The second half of 2013 brought more analysis
of how peace journalism applies to a wide range of issues and disciplines.
July began with my take on the
mainstream press coverage of the George Zimmerman trial. I wrote, “Whether it’s
the Lindbergh baby kidnapping trial (1935), the Jody Arias trial, the O.J.
Simpson debacle, or the just completed George Zimmerman trial, there’s nothing
quite like a courtroom drama to bring out the very worst in America’s press. During
the Zimmerman trial, both the extent and tone of the coverage reflect little
more than shameful pandering…. Both the tone and extent of the Zimmerman trial
coverage represent the antithesis of peace journalism.
“A peace journalist (and a peace
journalism media outlet) would have covered the trial, but not wall-to-wall. We
would have sought always to put the trial into the proper perspective—that
while tragic, Trayvon Martin is just one of 6,100 U.S. gun victims since the
Newtown shootings last December. Peace journalists would have given much less
airtime to racial demagogues from both ends of the political spectrum, and
instead sought to hear from those who seek a middle ground. Peace journalists
would have speculated less, and tried to stick much more to the facts.”
In August, America seemed at the
precipice of a war in Syria. I warned of the folly of such a conflict, how we
must learn lessons from Iraq. “While the diplomats, generals, and weapons
experts debate the veracity of the chemical weapons charges and desirability of
military intervention in Syria, the media would be well advised to remember
their own missteps leading up the Iraq war 10 years ago. By their own
admission, many in the media shirked their watchdog role in the run up to the
Iraq war. They were largely content with parroting Bush administration
propaganda (lies, some might say). ..
So,
here we are again 10 years later, an administration vilifying a dictator and
accusing him of horrible crimes against his own people. If the media have learned
anything from the pre-Iraq debacle, it is that we must never be only the
mouthpiece of an administration bent on intervention. We journalists need to be
asking questions, and lots of them, seeking independent verification of the
claims against Syria. We must be skeptical.
“As a peace journalist, one devoted to
explicitly stating the consequences of war and to giving peacemakers a voice,
we have an even higher responsibility in times like these. We need to lead a
discussion debunking the myth of a “clean, surgical strike”, and examine at
length the number of civilian injuries and deaths that could occur. Peace
journalists must seek out and give a voice to peacemakers and to those who seek
a non-violent response in Syria.”
One
month later, I wrote about another hotspot, Kenya after the mall bombing. “As
for the coverage of the mall attack, my peace journalism students and I here at
Park University are closely scrutinizing how the media are treating the incident.
Right now, we have more questions than answers. Among these:
1. Does
coverage inadvertently play into the hands of the attackers? Does it somehow
glamorize or legitimize what they have done?
2. Does
sensational coverage make a bad situation worse? (See images from the Sunday
front pages of Kenya’s two leading newspapers, The Nation and The Standard).
3. Are bloody images necessary to tell this story, or are they merely
voyeuristic and sensational? Do such images respect the privacy of victims and
their loved ones?
4. Has the coverage in any way hindered officials who are seeking to end the
stand-off, and to investigate the attack?”
In
November, I looked back at the JFK assassination, and wondered aloud how things
might’ve been different if the media in 1963 possessed today’s technology. My
students and I discussed this, and “agreed about the vital role of broadcast
and print media to help news consumers sort through what would certainly have
been hundreds of thousands of tweets, Facebook and blog posts, and images (or
purported images) of the event. (If social media existed) in 1963, imagine the
rumors, conspiracy theories, and false reports about suspects germinating
online. Imagine as well the pressure of the 24-hour news cycle combined with
the drama of a presidential assassination, and the irresponsible journalism
that surely would have occurred under the circumstances.”
Finally,
we capped off the year with a robust discussion about the merits of peace
journalism. This discussion was ignited by a peace journalism seminar held in
Northern Ireland. I responded to several peace journalism naysayers in my blog
and on the critics’ blogs. Among other things, I wrote about the critics’
mistaken belief that “peace journalists openly advocate for peace,
which they do not. Peace journalism, instead, seeks to give peacemakers a
proportionate voice and to closely scrutinize claims made by those who advocate
violence. (Balance and accountability, in the terms of traditional journalism).
If both peaceful and violent alternatives are presented to society, and society
chooses war, so be it.”
Peace journalists, I said, have no
delusions about necessarily making the world a better place. Instead, “peace
journalists would hope that at least he not make the world a worse place—to not
exacerbate a bad situation, to not sensationalize an already emotional story,
to not deliberately mislead and pander to his “primary audience.” The title of (one skeptic’s) column, ‘Why I’d
still write this even if I know it would provoke a riot,’ speaks volumes about
the values of traditional journalism, and the now-antiquated notion that
journalists bear no responsibility for the consequences of their reporting.”
As for 2014, an exciting year lies
ahead. The Center for Global Peace Journalism and yours truly are organizing seminars
in March in Cyprus and October in Haiti. We’re also working on grants that may
bring us to Turkey and Lebanon next summer. As always, we’ll have all the
details here at Peace Journalism Insights.
Happy New Year!
No comments:
Post a Comment