Year in Review Part II: On Zimmerman, Syria, Kenya 

The second half of 2013 brought more analysis of how peace journalism applies to a wide range of issues and disciplines. 

July began with my take on the mainstream press coverage of the George Zimmerman trial. I wrote, “Whether it’s the Lindbergh baby kidnapping trial (1935), the Jody Arias trial, the O.J. Simpson debacle, or the just completed George Zimmerman trial, there’s nothing quite like a courtroom drama to bring out the very worst in America’s press. During the Zimmerman trial, both the extent and tone of the coverage reflect little more than shameful pandering…. Both the tone and extent of the Zimmerman trial coverage represent the antithesis of peace journalism. 

“A peace journalist (and a peace journalism media outlet) would have covered the trial, but not wall-to-wall. We would have sought always to put the trial into the proper perspective—that while tragic, Trayvon Martin is just one of 6,100 U.S. gun victims since the Newtown shootings last December. Peace journalists would have given much less airtime to racial demagogues from both ends of the political spectrum, and instead sought to hear from those who seek a middle ground. Peace journalists would have speculated less, and tried to stick much more to the facts.”

In August, America seemed at the precipice of a war in Syria. I warned of the folly of such a conflict, how we must learn lessons from Iraq. “While the diplomats, generals, and weapons experts debate the veracity of the chemical weapons charges and desirability of military intervention in Syria, the media would be well advised to remember their own missteps leading up the Iraq war 10 years ago. By their own admission, many in the media shirked their watchdog role in the run up to the Iraq war. They were largely content with parroting Bush administration propaganda (lies, some might say). .. So, here we are again 10 years later, an administration vilifying a dictator and accusing him of horrible crimes against his own people. If the media have learned anything from the pre-Iraq debacle, it is that we must never be only the mouthpiece of an administration bent on intervention. We journalists need to be asking questions, and lots of them, seeking independent verification of the claims against Syria. We must be skeptical.

“As a peace journalist, one devoted to explicitly stating the consequences of war and to giving peacemakers a voice, we have an even higher responsibility in times like these. We need to lead a discussion debunking the myth of a “clean, surgical strike”, and examine at length the number of civilian injuries and deaths that could occur. Peace journalists must seek out and give a voice to peacemakers and to those who seek a non-violent response in Syria.”

One month later, I wrote about another hotspot, Kenya after the mall bombing. “As for the coverage of the mall attack, my peace journalism students and I here at Park University are closely scrutinizing how the media are treating the incident. Right now, we have more questions than answers. Among these:

 1. Does coverage inadvertently play into the hands of the attackers? Does it somehow glamorize or legitimize what they have done?

 2. Does sensational coverage make a bad situation worse? (See images from the Sunday front pages of Kenya’s two leading newspapers, The Nation and The Standard).

       3. Are bloody images necessary to tell this story, or are they merely voyeuristic and sensational? Do such images respect the privacy of victims and their loved ones?

       4. Has the coverage in any way hindered officials who are seeking to end the stand-off, and to investigate the attack?”

In November, I looked back at the JFK assassination, and wondered aloud how things might’ve been different if the media in 1963 possessed today’s technology. My students and I discussed this, and “agreed about the vital role of broadcast and print media to help news consumers sort through what would certainly have been hundreds of thousands of tweets, Facebook and blog posts, and images (or purported images) of the event. (If social media existed) in 1963, imagine the rumors, conspiracy theories, and false reports about suspects germinating online. Imagine as well the pressure of the 24-hour news cycle combined with the drama of a presidential assassination, and the irresponsible journalism that surely would have occurred under the circumstances.”

Finally, we capped off the year with a robust discussion about the merits of peace journalism. This discussion was ignited by a peace journalism seminar held in Northern Ireland. I responded to several peace journalism naysayers in my blog and on the critics’ blogs. Among other things, I wrote about the critics’ mistaken belief that  “peace journalists openly advocate for peace, which they do not. Peace journalism, instead, seeks to give peacemakers a proportionate voice and to closely scrutinize claims made by those who advocate violence. (Balance and accountability, in the terms of traditional journalism). If both peaceful and violent alternatives are presented to society, and society chooses war, so be it.” 

Peace journalists, I said, have no delusions about necessarily making the world a better place. Instead, “peace journalists would hope that at least he not make the world a worse place—to not exacerbate a bad situation, to not sensationalize an already emotional story, to not deliberately mislead and pander to his “primary audience.”  The title of (one skeptic’s) column, ‘Why I’d still write this even if I know it would provoke a riot,’ speaks volumes about the values of traditional journalism, and the now-antiquated notion that journalists bear no responsibility for the consequences of their reporting.”

As for 2014, an exciting year lies ahead. The Center for Global Peace Journalism and yours truly are organizing seminars in March in Cyprus and October in Haiti. We’re also working on grants that may bring us to Turkey and Lebanon next summer. As always, we’ll have all the details here at Peace Journalism Insights.

Happy New Year!

Year in Review Part I: PJ in Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, The Bronx

--Part 1 of 2 parts. Part 2 will be published in early January--

It’s been another interesting year for advocates and practitioners of peace journalism. As I look back on a year’s worth of blogs and articles, the only real pattern I notice is the wide applicability of peace journalism principles across a variety of disciplines, ranging from crime and electoral coverage to hip-hop culture.

In January, I discussed my own cowardice in not pressing a discussion of homosexuality during my many forays to Uganda to teach peace journalism. I wrote, “When, when my current peace media and counterterrorism project is complete, I will to seek another grant for a project emphasizing peace media and tolerance in Uganda, and perhaps elsewhere in East Africa as well. This project would be centered on using the power of media to empower the voiceless and marginalized (women, children, homosexuals) in Ugandan society.” I have followed through on this promise, and am seeking grant money to do this very thing.

In March, I wrote about the peaceful Kenyan election, and the role of peace journalists there in keeping the election peaceful. My blog said, “Of course, the headline on CNN is “Sporadic violence mars Kenyan election”. This is the opposite of peace journalism, since it highlights the violent and sensational. Given what happened in 2007, the headline should be “Miraculous election turnaround for Kenya” or “Kenyans succeed in conquering violence.”

I wrote “Media fuels misperceptions about Lebanon” during my visit there in May. I penned, “When I told my friends, family, and colleagues that I was heading to Beirut, Lebanon, the reaction was shock and horror. How could I go to such an unstable, dangerous place? I must admit to some pre-departure trepidation myself, given the reputation of Lebanon and Beirut in particular. Now, after having spent about two weeks here, I am ashamed at my hesitation in coming here. Indeed it is ironic that I am here teaching peace media, including examining stale media stereotypes, while I myself had been fooled by western media’s hysteria about the Middle East.”

During May, I also visited Kyrgyzstan in central Asia. I asked, “How are religious labels used by leaders (and media) to divide populations and inflame passions? What role do stereotypes have in laying a foundation for hate speech? These were two key questions discussed during the last day of “Generation Peace: New Media Technology for Central Asia,” a conference I’m teaching at this week at Issyk Kul lake in Kyrgyzstan.”

In June, during a visit to the Bronx, NY, I wrote “Peace journalists ponder hip-hop culture.” I commented, “Hip-hop, the students agreed, is often misogynistic and promotes violence. Many hip-hop artists, the students said, aren’t really living the street lifestyle, but are instead presenting themselves as gangsters for public relations purposes—to connect with their audience and thus sell CD’s. So, why should peace journalists care about any of this? The students and I agreed that anything that promotes stereotypes and distortions about any one group can undermine understanding and peace. Thus, it is the journalist’s role to expose anything—music, movies, TV programs—that creates a false negative stereotype. If our commitment as journalists is to the facts, and to facts presented in context, then let’s consider reporting about African American males (for example) that goes beyond the words and images in hip-hop music and videos.”

In July, I was pondering the birth of the new British royal baby when I wrote, “I'm thinking about Ugandan, Syrian, Congolese, and yes, American babies who aren't fortunate enough to be born into royal privilege. I'm especially worried about Congolese refugee children barely scraping by in western Uganda, and Syrian refugee children living in squalid camps in Lebanon and elsewhere. As peace journalists, our role is to tell their story, and keep telling their story, so that these babies might get what they need to survive. I only wish the story of the world's most vulnerable refugees could somehow command just 1/50th of the coverage of the royal baby.”

In the second half of our year-in-review (to be published in early January), we’ll discuss how journalists should cover terrorist attacks, and respond to critics speaking out against peace journalism.

Honoring Robert Kituyi, all Kenyan peace journalists

Congratulations to Kenyan journalist, Robert Kituyi, recent winner of a peace and conflict sensitive reporting award. If you ever find yourself questioning the efficacy of peace journalism trainings/workshops, read the letter below, sent to myself and my Ugandan Peace Journalism trainer/partner Gloria Laker, director of the Peace Journalism Foundation of East Africa.

Dear Prof Youngblood and Ms. Gloria,

Receive greetings from one of your Kenyan peace journalist student. I am so excited that your training with us last year and which culminated in drafting a raft of peace guidelines for our media houses paid off dividends as evidenced itself during the March election that was largely credited as peaceful.

I have been recognized as a winner in this year’s media excellence awards in print category on peace and conflict sensitive reporting. For me this has come as a sweet surprise because the award was not just as a result of one piece of an article I did but a series of many of my stories which according to the judges they maintained a theme of sustaining peace, reconciliation fostering national development.

I know we may have had a series of other trainings in the run up to the March 2013 election; your training had many aspects that were more practical and detailed in nature.

The emphasis on the need to employ the peace guidelines we drafted at the end of the three day-long training and your advice to us to consider development journalism for me was practical and although it never went well with at my former media house, I never let it go. I embarked on tracking and focusing peace and reconciliation initiatives in the Rift Valley, one of the areas known as violence hotspot in almost every general election and which experienced worst bloodshed during the December 2007 violence.

Prof, thank you so much for inspiring many of us. Our group has grown into an association after we successful carried out peace projects towards the March election. We are about 35 journalists drawn from mainly Uasin Gishu County [Eldoret]. Now with news devolved system of government (counties) each counties is being encouraged to form journalism groups something I have always wanted see take root in our country.

Back to the award I know I owe it to you guys for challenges on responsible journalism which to most of us it never meant much sense until one of our own was indicted at the International Criminal Court charged with the most serious crimes – crimes against humanity through his radio program.

I won a laptop, a Sony cyber-shot camera – tools which I have always looked forward to have. These equipment will be available to my colleagues at any given time because without their support in many way I would have achieved this feat.

And to you as my (our) mentors and trainers, on behalf my colleagues I say THANK YOU SO MUCH!

Looking forward to seeing you and sharing with you in much more other opportunities you may have in future.

Happy Christmas and a fruitful year ahead.

Robert

In defense of peace journalism: Choosing not to start a riot
By Steven Youngblood, director, Center for Global Peace Journalism

It has been both fascinating and instructive the last few days to read reports from Belfast, Northern Ireland about a peace journalism workshop held there on Nov. 29. Judging from what I’ve read, workshop attendees largely reacted negatively to the concept of peace journalism.

The consensus, summarized succinctly on the Slugger O’Toole website, was that “the phrase peace journalism was found wanting by organisers and delegates alike…partly because the journalistic ethics that apply to conflict equally apply to peace (and every other situation…Moral judgments on (not so) “absolute” rights and wrongs end up being subjective…” (http://sluggerotoole.com/2013/11/29/little-support-for-the-phrase-peace-journalism-different-ways-of-seeing-facts-justice-public-interest/) 

I’d like to take a moment to respond to some of the criticisms coming from Northern Ireland. Many of these criticisms stem from a fundamental misunderstanding of what peace journalism is, or more precisely, what it isn’t. 

In News Letter, columnist Alex Kane says it is nonsense “that journalists and editors and commentators occupy some sort of moral high-ground on which they make great, profound decisions on how they can make the world or the country a better place.”  (http://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/why-i-d-still-write-this-even-if-i-knew-it-would-provoke-a-riot-1-5722877) This statement presumes that peace journalists openly advocate for peace, which they do not. Peace journalism, instead, seeks to give peacemakers a proportionate voice and to closely scrutinize claims made by those who advocate violence. (Balance and accountability, in the terms of traditional journalism). If both peaceful and violent alternatives are presented to society, and society chooses war, so be it.

Peace journalists would ask much less of Mr. Kane than making profound, moral decisions. Instead of making the world a better place, peace journalists would hope that at least he not make the world a worse place—to not exacerbate a bad situation, to not sensationalize an already emotional story, to not deliberately mislead and pander to his “primary audience.”  The title of his column, “Why I’d still write this even if I know it would provoke a riot,” speaks volumes about the values of traditional journalism, and the now-antiquated notion that journalists bear no responsibility for the consequences of their reporting.

Kane goes on to say, “Because in precisely the same way that a variety of political parties and lobby groups steer every event to suit their own agenda, then so too will newspapers, programmes, blogs et al steer it to the needs of their core audience.” A peace journalist would ask, what are the needs of a core audience? Lacking expertise and experience in Northern Ireland, I would not presume to tell my colleagues there about their audience. However, in a broader context, peace journalists would argue that what is in the best interest of audiences generally is that they receive a broad, balanced perspective on the news—a perspective that isn’t overly reliant on official sources or sectarian or political propaganda. In the U.S., this approach suggests that the highly partisan media (Fox News on the right; MSNBC on the left) are doing a disservice to their viewers by providing stilted coverage.

Another peace journalism skeptic, John Mooney, argues on his blog against the idea that journalists should serve a common good. He writes, “The notion that journalists have a responsibility to the common good, the one that is decided for them by conflict resolutionists, brings to mind that 1950s USA blacklisted journalists as “un-American” and Stalinist USSR and Nazi Germany also regulated journalists. …I am claiming that the common good is a dangerous thing.” Mooney goes on to argue that feeding a common good can lead to censorship. He writes, “In short, I don’t believe in censorship…beyond a certain decorum. And I believe in people reporting what they see. And I believe in commentators and bloggers pushing their own agenda.” (http://fitzjameshorselooksattheworld.wordpress.com/2013/12/02/peace-journalism-letswritealongerism/ )

First, peace journalists also report what they see. If 20 people were murdered, we would write that 20 people were murdered. However, reporting that 20 people were “brutally massacred” adds nothing to the story except emotion—fuel for the fire. Peace journalism would argue that we have an ethical responsibility to not exacerbate an already volatile situation.

Secondly, journalists already make decisions every day about the common good. In hundreds of daily judgments, newspapers decide to put certain stories on page one because they are deemed important or significant. As journalists, we fundamentally believe that having broadly informed readers serves the common good. Isn’t it for the common good that the public knows about a corrupt politician? Isn’t it for the common good that we read that a charity needs more donations to buy food for the hungry? Peace journalists would argue that journalism is already in the common good business, and that our commitment not fueling violence is at least as desirable (for the common good) as holding politicians accountable for their misdeeds. 

To be fair, Mooney's column is also critical of traditional journalism. His are not the words of an extremist, but someone who embraces the important role of journalism. Mooney writes, "To be honest, I am much more interested in justice than peace." The question, of course, is the proper role of journalists in achieving justice and peace.

Even if you bristle at the term peace journalism, consider the validity of its fundamental concepts which are shared by journalism as a whole—objectivity, balance, factual reporting, ethics, accountability, and responsibility. Given these values, I would not choose to write this or any other column if I thought it would provoke a riot.

--Note: For a robust, back-and-forth discussion between Mr. Mooney and myself, see the comments section of his blog at the bottom of the page:  (http://fitzjameshorselooksattheworld.wordpress.com/2013/12/02/peace-journalism-letswritealongerism/ )