Peace Journalism: A tightrope walk between advocacy journalism and constructive conflict coverage

Starting from an understanding of peace journalism that regards it not as an antipode, but as a necessary prerequisite of good journalism, the present paper undertakes a synthesis of the theses and antitheses presented by David Loyn, Thomas Hanitzsch, Jake Lynch and Samuel Peleg in conflict & communication online, Vol. 6, No. 2. The author locates the tasks of the peace journalistic program in the study of the conditions and possibilities under which journalists can actually do their work better in war and crisis situations, as well as in the provision and practical realization of the competencies that are necessary for this. Although peace journalism will occupy a minority position in the foreseeable future in conflict and crisis communication, even from this position it can contribute to making media discourse on conflicts more transparent and balanced and protecting conflict coverage from the fateful propaganda traps into which traditional war reporting is continually falling. As a precondition for this many myths must be critically examined that journalism shares with media sciences, and a clear line must be drawn between journalism and public relations. In particular, journalists must be warned not to prematurely cast the traditional tools of good journalism overboard. Of course it is urgently necessary that the usual understanding of objectivity in journalism must be revised and constructively enhanced; to radically turn away from the demand for objectivity not only endangers the acceptance of the peace journalistic project in the journalist community, however, it also can cause peace journalism to squander the trust bonus that its recipients have granted it.  2007 by verlag irena regener berlin 1 Wilhelm Kempf conflict & communication online, Vol. 6, No. 2, 2007 Peace journalism: A tightrope walk between advocacy journalism and constructive conflict coverage Toward the end of the last millennium, peace researchers, journalists and media people began to think about how the potential of the media could be used not only to fuel conflicts, but rather to encourage peaceful conflict settlement and serve as mediators of peace-building and reconciliation processes. What was initially still an academic project quickly developed into a movement that united under the slogan of "peace journalism" in part quite heterogeneous efforts. And as any movement, it brought about its critics as well: media researchers and journalists who regard the peace journalism movement as an assault on the integrity of journalism and its professional norms. The present paper takes up the arguments of some of the most prominent opponents and adherents of the peace journalism project and presents a point of view, under which they can be reconciled. If peace journalism is understood the right way, it is not an antipode of good journalism but its necessary prerequisite. 1. Journalism or public relations? The term peace journalism combines two elements that are difficult to harmonize: peace and journalism. Journalism is a form of public communication that is subject to professional norms. Because of these norms it differs from other types of public communication, for example, Public Relations. The professional norms of good journalism include in particular the following: truthfulness, objectivity, neutrality and detachment. For Public Relations these norms are at best irrelevant. The only thing that matters is success. And this success is measured in terms of achieving specific communication aims which are "externally defined by a client, host organization or particular groups of stakeholders" (Hanitzsch, 2007, 2). Typical aims are, e.g., to convince the public of the attractiveness of a product, of the justice of one’s own political goals or also of the wrongfulness of a political opponent. Good journalism differs from Public Relations precisely because it does not aim to influence the public, but rather pursues only the goal of reporting truthfully about reality. As David Loyn, a BBC correspondent and prominent critic of peace journalism, has maintained: "Our task is always to seek to find out what is going on, not carrying any other baggage" (Loyn, 2003). Good journalism has just one aim: to represent reality accurately. The other characteristics of good journalism – objectivity, neutrality and detachment – are means to reach this aim (Loyn, 2007). Peace journalism combines journalism with peace as an external aim. It understands itself as "a normative mode of responsible and conscientious media coverage of conflict that aims at contributing to peacemaking, peacekeeping, and changing the attitudes of media owners, advertisers, professionals, and audiences towards war and peace" (Shinar, 2007, 2). A goal conflict arises out of this that arouses concern that peace journalism "could compromise the integrity of journalists and confuse their role as neutral disseminators of facts" (Loyn, 2003). This concern is all the more justified because some supporters of peace journalism seem all too inclined to underrate values like objectivity, neutrality and detachment (e.g., Mc Goldrick, 2006; Peleg, 2007) and to lump peace journalism together with other terms (e.g., Shinar, 2007, 4) "that refer to advocacy models of reporting – such as the ‘journalism of attachment’ (Bell, 1997), ‘victim journalism’ (Hume, 1997), ‘justice journalism’ (Messman, 2001), and ‘engaged journalism’ (Lynch, 2003). " According to Lynch & McGoldrick (2005, quoted in McGoldrick, 2006, 4), "peace journalism is when editors and reporters make choices – of what stories to report, and how to report them". The two together, disregarding the tools of good journalism and understanding peace journalism as a form of advocacy journalism, create a dangerous mix which is prone to abuse the noble goal of peace as a legitimation for biased coverage. Journalism of this kind "will not stand neutrally between good and evil, right and wrong, the victim and the oppressor" (Bell, 1997, 8). Where this can ultimately lead has been shown in a fateful manner by the journalism of attachment. When journalists go on a "crusade against conventional reporting" (Peleg, 2007, 5), they all too easily become recruits for the propaganda war (Kempf, 2003). But peace propaganda is nothing other than propaganda either, and a peace journalism that crosses the border to propaganda does not deserve to bear the name of journalism. According to a proposal by Thomas Hanitzsch (2007), it ought to be banished to the domain of Public Relations. A peace journalism that deserves the name is only conceivable as good journalism and requires more than just good will and a moral impetus. 2. Journalistic responsibility Impartiality and objectivity are indispensable tools of good journalism, and David Loyn is right when he concludes that the reporter’s tools need to be sharpened, not altered. "Rather than disregard the concept, it is more fruitful to consider the structures that support better or worse practice" (Loyn, 2007, 5).  2007 by verlag irena regener berlin 2 Wilhelm Kempf conflict & communication online, Vol. 6, No. 2, 2007 Peace journalism: A tightrope walk between advocacy journalism and constructive conflict coverage As soon as we call for better practice, however, it turns out that truth or truthfulness are not values in themselves. The striving for truth in particular meets an obvious practical need. Truthfulness makes it possible to add to our knowledge stock the experiences of others as guides for our own actions. Since we draw on them all the time, reliance on the assertions of others is an indispensable element of our own everyday life practice. That is, there is a justified interest in being sure that only statements will be made that can be defended in every case (and not just to uncritical or uninformed opponents) (cf. Kambartel, 1968). This applies in particular to the assertions of journalism, and even more so to conflict journalism. War and peace are events of existential significance that no one can disregard. When Jörg Becker (2002) maintains that the media have a political obligation to participate in and stand up for peace of their own accord, this is not just the opinion of a German political scientist, but rather the consensus of the legal framework and codes of conduct established by international and national law, trade unions and responsible media institutions. Art. 3 of the 1978 UNESCO Media Declaration, for instance, states that, "the mass media have an important contribution to make to the strengthening of peace and international understanding and in countering racialism, apartheid and incitement to war" (UNESCO, 1979, 102). Also the numerous ethical codes for journalists that apply in almost all the countries of the world give expression to similar self-imposed obligations and contain the obligation to act for peace and against any kind of war propaganda (cf. Becker, 2004). David Loyn also honors these codes of conduct for providing a framework which enables journalists to engage in robust skeptical inquiry, but also to comply with libel laws and remain on the right side of civilized discourse. Even if he fears that "highly prescriptive rules" might "inhibit good journalism," Loyn (2007, 2) has thereby approached a perspective that sees no insurmountable conflicts between objectivity and normativity. And with the insight that "a sideeffect of my reporting may be that it makes conflict resolution harder or easier," Loyn (2007, 9) comes closer to peace journalism than he thinks. Journalists are responsible for the way, for how they report; and even the creation of "opportunities for society at large to consider and to value non-violent responses to conflict," as called for by Lynch & McGoldrick (2005, quoted in McGoldrick, 2006, 4), is not an external goal imposed on journalism from outside. The obligation to create these opportunities results directly from the role assigned to journalism in de