2019 Peace Journalism Year in Review
Part One: January-June

2019 was another busy and productive year for the Center for Global Peace Journalism at Park University. Here’s a quick look back, organized by month:

NYT photo of terrorist victims in Kenya. I added the pixelation.

January: I took the New York Times to the woodshed for publishing bloody photos of terrorism victims in Nairobi. My take was that the photo disrespected the victims in a way that wouldn’t have occurred had they been Westerners. I wrote, “While there have been published pictures of dead Americans, there are no images as graphic or sensational as this one. A body covered by a sheet at a crime or terrorist attack scene, or taken from 200 yards away, is not the same as a zoomed-in image of uncovered, bullet riddled, bloody, slumped over victims taken at the scene.”

February: I wrote about the kidnapping, and release one day later, of Cameroonian journalist Ambe McMillan. His safe release, I wrote, was a testament to collective advocacy on his behalf. My blog noted, “Ambe’s kidnapping set off an avalanche of advocacy on his behalf by CAMASEJ, the Cameroon Community Media Network (CCMN), of which Ambe is an active member, the Center for Global Peace Journalism at Park University, and, crucially, the Committee to Protect Journalists. CPJ Africa Program Coordinator Angela Quintal was on the case immediately, seemingly moments after Ambe’s abduction, making inquiries, and bombarding social media with messages about his disappearance, and demanding his release.”

March: In March, I had an interesting exchange with journalists at the Global Sisters Report at their Kansas City headquarters. After my presentation on peace journalism basics, I opened up the floor for Q&A. One journalist was concerned that peace journalism amounts to no more than self-censorship. This is because it asks journalists to consider the consequences of their reporting and yes, to exclude words and images that are inflammatory without adding any value to the story. This is, incidentally, an oft-repeated criticism of PJ. My response was that I do not consider this to be self-censorship. Instead, this is journalists merely employing a filter—the same filter that journalists use hundreds of times a day to make decisions about newsworthiness, appropriateness for audience, what information to include or exclude, etc.

April: Before my May trip to Northern Ireland, I wrote about the responsible coverage in NI media on the murder of young journalist Lyra McKee in Derry. I wrote, “In any conflict or post-conflict zone, the hundreds of journalists I’ve worked with agree that they bear a particular responsibility to serve their communities by not exacerbating ongoing conflicts or re-ignite simmering ones.

Sadly, this point was driven home last weekend with the murder of 29-year old journalist Lyra McKee during civil unrest in Derry.

It would have been understandable, if regrettable, if the press in Northern Ireland had gone on a rampage after the murder, making false accusations, inflaming sectarian passions, using extreme and demonizing language, and generally pouring gasoline on the fire. A small study of reporting about McKee’s murder shows that this did not happen, and that instead Northern Irish media actively sought to not make a bad situation even worse.”

Also in April, a new edition of the Peace Journalist magazine was published. It featured dispatches from Nigeria, Costa Rica, DR Congo, and elsewhere. The cover story was about a peace and media conference in South Korea.

May: I visited Northern Ireland, and met with journalists in Derry and Belfast to discuss, among other things, social media and peace journalism. In one session, I presented a list on how to apply social media principles for peace journalism, including using SM to fact check, to broaden societal conversations, and to connect peace journalists. The participants added two important items: 1. Use social media to seek opinions outside your ideological bubble; 2. Use social media to tag those with opposing viewpoints, as a way of engendering conversations.

We also discussed an interesting fact checking initiative directed by workshop participant Allan Leonard called factcheckNI. His perspectives on fact checking as a reconciliation tool were fascinating. He said factcheckni.org is not about changing minds, but instead seeks to engage viewers to ask, ‘Do you think that the data presented constitute a basis for investigating the accuracy of a claim?’

June: I wrote a short piece for the Los Angeles Times about the liberal use of the term “concentration camp” to describe immigrant detention centers. I said, “My purpose in writing this brief column was not to argue about immigration policy. There are plenty of voices on both sides doing that. Rather, I wanted to make it clear that the tone of the discourse matters, that when liberals use phrases like “concentration camp,” they inflame already heated partisans, and further polarize our society. The same can be said of conservatives who label immigrants “illegal,” a phrase contained in your letter. Conservatives use “illegal” pejoratively, to smear new arrivals with a broad brush that implies criminality.

Both liberals and conservatives hide behind the technical definitions of these terms. Yes, technically, some immigrants have broken the law, and the detention centers may be concentration camps. But we know the baggage that this language carries—the dog whistles that appeal to partisans on both sides of the political spectrum. Until we can rid our society of inflammatory language on both sides, how can we even begin a substantive discussion about reforming our broken immigration system?”

July: I tackled the sticky issue of whether to call Donald Trump a racist. I wrote, “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?”

Coming up: Part two of the 2019 year in review

Impeachment: A great time to break out of your news bubble
As you watch and listen to impeachment news and commentary, how much thought are you giving to the information you're consuming? Does it present the impeachment as a sham and a hoax, engineered by sore losers to disenfranchise 63 million U.S. voters? Or, does the coverage insist that the impeachment was necessary to combat a lawless, out of control, delusional traitor who puts himself before his country?

The answer, of course, depends on which media bubble you live in. Media bubbles (or news bubbles) seal in media consumers so that they end up reading only stories that are consistent with their world view.

These news bubbles are partially constructed by individuals who choose media that confirm their biases (liberals watching Rachel Maddow, conservatives tuning in to FOX News). Bubbles are also partially created by social media which feed us stories that confirm our biases. Click on an anti-Trump story, and you’ll get many similar stories fed to you on Facebook, for example.
A related concept is the echo chamber. Internet activist Eli Pariser defined echo chamber as a “personal, unique universe of information that you live in online. And what’s in your filter bubble depends on who you are, and it depends on what you do. But the thing is that you don’t decide what gets in. And more importantly, you don’t actually see what gets edited out.” (https://www.nbcnews.com/better/lifestyle/problem-social-media-reinforcement-bubbles-what-you-can-do-about-ncna1063896)

The important thing about an echo chamber, writes media analysis C. Thi Nguyen, it that it “leads its members to distrust everybody on the outside of that chamber. And that means that an insider’s trust for other insiders can grow unchecked.” Citing examples like Fox News and Rush Limbaugh, he writes that “an echo chamber is a lot like a cult. Echo chambers isolate their members, not by cutting off their lines of communication to the world, but by changing whom they trust. And echo chambers aren’t just on the right. I’ve seen echo chambers on the left, but also on parenting forums, nutritional forums and even around exercise methods.” (http://theconversation.com/the-problem-of-living-inside-echo-chambers-110486)

These media bubbles create many problems for society. Bubbles have facilitated what researchers call Cyberbalkanization, or “the loss of shared experiences and values (which) may be harmful to the structure of democratic societies as well as decentralized organizations.” (https://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2017/dec/04/echo-chambers-are-dangerous-we-must-try-to-break-free-of-our-online-bubbles)

Other corrosive impacts of media bubbles include overestimating the prevalence of our perspective—thinking that everyone agrees with us. “Our brain constructs a model of the world from interactions with our environment. If all our interactions are one-sided, then our brain’s model will be biased,” noted Don Vaughn, a neuroscientist at the department of Psychology at UCLA.

Additionally, the bubbles decrease empathy for those with whom we disagree. “My neuroscience research on empathy underscores the point that simple notions of ‘us’ and ‘them’ [affect] how our brain processes the pain of another. When ‘they’ are in pain, we simulate their experience less, and show less empathy,” said Vaughn. (https://www.nbcnews.com/better/lifestyle/problem-social-media-reinforcement-bubbles-what-you-can-do-about-ncna1063896)

So, what can we do to break out of our news bubbles?

1. Be skeptical about the information you hear and see, and be your own fact checker. Analyze the news you consume. Is it biased? What’s the message beneath the news? What news and viewpoints aren’t being covered? Then, analyze the veracity of the news you’re consuming, using fact checkers like Politifact, FactCheck.org, Fact Check NPR, and Snopes.com.

2. Seek out those with differing opinions, both in person and online. Yes, online discourse can often be coarse, but you can still find those who share your commitment to hearing many sides. Seek out interest groups on all sides of issue, and look for hashtags on Twitter that both favor and oppose your position (#MoscowMitch and #WitchHunt, for example). This also means not deleting from your social media those with whom you disagree.

3. Consume news from across the political spectrum. In my classes, students are required to watch and analyze both Rachel Maddow and Sean Hannity. I do this myself. I can’t guarantee that you won’t throw things at the TV, but I will promise you will be better informed by learning about different perspectives.

Acknowledging biases in the news we consume, and taking steps to educate ourselves from different perspectives, are invaluable first steps towards establishing civil political discourse in our country.

Northern Ireland Journalists:
Do yourself a favor-Don't call yourself a peace journalist
Anyone engaging in peace work anywhere in the world has learned the discouraging, ironic truth about the word “peace.”

The word “peace” is incendiary, and provides a blank screen upon which self-righteous critics and “glass half empty” skeptics project their anger, ignorance, and cynicism. In fact, in some places, leading discussions about peace can be dangerous. Just ask the colleagues and friends of Shujaat Bukhari, a newspaper editor who was shot and killed outside his papers’ office in Kashmir. His crime: embracing non-inflammatory, non-sectarian reporting and leading discussions about peace in Kashmir. Or, ask my journalism colleagues in Cameroon, where discussing peace can arouse the suspicions of both government authorities and rebels which in turn can get one arrested or kidnapped. This happened to me: gendarmes shut down a peace journalism seminar I was conducting in Cameroon, and threatened to arrest all presenters and attendees.

Then there’s Northern Ireland, where mention of the word “peace” won’t get you kidnapped or killed, but will subject you to sneering derision. I know, since I’ve written about peace journalism in Northern Ireland and made several visits there this year for peace journalism seminars and workshops. A recent spate of columns, broadcasts, and social media posts have taken aim at anyone who has the audacity to link the words “peace” and “journalism.”

Take Alex Kane’s recent column in Newsletter:

   "Over the past couple of decades I have heard a number of academics (and some politicians, as it         happens) push something which is described as ‘peace journalism.’ It’s the Pollyanna approach to       politics: no matter how bad things may look on the surface, and no matter how much worse you         actually know them to be below the surface, you should simply ignore that reality and find                   something positive to say. Yet nobody ever asks why, if things really are so good, the Pollyannas         rarely offer anything more substantial than, 'Well, it’s better than it used to be.'” (25 Nov. 2019)

In another example, on the BBC’s The Nolan Show (21 Nov. 2019), one speaker said that there is a presumption that “for peace journalism to work” in support of the peace process, it must look closely at unionist politicians, but avoid looking into the “deep, dark hole” of Sinn Fein politics.

Finally, a Twitter discussion recently suggested that a peace journalist would “kill” an accurate story if this story damaged the peace process.

These criticisms are all off base, and reflect a complete misunderstanding of the nature and goals of peace journalism. Yet, I’m coming to realize that all the corrections in the world in defense of peace journalism won’t help skeptics understand what PJ really does, since all they seem to see is the word “peace” and its accompanying baggage.

In fact, as long as peace journalism contains the word “peace,” it will be criticized not for what it actually proposes, but for what its critics ignorantly and erroneously project onto the concept.

So, rather than spending our precious time and energy putting our fingers in the dyke leaking misinformation about peace journalism, perhaps peace journalism proponents should direct discussions away from the term peace journalism, and more towards its concepts.

Let me start.  Journalists and journalism academics and students in Northern Ireland, do you agree with these principles?

--Journalists should avoid inflammatory, sensational language that exacerbates or fuels conflict
--Journalists should reject “us vs. them” narratives and instead build bridges between communities
--Journalists should lead societal discussions about solutions (without advocating for any one solution)
--Journalists should balance their stories by giving peace proposals and peacebuilders a voice proportionate to voices of those advocating violence and war (without advocating for peace)
--Journalists should give a voice to the voiceless in their societies—victims, migrants, women, etc.
--Journalists should reject formulaic, stereotyping coverage and instead offer counternarratives about marginalized groups and perceived enemies (“them”)

Northern Irish journalists, if you embrace these concepts, do yourself a favor and don’t call yourself a peace journalist. Say that you’re a good journalist, or a socially responsible reporter—anything that doesn’t use the word “peace.” What really matters anyway is promoting and practicing these principles of good, fundamental journalism, regardless of what the label we use.

   A friend and colleague asked me to review his fascinating book, and I gladly obliged. That review is below. --SY

Book Review: Practical Politics
After reading “Practical Politics: Lessons in Power and Democracy” by Titus Alexander, I am convinced more than ever about the urgent need for both political literacy and media literacy.

Alexander’s book, beginning in chapter one, makes a compelling case for why universities should teach practical politics as a basic life skill (like reading and writing). He writes that practical politics-trained students will be more employable, will possess an improved ability to solve complex social problems, and can help to restore trust in democracy.

In addition, in chapter three, Alexander theorizes that a society steeped in practical politics can improve its governance. He writes,

Campaigns by the Bristol schoolgirls, Citizen UK, Brake and victims of
sexual abuse are calls for better governance, by institutions such as the
BBC, schools, road safety bodies, employers and the state. People want
‘units of rule’ to be run well and solve problems better. This is the supply
side of politics, what I call the top tier of political action, involving leaders
and decision-makers at any level. Improving governance and the ability of
political decision-making to respond better to citizens will also encourage
people to take part, the demand side of politics, because better governance
creates hope that they can make a difference.

Encouraging people to take part in society, and prodding decision-makers to act, can best be facilitated by and through a simultaneously politically and media-savvy public. 
As a communications professor, I see media literacy the same way Alexander sees political literacy: as an essential tool to restore and maintain democracies. In fact, the two are complementary, and if taught side-by-side, can serve to empower and amplify citizens’ voices.

This relationship between media and politics is explored in chapter five of the book. In this section, Alexander notes that the media are the public’s primary source for political education, the “main channel for politicians to communicate with the public,” and finally the means through which journalists can “influence the political agenda.” Alexander correctly points out that ownership, control, and use of the media are critical political battle grounds. This can be clearly seen both in the U.S. and U.K. in the ongoing political/media turmoil surrounding the Trump presidency/impeachment and Brexit. One is left wondering: If our publics know practical politics, would they be as susceptible to political disinformation, propaganda, and self-serving half-truths dished out by politicians, political pundits, and red-faced cable TV talking heads? If citizens had a more nuanced understanding  of media and politics, would they be so quick to reflexively retreat into their media bubbles, consuming only that which confirms their world view?

Later in chapter five, Alexander cites a study showing the media consumers trust the media more than politicians—hardly an accomplishment worth crowing about.  In the U.S., trust in media can be charted according to individual media outlets—viewers trust “their” channels, and distrust those outside their media bubble. Regarding the internet, Alexander writes, “Traditional political parties and campaigners are also investing heavily in using new media to reach target audiences, so it is hard to predict how far power will really shift.” Thus, simultaneous political and media literacy takes on a new urgency, one necessitated by the exponentially growing power of social media for the delivery of information, or disinformation. Alexander concludes,

Citizens need to learn media literacy to understand how it works,
how to use the media to have their say about issues of the day and how to
win and use power accountably. The press and television, particularly the
BBC, could also play a bigger role in giving citizens impartial information
on how the system works, contentious issues and how to have an effective
voice in politics.

Alexander expands on this point in chapter 10, when he discusses the media’s role in political education. He writes,

What is missing are straightforward guides (produced by media outlets)
to help people navigate issues and find the best way to have their say.
For democracy to flourish, citizens need more than commentaries
and analysis of the issues. They also need to know how they can influence
decisions. To do this, politics needs to be presented as something anyone can
do all year round, not just in elections every few years. Promoting public
participation does not mean taking sides on the issues, but siding with the
public. Citizens are ultimately responsible for how the country is governed
and need to be better informed…A free press and independent media are critical for 
democracy, providing a plurality of opinion and scrutinizing those in power. 
Here here. If citizens are empowered with political literacy, they will know that they
can participate and, ultimately, how to most efficaciously influence decisions. If
they are also endowed with media literacy, citizens will understand how to reject
disinformation and to leverage media to amplify their voices.

In chapter eight, Alexander proposes a model to teach practical politics that mimics business education in that it would “create and disseminate applied knowledge” in a manner that will fulfill Harvard Business School’s charge to “make a difference in the world.” This model has proven to be successful in business school settings, so it’s logical to believe that it could work with practical politics. In fact, my Center for Global Peace Journalism follows a similar model wherein peace journalism is taught as an academic discipline while it is simultaneously promoted, implemented, and practiced around the world.

In chapters 10 and 11, the author offers useful guidance on both creating practical political content and navigating the choppy waters of curriculum change. This advice, in fact, will prove indispensable for any academic needing guidance on how to deftly surmount curricular barriers.
In conclusion, I found “Practical Politics: Lessons in Power and Democracy” by Titus Alexander useful as a practical guide to promoting political literacy, an inspirational tool, and an important reminder about the vital interdisciplinary connections between political science and media studies.

“Practical Politics: Lessons in Power and Democracy” author Titus Alexander is the founder and director of Democracy Matters in the UK and honorary fellow at the Crick Centre at the University of Sheffield.

Reviewer Steven Youngblood is the director of the Center for Global Peace Journalism (www.park.edu/peacecenter) at Park University in Parkville, Missouri, where he is a communications professor. He is author of “Peace Journalism Principles and Practices” and editor of the “Peace Journalist” magazine.

Presenters battle disinformation with fact checking, literacy, PJ
(Strasbourg, France)—Disinformation is a menace to democracies around the world. Yet, there are those around the world who are fighting disinformation using fact checking, literacy program, and peace journalism.

These anti-disinformation efforts were detailed at a session called “Mythbusters,” which was part of the Council of Europe-sponsored World Forum for Democracy last week in Strasbourg, France.

My presentation was titled, “Disinformation, Democracy, and the Peace Journalism Solution.” I began by defining disinformation, which is the use of lies, half-truths, and irrational content to manipulate public opinion. We discussed its purposes (distracting, obscuring truth, inspiring action, and shaping the information environment) and characteristics (it works best when targeting pre-existing divides and prejudices within a society). Disinformation succeeds because trust in media is low, and because consumers embrace information that confirms their biases.

Steven Youngblood, Park U.

Then, I discussed how peace journalism is an effective tool for countering disinformation. First, PJ’s principles, as taught during hundreds of seminars around the world, are antithetical to disinformation, including seeking to unite parties (disinformation divides), carefully choosing language (disinformation leverages inflammatory, sensational language), and offering counternarratives that debunk stereotypes (disinformation relies on and reinforces stereotypes).

Other presenters in the “Mythbusters” session included Anna University (India) Prof. Sriram Arulchelvan. He discussed his university’s media information and literacy program that helps high schoolers spot fake news.

Austin Augbe, Nigeria

Austin Augbe, director of the Nigerian Centre for Democracy and Development, then presented about countering disinformation in Nigeria. He said that democracy is on the “verge of collapse” in Nigeria, and that disinformation is one reason why. His center has a project to fight disinformation through fact checking, training 500 fact checkers, spreading the word about a #StopFakeNews campaign, and conducting research on fake news.

Beatrice Simoncini then gave a different perspective on disinformation. She is a member of a working group on disinformation and spokesperson for the government of San Marino, a small nation of 33,000 surrounded by Italy. The working group’s efforts include convening conferences, fostering cooperation among entities battling disinformation, and sponsoring media literacy programs in schools.

Wrapping up the session were respondents Titus Alexander and Matthew Golozia. Alexander suggested that universities should lead the way in fighting disinformation, and act as “intelligence agencies” for democracy. This would include changing the story (in PJ terminology, counternarratives), speaking truth to power, and following the truth. Golozia concluded by opining that government regulation of internet providers and cell phone companies is needed so that everyone has equal access to information.

“Mythbusters” was hosted by the City of Strasbourg in its historic city hall in a room used for formal occasions and, frequently, for weddings. I can’t recall ever speaking in a more beautiful place.

Sriran Arulchelvan, India

From Nov. 8, 2019

World Forum: Disinformation is a threat to democracy

(Strasbourg, France)-At the World Forum for Democracy this week, the alarm sounded loudly on the threats to free press and democracy posed by disinformation.

First plenary session

In one plenary session, speakers discussed disinformation as a factor in eroding trust in the media. This session featured a spokesperson for Russia Today, RT, the Kremlin’s propaganda satellite TV channel/website aimed at an international audience. The spokesperson said RT has been unfairly labeled as disinformation, and is in fact an independent media outlet. This claim was met by groans and head shakes in the audience, and in fact sparked a one minute mini-demonstration wherein standing demonstrators loudly chanted, “Russia Today is fake!” Numerous questioners challenged the spokesperson about the true nature of RT.

After this session, discussion raged about whether RT should have been invited to the forum. My take: If we believe in the free exchange of ideas, we must not be afraid to confront propagandists.

Another authoritarian state, China, was in the spotlight in a speech by Shirley Lam of the Press Association of Hong Kong, who talked about the clash of values between mainland China and Hong Kong. Lam detailed a fake news campaign using 200,000 social media accounts to denigrate and delegitimization democracy activists and journalists, who are portrayed as unprofessional and biased. She said this disinformation is worse than physical violence because it “shakes the fundamental support for press freedom.”

The World Forum’s most poignant moment was when the names of 24 journalists killed in Europe during the last five years (including Jamal Khashoggi and Lyra McKee) were read aloud by Ricardo Gutierrez of the European Federation of Journalists. 

One recurring  theme at the forum was the conflict between those who believe disinformation can be tackled through regulating journalism and online platforms with those who prefer a more self regulated, free speech approach. The first approach might work in well developed democracies, but would surely be abused to stifle speech by authoritarian regimes, especially in the developing world.

This World Forum, titled “Is democracy in danger in the Information Age?”, also featured

Women in media session

presentations (and witty cartoons, several featuring Donald Trump) by Cartoonists for Peace, and a robust discussion about gender issues in journalism, including online harassment and how to counter it.

It was an honor to speak at the forum, and to meet so many who are engaged in the good work of battling disinformation.

The World Forum was sponsored by the Council of Europe.

Conference explores human rights and journalism
If Friday’s session “Human Rights and Journalism” proved nothing else, it confirmed the deficits among media both here and abroad, particularly when it comes to reporting women and minority groups.

The Friday discussion was part of the three-day Greater Kansas City Peacebuilding Conference. The theme this year was “Human Rights: The Foundation of Peacebuilding.”

Sarah Margon from the Open Society Foundation, formerly of Human Rights Watch, led off the day by discussing why journalism matters to human rights organizations, and vice-versa. She said journalism is essential for figuring out what governments are doing, and to push for needed change. Margon noted that journalism matters to human rights organizations since journalism is a “force-multiplier” that can help set the agenda and maintain pressure for change. She cited the ongoing media pressure regarding the Jamal Khasoggi murder and the violence against the Rohingya in Myanmar as examples of beneficial media spotlights.

Lewis Diuguid; Bette Tate-Beaver at Park Univ.

Lewis Diuguid, author, lecturer, and journalist, and Bette Tate-Beaver, executive director of the National Association of Multicultural Education, continued the discussion by looking at media’s role in “continuing oppression” in society. The speakers presented information about the functions of media, then discussed how these functions (surveillance, correlation, transmission, entertainment, economic) make some minority groups (Asians, Native Americans) invisible, while relegating other minorities (African Americans, Latinos) to ne’er-do-well status--those who need to be watched closely (surveillance).

Journalist and syndicated columnist Mary Sanchez then discussed the importance of diverse newsrooms, noting that you “have to have connections to tell real stories” inside the Latino community. She said that she’s used Human Rights Watch for years as a reliable source of data. Sanchez also explored the fine line between journalist and activist.

The session ended with a call from Northern Ireland featuring veteran journalist and officer for the National Union of Journalists Kathryn Johnston. She decried journalism that re-victimizes those who have been traumatized—reporting that “strips people of their humanity.” She noted that women have been excluded from peace processes and newsrooms in Northern Ireland, to the detriment of both, and that her community overall has been desensitized to violence. When asked about Brexit, Johnston discussed the impact of a hard border. She said that this possibility has already led to violent threats. She said that if the hard border is established, she “fears” it will lead to a resumption of violence.
Overall, the presenters agreed that traditional media narratives often ignore or stereotype women and minority communities, and that the link between human rights and journalism is important if the potential of society is to be realized.

The Greater Kansas City Peacebuilding Conference began on Thursday, Oct. 31 at Avila University with a presentation by Rwandan peace activist Felix Manzi. The event concluded on Saturday, Nov. 2 at Johnson County Community College (JCCC) with a keynote from Sarah Margon, a panel discussion about the ongoing human rights challenges in Kansas City, and break-out sessions on gender and sexual orientation, human rights in conflict, global migration, and servitude and slavery.
The annual event was sponsored by the Center for Global Peace Journalism at Park University, JCCC, Avila University, and the International Relations Council.

Greater KC Peacebuilding Conference starts Thursday
Mark your calendars for a terrific event: This Thursday, Friday, and Saturday is the annual Greater Kansas City Peacebuilding Conference. On Friday from 1-4pm at Park University, we're discussing human rights journalism Mary Sanchez, Lewis Diuguid, Bette Tate-Beaver, Sarah Margon from the Open Society Foundation, and journalist Kathryn Johnston from Northern Ireland.

For details about the conference, listen to the Danny Clinkscale podcast about the event and about peace journalism generally--https://tinyurl.com/y2k6hg4k .

You can register for free for the conference at https://secure.touchnet.com/C20110_ustores/web/product_detail.jsp?PRODUCTID=19802 .
We ask that you register especially for Saturday, since a free lunch is provided.

A future for PJ in Northern Ireland? It depends on who you ask

(Belfast, Northern Ireland)-Here at Belfast Metropolitan College, there is some disagreement about the future of peace journalism.

The bright, talkative students in Prof. John Coulter’s journalism class seem to believe that PJ is a “sensible” solution for Northern Irish media. One student said he and his generation are growing weary of what he called “orange and green,” us vs. them style reporting. Another said peace journalism is possible, but that a transition will be extremely slow—generational, in fact. Their student peers in Coleraine agreed with this assessment.

Prof. Coulter, himself a former war journalist during the Troubles, showed off some of his reporting which he characterized as traditional. This included sensational stories like the one headlined, “Vigilantes plan bomb blitz.” Coulter said PJ is not possible “when you have reporters like me...who grew up with the Troubles. I can not make the transition” to peace journalism, he said.

Instead, Coulter is promoting what he calls legacy journalism, in which senior journalists would revisit their reporting from decades ago and “make what we did relevant.” He tossed out the idea of rewriting one of his stories in a peace journalism style. I encouraged him to do this.

The students and I also discussed trauma reporting. We were collectively encouraged that most of the reporting about the recent trauma of the murder of journalist Lyra Kckee was responsible, and followed the guidelines laid out by the National Union of Journalists—NUJ. (See https://victimsandthepast.org/outputs/media-training-workshops/ )


I look forward to continuing our work in Northern Ireland next March. My project, sponsored by the US Embassy London and the US Consulate Belfast, will continue with workshops that concentrate on trauma journalism.

PJ and language: What exactly is a massacre?

(Coleraine, Northern Ireland) The most lively discussion yesterday at Ulster University (UU) in Coleraine centered around language, and specifically the word “massacre.”

I was in Coleraine visiting with UU master’s in journalism students as part of an ongoing peace journalism project in Northern Ireland sponsored by the US Embassy-London/US consulate Belfast.

One bright, skeptical student (my favorite kind) said he understood avoiding inflammatory language when reporting controversy. But he believed that using terms like “massacre” is okay in stories like school shootings since “no one is on the shooter’s side.”

At UU-Coleraine. Photo by Allan Leonardrd

Another articulate student said he thinks it’s acceptable to manipulate words and emotions in a story like a school shooting if it can stir people into action.

I disagreed with both students.

To the first student, I commented that in instances like mass shootings, the point of PJ more about rejecting subjectivity and avoiding sensationalism. “Massacre” is an imprecise term—how many killed, exactly, constitutes a “massacre?” The term also starts us down a slippery slope towards sensationalism. If “massacre” is okay, then what’s next—“bloody slaughter?” Present the facts, and let the reader decide if a massacre occurred, I said.

As for the second student who wants to stir people into action, I asked, when is it okay for journalists to feed people’s emotions? Who decides? As journalist Allan Leonard (who attended the session) pointed out, it’s ironic that peace journalism is often criticized for not being objective, yet in this instance it’s a traditional journalist who is willing to cross the line into advocacy.


I appreciated the thoughtful discussion (one of the best I’ve had) and the invitation by Prof. Milne Roundtree to come to UU. I look forward to my next visit to Coleraine.

The October Peace Journalist magazine has arrived!

The new Peace Journalist magazine is out, and features Prof. Raj Gandhi discussing peace journalism as well as dispatches from Ghana, South Korea, Cameroon, and elsewhere.

You can access the magazine as a .pdf file at:
https://www.park.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Peace-Journalist-Oct-2019-web.pdf .

Or, you can view the magazine in a flip-through format at:
https://issuu.com/peacejournalism/docs/peace_journalist_oct_2019-web .

The next edition of the magazine is April, 2020. Submission information can be found on page 2 of the magazine.

Enjoy!

Steven Youngblood
Editor, The Peace Journalist
Director, Center for Global Peace Journalism
@PeaceJourn

Kansas City peacebuilders exemplify Peace Day's spirit

Note: This article also appears in the Kansas City Star at:
https://www.kansascity.com/opinion/readers-opinion/guest-commentary/article235150442.html

When you open the paper or turn on the TV and see the daily flood of tragic news about violence and its victims, it’s easy to feel discouraged, even hopeless.

While we regularly view stories showing the heart-wrenching impact of violence on its victims, the media report much less frequently about what’s being done to stem this violence and build peace. For example, a recent Nexis Uni news search (for Sept. 12, 2019) showed a greater than 4 to 1 ratio of hits for crime and violence stories than for peace and peacebuilding stories.

Yet, even though they’re frequently out of the spotlight, it’s encouraging to know on this International Day of Peace that Kansas City’s peacebuilders are ubiquitous, and actively engaged to make our community more harmonious.

The nascent Greater Kansas City Peacebuilding Coalition has compiled a list of anti-violence, peace-promoting organizations in the KC area. This list includes 113 organizations that address poverty and homelessness (Bishop Sullivan Center at bishopsullivan.org and Cherith Brook at cherithbrookcw.blogspot.com); international connectedness (Global Ties KC at globaltieskc.org and the Sister City Association of Kansas City at kcsistercities.org); and peacebuilding education (the Center for Global Peace Journalism at Park University at park.edu/peacecenter the Johnson County Community College Office of International Education at jccc.edu, the Buchanan Initiative for Peace and Non-Violence at Avila University at avila.edu/academics/avila-centers-initiatives/buchanan-peace-nonviolence and Global and Multicultural Education-GAME-kcglobalconcepts.org/game/).

Among these entities, Kansas City is fortunate to have numerous “rock star” peacebuilders and peacebuilding organizations. For example:

--The Center for Conflict Resolution (ccrkc.org), which does programming in area schools designed to “teach skills that prevent normal conflict from becoming verbally or physically violent.” They also provide mediation and conflict resolution training.
--Ad Hoc Group Against Crime (adhocgroupkc.com), which promotes healing and justice by serving as a bridge between the community and law enforcement. They also provide support to victims of violent crime, and work to prevent violence in KC.
--International Relations Council (irckc.org), which works with partner organizations to bring a global perspective to the community. IRC hosts international speakers, student forums, and smaller discussions about vital issues affecting our society.
--Rotary International (rotary.org), an international service organization, has a strong area presence. There are 21 Rotary Clubs in the KC area on the Missouri side, and 17 more in Kansas, engaged in peacebuilding projects like anti-bullying initiatives in schools and collecting shoes for South American orphans.

Volunteering with one of these organizations is a great way to contribute to peace, but if you’re not a “joiner,” don’t despair. According to the U.S. Institute for Peace (usip.org) and Mediators Without Borders (mwbdr.com), you can still build peace by:

--Volunteering to help those in need (there is a strong connection between poverty and violence)
--Attending an event like the annual Greater Kansas City Peacebuilding Conference on Oct. 31 (11:30 a.m. at Avila University), Nov. 1 (1:00 p.m. at Park University), and Nov. 2 (8:30 a.m. at Johnson County Community College). This year's theme is Human Rights and Peacebuilding, and the keynote speaker is Sarah Margon, foreign policy director of the Open Society Foundations. For more information, see https://www.jccc.edu/conferences/peacebuilding/ .
--Spreading the word about organizations that work to help victims of violence
--Sharing a meal with someone from a different community
--Learning about and employing techniques to resolve conflicts non-violently
--Facilitating dialogue between communities, especially those in conflict
--Creating or contributing to an artistic work or video that emphasizes peace themes
--Writing blogs, op-eds, and letters to the editor about peace
--Attending a peace rally
--Organizing a community project, especially one that builds bridges across communities

So while it’s understandable to be discouraged by the violence and discord around us, conversely, it’s easy to be encouraged by the numerous peacebuilding efforts in Kansas City, and to be empowered by the knowledge that each of us can help make our world a more peaceful place.

KC Star gets it right on murder epidemic coverage

Given the daily violence in our world, and the political polarization inherent in the gun debate, it might seem that journalists, and particularly peace journalists, have no choice but to impotently stand by and do little but report about the carnage.

However, recent coverage in the Kansas City Star is disproving that theory.

First, The Star’s coverage has increasingly focused on victims, rather than just the usual recitation of a murder’s gory details. Stories like “Relatives of P&L shooting victims speak out” (https://www.kansascity.com/news/local/crime/article234365432.html) and “Family mourns KCK shooting victim” (https://www.kansascity.com/news/local/crime/article13063739.html) follow a key peace journalism principle, giving a voice to the voiceless, in this instance, the friends and families of murder victims. Articles like these correctly take the spotlight off of shooters, and put is squarely on the victims whose lives were cut short. It’s gratifying that a platform is available for families to make statements like, ““He was known for being humble and he always asked for advice on life and what he could do to make himself better.”

In addition, The Star has attempted to move beyond just “play by play” coverage of crime, and instead is discussing solutions, another key PJ principle. One example is a recent guest column by a criminal justice professor who lays out possible solutions to the gun violence epidemic in Kansas City, including focusing on gun accessibility, the local jail, and on anti-violence technology. (https://www.kansascity.com/opinion/readers-opinion/guest-commentary/article234578187.html)

Finally, a recent Star editorial pulls no punches as it admonishes the community for its indifference to epidemic violence that is impacting especially the African-American community, noting that the “incredibly, and indefensibly, this city has reacted to the growing (gun violence) crisis with a collective shrug.” This crisis includes the recent murders of three Kansas City, Missouri Public Schools (KCPS) students in a nine day period. The KCPS are a majority African-American district. In a much needed slap in the face for readers, the editorial asks what the reaction would be if the young murder victims were from white majority school districts. “What would the public be if these shootings had occurred in more affluent suburbs like Blue Springs or Lee’s Summit… or if students from (exclusive) private schools like Rockhurst High School or St. Theresa’s Academy had their lives cut short by gun violence?”
 (https://www.kansascity.com/opinion/editorials/article234675022.html#storylink=mainstage)

While journalism alone can’t solve society’s problems, we as journalists can take a cue from the Star, and remain vigilant while reporting with victims and solutions in mind. As I wrote in Peace Journalism Principles and Practices, “Peace journalists would cover daily crime in a way that is less episodic and more analytical, and be proactive in exploring community issues that explain crime. PJ would also offer counter-narrative crime stories that show the deep impact that crime has on communities, and explore possible solutions other than incarceration.”

Gandhi enlightens Park U. students
A once in a lifetime opportunity…A class I’ll never forget…Inspiring… These were among the avalanche of positive comments from Park University students who were fortunate enough to attend one of several presentations this week by professor, author, and scholar Rajmohan Gandhi, the grandson of Mahatma Gandhi. 

Prof. Gandhi visited two Park peace studies classes (Intro to Peace Studies and Peace Journalism) and held an informal discussion with new student seminar freshmen as well. 

In peace journalism class, Prof. Gandhi addressed the shortcomings of media, but left the students hopeful that media can become more responsible. He said he was impressed by the work that many U.S. journalists do, and the “commitment and quality of social journalists.” Prof. Gandhi said he was depressed because of a “lack of substance,” media bias, and the media’s desire to “keep viewers glued to the screen” through sensationalism. He was critical of Fox News’ “unfortunate bias” that supports the “curious notion” of white supremacy that suggests that only whites are the rightful owners of the U.S. “The way to confront them (white nationalists) is with the real American ideal” upon which the country was founded. “The U.S. has stood for justice and equality. We have to remind America of this,” he said. 

The discussion about nationalism in the U.S. and elsewhere continued in Intro to Peace Studies class. Gandhi said that nationalism in the U.S. means ”reclaiming” of the country for whites; and in India, “reclaiming” the country for Hindus, despite Mahatma Gandhi’s lifelong struggle trying to build bridges between Hindus and other religions. Prof. Gandhi also answered a question about the viability of non-violent approaches to peace. While he acknowledged that these tactics haven’t always worked, he said it is an unassailable fact that “violence hasn’t brought peace.” Gandhi further defended non-violence with the logic that violence begets violence, leaving non-violence as the only viable option. 

In both of his classroom stops at Park, Prof. Gandhi discussed the current crisis in Kashmir, where 2,000 people have been arrested, the internet and phone service shut off, and over 400,000 Indian troops are deployed. He mentioned-repeatedly-that the recent Indian government decision to strip Kashmir of its special limited sovereignty status was made “without consulting even one Kashmiri.” He firmly believes in the right of self-determination for Kashmiris, a right he said has been trampled by the current Indian government. 

Park University students were thrilled to meet and be inspired by Prof. Gandhi. “I was impressed by the transmission of calmness and knowledge when he talks,” said Marcelo Aquino. International student from India Aadarash Chandan noted, “His views about the events are realistic, practical, and yet polite. His audacity is unmatched.” Destiny Webb spoke for many students when she commented, “He gave good advice and a better outlook on a non-violent society. His words were extremely wise.” Finally, Nathan Moore said, “His views and thoughts on peace were very informative and got me to thinking about peace in my community.” 

I know I speak for my students when I say we were truly honored by his presence and his wisdom. 

Next: Some personal reflections on the 72 hours I spent with Professor Gandhi.

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

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.

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

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.

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

Inflammatory language blocks discourse
An edited version of my previous column (see below) was recently published in the Los Angeles Times. Despite this, I have not yet "gone Hollywood."

I received a reply email from a LA Times reader who, in my view, missed the point of my piece. His email to me is at bottom; my response is here.

Response
My purpose in writing this brief column was not to argue about immigration policy. There are plenty of voices on both sides doing that. Rather, I wanted to make it clear that the tone of the discourse matters, that when liberals use phrases like “concentration camp,” they inflame already heated partisans, and further polarize our society. The same can be said of conservatives who label immigrants “illegal,” a phrase contained in your letter. Conservatives use “illegal” pejoratively, to smear new arrivals with a broad brush that implies criminality.

Both liberals and conservatives hide behind the technical definitions of these terms. Yes, technically, some immigrants have broken the law, and the detention centers may be concentration camps. But we know the baggage that this language carries—the dog whistles that appeal to partisans on both sides of the political spectrum.

Until we can rid our society of inflammatory language on both sides, how can we even begin a substantive discussion about reforming our broken immigration system?

Sincerely, etc.

Email:

Subject: Re:Opinion - No "concentration". LATimes Jun 17, 2019

Dear Mr. Youngblood,

Notwithstanding you may be an erudite person, you still struggle to grasp the meaning the words "Legal and illegal" .

When I immigrated to USA (many moons ago) I had to wait three months for my passport and four months for my visa. I was vetted by the American Consulate on three different occasions. When I landed at JFK (NYC), I was "interrogated", again, by the immigration officer for 30 minutes. I had to carry my card describing the assigned military status (in the Country) in case of National call. 

Now we have 1000s of Illegal immigrants, crashing through our boundaries and they are living in a "sanctuary" State. A baby that is born (illegal parents) here, receives free medical accommodations at the County hospital and per diem to the parents.

I was hit twice by one of my new "compatriots" that had no car insurance and no license.

My business took me around the World, and on many occasions I was vetted by the local Police even though I had a valid passport and visa (E.g., Israel, Argentina, Paraguay...etc).

It does not matter wether you are a liberal, a leftist or an anarchist; in my eyes your "liberalism" is a tantamount of subversion. I am quite sure that some of your relatives when they first arrived here, went through "physical hell" and embarrassment when they had to go through immigration one by one in State Island. It was deplorable, Yet, they did not strike, destroy properties or raise our flag upside down. They worked an average of 10 to 14 hours daily, worse than slavery, and yet they tried to learn English and show a devotion the the Country that gave them a place to live.

If you reply, please, "educate me" about where I am wrong. Back to my Grandfather, again, he used say, "it is never late to get an education"

Cordially,

(Name withheld)
California

P.S. Forgot to mention that when I travelled,  I had to menage to communicate with their language. There were no push one or push two. Its unjustifiable or permissible that the majority of the so called "immigrants" do not attempt to speak English. It would like me, entering your residence and dictate to you how to live in your house. What would be your reaction? A benevolent and pious welcome? I sincerely doubt. You would call the Police immediately and have me arrested for "trespassing"!