Global reporters discuss self-censorship, inflammatory content

I had an interesting exchange with journalists at the Global Sisters Report yesterday 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. Why not also filter out inflammatory, sensational content?

The journalist then followed up by noting, correctly, that sometimes reporters need to give raw, unpleasant details in a story. He cited a story he did on rape as an example. I agreed that stories like this, and negative, violent news in general, must be covered. The question is how. I hope journalists would ask themselves is this: are these details important for an understanding of the story, or are they merely sensational? Does including gory details re-victimize the victims? Does including these details help open the door for a possible solution, or at least a recognition generally that something must be done?

Interestingly, I've had the same exchange repeatedly with journalists in Cameroon, one of whom asked, "How can we cover a story when police shoot unarmed protesters in a way that reflects peace journalism?" My answer: sometimes the best we can do, the only thing we can do, is to report such stories without making a bad situation worse, without pouring gas on the fire.

This was my second such visit with the Global Sisters Report staff. I continue to be impressed with the quality of their journalism and with their commitment to telling stories from around the world about those who are embracing and facilitating peace, often against long odds. You can see their work at: https://www.globalsistersreport.org/ .

We know the New Zealand terror manifesto is full of hate. We don’t need the details

By Steven Youngblood

--Originally published in the Kansas City Star at:
https://www.kansascity.com/opinion/readers-opinion/guest-commentary/article228094564.html

The terrorist who allegedly killed 50 innocent Muslims in New Zealand last week would be smiling to himself if he could see some of the news coverage of the attack, and particularly the torrent of reporting devoted to his twisted manifesto.

Would-be terrorists must also be looking at the coverage and thinking that they, too, can get massive publicity for their hateful agendas by murdering innocent people.

A quick news search using the Nexis Uni research service showed more than 10,000 news media mentions under “New Zealand racist manifesto” from Friday to Sunday. The same search, narrowed to newspapers only, scored 7,049 hits. Many of these are just mentions that a manifesto exists, but many others are longer pieces detailing the crazy rantings in the shooter’s angry screed.

For example, a Washington Post article on Saturday gave scores of details about the 74-page manifesto, including the shooter’s racist rants about invaders, fascism, pop culture and the future of America. India Express that day featured a 700-word article about the manifesto that features lengthy, direct quotes from the shooter.

The Kansas City Star on Saturday also chose to feature a front-page story titled, “New Zealand shooting suspect’s manifesto says he was inspired by violent extremism.” To be fair, the entire article wasn’t about the manifesto, but instead gavs updates on the previous day’s shooting. However, there is still detailed contextual coverage discussing the foundations of racist ideology as well as white supremacist tropes.

In contrast, at least one newspaper, The Los Angeles Times on Sunday, chose to mention the manifesto only in passing in a lengthy, 1,855-word article. It discusses the manifesto in only two sentences. One mentions that the manifesto was racist and outlined plans for an attack. The other said the document articulated white supremacist views.

Did readers of this story miss out on the manifesto’s details provided by The Star, The Washington Post, India Express and many other newspapers? Are Los Angeles Times readers lacking a complete understanding of white supremacy and racism?

The answer is no. News consumers understand hatred, racism and white supremacy, with or without a lengthy recitation of these hateful, ugly attitudes by the news media. It is sufficient to say that the shooter had a racist, white supremacist manifesto that threatened violence against Muslims and others. People understand what this says and what this means without spelling out every little detail. We can all see clearly how the shooter’s racism and white supremacy manifested itself.

Printing manifestos in whole or in part gives shooters exactly what they crave: publicity for their hateful ideas. A group of mass shooting victim parents have joined forces in a project called No Notoriety that challenges media to report more responsibly about mass shootings by minimizing coverage of the shooter, maximizing coverage of the victims, and “refusing to publish self-serving statements, photos, videos, and/or manifestos made by the individual (shooter).” In so doing, No Notoriety seeks to deprive “violent like-minded individuals the media celebrity and media spotlight they so crave.”

Media outlets walk a fine line between providing necessary context and giving violent racists or terrorists a megaphone. Next time, and there will sadly be a next time, let’s hope journalists err on the side of choking off publicity for the haters.

Happy International Women's Day
In all journalism, but especially  peace journalism, women like Rose Obah in Cameroon (@obahrose), Cristina Avila Zesatti in Mexico (@brujadepaz), Vanessa Bassil in Lebanon (@VanessaBassil), and Gloria Laker in Uganda (@GloriaLaker) are key drivers for positive change.

I'm proud to call them colleagues.