New Peace Journalist magazine unveiled to an anxious world
Study says indigenous voices are marginalized.
How can they be amplified instead?
One of peace journalism’s most essentially important tenets
has always been giving a voice to the marginalized, to those traditionally
ignored or given only lip service by the media.
A study by the Thai NGO Knowledge for Development titled “The State of Indigenous Journalists in Asia” confirms the need to be vigilant about giving a voice to the marginalized. The study looked at seven Asian nations (Cambodia, Bangladesh, India, Malaysia, Nepal, and the Philippines) and found that “indigenous journalists are severely underrepresented in national media institutions across the seven countries. Indigenous journalists are often relegated to junior roles and perceived as biased. Indigenous women face triple marginalization (gender, ethnicity, and poverty) and are nearly invisible in media leadership.” It found that in addition, structural challenges like funding, inadequate training, press freedom, journalists’ safety, and digital divides often hinder the growth of indigenous media.
When indigenous persons (IPs) are covered, these stories are
“largely centered on indigenous culture, costumes, and lifestyle features. However,
they did not raise real issues of human rights, land rights, indigenous rights,
and other injustices impacting their lives,” according to the study.
With this in mind, I’ve worked hard to include indigenous voices
in the programming for journalists that I coordinate here at the East-West Center. For example, our Jefferson Fellowship program last year included a fascinating visit to the Heʻeia National Estuarine Research Reserve and Heʻeia Fishpond on Oahu to learn
about traditional aquacultural practices. Our visit included an informative, eye-opening
tour given by Dr. Kawika Winter, director of the reserve. The fellows also interviewed indigenous farmers
in northern Thailand who have transitioned from producing poppies to producing
coffee. This fall, the Jefferson Fellows will be participating in a panel titled,
“AI and Indigenous Hawaiian Society: Impacts and Opportunities.” The
panel will feature Kamuela Enos, director of the Office of Indigenous Knowledge and Innovation at the University of Hawaii, talking
about digital sovereignty (the right of Indigenous communities and Nations to
govern, control, and manage their own digital ecosystems).
While I believe this programming is useful, we need to do more than just amplify these voices of wisdom. The journalism establishment and larger society must empower
indigenous people to shape their own narratives about themselves and their
communities. This means “indigenizing media” to “create spaces where IPs have
greater access and meaningful participation, their voices are heard and there
is adequate coverage of their issue from their perspectives,” according to Dev
Kumar Sunuwar, an indigenous media professional from Nepal. (study, pg. 19).
The Knowledge for Development study makes several
recommendations:
--Formal recognition of IPs and enforcement of UNDRIP Article 16 that deals
with IP’s right to establish their own media.
--Quotas, scholarships, and support for indigenous journalists in colleges,
universities and media institutions.
--Dedicated funding, safety protocols, training, and mentorship programs.
--Decolonization of journalism curricula and media institutions. Sunuwar from
Nepal explains, “The concept of decolonizing media includes the notion that
media outlets should have better representation of indigenous journalists, who
would provide different, comprehensive, and more accurate coverage of indigenous
peoples rather than merely reporting on death and destruction.”
--Support for regional indigenous media networks and collaboration.
Our media and societies are stronger when indigenous and
other marginalized voices are heard and respected.
 |
| A story in the Philippines media outlet Rappler about indigenous people and news media. (Link) |
 |
| World Food Programme's HungerMap |
How often have we read about this?
When it comes to reporting about hunger, all too often,
traditional media leave audiences wanting more.
First, food security crises are grossly underreported. For
example, in Zimbabwe, drought threatens the food security of millions,
especially in rural areas. “It was heartbreaking to see the severity of the
2023/24 El Niño-induced drought in Zimbabwe affecting millions of people in
Zimbabwe so widely overlooked by the media. Communities struggled to access
clean water and sufficient food. The lack of international attention is hardly
helpful when families in urgent need are hoping for support,” says Charlene
Pellsah Ambali, Assistant CARE Country Director in Zimbabwe. (CARE report)
When it does get reported, hunger is all too often framed as episodic—a short term famine that occurs as the result of a war or natural disaster. Yet, hunger experts know that the factors driving hunger are often long term or systemic. Also, media often attribute hunger to poor individual choices or bad luck, again rather than as a systemic issue. Those experiencing hunger are portrayed only as helpless victims, stripped of their agency, in ways that reinforce harmful stereotypes that lead to compassion fatigue. (News Media Framing of Food Policy; WorldHunger.org; Investigating News Media and Third Sector Views on Food Poverty; Global Investigative Journalism Network).
On top of this, journalists who want to responsibly report about food insecurity can find it difficult to get the real-time, updated information they need. That problem, however, has been solved by a new online tool from the World Food Programme.
HungerMap is a new tool that “offers AI-assisted forecasting capabilities of projected
food needs in WFP designated Hunger Hotspots – 16 countries with populations
already struggling with catastrophic hunger. Studies have shown that early
warning of emerging food security issues can reap tremendous cost savings and
operational efficiencies…HungerMap Live platform brings together data from
WFP’s extensive network of more than 300 analysts working on food
security monitoring and mapping with information from dozens of trusted
partners. This includes the global benchmark for food insecurity data (known as
IPC), government validated statistics, climate, market, agricultural and
economic data…HungerMap Live answers three critical questions: What is the
current state of food security across the world? Which countries and regions
require urgent attention? And what are the underlying factors contributing to
food security needs?” (WFP press release)
Armed with reliable real-time information, journalists now
have the ability to give world hunger the attention it deserves. One only hopes that
they will have the desire to do so.
Call for articles: The Peace Journalist magazine
The Peace Journalist, a semi-annual magazine produced by the Center for Global Peace Journalism, is seeking submissions for its June edition. Submissions should be 800-1600 words, and address peace journalism/peace media projects and research. Please also submit photos, if possible. We do not run articles about general peace projects or processes unless they have a strong, central media component/angle.
Iran war language: Is it 'epic?' Are Iranians 'bloodthirsty thugs?'
The language of war is nearly as important as the war itself,
since this language frames the public discourse about the war—discourse that can
lead to either support for or opposition to the conflict.
In the case of the Iran war, many Western media outlets have resorted to inflammatory, demonizing, sensational, and stereotyping language that helps to fuel and sustain conflict. Yes, U.S. public support for the Iran war is low (39%,vs. 54% who oppose it). Would it be even lower if the media were using more neutral language to frame the war?
The media’s use of sensational language begins when journalists parrot the administration’s propagandistic, video-game-esque moniker for the war, “Operation Epic Fury.” On CNN.com, Harmeet Kaur writes that "epic" is a word rooted in antiquity that today colloquially means “particularly impressive or remarkable.” He believes that using “epic” to describe a war makes the violence feel remote and "spectacular," rather than a human tragedy.
 |
| AI generated image |
Former CNN and BBC journalist Jim Stenman agrees. He writes
that using the administration’s term is evocative of the “Shock and Awe”
propaganda from the Bush Administration during the Iraq war. “Today, the
vocabulary has evolved, but the underlying mechanism remains unchanged: the
aestheticization of catastrophe,” he observes. “There is a clinical efficiency
in branding a war or conflict in this manner. When a crisis is packaged with
such theatrical flair, it serves as a psychological buffer for the viewer. It
makes the unthinkable marketable, framing geopolitical failure as a structured,
almost heroic saga. It makes the tragic digestible, aligning it with the visual
language of sports broadcasts or entertainment events.”
For these reasons, media should avoid using “Operation Epic
Fury” altogether, and instead use more neutral language like “Iran war.”
Aside from the parroting propagandistic language, much of
the other vocabulary being used by Western media also demonizes and misrepresents the combatants. An interesting piece in Eurasia Review talks about
the demonizing labels being used to characterize Iran as a “rogue state,” “terrorist
regime,” and “bloodthirsty thugs.” This language can be used to justify the war,
alongside falsely characterizing the “existential threat” posed by Iran’s comatose
nuclear program. Taken together, the labels create a
picture of a demonic, threatening Iran that deserved to be attacked. Using this
language merely reinforces the administration’s propaganda. Instead, the press
should present more balanced viewpoints that contain neutral, sober language
and analysis that feeds less on emotion, and more on the facts surrounding the
war’s inception and conduct.
Another interesting analysis of language being used by
Western media appears in the Al Jazeera Journalism Review, a pro-Arab, anti-Israeli,
oftentimes anti-Western media outlet. Despite their biases, the authors make an
interesting point about vocabulary used by CNN, The New York Times, and The
Washington Post used to describe
military actions. Words used on these outlets shift, according to the authors, “depending
on who carries them out. When the United States or Israel launches strikes,
their actions are frequently framed as ‘self-defense,’ retaliation,’ ‘deterrence,’
or even as an effort to protect ‘freedom’ and ‘stability.’ When countries such
as Iran or Venezuela respond militarily, however, their actions are far more
likely to be described as ‘escalation,’ ‘provocation,’ or a ‘threat to regional
security.’” The article goes on to cite many examples.
When media use inflammatory, sensational, and demonizing
language, they meet the needs of the purveyors of propaganda rather than the public,
which needs a clear-eyed, objective examination of the war.
Next: In Part III, we’ll look specifically at coverage of
the school bombing in Iran, and how language and competing narratives have
clouded and minimized the tragedy.
