Intl Peace Research Conference begins in Sierra Leone
We're underway today in Freetown, SL with a presentation on conscientious development. Later today, I'm looking forward to presentations on media's role in peacebuilding and peace journalism and objectivity. Tomorrow, I moderate a panel on media and peace, and later give a break out session on responsible reporting about refugees.

Fake news and propaganda

Did fake news fuel Donald Trump’s rise to the presidency?

At least one writer of fake news, Paul Horner, thinks so. He told the Washington Post, “I think Trump is in the White House because of me. His followers don’t fact-check anything — they’ll post everything, believe anything. His campaign manager posted my story about a protester getting paid $3,500 as fact. Like, I made that up. I posted a fake ad on Craigslist.” (http://tinyurl.com/zoed6lr).

Another example is a false story about buses packed with paid anti-Trump protesters that was shared 16,000 times on Twitter and more than 350,000 times on Facebook. A New York Times article yesterday de-constructed exactly how this lie went viral.

On CNN’s Reliable Sources yesterday, media critic Brian Stelter ruminated about fake news, noting “the evidence indicates this is more of a problem on the right, among some, not all, but some Trump supporters.” Stelter’s essay on the subject is worthwhile viewing. (http://tinyurl.com/j6h48t8)

As I’ve thought about fake news, I’ve referred back to the chapter on propaganda in my new textbook Peace Journalism Principles and Practices. The link between fake news and propaganda is clear given the definition of propaganda: information designed and used to influence opinion. During this election, consumers were inundated with false information designed to change or reinforce opinions about the candidate, and ultimately, to sway votes.

The emergence of fake news presents yet another challenge to journalists, as well as one more justification for peace journalism. A look at PJ’s principles shows that it is built to battle fake news. These principles include verifying claims/propaganda from all sources; seeking and verifying facts from multiple sources, and not just official ones; and offering counter-narratives that debunk propaganda and fake news that create stereotypes, myths, and misperceptions.

The prevalence of fake news means that responsible journalism is more important than ever.

Reconciliation journalism

Two recent stories show the power of media to tell reconciliation-themed stories. The first is a story on a Kansas City TV station that discusses how a Syrian student at Park University, where I teach, is dispelling negative myths about Syrians and Muslims.

The second is a fine BBC story about how Tunisian victims of abuse are speaking out on live TV as part of their country’s “truth and dignity” reconciliation process.

Next: Sierra Leone and IndiaIn the next month, I’ll be in Freetown, Sierra Leona (Intl Peace Research Assn and PJ seminar) and Chennai, India (PJ seminar at Anna University). I’ll keep you posted.

Fake news and propaganda

Did fake news fuel Donald Trump’s rise to the presidency?

At least one writer of fake news, Paul Horner, thinks so. He told the Washington Post, “I think Trump is in the White House because of me. His followers don’t fact-check anything — they’ll post everything, believe anything. His campaign manager posted my story about a protester getting paid $3,500 as fact. Like, I made that up. I posted a fake ad on Craigslist.” (http://tinyurl.com/zoed6lr).

On CNN’s Reliable Sources yesterday, media critic Brian Stelter ruminated about fake news, noting “the evidence indicates this is more of a problem on the right, among some, not all, but some Trump supporters.” Stelter’s essay on the subject is worthwhile viewing. (http://tinyurl.com/j6h48t8)

As I’ve thought about fake news, I’ve referred back to the chapter on propaganda in my new textbook Peace Journalism Principles andPractices. The link between fake news and propaganda is clear given the definition of propaganda: information designed and used to influence opinion. During this election, consumers were inundated with false information designed to change or reinforce opinions about the candidate, and ultimately, to sway votes.

The emergence of fake news presents yet another challenge to journalists, as well as one more justification for peace journalism. A look at PJ’s principles shows that it is built to battle fake news. These principles include verifying claims/propaganda from all sources; seeking and verifying facts from multiple sources, and not just official ones; and offering counter-narratives that debunk propaganda and fake news that create stereotypes, myths, and misperceptions.

The prevalence of fake news means that responsible journalism may be more important than ever.

Reconciliation journalism

Two recent stories show the power of media to tell reconciliation-themed stories. The first is a story on a Kansas City TV station that discusses how a Syrian student at Park University, where I teach, is dispelling negative myths about Syrians and Muslims.

The second is a fine BBC story about how Tunisian victims of abuse are speaking out on live TV as part of their country’s “truth and dignity” reconciliation process.

Next: Sierra Leone and India

In the next month, I’ll be in Freetown, Sierra Leona (Intl Peace Research Assn and PJ seminar) and Chennai, India (PJ seminar at Anna University). I’ll keep you posted.

To my Muslim students, friends, colleagues, and family around the world:

On what must be a very difficult day, I am writing to remind you that tens of millions of Americans, myself included, still have open minds, open hearts, and open doors for our Muslim brothers and sisters.

The experts are still trying to sort out why, but suffice it to say that there are hundreds of explanations for the election results.  As someone who always tries to see the glass half full, I interpret these results not as an embrace of Islamophobia, but instead as a repudiation of the American political status quo.

Whatever may unfold during the next four years, please remember that our journey continues to fulfill Dr. Martin Luther King’s dream of the United States as a nation where people are judged not by the color of their skin (or their religion, or gender, or sexuality), but by the content of their character.

Please remember that you are always welcome in my class, at Park University, and in my home.

Peace,

Steven Youngblood

Election rhetoric alarms, divides

If you’re like many Americans, you’ve been alarmed with the divisive, “us vs. them” rhetoric employed by the presidential candidates, as well as the way that this rhetoric (and the campaign as a whole) have been covered by the media.

Along with Mara Williams from Kansas City Star and Professor Marie Paxton from Johnson County Community College (JCCC), I’ll be presenting a session on “Peace Journalism and the Rhetoric of the 2016 Election” on Saturday, Nov. 5 in Hudson Auditorium (inside the Nerman Museum) at JCCC. Our presentation is part of a two day peacebuilding conference titled “Peacebuilding: Redefining ‘Us vs. Them’” being held at Park University Nov. 4, and JCCC Nov. 5.

Peacebuilding: Redefining Us Vs. Them-Nov. 4-5

Unfortunately, there has been no shortage of “us vs. them” rhetoric from both candidates. Hillary Clinton’s most noteworthy entry in this category was the now infamous “basket of deplorables” comment.  “You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right?” she said to applause and laughter. “The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic — you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up.” (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/11/us/politics/hillary-clinton-basket-of-deplorables.html?_r=0)

Candidate Donald Trump has regularly employed “us vs. them” rhetoric. “We’re a divided nation, and each week it seems we’re getting more and more divided. . . . [We see] race riots on our streets on a monthly basis. Somebody said don’t call them race riots, but that’s what they are. They’re race riots. And it’s happening more and more.” (http://www.salon.com/2016/10/05/donald-trumps-white-supremacist-fantasies-inside-the-race-riots-all-across-america/)

In a recent speech, Michelle Obama said that most Americans are excluded from Trump’s vision for a better country. “It’s easy to dehumanize ‘them.’ To treat ‘them’ with contempt,’ Obama said. ‘Because you don’t know ‘them.’ You can’t even see ‘them.’ And maybe that’s why this candidate thinks certain immigrants are criminals instead of folks who work their fingers to the bone to give their kids a better life, to help build the greatest nation on Earth. Because he doesn’t really know them.” (http://www.vox.com/2016/10/20/13353340/michelle-obama-speech-phoenix-trump)

In addition, critics have observed that Trump’s rhetoric has divided Americans along gender and religious lines as well. Regarding Trump’s Islamophobia, Amanda Taub noted in the New York Times, “Mr. Trump, knowingly or not, joined a long line of people who have justified harsh policies against a group by portraying its members, often in sexualized terms, as perilous to women. By using women to measure moral distance between ‘us’ and ‘them,’ such messages portray outsiders as not just different, but dangerous.” (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/17/us/politics/donald-trump-muslims-immigration.html?_r=1)

In our session, we’ll also discuss how news media have covered divisive rhetoric from both candidates, and whether journalists have engaged in creating a false equivalency—giving equal weight to rhetoric, misstatements, lies, and wrongdoing by both candidates. In the New York Times in September, Nicolas Kristof discussed this issue, asking the fundamental question, “Is it journalistic malpractice to quote each side and leave it to readers to reach their own conclusions, even if one side seems to fabricate facts or make ludicrous comments?” 

(http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/15/opinion/when-a-crackpot-runs-for-president.html?_r=0)

In his column, Kristof cites PolitiFact statistics that show Clinton lying 13% of the time, and Trump lying 53% of the time. Given this, is it fair for news media to present similarly numbered and weighted articles showing that both candidates lie? Likewise, Kristof noted that there no equivalency between the work of the Clinton Foundation compared to the Trump Foundation, or between accusations leveled against the Clinton Foundation versus actual violations of the law by the Trump Foundation.

At our presentation, we’ll also discuss the “us vs. them” divisiveness of the gender rhetoric emanating from the presidential race, and how that should be portrayed by the media. I’ll use this fact to get our discussion started: In the week following the release of the “Access Hollywood” video (‘grab them by the p***y’), there was seven times more coverage of Trump’s sex scandals on the network evening news programs than of Clinton’s Wikileaks emails. (http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/mike-ciandella/2016/10/13/7-1-trump-sex-scandals-vs-hillary-wikileaks-coverage) Does this reflect balanced coverage, or an exploitation of gender turmoil?

This rhetoric, and the way it’s been covered, cry out for a peace journalism approach. Specifically, journalists would be well served to present inflammatory and divisive comments by the candidates in a more thoughtful manner. Coverage should offer analysis and context of such comments while unflinchingly calling out racism, sexism, xenophobia, homophobia, etc. In addition, reporters should reject the “us vs. them” narrative, and instead press candidates to address issues that impact voters from disparate racial, ethnic, and economic boundaries. Peace Journalism would address issues that bring communities together.

I’m looking forward to a lively discussion on Nov. 5, and the day before from 1 to 4pm at Park University’s underground PDL center. For more information on the peacebuilding conference, and to register for free lunch on Nov. 5, go to: http://www.jccc.edu/conferences/peacebuilding/.