|
Wilhelm Kempf (ed.),
The Peace Journalism Controversy. 2008. Berlin: regener.
The long-running controversy
over the concept of peace journalism was enriched last year by a stimulating
new contribution. In his 2008 book, The Peace Journalism Controversy,
Wilhelm Kempf gives two prominent critics and two committed advocates
of peace journalism - with respectively one journalist paired with
one social scientist on each side of the issue an opportunity to
openly discuss their positions on the concept of peace journalism. An
interdisciplinary exchange appears all the more urgent because both the
opponents and the advocates of peace journalistic concepts usually only
discuss their positions with their own supporters, and in the rather infrequent
cases when they meet the exchange is dominated above all by polemics and
mutual misunderstandings. The Peace Journalism Controversy was already
published in 2007 in the online journal conflict & communication online
(Vol. 6, No. 2) and was expanded for the print version with the addition
of three papers on the basic principles of conflict reportage (Kempf)
and peace journalism (Galtung). In his foreword, Kempf expresses the hope
that the volume will help to clarify some of the misunderstandings about
the concept of peace journalism and lend new impulses to the search for
quality in conflict reportage.
Journalistic quality is also one of the key terms that sparked the debate.
David Loyn is an experienced BBC foreign correspondent and eloquent opponent
of peace journalistic approaches. Already on the first page of his contribution
he presents the provocative thesis: "The opposite of peace journalism
is good journalism." He thereby draws on a definition by Lynch &
McGoldrick (2005) that peace journalism is the result of a decision by
editors and reporters to tell stories in ways that enable broad segments
of society to consider and to highly value violence-free conflict resolution.
According to Loyn, the role of journalists is, however, that of "observers
not players." It is not the reporter's task to create peacemaking
politicians. To the contrary, a "new orthodoxy" tends more to
narrow than to expand the latitude for qualitatively high-value reportage.
It can lead to role confusion and undermine not only the professional
integrity of journalists, but also of good journalism overall, in that
it imposes on journalists a duty to achieve a societal effect going
beyond their duty to report with professional skepticism toward all sides.
Even if not everything about conventional journalism is perfect, the solution
is to improve the employment of traditional methods in an effort to determine
the truth through objectivity, to strive for a maximally accurate, agenda-neutral
reportage - not a peace journalistic "ethical checklist" overloaded
with aims and expectations.
Thomas Hanitzsch is a communication and media scientist at the Institute
for Journalism Studies and Media Research at the University of Zürich
who worked with Wilhelm Kempf to develop the concept of The Peace Journalism
Controversy. In his paper he tries to integrate peace journalism into
the system of journalism. Employing the axes of factual versus fictional
content and external versus internal communication aims, Hanitzsch makes
it clear that the approaches circulating under the generic concept of
peace journalism range from peace propaganda and the "journalism
of attachment" to simply "good" journalism still more earnestly
calling for the professional norms of objectivity, neutrality, precision,
impartiality, etc. The latter is, however, just old wine in new wineskins,
even if it has a worthwhile aim - why would we need manuals for peace
journalism, if a consistent, systematic employment of recognized quality
standards already suffices as an alternative to traditional war reportage?
For Hanitzsch the concept of peace journalism is not bad per se, but it
lacks more than just an epistemological foundation. Protagonists of peace
journalism also exaggerate the influence of journalists and the media
on political decision-making. The public is understood as a passive mass
that must be enlightened by means of peace journalism. In the field of
journalism, individual actors' influence and freedom to act are thereby
considerably overrated, as if reportage alone were dependent on their
goodwill and competence. To the contrary, there are excessive structural
pressures and constraining routines in the process of news production.
It is thereby naive and illusory to represent the practice of peace journalism
as a question of personal freedom. In order to make a serious contribution
to war reportage and critical reflection on it, peace journalism must
also take into account the structural conditions of journalism, and the
concept must be linked to journalism research. Ultimately it is not the
journalist, but rather the culture that must change if peace journalism
is to have a chance, for "what kind of society do we live in that
allows and creates a sort of journalism that has no sense of peace?"
Jake Lynch is a longtime foreign correspondent, editor of numerous contributions
on the topic of peace journalism, head of international training workshops
for journalists and Director of the Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies
at the University of Sydney. In his paper, he replies to the criticisms
of Loyn and Hanitzsch. Loyn's arguments show a lack of critical awareness
of the structural peculiarities of conflict reportage. One could not meaningfully
discuss the role of the media in conflicts if one did not also talk about
propaganda. Journalists should report as accurately and comprehensively
as possible on the facts they discover. Peace journalism goes beyond these
tasks, however, insofar as it not only calls for a critical examination
of sources, but also of the possible consequences of reportage. Contrary
to Loyn's representation, sources are not passive, and a journalist who
quotes them does not merely disclose an already existing reality. To avoid
becoming an unintentional accessory to the individual interests of the
parties involved in conflicts, one must always be aware that sources are
active, "trying to create a reality that does not yet exist,"
above all in ongoing conflicts. But which among the many alternative representations
of reality should one accept? Lynch suggests, as a way out of the dilemma
in disagreements about realities, to take a critical-realist approach:
"We do not have to claim that journalism 'reflects' a logically prior
reality
When covering conflicts, we can tread down to find solid
ground beneath our feet, by studying and applying what is known and has
been observed about conflict, drawing on the overlapping fields of Conflict
Analysis and Peace Research. We can use this knowledge to help us decide
for ourselves what is important, and to identify what is missing from
what we are told by interested parties." Precisely because it draws
its analytic methods from the scientifically-based findings of peace and
conflict research, peace journalism makes possible a representation of
what is happening in the conflict area that is more accurate, richer in
perspectives, more comprehensive, more critical and simultaneously more
aware of its responsibility than what conventional war journalism can
offer. According to Lynch, Hanitzsch ignores the findings of peace and
conflict research, on which peace journalism is based in the first place,
and is thereby misled into unreflectively adopting particular positions
as fixed parameters. Even if there are structural constraints, in journalism
the behavior of the protagonists is never completely determined. To the
contrary, through the mobilization of social forces peace journalism could
contribute to a structural transformation of the conditions of news production.
Samuel Peleg is Professor for Political Communication at Tel Aviv University
in Israel and Scientific Director of the Strategic Dialogue Center at
Netanya College. He has published numerous books, writes for the Israeli
press and is active in peace organizations. His contribution is a passionate
plea for socially responsible journalism. He places the arguments of the
critics in two camps: 1. Peace journalism is incompatible with journalism
in the true sense, which demands that journalists merely serve as witnesses
to the truth and maintain a radically neutral standpoint. 2. Because nothing
more than good or improved journalism is understood under the concept
of peace journalism, the latter is redundant and thereby obsolete. To
the first camp, Peleg responds that like all other societal actors, journalists
always also have a social responsibility for their actions, and therefore
it does not suffice merely to observe and to describe conflicts, war,
violence and injustice. Conventional reportage is incompatible with the
de-escalation of conflict. Peace journalism, to the contrary, offers a
dynamic and creative possibility to guide events in a better direction.
Going beyond mere "good" conventional journalism, peace journalism
is enriched by a specific normative agenda that obligates it to conscientious,
conflict-analytic and fair reportage and that rests on the unique and
innovative premises that conflicts can be avoided, de-escalated and even
resolved. Conventional journalism neither wants to nor can achieve this,
due to constraints that are structural, psychological and controlled by
routines.
The introductory contributions are followed by the replies of the four
discussants. The authors thereby have the opportunity to respond to the
previous speaker, rebut criticisms and objections, correct what they view
as inaccurate evaluations, and supplement and accentuate their arguments.
They use the space in various ways. All too often arguments on the factual
level are linked with what are to some extent quite personal attacks.
Already in the first part critiques of opposing positions did not exactly
go to great lengths to be tactful. Given the disappointed hopes for a
constructive synthesis of the various ideas, in his assessment Peleg rightly
comments: "It seems that we are captured in the heat of combat."
At the latest in parts of this section the overall rhetorical fireworks
ignited by the ambitious pairs of Loyn, Hanitzsch, Lynch and Peleg spin
off into polemics. - This is not without concrete reference to the arguments
presented and is intellectually no doubt stimulating and quite suitable
for further clarifying some positions. The problem is just that if one
assumes that at least two of the authors are familiar with the foundations
of conflict dynamics, how could a harmless scientific discussion on the
topic of peace journalism escalate into intellectual "head-bashing"
(quote from Peleg) in which passing comments by the opposite side are
gleefully shot down?
With reference to the discussion, Wilhelm Kempf tries to find the least
common denominator in the form of a position-transcending synthesis. As
the volume editor, he again emphasizes the heterogeneity of all the approaches
that are conventionally pursued under the generic concept of peace journalism.
Peace journalism combines good journalism with an external goal: peace.
Some representatives of peace journalism may thereby underrate journalistic
values like objectivity, neutrality and impartiality. They thereby nudge
peace journalism closer to advocacy journalism, as, e.g., epitomized by
the journalism of attachment, and thereby to public relations. Through
a dangerous mixture of neglecting the tools of qualitatively good journalism
and advocacy journalism, however, the worthwhile aim of peace is exposed
to the threat of misuse for one-sided reportage. If journalists start
a "crusade against conventional reportage," they become all
too vulnerable targets and risk likewise being co-opted as recruits for
a propaganda war. Peace propaganda is still propaganda and consequently
does not deserve to be called journalism. However, peace journalism understood
as "good" journalism is insofar not "old wine in new wineskins,"
as it combines professional standards with specific conflict competencies
whose acquisition should not be left to chance. Peace journalism, as a
more accurate, more comprehensive form of journalism, definitely has a
chance to spread and contribute to greater quality in crisis and conflict
reportage. For this it requires, however, an intensification of peace
journalistic basic research, as well as a healthy awareness that it should
not "throw the baby out with the bathwater" in its criticism
of conventional journalism. If we like some representatives of
peace journalism radically turn away from the norm of objectivity,
we will not only endanger the acceptance of peace journalism in journalistic
circles, but also undermine the confidence of recipients in peace journalistic
reportage.
The Peace Journalism Controversy is, as its name promises, as well in
this volume a dispute among scarcely reconcilable opposing positions that
can only be somewhat softened by Kempf's synthesis. The editor's hope
to contribute to the clarification of misunderstandings through the stimulation
of a discussion process among the opponents and supporters of peace journalism
is fulfilled to the extent that the misunderstandings become more transparent
through the discussions, and the disputed points gain fuller contours.
To be sure, both advocates and critics largely share the aim of objective
reportage: truthful, many-sided, authentic and non-partisan journalism.
Differences between the camps arise above all where the one camp calls
for more awareness of the possible consequences of journalistic action
or even explicitly calls for bias in favor of peace and against war, and
the other camp, to the contrary, rejects all responsibility for the potential
risks and side-effects of their reportage, which is produced according
to professional quality standards, or suggests that consumer needs, societal
pressures and structural conditions are all-powerful.
Despite the introductory chapters on basic principles, the volume presupposes
that readers have a certain previous familiarity with the field of peace
journalism, without which some of the verbal fencing may seem like intellectual
hairsplitting. Overall, the book can be highly recommended for anyone
who wants further orientation in the peace journalistic universe and enjoys
academic wars of words and rhetorically brilliant, provocative discussion
contributions.
.
Susanne
Jaeger
|
|