BY Syed Bilal Ali Naqvi
MS media Studes Riphah International University Islamabad
In an age where media reporting may either administer more violence or peacemaking, the moral obligations of reporters working in the situations of violent conflicts have never been greater. Where conventional war journalism would focus on violence, elites, and binary victory/defeat, peace journalism relies on the root causes of conflict, voices, and what solutions can solve such problems to promote positive peace, the conditions of justice and equity instead of the absence of open violence. It focuses on ethical principles, historical case studies and criticism to argue that implementing peace journalism would increase journalistic honesty and reduce levels of conflict escalation. Based on the world examples of the war between Israel and Gaza, as well as the Rwandan genocide, the analysis gives insight into the failures and successes related to media activities.
This is in general agreement with the ethical advocacy of the International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) and Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ), where the primary job is to seek the truth, be independent and minimise harm, as well as, amplifying the propaganda of both warring sides.
Ethically, one of the priorities that journalists in conflict zones need to adopt is conflict sensitivity since they need to report stories in a way that does not keep feeding certain stereotypes that encourage violence. Peace journalism goes further to motivate journalists to give prominence to peace efforts, including the development of grassroots dialogues or non-violent resistance as opposed to merely highlighting the horror of the battle. Research indicates that positive peace reporting on such injustices as poverty or discrimination minimizes fear and anger and increases empathy and hope in readers, which makes the choice ethical.
But these roles are also burdened by the real-life issues. Journalists must act under pressure with editors wanting sensational news, or in a context where access is controlled by belligerent organisations, which imposes no ties on activity but demands that they respect local norms without taking a side.
The application of the principles of peace journalism in real-life conflicts can explain how the lack of adherence to the principles of peace journalism contributes to lapses in ethics and the implementation of these principles can de-escalate violence. This is a graphic example of the 1994 Rwandan genocide, where war journalism prioritized elite propaganda arguing that colonial legacies and economic imbalances are the real causes and proclaimed violence without questioning how it might be reconciled. In terms of ethics, such reporting was against the principle of minimisation of harm as it formed an active part of atrocities. According to the application of peace journalism by looking back, the interestedness peace efforts could have been reported or the rhetorical malicious motive revealed, which might have saved the life of people by creating the opposition that the society would have to peace.
Conversely, during the 2014-15 Ebola outbreak in West Africa, though a non-traditional armed conflict, which involved violent confrontation over quarantines, a number of media sources took peace-based strategies. Outlets like the BBC and local stations prioritised local-level responses (e.g. testimonies of survivors, educators on health) over hypothetical sensitivity and violence against health workers. Peace journalism in this case advocated positive peace ensuring that issues of concern like inequity of healthcare were under consideration.
A modern example is the 2023 Israel-Gaza war, where the use of cursory press coverage presents one party as an attacker, and another as a victim (in fact, there is no history of violence on both sides). Some such as the Solutions Journalism Network has trained reporters to include stories about solutions to a situation, showing how a story focusing on possible alternatives rather than despair can be told morally.
During the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, there were instances of such media that could have served as an example of peace journalism. The Guardian outlet included voices of Russian dissidents and Ukrainian citizens who are advocating dialogue in addition to debating geopolitical causes such as NATO expansion.
Although it has merits, peace journalism has its own criticisms that bring out ethical arguments in the conflict reporting. The opponents claim that it causes a lack of objectivity because of taking an advocacy position, which may hamper the ethical imperative of holding power to account. Finally, implementation is hindered by the normative bias of peace journalism, which is propagandistic to an individual extent, as well as by commercial pressures of bang stories, or safety threats at war zones.
Empirical studies have associated this argument with the fact that standard journalism is equally prejudiced towards violence and that peace journalism will only amplify ethics by ensuring transparency and inclusivity.
The accuracy, impartiality, and reduction of harm mindset of peace journalism is a significant improvement of the ethical obligations of journalists in violent conflicts based on the context, voices, and solutions. Real world experiences in Rwanda and in Gaza show how a war orientated reporting can be used to spread violence, whereas a peace oriented approach to reporting leads to reconciliation and empathy. Despite the criticisms that suggest that the framework endangers objectivity, these are not as high as the risk that the framework tends to avoid escalation, as long as the journalists are ready to adhere to high standards. Media organisations have a case to play in the society, and therefore, should focus on training in peace journalism with the current proliferation of conflicts in the digital age with misinformation. Finally, the ethical journalism is not a passive view, but a force of positive action, which leads societies to justice and out of the end-less war.
