A lack of peace journalism

In examining intercultural conflict, Oetzel, Dhar, and Krischbaum discussed the role of media during an international conflict. One part that stood out to me regarded the concept of peace journalism. Oetzel et. al. noted the many organizations around the world dedicated to creating peace and resolving conflicts, but questioned their ability truly have an impact on the policy level decision makers. The authors highlighted the work of Jacobson and Jang who acknowledge “skeptic[ism] about the ability to construct a strong public sphere without the support of the media, which would need to change its philosophy toward social responsibility.”

The concept that journalists would change the way they report on events by abandoning an impartial perspective is assuredly controversial. However, from my perspective, I feel that it is one that is worth national media’s to explore. For a current situation, reporting on the crisis in Ukraine provides examples worth exploring.

An article in the Washington Post from Saturday, “Ukraine on the line: Obama, Putin find little common ground in telephone diplomacy,” discussed the conversations between Presidents Putin and Obama last week. Click here for article. As the title suggests, the article focuses on the lack of agreement between the Russian and American positions. Towards the end of the article, the author brings in comments from Putin that paint the United States as a country that takes illegitimate actions around the world, just as Russia is being accused. Though it is not an outright criticism of Obama as a weak leader (just look at almost any Fox News report, or this Daily Show segment for a more light hearted version), the article does very little to move its reader base towards peace. Instead, it builds up the inevitability of escalation for the conflict.

Granted, the examples I have cited here are from conservative outlets that are more hawkish than some other possibilities. While there may be some instances of peace journalism attempting to change the philosophy of their reporting, as Jacobson and Jang call for, they are not prevalent in mainstream news outlets. Instead, they are calling Obama weak and prodding him to step up his response. They are emphasizing discord between parties. Focusing only on the conflict occurring, and how it may grow. As such, I would argue that this line of reporting is itself biased. If this is a result of impartial journalism, than can we really say that impartiality necessarily leads to balance? Do we not want to see a humanizing account of what is going on, something that focuses on the possibilities for resolution instead of escalation?

Oetzel, J., Dhar, S., & Kirschbaum, K. (2007). Intercultural conflict from a multilevel perspective: Trends, possibilities and future directions, Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, 36(3), pp. 183-204.