Coming soon: Peace Journalism in Cyprus
The Center for Global Peace Journalism will be in Cyprus next week. I will be lecturing at Eastern Mediterranean University, and conducting a seminar at the Cyprus Community Media Center. I will be accompanied by a peace journalism student from Park University. Regular updates will be posted on this space and on Twitter @PeaceJourn.

Rhetoric on Ukraine escalates alongside crisis

As my previous article (below) points out, the cold war propaganda machines have kicked into gear as the Ukrainian crisis escalates.

In my peace journalism class at Park University today, we’re going to take a look at coverage of the crisis from Pravda, a Russian government-controlled media outlet. Their coverage of Russia’s absorption of Crimea reveals a different reality than the one being portrayed in Western media (AP, BBC, CNN, AFP, etc.).  One needn’t even look past the headlines to divine the slant of Pravda’s coverage: “Can Russia save Ukraine?”; “Will Russia go to War to win Ukraine”; “Ukraine: Another Yugoslavia”; “Maidan Destroys Ukraine’s Cultural Heritage”; “Russia and Ukraine will never to go to war against each other”; “Russia to recall ambassador from USA after Obama’s insulting statement.”

BCC and CNN headlines reveal a different reality. These include “Russia demands Crimea’s surrender”; “How close to war”; “Russian TV rhetoric”; “Putin testing Obama”; “Why Ukraine matters to the global economy”; “Russia demanding Ukrainian military leave Crimea”; “Ukrainian interim Prime Minister says "Nobody will give Crimea away”’ “Armed men have blocked 10 Ukrainian military and naval bases in Crimea, official says.”

As I mentioned previously, peace journalists seek balance and perspective in their coverage about Ukraine. This is, of course, a tall order in Russia, where media freedom exists only on paper. In the West, however, we have no excuses. Ideally, coverage in our media should reflect multiple perspectives, including what the Russia government is saying through its media. As media, we owe our readers and listeners more than merely parroting government propaganda and perpetuating stale cold war narratives.

Ukraine:
Cold-war media rhetoric does disservice to media consumers

In a cold-war flashback, the media in Russia and the U.S. seem to be offering competing narratives about the uprising in Ukraine.

This was brought to my attention by one of the best students I have ever had, Iryna, a Ukrainian who is currently studying abroad. Iryna participated in a peace journalism training several years ago. She wrote, “When I watch the news reports about the events and how they are covered by the media in other countries, I often remember our discussion about peace journalism in Peace Camp. While Western media mainly focus on the overall situation often presenting the information from both sides of conflict, Russian media continuously go with the official version of Ukrainian government and declare all Ukrainian protesters to be "terrorists", and cut out particular segments of the videos or photos where the protesters are fighting against the police, completely cutting them out of context.”

While there is no study yet about the Russian vs. Western coverage of Ukraine, a quick glance at several websites confirms Iryna’s observations.

On the official website of Pravda, a semi-official Russian newspaper/website, articles about Ukraine do toe a discernible line, one that often places blame squarely on the protesters. The story “Civilians killed, death toll grows” uses the inflammatory language “extremists” and “radicals” to describe the protesters. While it does contain one sentence about “alleged” police shootings, the bulk of the story is from Ukrainian officials decrying the violence. Pravda’s coverage includes a story titled “Kiev sniper shoots 20 law enforcers.” This would seem consistent with Pravda’s effort to paint all the protesters with the same brush—murdering radicals and extremists.

A Pravda editorial, “Ukraine-Some questions,” clearly articulates a slanted viewpoint. “Western media outlets demonizing the Government, busloads of thugs being ferried around the country, we see the US Secretary of State speaking to the "Opposition", namely armed criminals and agents provocateurs, hooligans and an ex-boxer. What is going on? Shall we believe the western media outlets which speak about a fight for freedom, or shall we speak to Ukrainians - real, balanced Ukrainians, patriots, not wannabe (or)… common criminals, murderers, torturers, thieves - and Islamist fundamentalist elements?”

Others in Russian media are also taking a belligerent tone. In the Russian paper Vedomosti, Vasiliy Kashin writes, "Attempts to implement neo-imperialist plans in this strange country or, on the contrary, to show 'liberal solidarity' are extremely dangerous…."  (bbc.co.uk-20 Feb)
Bias is just as evident in the western media. A BBC new analysis, “Why is Ukraine in turmoil,” asks, “Those on the streets say they are struggling over the future development of the country - will it be a country based on the rule of law, or Russian-style oligarchy and closed interests?”  In BBC news reporting, those taking to the streets are called “anti-government protesters”, and never extremists, thugs, etc. While Pravda coverage seems to center on protester misbehavior, the opposite is true of BBC coverage. For example, “At least 21 protesters have been killed by security forces in Kiev following the breakdown of a truce agreed on Wednesday.”

CNN’s narrative has a similar tone, and repeats the mantra ”anti-government protesters”. The focus of the story “Truce Crumbles” (20 Feb) is on protesters fortifying barriers and “dodging” sniper fire. Later in that story, however, CNN did report that protesters were throwing rocks and Molotov cocktails. In an analysis piece “20 Questions”, CNN blames the unrest on “Russia's opposition to (closer EU ties). Russia threatened its much smaller neighbor with trade sanctions and steep gas bills if Ukraine forged ahead.”

Also, American syndicated columnist George Will writes that the Ukraine uprising is ‘the final episode of the Cold War’ in which the Kiev protesters are repudiating the trans-national Marxism of the old Soviet Union. He calls Russian president Vladimir Putin a ‘little, strutting Mussolini.’” (bbc.co.uk-20 Feb).

This cold war rhetoric does a disservice to both western and Russian audiences, leaving them with a one dimensional view of the conflict (and of each other) that lacks depth and nuance. Peace journalists shun the rhetoric in these antiquated narratives and stereotypes, eschewing “popular wisdom” while seeking balance and perspective. A peace journalist recognizes propaganda from any source, and seeks cleanse it with facts. Journalists covering the Ukrainian conflict would do well to apply the principles of peace journalism to their reporting and commentary.

Call for Papers: The Peace Journalist magazine
The Peace Journalist magazine is looking for submissions. The deadline is March 7. For more details, including what to submit and how, click here.

Knox case coverage reveals single sided media
A student told me about a professor who, on the first day of class, held up a book with a blue cover. He told the class, “This book is green.” The class, seeing the blue cover, disagreed, but the professor persisted. After a few minutes, the professor spun the book around to reveal a green back cover.

Media consumers worldwide are a bit like these students—seeing only green, they have a hard time imagining a different perspective. As Americans, this means that we have difficulty seeing things from an African or Asian perspective, and vice-versa. This phenomenon underlies a key precept of peace journalism—that reporters should offer context while presenting multiple perspectives.

An example is the media furor over American Amanda Knox, convicted of murder in Italy—a conviction upheld in Italian courts last week. The differences in how European and American media are covering this case reveal the media’s power to reinforce rigid perspectives.

There is ample evidence to reach a conclusion that a majority of the U.S. media have taken Knox’s side. “To some Americans, especially those in her hometown of Seattle, Amanda Knox seems a victim, unfairly hounded by a capricious legal system in Italy that convicted her this week in the death of a 21-year-old British woman.” (AP, Feb. 1, 2014) Other headlines scream “The Italian Justice System is Insane—Amanda Know is Completely Innocent.” (Slate, Feb. 2, 2014). Much of the U.S. coverage focused in how Knox plans to resist extradition. “I'm going to fight this until the very end. And it's not right, and it's not fair and I'm going to do everything that I can," she told ABC News' "Good Morning America" last Friday.” (Chicago Tribune, Jan. 31, 2014).

Jump across the pond, where “The tone of some British newspaper coverage reflected skepticism about Knox's protestations of innocence. 'Shameless in Seattle' was the front-page headline on Saturday's Daily Mail, which referred to Knox's "brazen TV charm offensive to escape extradition…The Rome daily La Repubblica wrote Friday that the third verdict confirms that the case "from the very beginning has been judged more on the basis of sensation than actual evidence." (AP, Feb. 1, 2014).

What’s noteworthy from a peace journalism perspective about the Knox coverage is this: Europeans are getting a steady diet of the guilty, spoiled rich American angle, while in the U.S., we’re hearing primarily about how the decrepit Italian justice system is persecuting an innocent young lady.

What’s unfortunate is that this “our side-their side” media model is replicated worldwide in matters much more serious than the fate of one young woman. If you’ve ever seen or heard the hatred spewed against “the other side” in Middle East media, for example, you’d never wonder why conflicts there seem so intractable. In some places in Africa, radio tirades against “them” help reinforce traditional hatreds. In the U.S., bile disgorged by Fox and MSNBC make political compromise much more difficult.

The peace journalism solution asks for a more balanced, thoughtful media that provides context and perspective, and, most importantly, voices from “the other side” that can allow us to consider the possibility that our adversaries may have legitimate concerns--in essence, to help us understand that it's possible for a blue book to also be green.

Kenyan journalist refuses to bow to intimidation

Shadowy figures duck into businesses or scoot around corners when you approach. Later, you hear strange clicks on your phone. Are you paranoid, or is someone really following you and tapping your phone?

Soon thereafter, all doubt is erased when these figures actually emerge from the shadows, and confront you in a direct, intimidating way. They know where you live, they sneer, or worse—they inform you that they know where your child attends school.

While this may sound like a cold-war spy novel, it is, alarmingly, a slice of life for some journalists in Kenya, particularly those covering anything that might make the government uncomfortable. This ranges from routine corruption stories to reports about the proceedings at the International Criminal Court (ICC) against Kenyan officials and journalists.

One journalist committed to making officials uncomfortable is Robert Wanjala, a freelance reporter based in Eldoret in Kenya’s Rift Valley. Eldoret and the region around it was ground zero for the post-election violence that scarred Kenya in 2007-08, and have been center stage ever since for acts of intimidation against journalists.

Wanjala writes about an increased level of threats and intimidation against the ICC witnesses and any other groups/individuals perceived by this government as its critics --including the press reporting on the issue. He said, “While I have not been directly involved in physical attacks, I have faced numerous indirect threats and intimidations from people well known – government operatives.

“I have shared these concerns with some of my colleagues and they too have expressed similar threats and intimidation in line of their duty. Some have even quit their jobs or sought refuge elsewhere,” he observed.

Wanjala, fearful of government retribution, has made the strategic decision to speak out about his situation in hopes that national and international press coverage will offer him, and his family, some degree of protection from government thugs. He has reached out to the Institute for War and Peace Reporting in London and the Center for Global Peace Journalism at Park University in the United States in hopes that they will publicize his situation and thus make it more problematic to assault him or his family. 

Wanjala said the harassment against him started last fall. He wrote, “On several occasions, I have been warned by people posing as police officers to stop writing on ICC because it’s not in the interest of the country. Some have told me to look for something better to do before things become worse. 

“This is the situation for me, last October three gentlemen “police officers” as I learned later visited one of my former employer’s office in Eldoret. They wanted to know the whereabouts of   my colleague whom I worked with together in this office prior to the December 2007 general election.

“…In two different occasions last December, two gentlemen approached me while having lunch in downtown restaurants in Eldoret. For 30 minutes, these men interrogated me over my relationship with (an ICC witness)... They also talked to me on whereabouts of my former colleague as well whose interest I write about ICC.

“Early in the same month, two men accosted me in another restaurant in same town and of curious interest they seemed so well informed about my life, where I live and about my family – my wife and two kids including where my daughter schools. That was pretty scaring because to be honest I don’t know these guys – I have never met them and I don’t know what else they know about me!

“…Identified as officials from CID (Criminal Investigation Department) from Nairobi, these gentlemen refused to show me their job IDs but reassured me they were only doing what they were sent to do and I should be grateful that the government is aware of my work. 

“In the same month of December my cell phone began making some irritating noise and when I sought phone technician advice was told there was a possibility it was being monitored security-wise. It cracks with very strange feedback which phone experts say it could be under some sort of surveillance,” Wanjala said. (Note: Wanjala reports that his suspicions about his phone monitoring can’t be confirmed, so it’s possible his phone may not be tapped and that he may just be overly suspicious because of the intimidation directed his way).

The intimidation directed against Wanjala is not unusual in Kenya. The Committee to Protect Journalists (cpj.org) reports that at least 15 journalists were threatened or attacked in Kenya in 2012, 10 of them in connection with their coverage of corruption-related issues. CPJ research also says that the majority of attacks and threats against the press occurred in small towns, and that about half the attacks took place in Western Kenya (where Wanjala is based). In addition, CPJ reports that “several journalists were threatened or attacked in 2012 in reprisal for their reporting on official corruption,” and that most of these incidents took place in Western Kenya. Finally, CPJ and others widely reported harassment and threats against journalists after the Nairobi mall attack last year.

Given the hostile media climate, and the personal threats, it would be understandable if Wanjala elected to walk away from his job to protect himself and his family. However, he bristles at this notion.

Wanjala said, “While I remain careful in every step I'll be making from now for my family's sake, I refuse to succumb to the government's threats and intimidation whose aim is to silent or frighten me and other journalists working for the common good of the under-represented in the society. Backing off will only emboldens such elements and give them a reason to think they have achieved what they initially wanted - to put fear or scare off any critical voice to (the)  government.”

Alarmed at Wanjala’s email, and concerned about his welfare, I wrote him back immediately. I said, “I am so sorry to hear about your troubles, but very proud of you for your commitment to your readers and to your country. I hope that, given similar circumstances, I would behave as you have. However, it's easy for me to be courageous sitting here (in the U.S.)  without a care in the world.

“My most important advice is this--do what is necessary to take care of yourself and your family. If this means quitting or pausing reporting, then that is what you may need to do. I know this is a drastic step, but it is always an option that should at least remain in the back of your mind. Your safety, and that of your family, comes first,” I wrote.

Wanjala—stubborn, brave, and committed—rejected my advice out of hand. “I think remaining in the profession is the best thing to do, and this has nothing to do with wanting to cut a niche for myself internationally. If death is the ultimate cost to pay for being the voice to the voiceless, the marginalized, those who lost their loved ones following the post-election violence or those killed innocently by police brutality then let it be,” he wrote.

There is no easy or quick solution to the harassment that Wanjala and his colleagues have been enduring. Instead, the best that Western interests can do is to maintain pressure on the Kenyan government to respect and protect all journalists.

To Robert Wanjala and his colleagues under pressure from Kenyan authorities, the Center for Global Peace Journalism, and the international journalism community, offer their unwavering support and commitment to a free, vibrant press in East Africa and around the world.