| |
In conflict &
communication online Vol. 4, No. 2, 2005, I reviewed a book edited
by Martin Löffelholz (2004), War as a Media Event II. Crisis Communication
in the Twenty-First Century. This provided me with an opportunity to offer
an in-depth discussion of Thomas Hanitzsch's critique of peace journalism.
The main points of my critique of Hanitzsch concerned his form of argumentation,
which seemed far too polemical, and so I took him to task for ignoring
the relevant basic research. By peace journalism, I countered Hanitzsch,
nothing more is meant de facto than competent journalism that meets the
professional norms of objectivity, neutrality and truthfulness and successfully
avoids slipping into propaganda and public relations. Instead of discussing
this program, Hanitzsch would write against peace journalism as he understands
it, "as a program of journalistic news coverage … that makes
a journalistic contribution to peace and conflict resolution" - this
was sufficiently vague to keep open the borders to public relations and
to make what were in fact untrue imputations concerning the peace journalistic
project, against which he could then take the field.
Toward the end of my review, I concluded by calling for an end to the
mutual polemics and instead to commence a scientific discourse based on
empirical research. Both sides can only benefit from this, and who knows,
perhaps someday even Hanitzsch's prognosis could come true that no one
speaks of peace journalism anymore - quite simply because the quality
of journalism and journalistic training will have reached a level where
it has become the rule that conflict coverage will be competent and will
meet the professional norms of journalism.
With a succinct comment, "Anyone who dishes it out must also be able
to take it," Thomas Hanitzsch very sportingly responded to my critique
at that time and spontaneously accepted my invitation. Together we have
developed the concept of the present topical issue of conflict & communication
online, in which two of the most prominent critics (David Loyn and Thomas
Hanitzsch) and two of the most committed advocates of peace journalism
(Jake Lynch and Samuel Peleg), one of each pair a journalist (David Loyn
and Jake Lynch), and one of each a social scientist (Thomas Hanitzsch
and Samuel Peleg), exchange arguments. At the explicit wishes of Thomas
Hanitzsch, I as editor of the journal have undertaken the task of bracketing
the texts between the present editorial and a concluding synthesis. (That
as with the other papers the latter was submitted to the usual peer review
process goes without saying.)
That the "peace journalism controversy" in the form we conceived
it could be realized is due in large measure to the energetic participation
and cooperation of the authors and reviewers. Insofar as by recruiting
David Loyn and Jake Lynch we succeeded in integrating into this project
two experienced journalists with outstanding international reputations,
conflict & communication online has also made a major step
along the path to becoming not just a discussion forum for social and
cultural scientists, but also to beginning a dialogue between the great
variety of scientific perspectives under which conflict and communication
are researched, on one hand, and practical journalistic experience, on
the other.
Konstanz
– Berlin
October 2007
Wilhelm
Kempf
back
to the table of contents
|
|