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 a threat: nothing, or too little. Shielded in apparently innocuous 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, came close to realizing refuego more than the war: the sources of violence, the ways in which people live and the suffering, and the normalcy that are able to build between such chaos and uncertainty.

His watercolors, that appeared in The New York Times, Harpers and ABC News, have also emerged to witness their emotional charge, his journalistic contribution is essential to dismantle the 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 victor.

Regarding the commercial release of Diary of Baghdad. An artist in occupied Iraq (Drawn & Quarterly, 2005)-the book that compiles 224 pages of unmistakable meaning those works of journalism, the New York artist 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 was thinking 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), ² 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 years, visited southeastern Mexico to complete an assessment of the types of conflicts that are interwoven into the complex reality of Chiapas and their real causes. ³ In a break from his visit short and intense, a few hours Transcend before opening Casa Puebla, and so gave an interview in which reconstructs the steps that led him to procreate 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 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 comprehensive and balanced account not only of confrontation and radical actors, but the causes that explain how ordinary people suffer violence implicit, if there are players ready to negotiate and, above all, finding and providing solutions.

In this sense, goes beyond the cliche-that points to the historical performance of the media pernicious, according to which the first casualty of war is the truth: "The first casualty in war is truth, this is the second. The first victim is, of course, peace, ⁴ and the urgent restoration should help media content, this is how it materializes the social responsibility of journalism.

Etc. During the interview, between Galtung's observations regarding the systematic behavior of the media in 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 messengers of war. ⁵ A couple 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 that more than half a century since the rise of television, makes the sociology and anthropology, and which affected huge variety of responses in the form of thousands of trials: "the mass media are a source of violence? "Reproduce reality or constructed realities? "By building scenarios or create perceptions of insecurity-inducing violence? "No," thinks Galtung, "but remunerated" and contribute to polarize, because in a given scenario, played almost exclusively the voices of the extreme, to the detriment of the moderate, and exalt in many ways, recurrently The use of force.

Essential features 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 after 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. It moves around the globe in eight languages.

To focus the conversation on accountability - and mission? - The media in conflict scenarios and presenting the tenets of peace journalism, moving from Chiapas to Yugoslavia or Iraq, with detours through other regions: "Look, for example, Mexican press before the red alert issued by the Zapatista Army of National Liberation. Although she appeared as an important news about Chiapas, turned up nothing. When there is threat of violence must be said, but also must be informed 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 trying. The peace journalism wants a news kind of optimism and less pessimism is not against informing people about violence, but proposes adding an element, that of peace. "

In its conclusions on the profile of the reporters assigned to cover armed conflicts has used remarks by Jake Lynch and Annabel McGoldrick, who "told me that the reality of war journalism is always presented as a confrontation between two parties due to 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, although there are extremists on both sides and they are the ones that capture the attention in these conflicts are 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 actors 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 an objector from military service in Norway at the age of 25. In the main prison in Oslo I interned side by side with a famous murderer in Norway. He carried in his pocket a front cut of the day you were before the court, because I felt that that had been his moment of fame. And you wondered, "But do not be a moment of shame?". He felt he was more famous, if he thought he had done wrong was only because he had discovered. I noticed this kind of positive feedback, because then he, consciously or not, 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 expand the context?

It all started with an analysis of empirical work reporting on Cuba, the Congo and Cyprus in the Norwegian press. 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 are not spread. My proposal was not only analyze what was happening, but think what might have been, in another kind of report.

Besides being a professor of sociology was a reporter for Norwegian radio caught my attention and it was easy to obtain other information about other events and that the problem often was not the journalist, 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 to identify and think, "Look, maybe I can contribute something", and these readers are on especially women, because it appears to 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 ask, but really suited to a minority. The proof is that when there is good news for peace, for example, the Israel-Palestine, 1993, the newspapers sold much. I suspect 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 engage often weeklies or magazines to read romance or fashion.

Does quantitative basis this suspicion?

Not yet, are impressions, but could be interesting research.

In this sense, what means are nuances between the first and third worlds?

It is my impression. There is a journalistic tradition that comes from England and has influenced much, and my experience with workshops is that British journalists are the most hard 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 that 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, one occasion, against the head of BBC World News was that the comparison is between a murder and an act of the United Nations secretary general, "and if you, Mr. Editor, you can try here and he has presented the news I have to retract "and of course my research was showing that content was not so. The proposals of Perez de Cuellar came at a tense moment where everyone was about the certainty of a war and in this situation a peace project is not located, the editors think.

In such circumstances the information is considered disinformation peace.

Accurate. Or at least irrelevant. Then the head of BBC World News said, "if that statement of 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 such impact statement is that you did not publish it, for something to have consequences must appear in public space.

Something similar happened during the invasion of Iraq. A month earlier there was a peace proposal from Saddam Hussein, four-point proposal that appeared in The New York Times nine months after the invasion. A little late, right? I estimated by Perez de Cuellar, not Saddam Hussein, but that's not the point, they are exposed to things relevant filter of the news industry. That is why peace journalism can make a distinction between 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 indeed the traits of peace journalism?

I have a list of four.

Number one: understanding 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 I want shoes, evangelicals or paramilitaries in Chiapas?

Number two: to present an orientation toward solutions. In Iraq, Saddam Hussein's proposals were interesting, if they are honest or not, we ignore it, but we could know by calling Hussein to the negotiating table from his own four proposals. [...] Clearly not published because they were against U.S. interests. [...] Not that the U.S. dominates the media, but they do not have a focus on conflict and resolution, its focus is violence and who wins.

Number three: the pursuit of truth symmetrical. There is something called "investigative journalism" that is a deviation to be 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 did not issue lies, but so does Saddam. Journalism must be symmetrical.

And number four: orientation toward the common people and not just to the elites. In all wars, like 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, giving voice.

"... Journalists are not only ignorant but cowards"

The bulk of the reporters in Mexico and the world covering interpersonal or inter-community conflicts, constitute a minority who are assigned to military confrontations. 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 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. "No conflicts of varying levels.

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 "before each of the conflicts presented in this 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? ".

Does the critical view is a secondary value of peace journalism?

I'm not against critical journalism, but by constructive journalism, which seeks and offers solutions. During a sharp discussion with journalists from the Middle East, Israel also wielded the argument of objectivity, then, in general, journalists hegemons always talk about objectivity, and said, "Imagine you have a wreck near Tel Aviv and a man on the beach near death, and is a reporter with a question: Have they used and rescue breathing? And people respond, no, does that help? ". Practice rescue breathing, and man is rescued. My question is, Is That a Question subjective or objective? In this case, so what? What matters is that it is a basic question, and journalists can also come out with a report 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 gap ".

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

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, go". The reporter turns and slogan that "there is indeed a lot of 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, 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 journalism emphasis not on violence but on the conflict and its possible solutions, I believe violence can be curtailed.

This merits further recourse to specialized sources.

Right. The journalist has to know everything, but if you ask around, might have asked Mr Bush, "according to you, Mr. President, what is the conflict behind the attacks of 11 September 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 an idiot but it's the position he has, then the reporter 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?". Are the politicians who are afraid. In the case of 11 / S is 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 condone those attacks, saying only that there is a kind of causality 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 the political will! The problem is that journalists often are not only ignorant, but also cowardly.

A debate for over half a century between those who analyze the social role of mass media if media content is produced or induce violence themselves. Before a party said, but would have something to add?

Number one, remunerate the violence by giving voice to actors with only 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? You always won at 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, it is often the best 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, they often also have more time and can go longer interviews. Television functions under arrangements superficiality, is always an element of sensationalism and has no room for argument. And the national press, with exceptions, is bad, too elitist, though often called independent is not, because naturally afraid of punishment, for example, the President, fear it could say, "I do not want to be interviewed by you" . In a big country like Mexico is, however, the possibility of having a daily La Jornada, which has many ruthlessly with the government ... for me is a bit too negative, but I read with pleasure.

Notes

¹ Elise Soukup, "The war in watercolor," in Newsweek, 19/IX/05, P. 8.

² The work was recently translated into Castilian by Fernando Montiel, Transcend's 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, peacejournalism.com reportingtheworld.org and edited by the Nepali Kamala Sarup.

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

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

⁵ For the purpose, 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, Authorization for reproduction of this article published in the journal Etcetera:

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