Comment

On the Importance of Peace Journalism

Richard Keeble

Too much mainstream journalism is 'war journalism', being violence and victory-oriented, dehumanising the enemy and prioritising official sources. Richard Keeble puts the case for peace journalism by analysing a major text on the subject.

I have always been committed to peace journalism. In the early 1980s, for instance, I launched the group, Journalists Against Nuclear Extermination (JANE), to campaign for peace through the National Union of Journalists. And similar preoccupations have been ever-present in my journalism and academic writing and practice since then. My PhD (published as Secret State, Silent Press: New Militarism, The Gulf and the Modern Image of Warfare by John Libbey in 1997) examined the press coverage of the 1991 Gulf conflict. But it was essentially a protest (in appropriate academic prose) at the unnecessary massacres inflicted on defenceless Iraqis by the US-led coalition - and the way the mainstream media hid the reality of that horror behind the myth of heroic, precise warfare.

For me, it has always been clear that some of the most important responsibilities of the journalist are to promote peace, dialogue and understanding; to confront militarism in all its forms - and the stereotypes and lies on which it is based. And yet, while the mainstream media are awash in debates over citizen journalism and the impact of the internet on traditional routines and professional values, little is heard beyond a select group of activist reporters and academics about peace journalism.

One of the most original contributions to the debate over its practical and theoretical aspects appears in Peace Journalism by Jake Lynch and Annabel McGoldrick (Hawthorn Press, Stroud, 2005). Every journalist should be aware of it; every journalism education programme should include it in their reading lists. Most academic analysis of conflict reporting is quick to condemn. But this text is far more ambitious. It both highlights the media's many failings and also offers convincing alternative strategies.

Lynch and McGoldrick, drawing on 30 years' experience reporting for the BBC, ITV, Sky News, the London Independent and ABC Australia as well as teaching peace journalism at four universities, rightly call for a 'journalistic revolution'. Drawing particularly on the peace research theories of Prof. Johan Galtung, they argue that most conflict coverage, thinking itself neutral and 'objective', is actually war journalism. It is violence and victory orientated, dehumanising the 'enemy', focusing on 'our' suffering, prioritising official sources and highlighting only the visible effects of violence (those killed and wounded and the material damage).

In contrast, peace journalism is solution-orientated, giving voice to the voiceless, humanising the 'enemy', exposing lies on all sides, highlighting peace initiatives and focusing on the invisible effects of violence (such as psychological trauma).

They then apply this theory to a series of case studies such as the murder of two-year-old James Bulger in February 1993, Nato's bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999, the 2001 US attacks on Afghanistan, a suicide bombing in Jerusalem, the terrorist attacks on Casablanca, the US/UK invasion of Iraq 2003. Dotted throughout the text are comments from practising journalists and advice from the authors. For instance, to resist war propaganda they advise journalists to be on the look out for shifting war aims, to avoid repeating claims which have not been independently verified, to avoid demonising a person or group and to remind their audience of when war propaganda turned out to be misleading.

The authors are also not afraid to tackle complex theory head-on. For instance, in a chapter titled 'Why is the news the way it is?' they leap confidently into the deep waters of Saussurean linguistics and Derrida's concepts of deconstruction, logocentricism and the 'transcendental signifier'. Perhaps it was wise to leave such difficult territory towards the end of the text.

There are some serious limitations to the text. For instance, the authors focus almost entirely on the mainstream media and thus fail to acknowledge the contribution of campaigning, alternative media (such as those linked to radical left, feminist, environmental, human rights causes) to the promotion of peace journalism. For instance, Peace News (currently edited by Milan Rai and Emily Johns) is an outstanding publication worth highlighting. Its international coverage is particularly impressive (see www.peacenews.info). So too are websites such as medialens (media monitoring), Indymedia (grassroots anti-war, environmental campaigns), counterpunch (investigative journalism site run by Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St Clair) and Dahrjamailiraq (showcasing the work of an outstanding freelance reporter in Iraq).

Lynch and McGoldrick also fail to acknowledge the important theoretical work of Chris Atton and Tony Harcup which have highlighted the ways in which alternative writers challenge dominant ideologies, journalistic routines and organisational structures and, in effect, promote peace journalism. Moreover, Lynch and McGoldrick lavish too much praise on the London Independent which they argue 'more than any other newspaper' fulfils the criteria of peace journalism. While the excellence of much of its reporting of the 2003 Iraq invasion (particularly by Robert Fisk and Patrick Cockburn) cannot be denied, critical research suggests that, in many respects, the newspaper reproduces many of the dominant news values of Fleet Street.

Ultimately, then, this text reminds us how crucial it is to look beyond the narrow confines of the mainstream media for inspirational models of peace journalism.

Links:

www.peacenews.info

www.medialens.org

www.Indymedia.org.uk

www.counterpunch.org

www.Dahrjamailiraq.com