War and Media Network

The concept of peace journalism was first introduced forty years ago by the 'father' of peace research Johan Galtung. In their book Peace Journalism, Jake Lynch and Annabel McGoldrick have summarised the basic tenants of Galtung's approach and developed it further. Their concept of Peace Journalism is defined in the first and last chapters of the book (as well as the appendix 'Dialogue with the Devil's Advocate'). They highlight the misunderstandings and sceptisism levelled at peace journalism by discussing dominant misconceptions and emphasizing the ways in which it is regarded as unprofessional, biased or partisan. As the editor of the New Statesman , John Kampfner conveniently demonstrates in the preface: 'Peace Journalism provides some useful pointers, even if I find the title itself cloying.' In an effort to overcome these misunderstandings, Lynch and McGoldrick contrast peace journalism with war journalism, which they contend offers a 'distorted picture by routinely missing out certain factors which the insights of Conflict Analysis tells us are essential to a proper understanding.' (p. 242). They argue that war journalism concentrates mainly on war and violence, following militaristic logic and relying heavily on official, especially governmental and military, sources, and by representing the events in a linear fashion in a bipolar setting, ends up constructing war as a 'zero-sum-game' overvaluing violent, reactive responses to conflict and undervaluing non-violent, developmental solutions. Lynch and McGoldrick argue that peace journalism is a set of tools for counterbalancing traditional war journalism. These tools try to balance out the patterns of omission in war journalism by making peaceful and non-violent initiatives visible. In their words, peace journalism 'gives peace a chance'. This requires transcendence - going beyond the obvious, taking a holistic view and being creative when it comes to conflict resolution.

In chapter two, the authors provide a theoretical discussion of conflict analysis as an 'anchorage for journalists,' emphasizing the necessity of war journalists to understand the basics of political behaviour, political processes and conflict. The aspect of the book is to be commended for introducing many concepts and theories of Political Science and International Relations, some of which are put into practice when analysing concrete cases including a range of examples from different conflicts, e.g. Rwanda, Kosovo, Bosnia and East-Timor. In their analysis of the U.S War on Iraq, Lynch and McGoldrick show how the media endorsed official explanations of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and Saddam's connections with al-Qaeda (both of which turned out to be untrue) by relying on official sources of information. Even the pretext of regime change (in sharp contrast to International Law) was celebrated whereas 'oil theory' was downplayed. I should add that the strategic interests of the US in Central Asia and the Middle East, Iraq's threat to substitute dollar with euro as oil currency, and the ideological mission of the US neo-conservative administration went under-reported . If Peace Journalism were the dominant way of covering conflict, the media would not have to apologise afterwards for the reportage of incorrect or misleading facts as the New York Times and Washington Post had to do in the case of the Iraq War.

Lastly, in chapters five and six, Lynch and McGoldrick translate the principles of Peace Journalism into concrete tools that can be rehearsed and applied. Seemingly simple exercises illustrate the complex and multi-dimensional interplay between different actors and their interests as well as the difference between War Journalism and Peace Journalism approaches. Because of this practical advice and the accompanying guidelines, Peace Journalism is an ideal book for journalists and students of journalism. In addition, the authors' discussion of the theoretical underpinnings of the relationships between journalism and politics, conflict and peace resolution mean it is also well suited for scholars of Peace Studies, Political Science and International Relations.

After reading Peace Journalism one could argue that peace journalism may represent war and conflict more realistically than war journalism because it endeavours to cover the conflict in a wider context. As Lynch and McGoldrick remind us, context is not bias although too many journalists seem to adhere to this view. Instead, by constantly questioning official explanations and not taking the given motives as real ones, journalists can actively develop strategies to resist war propaganda, which war journalism - due to its conventions and ideal of objectivity - does not always succeed to do. This would avoid the structural bias of war journalism where 'audiences are misled over vital issues in conflicts, not by journalists doing what they are not supposed to do, but by journalists doing what they are supposed to do; not despite their best intentions but because of them.'(p. 184). In the same manner that the linguistic turn and rise of constructivist approaches challenged social science's proposition of empiricism and its assumption that it merely describes reality as it is, Peace Journalism may indeed bring about a paradigm shift and revolution in journalism as Lynch and McGoldrick picture in the prologue. 'Describing' is far from being a neutral process, it always involves values and is very much affected by the historical and cultural background of social science. As Lynch and McGoldrick point out, the journalism equivalent of 'the illusion of objectivity' is the claim of 'just reporting the facts.' As with research, professional ideals and conventions of journalism cannot be detached from history, culture, language or values of society. Hence, journalists are not just objectively reflecting the events - they are constructing them as well. As 'construction workers' of social reality, both journalists and researchers need to realize this responsibility. They should not help to construct or maintain unjust, unequal or submissive practices and structures. Instead, they should actively seek to undermine them. And, this is exactly what Peace Journalism does

Tiina Seppälä
International Relations, University of Lapland

to top