Call for Papers-The Peace Journalist

Dear colleagues:

Warm greetings.

The Peace Journalist, a semi-annual magazine produced by the Center for Global Peace Journalism at Park University, is seeking submissions for its October edition.

Submissions should be 600-1600 words, and address peace journalism/peace media research and projects. Please also submit photos, if possible. We do not run articles about general peace projects or processes unless they have a strong media component/angle.

The deadline for submission is Sept. 2. The magazine usually fills up quickly, so the sooner you can get your pieces in, the better. Please submit to steve.youngblood@park.edu.

The previous edition of The Peace Journalist can be found at https://www.park.edu/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/The-PJ-April-2022-web.pdf .

 Thank you,

Steven Youngblood
Editor, The Peace Journalist magazine
Director, Center for Global Peace Journalism
Assoc. Professor, Communications and Peace Studies
Park University, Parkville, Missouri  USA
www.park.edu/peacecenter
@PeaceJourn

Better coverage would frame Ukraine war in terms of peacebuilding
Six weeks after I reported about the lack of reporting about peaceful solutions to the Ukraine war, little has changed. (See blog, May 24)

In May, I asked this: Given the fact that the war must inevitably end with negotiations, have the media responded appropriately by giving the peace talks their rightful place in the public discourse? Has the coverage of peace been proportionate to the blow by blow accounts of the war?

A small, current survey of Google news provides the answer: no.

A Google news search (8/2) of “Ukraine Russia War” came up with 124 million hits. In comparison, there were only a paltry 22.4 million hits for “Ukraine Russia negotiations”—18% of the overall story total. And it goes down from there. There were only 1.4 million hits for “Ukraine Russia peace talks,” 928K hits for “Ukraine Russia peaceful solution,” 629K hits for “Ukraine Russia peace proposals,” and just 159k hits for “Ukraine Russia peace treaty.” 

These findings echo what I said in May: “Anyone who’s been consuming news about the war already knows that the daily coverage of territorial gains, casualties, weaponry, and attacks is crowding out news about peace efforts, negotiations, and cease fires.”

One of the central tenets of peace journalism is to give voice to peacemakers on all sides, and to give societies a chance to consider non-violent responses to conflict. Clearly, this is not happening with Ukraine war coverage. Better coverage would frame the war in terms of peace and peacebuilding.

I’d like to see more media coverage that answers these pressing questions:

-How does adding NATO members, or providing Ukraine advanced weaponry, contribute to, or detract from, peaceful solutions?

-How does escalating the war impact future negotiations/peace talks?

-What is the impact of Russia sanctions on future negotiations/peace talks?

-How can the U.S. and NATO provide an off-ramp for the belligerents in a way that they can save face?

-Even though Russia is clearly the villain here, does vilifying and isolating Russia serve the long term goals of peace?

-What does “winning” look like, and how will a “win” impact long term peace in the region?

-Are there compromises short of a "win" that better serve the cause of lasting peace?

-And, how can the seeds of positive peace be planted now, so that Ukraine and the region can move forward peacefully?

Reporting that answers these question, that frames the Ukraine war in terms of peacebuilding, helps the public in our democratic societies consider non-escalating, non-violent responses to the conflict. Also, answering these questions is just good journalism.

#NoWar2022: Challenging media bias
I’ve had a peacebuilding crush on the organization FAIR for some time, even using their research in my textbook “Peace Journalism Principles and Practices.” You can imagine my delight, then, when I was asked to present on a panel with FAIR's founder at the online conference “No War 2022” sponsored by World Beyond War. 

FAIR is “a national media watch group that has been offering well-documented criticism of media bias and censorship since 1986,” according to its website.

During the panel titled, “How to challenge mainstream media bias and promote peace journalism,” FAIR’s Jeff Cohen talked about the pro-war bias in the media, using a FAIR study of the run up to the Iraq war as evidence. In this study, only 3 of 393 people interviewed pre-war were dissenting, anti-war voices. This is the antithesis of peace journalism since society was never given an opportunity to value non-violent responses to the Iraq-U.S. conflict. While there is no study data yet, Cohen said he believed that the same dynamic is playing out now vis-à-vis the Ukraine war—that news consumers are being fed only narratives that support expanding NATO and providing military hardware to Ukraine. I agree with this assessment.

He believes the pro-war bias has both structural and ideological causes. The structural factors feeding pro-war media bias include corporate ownership and the influence of military contractors. Ideologically, Cohen said the U.S. media universally sells the notion of American exceptionalism, and that the U.S. is a force for good, for peace, and for human rights in the world. 

Dru Jay from The Breach

The second part of the panel talked about solutions to this pro-war bias. I presented peace journalism as one alternative. Then, Dru Jay from The Breach online discussed how his publication seeks to make pro-war institutions “more visible and understandable.” One great article from https://breachmedia.ca/ talked about the corporate beneficiaries of weapons being shipped to Ukraine, as well as the expansion of NATO. He talked about how The Breach is framing stories differently and offering a competing narrative, one that is not black and white or us vs. them. Sounds like pretty solid peace journalism to me.

Conference discusses building trust; reporting about climate
Aside from the terrific keynote from Nobel Peace Prize winner Maria Ressa and our peace journalism sessions (see previous blogs), there were a number of enlightening sessions at the recently concluded East West Center International Media Conference in Honolulu.

For example, an opening panel discussed building trust in newsrooms and on social media. Dr. Joan Donovan from the Schorenstein Center at Harvard University discussed how journalists amplify hate speech by interviewing hate groups, “giving them what they want.” She attributed the drive to tell haters’ stories to competitive patterns which she believes should be transformed into more collaborative media models. H.R. Venkatesh, a fact checker from India, noted that “the truth has shifted elsewhere, away from those who are dedicated to facts.” He advocated what he called media literacy journalism that would combine traditional journalism with “story checks” that detail how the story was done, how facts were checked, etc. 

Building Trust panel, at EWC Intl Media Conf.

There were several interesting panels on reporting about climate change. Dr. Matthew Shapiro from the Illinois Institute of Technology shared some ideas about how media can better communicate about the climate crisis. These include reporting on the impacts, including the cost to individuals; to make climate reporting relevant by making it geographically-specific; and highlighting the costs of climate change-related extreme weather events.

I attended a number of eye opening breakout sessions, including one presented by May Lee, founder of Lotus Media House in Long Beach, CA. She laid out a strong indictment against traditional coverage of Asians in the media, including marginalization and stereotyping (rich, monolith, model minority, hypersexual women, etc.) Lee then discussed how Covid-19 exacerbated a bad situation, thanks in part to language like “Chinese virus” and “kung flu” spread the previous administration. While we didn’t discuss peace journalism in this session, the application of PJ (including telling counternarratives and giving voice to the voiceless) could certainly help address these problems.

On the conference’s final day, Liz Allen, Acting Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy, addressed the crisis of disinformation in the Asia-Pacific region. She said people still want to trust and seek truth, and that the issue is knowing who to trust. Allen said the State Department is dedicated to the maxim that “hard truths must be addressed with honesty…We’re committed to telling the truth even when the truth is hard to face.” She discussed several State initiatives to shape information environments and platforms, including a Digital Communication Network and a Global Engagement Center, both designed to combat disinformation. The Young Southeast Asia Leaders Program also includes trainings on battling disinformation, according to Allen.

The international media conference was a rousing success. The speakers were informed, articulate, and well prepared—not always a given in conferences of this sort. There was a good mix of speakers from different regions, and a variety of current, compelling topics discussed. The conference itself ran like a Swiss watch—reliable and on time. The extensive planning and expertise by the East West Center staff, led by Media Programs Manager Susan Kreifels, was evident.

On a personal note, this was my first post-pandemic conference. It was wonderful getting back out there—great to hand out business cards, meet new people in person, and chat about life during coffee breaks. I can’t wait for my next conference!

Panel reflects on EW Center Cross Border Reporting Project
Five journalists from India and Pakistan and I held a fascinating discussion about a project we’ve been working on together for the last two years.

The discussion was a plenary lunch panel at the East West Center International Media Conference in Honolulu.

First, a bit of background. The East-West Center launched a project titled “Reporting on Cross-Border Issues of Mutual Concern” in 2020 for 80 Indian and Pakistani journalists that has included virtual workshops during the pandemic. This International Media Conference is the first time a handful of the journalists have met their colleagues across the border.

The 80 journalists are divided into four groups focused on economy and trade, agriculture and water management, environment and health -- all important cross-border issues of mutual concern. I have led them in workshops on Peace Journalism, an especially important topic for journalists sharing an often-hostile border.

During the pandemic they collaborated virtually on stories and projects that are featured on the blogsite they developed:  journalistsforchange.org, a global resource for cross-border media collaboration.

Five of these journalists were present for the panel: Safina Nabi, an Independent Journalist (Srinagar, Jammu, and Kashmir, India); Lubna Jerar Naqvi, Pakistan Gender Coordinator & Trainer, International Federation of Journalists (Karachi, Pakistan);Ravinder Singh Robin, Freelance Reporter (Amritsar, India); Khuldune Shahid, Correspondent, The Diplomat (Lahore, Pakistan); and Disha Shetty, Staff Reporter, The Fuller Project (Pune, India).

I began the discussion by asking the panelists about their use of peace journalism. Each journalist in turn said the PJ changed the way they report, and gave them new insights about how to report across borders. One journalist noted, much to my approval, that peace journalists “have a responsibility” to better reporting that builds bridges instead of deepening divides and hatreds. Several noted that peace journalism, and the project as a whole, have reinforced what they already knew about the striking commonalities between Pakistanis and Indians. I think we all agree that the media on the subcontinent can and should do more to highlight these commonalities and connections.

Session: Basics of Peace Journalism
A few hours after the panel, I gave a breakout session on the basics of peace journalism. I went over  the 10 principles of PJ (see below), and fielded a number of insightful questions. One young lady stated

her belief that peace journalists are advocates for peace—something that was just fine with her. I replied that I don’t see PJ as advocacy, and believe PJ can still be objective. In my view, reporting about peace, giving a voice to peacebuilders and the voiceless, and rejecting inflammatory words, images, and framing are all activities that can be done within the confines of traditional, objective journalism.

 Next week: Other highlights from the conference, and a few final observations.

 Peace Journalism Characteristics
1. PJ is proactive, examining the causes of conflict and looking for ways to encourage dialogue before violence occurs. PJ leads dialogue about solutions.
2. PJ acknowledges a common ground between parties, and rejects divisive, polarizing “us vs. them” reporting. PJ builds bridges.
3. Peace reporters reject propaganda from any source. Instead, they seek balanced, factual information from multiple sources (since there are almost always more than just two sides).
4. PJ rejects overly simple portrayals of issues and people (groups as monoliths, stereotypes), and instead seeks to illuminate complexity, nuance, and gray areas.
5. PJ gives voice to the voiceless, instead of just reporting for and about elites and those in power.
6. Peace journalists provide depth and context, rather than just superficial and sensational “blow by blow” accounts of violence and conflict.
7. Peace journalists consider the consequences of their reporting.
8. Peace journalists carefully choose and analyze the words they use, understanding that carelessly selected words are often inflammatory.
9. Peace journalists thoughtfully select the images they use, understanding that they can misrepresent an event, exacerbate an already dire situation, and re-victimize those who have suffered.
10. Peace Journalists offer counternarratives that debunk media created or perpetuated stereotypes, myths, and misperceptions. --Center for Global Peace Journalism