Skip to content

What is Peace Journalism?

By Steven Youngblood

What is peace?

Any overview of peace journalism must begin with a quick examination of the concept of peace itself. Peace has traditionally been defined simply as the lack of conflict or violence. However, one of the fathers of peace studies (and peace journalism), Norwegian academic Dr. Johan Galtung, has written extensively about positive and negative peace. In this construct, Galtung says negative peace is simply the absence of conflict, whereas positive peace consists of conditions where justice, equity, harmony, and so on can flourish.

For the purposes of peace journalism, Galtung’s notion of positive peace is particularly applicable, since peace journalists strive to spotlight individuals and initiatives that seek these harmonious conditions, and to lead constructive public dialogues about issues that pertain to justice and equity.


Defining Peace Journalism

There are several valid definitions of peace journalism.

Dr. Jake Lynch and Annabel McGoldrick, in their groundbreaking book Peace Journalism define it as, “when editors and reporters make choices - of what to report, and how to report it - that create opportunities for society at large to consider and value non-violent responses to conflict.”

Their definition goes on to say that PJ  “uses the insights of conflict analysis and transformation to update the concepts of balance, fairness and accuracy in reporting. It also provides a new road map tracing the connections between journalists, their sources, the stories they cover and the consequences of their journalism, and builds an awareness of nonviolence and creativity into the practical job of everyday editing and reporting.”

The Center for Global Peace Journalism at Park University in Parkville, Missouri, adapts and expands on the Lynch/McGoldrick definition. The center says that PJ is a practice in which “editors and reporters make choices that improve the prospects for peace. These choices, including how to frame stories and carefully choosing which words are used, create an atmosphere conducive to peace and supportive of peace initiatives and peacemakers, without compromising the basic principles of good journalism. Peace Journalism gives peacemakers a voice while making peace initiatives and non-violent solutions more visible and viable.”

Just as important is a consideration of what peace journalism is not.

It is not, according to the Center for Global Peace Journalism and Lynch, open advocacy for peace. Instead, PJ is about, in Lynch’s words, “giving peace a chance.”

Lynch and McGoldrick lay out a number of principles of peace journalism, including a widely distributed chart comparing peace journalism to “war and violence journalism” and a 17 point checklist of “what a peace journalist would try to do.”

In the chart, war and violence journalism is reporting characterized by us vs. them narratives that demonize them, the spreading of propaganda, reporting that is victory-oriented, reactive and elite oriented that focuses only on visible effects of violence. Peace journalism is the opposite. It’s reporting that is proactive, humanizes the other side, gives voice to everyday people, and discusses solutions.

Four items from Lynch/McGoldrick’s 17 point plan for peace journalism focus on the importance of language, and particularly in avoiding language that victimizes (devastated, destitute, defenseless”), is imprecise and emotive (“tragedy,” “massacre,” “systematic”), demonizes (“vicious,” “cruel,” “barbaric”), and imprecisely labels (“terrorist,” “extremist,” “fanatic,” “fundamentalist”). Other key points include avoiding reporting about conflict as if it is a zero-sum game (one winner, one loser); reporting about common ground shared by parties involved in the conflict; avoiding reporting only the violent acts and “the horror”; and not reporting claims as though they are facts.

This text, as well as other early writings on the subject of peace journalism, were largely focused specifically on war reporting—reporting that occurs both before and during violent conflict. However, during the 10 years since Peace Journalism, theorists and practitioners (including the Center for Global Peace Journalism, among others) have expanded this original war reporting orientation into other fields of journalistic endeavor, discovering along the way the utility of PJ principles to inform and improve practices in reporting politics and elections, terrorism, crime, and human right. In fact, the peace journalism approach can be used to guide reporting about any type of conflict (politics, ethnic, resource disputes, civil unrest, religious), and not just those that involve violence or war.



Keeping in mind peace journalism’s applicability across these many domains, the Center for Global Peace Journalism, using the Lynch/McGoldrick 17 points as a foundation, has devised a 10 point list that describes the elements of peace journalism.


Peace Journalism Elements


1. PJ is proactive, examining the causes of conflict, and leading discussions about solutions.


2. PJ looks to unite parties, rather than divide them, and eschews oversimplified “us vs. them” and “good guy vs. bad guy” reporting.


3. Peace reporters reject official propaganda, and instead seek facts from all sources.


4. PJ is balanced, covering issues/suffering/peace proposals from all sides of a conflict.


5. PJ gives voice to the voiceless, instead of just reporting for and about elites and those in power.


6. Peace journalists provide depth and context, rather than just superficial and sensational “blow by blow” accounts of violence and conflict.


7. Peace journalists consider the consequences of their reporting.


8. Peace journalists carefully choose and analyze the words they use, understanding that carelessly selected words are often inflammatory.


9. Peace journalists thoughtfully select the images they use, understanding that they can misrepresent an event, exacerbate an already dire situation, and re-victimize those who have suffered.


10. Peace Journalists offer counter-narratives that debunk media created or perpetuated stereotypes, myths, and misperceptions.


The 10 PJ principles, and those laid out by Lynch and McGoldrick, were created in response to sensational, irresponsible reporting that ignores or devalues peaceful responses while exacerbating already tense, contentious, difficult situations. This irresponsible reporting underscores the need for peace journalism.



Steven Youngblood is the founding director of the Center for Global Peace Journalism at Park University in Parkville, Missouri USA, where he is a communications professor. He has organized and taught peace journalism in 25 countries around the world. Youngblood is a two-time J. William Fulbright Scholar and author of “Peace Journalism: Principles and Practices” and “Professor Komagum.” He edits “The Peace Journalist” magazine, and writes and produces the “Peace Journalism Insights” blog.


Steven Youngblood’s Blog>

Americans are divided at a remarkable level of intensity in 2017. Could a revival of a unifying 'American spirit' be the answer? Former Ohio attorney general Nancy Rogers and director of the Divided Community project Grande Lum explain how defining and promoting a national spirit can produce unifying effects that could reconcile American society.

Why begin conversations to articulate a current American spirit at a time when we are so divided and angry? The accurate but perhaps facile answer is that our nation most needs to embrace what we share and treasure at times of greatest division. The accurate and more in-depth answer is offered here is one that acknowledges that our bitter divides will make the conversation challenging and, with that in mind, suggests a path for conversations that might lead to identification of national aspiration with support across our major divisions.

Anger represents formidable headwinds for such a conversation project, and if you do not already appreciate that fact, read this paragraph and the next. American’s political identities seem increasingly to be turning into personal identities, according to polling. For example, Pew Research reveals that most Democrats and Republicans now view members of the other party negatively for the first time in the survey’s 25-year old history. Polls also say that Republicans increasingly view Democrats as extremists and vice versa. Americans have reached a 25-year high in not wanting an immediate family member to marry someone from the opposing political party. In addition to polls, each day provides an abundance of examples of the deep divisions in this country on policies that range in focus from economic mobility/profitability, to environmental impact/industrial regulation.

Technology and its accompanying reward structures seem almost to “weaponize” our divisions, given the increases in speed and the polarizing incentives. Especially in an era of social media, advocates of any position are rewarded for higher outrage levels in terms of hits, coverage, and financial compensation. Politicians experience high online campaign giving in response to their hard-hitting social media posts. Social media platforms offer posting priorities to facilitate users who want what they read to echo their own views. The constant deluge of news increases the impact of traditional rewards for covering conflict, but much less so for constructive cooperation. Note how little coverage was given to the fifty freshman Congressional members who committed to civility in the 115th Congress.

What are the tailwinds for a conversations project? Research indicates that we yearn to move beyond current polarization. A number of commentators such as David Brooks, Yuval Levin, William Choslovsky, Nancy Gibbs, Dan Alexander, and David McCullough (this year alone) reflected this yearning when they challenged Americans to articulate their common aspirations – what we call here an American spirit. Gibbs sounded the alarm many feel as she observed, “Unifying values, around speech and civility, freedom and fairness are shredded by rising tribal furies and passions.”   Historian David McCullough suggested action when he recalled how throughout history, Americans have found an “inexhaustible source of strength” in their common aspirations. Some of the commentators have observed that an American spirit would help focus Americans on the problems that currently seem intractable.

In this blogpost, we use our conflict resolution experience to take on the challenge of starting a conversation on American spirit, because we, like these commentators, see the need for more constructive conversations and real problem solving in this country that can only come about with a touchstone of shared values. That’s what a national spirit can provide.

History does not provide a perfect guide on what process to use. Pronouncing an American spirit in times of bitter divides has been the stuff of giants. We think of President Abraham Lincoln, who enjoyed wide and near-reverent admiration, universal attention, story-telling acumen, and uncommon insight into his fellow Americans.   Nonetheless, there is a grassroots alternative to the identifying a current American spirit, one that is thoughtfully and systematically approached, in order for it to be widely and deeply embraced.

We offer thoughts, based on our conflict resolution experience, on:

  • How a national spirit helps polarized people solve their problems.
  • Potential ways to screen ideas for the American spirit for those with the power to ameliorate the current polarization.
  • How one convenes and holds the conversations necessary.

How a national spirit helps

Picture the two horned goats in Aesop’s fable who face off on a narrow branch spanning a cavernous gorge. That is close to how angry and spiteful people feel across political divides. It’s too late to save the goats, who did not bring their common peril to mind quickly enough, but an American spirit might yet put in the forefront of our minds the bigger picture for Americans – what we share and will work hard to avoid endangering. Mediators of both large- and small-scale conflict understand this about people who have in mind what they share and value: they will more often pursue collaborative approaches, consider other viewpoints, prioritize in how and what they advocate, and resist divisive rhetoric. Applying that to our nation, a powerful American spirit would provide safe space to tamp down polarization and explore disagreements; forge common ground; and inspire us to work together for the long term. That would help right now.

Unfortunately, we seem collectively unaware of a current American spirit that might play that role. 71% of us think that we are losing an American spirit, according to a 2017 poll by the Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research.

Ways to screen various ideas for a current American spirit

We have one tool that President Lincoln lacked – the ability to poll our fellow Americans and determine whether a potential strain of an American spirit will resonate deeply and broadly among various ideological groups, recognizing that no single idea will be universally supported. But we need to narrow the candidates for a current American spirit before polling can play that role. Fortunately, an interdisciplinary group of scholars examined national identities for decades and their work suggests some questions to ask that will bring the most powerful proposed American spirits to the fore:

First, does the potential American spirit point toward bridging differences? Love of family, though a widespread value, does not focus specifically on overcoming ideological differences, for example. An example of a potential American spirit more closely directed toward dislodging current bitterness comes from David McCullough, William Choslovsky, and David Brooks. Their proposals lean toward forgiveness, redemption and openness to change. When combined, their proposed American spirit is something like this: Americans are explorers and experimenters who seek new frontiers. This constant yearning is reflected everywhere from our music to our innovative industries. We Americans innovate as well in assuring the freedom and equality that are at the heart of this ever changing democracy.

Second, do Americans feel that this American spirit is especially – better yet uniquely – ours? If so, it has more strength because we feel it more deeply: “Is this spirit something previous generations felt? Is this spirit something today’s generation feels? Why would we be the first generation to destroy something that special?” For example, as Americans we might identify courage as part of an American spirit. It might not be perceived at first as unique and therefore might not be felt as deeply. However, America pioneered freedom based on democratic rule and defended it bravely through the Revolutionary War, Civil War, World Wars, among others, exercises in courage that are proud aspects of our history, ones that Americans might be inspired to preserve.

Third, can we embrace the American spirit without changing our habits and beliefs in some fundamental way? We are not likely to be willing to do so just because someone articulates a potential American spirit. That spirit should call on our best impulses but it must seem authentic, natural. It should be a touchstone already of the American psyche at a basic level. An American spirit that highlights justice for all might not be a surprise to Americans, given that these are the last words of the American Pledge of Allegiance and the story of America from the earliest days onward recounts struggles for justice by individuals and groups who experienced wrongs from incarceration to denial of suffrage to labor exploitation.

Fourth, does the proposed American spirit formulation incorporate the interests underlying the policy positions taken by the primary ideological groups, so that it will resonate broadly? For example, some Americans are tired of change and place a high value on traditional ways. Does the spirit tie into both of those traditions? Social psychologist Jonathan Haidt has reflected on questions three and four, in his recent book Can’t We All Disagree More Constructively.

Fifth, does the potential American spirit formulation provide a reason for optimism and a sense of belonging as an American? Fear, pessimism, and isolation underlie much of today’s bitterness. Just last month, a Gallup poll revealed 70 percent were dissatisfied with “the way things are going in the U.S.” Fear is a near cousin is alienation and discouragement. Remember how we nodded when we heard wise Yoda in the Star Wars movie explain, “Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.”?

Holding the conversations to identify potential strains of a current American spirit that will be widely and deeply embraced

Given the personal nature of our political differences and the challenges of discussing issues such as racial and ethnic equity in constructive ways, we should use facilitators gifted in helping us to be uncharacteristically thoughtful and open as we listen for those interests and aspirations that we share. Facilitators through their presence and skill can prevent conversations from becoming “us versus them” and help hold a value like an American spirit as a solid presence within a potentially adversarial conversation. They personify that a dialogue should not just be two opposing and uncompromising perspectives by helping the individuals listen to each other, ask clarifying questions, and highlight agreements, and ultimately by helping the individuals improve their relationships and the outcomes.

We are not media experts, so we will leave it those who are to work on the communication aspect of an American spirit for the technological times we now live in. Is technology an answer to how someone other than Abraham Lincoln effectively communicates a current American spirit, once identified?   Those of you with media expertise are key to the success of any grass-roots American spirit project.

A few more thoughts

Are you still thinking, “It is more important to…..,” adding in what laws you want changed, what candidates you want elected? If so, please consider this: our greatness as a country has been based on people fighting for what’s right through elections, litigation, and legislation, while simultaneously working together as Americans, whether in wartime or peace. We can do that advocacy and simultaneously collaborate in articulating a new American spirit.

 

Nancy H. Rogers is a member of the executive committee for the Divided Community Project, former Dean of the Ohio State University Moritz College of Law and now Director of its Program on Law and Leadership, and former Ohio Attorney General. Grande Lum is the director of the Divided Community Project and Distinguished Practitioner in Residence at the Ohio State University Moritz College of Law and former Director of the U.S. Justice Department’s Community Relations Service.

If you want to join the conversation with your own ideas about a current American spirit, contact Nancy Rogers or Grande Lum.

'Accuracy motive' can promote depolarization in an era of intense ideological self-sorting

Professor Jeremy Frimer conducted research indicating liberals and conservatives to be equally as guilty of ideological ‘self-sorting’, largely to avoid the cognitive stresses of having their beliefs challenged. He offers further thoughts on the relevance and strategic value of his work.

Q: What was the most surprising finding from your research?

A: The biggest surprise was that liberals and conservatives are similarly motivated to avoid listening to one another. Several psychological theories and past research findings characterize conservatives as more small-minded, fearful, and tribal than liberals. Our paper, along with others in a growing wave of research, found ideological symmetry.

Q: Your research focuses on 'hot-button' issues that often provoke visceral reactions. Could attempts to avoid ideological exposure be less prominent in other areas of political discussion?

A: Yes, it is possible. Economic issues tend to be less charged than social issues. But I can’t say based on our data. From our data, I can say that the motive to stay in the bubble was larger for issues like presidential elections, smaller for issues like abortion and legalizing marijuana, and smaller again for issues like climate change and gun restrictions. The smallest effect was for climate change, the (reasonable) debate over which seems to boil down to the role of government in the private sector and globalism vs. nationalism. Perhaps, this has more to do with economics and less to do with social issues than some of the more divisive topics.

Q: What do you consider to the best path forward for overcoming this cognitive dissonance and encouraging political reconciliation?

A: For individuals who want to make a change in their lives, the key is to take on an attitude where the goal is to accurately understand issues.  Past research found that the bias to seek out belief-confirming information tends to evaporate and sometimes even reverse when people have an accuracy motive. Another avenue might be to “depolarize”. A new organization called Heterodox Academy is advocating for ideological diversity within academia, and currently developing a “depolarizing app” that will hopefully help individuals understand where the other side is coming from, and develop a receptive and humble approach. I also wonder whether social media platforms encouraging cross-cutting conversations might help. One of the keys may be getting past the slogans and actually learning about how policy works. A recent paper found that people can maintain extreme positions when they are in an illusion of understanding  When asked to explain how their preferred policies would actually work, they realize that they don’t understand what they are talking about, and become more moderate on the issues. The 2016 election was remarkable for the quantity of coverage juxtaposed by the near absence of substantive policy discussion.

Jeremy Frimer is a professor of psychology at the University of Winnipeg.

Full Article>

About Jeremy Frimer>