peace journalism

WK 18 – Peace JournalismDr. Carolina MatosGovernment DepartmentEssex University

Key points

• Peace journalism: definitions• Journalists as a peacekeeping force?• The liberal ethos of journalists: objectivity,

professionalism• The coverage of the war and “infotainment” • Peace journalism versus war journalism • Asian conflicts and the Iraq war• Conclusions• Seminar activities and questions• Readings for week 19 and group presentation

Key readingsRequired texts:•Hanitzsch, T. (2004) “Journalists as a peacekeeping force? Peace journalism and mass communication theory” in Journalism Studies, 5 (4), 483-495.• Lee, S. T., and Maslog, C., C. (2005, July) “Asian regional conflicts and the war in Iraq: A comparative framing analysis”, paper presented at the annual International Communication Associatino (ICA), New York, pp 1-26. Additional:• Fawcett, L. (2002) “Why peace journalism isn’t news” in Journalism Studies, 3 (2), 213-223.• Galtung, J. (1996). Peace by Peaceful Means. London: Sage. •Lynch, J., and McGoldrick, A. (2005). Peace Journalism. Gloustershire: Hawthorn Press.• Matos, C. “Partisanship versus professionalism: the role of the journalist in the democratization process” in Journalism and political democracy.

“Journalists as Peacekeeping Force?” (in Hanitzsch, 2004)

• As the author notes, developments in war reporting (i.e. Gulf War of 1991), played a crucial role in raising critical debate on conflict and war coverage

• Peace journalism here is defined as “a programme or frame of journalistic news coverage which contributes to the process of making and keeping peace respectively to the peaceful settlement of conflicts.”

• Galtung employed the term since the 1970s, developing two opposing modes of reporting wars, namely “Peace or Conflict Journalism” and “War or Violence Journalism.”

• War or Violence Journalism – crisis journalism – one side wins and the other loses. Disapproval of covering peace initiatives

• “News coverage only begins with the manifestation of violence and concentrates on its visible consequences…War….advocates the fate of “our side”, it only exposed the untruths and perpetrators of atrocities on the “other side”, whereas the lies and cover-up attempts of “our side” will be supported.

What is peace journalism?• Peace journalism as a concept entered the field of mass

communications in the 1990s• Peace journalism can be identified as a special mode of socially

responsible journalism• Galtung has directed the peace network TRANSCEND, which has

founded its own university• Correspondents Annabel McGoldrick and Jake Lynch belong to the

international network “Reporting the World”• “The Peace or Conflict Journalism philosophy is strongly committed

to the prevention of violence and war. It focuses on the creativity of conflict resolution as well as peace-making and peace-keeping efforts…..Peace or Conflict Journalism exposed lies, cover-up attempts and culprits on all sides; it reveals the suffering of all conflict parties. Due to its orientation towards solutions, this mode of crisis journalism dedicates particular attention to peace initiatives and reports on post-war developments.”

Definition of peace journalism (in Lynch and McGoldrick, 2005)

• “….when editors and reporters make choices that create opportunities for society at large to consider and value non-violent responses to conflict. Peace journalism uses the insights of conflict analysis……to update the concepts of balance, fairness and accuracy in reporting; provides a new route map tracing the connections between journalists, their sources, the stories they cover and the consequences of their journalism – the ethics of journalistic intervention; builds an awareness of non-violence…….”

Criticisms towards the concept of peace journalism (in Hanitzsch, 2004)

• Significant criticism – the idea of demanding this type of journalism raises crucial issues – what is journalism for? Is it not the task of policy to aim to achieve peace?

• BBC correspondent David Loyn (2003) in OpenDemocracy.net stressed that peace journalism could compromise the integrity of journalists and confuse their role as neutral disseminators:

• “Our task is always to seek to find out what is going on……If there is conflict resolution we report on it…..We do not engage in it.”

• Makes reference to the traditional values of journalism to sustain his argument, pointing out that “good journalism” is about “fairness”, “objectivity” and “balance” in reporting.

• However, some war correspondents state that they pick sides. Erich Rathfelder from the left-wing daily Tageszeitung, highlighted that he stood by the side of the victims.

Peace Journalism as a public service

“Objectivity” of journalism versus a journalism of attachment

• Liberal media values and the standard journalistic practices throughout the West and much of the world have required journalism to be “objective”, “balanced” (looking at all sides), neutral/impartial (not taking sides in a dispute), detached, unemotional and rational (as opposed to sentimental, biased, partisan, overly-emotional, etc).

• Galtung (1998, 8) has stated that “peace journalism is a journalism of attachment.” (attachment to all victims of conflict)

• Arguments against the “detached stance” of journalism, stating that it should not be neutral in the face of injustice:

• “Bell (1997: 7-16) argues that “journalism is not a neutral and mechanical undertaking but in some sense a moral enterprise.” Practitioners should not close their hearts to pity, advocating a journalism that cares as well as knows, that is aware of its responsibilities, that will not stand neutrally between good and evil….”

The objectivity debate and its criticisms (in Matos, 2008)

• Hallin (2000) underlined that journalists’ commitment to objectivity has always been problematic.

• The events which followed the Cold War consensus, such as Vietnam, Watergate and civil rights movements, saw the diminishing of “objective journalism” in the US and the rise of more interpretative or subjective forms of journalism

• A case for objectivity: • Regarding Vietnam War, Hallin (2000) stated that the changing political

environment led to modifications in news reporting.• Objectivity permitted certain views to be treated as acceptable, when

before they were not. Hallin (2000) concluded that the backing or critique of policies depends on the degree of consensus that these enjoy amongst the political establishment (Tumber, 1999, 288).

• When consensus is strong, the media plays a relatively passive role and tends to reinforce official power….when political elites are divided, they become more active….objectivity and balance reign in the middle region, in the sphere of legitimate controversy (Hallin, 2000 in Matos, 2008)

The objectivity debate and its criticisms (in Matos, 2008)

• Thus some of these critics argue that in a reality of increasing economic and political pressures on news in increasingly global media companies, the ideal of objectivity and professionalism to journalism should be maintained (i.e. Lichtenberg, 2000; Hallin, 2000; Matos, 2008)

• As Hackett and Zhao (1998, 88) state, the objectivity regime persists precisely because “it does offer openings, however unequal, to different social and cultural groups”.

• Critiques blame decline of public life on journalism

• “Hallin (1994, 11) has argued that the problems with political life in the US are political and not journalistic, and that their solution lies in part with political parties and social movements, although some initiative from journalism is essential.”

• Decrease in interest runs deeper (I.e. decline of modernism, growth of cynicism, relativism, individualism, etc).

Peace journalism: an assessment from the perspective of mass communication theory (in

Hanitzsch, 2004) • In order to discuss war coverage, one needs to discuss the

relationship between the media and reality

• The “Ptolemaic” and “Copernican” perspective: The “Ptolemaic” perspective constructs an antagonism between the media and society (“media as mirror, as reflection of society”, Schulz, 1989, 140).

• The “Copernican” understands the media as an integral component of society. Here the mass media is seen as an active element in the process by which reality is constructed

• A constructivist perspective disapproves of the traditional notion of “objectivity” which assumes that the “objectiveness” of a certain news account can be measured by its degree of correspondence with reality.

• According to Galtung, the practice of traditional war reporting represents reality in a distorted way.

Is the media capable of capturing the “objective” reality?

• “…it goes without saying that the media by nature cannot provide an “objective” representation of reality that is objective in the sense of being identical with reality.”

• Michael Schudson (2003): “News is not a mirror of reality. It is a representation of the world, and all representations are selective.”

• Objectivity however is not about being unfeeling. As Hanitzsch (2004) notes, journalists have to be objective and impartial.

• Objectivity in regards to journalism is now more about journalists submitting their reports to objective controls, such as the careful and accurate representation of facts, reliable and varied sources, and not about being “dispassionate”.

• Thus journalists can have their own views and feelings about the war without allowing their passions to influence their professional activities.

On the ideal of objectivity (in Matos, 2008)

• “We cannot coherently abandon the ideal of objectivity and, whatever they may think, objectivity critics do not abandon it either. To claim that a piece of journalism piece is not objective is to say that it fails to provide the truth.. How do we know that American news accounts on the Gulf War are partial, except by comparison with some other…possible accounts? We know how to distinguish between better and worse, more or less accurate accounts..”

• (Lichtenberg, 2000; 241-242 in Matos, 2008).

Peace Journalism and media effects

• Brosius (2003) has classified three kinds of “meta-theories”, namely: 1) of powerful media effects; 2) weak media effects and 3) selective media effects.

• The theory of powerful media effects has gained little support, and what is widely accepted is the theory of “selective media effects”.

• “Some media have at certain times and under certain circumstances, an effect on some recipients.” (Brosius, 2003, 133)

• Nonetheless, the advocates of peace journalism assume that the media has powerful effects, underestimating the impact of interpersonal communication

• Criticism is that Galtung has not given enough consideration to audiences and individual differences, taking them as a mass

• Development journalism – authors argue that peace journalism could suffer the same fate, for the former did not gain a strong foothold in the process of national development

American journalism and issues of objectivity• When we talk about peace journalism, it is important to note

that it can only evolve in a “culture of peace”. It is too much to demand of journalists that they “free the world” (Hanitzsch, 2005)

• I.e. US policies on the war on terror showed how a culture around peace journalism would be very difficult

• Jay Rosen and Michael Schudson have discussed how the attacks got to the very heart of American journalism and its values of objectivity;

• Schudson, among other scholars, pointed out the marginalising of opinions against the war on terror and the silencing of dissent

• The US coverage of the war on terror raised serious concerns over the American’s media claim of being “objective” – “An American first, a journalist second”.

TV war coverage and some standard practices

• Critics (Thussu, 2003) have argued that the television coverage of war conflicts has been immersed in economic constraints and inserted in entertainment formats, what has been called “infotainment” (information and entertainment)

• The coverage of war on television has become very particular and resembling what many call a “video game” – some common features include the predominance of visual elements; the wide use of graphics; the avoidance of showing shocking images and pictures of the deaths of civilians.

• As Hanitzsch (2004) correctly notes, the news coverage on the war in Iraq (2003) has made it clear that contemporary war journalism needs to be even more detached and self-critical.

“The Gulf War Did not Take Place” – Jean Baudrillard

Provocative essay published in Liberation on January the 4th, 1991

Text interrogates the nature of the Gulf war as a “media event” (Patton, 1991)

Emphasis on technology in the reporting of the war – technological simulacrum or dissimulation turning into an integral part of the operational procedures (a “clean” war)

Virtual media events – real events lose their identity when they attain the velocity of real time information (“the structural unreality of image”, 1991, 46-47)

Hyperreality – results from the fusion of the virtual and the real into a 3rd order of reality.

Post-modernism thinking – Attacked from both the left and the right; extreme anti-realism and cynicism that does not attempt to propose any resistance or alternative

“Asian conflicts and the Iraq war” (Lee, Maslog and Shik Kim, 2006)

• As the author note, by “taking an advocacy, interpretative approach, the peace journalist concentrates on stories that highlight peace initiatives; tone down ethnic and religious differences; prevent further conflict; focus on the structure of society and promote conflict resolution, reconstruction and reconciliation (Galtung, 1986, 1998).

• Galtung (2002) observed that traditional war journalism is modelled after sports journalism, with a focus on winning in a zero-sum game.

• Link between peace journalism with public and development journalism:

• “Iggers (1998: 106-7) makes a case for advocacy journalism – the non-objective, self-conscious journalistic intervention premised in the ideas of public journalism, development journalism and peace journalism. The ingredients of war - …… - often conspire to prevent objective reporting”.


• “Kellner (1992), in a study of ABC, CBS, NBC and CNN, argued that news media did not report neutrally during the 1991 Persian Gulf War. Stories that were broadcast during the build-up to and subsequent war against Iraq expressed an “us against them” attitude….The study concluded that news coverage of the Gulf War was influenced by ideology, specifically national interest.”

• Theoretically, peace journalism is supported by framing theory – • According to Entman, to frame is to “select some aspects of a

perceived reality and make them more salient in a communicating text….”. Through repetition, placement and reinforcement, the texts and images provide a dominant interpretation more readily perceivable….than other interpretations.”

• Galtung (1986, 1998) saw war journalism and peace as two competing frames in the coverage of a conflict.

• Four broad practice and linguistic orientations - Peace/conflict, truth, people and solutions. War journalism – war/violence, propaganda, elites and victory.


• Study focused on content analysis of 1.558 stories from eight English language dailies

• There were 442 stories about the Iraq war, and another 1116 stories about local conflicts (i.e. Kashmir; Philippine Mindanao conflict; Sri Lankan Tamil Tigers and Indonesia’s Maluku and Aceh civil wars.

• Coding frame - based on Galtung’s (1986, 1998) 13 indicators of war journalism and 13 indicators of peace journalism:

• The approach-based criteria included: 1) reactivity; 2) visibility of effects of war; 3) elite orientation; 4) differences; 5) focus on here and now; 6) good and bad dichotomy; 7) party involvement; 8) partisanship; 9) winning orientation and 10) continuity of reports.

• The language-based criteria focused on: 1) demonizing; 2) victimizing and emotive.

• Based on the scores, the coder classified the stories as either war journalism, peace or neutral.


• Results: “…the coverage of local conflicts contains a higher number of stories framed as war journalism and fewer stories framed as peace journalism, while the coverage of the Iraq war contains more peace journalism frames and fewer war journalism frames”.

• “Of the 1116 stories about local conflicts, more than half or 603 stories (54%) were framed as war journalism compared to 420 (37.6%) framed as peace journalism and 93 that were neutral. Of the 442 stories about the Iraq war, 195 (44.1%) were framed as war journalism, 224 (50.7%) were framed as peace journalism and 23 (5.2%) were neutral.

• In summary, the war journalism framing was more dominant in the coverage of local conflicts while the peace journalism framing was more dominant in the coverage of the Iraq war.

• For the Iraq War, the strongest war journalism framing was seen in the Daily Mirror (69% of stories), while the Philippine Star showed the strongest peace journalism (78.7%)

Peace versus War Journalism

War journalism Peace Journalism

Reactive (waits for war to break) Proactive (anticipates, starts reporting)

Reports on visible effects Reports also on invisible (trauma)

Elite-oriented (leaders as sources) People-oriented

Focuses on differences Reports on areas of agreement

Focuses on the here and now Reports on causes and consequences

Victims versus villains; bad x good Avoids the “good guy” discourse

Two-party oriented Multi-party oriented

Partisan (biased for one-side) Non-partisan (neutral)

Zero-sum game (one goal) Win-win orientation (many goals)

Stops reporting with the peace treaty Stays on and reports aftermath

Uses victimizing language Avoids victimizing language

Demonizing and emotive words Avoids demonizing and emotive words

Peace Journalism (in Lynch and McGoldrick, 2005)

• McGoldrick and Lynch remain close to the work of Galtung. They aimed to test the model in the book in the context of the coverage of the US-led invasion and occupation of Iraq

• Journalists are placed as “participant-observers”:• McGoldrick (2000: 19-20) described peace journalism as a “new

form of journalism” which looks at how journalists could be part of the solution rather than part of the problem”.

• The British public were initially in favour of the war, but by September 2003 according to the respondents of the ICM poll, the war had been unjustified (53%)

• Authors argue that the way that the media covered the conflict leading up to the war contributed for the views in favour of going to war. The “official frames” that were presented, such as the necessity for regime change and the presence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, went unchallenged, leaving little room for alternative views and for more emphasis for instance on other aspects (i.e. the “oil theory”)

Peace Journalism (in Lynch and McGoldrick, 2005)

• Even the New York Times (already with the experience of the Vietnam war, etc), made later an apology for accepting the dominant frames too quickly:

• “Editors at several levels who should have been challenging reporters and pressing for more scepticism were perhaps too intent on rushing scoops into the paper. Accounts of Iraq defectors were not always weighed against their strong desire to have Saddam Hussein ousted…”

• Discussions of peace journalism should reach the public sphere:• As the authors note, “peace journalism entails picking up on

suggestions for non-violent responses from whatever quarter, and remitting them into the public sphere.”

• Peace researcher John Paul Lederach made recommendations in regards to Iraq: “move towards re-establishing embassies….; encourage trade and investments with Iraq first inside the sanctions framework; establish a contact group with other countries who want to prevent war…; develop a new security regime.”

Peace Journalism Manual (in Lynch and McGoldrick, 2005)

• A 17 point plan for practical Peace Journalism: • 1. Avoid portraying the conflict as between two groups only,

and instead try to look at the smaller groups involved, pursuing many goals…;

• 2. Avoid accepting stark distinctions between “self” and “others”. This can lead one to see the other as a “threat” beyond civilised behaviour;

• 3. Avoid treating the conflict as if it is only happening in that place….Try to trace the links and consequences for people in other places;

• 4. Avoid assessing the merits of a violent action….Instead, try to find ways of reporting on the invisible effects.

• 5. Avoid letting parties define themselves by simply quoting their leaders’ restatements….

Peace Journalism Manual (in Lynch and McGoldrick, 2005)

• 6. Avoid concentrating on what divides the partiers, on the differences between what they say…

• 7. Avoid only reporting the violent acts and describing “the horror”.• 8. Avoid blaming someone for “starting it.” Instead try looking at

how shared problems and issues are leading to consequences…• 9. Avoid focusing on the suffering, fears and grievances of only one

party.• 10. Avoid “victimising” language like “devastated”, “defenceless”,

“pathetic”, “tragedy”….This is disempowering and limits the options for change.

• 11. Avoid the imprecise use of emotive words to describe what has happened o people….

• 12. Avoid “demonising” adjectives like “cruel”, etc. Can be used to justify an escalation of violence.

• 13. Avoid labels like “terrorist” (us x them); 14. Avoid focus on human rights abuses and try to name all wrongdoing

Conclusions• Peace journalism as a concept is controversial and, like development

journalism, has not achieved a wide mainstream acceptance beyond that of a particular movement for journalistic (and social) change

• Peace Journalism is a set of procedures that attempt to question the current crisis-driven, conflict, one-sided, win-lose portrayal of wars by the media

• Peace journalism is useful also in its attempts to urge more critical thinking of journalism activity and reporting of war and conflict throughout the world, at a moment in time when economic and political pressures are growing and contributing to the wider distortion and manipulation of news

• Peace journalism does not have to be seen in opposition to “objective journalism”

• Key question: would the adoption of Peace Journalism by the mainstream media have contributed to impede conflicts in the world (i.e. Vietnam, war in Iraq)?

Seminar activities and questionsThree activities: Part I:•1. Discuss the definitions of peace journalism and the critiques made to the concept. What does Hanitzsch propose as future research?

Part II: 2. The class is divided into two groups: one pro-War Journalism and the other pro-Peace Journalism. Each group needs to collect arguments to defend the merits of one over the other.

Part III: 3. Would the world media’s endorsement of peace journalism have prevented the war in Iraq? What about other wars (i..e Vietnam)? Think about this and see if your views change after watching The Most Dangerous Man in America: Daniel Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers.

Readings for week 19Required texts: • Appadurai, A. (2010) “Disjuncture and difference in the global cultural economy” in D. Thussu, (Ed), International Communication: A Reader, pp 383-392. London: Routledge.• Schleisinger, P. (1994) “Europe’s contradictory communicative space” in Daedalus, 123 (2), 28-55. • Tunstall, J. (2010) “Anglo-American, global, and Euro-American media versus media nationalism” in D. Thussu, (Ed), International Communication: A Reader, pp 239-244. London: Routledge. Additional texts:•Giddens, A. (2003). Runaway World: How Globalisation is Shaping Our Lives. New York: Routledge. •McChesney, R. (2010) “The media system goes global” in D. Thussu, (Ed), International Communication: A Reader, pp 188-220. London: Routledge.

peace journalism

News & Politics