of conflict reporting, they have been framing their stories to also sell the paper in addition to telling the essence of the story. That is why they always bring out the news value of conflict in their stories, and that’s because conflict sells the paper. They also exaggerate and sensationalize the conflict.

The point is that all journalism is an intervention, says the manual. And journalists do "spin," or angle, or frame their stories. But the Peace Journalism approach asks journalists to make a choice, and the choice is about the ethics of that intervention. The question the Peace Journalism advocate asks is, "What can I do with my intervention to enhance the prospects for peace?"

The manual’s preface says that for too long, the world has become too well-schooled in the language of war and hatred. It is time for Peace Journalism to help broaden and deepen the literacy within society about non-violence and creativity in thinking about conflicts. Journalists should not just think about selling their newspapers. They should start thinking about selling peace.

This does not make Peace Journalists propagandists for peace. "Propaganda is persuasive communication and marshals only arguments for one side. Peace Journalism is basically balanced, accurate reporting of relevant facts in the proper perspective. Where the relevant facts are about conflict, report them. Where the important facts are about agreements or efforts for peace, put them in the lead. The Peace Journalist is not a slave to the news value of conflict."

The manual, which should be made available to media owners, managers, editors and reporters who are interested in having peace in this world, sets forth guidelines.

One is being "proactive" in reporting conflicts. This means not waiting for war to break out before reporting it. It means trying to anticipate conflicts, and start writing about them long before they erupt into armed confrontation. By doing so, the journalist may help to clarify points of disagreement that may lead to understanding.

Another is reporting both the visible and invisible effects of war. Most conflict reporting, or war journalism, concentrate on the visible effects of war like human casualties and property damage, and very often the invisible effects of war like emotional trauma, damage to culture and society are unreported or under-reported.

Stories should be people-oriented. While government and military leaders (presidents, prime ministers and generals) call the shots, the foot soldiers who fight and the civilians who suffer from the decision to go to war should be written about also.

Do not concentrate only on what divides the parties; instead ask questions which may reveal areas of common ground.

A fifth guideline is explaining the causes and consequences of conflict. Very often, the manual says, conflict reporting is focused on the action going on in the battlefield, and no thought is given to what led to this war, and what happens afterwards.

Then avoid labeling of good guys and bad guys. "If your country is involved in the war, it might be difficult to do this. But if your country is not involved, there is no reason why you should engage in this. In war, the good guy on one side is bad guy to the other side, and vice versa."

The seventh rule is to be multi-party oriented – and this is true for regular reporting of any story. Seek out the more than two sides involved in a conflict.

Now this may contradict the idea of peace journalism objectivity which we touched at the beginning of this column. This is being non-partisan. Don’t blame someone for starting the conflict, avoid focusing exclusively on human rights abuses and wrongdoings of only one side. Name all wrongdoers. The conflict reporter, says the manual, should be neutral and not take sides. "It is difficult to do this, if your country is involved in the war, but journalists are trained to be as objective and balanced as humanly possible."

Nine, avoid making an opinion or claim seem like an established fact.

Avoid treating the signing of documents by leaders, which bring about military victory or ceasefire, as necessarily creating peace. Instead try to report on the issues which remain and which may still lead people to commit acts of violence in the future.

Avoid waiting for leaders on one side to suggest or offer solutions. Instead pick up and explore peace initiatives wherever they come from.

Avoid demonizing language, like vicious, cruel, brutal, barbaric, inhuman, tyrant, savage, ruthless, terrorist, extremist, fanatic, fundamentalist.

Avoid emotive words like genocide, assassination, massacre, systematic (as in systematic rape or forcing people from their homes). Use objective, moderate words. Do not exaggerate.

Stay on and report the peace that follows a war.

E-mail: [email protected]