Somber anniversary reminds journalists of responsibilities

This weekend marks a somber anniversary in greater Kansas City—the fifth anniversary of a racist-motivated shooting at the Jewish Community Center in Overland Park that killed three people.

At the time, I was concerned about coverage of the event in the Kansas City Star that “gave voice to racism and hatred,” but encouraged by a thoughtful column that ran a few days later titled, “Reporting on Extremism: Ignore it or expose it?” See my full column below.

Five years later, these same questions about how to cover extremism and terrorism remain. Just last month, I published a column in the Kansas City Star upbraiding the paper, again, for its coverage. This time, my concern was about whether the Star should have printed a lengthy piece analyzing the New Zealand shooter’s racist manifesto.  I wrote, Printing manifestos in whole or in part gives shooters exactly what they crave: publicity for their hateful ideas.”

Yesterday, the Star ran a revealing interview with a white supremacist about his transformation away from hatred. The forward looking, solution-seeking tone of the article was excellent, as was the online publication of photos of each of the victims. However, I was disappointed, once again, to see the Star publish another photo of white supremacists giving a Nazi salute with a Confederate battle flag in the background. Isn’t publishing this photo giving the haters exactly what they want?

As I said in my column about the New Zealand shooting, “Media outlets walk a fine line between providing necessary context and giving violent racists or terrorists a megaphone. Next time, and there will sadly be a next time, let’s hope journalists err on the side of choking off publicity for the haters.”

Peace Journalism Insights, April 16, 2014

Does KC shooting coverage give voice to hate, extremism?

Peace journalism is about much more than peace and war.

That lesson is being underscored this week in Kansas City, where we are in mourning over a series of shootings that killed three people last Sunday.

Peace journalists always consider the consequences of their reporting, and, at minimum, pledge to avoid exacerbating an already bad situation—to not pour gasoline on an already raging fire.

The balance, the fine line, between giving the public the information they need and fueling the fire has been on display the last few days here in Kansas City.

From a peace journalism perspective, or the perspective of journalism in general, there’s no question that this story had to be covered. Peace journalism, contrary to some misperceptions, doesn’t ignore or soft-peddle violent acts.

On Monday, the day after the shootings, The Kansas City Star ran a banner headline that read, “Black Sunday.” The front page featured an article about the shooter titled, “Racist views, a prison record.” The following day, The Star’s front page showcased a large photo of the shotgun-wielding shooter framed by KKK flags.

Was the Star’s coverage appropriate, or did they sensationalize the crime and give voice to hate and extremism?

The Star’s coverage of the victims was outstanding—thorough, thoughtful, respectful. Profiles of the victims were prominently displayed on page one on Tuesday, as they should have been.

The difficult question for the Star and others covering this was how to handle the alleged shooter. This is the same dilemma faced when covering other hateful acts. The Boston bombing anniversary, for example, has sparked new stories about Dzokhar Tsarnaev and questions about whether he deserves even one more word of press coverage.

In the KC case, Peace journalism asks, what is the consequence of giving voice to the alleged shooter’s extremist, racist views? What impact does showing a KKK photo have? Does any of this coverage give credibility, gravitas, to the alleged shooter or his racist cause?

I agree that the alleged shooter must be covered, but I disagree with the Star’s decision to cover him on page one, particularly on Tuesday, where the shooter’s profile was carelessly laid out alongside profiles of the victims. (Click here to see .pdf of Tuesday's front page). Some might believe that this implies some equivalency between shooter and victim. As for the front page photos of the shooter (mug shot on Monday; shotgun-toting KKK flag shot Tuesday), I challenge the decision to run these on page one. Does featuring a prominent front-page photo of the alleged shooter that is much larger than the tiny photos of the victims imply that the alleged shooter is of primary importance? That certainly wasn’t the Star’s intention, even though the way the page is laid out might leave some with that misimpression.

To their credit, The Star ran a thoughtful, introspective column by reporter Dave Helling in Tuesday’s paper titled, “Reporting on Extremism: Ignore it or expose it?” In this piece, Helling wrote, “It’s unlikely daily front-page coverage will stop the damage from the worst people out there. It could make it worse.” I agree. Will the kind of celebrity now enjoyed by the alleged shooter encourage others to act on extremist views?

Helling is also correct when he wrote, “The journalist’s usual answer is balance—expose what you can without overexposing the rantings of an anti-Semite.”

It’s encouraging to see Helling’s analysis of the impact of the Star’s reporting. It is this kind of reflective, deliberate decision making about coverage, as opposed to the press’ usual reflexive sensationalism, that gives me hope that journalists can operate more professionally and responsibly.

Global reporters discuss self-censorship, inflammatory content

I had an interesting exchange with journalists at the Global Sisters Report yesterday at their Kansas City headquarters.

After my presentation on peace journalism basics, I opened up the floor for Q&A. One journalist was concerned that peace journalism amounts to no more than self-censorship. This is because it asks journalists to consider the consequences of their reporting and yes, to exclude words and images that are inflammatory without adding any value to the story. This is, incidentally, an oft-repeated criticism of PJ. My response was that I do not consider this to be self-censorship. Instead, this is journalists merely employing a filter—the same filter that journalists use hundreds of times a day to make decisions about newsworthiness, appropriateness for audience, what information to include or exclude, etc. Why not also filter out inflammatory, sensational content?

The journalist then followed up by noting, correctly, that sometimes reporters need to give raw, unpleasant details in a story. He cited a story he did on rape as an example. I agreed that stories like this, and negative, violent news in general, must be covered. The question is how. I hope journalists would ask themselves is this: are these details important for an understanding of the story, or are they merely sensational? Does including gory details re-victimize the victims? Does including these details help open the door for a possible solution, or at least a recognition generally that something must be done?

Interestingly, I've had the same exchange repeatedly with journalists in Cameroon, one of whom asked, "How can we cover a story when police shoot unarmed protesters in a way that reflects peace journalism?" My answer: sometimes the best we can do, the only thing we can do, is to report such stories without making a bad situation worse, without pouring gas on the fire.

This was my second such visit with the Global Sisters Report staff. I continue to be impressed with the quality of their journalism and with their commitment to telling stories from around the world about those who are embracing and facilitating peace, often against long odds. You can see their work at: https://www.globalsistersreport.org/ .

We know the New Zealand terror manifesto is full of hate. We don’t need the details

By Steven Youngblood

--Originally published in the Kansas City Star at:
https://www.kansascity.com/opinion/readers-opinion/guest-commentary/article228094564.html

The terrorist who allegedly killed 50 innocent Muslims in New Zealand last week would be smiling to himself if he could see some of the news coverage of the attack, and particularly the torrent of reporting devoted to his twisted manifesto.

Would-be terrorists must also be looking at the coverage and thinking that they, too, can get massive publicity for their hateful agendas by murdering innocent people.

A quick news search using the Nexis Uni research service showed more than 10,000 news media mentions under “New Zealand racist manifesto” from Friday to Sunday. The same search, narrowed to newspapers only, scored 7,049 hits. Many of these are just mentions that a manifesto exists, but many others are longer pieces detailing the crazy rantings in the shooter’s angry screed.

For example, a Washington Post article on Saturday gave scores of details about the 74-page manifesto, including the shooter’s racist rants about invaders, fascism, pop culture and the future of America. India Express that day featured a 700-word article about the manifesto that features lengthy, direct quotes from the shooter.

The Kansas City Star on Saturday also chose to feature a front-page story titled, “New Zealand shooting suspect’s manifesto says he was inspired by violent extremism.” To be fair, the entire article wasn’t about the manifesto, but instead gavs updates on the previous day’s shooting. However, there is still detailed contextual coverage discussing the foundations of racist ideology as well as white supremacist tropes.

In contrast, at least one newspaper, The Los Angeles Times on Sunday, chose to mention the manifesto only in passing in a lengthy, 1,855-word article. It discusses the manifesto in only two sentences. One mentions that the manifesto was racist and outlined plans for an attack. The other said the document articulated white supremacist views.

Did readers of this story miss out on the manifesto’s details provided by The Star, The Washington Post, India Express and many other newspapers? Are Los Angeles Times readers lacking a complete understanding of white supremacy and racism?

The answer is no. News consumers understand hatred, racism and white supremacy, with or without a lengthy recitation of these hateful, ugly attitudes by the news media. It is sufficient to say that the shooter had a racist, white supremacist manifesto that threatened violence against Muslims and others. People understand what this says and what this means without spelling out every little detail. We can all see clearly how the shooter’s racism and white supremacy manifested itself.

Printing manifestos in whole or in part gives shooters exactly what they crave: publicity for their hateful ideas. A group of mass shooting victim parents have joined forces in a project called No Notoriety that challenges media to report more responsibly about mass shootings by minimizing coverage of the shooter, maximizing coverage of the victims, and “refusing to publish self-serving statements, photos, videos, and/or manifestos made by the individual (shooter).” In so doing, No Notoriety seeks to deprive “violent like-minded individuals the media celebrity and media spotlight they so crave.”

Media outlets walk a fine line between providing necessary context and giving violent racists or terrorists a megaphone. Next time, and there will sadly be a next time, let’s hope journalists err on the side of choking off publicity for the haters.

Happy International Women's Day
In all journalism, but especially  peace journalism, women like Rose Obah in Cameroon (@obahrose), Cristina Avila Zesatti in Mexico (@brujadepaz), Vanessa Bassil in Lebanon (@VanessaBassil), and Gloria Laker in Uganda (@GloriaLaker) are key drivers for positive change.

I'm proud to call them colleagues.

Kidnapping spotlights importance of collective advocacy

A shot was fired across the bow of journalism last week in Cameroon, where a journalist was kidnapped. The abduction scare was a reminder of the fragility of individual journalists, the importance of our profession, and the essential nature of collective action to protect ourselves and our profession.

Ambe Macmillian Awa, president of the Cameroon Association of English Speaking Journalists (CAMASEJ), was kidnapped Thursday, Feb. 21 in Bamenda in Northwest Cameroon, where there is ongoing uprising against the government. At the time, it was not known who took him, or why, or if he was safe

Ambe’s kidnapping set off an avalanche of advocacy on his behalf by CAMASEJ, the Cameroon Community Media Network (CCMN), of which Ambe is an active member, the Center for Global Peace Journalism at Park University, and, crucially, the Committee to Protect Journalists. CPJ Africa Program Coordinator Angela Quintal was on the case immediately, seemingly moments after Ambe’s abduction, making inquiries, and bombarding social media with messages about his disappearance, and demanding his release. CAMASEJ disseminated a press release online that “vehemently” condemned the kidnapping, and called on the kidnappers to immediately release him, “making sure that no hair on his head is lost.”

Fortunately, this is exactly what happened. Ambe was released the following day, unharmed physically. In a press release announcing the good news, CAMASEJ said that Ambe was kidnapped by separatist fighters who accused him of advocating for re-opening schools, a stance seem by separatists as pro-government. Ambe said outside pressure may have hastened his release, noting in the CAMASEJ press release that the kidnappers kept receiving calls during the night when the news of his kidnapping went viral. Ambe said he suspects “this should have in one way or another make them uncomfortable in keeping him.”

Ambe Macmillian Awa

This incident underscores the importance of collective advocacy on behalf of journalists both locally and internationally, and the need to support organizations like CAMASEJ, CCMN, and CPJ. It also highlights the fragile position of journalists around the world, and especially in places like Cameroon, where reporters are caught between the “two loaded guns” of government on one side and separatists on the other. (For more about journalists under threat in Cameroon and elsewhere, see the previous edition of the Peace Journalist magazine).

CAMASEJ said that the kidnapping was “tantamount to kidnapping all journalists in the region and the nation.” Indeed. Kidnappings, beatings, and arrests of journalists have a chilling effect on the profession, fueling self-censorship while discouraging the critical discourse that societies need.

While Ambe’s story has a happy ending, it should remind us once again that for journalists worldwide, danger is always lurking in the shadows.

In a press release upon being freed, Ambe wrote, “I appreciate the media solidarity thrown behind me nationally and internationally. What doesn't kill you makes you stronger. Let the past be the past. The practice of good journalism continues.”