Fulbright Update:
Event features lively discussions, cross-boundary cooperation
Since one key peace journalism tenet is building bridges between parties in conflict, I’ve often found myself teaching seminars in rooms full of journalists from India and Pakistan, or Abkhazia and Georgia, for example. Last week, in a peace journalism seminar at Vadul Lui Voda, Moldova, I found myself in a similar situation.

The discussions between journalists from these conflicted regions got a bit heated at times, among the most contentious I’ve seen, although the animated discussions never descended into yelling or storming out of the room. Despite this, I left the seminar feeling good about the work we did.

The 3.5 day seminar was titled “Peace Journalism Principles and Applications,” and was sponsored by UN Human Rights’ office in Moldova. I was the project designer and lead instructor. The participants were 20 journalists from three areas: Moldova, which is in the process of joining the EU; Transnistria, a Russian-leaning breakaway region; and an autonomous, Russian-speaking region of Moldova, Gagauzia.

Liuba Starii, Ludmila Hitsuc

Our contentious discussions largely centered on the Ukraine-Russia war. I knew we were going to generate some heat when one of the Transnistrian journalists called the war a “special operation”—Putin’s sanitized euphemism for the war. The Transnistrian journalists discussed how they cover the war, and used the descriptive term “neutral,” which, to other participants from Moldova, means ignoring the death and destruction that the Russian invasion has wrought in Ukraine. I intimated that ignoring Russia’s actions in an attempt to appear neutral is, in fact, a pro-Kremlin stance. To reinforce this, I quoted anti-apartheid South African bishop Desmond Tutu, who said, “If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality.”

We also discussed the language used to describe the stalemate between Transnistria, a region that claims independence but is not recognized by any other country, and Moldova, which considers Transnistria Moldovan territory. One participant, Evgheni Sholari,  presented an excellent guide, produced by journalists on both sides, that recommends what language journalists should use to turn down the rhetorical heat—peace journalism, to be sure. The neutral language recommended by the guide includes saying “Transnistria” instead of “unrecognized Transnistria” or “Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic,” calling the 1992 war that started the conflict “armed conflict on the Dniester (River) in 1992” instead of “armed aggression” or “Russian aggression.” I told the participants I disagreed with the guide’s recommendation to call the 1500 Russian troops stationed in Transnistria “peacekeepers.” My point was that peacekeepers are inherently neutral, which these Russian troops (which is what I would call them) are not.

Andrei Trubceac, UN Human Rights office

The sponsor, the UN Human Rights office in Moldova, lined up some excellent speakers for the seminar, including Eugenia Crețu, editor in chief of Europa Liberă Moldova; Nikola Petrovski and Andrei Trubceac from the UN Human Rights office in Moldova;  Olga Borisova from the Memory Walk project;  Irina Kartashova from Dnestr TV/Novaya Volna; and Viorica Zaharia, the president of the Press Council of Moldova. Also, history professor history professor Sergiu Musteață discussed contested historical narratives in Moldova, including contentious issues surrounding language and identity. War reporters Viorica Tătaru and Andrei Captarenco from TV8/Dincolo de Nistru also presented alongside photojournalist Larisa Kalik, who is originally from Transnistria. She joined us online from Ukraine, telling the participants that ”I wish you to never experience” seeing the death and destruction she has witnessed.

The participants were put into teams from conflicted regions (one Moldovan and one Transnistrian or Gagauzian), and tasked with producing cross-boundary stories about contested narratives. These will be finished in May. One group, for example, is doing a report on the future of Moldova from two perspectives—one a pro-Russia, eastern orientation, the other a pro-EU orientation.

At the end of the seminar, one of the Transnistrian journalists shared her frustrations when reflecting on the heated discussions, and observed that it is impossible to change people’s minds. I told her and the other participants that our goal was never to change anyone’s minds, but rather to generate dialogue and cooperation, and to plant some seeds for what will undoubtedly be a long, painful road to reconciliation and peace. In this, I believe we succeeded, despite the fireworks.

Palii Timur, Alla Tofan, Natalia Munteanu, Evgheny Cheban.

 

 

 

 

Fulbright Update:
Media Academy convenes; State alumni event held
This week, the Media Academy, a four day seminar introducing peace journalism to 20 Moldovan journalists, got underway at the resort area Vadul Lui Voda. What makes this event unique is that the attendees are from Moldova, an autonomous region called Gaguzia, and a break-away region called Transnistria.

The event is titled “Peace Journalism Principles and Applications,” and is sponsored by UN Human Rights’ office in Moldova. I am the project designer and lead instructor.

We’re covering a lot of ground this week, from a PJ overview to PJ and refugees; PJ and human rights reporting; PJ and hate speech/disinformation, and PJ and war reporting.

Eugenia Cretu presents at the Media Academy

On the first full day, I discussed peace journalism reporting of refugees. Then, 

Eugenia Cretu, editor in chief of Radio Europa Libera (Radio Free Europe-Chisinau), who showed compelling examples of RFE’s refugee reporting. These included compelling clips about Ukrainian refugees’ flight to freedom aboard rickety westbound trains, refugees acclimating to Moldova by learning Romanian, and a visually compelling piece about a refugeewho started a dance studio. 

Nikola Petrovski, Un Human Rights program officer, presented the basics of human rights, including cultural, economic, and social rights; as well as the UN conventions and ccommittees that monitor human rights convention compliance. He also talked about the needs approach to human rights journalism vs. the preferred rights approach  which includes a focus on the needs of rights holders and solutions. Andrei Trubceac, UN Human rights officer, then discussed Dr.  Johan Galtung’s direct, structural, and cultural violence, emphasizing the need for reporters to examine the underlying factors that fuel conflict and violence.

All week long, I've had an eye on how journalists from these regions in conflict with one another would interact and cooperate. I'll share my observations about this, and the full details on the rest of the workshop, in this space next week.

Alumni Exchange Event
About 150 State Department exchange program alumni gathered in Chisinau last weekend to compare notes, socialize, and get some good ideas about how they can leverage their exchange program experience for the betterment of Moldova.

US Amb. Ken Logsdon welcomes alumni

There are numerous such exchange programs. Some send students to study for a year in the U.S. (FLEX), while others send groups of professionals to the U.S. to tour and learn best practices from their American colleagues (IVLP). I have hosted a number of journalism professionals, for example, at my university in the Kansas City area. 

Other than meeting my fellow State Dept. alumni, the highlight of the day was hearing about the efforts of these alumni to make life better here in Moldova. Cezara Nanu discussed her efforts to fund Moldovan businesses, while Victor Lutenco, who called his exchange program “life changing,” talked about how he has connected with other exchange program alums. Other presentations included Diana Grosu, who talked about the NGO called “Youth 2.0” that involves young people in Balti, Moldova in local government); Alla Rosca, who discussed “Speranta-The School of  Young Women Leaders from both Banks of the Nistru River,” and Natalia Slepuhin, who explained her project “Primaria Mea (My City Hall),” which engages citizens in local government and encourages transparency in the government in Chisinau, the capital city.

It was great meeting these individuals dedicated to improving Moldova. In fact, I expect several collaborations to come out of the networking I did at this event. As a U.S. taxpayer, it was a reminder that the comparatively little spent on these exchange programs is money extremely well spent, both from an American perspective and from a Moldovan perspective.

 

Fulbright Update:
At university, discussions now focus on Ukrainian refugees
I continue lecturing this semester at the State University of Moldova (USM), in the journalism department (they call departments faculties here). Our current focus is on how media report about Ukrainian refugees. 

Peace Journalism lesson, Moldova State Univ.

Last fall, I taught an introduction to peace journalism lesson, including definitions, characteristics, and so on. I had the students read stories and discuss whether they were written in the peace journalism style. This spring, I’m teaching an advanced seminar on peace journalism and migrants wherein I discuss traditionally negative, stereotyping coverage of refugees, and how peace journalism can improve that coverage. Among other things, I cite a report about Online Discourse about Refugees in Moldova that reveals a Russian online disinformation campaign against Ukrainian refugees. Hate speech and “prejudicial comments” were found in 47 percent of the social media comments collected. The students aren’t surprised by this data.

Our most interesting discussion this semester has been about Roma refugees who have come to Moldova from Ukraine. (Almost a million Ukrainian refugees have passed through Moldova, while about 120,000 have stayed, according to UNHCR. There is no statistic I could find about how many of those who remained are Roma). It’s interesting to hear the prevalent stereotypes about refugees, and about how Roma refugee issues have been virtually ignored by the press here.

My classes, 90 minutes long, have been good for the most part. Just like any university I’ve taught at, there are a group of highly engaged students in each class who are extremely attentive and eagerly participate in exercises and discussions. Just like any university, cell phones are a scourge, distracting students and professors alike. In journalism classrooms worldwide, data show that the majority of students are young women. In my classes in Moldova, that trend is even more pronounced. I’d estimate that 80% of my students are young women, though in one recent class, 19/20 were female.

My classes are all in the main university building, and all on one floor. A few of the classrooms have a projector that can plug into a laptop, but most are spartan, with nothing more than an ancient chalkboard—little changed from the first time I taught at USM in 2001. Because there’s no a/v in most classrooms, I just teach without it, which is a fundamental change from my teaching back in the U.S. I’ve reverted to handouts, and I’ve printed off pictures I want to show the class.  One of the biggest changes from 2001 is that the classrooms are heated. Way back, I remember my teeth chattering during my lectures. The other big change is that in 2001, USM’s main block and hallways were clogged with students. Now, there is no crowding. USM’s enrollment must be down substantially from 20+ years ago, with many of its potential students studying instead in Romania, Western Europe, or the U.S.

The department has structured my Fulbright as a “lector invitat,” a guest lecturer, in peace journalism. What this means is that I do not have my own classes per se. I can see why they structured it this way, since there are no peace journalism courses in the curriculum. They could’ve given me a mass media or intro to journalism course and I could have included a peace journalism unit, though we were in agreement that this wasn’t the best use of my expertise.

This "lector invitat" arrangement has its advantages. I am able to still concentrate on peace journalism, and not have to worry about any other subject about which I am much less interested. I get to teach each students in the department twice—once in the fall, and once in the spring. As someone who’s taught at the university level for 27 years, the biggest advantage is avoiding the most onerous aspects of the job, grading and course administration. No papers for me! And no gradebook, grades, and, concomitantly, no annoying interactions with student grade-grubbers.

The disadvantage is that I don’t really get to know the students, since they just see me for an hour and a half in the fall, and another hour and a half in the spring. Oh, we’ve had a few before or after class chats, but nothing really substantial. I miss these interactions.

I’ll continue my work at USM through the spring semester, which will end in early June.

Webinars spread word about peace journalism basics; PJ & war
Even though I’m a Fulbright Scholar here in Moldova, my activities as director of the Center for Global Peace Journalism continue, including producing the Peace Journalist magazine (new issue in April!) and giving webinars to various groups around the world. 

Dr. Uchenna Ekwo, at GMU event

I presented at two such webinars last week. The first was a presentation for students at Hong Kong Baptist University. I introduced the concept of peace journalism, then discussed some questions that journalists and media consumers should be asking about war coverage. These include questions about balance (Does the coverage present all survivors as worthy? Do the stories and images accurately portray suffering on all sides? Does coverage generalize, stereotype, scapegoat, and demonize “them”? Is the coverage biased? Is it “good guys vs. bad guys”? Are voices heard from only one side?); whether the coverage is contextual; and whether peace plans/proposals are reflexibely dismissed by the media as unworkable, unrealistic, and/or undesirable.

I was challenged by one participant who believed that peace journalism is not objective. I appreciated his observations, though I disagreed. I mentioned the words of Dr. Johan Galtung, PJ’s “father.” He told me that no one accuses a war reporter of being biased in favor of war. Why can’t a peace reporter get the same consideration? I also said that objectivity is a chimera at any rate, and that journalists make hundreds of subjective choices (whom to interview, angle, lead, word choice, etc.) with each story. Why not add one more choice that considers the consequences of one’s reporting?

At the second webinar, I was one of three panelists on a peace journalism event sponsored by Rotary District 7620 and George Mason University-GMU (Fairfax, VA). I started with an introduction of the basics of peace journalism. Then Turkish journalist and educator Ayce Ozerdem gave a great presentation on the connections between PJ and media literacy, and how PJ can provide a framework for evaluating media content. I’ve often though that PJ and media literacy are two sides of the same coin—one dealing with creating and disseminating information, the other with receiving and interpreting this information. The final speaker was Dr. Uchenna Ekwo, author and president of the Center for Media and Peace Initiatives in New York. His insightful comments touched on the importance of journalism in peacebuilding, the challenges of peace reporting in post conflict situations, and the conflicting interests that challenge reporters.

It’s always great to connect with students and colleagues across time zones—in this case, the 13 time zones from Virginia to Hong Kong.