Every day, newspapers are awash in stories about conflict. Conflict and scandals at the federal, provincial and municipal government levels make for front-page news. Terrorism, wars and strife from hotspots around the globe are detailed in blow-by-blow accounts documenting violence and the growing tallies of the dead.
Some editors would say a story is not really hard news unless it has some element of conflict.
But there is a growing movement among researchers, academics and journalists to push conflict coverage into a more constructive peacemaking arena. It is called peace journalism – journalism that attempts to explain the issues behind conflict and routinely dares to propose, or at least report on, possible solutions.
Professor Johan Galtung, an international peace advocate, led a recent conference on peace journalism sponsored by McMaster University’s Centre for Peace Studies and held at Ryerson University.
Galtung said mainstream journalism is really “war/violence journalism” and coverage of peace and conflict resolution is rarely found in any news outlet.
He said the news media must stop presenting a polarized view of conflict that inevitably contains two sides. Invariably, one side is considered the “good guys” and the other “the bad guys,” he said. This ignores the varied and complex causes of most conflicts and readers get a distorted, hence uninformed, view.
Journalists should seek out peace proposals and report on creative solutions to problems, Galtung said. Whenever possible, reports of violence should focus on the victims and the suffering. He urged news media to drop the term terrorist and to seek alternative terms, perhaps ones describing a person’s methods and objectives.
To journalists who hold objectivity paramount, many of Galtung’s suggestions seem like advocacy and threaten objective, truthful reporting. Galtung countered this, saying peace and conflict resolution journalism simply gives the same profile to the solution of conflicts that is routinely given their outbreak and the havok they wreak on the world. It is not a substitute, but should be a supplement to existing news coverage, he said.
A review of The Star the day of the conference shows an abundance of conflict coverage and violent imagery – especially in headlines. A tasteless racist joke by the mayor “sparks fury” the front-page headline roared.
Page two had a story about a “new weapon” in the “war” on prostate cancer and a study that “shattered” myths about older people. Page three showed a large picture of a mother who had drowned her youngsters with the headline quote: ” I killed my children.”
On page six, the U.S. was “to target smuggling” and the Liberals were getting “flak” over a contract. The Greater Toronto section front wrapped up an excellent profile of a domestic murder under the headline “7 pages, 2 shots, dozens of wounded.” The Star publishes many stories explaining conflict. And the paper’s many columnists offer helpful analysis of the world’s troubles. But perhaps the paper can do more.
It would be folly to ignore conflict in news coverage. Still, headlines can use fewer images of conflict. One workshop at the convention proposed a peace and conflict resolution page to focus on the causes of conflict, globally, nationally, locally – even among family, friends and neighbours. It would also report on how conflicts are successfully resolved. I like the idea. We give entire sections to sports and business. Why not a page for peace?
