Speaking out against hatred, intolerance of homosexuals

As a peace journalist, academic, and human being, is it incumbent upon me to speak out against prejudice and injustice, even if doing so could distract from the important message I’m trying to deliver?

A recent exchange with a colleague and a shocking video on NYTimes.com has left me pondering this question.

My professor friend, who teaches overseas, is boycotting academic exchanges and cooperation of any kind with Israeli academics and institutions. I wrote him to ask about why he’s participating in this boycott. He replied that it’s up to him to give voice to those who are marginalized, and to contribute to a process to declare “Israeli militarism and lawlessness unacceptable.” While I admire him for standing up for his principles, I’m worried that the controversy he’s creating is obscuring the exemplary, groundbreaking work he's done in his academic field.

A few days after this online discussion with my colleague, I viewed a video on NYTimes.com, “Gospel of Intolerance”, about the influence of the American evangelicals on the anti-homosexual movement in Uganda, where I have worked/taught extensively during the last three and a half years. The attitudes and behavior displayed in the video are vile: open discrimination and hatred being taught by self-righteous Americans (some from my home town, Kansas City) and embraced by Ugandans.
As I watched the video, I thought back to the exchange with my colleague, and to dozens of discussions/arguments I’ve had with Ugandans about homosexuality. In these private discussions, I have of course attempted to explain that homosexuality is not a choice, that there is no homosexual agenda (other than equal rights), etc. My arguments have fallen on deaf ears, even among educated, otherwise urbane Ugandans.

Despite the temptation to do otherwise, I have never pressed the issue, and certainly never brought up homosexuality in any of the 50-plus seminars I’ve taught in Uganda. I thought that pontificating about gay rights would only alienate my Ugandan students, and distract from the important peace journalism message I was delivery.

Now I’m wondering if I’ve been a coward.

I can no longer in good conscience sit back and do nothing while the seeds of hatred and division are sown. While I am in Uganda in March, I plan to gently present the subject of homosexual rights in my seminars and one-on-one with the Ugandans I meet. I won’t be pushy, but I won’t be a push-over, either.

Then, when my current peace media and counterterrorism project is complete, I will to seek another grant for a project emphasizing peace media and tolerance in Uganda, and perhaps elsewhere in East Africa as well. This project would be centered on using the power of media to empower the voiceless and marginalized (women, children, homosexuals) in Ugandan society.

Of course, I will be accused by some Ugandans (and others) of preaching my Western, pro-homosexual values. That’s probably true, but it’s no more true of me than of the evangelicals who are preaching their patronizing, Western, “our religion is the only true religion” values.

I know it will be an uphill struggle implementing a project of this sort in Uganda, and that I will probably be frequently met with open hostility. However, that seems like a small price to pay for standing up for, and teaching, what’s right.

--Follow me on Twitter @peacejourn

Spreading Viral Peace

I had the honor of being the keynote speaker recently at the American Friends Service Committee's "If I Had A Trillion Dollars" film festival in Kansas City. The festival featured peace-themed videos produced by area students. My speech, titled "Viral Peace", is below. Sorry for the all caps--it's just the way I write speeches.

I AM FRUGAL….NOW, MY FRIENDS AND FAMILY PREFER THE UNFLATTERING WORD CHEAP, BUT I KNOW BETTER…I KNOW THAT’S I’M NOT CHEAP OR TIGHT, BUT MERELY BUDGET-CONSCIOUS IN A FRUGAL SORT OF WAY.

THUS, AS I STAND HERE TODAY PONDERING WHAT I WOULD DO WITH A TRILLION DOLLARS, MY FIRST THOUGHT IS, SAVE IT…OK, I MIGHT BUY A CAR, A NEW OR SLIGHTLY USED PRIUS, BUT THE REST WOULD BE SQUIRRELED AWAY FOR A RAINY DAY…OR RAINY YEAR…OR RAINY MILLENNIUM.

SINCE I HAVE NEITHER THE TRILLION DOLLARS, NOR A NEW PRIUS, I’LL HAVE TO MAKE DUE WITH THINKING ABOUT HOW—FRUGALLY—WE CAN ALL ANSWER THE CALL TO HUMANITARIAN ACTION….HOW WE CAN STRIVE TO LEAVE THE WORLD A BETTER PLACE THAN WE FOUND IT.
AND YOU KNOW, THESE DAYS, IT’S POSSIBLE TO EFFECTIVELY SPREAD PEACEFUL MESSAGES IN WAYS THAT WE WOULD’T HAVE IMAGINED TWO OR THREE DECADES AGO. BACK THEN, IT WAS EXPENSIVE TO MAKE A FILM, OR BUY ADVERTISING SPACE, OR PRODUCE RADIO PROGRAMMING. TODAY, WE CAN ALL DO THIS ON OUR LAPTOPS, ON OUR IPADS, AND EVEN ON OUR PHONES. AND WE CAN DO ALL OF THIS…FRUGALLY, WITHOUT A TRILLION OR MILLION OR EVEN MANY THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS.

AS I HAVE TAUGHT PEACE JOURNALISM AROUND THE WORLD, I’VE USUALLY WORKED IN COUNTRIES WITH FEW FINANCIAL RESOURCES…PLACES LIKE MOLDOVA OR UGANDA OR KENYA. IN UGANDA, MY COLLEAGUES AND I HAVE TAUGHT OVER 40 PEACE JOURNALISM SEMINARS TO RADIO REPORTERS AND ANNOUNCERS SINCE 2009. OUR MESSAGE—THAT RADIO PROFESSIONALS CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE FOR PEACE IN THEIR COMMUNITIES BY EMPLOYING PEACE JOURNALISM.

PEACE JOURNALISM, FOR THE UNITIATED, CAN BE DEFINED AS WHEN REPORTERS AND EDITORS USE THEIR POWER TO CREATE AN ENVIRONMENT CONDUCIVE TO PEACE. THIS MEANS USING LANGUAGE THAT IS NOT INFLAMMATORY…AND TELLING STORIES IN SUCH A WAY AS TO NOT EXACERBATE AN ALREADY BAD SITUATION. UNFORTUNATELY, THERE ARE MANY EXAMPLES OF THE OPPOSITE—WAR JOURNALISM—WHERE MEDIA HAVE STIRRED UP ANGRY MOBS, AND ENCOURAGED HATRED AND DIVISIONS WITHIN SOCIETY.

AS JOURNALISTS, OF COURSE WE HAVE NO CHOICE BUT TO REPORT VIOLENCE AND CONFLICTS. AS PEACE JOURNALISTS, WE ASK OURSELVES TO CONSIDER THE CONSEQUENCES OF OUR REPORTING. ARE WE POURING GASOLINE ON THE FIRE…OR ARE WE GIVING PEACEMAKERS A VOICE, AND FRAMING OUR STORIES IN SUCH A WAY THAT PEACEFUL ALTERNATIVES ARE AT LEAST GIVEN EQUAL CONSIDERATION.

OUR PEACE JOURNALISM PROJECTS IN UGANDA AND ELSEWHERE ALL SHARE THE USE OF MULTIMEDIA AS TOOLS FOR PEACE…THESE TOOLS INCLUDE RADIO, ONLINE PODCASTS, PHOTOGRAPHY, WEBSITES, AND YES, VIDEO AS A WAY TO SPREAD THE LESSONS OF PEACE JOURNALISM. THE GOOD NEWS IS THAT THESE MULTIMEDIA TOOLS ARE INCREASINGLY AVAILABLE, EVEN IN REMOTE PLACES LIKE RURAL UGANDA…AND THEY DON’T COST MUCH, EITHER.
ONE FRUGAL MULTIMEDIA FORMAT I ALWAYS ENCOURAGE IS THE PRODUCTION OF PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENTS, OR PSA’S. THESE CAN BE EITHER VIDEO OR AUDIO, AND CAN BE MADE VERY CHEAPLY USING FREEWARE AND SOUND EFFECTS FOUND ON THE INTERNET.

VIDEO, AS WE SAW WITH YOUR ‘IF I HAD A TRILLION DOLLARS’ FEATURES, CAN ALSO BE AMONG THE MOST POWERFUL TOOLS FOR PEACE.

YOU ALL KNOW ABOUT THE VIDEO, KONY 2012…THIS 30 MINUTE FILM DETAILED THE CASE OF JOSEPH KONY AND HIS FOLLOWERS, WHO TERRORIZED NORTHERN UGANDA FOR ABOUT 20 YEARS. NOW, WE COULD SPEND THE NEXT HOUR DISCUSSING THE MANY FLAWS IN THE FILM…BUT I’D LIKE US TO IGNORE THAT FOR RIGHT NOW. INSTEAD, THINK ABOUT THE POWER DEMONSTRATED BY THIS FILM…I JUST CHECKED, AND KONY 2012 HAS ABOUT 96 MILLION HITS ON YOUTUBE. I'VE EVEN FELT ITS IMPACT PERSONALLY. FOR EXAMPLE, I NEVER IMAGINED BEING APPROACHED BY STUDENTS AND COLLEAGUES AND BEING ASKED ABOUT JOSEPH KONY AND THE UGANDAN CIVIL WAR… SO, EVEN THOUGH THE VIDEO ITSELF IS FLAWED, IT NONETHELESS DEMONSTRATES THE POWER TO VIRALLY SPREAD MESSAGES OF PEACE.

OF COURSE, 96 MILLION HITS IS ONLY A FRACTION OF THE VIEWS POSSIBLE WHEN A VIDEO GOES TRULY VIRAL. ANYONE HEARD OF SOMETHING CALLED GANGHAM STYLE?

IF YOU HAVE SEEN THIS ON YOUTUBE, YOU HAVE COMPANY…GANGHAM STYLE, AT LAST COUNT, HAS OVER 1 BILLION 100 MILLION YOUTUBE VIEWS.

NOW, DREAM FOR A MINUTE…WHAT IF GANGHAM STYLE WAS A PEACE VIDEO? A VIDEO PROMOTING RECONCILIATION, BROTHERHOOD, AND HARMONY? WHAT IF THE VIDEO ENCOURAGED YOUNG PEOPLE TO GET INVOLVED IN POSITIVE WAYS TO DEVELOP THEIR COMMUNITIES? THINK OF THE POTENTIAL GLOBAL IMPACT. THE BEST PART IS, THIS WOULD BE AN IMPACT ACCOMPLISHED VERY FRUGALLY…FOR JUST THE COST OF POSTING A VIDEO.

OF COURSE, I HOPE ALL OF THE ‘IF I HAD A TRILLION DOLLARS’ VIDEOS GO VIRAL, JUST LIKE GANGHAM STYLE AND KONY 2012.

MY EXPERIENCES LECTURING ON FIVE CONTINENTS HAVE TAUGHT ME THAT PEOPLE WANT TO CONNECT TO ONE ANOTHER, THAT THEY YEARN FOR PEACE, AND THEY WANT TO TELL THEIR STORIES. I TRULY BELIEVE THE MOTTO OF PEOPLE TO PEOPLE INTERNATIONAL, FOR WHOM I’VE CONDUCTED A NUMBER OF SEMINARS. THEIR MOTTO IS PEACE THROUGH UNDERSTANDING. WHAT BETTER WAY TO FOSTER THAT UNDERSTANDING THAN BY UTILIZING MULTIMEDIA TOOLS, LIKE VIDEO, THAT ARE SUDDENLY AVAILABLE TO ALMOST EVERYONE...EVEN THOSE OF US WHO ARE FRUGAL.

THAT'S WHY I'M SO HUMBLED TO MEET YOU ALL TODAY,BECAUSE YOU ALREADY UNDERSTAND THE NEED FOR PEACE AND THE POTENTIAL IMPACT OF VIRALLY SPREADING PEACE MESSAGES.

THEREFORE, IF I HAD A TRILLION DOLLARS, I WOULD USE IT TO EMPOWER EVERYONE TO SHARE THEIR MULTIMEDIA MESSAGES OF PEACE…

I USE THE WORD EMPOWERED VERY DELIBERATELY, SINCE THOSE WHO ARE EMPOWERED AREN'T MARGINALIZED...AND SINCE WE KNOW THAT THOSE WHO DO FEEL MARGINALIZED ARE MORE LIKELY TO STRIKE OUT VIOLENTLY.

SO WITH MY TRILLION, I'D BUY MILLIONS OF LAPTOPS AND IPADS, CONNECT HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS TO THE INTERNET…AND ENCOURAGE EVERYONE TO VIRTUALLY JOIN HANDS TO LAY A FOUNDATION WHERE PEACE CAN FLOURISH.

AND ALSO, I'D BUY A NEW OR SLIGHTLY USED PRIUS. THANK YOU

--You can follow me on Twitter @PeaceJourn.

Professor Komagum: Borrow e-version for free

Borrow a free e-book of Professor Komagum at Amazon. This e-version will be compatible with many devices. Learn about my misadventures in Uganda teaching peace journalism. Go to: http://tinyurl.com/a32oake .

Should peace journalists cover Sandy Hook conspiracies?

As peace journalists, our prime directive is to consider the consequences of our reporting.

For example, when covering terrorist attacks, this means being careful to frame our stories in such a way as to not glorify the perpetrators or sensationalize the violence. When covering something like the Sandy Hook shootings, this means reporting that doesn’t make a bad situation worse. This means producing stories that don’t re-victimize grieving families.

Unfortunately, an old dilemma, amplified by the Internet, has reared its ugly head in the post-Sandy Hook world. That dilemma—should journalists report the hundreds (thousands?) of conspiracy theories that have backed up, sewag- like, into our consciousness.

Google “Sandy Hook conspiracy”, and you’ll get over six million hits, including articles from any number of mainstream media outlets. The most famous of these wacky theories postulates that the government staged the shooting, hiring actors to play victims.

If I were in charge of a media outlet, as a peace journalist, I would carefully consider the consequences of reporting these theories. Among the questions that would burden me:

1. If I print or air coverage of the “staged” theory, for example, am I giving credence and legitimacy to this theory? Even if my report ridicules and debunks the theory, aren’t I still giving it a measure of gravitas by printing it or airing it on CNN (as Anderson Cooper 360 did on Friday night)?

2. If I print or air specific details about the person behind the “staged” theory, aren’t I giving him exactly what he wants—publicity? Even if my report ridicules him, doesn’t it still give him his desired spotlight? A/C 360 last night broadcast the theorists’ name and profession (sadly, a tenured professor), and even a sound bite featuring him. Anderson Cooper said on air that he wouldn’t reveal the professor’s website, but that’s not much of a concession, since it would be easy to find the professor’s conspiracy website with a simple search if you knew his name and university.

Cooper said several times that CNN wouldn’t normally give air time to such crazy theories, but that in this instance they did air this report because the professor/theorist is a tenured professor working at a state university supported by taxpayer funds.

Whether to broadcast this story was, I’m sure, hotly debated in the CNN newsroom. I’m wondering how much of the discussion centered on re-victimizing already wounded families and communities.

Though a strong argument can be made that this story must be reported, it’s clear that it could have been reported differently. I would have simply said that there are a number of conspiracy theories, and that one theory speculates that the event was staged. However, I would not have reported the name of the theorist/nut job. Why give him his desired spotlight? Why encourage other irresponsible theories and theorists? Why make it easier for the paranoid to find and join forces with their brethren?

The consequences of CNN’s report came home to roost at the end of the Sandy Hook conspiracy segment, when a female relative of the murdered principal called into the program. The woman caller was calm, much more poised than I would have been, in calling out the ridiculousness of the “staged” theory. On the surface, she didn’t seem overly traumatized by having to deal with this kind of absurdity. I was left wondering if the same could be said for the other families who lost loved ones in the shooting.

Follow me on Twitter @PeaceJourn

How to teach peace journalism

My publisher has asked me to write an addendum to my new book Professor Komagum (to order, click on cover on the left). This addition on how to teach peace journalism will be packaged at the end of the book, which will be re-marketed as a text. I just started writing this today, and the result--probably about 1/4 of what I'll eventually come up with--is what you see below. Comments?

Teaching peace journalism is challenging because the ground keeps shifting under your feet. Simply put, stuff always happens to change how we think about and practice peace journalism. For example, in November 2012, the Israeli-Gaza conflict flared up once again. As a peace journalism instructor, I believed that it was essential for me to not only stay abreast of how the conflict was being covered, but to offer some guidance—some leadership—to my students who were analyzing the coverage along with me. As grist for discussion in and out of class, I produced this blog (edited for length) about coverage of the conflict:

Israeli and Palestinian media inflame Gaza conflict

Israeli and Palestinian media are practicing irresponsible journalism that is inflaming passions and exacerbating the current Gaza conflict.

An examination of about a dozen Israeli and Palestinian sources on 15 November reveals a shared tendency of media in the region to practice traditional inflammatory war journalism and to “rally around the flag” during this conflict.

What this admittedly cursory examination does not include, notably, is an examination of journalism produced in Hebrew and Arabic during the current crisis. If the stories produced in English, and thus meant for international dissemination, are inflammatory, biased, and provocative, one can logically speculate that the journalism produced in the local languages is even worse.

Several examples below demonstrate clearly that much of the media in the region are again eschewing objectivity. Instead, they seem committed to little more than spreading government propaganda that supports and justifies the conflict. Notice the language that’s used, the jingoistic tone, and the blatant glorifying of violence in these snippets copied without changes from online sources.
Palestinian/Arab media (Palestine Telegraph, Palestine Times, The Jordan Times, The Daily Star-Lebanon):

--Israel’s shameful bombing yesterday, which killed 15, mainly civilians, including 3 children, is the continuation of ongoing violence against the Palestinians in Gaza.

--The Israeli occupying forces…

--The Israeli military has even imposed a policy to keep Palestinians in Gaza just above the threshold off mass starvation by counting their calories.

--The Israeli military has even imposed a policy to keep Palestinians in Gaza just above the threshold off mass starvation by counting their calories.

– An Israeli full-scale war was launched yesterday against Palestinian civilians in Gaza. The war was announced by Israel to be as a military operation that took a biblical name “Pillar of the Clouds”. So far, 15 Palestinians killed whom of which 8 civilians including 5 children, three women and an old man.

--Immediate calls for revenge were broadcast over Hamas radio.

--The assassination of Al-Jabari and eleven other Palestinian civilians since yesterday afternoon has raised a state of anger amongst the Palestinian people …

--Instead, the only crowds are those gathered in mosques mourning the dead, or queuing outside bakeries to stock up on bread. "I circled around for two hours, looking for a place with the shortest line," said Momen Ahmed, 24, standing outside the Abu Dayya bakery with his friends. First is a man in a blue tracksuit, lying crumpled and barefoot on a stretcher as he screams and weeps.

Israeli Media-(Hareetz, Arutz Sheva, Debka, Jerusalem Post):

--As the rockets kept coming through Wednesday night – and the first three fatalities Thursday morning, Nov. 15 - the cautious lift in Israeli spirits generated by the death of Ahmed Jabari, who fashioned Hamas into a paramilitary machine of terror.

-- But Operation Pillar of Cloud’s first part showed a favorable balance: Palestinian missile fire was as erratic as ever, although intense; Iron Dome filtered out the rockets aimed at Israel’s major towns; Israeli casualties were relatively low though painful; and the enemy in Gaza was decapitated – for now.

-- The Palestinians and their allies in Tehran and Hizballah suddenly discovered that the old IDF had come roaring back.

-- The tough part of the Israeli operation to eliminate the terrorist war peril hovering over southern Israel from the Gaza Strip is still to come. For now, Hamas is at a loss for a strategic answer to the IDF offensive.

-- Seemingly addressing an international audience, the prime minister said "there is no moral symmetry equivalent between Israel and Hamas and the terrorist groups in Gaza." -- Mofaz said that Israel must pursue terrorists in Gaza in order to make them feel persecuted, according to Israel Radio.

-- National Union MK Aryeh Eldad also weighed in, calling on the government to cut off its supply of electricity and water to Gaza, saying that "until Israel goes into Gaza and cuts off its supply lines, Israelis will continue to suffer."

-- MDA paramedics treated five wounded people at the site of the Kiryat Malachi attack … including a baby.

-- The IDF "believes the rocket fire will intensify." Tank fire also was directed at terror targets, he said.

--… The spokesman concluded by describing the Hamas-ruled Strip as "a forward Iranian base…”

It’s clear from the published articles, as well as photojournalism from the conflict, that the media outlets seem either ignorant about or disinterested in practicing peace journalism. These articles violate the important principle peace journalism that reporters should avoid using inflammatory language. Examples from these articles include terms like terror and terrorism, suffering, decapitated, assassination, revenge, and mass starvation. As peace journalism teaches, such language adds nothing to the reader’s understanding of the story, but instead brings only emotion to the story, thus entrenching and enhancing acrimony and making peaceful solutions even less likely.

These Israeli and Palestinian articles violate other PJ principles as well, including sensationalizing casualties (particularly of women and children), concentrating on suffering only on “their” side, completely ignoring peacemakers and any solutions other than violent or military ones, blaming the “other side” for starting the conflict, and demonizing the “enemy”.

This is a familiar pattern for Middle Eastern journalists. The same irresponsible pro-government reporting also occurred in 2009, during the last Israeli-Gaza conflict. According to a report in the Jerusalem Post (Jan. 21, 2009), ‘Both Israeli and Arab media rallied around the flag during the Gaza operation, panelists told the audience during an Israel-Palestine Center for Research and Information (IPCRI) event on Wednesday. Keshev Executive Director Yizhar Be'er presented an analysis of the Israeli press over the three-week conflict. Keshev and its Palestinian partner analyze the Israeli and Palestinian media. ‘In times of crisis or war, the immediate reflex of the Israeli media is to rally around the flag. They provided full justification for the military operation and full support for decision-makers,’ Be'er said.“

Both the Palestinian and Israeli people are ill-served by their flag-waving media. Citizens in both lands deserve a sober, objective, balanced analysis of the conflict. Citizens need to know about the suffering and wrong-doing on all sides. Most of all, they need to at least hear a discussion about peaceful alternatives and non-violent (or less violent) solutions to the conflict. (Steven Youngblood blog, Nov 2012)

   These unfortunate teaching moments help to enliven the discussion in any class or during any seminar, and to operationalize the conceptual frameworks that the instructor hopes have been learned by the students. In peace journalism, these teaching moments occur almost daily. Just in the last three months 2012, I wrote about (and my students and I discussed) Israel-Gaza, false Hurricane Sandy tweets, Sandy Hook, and connecting peace and electoral journalism.

--Follow me on Twitter @peacejourn