What is Peace Journalism?

jonathanriddickDecember 14, 2017February 26, 2021

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>

Still Relishing Being Angry? Or Ready to Start Talking About an American Spirit 2.0?

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.

jonathanriddickDecember 8, 2017February 22, 2021Leave a comment

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 115^th 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.

Peace Journalism: The State of the Field

jonathanriddickNovember 16, 2017February 26, 2021

Peace Journalism: The State of the Field

What are the most exciting developments in the field of peace journalism today? And who is leading the charge? Professor Annabel McGoldrick, professor of peace and conflict studies, offers her thoughts.

Q - Where have peace journalism methods been most successful?

A: Probably in the Philippines where they set up their own conflict sensitive reporting initiative, Pecojon – peace journalism network with training courses; story ideas and discussions. There’s more to learn about the work of this organization in Jean Lee Patindol’s “Building a Peace Journalist’s Network From the Ground: The Philippines Experience.”

Q -What are the organizations and networks that are leading peace journalism's implementation and progression?

A:There is now a biannual publication called The Peace Journalist from the Global Peace Journalism Center at Park University, Missouri, which is doing important research in the field.

Also Mindanews, based in Davao City in the Philippine island of Mindanao, is a news cooperative that reports on issues of conflict and peace using peace journalism principles.

Q-Some research has suggested that social media tends towards the more positive and empathetic in comparison to traditional media sources. Is peace journalism likely to find social media a more conducive environment?

A: The communication scholar, Manuel Castells has said: “The rise of insurgent politics cannot be separated from the emergence of a new kind of media space: the space created around the process of mass self-communication”. Insurgent politics entails adding new voices and new perspectives so in that sense the process of mass self-communication, chiefly social media, is conducive to PJ. On the other hand, social media are a largely unregulated space so it is difficult to uphold the journalistic remit of factual reporting.

Q - Has any new research added to or potentially contradicted your own work, i.e. your research on psychophysiological audience responses?

A: I think this is a relatively new field and measuring emotional responses to anything is pretty new and complex. At the moment we’re all just confirming what intuitively makes senses in terms of audiences responses to peace journalism and are metaphorically just groping around the dark for the technology to measure what are actually very subjective responses. Many of us can testify to number of occasions where the media is part of the problem, rather than the solution.

Other research on audience responses to PJ include Christoph Daniel Schaefer’s “The Effects of Escalation vs. De-Escalation-orientated Conflict Coverage on the Evaluation of Military Measures”, as well as Wilhelm Kempf’s “Experimenting with de-escalation oriented coverage of post-war conflicts”.

Annabel McGoldrick is a lecturer in peace and conflict studies at the University of Sydney. She has previous experience as a TV news reporter and also works as a psychotherapist.

About Annabel McGoldrick>

The Future of Peace Journalism 1

jonathanriddickNovember 9, 2017February 26, 20211 Comment

The Future of Peace Journalism

by Jake Lynch

Peace Journalism has attained traction in journalistic communities where editors and reporters come to feel they would like to contribute, through their professional activities, to the prospects for peace in their society – or at least avoid inadvertently making them worse. Examples include Indonesia in the early 2000s, following the fall of the New Order regime of President Suharto, and the southern Philippines, where people are weary of the blight on their lives and prospects from long-running insurgencies, and where both elite and grassroots peace activism is meeting the demand for change.

But there are many initiatives underway at any one time, chronicled in the biannual publication, The Peace Journalist, published by the Global Peace Journalism Center at Park University, Missouri, and edited by Prof Steven Youngblood – who has introduced PJ to journalistic communities in locations including Uganda and Kenya. Peace Journalism has also grown rapidly in the field of scholarly research, with a large array of books (monographs and edited collections), book chapters, articles and special editions of academic journals (such as the one just out in Peace Review), latterly spreading to other languages than English.

When it comes to social media, these platforms are neither intrinsically conducive nor otherwise to PJ. The original thesis behind PJ is that the operation of journalistic conventions leads to a dominant form of 'war journalism' when reporting conflicts – not merely war reporting, in the sense of reporting on wars, but a mode of representation that leads readers and audiences to infer that further violence is legitimate, necessary, even inevitable. These conventions arise not from the intrinsic properties of news but from the organisational imperatives of news industries. If you're a daily newspaper, you are likely to concentrate on the events encompassed in the 24-span between editions… however, when reporting conflicts, that can lead to a pattern of big bangs: bombs, bullets and battles. What is missed out is the process(es) that lead up to the events – so readers are deprived of any opportunity to appreciate how these processes could be diverted towards less violent outcomes.

Now, of course, daily newspapers, while still important, are nowhere near as dominant as they were. And some have used social media to create, and bring to a wide audience, very different forms of representation, enabled by the different organisational imperatives of the media in which they are operating. Brandon Stanton, for example, started with his Facebook-mounted photo blog, Humans of New York, then went on to cover the war in Syria from the viewpoint of families fleeing to seek sanctuary in Europe, in partnership with the UN High Commission for Refugees.

On the other hand, a recent (Sep 2017) report by the International Crisis Group identified the expansion of social media in Myanmar, as repressive laws were lifted after 2011, as a factor in the spread of Buddhist nationalism – which has, in turn, exacerbated the Rohingya crisis. Whether one is operating in mainstream or social media, the need for some critical self-awareness, and some specific agenda to give peace a chance (not to advocate peace, just to give it a chance) is an essential safeguard against unwittingly paving the way to further violence.

There's a mountain of published research on PJ now, which contains a multitude of perspectives on a multitude of contested points and ongoing debates.

Jake Lynch is chair of the Department of Peace and Conflict Studies at the University of Sydney. He has worked as a correspondent for the Independent and Sky News, and was previously an anchor for BBC world news.