Support for Afghan journalists is vital
The Center for Global Peace Journalism strongly supports initiatives to aid Afghan journalists in this time of need.

Afghan journalists are in dire danger, as has been widely reported in the press. (See AP News and CPJ.org). This danger is especially acute for female journalists. (See Business Insider and BBC). 

While organizations like Amnesty International have rightly called upon Afghan authorities (now, the Taliban) to “take urgent steps to protect journalists,” the best solution is for journalists to be given priority status as refugees and asylum seekers.

On Aug. 2, the State Department announced that Afghan journalists "who are or have been employed by U.S. media organizations would receive priority designation for refugee status. In order to qualify, however, the journalists would have to get to a third country and survive for a year or longer while their applications are processed."  (Washington Post). 

While this is an excellent step, more must be done. Those eligible under the Aug. 2 State Dept. order should be issued SIV program status, which will allow them to come directly to the US rather than wait in a third country for a year. This status should be extended to Afghans who freelanced for Western media outlets, and well as for other Afghan journalists, especially female journalists, who can demonstrate that they are threatened.

What else can be done? My colleague Dr. Jake Lynch suggests contributions to the International Federation of Journalists, which is working to support our colleagues in Afghanistan through their Afghanistan Solidarity Fund. I’m sure the International Center for Journalists and the  Committee to Protect Journalists would also welcome your contributions.

Of course, we can make our representatives aware of our concern for Afghan journalists and our strong belief in liberal relocation, refugee, and asylum policies.

It’s vital that the international journalism community continue to vigilantly monitor the situation in Afghanistan, and loudly advocate for our Afghan brothers and sisters in need.

LATER THIS WEEK: An Afghan colleague (journalist and academic) discusses the situation there, and whether life can ever return to “normal” again. “All we can do is hope,” he said.

Call for Papers-The Peace Journalist
The Peace Journalist, a semi-annual magazine produced by the Center for Global Peace Journalism at Park University, is seeking submissions for its October edition. Submissions should be 500-1500 words, and address peace journalism/peace media research and projects. Please also submit photos, if possible. We do not run articles about general peace projects or processes unless they have a strong mediacomponent/angle. 

The deadline for submission is Sept. 10. The magazine usually fills up quickly, so the sooner you can get your pieces in, the better.  

Submit to steve.youngblood@park.edu. 

The previous edition of The Peace Journalist can be found at https://www.park.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Peace-Journalist-April-2021-web.pdf. 

Thank you, 

Steven Youngblood
Editor, The Peace Journalist magazine
Director, Center for Global Peace Journalism
Assoc. Professor, Communications and Peace Studies
Park University, Parkville, Missouri  USA
www.park.edu/peacecenter
@PeaceJourn 

Part II: The Infodemic and the PJ Solution
The entry below is excerpted from a chapter I wrote on the infodemic and peace journalism for an upcoming textbook, "The Pandemic and At-risk Society: Perspectives of Communication." Part I of this excerpt is in the previous blog below, and details the infodemic itself. In Part II, I discuss how peace journalism techniques might mitigate the infodemic--Ed.

When it comes to reporting about the pandemic, journalism has a mixed report card. Responsible, diligent media have distributed vital, life-saving information, while compassionately spotlighting heroes in the medical profession alongside brave Covid-19 survivors. However, on the darker side, many media, especially partisan and social media outlets, have followed the lead of self-serving politicians bent on spreading misinformation and propaganda regardless of the cost. 

The consequences of the “Infodemic” have been dire. In 2020, hundreds of thousands (millions?) believed the virus was a hoax or perhaps that the threat was greatly exaggerated. In 2021, those intoxicated by misinformation are vaccine hesitant, and continue to support policies and politicians that undermine public health initiatives. In terms of lives lost, an August 2020 study in the American Journal of Tropical Medicine said that at least 800 people died and 5,800 people were hospitalized worldwide due to misinformation. Many of these people died from ingesting false cures (methanol, mega vitamin doses, etc.).  This study covered just the first six months of the pandemic, from March to August, 2020. Though it’s not strictly scientific to do so, it is still instructive to imagine if this study included another 12 months (from September 2020 to August 2021). If we do this, the 18 month pandemic totals become truly alarming: 2,400 deaths and 17,400 hospitalizations due to misinformation.

The world may never know how many died because, thinking the virus was a hoax or exaggerated, people rejected anti-virus precautions; or how many died or got sick because they incorrectly believed the vaccine was ineffective, dangerous, and unnecessary. 

How can journalists improve their coverage so that it mitigates the misinformation? The following list offers some ideas for journalists on how to improve their pandemic reporting using peace journalism principles. 

Covid-19 Reporting Using Peace Journalism Principles

1. Always consider the impact of your reporting. Don’t gratuitously make things worse for the people whose stories you report, or for the general public. 

2. Accuracy is paramount. Rumors can be dramatic and exaggerated. Dangers can be under- reported or downplayed. Facts can be slippery in mid-crisis. Inaccurately quoting a victim can be traumatic; inaccurately quoting an expert can be deadly. Check, double check, triple check facts with experts (virologists, epidemiologists). Remember, politicians are not experts. Also, don’t assume all medical doctors are experts on viruses of this sort, or on public health responses. Check the credentials of all “experts.”

3. Journalists should thoughtfully select the images they use, understanding that they can misrepresent an event, exacerbate an already dire situation, and re-victimize those who have been traumatized. For example, was it necessary to use images of the burning funeral pyres in India in the spring of 2021? Were these images necessary to the viewer’s understanding of the story, or were the images merely used sensationally, to sell newspapers or generate clicks?

4. Don’t prematurely jump on the “blame” bandwagon, or to conclusions, and consider the impact of “blame” reporting on traumatized victims and the public. Post pandemic, journalists should lead societal discussions about future preventative and mitigation measures (without advocating for any one solution).

5. Don’t intrude on victims and their families. The National Union of Journalists (UK) code of conduct says, a journalist “does nothing to intrude into anybody’s private life, grief or distress unless justified by overriding consideration of the public interest. Be honest and clear about what you are doing. Identify yourself.” 

6. Avoid inflammatory, sensational language that exacerbates the pandemic’s trauma. Never embellish stories.

7. Research the treatments, cures, and vaccines, so you know the background and can be sensitive to contested narratives (e.g., vaccines are dangerous, hydroxychloroquine is a viable cure, lockdowns aren’t necessary).

8. When reporting about the pandemic, journalists should give a voice to the vulnerable, marginalized voiceless in their societies—minorities, the poor, homeless, prisoners, immigrants, etc. As we know, these groups have been disproportionately impacted by the virus, both in terms of contracting it, and related to the pandemic’s economic impact.

9. Journalists should reject formulaic, stereotypical coverage and instead offer counternarratives about the pandemic’s impact, vaccine-hesitant persons, medical workers, devastated businesses, etc.

10. Journalists should explain to their audiences the shifting nature of scientific knowledge about the virus, the vaccine, preventative and therapeutic measures, etc. Best practices, like masking, went from disfavor to mandatory, confusing many citizens. Journalists need to help the public better understand scientific processes. Adjustments are routinely made to public health recommendations as more data are accumulated, for example. These adjustments prove the system is working, instead of indicating an error by scientists.
(Developed with input from Dart Center Journalism Trauma Reporting Handbook, the Northern Ireland National Union of Journalists Code of Conduct, and the principles of peace journalism.)

Given the life-and-death stakes, reporters must embrace peace journalism and the opportunity it offers journalists to professionalize their Covid-19 reporting.

The Infodemic and Peace Journalism--Part I
The impact of pandemic misinformation has been dubbed the “infodemic” for good reason. The infodemic has had a significant impact on the public, and on the study and practice of journalism, including peace journalism.

I recently finished a chapter on the infodemic and peace journalism for an upcoming textbook, "The Pandemic and At-risk Society: Perspectives of Communication," that will be published later this year. I am providing excerpts of this chapter here in Peace Journalism Insights. In today’s entry, we’ll briefly look at the coverage, and its impact on society.

The coverage
There are many studies examining the framing of Covid-19 reporting around the world. One study from researchers Margrit Betke and Lei Guo at Boston University tracked Covid-19-related news in China, South Korea, the United States, and the United Kingdom. This study showed that stories in these countries were framed around scientific research, frontline healthcare workers, and the domestic and global outbreaks. However, in all four countries, researchers noted a shift to domestic and international economic consequences and financial fallout of the pandemic—topics that have remained a primary focus in these four countries.

Also, researchers analyzed the tone of pandemic news stories in the mainstream U.S. media and transcripts from television broadcasts and compared them to the content in international media outlets and scientific journals. They found “startling negativity” in the mainstream U.S. media.

For example, 90% of school-reopening articles from the U.S. mainstream media were negative, versus only 56% for the English-language media in other countries. Stories of increasing COVID-19 cases outnumbered stories about decreasing cases by a factor of 5.5 — even during periods when new cases were declining, according to a working paper circulated by the National Bureau of Economic Research.”

Polarized, Partisan Coverage
Around the world, much of the bad Covid information can be attributed to politicians and their media minions intent on filtering the pandemic through distorted partisan lenses, oftentimes putting the public at risk in the service of political ends.

One study looked at the similarities between supporters of right wing politicians Donald Trump in the U.S. and Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil. The results of the study “have important public policy implications. Current studies in the US and Brazil have shown that districts with high voter support for Trump and Bolsonaro respectively, have steeper epidemiological curves for the COVID-19 spread (Ajzenman et al., 2020; Mariani et al., 2020; Allcott et al., 2020). Our research shows that this is consistent with government messages that made COVID-19 a wedge partisan issue. At a time when perceived health risks is critical to manage the COVID-19 pandemic successfully, findings of this article should be of interest to public health professionals and communication experts.”

In Brazil, it should come as no surprise that the partisanship stoked by Bolsonaro impacted audiences and spotlighted media-enhanced partisan narratives about the pandemic. According to one study, “Escalation in explicitly denying the gravity of the outbreak dur¬ing late March affected public perceptions about the pandemic over time. Ajzen¬man et al. (2020) use cell phone location data to show that compliance with social distancing decreased more sharply after late March, especially in localities with larger support for the President. Calvo and Ventura (2020) show that social media messages had the potential to shape views about Covid-19. Finally, Storopoli et al. (2020) use original survey data to show that, while trust in the media is positively associated with Brazilians’ willingness to engage in preventive behavior towards the outbreak, trust in the federal government displays the opposite relationship.”

Polarizing, partisan coverage of the pandemic has also impacted audiences in the U.S., according to polling done by both Pew Research and Gallup. In 2020, both pollsters showed that Republicans (conservatives) were much less likely to take the risks of the coronavirus as seriously as Democrats (liberals).

A March 2020 Gallup poll “finds that Democrats are much more likely than Republicans to be worried about getting the virus; much less trusting in the federal government to deal with the situation; and more likely to believe that the virus will have a negative effect on the world's economy. Further, workers who identify or lean toward the Democratic Party are more likely to say the virus will have a negative impact on their work.”

The residual effects of partisan, polarizing reporting can be seen in 2021 in the form of vaccine hesitancy. Surveys show there is a large, partisan gap among those who say they have or will get the Covid 19 vaccine vs. those who won’t get vaccinated.  According to the Pew Research Center, “Partisan differences, which have long characterized views about the outbreak, are increasingly seen in vaccine intent. Democrats are now 27 percentage points more likely than Republicans to say they plan to get, or have already received, a coronavirus vaccine (83% to 56%). This gap is wider than those seen at multiple points in 2020.”

NEXT WEEK—Part II from the chapter. How can peace journalism be used to stamp out the infodemic?

Nigerian reporters discuss PJ, journalist safety
About 120 Nigerian journalists gathered on Zoom on June 22-23-24 to learn about and discuss peace journalism. The event was sponsored by the U.S. Embassy in Abuja.

The journalists joined the Zoom conference from locations across Nigeria, including Abuja, Ibidan, Kano, Maiduguri, Sokoto, and Bauchi.

On the first day, I presented the basics of peace journalism, and we discussed how it might apply in a Nigerian context. Two questions were each asked several times. The first was whether peace journalism is advocacy journalism. I responded that reporting about something is not advocating that something. War correspondents, after all, don’t advocate for war, they report about it. The same with peace journalists, who are reporting using the voices of peacemakers while giving information about nonviolent options, but not advocating for these options.

The second question dealt with the role of media vis-a-vis government, and particularly a government intent on censorship. Exhibit A in this censorship is the recent total ban of Twitter in Nigeria.

On the second day, we discussed reporting terrorism and civic unrest, two topics of special importance in Nigeria. Asked to list the weaknesses of Nigerian coverage of terrorism, the journalists listed not having access to terrorists for comments/information; anti-Islam and/or regional bias, and sensationalism. The strengths included providing the public with a wealth of information about terrorist impacts.

As to how terrorism coverage could be improved, the journalists listed several excellent ideas:

a.Being more objective
b. Helping to seek common ground
c. Balancing stories with information from all sides
d. Eliminating sensationalism
e. More careful work choice
f. Focusing on victims

The third day of the seminar, we discussed how peace journalism might apply to covering migrants and reconciliation issues, as well as journalist safety in Nigeria and how this can be enhanced by using PJ. I asked the journalists to create their own safety plan. These are some of their suggestions about how Nigerian journalists can enhance their on-the-job safety:

-Carry out risk assessment before going to cover a conflict.
-Take caution to avoid second incident impact like in cases of bomb explosions etc.

-Complete adherence to the principles of peace journalism.
-Sharing survival experience with other colleagues

-Balanced reporting can help journalists reduce risk of attacks.
-Have personal protective gear like pepper spray and bullet proofs

-Watch utterances in your reporting or verbal communication
-While visiting a tense environment, wear garments that clearly identify you as a journalist.

-Survey the area beforehand and stay far away from the area of violence while reporting.
-Do your research so you don't get caught up in violent clashes.

In sum, wrote one reporter, “Journalists have to avoid unnecessary risks and ensure their safety first.”

I was impressed by the engagement and participant from the journalists, especially given the challenges of a Zoom conference. As I told the participants, I learned as much as they did about the complex and challenging media environment in Nigeria. It’s my hope to engage these same journalists face-to-face very soon.