Kony 2012 flawed, but its goal is admirable
The blinding glare of publicity about Joseph Kony has cast light as well on the organization Invisible Children, an NGO that produced a viral 30-minute video about Kony . However, I believe that the microscopic scrutiny of Invisible Children and the video is distracting us from the real mission here, which should be bringing Kony to justice.
If you haven’t been anywhere near a computer the last week, the Invisible Children produced video, “Kony 2012”, that tells the story of leader of the rebel group the Lord’s Resistance Army and the impact he has had over the last 20 or so years, mostly in Uganda.
The video, which has logged 71 million YouTube views in less than a week, has sparked a barrage of criticism against Invisible Children, which has been accused of poorly spending donations, among other things. A recent piece in the Los Angeles Times cites an article in Foreign Affairs magazine that said that “San Diego-based Invisible Children had manipulated facts for strategic purposes, exaggerating the scale of LRA abductions and murders and emphasizing the LRA's use of innocent children as soldiers." (LA Times, 3/10/12).
Whether these claims against Invisible Children are true doesn’t matter much to me, and shouldn’t matter much to you unless you’re considering donating to this organization. (I’m not). What matters is finally arresting Joseph Kony.
Ditto regarding the criticisms of the video, many of which are probably valid. “Kony 2012” features too many cute children, too much violin music, and oversimplifies Uganda’s 20-year struggle against Kony and his rebels. It gives the mistaken impression that Kony is still terrorizing Uganda. He is not, having left that country for the Democratic Republic of Congo and the Central African Republic in 2006. (He and his group are continuing their attacks in these countries, however). Recognizing the film’s shortcomings, Invisible Children, on its website, wrote that the video’s goal was “to explain the conflict in an easily understandable format, focusing on the core attributes of LRA leadership that infringe upon the most basic of human rights. In a 30-minute film, however, many nuances of the 26-year conflict are admittedly lost or overlooked.”
“Kony 2012”, and its stated goal of spotlighting Kony and putting pressure on international governments to facilitate his arrest, is disturbingly manipulative. Ironically, the story it tells needs no dramatics, no embellishment. Kony was charged with war crimes by the International Criminal Court, and his group kidnapped 30,000 children and forced them to be child soldiers or sex slaves. I have personally spoken to and interviewed dozens of his victims in Northern Uganda. Their powerful stories don’t need tears, sappy music, or dramatic close-ups.
Even with its shortcomings, the video is a powerful tool. A week ago, it would have been inconceivable that I could write and talk about Joseph Kony, and that Americans would know what I was talking about. Since he is now infamous, we can discuss who should spearhead an effort to capture Kony, how he could be brought to justice, and so on. Again, who would have thought this would be possible one week ago?
As an educator, “Kony 2012” offers grist for a number of interesting discussions about the nature and power of viral social media. We will also discuss the role (if any) of peace journalists in promoting efforts like the one to capture Kony. Peace journalists are taught not to inflame an already volatile situation by using emotive language or images. Would that rule apply in this case?
Most interesting to me will be the discussion about the ends justifying the means. Does a noble end (bringing Kony to justice) justify the means (a manipulative, inflammatory video produced by a criticized organization)?
I am personally choosing to look past the flaws of both Invisible Children and “Kony 2012”. I recommend to anyone who will listen that they should support the effort to make Joseph Kony the world’s most infamous man, and further that they should contact every opinion maker they can and deliver an unequivocal message that Joseph Kony must be brought to justice.
Steven Youngblood has been teaching peace journalism in Uganda off and on since 2009. He lived in Uganda for 10 months in 2010-11 directing a peace journalism project. He is currently directing and teaching a new peace media and counterterrorism project in Uganda. This effort got underway last December, and will continue this May and June.
Sunday, March 11, 2012
Saturday, March 3, 2012
Vociferous, contemplative students reach mid-term
As the spring semester sprints towards mid-term, I’ve been thinking about the outstanding students in my peace journalism class.
My peace journalism class, 13 strong (a small, wonderfully intimate class that is typical of Park University), has alternated between vociferous and nearly silent during these first eight weeks.
They were quiet and contemplative, for example, during the recent visit by Peter Makori, a gifted Kenyan journalist who told the class about his experiences being imprisoned and tortured by Kenyan government officials for uncovering corruption. Makori’s tale is a count-your-blessings story for my American students. It’s also a lesson in bravery and perseverance. Makori, knowing the consequences of uncovering government corruption, did so anyway for the greater good. Makori’s bravery is reminiscent, of course, of the sacrifice made by Marie Colvin and others in Syria.
The peace journalism students have been more animated during our many ethical discussions. They’ve read about the criticisms leveled against peace journalism, and have gone on the offensive against the critics. We’ve discussed Syria at length—should the press have an anti-Assad agenda? (See blog below). We’ve discussed the ethics of getting involved in a story, even if that involvement consists of helping starving children or orphans, something I’ve experienced in Uganda. Last Thursday, we discussed the concepts of vengeance, justice, and forgiveness, and how these apply to peace journalism.
As we discuss these weighty topics, the students seem surprised at my stock answer, which is “I’m not sure” or “I’m still wrestling with these issues myself.”
I’m hoping the students are as engaged the last half of the semester, which will include guest speakers (journalists and journalism trainers) from Afghanistan and the Philippines, among other places.
--Follow me on Twitter @PeaceJourn --
As the spring semester sprints towards mid-term, I’ve been thinking about the outstanding students in my peace journalism class.
My peace journalism class, 13 strong (a small, wonderfully intimate class that is typical of Park University), has alternated between vociferous and nearly silent during these first eight weeks.
They were quiet and contemplative, for example, during the recent visit by Peter Makori, a gifted Kenyan journalist who told the class about his experiences being imprisoned and tortured by Kenyan government officials for uncovering corruption. Makori’s tale is a count-your-blessings story for my American students. It’s also a lesson in bravery and perseverance. Makori, knowing the consequences of uncovering government corruption, did so anyway for the greater good. Makori’s bravery is reminiscent, of course, of the sacrifice made by Marie Colvin and others in Syria.
The peace journalism students have been more animated during our many ethical discussions. They’ve read about the criticisms leveled against peace journalism, and have gone on the offensive against the critics. We’ve discussed Syria at length—should the press have an anti-Assad agenda? (See blog below). We’ve discussed the ethics of getting involved in a story, even if that involvement consists of helping starving children or orphans, something I’ve experienced in Uganda. Last Thursday, we discussed the concepts of vengeance, justice, and forgiveness, and how these apply to peace journalism.
As we discuss these weighty topics, the students seem surprised at my stock answer, which is “I’m not sure” or “I’m still wrestling with these issues myself.”
I’m hoping the students are as engaged the last half of the semester, which will include guest speakers (journalists and journalism trainers) from Afghanistan and the Philippines, among other places.
--Follow me on Twitter @PeaceJourn --
Thursday, February 23, 2012
Syria presents ethical dilemma for peace journalists
Responsible journalists are supposed to be unbiased, to avoid advocating any agenda, and to not encourage violence—to never pour gasoline on an already blazing fire. However, the upheaval in Syria has left journalists questioning the wisdom of these traditional beliefs.
Syria, and revolts last year during the Arab Spring, present the ultimate conundrum for a peace journalist. This breed of journalist is dedicated to giving peacemakers a voice, avoiding inflammatory language and sensational images, and framing stories so that they do not encourage violence. In the case of Syria, however, even a peace journalist would have to acknowledge that violence, even war, may be the only way to stop Assad’s murderous regime.
So, under the circumstances, can a journalist, and especially a peace journalist, sleep well at night knowing that their coverage may be galvanizing the world to take up arms against Assad and his thugs? Does a peace journalist stop being a peace journalist if he is encouraging violence, no matter how well intentioned?
One answer might come from an examination of coverage from CNN and particularly Anderson Cooper’s show, AC360. The program has featured a number of sensational, brutal, bloody images from Syria during the last several weeks. One evocative image was a video aired earlier this week of a 2-year old boy who was wounded by shrapnel. The boy’s family attempted to treat him at a make-shift hospital, only to have him die in his wailing father’s arms. It was hard to watch the video without tearing up.
Later on that same show, Cooper openly labeled Assad and his regime liars for claiming that they were not attacking their own people.
These statements and images have been packaged with a very unambiguous agenda in mind. That agenda—to put pressure on the international community to act against the Assad regime.
The Syrian government, through its Syrian Arab News Agency, has released several propaganda pieces decrying what is says is the Western media’s biased agenda. One such article on the agency’s website said, “Political commentator Jonathan Steele criticized in an article in the British Guardian newspaper the foreign media coverage of the events taking place in Syria, accusing it of bias and suppressing the facts that "go against the dominant narrative about the Syrian crisis". Steele, the Guardian's former international affairs correspondent, said the western media coverage has turned into "a propaganda weapon" against Syria as all the key issues related to the popularity of President Bashar al-Assad, the Arab League observer mission and the US military involvement have been "distorted in the west's propaganda war…Most Syrians back President Assad, but you'd never know from western media." (SANA, Jan. 18, 2012)
Of course, this is transparent propaganda. Yet, a perusal of the BBC, New York Times, and CNN would confirm the propagandists’ central point—that the agenda of the Western media is unquestionably anti-Assad.
So, is the anti-Assad agenda undesirable, at least in terms of journalistic ethics?
In Journalism Ethics 101, we were told that we must always report from a coldly objective standpoint. Certainly, if anything we ever wrote revealed a bias or agenda, we were chastised by the old-school guardians of the profession. If those gnarly old-schoolers were still around, they would undoubtedly admonish CNN and Cooper for straying from “the facts” and not balancing each report with a Syrian response, even if that Syrian response consists of bold lies wrapped in jingoistic propaganda.
The old-schoolers are wrong. Since “the facts” are often in dispute, a journalist’s role is to sort through all the data and propaganda and decide what information one’s viewers and readers need to formulate an educated opinion about the subject.
On her last on-air interview a few hours before she was killed in Homs, journalist Marie Colvin and Anderson Cooper discussed their misgivings about coverage of the crisis in Syria. Cooper asked Colvin if she thought the bloody, inflammatory coverage was a necessary evil. Colvin replied emphatically that the coverage was vitally important so that the world could know and understand what’s happening to Syrians. Colvin died convinced that she and her colleagues in Syria were serving a greater good.
Colvin was right. The aggressive anti-Assad media agenda does serves a higher purpose—one designed to shorten and eventually end the suffering of the Syrian people. Feeding this agenda should make journalists, and particularly those dedicated to peace journalism, uncomfortable. Yet, the alternative—Homs ceaselessly burning and bleeding—is unthinkable.
--Follow me on Twitter @PeaceJourn --
Responsible journalists are supposed to be unbiased, to avoid advocating any agenda, and to not encourage violence—to never pour gasoline on an already blazing fire. However, the upheaval in Syria has left journalists questioning the wisdom of these traditional beliefs.
Syria, and revolts last year during the Arab Spring, present the ultimate conundrum for a peace journalist. This breed of journalist is dedicated to giving peacemakers a voice, avoiding inflammatory language and sensational images, and framing stories so that they do not encourage violence. In the case of Syria, however, even a peace journalist would have to acknowledge that violence, even war, may be the only way to stop Assad’s murderous regime.
So, under the circumstances, can a journalist, and especially a peace journalist, sleep well at night knowing that their coverage may be galvanizing the world to take up arms against Assad and his thugs? Does a peace journalist stop being a peace journalist if he is encouraging violence, no matter how well intentioned?
One answer might come from an examination of coverage from CNN and particularly Anderson Cooper’s show, AC360. The program has featured a number of sensational, brutal, bloody images from Syria during the last several weeks. One evocative image was a video aired earlier this week of a 2-year old boy who was wounded by shrapnel. The boy’s family attempted to treat him at a make-shift hospital, only to have him die in his wailing father’s arms. It was hard to watch the video without tearing up.
Later on that same show, Cooper openly labeled Assad and his regime liars for claiming that they were not attacking their own people.
These statements and images have been packaged with a very unambiguous agenda in mind. That agenda—to put pressure on the international community to act against the Assad regime.
The Syrian government, through its Syrian Arab News Agency, has released several propaganda pieces decrying what is says is the Western media’s biased agenda. One such article on the agency’s website said, “Political commentator Jonathan Steele criticized in an article in the British Guardian newspaper the foreign media coverage of the events taking place in Syria, accusing it of bias and suppressing the facts that "go against the dominant narrative about the Syrian crisis". Steele, the Guardian's former international affairs correspondent, said the western media coverage has turned into "a propaganda weapon" against Syria as all the key issues related to the popularity of President Bashar al-Assad, the Arab League observer mission and the US military involvement have been "distorted in the west's propaganda war…Most Syrians back President Assad, but you'd never know from western media." (SANA, Jan. 18, 2012)
Of course, this is transparent propaganda. Yet, a perusal of the BBC, New York Times, and CNN would confirm the propagandists’ central point—that the agenda of the Western media is unquestionably anti-Assad.
So, is the anti-Assad agenda undesirable, at least in terms of journalistic ethics?
In Journalism Ethics 101, we were told that we must always report from a coldly objective standpoint. Certainly, if anything we ever wrote revealed a bias or agenda, we were chastised by the old-school guardians of the profession. If those gnarly old-schoolers were still around, they would undoubtedly admonish CNN and Cooper for straying from “the facts” and not balancing each report with a Syrian response, even if that Syrian response consists of bold lies wrapped in jingoistic propaganda.
The old-schoolers are wrong. Since “the facts” are often in dispute, a journalist’s role is to sort through all the data and propaganda and decide what information one’s viewers and readers need to formulate an educated opinion about the subject.
On her last on-air interview a few hours before she was killed in Homs, journalist Marie Colvin and Anderson Cooper discussed their misgivings about coverage of the crisis in Syria. Cooper asked Colvin if she thought the bloody, inflammatory coverage was a necessary evil. Colvin replied emphatically that the coverage was vitally important so that the world could know and understand what’s happening to Syrians. Colvin died convinced that she and her colleagues in Syria were serving a greater good.
Colvin was right. The aggressive anti-Assad media agenda does serves a higher purpose—one designed to shorten and eventually end the suffering of the Syrian people. Feeding this agenda should make journalists, and particularly those dedicated to peace journalism, uncomfortable. Yet, the alternative—Homs ceaselessly burning and bleeding—is unthinkable.
--Follow me on Twitter @PeaceJourn --
Thursday, February 16, 2012
Off to DC
Heading to Washington tomorrow to attend American Council on Education Internationalization Collaborative (I'm on the advisory council), and to meet with officials at the U.S. Institute of Peace. I'm very hopeful that our new Center for Global Peace Journalism can find some areas of possible collaboration with USIP, which has a robust peace media program.
Students improve, update Peace Journalism rubric
One of the trickiest things about PJ is content analysis. How can you tell if a story or an image (still or video) is adhering to the tenants of peace journalism? One way is by applying the rubric below. This is a revised tool that was expanded and enhanced by my excellent peace journalism students at Park University. Any feedback on this rubric would be most welcome.
Peace Journalism Content Analysis Rubric
Written/spoken reports
1=Never 2=Sometimes 3=Often
Language
Inflammatory/emotional language used
Victimizing language used
Demonizing/name calling language used
Writing/reporting
Opinions treated as facts
Historical wrongs mentioned
Writer's opinion/position is clear (one sided)
Only "one side" interviewed/quoted
Story spreads official propaganda
Info/quotes taken out of context
Event
Suffering/"criminal acts" by only one side shown
Covers mostly violence, not underlying issues
Parties
Blame assigned to one party
Solutions
Peace proposals ignored or dismissed
Story dwells on differences; shuns similarities
SCALE:
Peace Journalism=14-19 points
Some characteristics of both peace and war journalism=20-29
War Journalism-30 or more
Visuals--video and photo
1=Never 2=Sometimes 3=Often
General topic is suffering
General topic is destruction
Subject—Military officials; Government officials
Image is culturally insensitive/mocking
Subjects are primarily military/political leaders
Subject is held in contempt by photographer
Editing: Video is raw/unedited; or still is edited
to change meaning of the original photo
Images taken out of context/don't reflect reality
SCALE:
Peace Journalism=8-10 points
Some characteristics of both peace and war journalism=11-15
War Journalism-16 or more
Heading to Washington tomorrow to attend American Council on Education Internationalization Collaborative (I'm on the advisory council), and to meet with officials at the U.S. Institute of Peace. I'm very hopeful that our new Center for Global Peace Journalism can find some areas of possible collaboration with USIP, which has a robust peace media program.
Students improve, update Peace Journalism rubric
One of the trickiest things about PJ is content analysis. How can you tell if a story or an image (still or video) is adhering to the tenants of peace journalism? One way is by applying the rubric below. This is a revised tool that was expanded and enhanced by my excellent peace journalism students at Park University. Any feedback on this rubric would be most welcome.
Peace Journalism Content Analysis Rubric
Written/spoken reports
1=Never 2=Sometimes 3=Often
Language
Inflammatory/emotional language used
Victimizing language used
Demonizing/name calling language used
Writing/reporting
Opinions treated as facts
Historical wrongs mentioned
Writer's opinion/position is clear (one sided)
Only "one side" interviewed/quoted
Story spreads official propaganda
Info/quotes taken out of context
Event
Suffering/"criminal acts" by only one side shown
Covers mostly violence, not underlying issues
Parties
Blame assigned to one party
Solutions
Peace proposals ignored or dismissed
Story dwells on differences; shuns similarities
SCALE:
Peace Journalism=14-19 points
Some characteristics of both peace and war journalism=20-29
War Journalism-30 or more
Visuals--video and photo
1=Never 2=Sometimes 3=Often
General topic is suffering
General topic is destruction
Subject—Military officials; Government officials
Image is culturally insensitive/mocking
Subjects are primarily military/political leaders
Subject is held in contempt by photographer
Editing: Video is raw/unedited; or still is edited
to change meaning of the original photo
Images taken out of context/don't reflect reality
SCALE:
Peace Journalism=8-10 points
Some characteristics of both peace and war journalism=11-15
War Journalism-16 or more
Friday, February 10, 2012
Thinking about Syria
I've done a lot of thinking lately about the situation in Syria vis-a-via peace journalism. As usual, I'm left with more questions than answers. How should websites and TV networks handle the inflammatory images from Syria? Are the consequences of not publishing these videos and photos worse than if they are shown? Do these images encourage peace or inflame war? Or, are they necessary tools in the overthrow of a tyrant? Stay tuned: I'll be writing at length about this soon.
Peace Journalism Center--Nuts and Bolts
By popular demand, I've pasted below some basic information about the just-approved Center for Global Peace Journalism at Park University.
Center for Global Peace Journalism--Information sheet
Mission:
The Center for Global Peace Journalism at Park University promotes the concepts of peace and peace journalism, including advocating non-violent conflict resolution, through seminars and courses both in the U.S. and abroad, through its website and magazine, and through partnerships with like-minded organizations and individuals.
What we do:
The Global Peace Journalism Center is a resource for Park University students, Park faculty, high school journalists, professional journalists worldwide, and like-minded organizations.
Activities:
1. The center launched a Peace Media and Counterterrorism program in Dec., 2011. The project brings together media and security officials in Uganda to establish frameworks of cooperation on anti-terrorism efforts. It is funded with a $150,000 State Dept. grant.
2. Center Director Steven Youngblood taught and coordinated a comprehensive Peace and Electoral Journalism Project in Uganda from July 2010 to November 2011. It featured seminars, a PJ reporting contest, producing peace-themed radio programs, etc.
Publications:
1. The center will be publishing an e-magazine, "The Peace Journalist", in April and November, 2012. This semi-annual magazine will feature articles and multimedia from peace journalism practitioners from Afghanistan to Zimbabwe.
2. A chapter about the Uganda peace journalism project is featured in the just-published book, "People Building Peace 2.0" The story by Steven Youngblood was selected for the book as part of a "Stories of Peace" contest sponsored by the Peace Portal.
Looking ahead:
1. The Peace Media and Counterterrorism project will continue in May and June, 2012 as Steven Youngblood and Park Criminal Justice professors Ken Christopher, John Hamilton, and Carol Getty travel to teach in Uganda.
2. An official launch event for the center will be held in September, 2012 at Park University.
3. A peace journalism symposium will be held at a Park campus site to be determined in October, 2012.
--Follow me on Twitter @PeaceJourn--
I've done a lot of thinking lately about the situation in Syria vis-a-via peace journalism. As usual, I'm left with more questions than answers. How should websites and TV networks handle the inflammatory images from Syria? Are the consequences of not publishing these videos and photos worse than if they are shown? Do these images encourage peace or inflame war? Or, are they necessary tools in the overthrow of a tyrant? Stay tuned: I'll be writing at length about this soon.
Peace Journalism Center--Nuts and Bolts
By popular demand, I've pasted below some basic information about the just-approved Center for Global Peace Journalism at Park University.
Center for Global Peace Journalism--Information sheet
Mission:
The Center for Global Peace Journalism at Park University promotes the concepts of peace and peace journalism, including advocating non-violent conflict resolution, through seminars and courses both in the U.S. and abroad, through its website and magazine, and through partnerships with like-minded organizations and individuals.
What we do:
The Global Peace Journalism Center is a resource for Park University students, Park faculty, high school journalists, professional journalists worldwide, and like-minded organizations.
Activities:
1. The center launched a Peace Media and Counterterrorism program in Dec., 2011. The project brings together media and security officials in Uganda to establish frameworks of cooperation on anti-terrorism efforts. It is funded with a $150,000 State Dept. grant.
2. Center Director Steven Youngblood taught and coordinated a comprehensive Peace and Electoral Journalism Project in Uganda from July 2010 to November 2011. It featured seminars, a PJ reporting contest, producing peace-themed radio programs, etc.
Publications:
1. The center will be publishing an e-magazine, "The Peace Journalist", in April and November, 2012. This semi-annual magazine will feature articles and multimedia from peace journalism practitioners from Afghanistan to Zimbabwe.
2. A chapter about the Uganda peace journalism project is featured in the just-published book, "People Building Peace 2.0" The story by Steven Youngblood was selected for the book as part of a "Stories of Peace" contest sponsored by the Peace Portal.
Looking ahead:
1. The Peace Media and Counterterrorism project will continue in May and June, 2012 as Steven Youngblood and Park Criminal Justice professors Ken Christopher, John Hamilton, and Carol Getty travel to teach in Uganda.
2. An official launch event for the center will be held in September, 2012 at Park University.
3. A peace journalism symposium will be held at a Park campus site to be determined in October, 2012.
--Follow me on Twitter @PeaceJourn--
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)