Peace Journalism-Handouts; Steven Youngblood, Park University USA
steve.youngblood@park.edu
From Peace Journalism-Lynch/McGoldrick (slightly revised)
PEACE/CONFLICT JOURNALISM
WAR/VIOLENCE JOURNALISM
I. PEACE/CONFLICT-ORIENTED
II. WAR/VIOLENCE-ORIENTED
Explore conflict formation, x parties, y goals, z
issues
General ‘win, win’ orientation
Focus on conflict arena, 2 parties, 1 goal (win),
war general zero-sum orientation
Open space, open time, causes and outcomes
anywhere, also in history/culture
Closed space, closed time, causes and exits in
arena, who threw the first stone
Making conflicts transparent
Making wars opaque/secret
Giving voice to all parties; empathy,
understanding
‘us-them’ journalism, propaganda
See conflict war as problem, focus on conflict
creativity
See ‘them’ as the problem, focus on who
prevails in war
Dehumanization of ‘them’
Humanization of all sides
Proactive: prevention before any violence/war
occurs
Reactive: waiting for visible effect of violence
(killed, wounded and material/monetary
damage)
Focus on invisible effects of violence (trauma
and glory, damage to structure/culture)
II. FACT-ORIENTED
Expose untruths on all sides/ uncover all coverups
III. PEOPLE-ORIENTATED
II. PROPAGANDA-ORIENTED
Expose ‘their’ untruths; help ‘our’ coverups/lies
III. ELITE-ORIENTED
Focus on suffering all over; on women, aged,
children
Focus on ‘our’ suffering, on able-bodied elite
males, being their mouth-piece
Giving voice to the voiceless (marginalized,
women/children, minorities, etc.)
Give name only of the ‘other side’s’ negative
actors
Give name to all who act destructively
Focus on elite peace-makers only
Focus on everyday people who are peacemakers
2
IV. SOLUTION-ORIENTED
IV. VICTORY-ORIENTED
Peace = non-violence + creativity
Peace = victory + ceasefire
Highlight peace, reconciliation initiatives
Conceal peace initiatives before ‘victory’ is
declared
Focus on structure, culture, the peaceful society
Focus on treaty, institution, the controlled
society
Aftermath: resolution, reconstruction,
reconciliation
Leaving door open for another war
17 Tips: What A Peace Journalist Would Try To Do
The following notes are from Peace Journalism — How To Do It, by Jake Lynch and Annabel
McGoldrick (annabelmcg@aol.com), written Sydney, 2000. See the two contrasting articles by
Jake Lynch which illustrate some of these points.
1. AVOID portraying a conflict as consisting of only two parties contesting one goal. The
logical outcome is for one to win and the other to lose. INSTEAD, a Peace Journalist would
DISAGGREGATE the two parties into many smaller groups, pursuing many goals, opening up
more creative potential for a range of outcomes.
2. AVOID accepting stark distinctions between "self" and "other." These can be used to build
the sense that another party is a "threat" or "beyond the pale" of civilized behavior — both key
justifications for violence. INSTEAD, seek the "other" in the "self" and vice versa. If a party is
presenting itself as "the goodies," ask questions about how different its behavior really is to that
it ascribes to "the baddies" — isn't it ashamed of itself?
3. AVOID treating a conflict as if it is only going on in the place and at the time that violence
is occurring. INSTEAD, try to trace the links and consequences for people in other places now
and in the future. Ask:
* Who are all the people with a stake in the outcome?
* Ask yourself what will happen if ...?
* What lessons will people draw from watching these events unfold as part of a global
audience? How will they enter the calculations of parties to future conflicts near and far?
4. AVOID assessing the merits of a violent action or policy of violence in terms of its visible
effects only. INSTEAD, try to find ways of reporting on the invisible effects, e.g., the long-term
consequences of psychological damage and trauma, perhaps increasing the likelihood that those
affected will be violent in future, either against other people or, as a group, against other groups
or other countries.
5. AVOID letting parties define themselves by simply quoting their leaders' restatement of
familiar demands or positions. INSTEAD, inquire more deeply into goals:
* How are people on the ground affected by the conflict in everyday life?
* What do they want changed?
* Is the position stated by their leaders the only way or the best way to achieve the changes they
want?
6. AVOID concentrating always on what divides the parties, the differences between what they
say they want. INSTEAD, try asking questions that may reveal areas of common ground and
leading your report with answers which suggest some goals maybe shared or at least
compatible, after all.
2
3
7. AVOID only reporting the violent acts and describing "the horror." If you exclude
everything else, you suggest that the only explanation for violence is previous violence
(revenge); the only remedy, more violence (coercion/punishment). INSTEAD, show how
people have been blocked and frustrated or deprived in everyday life as a way of explaining the
violence.
8. AVOID blaming someone for starting it. INSTEAD, try looking at how shared problems
and issues are leading to consequences that all the parties say they never intended.
9. AVOID focusing exclusively on the suffering, fears and grievances of only one party. This
divides the parties into "villains" and "victims" and suggests that coercing or punishing the
villains represents a solution. INSTEAD, treat as equally newsworthy the suffering, fears and
grievance of all sides.
10. AVOID "victimizing" language such as "destitute," "devastated," "defenseless," "pathetic"
and "tragedy," which only tells us what has been done to and could be done for a group of
people. This disempowers them and limits the options for change. INSTEAD, report on what
has been done and could be done by the people. Don't just ask them how they feel, also ask
them how they are coping and what do they think? Can they suggest any solutions? Remember
refugees have surnames as well. You wouldn't call President Clinton "Bill" in a news report.
11. AVOID imprecise use of emotive words to describe what has happened to people.
* "Genocide" means the wiping out of an entire people.
* "Decimated" (said of a population) means reducing it to a tenth of its former size.
* "Tragedy" is a form of drama, originally Greek, in which someone's fault or weakness proves
his or her undoing.
* "Assassination" is the murder of a head of state.
* "Massacre" is the deliberate killing of people known to be unarmed and defenseless. Are we
sure? Or might these people have died in battle?
* "Systematic" e.g., raping or forcing people from their homes. Has it really been organized in a
deliberate pattern or have there been a number of unrelated, albeit extremely nasty incidents?
INSTEAD, always be precise about what we know. Do not minimize suffering but reserve the
strongest language for the gravest situations or you will beggar the language and help to justify
disproportionate responses that escalate the violence.
12. AVOID demonizing adjectives like "vicious," "cruel," "brutal" and "barbaric." These
always describe one party's view of what another party has done. To use them puts the journalist
on that side and helps to justify an escalation of violence. INSTEAD, report what you know
about the wrongdoing and give as much information as you can about the reliability of other
people's reports or descriptions of it.
13. AVOID demonizing labels like "terrorist," "extremist," "fanatic" and "fundamentalist."
These are always given by "us" to "them." No one ever uses them to describe himself or herself,
and so, for a journalist to use them is always to take sides. They mean the person is
unreasonable, so it seems to make less sense to reason (negotiate) with them. INSTEAD, try
calling people by the names they give themselves. Or be more precise in your descriptions.
14. AVOID focusing exclusively on the human rights abuses, misdemeanors and wrongdoings
of only one side. INSTEAD, try to name ALL wrongdoers and treat equally seriously
allegations made by all sides in a conflict. Treating seriously does not mean taking at face
value, but instead making equal efforts to establish whether any evidence exists to back them
up, treating the victims with equal respect and the chances of finding and punishing the
wrongdoers as being of equal importance.
15. AVOID making an opinion or claim seem like an established fact. ("Eurico Guterres, said
to be responsible for a massacre in East Timor ...") INSTEAD, tell your readers or your
audience who said what. ("Eurico Guterres, accused by a top U.N. official of ordering a
massacre in East Timor ...") That way you avoid signing yourself and your news service up to
the allegations made by one party in the conflict against another.
3
4
16. AVOID greeting the signing of documents by leaders, which bring about military victory
or cease fire, as necessarily creating peace. INSTEAD, try to report on the issues which remain
and which may still lead people to commit further acts of violence in the future. Ask what is
being done to strengthen means on the ground to handle and resolve conflict nonviolently, to
address development or structural needs in the society and to create a culture of peace?
17. AVOID waiting for leaders on "our" side to suggest or offer solutions. INSTEAD, pick up
and explore peace initiatives wherever they come from.
CONFLICT SENSITIVE/PEACE JOURNALISM REPORTING EXAMPLES
Examples of conflict sensitive journalism
Traditional reporting
Skopje, UPI — Peace talks aimed at ending the conflict in Macedonia
lay in ruins last night after the massacre of eight policemen by
Albanian rebels who mutilated the bodies. The atrocity took place at the mountain village of
Vecje, where a police patrol was attacked with machine guns and rocket-propelled
grenades, said a spokesman. Six other men were wounded and three vehicles destroyed.
The bodies were cut with knives after they died, he said, and one man’s head had been smashed
in. The attack was believed to be the work of the National Liberal Army terrorists from the hills
near Tetevo. Ali Ahmeti, a political leader of the NLA, said that his men may have fired “in selfdefence.”…
Conflict sensitive reporting
Skopje, UPI — There was condemnation across the political spectrum in Macedonia after a
police patrol suffered the loss of eight men. Both the main parties representing the country’s
minority
Albanians distanced themselves from the killings, believed to be the work of the self-styled
National Liberation Army. Ali Ahmeti, a political leader of the NLA, denied that his men had
attacked the patrol, saying they may have fired “in self-defence”. But the Macedonian
government said it had done nothing to provoke the machine-gun fire and rocket-propelled
grenades which
destroyed three trucks. A spokesman added that the bodies appeared to have been cut with knives
and one man’s skull caved in …
See the difference?
Traditional reporting
• The news is all bad, it is violent news and it does not seek other sides or points of view. It
declares the worst: “peace talks...lay in ruins.”
• It uses emotional and unnecessary words: massacre, mutilated, atrocity.
It emphasizes the violence with words such as “mutilated bodies.”
• The traditional reporting takes sides: it describes the event from the
point of view of the army spokesman. He says the patrol was attacked.
Conflict Sensitive Reporting
• The report goes further than violence and it reports people who condemn the violence.
• The news is balanced quickly: the NLA denies it attacked the patrol, but admits there was a
battle.
• The other side is given the name it calls itself: the National Liberation Army.
• The violence is not hidden or ignored. But it is stated as a claim and not as a fact.
4
4
5
Traditional reporting
Yoho City, YNS — The Prime Minister of Yoho has condemned a bomb blast in Yoho City by Atu
terrorists which killed ten tourists yesterday. The prime minister said he has created a special
army squad to track down the perpetrators of the massacre.
Police say the explosion occurred when terrorists from an Atu assassination squad brought a
huge bomb into the Tourist Office in the city square. The bomb was probably located in a
suitcase, said police captain Joe Blow. The terrorist-guerilla Atu Front early this morning issued
a statement denying it planted the bomb. But government sources say eyewitnesses saw Atu Front
leader Sam Green at the city square yesterday. It is believed he coordinated the attack …
Conflict sensitive reporting
Yoho City, YNS — A mysterious explosion which killed 10 tourists was the work of an Atu
separatist movement, the Prime Minister of Yoho claimed yesterday.
Police investigators are still examining the shattered city square where the blast occurred while
tourists were getting off a tour bus at the Tourist Office yesterday.
The prime minister blamed the explosion on the self-styled Atu Front, which is fighting
government forces in rural areas and demanding a republican government.
In a telephone interview Atu Front leader Sam Green denied any connection with the explosion
and called it a tragedy. The tour bus recently arrived from the nearby country of Butu,
where a civil war is waging …
See the difference?
Traditional reporting
• The news is full of blame and accusations with no proof. It takes the
prime minister’s side. It says the attackers were Atu terrorists. How
does he know?
• It uses emotional language: massacre, terrorists, assassination squad.
• It reports a claim by the police captain without proof. It reports unnamed
government sources who say other unnamed people say they saw the
Atu leader and blame him. There is no proof of this.
Conflict sensitive reporting
• It reports only what is known. The bomb is a mystery. It uses words
carefully. It says the prime minister makes a claim. It says he blames
Atu separatists.
• It calls the Atu separatists by the name they use. It seeks both sides’
explanation and comment.
• It does not report emotional words like massacre. It does not report
police speculation and police claims, which do not include names of
witnesses.
• It reveals more possible explanation. The bomb may have been on a bus
from another country in conflict.
--Examples from Jake Lynch
5
6
Traditional journalism reveals partisan perceptions
A common factor in any conflict scenario is the perceptions people have about the goals of
others – what do they want and what does it mean for me? In the scenarios outlined below
one aim of a PJ approach is to help the parties to re-examine these perceptions in the light
of new information. To see where new information would be most helpful, one useful
technique is to draw up a ‘Partisan Perceptions Table’. 11
An imaginary example
A – a province with an independence movement - and B – a country - are antagonistic
parties in a conflict. The population of province A includes a number of settlers from
elsewhere in country B. Many have a different culture and religion. Each has its own important
‘facts’ and its own ways of seeing the important ‘facts’ of the other side. These form the basis of
their partisan perceptions of each other.
Important ‘facts’ that A sees as crucial How B sees the important ‘facts’ of A
-This is our land. They chose to become part of country B
-It belonged to our ancestors A primitive belief, now offered as an excuse
-All A’s resources belong to us A selfish attitude which goes against our laws
-Our culture and religion are under threat A’s culture & religion cannot be allowed
to stand in the way of development
-Only independence is right for us Self-government within country B is more
than adequate
Important ‘facts’ that B sees as crucial How A sees the important ‘facts’ of B
-We are all one nation They brought us into country B against our will
-All country B’s resources belong to all citizens They are stealing our resources
-We need to keep province A to ensure our national and regional security.
-That is not our problem
-We need to settle people from overcrowded areas to where there is more space
-They are trying to crowd us out
-All citizens of B have the right to live in a modern country where diverse cultures &
religions flourish
-They want to stop us living in our own way
From http://cdn.agilitycms.com/waccglobal/Images/Galleries/RESOURCES/PEACE_PDFS/Peace-Journalism.pdf
6
7
Peace Journalism Content Analysis Rubric
Written/spoken reports
1=Never
2=Sometimes
Language
Inflammatory/emotional language used
Victimizing language used
Demonizing/name calling language used
Writing/reporting
Opinions treated as facts
Historical wrongs mentioned
Writer's opinion/position is clear (one
sided)
Only "one side" interviewed/quoted
Story spreads official propaganda
Info/quotes taken out of context
Event
Suffering/"criminal acts" by only one side
shown
Underlying issues/causes of the conflict
ignored
Blood/gore/suffering highlighted/featured
in lead
Parties
Blame assigned to one party
Solutions
Peace proposals ignored or dismissed
Story dwells on differences; shuns
similarities
Reader left with impression that the only
viable solutions involve violence
SCALE:
Peace Journalism=21 points or less
Some characteristics of both peace and war journalism=22-31
Traditional Journalism-32 or more
7
3=Often
0=N/A
8
Visuals--video and photo
Intended for use to critique multiple images taken from one source (or one side)
1=Never
2=Sometimes
3=Often
General topic is suffering
General topic is destruction
Subjects—Military officials; Government
officials
Images are patriotic
Images are culturally insensitive/mocking
Subjects are shown in negative light
Editing: Video is raw/unedited; or still is
edited
to change meaning of the original
photo
Images taken out of context/don't reflect
reality
SCALE:
Peace Journalism=8-10 points
Some characteristics of both peace and war journalism=11-15
Traditional Journalism-16 or more
Putin: Georgia’s actions are criminal, whereas Russia’s actions are absolutely
legitimate.
09.08.2008
Source:
Pravda.Ru
URL: http://english.pravda.ru/hotspots/conflicts/106048putin_georgia-0
Russian news reports say that Russia's Prime Minister Vladimir Putin has arrived in a
region that neighbors South Ossetia, where the armed conflict is taking place.
They say Putin is visiting the city of Vladikavkaz, the provincial capital of the region of
North Ossetia that neighbors South Ossetia.
Also read: War between Russia and Georgia orchestrated from USA
Putin said at a work meeting in Vladikavkaz that he could not imagine how it could be
possible to make South Ossetia become a part of Georgia afterwards.
“Georgia’s actions are criminal, whereas Russia’s actions are absolutely legitimate,” the
Russian Prime Minister said.
Putin urged the Georgian administration to immediately end aggression in South Ossetia.
“The actions of the Georgian authorities in South Ossetia are obviously a crime. It is a
crime against its own people, first and foremost,” Putin stated.
“A deadly blow has been struck on the territorial integrity of Georgia itself, which implies
huge damage to its state structure,” Putin emphasized.
“The aggression has resulted in numerous victims including those among civilians and has
virtually led to a humanitarian catastrophe,” he said.
The Russian PM stressed out that Russia would always treat the Georgian nation with great
respect, as a brotherly nation, despite the current tragic events.
“Time will pass and the people of Georgia will give their objective estimations to the
actions of the incumbent administration,” Putin said.
Putin believes that Georgia’s aspiration to become a member of NATO is not based on
8
9
Georgia’s wish to become a part of the global international security system and contribute
to the strengthening of international peace.
“It is based on an attempt of the Georgian administration to get other countries involved in
its bloody affairs,” he said.
Russia ’s actions in South Ossetia are absolutely grounded and legitimate, Putin said.
“In accordance with international agreements, including the agreement of 1999, Russia
does not only execute peacemaking functions, but is obliged, in case one party breaks the
cease-fire agreement, to defend the other party, which is exactly what we are doing in case
with South Ossetia,” Putin stated.
Russia has been playing a positive and stabilizing role in the Caucasus for ages, Putin said.
“We perfectly realize what world we live in today. We will strive for fair and peaceful
solutions of all conflicting situations, which we inherited from the past,” the head of the
Russian government said.
Russia 's president Dmitry Medvedev has told U.S. President George W. Bush that Georgia
must withdraw its forces from South Ossetia in order to end hostilities there.
The Kremlin says that President Dmitry Medvedev told Bush in a telephone conversation
Saturday that Georgia must also sign a legally binding agreement not to use force.
Medvedev voiced hope that the United States could help push Georgia in that direction,
and said Russia had to act to protect its citizens and enforce peace.
Georgia launched a massive attack Friday to regain control over South Ossetia. Russia
responded by sending in tanks and troops and bombing Georgian territory.
Bush has urged an immediate halt to the violence and a stand-down by all troops.
Military forces in the unrecognized republic of Abkhazia launched air and artillery strikes
Saturday to drive Georgian troops from their bridgehead in the region, officials said.
Sergei Shamba, foreign minister in the government of Abkhazia, said Abkhazian forces
intended to push Georgian forces out of the Kodori Gorge. The northern part of the gorge
is the only area of Abkhazia that has remained under Georgian government control.
Shamba said the Abkhazian move was prompted by Georgia's military action to regain
control over South Ossetia, which began Friday. He said Abkhazia had to act because it
has a friendship treaty with South Ossetia.
Brahimi to meet Syria sides separately, demands peace commitment
UN Arab League Special envoy for Syria Lakhdar Brahimi
By Khaled Yacoub Oweis, Cyprus Mail, 2/10/14
Mediator Lakhdar Brahimi will meet representatives of the warring sides in Syria separately for
the first few days of a second round of talks that began on Monday, after the breaking of a local
ceasefire set back peace efforts.
In a letter reviewed by Reuters on Monday, Brahimi increased pressure on the two sides to
show willingness in a peace process sponsored by Moscow and Washington that made no
progress in the first round.
He said he would talk to the two Syrian sides on their own for the next few days in hope of
improving the negotiating atmosphere.
In the eight-page document, dated Feb 7, which was given by Brahimi to both delegations at the
weekend, he asked them to make a commitment at the start to deal with the two main issues:
stopping the fighting and working out discussions of a transitional governing body.
9
10
“The two issues are among the most complex and sensitive and both subjects need treatment
over several sessions and long discussions,” the document said.
“But the future of this political process and the possibility of its success require a clear
declaration from the outset that the two parties have the full and strong political will to deal
with these two issues, with all that they require – courage, persistance and tenacity and
openness to reach successful solutions to all the issues, no matter how complicated and thorny.”
With no agreement on which issue should be discussed first, and a case to be made that both
depended on the other, Brahimi said he would take them together and discuss them in parallel.
During the second week of talks he plans to expand the scope of the discussion to two other
issues: how to manage the continuity of Syria’s state institutions and how to handle the process
of national dialogue and reconciliation that would arise from any eventual agreement in
Geneva.
The first round had aimed to build confidence by focusing narrowly on trying to agree a
humanitarian ceasefire in the devastated city of Homs but the truce was not finalised until
afterwards and was broken soon after it began.
On its third day on Sunday, aid officials said they were working to extend it, even though aid
convoys had come under fire as they evacuated people and were briefly trapped in the city.
Foreign Minister Davutoğlu: Turkey hopeful for ‘last chance’ on Cyprus
10 February 2014, Turkish Weekly
Turkey has welcomed the draft statement that would launch Cypriot reunification talks on Feb.
11 and expressed hope for a speedy conclusion to negotiations while also warning of the
consequences of an unsuccessful outcome.
Turkish officials stressed that this round of talks constituted the last chance for a united Cyprus
as both parties would have to go their own separate ways in the case of the rejection of the final
agreement, as occurred in 2004.
“Saying ‘no’ to the agreement will certainly have consequences. In fact, it was the same case in
2004’s rejection of the Annan Plan by the Greek Cypriot side within the framework of selfdetermination. But we considered that this could have been resolved in the course of EU
process,” Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu told the A Haber in an interview on Feb. 9. “Talks
cannot and will not last forever,” Davutoğlu added, underlining that both sides would go their
own ways in the case of a rejection of the plan by the Greek side.
Months-long efforts to pen a joint statement that would kick off a new negotiation round could
have been successful following last-ditch pressure on the Greek Cypriot side which was dragging
its feet for the reunification talks. As a result of intense diplomacy, a drafted statement has been
accepted by both sides whose leaders are expected to come together under U.N. Special Envoy
10
11
for Cyprus Alexander Downer’s supervision.
According to the drafted joint statement which constitutes a substantial framework for the talks,
the “united” Cyprus will be based on the political equality of Turkish Cypriots and Greek
Cypriots. “The united Cyprus, as a member of the United Nations and of the European Union,
shall have a single international legal personality and a single sovereignty which is defined as the
sovereignty which is enjoyed by all member states of the United Nations, under the U.N. Charter
and which emanates equally from Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots. There will be a single,
united Cyprus citizenship, regulated by federal law.
All citizens of the United Cyprus shall also be citizens of either the Greek-Cypriot constituent
state or the Turkish-Cypriot constituent state. This status shall be internal and shall complement
and not substitute in any way the united Cyprus citizenship,” read the third article of the
agreement.
In such a way, the agreement accommodates Greek Cypriots’ sensitivities with regard to the
single sovereignty of the new federal state but at the same time takes into account the Turkish
side’s priority of having equal political status and its constituent state.
“We are satisfied with the agreement,” Davutoğlu said, adding the single sovereignty of the
united Cyprus arose from two constituent states. “This is an optimum point that would satisfy
all.”
Mutual talks will take place soon
Agreement on the statement could be possible thanks to the huge support given by the
international community, the United States, the United Kingdom and Greece as guarantor
countries, as well as the European Union, he stressed. The minister informed that he had a phone
conversation with his Greek counterpart Dimitris Venizelos over the weekend, in order to make
the process a successful one.
“We are hopeful that reconciliation between Turkish and Greek Cypriots will have a positive
effect on Turkey-Greece relations and we’ll be able to turn the Eastern Mediterranean region into
a zone of peace,” he stressed. The foundation of the new state will also allow for all parts to
benefit from the region’s natural reserves that would also enhance prosperity and stability of the
region. The minister said Turkey’s project of transporting water to the island for the use of both
sides would also add to efforts to bolster peace.
As part of the efforts for launching new talks, representatives of Turkish and Greek Cypriots will
travel to each other’s mainland country, Greece and Turkey, in a bid to break prejudices. “Right
after talks start this week, these visits will soon take place. I believe these visits will break
psychological barriers,” he stated.
11
12
HATE RADIO
RWANDAN GENOCIDE—THE ROLE OF RADIO
BBC News Online, Monday 21 June 1999
At the end of last year, a radio station calling itself Voice of the Patriot was heard broadcasting
in the Bukavu region, in the east of the Democratic Republic of Congo, near the borders with
Rwanda and Burundi.
The radio, thought to be using a mobile transmitter in the mountains above Bukavu town, issued
warnings that Tutsi soldiers from Rwanda and Burundi were coming to massacre local
residents.
Though it called itself a "political radio", Voice of the Patriot was a new manifestation of a
phenomenon which has accompanied, some say fuelled, the region's violence in recent years:
Hate Radio.
The message it broadcast was simple, and insistent: "These Tutsi killers who invaded our
country continue to prepare themselves to plant their flags on both sides of the border ... you
know the cunning of those people ... They come with guns, they come to kill us."
The Tutsi-dominated armies in Rwanda and Burundi blame continuing clashes and deaths on
extremists among the Hutu population, which in both countries makes up about 80 per cent of
the population as a whole.
Relations between the Hutu majority and the Tutsi-led governments in each country are
increasingly polarised, and the resulting instability threatens to spill over to the rest of the
region.
Militant Hutu groups have organised themselves across the borders in Tanzania and the
Democratic Republic of Congo, formerly Zaire.
Broadcasting in local languages, French and the local version of Swahili, Voice of the Patriot
was reportedly run by an opposition group in eastern Congo's South Kivu region comprising
Hutu rebels from Rwanda and Burundi, and Congolese opposition factions.
Rwanda's "final war"
At the time of the Rwandan genocide, a radio calling itself Radio Television Libre des Mille
Collines became infamous as a result of its broadcasts inciting Hutus to kill Tutsis.
Established in 1993, the privately-owned radio initially criticised peace talks between the
government of President Juvenal Habyarimana and the Tutsi-led rebels of the Rwandan
Patriotic Army. Hardline Hutus saw the peace process as a threat to their power base.
After Habyarimana was killed when his plane was shot down in April 1994, the radio called for
a "final war" to "exterminate the cockroaches." It played a role in organising militias, broadcast
lists of people to be killed and, above all, incited hatred:
"In truth, all Tutsis will perish. They will vanish from this country ... They are disappearing
little by little thanks to the weapons hitting them, but also because they are being killed like
rats."
As the forces of the Rwandan Patriotic Front moved down through the country during 1994, the
broadcasters of Radio Mille Collines fled across the border into what was then Zaire.
"The radio that tells the truth"
Around the same time, Burundi too got its own hate radio. Using the same formula as Radio
Mille Collines, a station calling itself Radio Rutomorangingo ("The radio that tells the truth")
began broadcasting catchy music interspersed with messages to rise up against "the Tutsi
oppressor".
Initially based in the forests of southwestern Rwanda and northwestern Burundi, the radio was
run by the National Council for the Defence of Democracy, or CNDD, a Hutu rebel group.
12
13
After some months, the radio changed its name to Radio Democracy and toned down its
broadcasts. Article 19, the anti-censorship human rights organization, argues that the radio did
not directly incite genocide.
But listeners were left in no doubt about the radio's message of hostility towards the Tutsidominated military authorities: "All Burundians, make bows and poisoned arrows, remain alert
and fight the ... soldiers," it said in a broadcast in late 1995.
The radio eventually moved to eastern Zaire, where it continued broadcasting until the CNDD's
armed wing lost its rear bases with the advance of Laurent Kabila's forces through the region in
1996.
Peace radios
Others have recognised the power of radio as a medium for spreading a message among the
region's poor and mostly rural population, where literacy levels are low and there is little access
to other sources of information.
There have been several initiatives to target the region with "peace radios" - broadcasts
providing impartial information in an attempt to counter the messages of hatred.
Radio Agatashya was set up by the Swiss charity Fondation Hirondelle in 1994 to broadcast
regional news to hundreds of thousands of Rwandan refugees in Zairean camps, in their own
language.
The radio has since expanded its operations to Burundi, where it works with an NGO running
Studio Ijambo radio in Bujumbura. Radio Umwizero, started by European Commissioner
Bernard Kouchner, is another such initiative.
The BBC set up a service broadcasting in the local vernaculars, Kinyarwanda and Kirundi, to
provide news "untainted by a hidden agenda", and Voice of America set up a similar service
aimed at reuniting families.
Stopping the broadcasts
These are signs that the international community, still blamed by the current Rwandan
leadership for failing to intervene to stop the killings in 1994, takes the threat of hate radios
seriously.
Some of the most prominent figures associated with Mille Collines radio have been put on trial
at the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda in Arusha, Tanzania, though many others,
who fled Rwanda after the genocide, are still at large.
General Romeo Dallaire, the commander of the UN peacekeeping operation in Rwanda at the
time of the genocide, is one of those who has testified at the hearings.
He has argued that a stronger mandate and better equipment for his forces could have prevented
the killings.
He also had something to say about the role of hate radios: "Simply jamming [the] broadcasts
and replacing them with messages of peace and reconciliation would have had a significant
impact on the course of events."
Hate radio spreads new wave of violence in Kenya
By Mike Pflanz in Nairobi Monday January 28 2008
A new wave of bloodshed in Kenya's Rift Valley killed at least 70 people and triggered a fresh
exodus of people fleeing their homes yesterday.
Shops and homes were torched in Naivasha, 60km from Nairobi, after similar violence broke
out further west in Nakuru. The fighting again pitted the Luo and Kalenjin tribes, which back
Raila Odinga, the opposition leader, against President Mwai Kibaki's Kikuyu supporters.
13
14
For the first time, the Kikuyus appeared to be orchestrating the violence in what many fear were
revenge raids for a month of attacks against them by rival tribes.
There is growing evidence that hate-filled radio broadcasts have poured fuel on the fire of
Kenya's post-election killings and contributed to "ethnic cleansing'' in certain areas.
In a chilling echo of Rwanda's genocidal Radio Milles Collines, media monitors said
programmes and songs played on local language stations had helped incite tribal killings.
"It has been thinly veiled, but it is clearly hate speech and to a large extent the violence we're
seeing now can be attributed to that,'' said Kamanda Mucheke of the Kenyan National
Commission on Human Rights.
A by-product of Kenya's move towards democracy has been the explosion of private radio
stations serving a rural population without access to television or newspapers.
Rant
National broadcasters in English and Swahili -- the two main national languages -- have been
praised for even-handed election reporting. But attention is now focusing on local language
stations serving different tribes.
Presenters running phone-ins allowed their callers to rant unchecked, Mr Mucheke said, using
obscure metaphors to signify other tribes.
Kikuyus, who have settled in traditionally Kalenjin and Luo areas, were called "mongooses''
wanting to "steal the chickens'' of other tribes.
"People of the milk'', meaning the cattle-herding Kalenjins, were told they must "take out the
weeds in our midst'' -- the Kikuyus. In turn, Kikuyu stations referred to the "animals from the
west'' wanting to take over the "kingdom'' -- a reference to Luo and Kalenjin threats to Kikuyu
homes and businesses.
More than 800 people have died and 250,000 have been forced from their homes since Kenya's
election results were announced four weeks ago amid accusations of ballot-rigging.
"The power of radio to mobilise people in Africa is almost beyond comprehension to a Western
mind,'' said Caesar Handa, UN election monitor. (© Daily Telegraph, London)
THE POWER OF LIFE AND DEATH
MUNYONYO, UGANDA--As I peered out at the Ugandan radio journalists in my peace
journalism class, I came to the stark realization that they are literally in a position to make life
and death decisions.
Radio in this part of the world is that important, that influential. The wrong words said the wrong
way at the wrong time can, and have, led to violence, even death.
Radio has a singular, awesome power here in Uganda, and throughout much of Africa. For many,
radio is the only medium available, since it requires neither electricity nor the ability to read. It
doesn’t depend on broken down trucks and rutted roads for delivery. Also, radio is often the only
medium that speaks in tribal languages. Radio is the preeminent source of news and information
here, especially in rural areas. Imagine newspapers, TV, and Internet rolled into one, and then you
can begin to see its true impact. So, consider radio’s centrality to daily life here, factor in
traditional tribal disputes and rivalries, add in a population that often lacks media savvy and is
thus easy to manipulate, and you have a recipe for potential disaster.
14
15
Sadly, recent history in two countries that border Uganda demonstrates the frightening power of
radio stations to manipulate their listeners. In Kenya in 2008, 800 people were killed and 250,000
forced to flee their homes following post-election violence. Hate-filled radio broadcasts played a
hand in the mayhem, helping to incite tribal violence. Tribal language broadcasts urged listeners
to “take out the weeds in our midst” and referred to other tribes as “animals from the west” who
want to take over “our kingdom.” “It has been thinly veiled, but it is clearly hate speech, and to a
large extent the violence we’re seeing now can be attributed to that,” Kamanda Muchecke of the
Kenyan National Commission on Human Rights told the London Daily Telegraph.
Even more frightening was the role hate radio played in the 1994 genocide in Rwanda where
800,000 people were killed. Radio Milles Collines has become notorious for its role, which began
with hateful speech directed against the Tutsi minority that devolved into thinly veiled references
to exterminating “cockroaches”, and finally ended with the station “actually broadcast(ing) lists
of people to be killed in various regions.” (Australian Broadcasting Corporation interview, 24
Sep, 2005). “In fact, (Milles Collines) told people to go to work, and what that meant was to take
up their machetes and actually do the work of killing the minority group.”
As we discussed hate radio and its potential to ignite violence in Uganda, I asked if radio-incited
bloodshed like that which occurred in Kenya and Rwanda could happen here. All the students
unhesitatingly answered yes. Why? It could happen here because of the power of radio, and the
ease of manipulating the populace. One student journalist noted that the most important identity
people have in Uganda is tribal identity, and if they see their tribe threatened, they would do what
is necessary, on the air, to protect their people. Several other students nodded in agreement.
So, I asked, does this mean that tribal identity supercedes one’s identity as a journalist? Several
other students spoke up and said that although they are loyal to their tribe, they also have a
commitment their listeners, to society as a whole, and ultimately, to the truth. I was heartened by
this response. One student saw the actions of inflammatory journalists in Rwanda and Kenya as
foolish and irresponsible. He observed that these journalists enjoyed the power of stirring up a
mob, but realized too late that it was impossible to stop the crowd before it got out of hand. It
sounded to me a bit like someone who lights a fire, only to watch in horror as it burns out of
control.
Seizing on the issue of tribal identity, I led a discussion about what is best for their people,
regardless of tribe. Did any of the tribes benefit from the violence in Kenya or Rwanda? Is
Uganda a better place after 20 years of civil war? I emphasized that the best thing journalists can
do for their tribe, and for their country, is to promote peace, not inflame passions and hatred.
Certainly, violence has left no winners here in the Great Lakes region of Africa.
As we closed the emotional discussion, I was encouraged when one student said that “it’s up to us
to spread the word” about the power of radio, and the awesome responsibility radio journalists
here have to use their platform to promote peace and reconciliation instead of hate and violence.
All I could think was that the clock is ticking here in Uganda, and that I better teach as many
peace journalism seminars as quickly as I can.
--Steven Youngblood
15
16
Peace Journalism and Reconciliation
JUSTICE
Justice is a complex and innate human need whose definition, function and attainment have
occupied human thought as long as we can trace history. Justice is essentially, a formal and
tempered process of punishment for wrongs committed.
What is Justice?
• Justice as punishment is retributive and should be in proportion to the crime.
It should also be corrective; depriving wrongdoers of power, deterring future aggression,
and publicizing moral norms
• Justice in the form of tribunals or courts curbs extreme punishments, and in the words of
Martha Minnow, "[tribunals] mark an effort between vengeance and forgiveness.
They transfer the individual's desires for revenge to the state or official bodies."
• Retributive justice is largely a western tradition based on the concept that society cannot
forgive what it cannot punish. What about cases like the break up of Yugoslavia where
neighbors were fighting neighbors? It would be impossible to punish all those guilty of war
crimes and to determine which crimes were justified under self-defense or duress.
In situations where the distinctions between victims and perpetrators are blurred and
where both must rebuild society together, retributive justice may not only be insufficient
but impossible.
• Other concepts of justice, however, may be more suitable in situations of mass and
systematic human rights abuses such as, restorative justice as championed by the
South Africa Truth and Reconciliation Commission. The aim was to restore a balance in
society and the dignity of people by exposing the truth by documenting the narratives of
their collective history. This process is geared to repair social connections, moving victims
beyond anger and powerlessness and ultimately enabling the reintegration of offenders
into the community.
"Underneath truth, justice, and forgiveness lie 'the twin goals of prevention and reparation in
the process of moral reconstruction'"- Jose Zalaquett, a Chilean human rights activist.
TRUTH
What is truth?
• Truth is highly contestable. There are psychological truths based on memory and historical
truths based on facts. Is there then really only one truth?
• Truth means different things to different people. Archbishop Desmond Tutu:
"The purpose of finding out the truth is not in order for people to be prosecuted.
It is so that we can use the truth as part of the process of healing our nation."
• South African journalist and poet Antije Krog writing in reference to truth seeking by
commissions: "If its interest is linked only to amnesty and compensation, then it will have
chosen not truth, but justice. If it sees truth as the widest possible compilation of people's
perceptions, stories, myths and experiences, it will have chosen to restore memory and
foster a new humanity, and perhaps that is justice in its deepest sense."
• Truth has different levels, including individual and collective. It is crucial to introduce
individual memories and individual voices into a field dominated by political decisions
and administrative decrees.
16
17
MEDIA ROLES
Communication has been described as the "mechanism through which human relations develop
' all the symbols of the mind, together with the means of conveying them through space and
preserving them in time." Author John Durham Peters takes communication to a deeper level,
describing it as the means of reconciling the self and 'other.'
What opportunities exist for the media during post-conflict reconstruction?
• The Media are the social constructs that house and facilitate mass communication;
they are "the institutions and forms in which ideas, information and attitudes are transmitted
and received." The media create the space for communication within societies and among
communities and between nations.
• The media can create either a societal conversation or clash. In the words of
communications scholar James Carey, "we first produce the world by symbolic work
and then take up residence in the world we have produced."
• The media, when infused with a sense of social responsibility, can provides tools and
strategies to manage and process the myths, images, collective memories, fears and
needs that shape perceptions that drive human behavior. The media reflect and create this
myriad of internal complexities within society. Conflict may be natural and normal but
violence is a choice - as is reconciliation.
• The media can help turn collective storytelling into public acts of healing. Conflict resolution
expert Jean-Paul Lederach explains, "People need opportunity and space to express to and
with one another the trauma of loss and their grief at that loss, the anger that accompanies
the pain and the memory of injustice experienced. Acknowledgement is decisive in the
reconciliation dynamic. It is one thing to know; it is a very different social phenomenon to
acknowledge. Acknowledgment through hearing one another's stories validates experience
and feelings and represents the first step toward restoration of the person and the
relationship."
• The media through the telling of stories can assist in the releases feelings of shame and
humiliation in victims, so that the story becomes one of dignity and virtue. Transferring the
shame from the victim to the perpetrator creates a sense of justice and retribution.
• The media's capacity for public shaming is an extremely important one, especially in more
traditional societies where concepts of honor and reputation still drive behavior.
Shaming must be distinguished from blaming.
- Blaming is a call for accountability for an action but does not imply the
perpetrator' repentance.
- Shaming is a more effective tactic. It "encompasses all social processes of
expressing the disapproval which have the intention or effect of invoking
remorse in the person being shamed and/or condemnation by others who
become aware of the shaming." When culpability and responsibility are
acknowledged, shaming becomes a form of public penitence.
• The media in the volatile post-conflict atmosphere must not succumb to pressure to exploit
or sensationalize stories which would only retraumatize victims as well as society in
general. Nor should they reduce testimonies to mere lists of atrocities which removes vital
context and accountability. Careful reporting must facilitate the societal conversation,
respecting victims and the effects of trauma on themselves as well as society.
--Media Diversity.org
17
18
Media as tool for reconciliation--Bosnia
http://www.denieuwereporter.nl/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/scriptiecompleet2.pdf
Media and Peacebuilding
Introduction
According to the scholar Ross Howard, several ways can be distinguished in which the
media can make a contribution to the peacebuilding process of a post-war society. After
having outlined the circumstances in which NGOs operate in the Bosnian society, this
chapter will focus on answering the following question:
In what way do Non Governmental Organizations use the media to contribute to
the peacebuilding process?
The manual and structure for answering this question consists out of the theory of
Howard, described in the theoretical chapter, chapter two. Several Bosnian NGOs that
work with media and peacebuilding were subjected to Howard’s model by describing and
classifying their activities.
6.1 Type one and two interventions: Conventional journalism development
Type one and Type two media interventions can be characterized as ‘basic journalism’.
These kinds of interventions are especially needed in post-war societies where media has
to start from scratch again. In these societies, basic journalism skills have often made
room for non-objective, biased media. As chapter five showed us, this is also the case in
the Bosnian society, reason for some Non Governmental Organizations to try and help the
journalists develop journalistic skills. From the theory it appears that ‘type one’ and ‘type
two’ interventions are different.
Type one interventions contain activities focused on rudimentary journalism
training. It tries to overcome journalism constrained by its lack of professionalism,
diversity, freedom and technology. These media were often controlled by the state or
special interests. The focus of NGOs working in this field is on three subjects:
• Providing technical equipment for the journalists
• Training them in the basic skills of journalism
• Encouraging the development of journalistic codes of conduct and a basic legal
infrastructure that protects journalists from intimidation.
Type two interventions go a step further than the preceding type. The focus is on
providing more responsible journalism development. While doing so, several topics are
focused on:
• Developing investigative, explanatory and analytical reporting.
• Promoting and providing models for a full media infrastructure (impartial
regulators, access to information, press councils).
• Developing diverse, competitive and sustainable media outlets, especially
through management training. (Howard 2003)
6.2 Type three interventions: Transitional Journalism Development.
Type three media interventions go a step further than the development of basic
18
19
journalistic skills. Journalist still play the main role in executing the projects, but their
task differs from type one and two projects. Whereas they were carriers of information
within the first types, now they create dialogues within the community by raising conflict
related topics. This has also been called peace journalism; conflict resolution has become
absorbed in the journalism.
NGO: Nansen Dialogue Centre Sarajevo
In 1995 the Nansen Academy in Lillehammer, Norway,56 started a training project for
people from former Yugoslavia. The program was about democracy, human rights and
peaceful conflict resolution. Since then thirty groups of people (300 participants) went to
Norway to follow seminars on this matter57. After the seminar they established offices in
whole of the Balkans, mostly occupied by locals. The Nansen Network expanded through
the years till a total number of nine offices; three of them are located in Bosnia (Banja
Luka, Mostar and Sarajevo). One NDC is located in Croatia, Osijek, two are located in
Kosovo (Bujanovac and Mitrovica), one is located in Montenegro (Podgorica), one in
Serbia (Belgrade) and the last one in Macedonia (Skopje) (NDC 2006). All offices have
their own projects, related to the problems that ought to be faced in the area. Within some
projects the different offices cooperate.
The main goal of the organization is to promote the dialogue between different groups in
the society and while doing so ‘contributing to a high level of national reconciliation and
tolerance’. The results the NGO wishes to achieve are threefold:
• To create an extensive network of those people currently co-operating in the
fields of interest of the group.
• Competent individuals working actively for democratisation, reconciliation,
conflict resolution and peace.
• An open forum for dialogue.
The NDC tries to achieve these goals through different kinds of projects. The
organization focuses on connecting people from different ethnic backgrounds through
seminars, followed by certain ‘leading figures or groups’ in society. The teachers-project
(described in chapter four, on reconciliation) is one example, other target groups are
politicians and, more relevant for this research: journalists. Secondly they realized
themselves that seminars alone do not guarantee peaceful co-existence. In the ‘Divided
Community Project’ the NDC tried to overcome the criticism that many NGOs receive:
the lack of follow-up after activities have been carried out. The next section will describe
how they do that. Type three project: Divided Community Project for journalists
All nine Nansen Dialogue Centres are united in this project, which focuses on ‘divided
communities’ in their surrounding. For example NDC Sarajevo focused on Sarajevo
itself, while this is an ethnically divided town whereas NDC Skopje focused on Tetovo,
which is divided between Albanians and Macedonians. The target groups were different
each time but the main focus was to expand the original goal of the seminars that were
attended by all participants, by encouraging them to do something with the workshops
and meetings they had. One of the target groups that were dealt with in this project was in
particularly interesting for this research: journalists.
From every ‘divided community’ where a Nansen Dialogue Centre is accommodated, two
journalists were invited to work for the project. The journalists could either work for electronic or
print media, as long as they had some experience in their work field. The main goal was to
19
20
decrease hate speech in the countries participating in the project. In total eighteen journalists
came to Lillehammer in Norway and followed
workshops on conflict resolution. The focus of workshops was not journalistic skills: they
already proved to have these skills through their daily work. The reasons for joining the
project differed; two journalists from Sarajevo cooperated in the project because they
were ‘looking for adventure’58 or ‘wanted to help in decreasing the inequalities between
the ethnic groups’. Vedrana Zivak said that she thinks that people really do live in
divided communities and that these ‘artificial borders’ need to be crossed. It has to be
mentioned that the journalists receive some money for joining in the project, but the
amount is so low that it could hardly be a main drive to participate in the project. After
the seminar in Norway they all received an assignment, depending on the way they work
as journalists they had to make a contribution to the project through their daily work, the
central theme was ‘prejudices’. The project was divided in several phases, after each
phase the participants came together to discuss the progress of their work and to make
new plans. In the first phase of the project the eighteen participants of the project had to
deal with a fixed theme, this was ‘prejudices’.
One of the ‘divided communities’ the Nansen Dialogue Centre concentrated at
was Sarajevo. Two journalists were invited to work at the project: Sladjana Jasarevic and
Vedrana Zivak, box 6.1 describes these journalists and the contents of their work.
6.3 Type four interventions: Media-based interventions.
Type four interventions are also called media-based intervention. The difference with the
previous three types is that the executer is not the journalist anymore; the focus has
changed to an outside intervener that set up a media project. The activities are mainly
focused on a highly specific audience. Objectives of this media-based intervention are: to
counter hate propaganda, or programming to provide immediately practical information
such as election and voting practices, refugee reunification, education or health advice
(Howard, 2002).
UN News
Right after the war ended, a branch of the United Nations made a radio program, which
made news for the whole of Bosnia. The overall message of the radio station was peace;
subjects that supported these objectives were ‘living together, returnees, nationalism’.
Every day the program would be online for thirty minutes, broadcasted by 45 radio
stations all around Bosnia and Herzegovina. Its employees were mostly young people of
different ethnic groups. The program stopped in 1999 because Bosnia did not need a
program like that anymore, other organizations took over (Zarif, Sarajevan journalist,
July 20, 2005)
EUFOR- Psychological Operation Branch
The international community established a peacekeeping force (UNPROFOR) in Bosnia
in 1992. This military force changed into the Implementation force (IFOR) after the
Dayton peace agreements, before turning into the Stabilisation Force (SFOR) later on. In
December 2004 it changed for the last time, into the European Force (EUFOR). Among
many other things, EUFOR deals with media; they developed an entire media program,
including print and electronic media. This media program is part of the Psychological
Operations Branch, also called psy-ops. The goal of this organization is to change the
minds of the Bosnians in a positive way. My respondent put it like this: ‘during the war
so-called black psy-ops were spread, negative messages and hate speech. Nowadays it is
the tasks of the media-branch of EUFOR to spread white psy-ops to counter hate speech,
20
21
by fast actions, quick messages’. While doing so they focus on the following four
elements.
The first element concerns image building. The Bosnian population should know
EUFOR is trying to do good things, they should not be seen as enemies. Therefore certain
media approaches are launched to show the population that the actions of EUFOR should
be perceive as something positive instead of having a negative connotation. These kinds
of actions are also undertaken when things go different to how they were planned. For
example last year, a priest died by gunfire of EUFOR-soldiers while they where searching
for Radovan Karadzic. Events like these could harm the reputation that EUFOR has tried
to establish during the last few years so carefully. Therefore EUFOR immediately started
a media campaign to counter the ‘black psy-ops’. The second element is tolerance.
Through a magazine that is published every month: Mirko, EUFOR tries to improve the
tolerance level in society. The third theme they try to tackle is reconciliation: through
carefully planned actions they try to change the people’s minds concerning reconciliation.
The fourth theme is providing the population with information on, e.g., landmines.
The actions of psy-ops are mainly focused on young people. It is very difficult,
almost impossible, to change the mind of a 40-year old. Parents are often the guilty ones
but if the focus is on children, two goals may be achieved: the child tells his parents about
the things he has learned. At the same time the so-called ‘black psy-ops’ of the parents
towards their children are countered. Before a new media campaign is launched it is
checked precisely on the possibility of hate speech. It should be prevented against all
costs that the actions of EUFOR strengthen feelings of ethnic hate. Every six months
EUFOR measures the change in attitudes of people of different ethnic origins towards
each other. The differences in attitudes towards other ethnicities however, do not change
that much according to these surveys.
The outcomes of the surveys of three years have been compared; within those outcomes some
small differences can be seen. For example among the Bosnian Serbs the interethnic tolerance has
increased over the three years62. These differences in attitude can hardly be attributed to the
efforts of EUFOR though.
This scepticism is subscribed by the Mediacentar director Boro Kontic, who stated that
the actions of EUFOR are like ‘sending a mosquito to an elephant’. He means that these
fast actions, the white ‘psy ops’ that EUFOR tries to spread, can be considered as pin
pricks. The process of altering the perceptions of some Bosnians of one another in a
positive way (the objective of EUFOR) takes years and years and the small
advertisements EUFOR spreads will not make that happen so he said.
The two projects can both be characterized as type four media initiatives. The UN
radio show was only executed for a short period, just after the war, with very clear
message. The program of EUFOR is much bigger than the UN news, and lasts for a
longer time. Both initiatives are executed by an outside intervener which characterizes
them.
6.4 Type five intended outcome programming.
This type of media intervention is the most direct one of all. It focuses on promoting
reconciliation and reducing conflict, usually conducted by NGOs. The programs can have
an informative or an entertaining character and the media workers map play a role
themselves as conciliators in the field (Howard 2002).
21
22
Type five project: Internews: Balkan bridges
Amongst other projects that can be characterized as ‘type five’, Internews co-produced a
television program called ‘Balkan Bridges’. Immediately after the Bosnian war in 1996,
many people had difficulties finding each other again. According to the NGO these
problems were mainly of a logistical character. Because of damaged roads and nonworking
infrastructure, former Yugoslavians lost touch with each other. Fourteen
episodes were broadcasted on television stations throughout the region. Each episode
showed a video-conference link that connected cultural figures, political analysts and
ordinary citizens in direct dialog to discuss key social and political events. Box 6.2 tells
the story of one of the episodes.
Box 6.2 Goran Bregovic and Davorin Popovic
In one of the episodes of the Balkan Bridges program, a satellite connection is established
between the Bosnian Serb composer Goran Bregovic, and the Bosnian rock star Davorin Popovic.
The two musicians used to play in the most famous band of the Balkans for many years: Bijelo
Dugme, originally from Sarajevo. When the war started, Bregovic, as a Bosnian Serb, was put in
a stalemate. He did not want to fight on any side, and said: ‘I am a musician, not a soldier’. Still,
not fighting in the Bosnian war was not an option: all healthy men were forced to pick a side and
fight.
This was an impossible task for Bregovic: if he joined the citizens from Sarajevo in their struggle
it would mean he would maybe shoot his uncle who was stationed in the surrounding mountains,
or his nephew, living in the Serbian part of Sarajevo. At the other side; if he joined the Serbian
army it could mean he had to shoot his own friends in Sarajevo. Bregovic decided to flee the city,
he went to Belgrade and produced his best musical compositions during the war. Meanwhile, his
former colleague Davorin Popovic stayed in Sarajevo and fought. The latter blames Bregovic for
that, as many Bosnians do. The episode of Balkan Bridges is recorded one year after the end of
the war, when tensions were still high. During the episode it becomes clear that although the two
musicians are happy to see each other, they have many things to talk about and the situation
between the two is not clear. The reactions of the Sarajevans on the flight of Bregovic to Belgrade
in the days of the war still stand. Last year a reunion of the rock band Bijelo Dugme took place;
they held a big concert in four capitals of former Yugoslavia. In Sarajevo the opinions about
Goran Bregovic were divided: many people did not care anymore about the events from the war,
and visited the concert with the greatest joy. But many people however, were not at ease with the
situation: they still blame Goran Bregovic for leaving Sarajevo
Type five project: Mediacentar: Without Anaesthesia
Besides the ‘type one and two’ activities of the NGO Mediacentar that are described in
the first part of this chapter, they also execute a project with a ‘type five’ character. This
is the project ‘Without Anaesthesia’, which is a television programme, broadcasted on
BHTV 163. The program consists out of a series of documentaries that are collected on
several Documentary Festivals in Europe. They are not broadcasted on television before,
and in Bosnia, showing documentaries on television is not being done regularly as well.
The themes of these documentaries are mostly not so visible on regular television, so the
director of the Mediacentar stated. For example minorities, human rights, drug abuse,
women trafficking etcetera. The subjects are not directly related to the war or
reconciliation, for all they focus on issues that play a role in the Bosnian society
nowadays.
All these documentaries however, are selected to raise awareness under the
22
23
TV-audience. Beside, they have a special message, saying that all people should be
allowed to say and think what they want. With the project, the NGO tries to redevelop the
culture that has originated in Bosnia during the last ten years. This culture implies that
people do not express their opinions, especially in the rural areas, because they are afraid
for negative reactions. This does not encourage the reconciliation process in Bosnia, by
broadcasting these documentaries, the organization hopes to contribute to changing this
culture.
Based on the viewing numbers of ‘Without Anaestashia’, few people have
watched the show. According to the director of the Mediacentar, this is because the show
was broadcasted on Monday evenings, after prime time. The program was even better
watched in the reprisal. Still, reactions on the program in the newspapers say it has been
appreciated by the public. Besides, people reacted who said they appreciated the fact that
this is just a normal documentary, dealing with topics that have become normal in Bosnia
during the preceding years. Because of these documentaries they started talking about the
subjects, which is a desirable result for a documentary maker, as well as for the NGO
who broadcasted it. Besides, local NGOs showed interest in the documentaries; they can
use them in order to educate Bosnians. For example an organization that works with
abused children found these documentaries helpful in providing the parents with
information.
The message of all of these documentaries is to make Bosnians aware of certain
issues. In this way it can be compared with the ‘white psy-ops’ that EUFOR tries to
This is the public radio-television for the entire area of BiH. More information about the public
broadcasting system can be found in chapter six on the media climate in Bosnia.
distribute under the Bosnian population, there are reasons however why they are
classified in different categories. First of all the kind of organization that executes the
project differs: the Mediacentar is a local NGO while EUFOR is an outside intervener.
Besides, the way in which EUFOR spreads the white psy-ops is more active than the way
in which the Mediacentar tries to do it. EUFOR wants to bring change, to change the
perception of the Bosnians on life. This goal is much to high for the Mediacentar; the mostly want
to inform the audience with their program but by targeting certain issues.
Conclusion
… Still, changes have occurred, interethnic tolerance has increased
during the years, the actual contribution of the EUFOR-efforts to this process are hard to
measure though. The same thing counts for the type five activities mentioned in this
chapter: although reactions have been positive about both examples, it is difficult to
measure the actual contribution of these programs to the peacebuilding process. It can be
assumed that broadcasting documentaries like the ones included in ‘Without Anaesthesia’
do contribute to raising awareness under the Bosnian population about certain issues.
Besides, it could be imagined that people talk about the contents of the programs, which
makes it more plausible to believe that the program has a positive impact on society.
23
24
PJ and Migration—Refugees and Asylum seekers
Terminology
Journalism uses shortcuts to convey information, but it helps
to be precise and consistent when using terms with legal
definitions.
Who is an asylum seeker?
Anyone who seeks protection claiming they have suffered persecution or fear persecution
as described under the 1951 Refugee Convention, and is waiting for a decision.
Who is a refugee?
Anyone who has been granted asylum (refugee status) under the 1951 Refugee
Convention, to which the UK is a signatory along with 146 other countries. The precise
legal definition in Article 1 of the Convention refers to a ‘refugee’ as a person who:
‘owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion,
nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, is outside the
country of his nationality, and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail
himself of the protection of that country.’
What about those fleeing general conflict?
People who do not qualify for the strict definition of refugee status but who have
recognised protection needs may be granted humanitarian protection allowing them
‘leave to remain’ in the UK for a defined or indefinite period. UNHCR describes these
people also as ‘refugees’.
Who is allowed to seek asylum?
EVERYONE – It is a fundamental human right to request asylum under international
law. There are no ‘illegal asylum seekers’. The term ‘bogus asylum-seeker’ is also
inaccurate and misleading as it pre-judges the outcome of an asylum application – rather
like describing a defendant as entering a ‘bogus plea of innocence’ during a trial.
Can those not granted refugee status or temporary leave to remain be sent back
home?
YES – The term ‘unsuccessful asylum seeker’ covers individuals who have exhausted all
their legal avenues in seeking asylum. Unsuccessful asylum seekers are supposed to
return home. However, their country of origin might refuse to accept returnees
or return may not be possible or safe.
Who are ‘economic migrants’?
Persons who leave their home country to seek work are economic migrants. The term
could be applied to all those who obtain work permits from the government to fill labour
shortages in the UK. UNHCR describes a ‘migrant’ as someone who makes a
conscious, voluntary choice to leave their country of origin. When they want to, they can
return home in safety.
What do you call someone who tries to enter the UK by unlawful means?
Some persons smuggled into the UK (hidden in lorries, etc.) will be seeking asylum,
some employment, but it is inaccurate to categorise them all as ‘asylum-seekers’ or
‘economic migrants’ since their reasons for arrival cannot be known. ‘Irregular
migrants’ might be a more accurate and less confusing term to describe these persons.
People-smugglers are committing a crime but their clientele may not be.
24
25
Who is an ‘illegal immigrant’?
The term ‘illegal immigrant’ could apply to people who can be
shown to have:
• entered the country illegally, without permission from an
Immigration Officer, who then continue to reside in the UK
without contacting the authorities or making an asylum
application; OR
• entered the country legally, with all the necessary documents,
but then disregarded limits placed on their length of stay
(‘overstayers’).
Note: Asylum seekers have registered with the Home Office and
are allowed to remain in the UK while their claim is being
considered. The 1951 Refugee Convention acknowledges that
someone fleeing persecution may enter a country by irregular
means (and often without any documents) in order to claim
asylum. They are therefore not ‘illegal immigrants’.
What drives people to seek asylum?
Relatively little coverage is given to the human rights abuses and
conflicts that force people to flee their homes, yet providing this
global context would improve the quality of debate around asylum
issues. Research has shown that historical, cultural and family
links with the UK and a desire for safety under the rule of law are
more significant than so-called ‘pull factors’ like access to benefits.
A wealth of background information is available on the Internet,
and balance can be achieved by referring to a variety of sources
(see: Contacts panel overleaf).
Interviewing refugees and asylum-seekers
Asylum-seekers and refugees have a right to be heard, and many
have amazing stories to tell. However fear of reprisals ‘back
home’, negative coverage and public hostility in the UK make
many reluctant to talk to journalists. Refugee agencies listed
overleaf may be able to recommend individuals prepared to speak
with the media.
When seeking interviews be aware of the impact your piece could
have on the individual’s situation in the UK, any impact on friends
and family in their country of origin and be sensitive to requests
for anonymity.
Journalists are asked to respect the sensitivities of individuals who
may be reluctant to talk about their reasons for flight because
doing so resurrects painful or traumatic memories.
What’s the story?
Avoid mentioning a person’s refugee/asylum status unless it
directly relates to the story. For example, reporting a criminal’s
immigration status may appeal to certain audiences but can have
serious consequences for the exiled community as a whole.
Make sure that any such descriptions are accurate and in
25
26
accordance with the PCC Code of Practice.
Getting facts and figures right
A failure to distinguish between fact and conjecture can have
alarming consequences, as can distortion of facts and figures. It is
always worth checking and challenging figures quoted by
individuals or parties with a vested interest.
January 2008, UNHCR
Guidelines on reporting refugees in Malaysia
Education and training of journalists in refugee issues:
More journalists need to be educated about the human rights issues in general, and of
refugees
in particular, as well as be trained to write stories to make an impact on legislation. To
pick up on
what Human Rights Watch has recommended, the media should avoid “direct and
indirect use of
language that may contribute to a hostile environment within which racism, xenophobia
and related
intolerance against refugees, asylum seekers and migrants flourish.”
Specific coverage ought to be given to refugees and issues arising from their presence:
Inaccurate, racist and xenophobic stereotypes of refugees, asylum seekers and migrants
should
be counteracted in the media; and there should be informed public debate on asylum
and immigration
matters. Coverage on the refugee issue should not be integrated but be kept separate
from that given to
the problems of migrant workers to develop a clearer focus on the refugee issues. This
would enable
clearer recognition of existing and missing legalities and social issues regarding such
cases.
Both mainstream and alternative media need to take a more balanced approach:
Alternative media were mostly negative of authorities or called for action. There is a
clear
need for consistent guidelines to protect the well being of refugees and for these
guidelines to
understood by all officers of relevant authorities.
From--Media reporting on refugees in Malaysia, 2007, Kiranjit Kaur
26
27
INTERVIEWING REFUGEES AND ASYLUM-SEEKERS
Asylum-seekers and refugees have a right to be heard, and many have amazing stories
to tell. However fear of reprisals ‘back home’, stereotyping, negative coverage and
public hostility make many reluctant to talk to journalists.
When seeking interviews:
! be clear about your purpose;
! be sensitive to requests for anonymity;
! inform yourself about countries of origin.
Journalists reporting on asylum seekers in Ireland need to be aware of Section 19 of the
Refugee Act, 1996 (as amended), which states that “no matter likely to lead members of
the public to identify a person as an applicant under this Act (i.e. an asylum seeker or
refugee) shall be published in a written publication available to the public or be
broadcast without the consent of that person”. Any editor or publisher found guilty of
an offence under this section could receive a fine or a sentence of imprisonment.
Know your experts
When relying on experts and specialist organisations, it helps to check their details to
provide context for the public - most will have websites that provide some background.
Avoid relying on one source, especially when issues are contentious. There is a great
variety to choose from.
Photography and filming
Take care when publishing images that may identify individuals. Make sure captions are
accurate. If in doubt about the use of images - talk to the people being portrayed.
23
27
28
CONFLICT ANALYSIS. From Lynch/McGoldrick
28
29
29
30
30
31
ELECTORAL/PEACE JOURNALISM
CONNECTING PEACE AND ELECTORAL JOURNALISM
What a peace journalist would try to do in an electoral situation, using the 17 PJ tips
(McGoldrick-Lynch) as a foundation.
1. AVOID portraying races as only between two candidates. INSTEAD, give voices
to multiple candidates, and to multiple players involved in the process, especially
the public.
2. AVOID treating the election like a horse race. Polls and surveys are fine, but they
are only a part of the story. INSTEAD, concentrate on issues of importance as
identified by the public.
3. AVOID letting the candidates define themselves through what they say. INSTEAD,
seek expert analysis of the veracity and logic of the candidates’ comments.
4. AVOID airing inflammatory, divisive, or violent statements by candidates.
INSTEAD, edit these comments to eliminate these inflammatory statements. Or,
broadcast these comments, and then offer analysis and criticism of what is being
said.
5. AVOID airing comments and reports that encourage tribalism and divisions
within society. INSTEAD, insist on the candidates addressing issues that bring
communities together.
6. AVOID letting candidates “get away” with using imprecise, emotive language.
This includes name calling. INSTEAD, hold candidates accountable for what they
say, and use precise language as you discuss issues.
7. AVOID framing the election as a personality conflict between candidates.
INSTEAD, focus on the candidates’ positions on issues of importance—schools,
health care, roads.
8. AVOID unbalanced stories. INSTEAD, seek to balance each story with comments
from the major parties or their supporters in the public.
9. AVOID letting candidates use you to spread their propaganda. INSTEAD, as you
broadcast their statements, include a critical analysis of what is being said.
10. AVOID stories that give opinions/sound bites only from leaders. INSTEAD, center
stories around everyday people, their concerns and perceptions about the
candidates and process.
--Steven Youngblood, Park University
31
32
CONDITIONS FOR ELECTION RELATED VIOLENCE
1. Persistent and sustained sense of election fraud.
2. The outcome is not so contested, but there is a bitter and non-accepting loser. A subset of this
is when the government loses (and is surprised and shocked by the result).
3. The cause of violence is an external or domestic source not immediately participating in the
election process (another state, “terrorists,” economic “profiteers” of violence).
4. The violence is connected to contested legitimacy of the state itself or the failure/weakness of
the nation-building process
5. Violence that is supported or provoked by the government to implement
controversial restrictions, consolidate political power or weaken certain communities.
6. Violence that is pursued by non-state actors (including opposition
parties) to economically profit from conflict, consolidate political power or weaken
certain communities.
Four factors were identified which are likely to affect a state’s media and its role in
mitigating or promoting conflict:
1. The level of legitimacy ascribed to the state and the degree of trust and confidence citizens
have in state institutions. Where the state’s rational-legal authority and citizen acceptance
of the state are lower, the media tend to be instrumentalized and used for the attainment
of particularistic goods rather than for public information.
2. Political polarization, entailed by extremes of political opinion and the existence of antisystem
elements which may not accept the electoral system, is conducive to conflict.
3. High levels of media partisanship reduce the likelihood that media will act as a moderating
peaceful influence when there is a threat of violent conflict. Partisanship is not inevitably
problematic, but becomes so in the context of a lack of transparency.
4. Where media are highly commercialized there are incentives for sensational reporting of the
news and media is unlikely to contribute to conflict-prevention or mitigation.
Media, Elections and Political Violence in Eastern Africa:
Nicole Stremlau and Monroe E. Price
An Annenberg-Oxford Occasional Paper in Communications Policy Research
CHANGES NEEDED TO SUCCESSFULLY TRANSITION TO PEACE AND
DEVELOPMENT JOURNALISM
1. EFFECTIVE MEDIA OUTLET (STATION, NEWSPAPER, ETC.) GUIDELINES AND
POLICIES
2. STAFF TRAINING—FOR NEW HIRES, BUT ONGOING PROFESSIONAL TRAINING
FOR ALL STATION PERSONNAL.
3. DESIGNATE A COORDINATOR FOR PJ ISSUES
4. COMMUNITY PARTNERS—DESIGNATE COMMUNITY
PARTNERS…NGO’S…WOMEN’S GROUPS…PEACE ADVOCATES…GROUPS
ASSISTING ASLYLUM SEEKERS/REFUGEES… OTHERS.
5. DEVELOP FRAMEWORKS OF COOPERATION AND COLLABORATION WITH
JOURNALISTS FROM “THE OTHER SIDE”—A DIFFERENT ETHNIC GROUP, OR A
COUNTRY OR REGION IN CONFLICT WITH YOUR REGION OR COUNTRY.
32
33
THIS COULD INCLUDE COOPERATION BETWEEN NEWS OUTLETS AND CROSS
COMMUNITY INVESTIGATIONS AND REPORTING TEAMS,
6. CHANGE WHAT YOU COVER, AND HOW YOU COVER IT:
A. COVER THE MODERATES ON BOTH SIDES.
B. CHANGE THE STORIES YOU COVER. HIGHLIGHT PEACE AND PEACEMAKERS.
C. CHANGE THE WORDS YOU USE. AVOIDING INFLAMMATORY LANGUAGE.
D. REPORT ON HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS ON ALL SIDES, AND ON SUFFERING
ON ALL SIDES AS WELL.
E. REPORT WITH DEVELOPMENT AND RECONCILIATION IN MIND.
F. GIVE VOICE TO THE VOICELESS.
--IT’S ABOUT SPOTLIGHTING PROBLEMS AND SOLUTIONS, AND EMPOWERING
PEOPLE TO CHANGE THEIR ENVIRONMENT FOR THE BETTER…
Steven Youngblood
Center for Global Peace Journalism, Park University
www.park.edu/peacecenter
steve.youngblood@park.edu
Some resource material from IWPR (iwpr.org)
33