conflict & communication online, Vol. 6, No. 2, 2007
ISSN 1618-0747




Samuel Peleg
In defense of peace journalism: A rejoinder

The following is a contribution to the ongoing debate about the merits and demerits of peace journalism. The writer, a proponent of the new philosophy, answers Loyn's and Hanitzsch's attacks by claiming that peace journalism has enough of novel insights and daring propositions to challenge conventional journalism and defy some of its basic tenets. Furthermore, peace journalism stems from a very clear epistemology, which aims at a more balanced and more comprehensive account of conflict. An account, which conventional journalism, due to structural, psychological and habitual constraints, will not and cannot perform. Consequently, peace journalism is worthy of being termed a significant development in the study and research of journalism.


  full text in English  
On the author:
Samuel Peleg is a professor of political communication at the School of Communication at Tel Aviv University, and a senior lecturer at the Inter-Disciplinary Center (IDC) in Herzlia. He is also the academic director of the Strategic Dialogue Center, at Netanya College. Dr. Peleg is an expert in conflict and conflict resolution processes and he is a research fellow at the Stanford Center for Conflict Resolution and Negotiation (SCCN). His areas of research and interest are the dynamics of war and peace, political violence and terrorism, and the connections between politics, society and culture. He has published several articles and books among them Spreading the Wrath of God (1997, Hebrew), Zealotry and Vengeance- quest of Religious Identity Group (2002), and If Words Could Kill: the Failure of Public Discourse in Israel (2003). He writes columns in the Israeli daily press and he appears frequently on TV and radio as a political commentator. In March 2005, he was one of the honoraries to be invited by the esteemed Club of Madrid, to the International Summit on Democracy, Terrorism and Security in Madrid.