At this time of global anxiety, it is important for journalists everywhere to remember the lessons of the poor and often biased coverage of the Iraq War 16 years ago, and to reflect on the ways in which media coverage can either fan the flames of conflict or help highlight cool-headed and balanced responses. In this sense, the theory and practice of peace journalism, a radical alternative to what was traditionally perceived as conflict reporting, can offer valuable insights.

Peace journalism argues that the existing media environment, which stresses sensationalism and immediacy, can in some cases help to exacerbate conflict rather than contribute to its resolution. It also advances that journalists, who play a crucial role in shaping public understanding by providing information about conflict, bear a heavy responsibility for what they write and broadcast. Peace journalism is characterized by balanced reporting at an emotional distance, presenting a broad and multifaceted view of a conflict, and rejecting entertainment and partisan interests. In this light, peace journalism calls for coverage that:

• Illuminates structural and cultural violence as it bears upon the lives of people in a conflict arena as part of the explanation for violence;
• Frames conflicts as consisting of many parties, pursuing many goals;
• Makes peace initiatives and potential solutions more visible, whoever suggests them; and
• Equip people to distinguish between stated positions and real goals, especially when judging whether particular forms of intervention are necessary or desirable.

While it is still  too early to draw conclusions about whether media coverage and commentary related to the ongoing Iran-US tensions have been conflict-sensitive or not, some media outlets have published content that moves in the right direction.

A notable example is an article entitled “Yes, Iranians can protest against both US intervention and their government” written by Reza H. Akbari and published by The Guardian on January 14. In it, the author argues against the “binary view of Iran” that sees the Iranian people as either “easily coerced into participating in pro-regime rallies or as brave souls willing to risk their lives for justice.” t This view has dominated US rhetoric around Iranians’ responses to the events of the past two weeks, which have included public mourning and demonstrations against their government. He reminds readers that Iran is not a monolith, and that in a country of 80 million people, people from different backgrounds are bound to hold a range of  political opinions. He strongly warns against superficial readings of Iranian society that can be used to justify an escalation of the conflict.

From a peace journalism perspective, this type of reporting and commentary, which seeks to bring nuance and balanced into a seemingly “black and white” situation, is precisely the kind of coverage that can help transform the context in which parties to a conflict present and formulate their responses. For the sake of peace, let us hope that this approach is adopted by journalists and editors everywhere.

Photo above: Presslab/Shutterstock

Democratic participation and accountable government rest on informed and balanced opinion that is transparent about its motivations and sources. Independent journalism – print, broadcast or online – has traditionally been a valued source of information and debate about political, social and cultural life.

It is worrying, therefore, that a recent report by the United Kingdom’s media regulator Ofcom indicates that young people in Britain have almost entirely abandoned television news broadcasts, while half of the country now gets its news from social media.

According to a story (24 July 2019) in The Guardian newspaper – itself one of the bastions of democratic accountability – “While the average person aged 65 and over watches 33 minutes of TV news a day, this falls to just two minutes among people aged 16-24, according the media regulator’s annual news consumption report.”

The decline has been driven by audiences moving away from traditional live broadcast channels, where they might watch a popular drama and leave the channel on during the evening news bulletin, towards watching content from streaming services. This also supposes that people no longer intentionally watch or listen to the news to find out what is happening in the world.

Ofcom says “The most popular news source in Britain remains BBC One – consulted by 58% of the public – followed by ITV on 40% and Facebook on 35%. The increase in people turning to social media for news is being driven by the growing popularity of WhatsApp and Instagram as information sources.”

Social media avoid in depth reporting. In addition, the information and news carried by social media have been shown to be suspect, requiring careful thought. If young people are turning to social media in place of more reliable sources – presumably under the influence of pernicious campaigns by political leaders accusing the media of bias or of lying – it may compromise their ability to understand and participate in political change.

Genuine social progress depends on accessible, affordable and inclusive media infrastructures – including traditional media, digital platforms, social media and the Internet. It also depends on trustworthy information and knowledge. In this case, media literacy, being able to sift and assess sources, is vital if society is not to sink into a morass of lies and suspicion.

“Elected leaders in many democracies, who should be press freedom’s staunchest defenders, have made explicit attempts to silence critical media voices and strengthen outlets that serve up favorable coverage. The trend is linked to a global decline in democracy itself: The erosion of press freedom is both a symptom of and a contributor to the breakdown of other democratic institutions and principles, a fact that makes it especially alarming.”

These chilling words come from Sarah Repucci, Freedom House’s Senior Director for Research and Analysis, writing in Freedom and the Media 2019: A Downward Spiral.

The Report’s key findings are:

• *Freedom of the media has been deteriorating around the world over the past decade.
• *In some of the most influential democracies in the world, populist leaders have overseen concerted attempts to throttle the independence of the media sector.
• *While the threats to global media freedom are real and concerning in their own right, their impact on the state of democracy is what makes them truly dangerous.

“In some of the most influential democracies in the world, large segments of the population are no longer receiving unbiased news and information. This is not because journalists are being thrown in jail, as might occur in authoritarian settings. Instead, the media have fallen prey to more nuanced efforts to throttle their independence. The goal is to make the press serve those in power rather than the public.”

2020 will mark forty years since the publication of the findings of an International Commission to review “the problems of communication in contemporary society seen against the background of technological progress and recent developments in international relations with due regard to their complexity and magnitude.” The outcome, published in 1980, was the MacBride Report “Many Voices, One World: Towards a new more just and more efficient world information and communication order”.

Four decades on, it seems that government and corporate control is still prevalent even in democracies and even if it has taken on new forms. Yet, as Freedom House warns:

“A free and independent media sector that can keep the population informed and hold leaders to account is as crucial for a strong and sustainable democracy as free and fair elections. Without it, citizens cannot make informed decisions about how they are ruled, and abuse of power, which is all but inevitable in any society, cannot be exposed and corrected.”