Department of Media and Communications
Sindh University Jamshoro
Assignment of Peace Journaism
Student name: Taqwa Ahmed
BS Part IV
Roll number: 2K18/MC/155
Assigned by: Sir Abdul Razzaq Chacchhar
Table of Context:
l Peace journalism
l Conflict and Violence reporting
l Islamophobia
l Xenophobia and Media
l Media Credibility
l Peace and Conflict Journalism
(Peace Orientated
Truth Orientated
People Orientated
Solution Orientated) Peace journalism
(War/Violence Orientated
Propaganda Orientated
Elite orientated
Victory Orientated) War journalism
Peace Journalism
Introduction:
John Galtung says that a best way to define peace is to define conflict or violence because peace is its opposite. ‘It reflects the normative aim of preventing, managing, limiting and overcoming violence’.
Violence can be direct attack on someone or something. It has two main types and these are: Structural violence and Cultural violence. Structural violence is happened by a natural cause and Cultural violence is happened by a society.
Here’s difference between Issue, Conflict and Violence:
l Issue: Its an important topic or problem for debate and discussion.
l Conflict: Its a serious disagreement or argument typically a protracted (long lasting) one.
l Violence: Its a behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage or kill something or someone.
Media has two roles in peace journalism:
1: Media reports and reflect on pressing issues and can help to establish concept and ideas.
2: Media try to cover things that can be used as a propaganda purposes instead of revealing truth, it tries to cover things up.
Peace journalism is a form of journalism that explores the root causes of conflict, creating opportunities for society as a whole to investigate and evaluate non-violent responses to conflict. Peace journalism includes conflict resolution journalism, conflict sensitive journalism, constructive conflict reporting and global coverage. Counteract violent and gang-prone military media and ignore non-violent alternatives. Ignoring the consequences, focusing only on the physical impact and ignoring the psychological impact on society. The conclusion of military journalism is that zero means that the needs of one nation can only be met by defeating another. Peace journalism highlights the structural and cultural causes of violence that affect people’s lives. It promotes peace by allowing the reader to distinguish between the stated position and the true purpose.
World journalism identifies the causes and interconnections of conflicts, listens to opinions from all sides, pursues hidden intentions and promotes peaceful thoughts and actions at any time and in any place. World journalism cannot exist without conflicts, wars and the collapse of civilization. Therefore, if media companies are engaged in peaceful journalism, conflict is a prerequisite for peaceful journalism. And it is always the editors or the press that decide, not the reporters. “But culture, politics or economics alone cannot provide peace. All three are synergistic. Peace “is always based on equality, equality and mutual respect. We must learn to understand the nature of the world not only in our culture, but also in other cultures ”(Galtung, 2003). People are always peaceful and spectators. Peace is about nonviolent action combined with creativity (Jake Lynch and Annabelle McGoldrick).
It is important to understand the concept of peace. No reporter can go on a mission without knowing what is going on. Conflict is the first prerequisite for finding peace. I don’t think a peaceful campaign was necessary if everything was peaceful from the beginning. Because this area is barren. Instead of peace, we need development journalism. So, when the question of peace arises in the struggle, the journalist begins his mission with understanding it. The media have never been more visible, readable, and powerful than at any time in human history. The military was also aware of its importance because they were fighting against the world with reality. Any country that has a government that puts its own interests ahead of those of its people. Those who promote peace or support war love to use the media as a propaganda tool.
Thanks to their tacit control over the power of the press, they can control the reporting. Without inalienable or inalienable circumstances, direct coverage of conflicts or wars is impossible, which undermines the life of true journalism. Media representatives also do not want to risk the life of a journalist in a situation where they are more likely to die in a friendly firefight just because they told the truth. This type of exercise is already being used. The reality is that no media organization would risk clashing with a world power to support a major institution. Some, but others supported them. There is no neutrality. World journalism is fraught with problems. What is the purpose of the world and for whom? When did the question of peace arise? How can you explain the world as not deception? The media authorities fully rely on objectivity and peaceful journalism.
Freelancers can apply for social media for peace and money, but people have always relied on the world’s leading media. But the tears of a freelancer don’t change anything. Communication about conflict and violence.
Q: How does the media cover the conflict?
Too little or too much news is one of the causes of conflict, and news of conflict is better covered by local media than by foreign media. Our press must be honest and cover every corner of history. The media must follow the ethics of journalism to reduce conflict, but since the media is currently focused only on the TRP, the stronger the conflict, the more in direct proportion to the number of viewers.
The role of the media in reporting on conflicts.
The media can ease tensions, provide accurate information, reach a wide audience, and control governments, opposition parties and society before they reach a tipping point. In this way, the media helps to resolve conflicts and promote peace.
A common belief about military journalism is that military journalism is violent in nature and that elites or violence use the media as a propaganda tool. In the military report, each participating country wants to see a future victory. In a conflict situation, the domestic media have the same desires as the viewers. Likewise, “peace journalism” is conflict-based, but peace-oriented, and the story must be true. Reports usually involve both sides of the conflict in order to arrive at a better solution or outcome and avoid more risky situations. Conflict Checklist: Do you really understand what’s going on? Journalists must assess the conflict in order to find out who are all parties to the situation and what their roles are. What are the main causes of conflicts? A good journalist examines every aspect of a conflict and finds its cause in every way.
How does the conflict affect different groups of the population? Conflicts, especially those most actively involved in a conflict, often do not fully understand the overall cost of the conflict and the potential benefits of a solution or solution. Assessing the human and financial costs of a conflict to key parties, bystanders (those at the center), belligerent allies and neighbors often provides an underestimated picture of conflict scenarios. Where do you get the facts from? Journalists must conduct impartial and thorough fact-checking before trusting the facts about what is happening or what is happening. Did your article help exacerbate the conflict? The escalation of the conflict is often supported by the media.
Sometimes this is good. For groups with low positions of power, constructive expansion is the best way to develop power and effectively defend themselves. But escalation often gets out of hand, resulting in polarization, violence and everyone involved. How can we reduce the escalation of the conflict? While media coverage often exacerbates conflict, journalism can mitigate conflict and resolve it constructively.
Islamophobia and media
Islamophobia and the Media Islamophobia is fear, hatred or prejudice against Islam or Muslims in general. The exact scope and definition of the term Islamophobia is controversial. Some scholars consider it a form of xenophobia or racism and believe that Islamophobia and racism are closely related or overlap, while others deny any connection. All the more so on the grounds that religion is not a race. The cause of Islamophobia is a matter of controversy, especially among commentators who claim Islamophobia is the result of the 9/11th extremist attack.
When discrimination against Muslims emphasizes their religious affiliation and unity, it is called Muslim phobia, an alternative form of Islamophobia, anti-Muslim and anti-Muslim. Those who discriminate against Muslims are usually called Islamophobia, Islamophobia, anti-Muslim, anti-Muslim, Islamophobia, anti-Muslim, Islamophobia or alternative spelling of Islamophobia, anti-fascists are anti-fascists. Motivation or designation of anti-Islamic anti-Shiites (or rareobians), anti-Sufism (or Sufi phobia) and anti-Sunnis (or Sunniphobia).
“Islamophobia is a hypothetical fear or bias driven by existing Eurocentric and Orientalist global power structures. It seeks to address perceived or real threats to Muslims by preserving and reinforcing existing differences in economic, political, social and cultural relations, while emphasizing the need to use force as a tool to achieve the goal of “restoring civilization.” … Society (Muslim or not) has been simplified. ). Islamophobia re-introduces and reaffirms a global racial structure that perpetuates and increases inequality in the distribution of resources, as well as “intense hostility or fear of Islam, especially as a political force; hostility or prejudice against Muslims“.
Discussions of Islamophobia in the media are usually associated with rhetorical patterns used by certain channels or media in certain countries or regions, such as the United States or Europe. Examples include disproportionately negative reporting of Islam compared to other religions, Muslim coalitions and terrorism, portraying Islam and its followers as violent or primitive, and excluding the Islamic perspective from political and academic discussions. In turn, media responses to Islamophobia discussions often question the frequency, weight and impact of rhetoric considered Islamophobia, what is Islamophobia practices and the political motives of Islamophobia debates.
“Islamophobia is a hypothetical fear or prejudice driven by existing Eurocentric and Orientalist global power structures. It stresses the need to use force as a tool to achieve the goal of “restoring civilization”, Seeks to address perceived or real threats to Muslims by preserving and strengthening existing differences in economic, political, social and cultural relations. … Society (Muslim or not) has been simplified. ) Islamophobia A Re-introduces and reaffirms the global racial structure that perpetuates and exacerbates inequality in the distribution of resources, as well as “an intense hostility or fear of Islam, especially as a political force; Hostility or prejudice towards Muslims.
It is suggested that the representation of Muslims echoes previous research on how minority groups are portrayed in Western media. In many ways, media representation of minority groups is a ‘double-edged sword’. First, it marginalizes minority voices, thus, rendering them virtually ignored or invisible (Saeed 2007). Also the actual representation of minority groups is often understood in negative discourses such as problems such as terrorism (Evert et al. 2017). The problematic nature of news media reportage of Islam and Muslims has been an important focus of research, especially in what is called the Western media. Internationally, various Western news media (Ahmed and Mathes 2016; Anderson 2015; Bleach et al. 2015; Moore et al. 2008; Poole and Richardson 2006; Poorebrahim and Reza Zarei 2012; Rane et al. 2014; Richardson 2001).
When these frameworks are applied to audiences that have little social contact with minority groups, the role of the media as the sole provider (or primary definitive; Hall et al. 1978) becomes important (van Dijk 1987, 1993). Cottle argues that the media has a powerful position in expressing, explaining and elucidating specific discourses that help represent (and misrepresent) minority groups (Cottle 2000, 2002, 2006).
An important finding from previous media research is that mainstream news media reportage of Islam and Muslims includes conservative attitudes and generally negative representations of Islam and Muslims as different, strange and threatening (Saeed 2007). Research from Europe (Law 2015) and the United States (Acad 2015) supports the finding that Muslims living in the West are increasingly living in a climate of fear and suspicion (Saeed 2015a, 2015b). The news media is thus an important source of information about Islam and Muslims for many Westerners, and studies have shown how these different masses shape and influence Islam and Muslims. Evert et al. (2017) researched what a lack of knowledge of Islam and Muslims translates to for news media practitioners.
According to “Fear, Inc.”, a report by the Center for American Progress, a network of misinformation experts actively promotes Islamophobia in America. Promoting Islamophobia creates both prejudice and discrimination in the general population. Prejudice plays an important role in the existence and spread of Islamophobia. Prejudice alone, in the form of a negative judgment, opinion or attitude, is an obstacle to the overall well-being of the population. Prejudice, along with actions taken openly, rising to the level of discrimination, creates a dangerous environment for its victims. Gallup analyzes offer an examination of prejudice against Muslims and Islam in many countries and regions globally.
Xenophobia and the Media
Xenophobia is an irrational – sometimes pathological – fear or hatred of strangers or foreigners or that which is strange or foreign. It is not indigenous to any particular part of the world, nor is it foreign to anyone. It is embodied in discriminatory attitudes and practices towards non-citizens, and may result in violence. In its most explosive form, xenophobia can lead to mass murders and ethnic cleansing.
Mass media does not necessarily incite xenophobia. But they often exacerbate it, intentionally or unintentionally. Producing news in certain ways may suggest an infiltration or “invasion” of outsiders into the job market, which may deny “legitimate” owners of the environment access to their source of livelihood.
Of the many theories responsible for the rise and spread of hatred, two stand out in creating opportunities for the media to help drive xenophobia: the socio-economic status and cultural identity of individuals.
The first derives from a paradigm, the power theory, which views relationships between groups as a function of their competitive position. This theory suggests that when people are financially insecure, they feel resentment and hatred. Even the mere idea of such an economic threat can create animosity.
The cultural iconography view holds that people prefer to be surrounded by their own kind rather than exposed to others, creating an “us versus them” binary.
Thus, when the media consistently covers Latino migrants in American working-class environments, African migrant workers in South Africa, or refugees in Europe, members of the host environment feel panic based on the belief that these newcomers are a Will reduce the chances of decent earning. Livelihood. Similarly, when people see the perceived arrival of foreigners as a threat to their cultural identity or an obstacle to their cultural homogeneity, it breeds resentment and hatred. These events are newsworthy in their own right, but when such stories dominate the media, resentment builds, hostility ensues, and the end point is often violent.
In its agenda-setting function, the media, whether consciously or unintentionally, promotes xenophobia. Today, it is imperative that media practitioners have access to better and more comprehensive education that will enable them to do a better job in cross-cultural and contextual reporting.
Xenophobic stereotyping is a common and growing phenomenon in the media. Immigrants, asylum seekers, refugees, Muslims, and Sinti and Roma are often represented as a threat to the security of long-established populations; They are systematically portrayed as perpetrators of crime but rarely appear as actors in other news genres. Exposure to these stereotypes often influenced readers and viewers to support policy measures directed against these minorities and discriminated against, often with subtle, sometimes even physical, violence. An extreme form of xenophobic stereotyping is propaganda spread by so-called hate radio that has fueled sectarian conflict. A more contemporary form of xenophobia in the media is hate sites on the Internet. Initiatives to combat these forms of xenophobia, stereotypes and discrimination face the challenge of not curtailing freedom of speech. Several media organizations have undertaken projects to raise awareness of these problems, to train journalists and to increase access of minorities to mainstream media so that their voices can be heard. However, these initiatives have to be known and implemented more widely, and specifically target the tabloid media. In addition, attention should be paid to education in media literacy in schools.
Review and Criticism
As Jan Art Scholte has remarked, “the more distances and boundaries have been dissected, the more precious national differences have become.” 1 Faced with increased migration and economic uncertainty, intolerance towards non-citizens and refugees, as well as within a globalizing economy. The numbers of minorities can sometimes be extensive because people want to avoid perceived threats to their national identity. In the worst case, it can lead to abuse of migrants, refugees and ethnic minorities. Regarded as a cause as well as a symptom of many such risks, globalization has led nationalists to rally to defend the cherished values that are perceived as sieges. Chris Shore even states that, “[L]like the destruction of the mythical Hydra, the breakup of old nation-states can easily replace them with new nationalities that are often more xenophobic and ethnically separatist, leading to They fall apart.”
The defense of national groups against perceived threats from “others” is a significant source of insecurity for many. The media is central to this process of “other-ing”. Bo Peterson describes the images as “cognitive and affective conceptual lenses, organizing instruments and information filters”. These images, as Peterson notes, are socially constructed. To this end, they can be confirmed or reconstructed. Depending on how we filter and interpret the information, people’s images may shift in a positive or negative direction, or they may be flexible. 3 Most stereotypes are formed on the basis of first hand knowledge and are often based on rumours. This implies that negative images have little opportunity to be reconstructed and reconstructed in a more positive light.
Exposure to stereotyping in the media affects the way people see the represented groups. As Katja Fleckiger explains in her brief, Muslims, Sinti and Roma (often referred to as Gypsies) are often depicted as a threat to the security of the more established population. 4 They are portrayed as sinister and often criminals. Of crime. In fact, discussions on migrant groups as well as refugees are often framed almost entirely in the context of welfare systems and their benefits from criminality. Images of these groups as an enemy can lead members of a national group, for example, to take pre-emptive action against what they see as a growing threat. People who are prone to stereotypes may find themselves the target of suspicion and aggression. If the media does nothing to refute negative stereotypes, they may serve to feed xenophobia and legitimize populist policies. 5
As Flukiger argues, the role of the media in fostering negative or positive images of people other than the established population must be taken into account by journalists and their representative bodies. In fact, several measures have been taken by media organizations, states, international organizations and expatriate organizations in an effort to reduce xenophobic stereotyping in the media. Nevertheless, initiatives aimed at curbing xenophobic stereotypes face the dilemma of doing so without undermining freedom of speech and expression.
Dilemmas and our recommendations
Policy challenges posed by the media’s role in promoting negative or positive images of people are primarily associated with encouraging the media to take steps to reduce xenophobic stereotypes, while at the same time preserving freedom of speech. . We suggest eight dilemmas or challenges facing policymakers, as well as eight related recommendations.
The major dilemma associated with responding appropriately to xenophobic stereotypes is limiting the freedom to hate, protest and boycott without curbing freedom of expression. We suggest that a clear code of conduct for journalists should be created and enforced, in which freedom of speech should be combined with responsibility.
Some commentators argue that xenophobic stereotyping only reflects dominant ideas within societies. This being the case, it represents a major challenge. The responsibility of the media effectively competes with the economic benefits of increased circulation as a result of printing shocking, xenophobic statements or images. Ultimately, there is a need to confront and change the underlying prejudices within societies. Long-term measures should be taken to promote more inclusive societies. For example, to balance “hate radio”, “peace radio” should be promoted along with cultural diversity, respect and tolerance.
Another balance needs to be struck between making the media an official instrument of state policy or an entity with specific political-party affiliation. Both these extremes have made the media unable to serve the people effectively. The state, its agencies and mechanisms should be aware that, in a globalized world, conservative and xenophobic attitudes and actions are immediately transmitted and hurt security, trade and the image of the country.
Xenophobic feelings may increase during times of crisis. For example, this has been perceptible in many countries with regard to immigration and asylum seekers, as well as international terrorism. In such cases, moderates who speak out against it can be labeled either traitors or weak in terms of security. Nevertheless, humanity and respect must prevail, especially in times of crisis. We need to be reminded of the need for inclusivity as an investment in long-term security. Xenophobia and racism are only likely to generate isolation and frustration, which can only lead to further problems of security and stability.
An additional challenge is to distinguish between xenophobic attitudes related to genuine security concerns and those resulting from the personal bias of security officers. While both are equally reprehensible and should be minimized, the latter should be considered separately. Officials promoting exclusion should be educated, regulated and prosecuted. The safety concerns of those most likely to be stereotyped must also be addressed.
The problem is that media stereotypes affect not only people’s perspectives, but also policies that discriminate against stereotypes. One way to address this issue is to better represent the cultural diversity of society in the media establishment itself. Journalists and those working in media organizations should be recruited from conservative communities. Minorities should also be encouraged and taught how to use the system and design effective media responses and presence.
Conclusion
Xenophobic media stereotyping should be taken seriously, as it heightens insecurity among target groups. This can lead to discriminatory policies, tensions and even physical violence and genocide. Reducing opportunities for xenophobic stereotyping requires long-term educational measures that encourage tolerance and inclusivity within society, even in times of crisis.
Media and Credibility
How reliable is the media? But above all, is the web more reliable or rather television and the rest of the traditional media? A recent US research by Edelman has discovered substantial similarities between the two worlds: 66% of those interviewed have complete confidence in information coming from traditional media, such as television, radio or the press. Instead 63% consider information coming from search engines like Google to be reliable. If the source of information is social media, this trust of the web is reduced. Only 41% of you trust it, perhaps due to the phenomenon of fake news that has significantly reduced the credibility of social networks in recent years in their role as distributors of information, data and news.
Edelman’s research data on the reliability of information through traditional and digital media has been recently corroborated by an Italian stud entitled “How New Italian Generations Are Informed” from the official readership of Italian Journalists Demopolis is organized by the Institute. According to this survey, in Italy people under the age of 30 use the online press (75%) as an information tool, but also television (66%). Compared to Edelman’s figures, however, Italians under 30 are more confident in social networks. In fact, 63% of people use Facebook or YouTube to stay informed. However, this is not a blind belief. At least 56% of them view social media news critically, often doubting the credibility of such news. Confidence in the credibility of news grows when we instead rely on the traditional media. In fact, only 34% say they frequently doubt the credibility of television or print media, while 51% claim to doubt it only occasionally.
Audience perceptions about the credibility of news media have been studied using a range of concepts including “media credibility,” “belief in the media,” “media skepticism,” and “media cynicism.” In general, researchers interested in the credibility concept are concerned with audience perceptions of news media, not with the actual credibility of journalists. Early research on media credibility conducted at Yale in the 1950s manipulated the credibility of communicators and measured the effect of this manipulation on audience persuasion. Only in the 1970s did scholars begin to regard it not as a static feature of the source but as a dynamic perception of the audience. A major line of research on media credibility has to do with a phenomenon called “hostile media perception”, which occurs when people with opposing opinions on an issue are viewed as biased towards their respective viewpoints with similar, seemingly objective coverage. Is experienced. Other lines of research have examined the factors underlying audience perceptions of credibility and their consequences for various social phenomena. More recently, scholars have revisited early work on moderate credibility to examine audience perceptions of online versus traditional media.
At the same time, trust in traditional media seems to be waning, and it allows misinformation to compete with real news for the public's attention. A 2017 survey for the Reuters Institute's Digital News Project showed that trust in the media in the UK has fallen by 7% in a year. Edelman's Annual Report on Trust found that institutions of government, business, the media, and NGOs were under-relied worldwide, with the greatest decline for the media, which now accounts for more than 80% of the countries surveyed. is untrusted. Politicians now deploy the derogatory label 'fake news' to undermine the legitimacy of the establishment, however, these survey results have left a key question unanswered: What do viewers mean when they are referring to trust in the media? Are they looking for unbiased, factually accurate information? Or do they rely on information that reflects their own values, ideas, and the world of life? As Charlie Beckett said: "Trust is a relationship, not a fact". Given audience perception of 'fake news', Rasmus Claes Nielsen and Lucas Graves wrote in their report: Narrowing down false news is important, but it will not address the broader issue that most of the information people get from them, especially online, includes bad journalism, political propaganda, and misleading forms of advertising and sponsored content. Huh. It is important to remember that trust in the media has not been particularly high for some time now. Gallup polling on US trust in mass media shows it is falling steadily from a high of 72% in 1976. But it appears that – exacerbated by unusually polarized elections in the US and Western Europe, which exposed the gap between the media and the public – trust in the media is unusually low, especially for those under 35. People and those who call themselves leftists. This is partly the result of financial pressure. In an industry that has seen huge disruptions to their business models as a result of the transition to digital, some editors feel they have no choice but to resort to clickbait to chase advertising money. Around 200 local newspapers were shut down across the UK between 2005 and 2016. But as the attacks on the BBC's current and past political editors have shown, business factors are not the only thing that undermines public confidence. Richard Edelman wrote after the release of the results of his company's Trust Barometer, "The media is now viewed as politicized, unable to meet its reporting obligations due to economic pressures, and social media rather than agenda-making." follows." “In fact, 59 percent of respondents would trust a search engine over a human editor,” he continued, echoing the findings of a Reuters Institute report launched in late 2016, titled Brands and Trust in a Fragmented News Environment. , whose respondents preferred the algorithm for news. Period - Especially the younger and more technically engaged. A key issue here is diversity .
The public needs to feel that the media can represent them. Women, ethnic minorities and people with disabilities are consistently under-represented behind the scenes and in front of the camera in journalism and media companies. There are also issues of class in sport that are hard to measure, but the media remains a relatively elite profession despite – or perhaps because of – relatively low pay and insecurities.
The Grenfell Tower tragedy – especially devastating because it seems like it could have been prevented – caused a lack of local media in one of London’s richest boroughs and a rift between both the media (viewed as part of the elite) and the general. The gap was swiftly brought into perspective. People. Angry local residents told reporters after the fire: ‘The mainstream media has dropped the ball. Anger over the media merged with the anger of politicians, who, as part of the same system, considered the media the mouthpiece of the government: there were unfounded rumors that the latter had tried to cover up the exact number of victims of the fire. D-Notice was issued.
The perception of collusion between the government and the media is also particularly acute during elections, as alternative players claim to expose the ‘truth’ that the mainstream press ignores. Now that news organizations no longer have the ability to shape public opinion during election campaigns, some Western democracies – particularly France – are considering election-specific laws to address misinformation on social media. This is likely to cause significant tension, and may have implications for the way journalists cover campaigns, and how they interpret their role in the dissemination of information and opinion. This, in turn, raises the question of how journalists can best engage in media literacy.
Peace and Conflict Journalism
As an ethical challenge in peace journalism, Johann Galtung identified two modes of journalism; Peace/Conflict Journalism (PJ) and War/Violence Journalism (WJ). While these methods of journalism may report on similar events, the discourse they lead is quite the opposite. Importantly, the former is envisaged to promote peace while the latter has promoted violence and conflict.
According to Galtung, the mainstream media has traditionally been dominated by WJs. This tradition in turn is a product of the modern polity and therefore reflects the dominant views of that system. Currently, there is no such thing as a globalized media independent of Western influence. However, PJ is not the only reporting that lacks features of WJ. Instead, it draws on concepts and theories from the field of conflict studies to enable one to analyze conflict and practice journalism that actively promotes peace. As such, PJs can be said to be implicated, including making conscious choices (reporting on conflict) to uncover factors that promote peace.
Peace orientated
Peace Journalism: In contrast, this mode is peace/conflict-oriented. Instead of focusing only on the area of conflict, it tries to find out how the conflict arose in the first place. It recognizes that there are often more than two sides to a conflict and that a favorable solution is one in which all are victors.
Context is important for understanding the outbreak of a conflict (which should not be viewed as an isolated incident). Instead, causes, issues, and goals can often be traced through history. By focusing only on the ongoing conflict, reporting is more likely to encourage violence.
Culture may also be an important factor, by allowing space in news reporting for a greater understanding of the cultural context to make more sense of what originally seemed like ‘strange’ behavior from a party.
This type of reporting is proactive in that it seeks to reduce the risk of violence spreading through prevention, rather than waiting for something to happen before making news. It also recognizes less visible effects of war such as cultural damage and emotional trauma, aspects that are often omitted in war-oriented journalism.
While war journalism often serves to make conflict opaque, peace journalism attempts to make it transparent. All sides of the conflict are given space in reporting and efforts are made to understand and promote empathy between groups. Instead of dehumanizing one party, it aims to humanize all parties. If war journalism intensifies dehumanization strategies to suit perceived levels of danger, then peace journalism attempts to reduce the threat by humanizing the actors.
Efforts to expose lies and veil from all sides make peace journalism truthful. It is also people-oriented, exposes suffering at all levels of society, similarly, evil-doers are also exposed, irrespective of the party they belong to. Along with this, those who maintain peace at the ground level are given a voice.
Lastly, reporting is solution-oriented. Ideally, conflicts can be contained and resolved before they become violent. Where this is not possible, peace journalism sympathizes with creativity in conflict resolution and the fact that conflict can end without one side winning and the other side losing. Furthermore, media coverage should not stop once direct hostilities are no longer apparent. Reporting should focus on the patterns of structural and cultural violence that are often evident after conflict. The media should also play a role in the reconciliation process.
The theoretical frameworks of Galtung, Lynch and McGoldrick will provide the basis for the analysis. Ontologically and epistemologically, these theories follow a similar approach to post-structuralism, with an emphasis on how we construct our reality through discourse and, therefore, that competing truths exist, often resulting in Margins discourses that are not effective. They also highlight the importance of reconstructing interpretations (or more specifically, news texts) to understand how a particular meaning is made.
In studying the generality of WJs, the six ‘war claims’ of Lynch and McGoldrick’s model provide a very concrete set of conditions to explore. While no equivalent set of indicators has been developed for PJs, Lynch and McGoldrick provide several examples of what this might look like in practice. Galtung’s model of peace and war journalism provides a broad framework. Furthermore, it merges theories from the field of conflict studies with theories from the field of media studies. Many of the qualities of peace journalism, as well as war journalism, are consistent with the ideas of reconciliation, identification and conflict resolution.
Naturally, these theories lend themselves well to discourse analysis. If the chosen method had been different, they might not have been as suitable. There are competing theories on media influence, an example being The Propaganda Model which states that news is seen as propaganda from the media’s owning class, to advance their own interests at the expense of the weaker and less privileged. There is a way for the elite. Such a theory might be interesting if the purpose of this paper was to understand media behavior, but this paper is more concerned with the construction of media output where it deals with conflicts and the perceived prevalence of war journalism.
However, PJ is not without its critics. For example, Thomas Hanitz argues that supporters of peace journalism tend to ignore nuance in journalism and use extreme cases to portray war journalism. In addition, they believe that they often exaggerate the influence of the media on policy makers and underestimate rather than view the public as important consumers of the news media.
Truth oriented
Humans lie and deceive themselves, and often choose beliefs for reasons other than how close those beliefs are to the truth. This is why we mainly disagree. Three future trends may underlie these epidemiological faults. First, increased documentation and monitoring should make it harder for us to lie about our life patterns and deceive ourselves. Second, speculative markets can form relatively unbiased consensus on the most debated topics in science, business and policy. Third, brain changes can make our brains more transparent, making it harder to hide lies and self-deception. We must beware of moral arrogance when evaluating these tendencies. A world populated by nomadic bands armed with sticks and stones. This is no longer such a good option in a world full of nuclear and biological weapons. … The most dangerous forms of self-deception are collective. Patriotism, moral crusades, and religious fervor spread across the nations like plagues. (Smith, 2004). People will hold an opinion because they want to keep the company of others who share the opinion, or because they think it is a respectable opinion, or because they have expressed an opinion publicly in the past and would be embarrassed by a “U-turn”. ,” or because the world would be better for them if opinions were right (White, 2004). Education . . . Opinions are often the result of selfishness, self-deception, historical and cultural accident, hidden class bias, and so on ( Daniels, 197 Nietzsche’s diagnosis of nihilism of our era, with its associated critique of moral-unity, plays an important role) Going forward. He famously calls the ‘desire for truth’ the ascetic ideal (GM III 27). Fundamentals say, thus tying it with morality in the form of saying no to life. This important diagnosis of our attempt at truth is itself associated with doubts and denials of the possibility of truth – the very coherence of perception. Truth. This apparent campaign against this is one of the most radical and disturbing elements in Nietzsche’s view. Let’s say, it has a huge impact on us overall reading of it. I will address this critique of truth by paying special attention to Werner Steigmeier’s account. Stegmeier (or so I read him) takes Nietzsche to take a more fundamental lesson than I would give him credit for—a lesson that eschews the age-old ideal of truth more than I think he actually does. Is. This is the rough gist of the disagreement I take of us, although I also doubt whether the difference is really that much – isn’t it merely terminology with respect to ‘truth’. Because I think Stegmeier (Nietzschen) pays appropriate and sufficient attention to most of the points in defense of truth that I will present. It seems to them that they still don’t leave enough to be called ‘truth’. I will sketch how the notion of truth can be modified to answer some of the doubts against Stegmire. Perhaps the final issue is ‘mere’ whether these amendments are so radical that it is ‘not a matter of truth’. Stegmire’s readings are widely associated with references to ‘orientation’ [Orion-Tirung], a rich and original idea that he has developed in his own right as well as in relation to various other philosophers
1 He considers this notion to be particularly appropriate for Nietzsche, and I think we may well bring to it his account of Nietzsche’s position on truth in relation to it. Orientation is – I believe – a stance or bearing that provides some degree of capability within (and in relation to) a certain position. 2 It is ‘knowing one’s way’ in that situation, and is therefore basically practical force. ‘Orienta-tion is the achievement of finding its way into a new situation, to systematize the possibilities of action, through which it is able to master the situation’ (Stegmire 2011a, p. 170). An orientation is thus relative to a situation, and some problem or challenge or task (as seen to be faced within that 9).
Solution oriented
Solution-oriented journalism is an approach to news reporting that focuses on social issues as well as feedback on the problems themselves. Solution stories, containing credible evidence, explain how and why responses are working, or not working. This journalistic approach aims to present people with a more complete view of these issues, thereby helping to achieve more effective citizenship.
Solution journalism is rigorous, evidence-based reporting on responses to social problems. Solution stories can take many forms, but they have several key features. They identify the root causes of a social problem; Prominently highlight the response, or responses to, that problem; current evidence of the effect of that response; And explain how and why the response is working, or not working. When possible, solution stories also offer an insight that helps people understand how complex systems work, and how they can be improved.
Proponents of solution journalism differentiate the approach from so-called “good news” reporting, which may be characterized by the superficial presentation of feedback without careful analysis or checking whether the response is effective. Solution stories measure responses that are at work today, rather than tested principles—and they place a greater emphasis on innovation than on the person or institution responsible for that innovation.
Solution journalism proponents believe it provides a critical feedback system that allows society to see credible possibilities and respond more successfully to emerging challenges. They say that groundbreaking reporting about responses to social problems can strengthen society by increasing the dissemination of the knowledge needed for citizens to engage powerfully with issues in their communities, and for communities, leaders, innovators. And philanthropists have to make reasonable, informed decisions. Policies and investments.
Some research suggests that merely reporting on problems can reduce citizens’ sense of effectiveness, driving them away from public life. In a 2008 study, the Associated Press found that youth were tired of news they perceived as negative and lacking resolution. This resulted in “news fatigue”, in which people tended to opt out of the news media rather than engage. Solutions journalism believes that reporting on how to address problems can increase audience engagement, enhance a sense of efficacy, and foster constructive discourse around controversial issues.
Solutions Journalism practitioners say the approach extends and complements the traditional surveillance role of the press, offering citizens a more complete view of issues. In addition, he says, it can enhance the effectiveness of investigative reporting by presenting evidence that complicating problems can, in fact, be solved. Supporters of solution journalism distinguish the practice from citizen journalism, a movement that gained some momentum in the United States in the 1990s by advocating for a more active role for journalism in the democratic process.
People oriented
It’s time for news publishers to understand that human-centered design doesn’t just apply to the design of media products. In 2021, news publishers will realize that reporting and storytelling must be driven by a deep understanding of audience needs – not just audience interest. And we’ll see publishers use business models for different audience segments—which is also based on user research.
This is what the newsroom will realize in the new year:
That a new decade requires new ways of storytelling;
Journalism must take into account the perspective and understanding of its audience; And
That different consumers require different methods of paying for news.
It’s time to stop reading and viewing news on the Internet like a digital newspaper from the 1990s. The Internet allows us to tell stories in more compelling ways. In 2021, new and existing news organizations will begin investing in new types of audience research that will lead to new forms and experiences of storytelling. Using an iterative approach and rapidly maturing AI tools, the combination of personalization and multi-sensory storytelling will transform the average article experience.
Newsrooms also need to acknowledge that their different audiences perceive the news differently – based on race, class, education or other characteristics. Rather than seeking the perspective of a single, homogenous audience, newsmakers will need to shape their narratives to fit the various members of their audience. These experiments will not only deepen the engagement but will promote greater understanding. And this will help in fixing the partisan division of the country and increase confidence in the media.
And 2021 will be the year newsrooms recognize that journalism needs more than one approach to revenue. Subscriptions will continue to be important, but not every news consumer who needs and deserves quality news can pay for a subscription or choose to pay. A human-centered approach means learning from news consumers, not directing them.
Studying news consumers can’t just mean better buttons and more compelling calls to action. Instead, we need to create news to serve users in an attractive form that is easy to understand and pay for in a way that feels fair and accessible.
War/violence oriented
This mode is war/violence oriented. In reporting, conflict is often separated from its larger context in both time and space. As a consequence, it follows that causes and solutions can be, and indeed should be, found in the area of conflict.
The war is portrayed as a zero-sum game between two players, with a clear distinction between ‘us’ and ‘them’, with ‘them’ being the problem. Another important feature of this type of reporting is the dehumanization of the ‘other’.
The focus is narrow and on battle visual effects. As a result, reporting is often reactive, taking interest only after something has happened.
War journalism is propaganda-oriented in the sense that it is very concerned with exposing the ‘other’’s lies and secrets, while protecting its ‘own’, in essence aiding cover-ups. It can be called elite-oriented because it is largely represented through white men and the only peace-makers to whom any credit is given are those of the powerful elite. In the end, war journalism is victory-oriented. A ceasefire is considered victory, meanwhile other options are excluded from the discourse, at least until victory seems possible. In addition, more attention is paid to treaty and institution, and interest fades as the war ends.
In Peace Journalism, Jake Lynch and Annabel McGoldrick expand on Galtung’s theory of peace and war journalism. Like Galtung, he argues that most reporting unintentionally acts as an agent of war, at least not by serving as an outlet for one of the key elements of war journalism; To publicize. A lot of information reaches the media through the parties involved in conflict and where media representation and public perception is important, that information may not be accurate.
Lynch and McGoldrick identified six war fueling ‘claims’ that are recurring in war propaganda in America. These claims in turn reflect six criteria that must be met by the American public before their country can go to war.
‘We are in danger.’ The danger could be an evil leader in possession of dangerous weapons like Saddam Hussein. ‘We have support.’ Military allies appear to be important in sharing responsibility and expenses, as does the support of the international community and preferably a repressed population in the country. ‘We are fighting ‘the evil doers’. Evidence of wicked crimes committed by leaders. Publicity usually fails to check the extent of such crimes. ‘We are left with no option.’ Diplomatic strategies have been exhausted, the ‘rogue leader’ or regime unwilling to accept a peaceful solution. War is the only option. ‘We must save them.’ The feeling of taking a stand against evil, rescuing the population from its ruthless leader or bringing peace to an area is commonly propagated. ‘We must act now.’ Lack of time to act peacefully because of imminent danger or ongoing atrocities.
It should be noted that these ‘claims’ have been found to be relevant in the US. It may well be that UK and Israeli citizens value different factors and, consequently, other 'claims' will be more relevant in convincing them that military action is necessary.
Elite oriented
Elite media are newspapers, radio stations, TV channels and other media that influence the political agenda of other mass media. According to Noam Chomsky, “Elite media have created a framework within which others operate.
The New York Times is used by both Chomsky, a left-wing intellectual, and Bill O’Reilly, a right-wing commentator, as examples of elite media. The newspaper occupies a structural position within the mass media, rather than with a specific political agenda.
Conservatives may use “elite media” or “media elite” in a pejorative context, including a disdain for or disdain for the needs and values of the working class in the reporting of the elite, and alleging that the reporting is biased and unreliable.
Victory oriented
Peace = victory + ceasefire peace-initiation hide, treaty, institution, control society before victory, except for another war, to come back if the old one flares up again.
Promotional oriented
Promotion is a form of communication that attempts to elicit a response that furthers the desired intention of the publicist. Persuasion is interactive and seeks to meet the needs of both the motivator and the persuader. A model of propaganda demonstrates how elements of informational and persuasive communication can be incorporated into promotional communication, thus distinguishing propaganda as a distinct class of communication. References are made to previous theories of rhetoric which indicate that propaganda has undergone some systematic theoretical treatment before the 20th century. Public opinion and behavior change can be influenced by propaganda.
Propaganda has been studied from history, journalism, political science, sociology and psychology, as well as from an interdisciplinary perspective. To study propaganda as history is to examine the practices of evangelists as events and subsequent events as possible effects of propaganda. Treating propaganda as journalism means understanding how news management or “spin” shapes information, emphasizing positive attributes and minimizing negatives, placing institutions in a favorable light.
Promotion Defined:
Propaganda in the most neutral sense means spreading or propagating particular ideas. In Latin, it means “to preach” or "to sow". In 1622, the Vatican established the Sacra Congregatio de Propaganda Fide, meaning Holy Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith of the Roman Catholic Church. Because the Roman Catholic Church's evangelism was intended to spread the faith in the New World as well as oppose Protestantism, the term evangelism lost its neutrality, and subsequent usage rendered the term derogatory. To identify a message as propaganda is to suggest something negative and dishonest.
REFRENCES:
· l http://www.peacejournalism.org/Peace_Journalism/Welcome.html
· l https://www.ukessays.com/essays/media/what-is-peace-journalism-media-essay.php
· l https://www.beyondintractability.org/userguide/journalists
· l http://worldpolicy.org/2017/04/26/the-medias-role-in-stoking-xenophobia/
· l https://mediapeaceproject.smpa.gwu.edu/2017/12/14/what-is-peace-journalism/
· l https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamophobia
· l https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamophobia_in_the_media
· l https://www.routledgehandbooks.com/doi/10.4324/9781351135559-27
· l https://news.gallup.com/poll/157082/islamophobia-understanding-anti-muslim-sentiment-west.aspx
· l https://www.niemanlab.org/2020/12/human-centered-journalism/
· l https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solutions_journalism
· l https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elite_media
No comments:
Post a Comment