Wednesday, August 28, 2019

Gandhi: The first peace journalist
When asked to describe Mahatma Gandhi, most would say he was an Indian independence leader, human rights defender, and spiritual guide. However, “People don’t think of him as a journalist” even though “he was a journalist from an early age, and died as a journalist.”
Prof. Raj Gandhi, on peace and peace
journalism, at Park U.
(Photo by Phyllis Gabauer)

This is according to professor, historian, and author Rajmohan Gandhi, the grandson of Mahatma Gandhi. Professor Gandhi was the featured speaker at a program titled “Gandhi: The First Peace Journalist,” held at Park University on Aug. 26.

The evening began with a presentation by Gandhi documentarian Cynthia Lukas about Gandhi’s background as a journalist. Gandhi was a prolific journalist and editor who was well-known in India for his articles stressing social justice in such publications as Indian Opinion, Young India, and Navajivan (A New Life). Lukas said his writing avoided inflammatory, “poisonous journalism” (as Gandhi termed it). Instead, Mahatma Gandhi emphasized civility and politeness in his articles, striving always to “step into the shoes of our opponents.”

Professor Gandhi agreed, adding that it is “certainly correct to describe Gandhi as a journalist.” His grandson said Gandhi was a staunch defender of the free press who nonetheless understood the need to avoid inflammatory rhetoric, to “put a curb on his own pen.”

My presentation followed, and supported the premise that Gandhi was indeed a peace journalist. I listed several characteristics shared by Gandhian and peace journalism. These include rejecting “us vs. them” narratives; journalism as public service; media as a tool to de-escalate conflicts; using journalism as a means to foster reconciliation; carefully choosing one’s words to avoid sensationalism; giving a voice to the voiceless; and emphasizing facts and truth.
Gandhi: The First Peace Journalist, 8/26 in the Park University chapel.
(Photo by Phyllis Gabauer)

Regarding language, I shared a quote with the audience. Writing about the “Indian Opinion” journal, Gandhi said, “I cannot recall a word in those articles set down without thought or deliberation, or a word of conscious exaggeration, or anything merely to please…”

The truth, and facts, had no more strident champion than Gandhi. I presented this telling quote from 1926: “The way to peace is the way of truth. Truthfulness is even more important than peacefulness. Indeed, lying is the mother of violence. The truth of a few will count; the untruth of millions will vanish even like chaff before a whiff of wind.”

Professor Gandhi agreed with my assessment that Mahatma Gandhi was indeed a peace journalist. He cited an incident where the Mahatma called out those who had labeled an opponent a snake. “To liken someone to a snake…is a degrading performance,” the professor quoted his grandfather.

The final speaker was Park professor Abhijit Mazumdar, who discussed inflammatory and often hate-filled speech in South Asian media. He cited examples from social media, including hash tags like #HatePakLovers, as well as inflammatory name-calling on Indian TV like “shrieking raccoon” and venomous snake.” In addition, he noted many examples of false news that have been reported by Indian television. Professor Gandhi added that Indian media often spread “toxicity.”

The event closed with a Q&A session for the presenters, though the questions were understandably directed at Professor Gandhi, who shared his frank assessment of the media’s shortcomings as well as his optimism that media can be more responsible. Several questions asked about how individuals can be peacebuilders. Prof. Gandhi encouraged the audience to spread the word about what he believes is oppression of the Kashmiri people. He reminded the audience that anyone can be a peacebuilder, and inspired them with his hope and belief that the world can become a more peaceful place.

The event was sponsored by Park University’s Center for Global Peace Journalism.

PERSONAL NOTE:
It was thrilling, and surreal, to share the stage with a peacebuilding icon like Professor Raj Gandhi. It was heartening to hear that we share many of the same attitudes about peace and those who impede peace, and about the potential of peace journalism to guide a more productive discourse in the media. It’s gratifying to have one’s work validated by one of the world’s most celebrated peacemakers.

Next post: Prof. Gandhi visits Park University students, classes.


At Park U event, L to R: Barbara Youngblood, Usha Gandhi,
Prof. Raj Gandhi, Dr. Greg Gunderson, Park U.President,
Laurie Gunderson,Steven Youngblood











Wednesday, August 21, 2019

Big event-- Gandhi: The First Peace Journalist

Join us at Park University (Parkville, MO; Greater Kansas City area) for an event celebrating Mahatma Gandhi's 150th birthday. The event features Prof. Rajmohan Gandhi, scholar, author, and grandson of Mahatma Gandhi.

7:00-8:30-Monday, Aug. 26, Park University Chapel
Gandhi: The first peace journalist 

What lessons can Gandhi teach us about journalism and public service, and about the responsibility of journalists in a conflicted society? This program features Prof. Rajmohan Gandhi, scholar, author, and grandson of Mahatma Gandhi; Gandhi filmmaker Cynthia Lukas, and Park University Professors Abhijit Mazumdar and Steven Youngblood, who is also the director of the Center for Global Peace Journalism.

Admission is free, and no pre-registration is required.

Tuesday, August 6, 2019

Call for submissions: The Peace Journalist
You are invited to submit an article for the October, 2019 edition of the Peace Journalist magazine. We are seeking articles of 500-1500 words about peace and media projects, workshops, seminars, courses, and so on. Our magazine is journalism and media focused, so we do not seek articles about peace projects that do not relate directly to media and journalism. The deadline for submissions is September 5. Feel free to submit photos as well.

The magazine usually fills up quickly. You can increase your chances of publication by getting your article in early.

You can find a copy of the April, 2019 edition of the magazine here: https://www.park.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Peace-Journalist-Apr2019-web.pdf  .

Thank you for your interest in the Peace Journalist.

Steven L. Youngblood
Director, Center for Global Peace Journalism
Editor, The Peace Journalist magazine
Author, “Peace Journalism Principles and Practices”
Park University, Parkville, MO USA
steve.youngblood@park.edu
@PeaceJourn


Friday, July 19, 2019

Do we call Trump a racist?
I've been reading a number of thought-provoking articles this week about the appropriateness of using the term "racist" to describe the president and/or his tweets.

In a thoughtful piece on NPR, Keith Woods recommends foregoing labels like "racist." He writes, "That's an alternative to labels: Report. Quote people. Cite sources. Add context. Leave the moral labeling to the people affected; to the opinion writers, the editorial writers, the preachers and philosophers; and to the public we serve."

In the other corner, Issac Bailey writes on Nieman Reports that journalists should use the term since we are in the business of calling things by their names. He said, "In a moment in which clarity is worth its weight in gold, media once again stumbled down the confused path when most Americans are desperately looking for some direction so they can figure out what the heck is going on and what the heck they should think and do about it. ‘Yes, this is what racism looks like,’ we should be screaming to them—not as an editorial opinion, but as a fact."

I frame this debate in terms of peace journalism, and the notion that journalists should lead substantive societal discussions without deepening divisions and falling into the “us vs. them” narratives that many politicians seek. In a previous column, I wrote about the inadvisability of using the term “concentration camp” to describe immigrant detention centers. I oppose this term because I think it further divides us, and makes discussion across political boundaries even more difficult. The same can be said about the term “racist.” When we call Trump racist, are we tarring his supporters with the same brush? And if we are, aren’t we making it more difficult to have an adult dialogue with them about important issues like race and immigration?

I prefer using phrases like, “a tweet widely considered racist” and “comments echoing those of racist segregationists of the 1950’s.” Point out the historical similarities between Trump and the George Wallaces of the world, and between Trump's language and that used by white supremacists, and let readers apply their own labels and judgments.


Monday, July 8, 2019

Horrifying photos sometimes necessary
“The first time I saw the picture, I looked away quickly, shocked. The second time I saw it, tears welled up in my eyes.”

While these words accurately describe my reaction to seeing the awful photo of Óscar Alberto
AP photo of area where Oscar and Valeria Ramirez were found.
Martínez Ramírez and his 23-month-old daughter, Valeria, whose bodies had washed up along the Rio Grande’s shores a few weeks ago, they were in fact written in 2015, and chronicled my reaction to the photo of Alyan Kurdi, a three-year-old Syrian refugee who drowned and washed ashore in Turkey.


Our humanity, and our journalistic principles, are continually being challenged by the plight of migrants. As journalists, we must incessantly, vigilantly question whether (and how) to use shocking, horrifying photos like these.

In hindsight, in Alyan’s case, the right thing may have been to publish the photo, which generated a mountain of both increased interest in and donations for Syrian refugees. For example, Reuters reported, “The average number of daily donations to a Syrian refugee fund run by the Swedish Red Cross rose 100-fold. Before the photo circulated, the charity received fewer than 1,000 donations in a day; afterwards, it rose to almost 14,000.”

Before any of this was known, Alyan’s photo ignited debates in newsrooms about the appropriateness of using the image. Robert Mackey, writing in the New York Times (September 25, 2015) said, "A number of reporters argued forcefully that is was necessary to confront the public with the human toll of the war in Syria, and the impact of policies that make it difficult for refugees to find asylum in Europe. But many editors were concerned about shocking their readers and wanted to avoid the appearance of trafficking in sensational images for profit."

Those same issues frame the debate about the Ramirez photo. On one hand, there’s an understandable desire to shock complacent readers about the grim reality on the U.S. southern border. On the other, there’s the concern about sensationalizing the story and exploiting its victims.

A strong case can be made for using the photo. “It’s irresponsible for a news organization to shield its audience from hard truths,” Kelly McBride wrote at Poynter.org. “…No matter what your political views on immigration are, the fact that so many children are suffering because of decisions made by the U.S. government is something every American should take note of.” 

The counter argument is primarily concerned about how the picture was used. The National Association of Hispanic Journalists (NAHJ) slammed the Associated Press for tweeting the Ramirez photo, which it called “exploitative and dehumanizing.” A NAHJ statement said it was especially egregious that it was used on Twitter, which means that users could just stumble upon the image which was “thrust into news feeds without discretion for the viewers or the migrant family the Associated Press exploited.” 

The NAHJ and McBride are both right.

If accuracy is our bedrock principle, then how can this tragedy be told without the photo? If responsible peace journalism gives voice to the voiceless, the photo is necessary to animate the tragedy of the Ramirez family and of the other 6,915 migrants who died along the border between 1998 and 2016. (https://www.nnirr.org/drupal/stopping-migrant-deaths )

That said, NAHJ’s is correct that slipping the Ramirez photo into people’s social media feeds without letting them decide if they want to see it is irresponsible. Many news outlets were more careful with the Ramirez photo.  “NPR didn't lead with photo, but website readers see the image as they scroll down…(Also), The Los Angeles Times didn’t use the image on its homepage, but it runs at the top of the story." (Poynter.org)

News organizations must first decide if photos like Alyan Kurdi and Oscar and Valeria Ramirez are needlessly sensational, or are instead necessary for a complete understanding of the story. Then, journalists must decide if the photo accurately reflects the story, or instead relies on or reinforces stereotypes, racism, sexism, or xenophobia. If the photo is accurate and necessary, then it should be used, though readers must be allowed to choose for themselves if they want to see it.

--For another interesting take on this, see: https://www.pri.org/stories/2019-06-26/what-difference-does-one-photo-make-lot-first-then-nothing