Peace Journalism

Marco Lara Klahr

It's easy to guess what the censors of the Pentagon, in its communication immediate and imperial logic, represented the eye of the painter Steve Mumford as threat: nothing, or too little. Hidden behind the innocuous appearance of his brushes and went where he wanted everything recorded, as perhaps no journalist could, about the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Equipped with enviable value of the best reporters, he approached the refuego to translate more than the war: the sources of violence, the ways in which the people live and suffer, and normalcy are able to build from this chaos and uncertainty.

His watercolors, which were appearing in The New York Times, Harpers and ABC News, have also emerged a testimonial to its emotional charge, their contribution is essential journalistic removing reductionist views that abound in the mass media through news overflowing only good and evil locked in a confrontation near sports, where you raise your hand pressing is the winner.

By the way the commercial release of Diary of Baghdad. An artist in occupied Iraq (Drawn & Quarterly, 2005), the book compiles 224 pages those works of unquestionable journalistic sense, "the artist New York said:" When I read the reports of war reporters, everyone seems to have always this message of 'thumbs up or down' that the Romans used to forgive or punish the lives of slaves. I thought about developing an all encompassing perspective. ¹

Four and a half decades ago (1961), in Norway, an observation identical to Johan Galtung moved to add a crucial component to the study of peace: peace journalism and peace journalism. Today, Reporting Conflict: An Introduction to Peace Journalism (2004), ^two written by Jake Lynch and Annabel McGoldrick (BBC World News and founders of the organization Reporting the World), written with Galtung, can be considered the catechism, the manifesto of this current financial journalism, which, unfortunately, remains marginal.

Recently, Galtung himself, now 74, visited the southeast of Mexico to complete a diagnosis on the types of conflicts that overlap in the complex reality of Chiapas and its real causes. ³ In a break from his visit short and intense, a few hours Transcend before the opening of Casa Puebla, and so gave an interview where he reconstructs the steps that led him to breed peace journalism and integrate it into your project Transcend.

While Reporting Conflict: An Introduction to Peace Journalism emphasizes military confrontation, offering approaches to the news industry's performance against the wars in Korea, Yugoslavia, the Persian Gulf and Iraq, the prospect of peace journalism is broader; applies to all sorts of scenarios characterized by conflict and their rationale is that the information is detailed and balanced account not only of confrontation and radical actors, but the causes that explain how ordinary people suffer violence implicit, if Some major players are ready to negotiate and, above all, the search and provide solutions.

In this sense, goes beyond the cliché-targeting harmful to the historic performance of the media, according to which the first casualty of war is the truth: "The first casualty in war is not the truth, this is the second. The first victim is, of course, peace, ⁴ and the pressing need to help restore media content, this is how it materializes the social responsibility of journalism.

Etc. During the interview, including Galtung remarks about the systematic behavior of the media against conflicts of various dimensions (from interpersonal to global) there are multiple lessons. The veteran Norwegian expert finds that news coverage is determined by the prevailing machismo in the media industry and by the fact that a common practice in newsrooms is to enable sports reporters as envoys of war. ⁵ A pair of components Additional are ignorance and cowardice of journalists to ask the right questions to representatives of the elites against joints with potential escalation of violence.

But perhaps his most important empirical finding is that related to some questions raised over half a century, since the rise of television, makes the sociology and anthropology, and which affected wide variety of responses in the form of thousands of trials: do the mass media are a source of violence? "They reproduce the reality or constructed realities? "By building scenarios or create perceptions of insecurity induced violence? "No," thinks Galtung, "but remunerated" and contribute to polarize, because in a given scenario, played almost exclusively the voices of the extreme positions at the expense of the moderate, and exalt in many ways, on a recurring basis the use of force.

Essentials of peace journalism

Johan Galtung (Oslo, 1930), director of Transcend, A Peace and Development Network for Conflict Transformation by Peaceful Means, an organization of global reach with over 300 members in 80 countries, and rector of Transcend Peace University, has been one of the pillars of peace studies and mediation and conflict transformation, which includes theory and practice journalism. Founded in 1959, the Peace Research Institute, five years later, the Journal of Peace Research (1964) and in 2000 the Nordic Institute for Peace Research. He lives with his Japanese wife of 69 years between Kyoto, Paris, Alicante and Washington. He moves around the globe in eight languages.

To focus the discussion on the responsibility - and mission? - The media in conflict scenarios and presenting the tenets of peace journalism, moving from Chiapas to Yugoslavia or Iraq, with detours via other regions: "Look, for example, the Mexican press the red alert issued by the Zapatista Army of National Liberation. Although it appeared as an important news about Chiapas, resulted in nothing. When there is threat of violence must be said, but we must also report when there is peace, and so much is happening in Chiapas related to peace that hardly appear in the press, talks are taking place everywhere, reconciliations, there are perhaps thousands of people from outside government or organized dialogues, they do everything they can to resolve interpersonal conflict, interfaith or tenure, it is true that they have not accomplished much, but they are dealing. The peace journalism wants a news kind of optimism and less pessimism is not against informing people about violence, but proposes to add an item, that of peace. "

In its conclusions on the profile of the reporters assigned to cover armed conflicts has used comments from Jake Lynch and Annabel McGoldrick, who "told me that the reality of war journalism is always presented as a confrontation between two parties because Many war reporters they were before sports and see the conflict as a kind of struggle between two and where it comes to winning, have this as a type of mental discourse.

"[...] Lynch and McGoldrick said that in Yugoslavia there are at least 27 games, about 12 inside and 15 outside the country, and in Palestine at least two Israeli and two Palestinian groups, not just those who represent the positions extremists, and that if we analyze the conflict from all the actors we see many more possibilities, but there are extremists on both sides and they are the ones that capture the attention in these conflicts is also moderate.

"Here comes the main point: everyone in this world wants to go out in the press, because it is a remuneration, in particular, know that the perpetrators of violence or their allies and family members take your scissors and cut out newspapers to keep in their pockets notes that talk about their triumphs, the same can be an F16 bombers against Palestinian militants Palestinian suicide bombers. Meanwhile, those who are perpetrators of peace will not come to the fore. This is important because here we have the media contribution to the polarization of the causes of violence. "

Is that generates editorial policy, in turn, further escalation of violence?

Not only does the media do a poor job, but they are also dangerous, contributing to the violence with this kind of chain of reinforcement of the actors of violence. I remember something that struck me when I was a conscientious objector from military service in Norway at the age of 25. In the main prison in Oslo took me side by side with a murderer famous in Norway. He carried in his pocket a front cut of the day that was before the court because he felt that this had been his moment of fame. And one wondered, "But should not also be a moment of shame?". He felt it was much more than fame, if he thought he had done wrong was only because they had discovered. I was struck by this kind of positive feedback, because then he, consciously or unconsciously, hovered over the idea that "maybe I can go out in the press again." All this was in 1961 that led me to introduce the concept of peace journalism.

Can you extend the context?

It all started with an empirical analysis of reports on Cuba, the Congo and Cyprus in the Norwegian media. I noticed that, number one, to be published the act had to be instantaneous, that is different than it was before, so that the violence itself became the event and the more negative the better. Number two, in all these conflicts there were movements of mediation and violence that were broadcast. My proposal was not only analyze what was there, but think what might have been, in another kind of story.

Besides being a professor of sociology worked as a journalist for Norwegian radio caught my attention and it was easy to obtain other information about other events, and that the problem was often not the reporter, but the editor, who decided what was supposedly interested readers.

After that experience I have had numerous discussions about this and the impression I have is that readers want news more optimistic, looking for something with which to identify and think, "Look, maybe I can contribute something," and these readers are on especially women, because it seems we have a press made for men, very hormonizada.

"Macho?

Yes It's not necessarily all the journalists they are, but the image is left to the reader. The press thinks it knows what readers want, but really suited to a minority. The proof is that when there is good news for peace, for example, the Israel-Palestinian agreement of 1993, the newspapers sold a lot. I have the suspicion that in many countries is the man who, for example, buy the paper when going to or returning from work, it decides what to buy and when you talk to women, they say, "there are so many bad news I do not want to read these newspapers, "and maybe that's why they spend many times to read weekly or romantic or fashion magazines.

Does quantitative basis this suspicion?

Not yet, are impressions, but it could be an interesting investigation.

In this sense, the media finds shades between the first and third worlds?

It is my impression. There is a journalistic tradition that comes from England and has influenced a lot, and my experience with workshops is that British journalists are the hardest core.

"Reporters and editors?

Above all publishers. His argument is that they are "objective", that violence is objective and peace all these ideas are just ideas.

This is also the argument of any Mexican editor.

And they have a point, but I say that this is not to compare a machine gun shoots and kills a declaration of a peace movement, but to compare the gun with events and projects for peace, for example, the declaration of [ then] United Nations Secretary General, Javier Perez de Cuellar, before the outbreak of war in Yugoslavia was excellent, but was not in the press! He had three great ideas to avoid war, but not out in the media, then my argument, once, against the head of BBC World News was that the comparison is between a kill and an act of the United Nations secretary general, "and if you, Mr. Editor, you can try here who has presented the news and I have to retract ", of course, my research was showing that content was not so. Proposals Perez de Cuellar appeared in a tense moment where everyone was about the certainty of a war and in this situation a peace project is not located, they think the editors.

In such circumstances the information is considered disinformation peace.

Exactly. Or at least irrelevant. Then the head of BBC World News said, "if that statement Perez de Cuellar would have consequences in terms of a meeting of early warning, we would have presented." And I said, "Mr. Editor, why has not had an impact such a statement is that you did not publish it, for something to have consequences must appear in public space."

Something similar happened in the invasion of Iraq. A month earlier there was a peace proposal of Saddam Hussein, four-point proposal that appeared in The New York Times nine months after the invasion. A little late, right? I have estimated by Perez de Cuellar, not Saddam Hussein, but that's not the point, but are exposed to things relevant filter of the news industry. That is why peace journalism attempt to distinguish between the actors and displays the information balanced peace and journalists should know where and what to look.

They are in many of his texts, but it is important to listen to his voice: what are, in fact, the features of peace journalism?

I have a list of four.

Number one, understand the conflict and the objectives of its actors. The result of an act of violence is to understand the conflict and need to know what it is and who the parties and their objectives, for example, exactly what they want the Zapatistas, evangelicals or paramilitaries in Chiapas?

Number two: to present an orientation toward solutions. In Iraq, Saddam Hussein's proposals were of interest, if they are honest or not, we ignore it, but we might have unknowingly calling Hussein to the negotiating table from his own four proposals. [...] It is clear that not published because they were against U.S. interests. [...] And the U.S. is not dominating the media, but they do not have a conflict resolution approach, its focus is violence and who wins.

Number three: the pursuit of truth symmetrical. There is something called "investigative journalism" that is a deviation is important because research emphasizes only the government, while we say that the peace journalism should be investigated at all, it's not that George W. Bush does not issue lies, but so does Hussein. Journalism must be symmetrical.

And number four: orientation towards the common people and not just to the elite. In all wars, as well as recently with the hurricanes, the sufferer is the people, and ideas for peace often arise not from governments but from ordinary people, so that must be addressed not only the press conferences chancellors, but talking to all kinds of people, give voice.

"... Journalists are not only ignorant, but also cowardly"

The bulk of the reporters in Mexico and the world covering interpersonal or inter-community conflicts, are a minority who are assigned to military confrontation. Johan Galtung believes that all conflicts must be considered important and the tenets of peace journalism are useful for any type. In June last year appeared to transcend and transform our country. An introduction to the work of conflict (Transcend / Chimera / UNAM, 2004), where the Norwegian offers 40 different types of conflicts (of dimensions micro, meso, macro and mega) and methodological resources to solve them, under three assumptions:

1. "There are no conflicts of greater or lesser level."

2. The main purpose of mediation is to ensure that "the parties can live with them."

3. ... There are a type of game that is won or lost ", but" struggles to survive, welfare, freedom and identity, for basic human needs "(p. 7).

Etc. In the interview, Galtung claims that "every one of the conflicts presented in the book [transcend and transform ...] I can imagine a journalism that emphasizes violence or one that emphasizes the possibilities. [...] The proposal is the first word to keep in mind the period of peace. You have to ask, are there any suggestions here? ".

"The critical view is a secondary value of peace journalism?

I'm not against critical journalism, but by constructive journalism, which seeks and finds solutions. During a sharp discussion with journalists from the Middle East, Israel also wielded the argument of objectivity, then, in general, hegemonic countries journalists always talk of objectivity, and said, "Imagine you have a wreck near Tel Aviv and a man on the beach near death, and is a journalist with the question: Have they used and rescue breathing? And the people answered, No, does that help? ". They practice rescue breathing, and man is rescued. My question is, is a question that subjective or objective? In this case, who cares? What matters is that it is an elementary question, and also the journalist can come up with a story saying, We found that there is a lack of basic knowledge of first aid; have practiced this method and have rescued a life. There is also the critical element: the lack. "

Can peace journalism to contribute to violence in the world is smaller?

It is the general thesis. There is violence when we have an unresolved dispute. An example I like is that of a publisher who sends a young reporter to cover a fire, saying, "In this building there are a lot of smoke, you see." The reporter turns and slogan that "there is indeed much smoke." Angry, the editor asked, "But there name?". "You have not told me I have to see if there are flames, but smoke and you're right, there's smoke, I was there." For me violence is the smoke and flames of the conflict, and firefighters are well aware that it is not sufficient to eliminate the smoke, but to attack the source. Similarly, if the journalism emphasis not on violence but on the conflict and its possible solutions, I am convinced that violence can be reduced.

This warrants more use of specialized sources.

Right. The journalist does not have to know everything, but ask around, might have asked Mr. Bush, "according to you, Mr. President, what is the conflict behind the September 11 attacks in New York?". And he had replied, "is a conflict between good and evil, we are the good and the bad hate that there are good in this world", which is a stupid position but is the one, then the journalist writes and publishes this , and Bush is neutralized, it is clear that the attacks have a history, for example, in U.S. policy in Saudi Arabia and Israel-Palestine. This does not explain everything, but a lot.

In peace journalism journalist includes two questions where there is violence: "What are the conflict and its causes?" And "What exit?". They are those who fear politicians. In the case of 11 / S the journalist had exhibited to the world of Bush, because he would have said, "the output is simple, the extermination of evil." [...] I do not justify those attacks, saying only that there is a kind of causal link between conflict and violence, if you think you do not like violence, eliminate the cause. Journalists make life so easy for politicians because they do not ask these two questions, but only of "what will you do against the violence?" They can answer, "we will mobilize, ta ta ta ta ta." Just the question that the political will! The problem is that journalists often are not only ignorant, but also cowardly.

A debate of more than half a century between those who analyze the social role of mass media if the media content is produced or induce violence themselves. Before you return a part, but does have something to add?

Number one, remunerated violence by giving voice only to the actors with the most polarized positions, as I said, and, number two, lack of information about conflicts and solutions stimulates the absence of peace.

Do you believe in the infallibility of the media? Do you always manage to prevail in the collective vision?

They are not infallible, but important, because they often provide the only image that people have.

"His perspective includes print, radio and television, or find nuances?

In my experience, the best is often the local radio, while the media in the center of the country are the worst, which has to do with the fact that they want access to the government. Local radio has immediate access and knows where the shoe hurts to power, often also have more time and can go longer interviews. Television runs on mechanisms of superficiality, is always an element of sensationalism and no room for argument. And the national press, with exceptions, is bad, too elitist and though often called independent is not, because naturally afraid of punishment, for example, the President, fearing that can say, "I do not want to be interviewed by you" . In a big country like Mexico is, however, the possibility of having a newspaper like La Jornada, which does not have many punches with the government ... for me is a bit too negative, but I read it with pleasure.

Notes

¹ Elise Soukup, "War in watercolor," in Newsweek, 19/IX/05, p. 8.

² The work was recently translated into Castilian by Fernando Montiel, Transcend representative in Mexico, and is scheduled for publication in Mexico in 2006. There is also Peace Journalism, journalists cited English (Hawthorn Press, 2005). Other sources of specialized information in the subject and are always updated www.transcend.org, reportingtheworld.org and peacejournalism.com, edited by Kamala Sarup Nepal.

³ Johan Galtung and Fernando Montiel T., "Chiapas: A Transcend Perspective," sponsored by Transcend-A Peace and Development Network, 2005.

⁴ Reporting Conflict: An Introduction to Peace Journalism (2004).

⁵ By the way, Eduardo Salazar, Televisa reporter assigned to cover the U.S. invasion of Iraq had been a sports journalist.
Journalist.
klahr4@hotmail.com

We thank the journalist Marco Lara Klahr, permission to reproduce this article in the magazine so on:

Link: http://www.etcetera.com.mx/pag49ane62.asp