Feature Article

Peace Journalism: Illuminating Conflict

By Brendan Hughes

The concept of “peace journalism” was first proposed in the 1970s by the Norwegian scholar Johan Galtung. Galtung was concerned with the way in which media covered conflicts around the world. He argued that traditional media promote rather than prevent war, violence and propaganda. More generally, media are criticized for unbalanced framing of news stories towards the values and economic motivations of the world's elite who often profit from war.

Some media critics refer to this conventional journalistic method as “war journalism” (WJ). They argue that the type of reporting we see on a daily basis is violence oriented. It tends to portray one side of a conflict as winning and the other side as losing. It does this through its language choices: attempting to make one side look like the right side while demonizing the other. For example, WJ commonly uses adjectives such as: vicious, cruel, brutal and barbaric. WJ also uses demonizing labels such as: terrorist, extremist, fanatic and fundamentalist. These negative terms were commonly used in post 9-11 media when the ruling elite used the media to promote and justify a violent response.

In contrast to this one-sided view “peace journalism” (PJ) would have explained the situation from varying standpoints. It would have sources from the United States and sources from other Islamic nations to provide a complete background of the issue. PJ would treat, as credible options, various solutions to the problem besides just a violent one. In the event that a violent response did occur it would explain it through language that did not glorify the actions of the one side. PJ would avoid blaming one party for starting the conflict and instead try to see how the shared problems and circumstances of both parties are creating the overall conflict. The overall goal of PJ is to illuminate all sides of a conflict and work to create sustainable peace resolutions. PJ attempts to use the media as a mediator or channel between the parties in a conflict and assist them in reaching a viable resolution. PJ uses well-rounded coverage to create new cultural understandings and relations between the parties. In effect it creates a bridge that was previously nonexistent.

Despite a small amount of progress in the PJ movement over the last forty years, the majority of the media still remain tied to traditional war-reporting formulas. In order to change this status quo, journalists must re-align their own personal tactics and reporting principles to those of the PJ movement. This transformation has the highest probability of gaining traction among the new class of journalists — recent college graduates at the entry level. If more journalists adopt these tactics then the PJ movement has a chance. A complete transition to PJ is highly unlikely but a partial transformation is possible. Even with a slight change in the style of war reporting, the possibility for peace increases. The media still has an opportunity to use their influence to further peace movements in a conflict-ridden world.