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