Part II: PJ is useful tool for combating bad information
Last time (see previous post below), I talked about the threat posed to democracy by mis and disinformation. Today, in Part II of Misinformation, Democracy, and the Peace Journalism solution, I'll discuss how peace journalism can be used to combat bad information.

The peace journalism solution
From a media standpoint, one of the best ways to combat the corrosive effects of mis and disinformation on democracy is by employing the principles of peace journalism.

There are several valid definitions of peace journalism. Dr. Jake Lynch and Annabel McGoldrick, in their groundbreaking book Peace Journalism (2005), define it as, “when editors and reporters make choices - of what to report, and how to report it - that create opportunities for society at large to consider and value non-violent responses to conflict.” PJ “builds an awareness of nonviolence and creativity into the practical job of everyday editing and reporting.”

The Center for Global Peace Journalism at Park University in Parkville, Missouri, adapts and expands on the Lynch/McGoldrick definition. The center says that PJ is a practice in which “editors and reporters make choices that improve the prospects for peace. These choices, including how to frame stories and carefully choosing which words are used, create an atmosphere conducive to peace and supportive of peace initiatives and peacemakers, without compromising the basic principles of good journalism.”

Peace journalism principles can be applied to combat political propaganda, social media disinformation, and hyper partisan political reporting that undermine democracy. This can be done by:

a. Promoting more balance and transparency in electoral and political reporting;
b. Helping journalists and their communities identify and counteract disinformation across many platforms;
c. Encouraging more thoughtful (and less partisan or sectarian) societal discourse that builds bridges across boundaries;
d. Promoting peace journalism practices, and peace generally, on social media, which can be used to encourage dialogue, promote tolerance, and bridge partisan divides;
e. Carefully choosing the language used in reporting;
f.  Offering counternarratives that debunk propaganda and fake news.

To elaborate on a few of these, let’s start with PJ and electoral/political reporting. Seminars for journalists held in Uganda, Cameroon, Kenya, and elsewhere from 2007 onward discussed the positive role journalists can take to combat disinformation and propaganda during political campaigns and elections. Hundreds of journalists have implemented these guidelines. During these seminars, journalists were advised to avoid airing comments and reports that encourage tribalism and divisions within society. Instead, peace journalists insist that candidates address issues that bring communities together. Also, journalists were advised to avoid airing inflammatory, divisive, or violent statements by candidates. Instead, journalists agreed to edit these comments to eliminate these inflammatory statements; or, to broadcast these comments, and then offer analysis and criticism of what is being said. Reporters were also advised to call out political propaganda, center their reporting around everyday people and their concerns, and hold candidates accountable for their statements and promises.

PJ can also be a tool to bridge polarized, partisan divides, thus reducing the impact of mis and disinformation that demonizes and isolates with “us vs. them” narratives. There are many examples of peace journalism projects that have done just this in Turkey (building connections between Turks and Syrian refugees), South Sudan (between Dinka and Nuer), and Georgia (between Georgians and Abkhazians). The largest example of this was a 3-year project that concluded in 2022 that brought together Pakistani and Indian journalists to jointly report on issues of common interest. (www.journalistsforchange.org).

Mis and disinformation, and the threat they pose to democracy, aren’t going away. Thus, it’s vital that societies take a multi-pronged approach to combating mal-information that includes improved media (peace journalism) as well as extensive media literacy education.

Misinformation, democracy, and the peace journalism solution
Part I
Mis and disinformation, and their corrosive impact on democracy, have been on my professional front burner since I presented at a session about this topic at the World Forum for Democracy's meeting in Strasbourg, France in 2019. 

In this post, I wrote about my Strasbourg presentation titled, “Disinformation, Democracy, and the Peace Journalism Solution.” I defined disinformation, (the use of lies, half-truths, and irrational content to manipulate public opinion), and 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). Then, I discussed how peace journalism is an effective tool for countering disinformation. 

In Strasbourg, I met Titus Alexander from Crick Centre for the Public Understanding of Politics at the University of Sheffield, who shares my interest in misinformation and democracy. Alexander is one of the driving forces behind a blog called The Loop. (I'll provide the link once it's posted). He invited me to write an article about mis/disinformation, democracy, and peace journalism for The Loop, and I took him up on the offer.

Below is the first of two parts of this article. In Part I, I discuss the intersection of misinformation and democracy.

Mis and disinformation are an existential threat to democracy.

This threat, underscored during recent elections in the U.S, Brazil, South Korea, Kenya, and elsewhere, has been extensively researched and analyzed.

In the U.S., misinformation is eroding the public’s confidence in democracy. A 2022 NPR survey found that 64% of the American population believes that U.S. democracy is in crisis and is at risk of failing. 70% of respondents said that democracy was more at risk of failure now than it was in 2021.  In article for the Brookings Institution, Gabriel Sanchez observes, “One of the drivers of decreased confidence in the political system has been the explosion of misinformation deliberately aimed at disrupting the democratic process. This confuses and overwhelms voters. Throughout the 2020 election cycle, Russia’s cyber efforts and online actors were able to influence public perceptions and sought to amplify mistrust in the electoral process by denigrating mail-in voting, highlighting alleged irregularities, and accusing the Democratic Party of engaging in voter fraud. The ‘big lie’…has lasting implications on voters’ trust in election outcomes.”

This is also true in Europe. Writing for the Universityof Birmingham’s website, Dr. Merten Riglitz says, “Major democratic institutions, such as the UK’s House of Commons and the European Commission, have correctly identified fake news as a threat to their values and processes, but the real danger lurks in the corrosive effect that these online lies have on citizens’ trust in their democracy. Reputable polling evidence shows that fake news leads to a loss of trust of citizens in each other - a major cause of destabilising democratic processes and undermining the benefits that morally justify democratic institutions.”

The impact of misinformation may be especially pronounced in the developing world. On the Council on Foreign Relations blog, Conor Sanchez writes, “As the technology to deceive improves, verifying authentic content online will only become more difficult, raising its potential to sow social discord and lower people’s trust in their institutions. These trends are worrisome enough for advanced economies, but they portend an immediate crisis in emerging and developing economies, where institutions are more fragile and access to unlimited data is still prohibitively expensive.”

A report by the European Parliament concludes, “Disinformation also has far-reaching implications for human rights and democratic norms worldwide. It threatens freedom of thought, the right to privacy and the right to democratic participation, as well as endangering a range of economic, social and cultural rights. It also diminishes broader indicators of democratic quality, unsettling citizens’ faith in democratic institutions not only by distorting free and fair elections, but also fomenting digital violence and repression.”

In Part II, coming soon, I'll discuss how peace journalism can be used to combat mis and disinformation.