Media as International Actor

In My Opinion

Is peace journalism so bad?

By Orinna Weaver

The concept of peace journalism has been considered among the journalism community as both positive and negative. Although the explicit promotion of peace by journalists would be a hard sell to the media, certain attributes associated with peace journalism would be beneficial for a stronger democracy.

In my opinion, the most crucial attribute of peace journalism is providing context. As a result of the increasing desire for receiving information at lighting speed, some important details are skimmed over by journalists. If the media had the ability to explain why conflicts are occurring or highlight why particular issues are significant, the result would be a more informed citizenry. The “snapshots” we receive are not sufficient to keep the public educated about international relations.

Another positive element to peace journalism involves giving credence to more than just the two conventional sides to every story. Since the media has a bias toward official sources, and naturally goes to the two competing parties to “get the scoop,” they are excluding other softer voices. Furthermore, even if multiple voices are presented, the chance of each receiving equal attention by the media is remote. If it became the journalistic norm to offer several sides to every story and interview a variety of sources, the stories in the media would be more diverse.

Although critics may argue these aspects of peace journalism are not objective, I contend that the state of journalism is already biased. What is even more problematic about the current trend is that the contemporary biases do not enhance democracy, which would mean keeping the citizenry apprised of international issues. The media represents the intermediary between the government and the populace. However, if journalists are not providing context, or presenting multiple sides with a variety of voices it is insufficient.