As expected from the literature described above, mass media in conflict resolution matters are fundamental parts of the problem and its solution (Lopez & Sabucedo, 2007, p. 150). Audiences use the message delivered by the media to compre- hend and form opinions on domestic and international events, incidents and issues (Simons, 2008, p. 1). Indeed, the general public is much more dependent on media and experts, as compared with other domestic actors to get up to date information on the negotiations and the actual meaning and implications of news (Shamir, 2007, p. 16). In a way or another, opinions expressed by the press influence the opinion adopted by the public. For example, when individuals read or hear about an issue they tend to adopt their attitude with how the issue was portrayed by the media. Therefore, mass media can be both an opportunity and a threat for the sides engag- ing in a conflict. An opportunity, “if the power of the mass media can be harnessed to one’s advantage and the message relayed”. A threat, “if this ‘power’ is harnessed by an opposing party, who might use it to generate negative sentiment and publicity towards the other party” (Simons, 2008, p. 1).
Mass media in conflict resolution is considered a “fundamental force shaping the lives of individuals and the fate of peoples and nations” (Manoff, 1997). The role of media in conflict takes two opposed and different routes, the first route when the media plays an active part in the conflict and has responsibility for violence escalation, or the second route, that is to stay independent and out of the conflict, and therefore contribute to the resolution of conflict and lessening violence. Zelizer (1997) pointed out that the absence of neutral journalism coverage of conflictual social reality is a correct fact however the present of it is an incorrect one. Moreover, he added: journalistic elite are usually “part and parcel of the political, cultural and intellectual elite in every society”, and the active role the journalists and media institutions play in the “power games of society” is overwhelming and should not be underestimated (Jamal, 2007, p. 2).
Nobody questions the significant role of mass media in shaping the configura- tion of peoples’ beliefs, social representations, and opinions, and the remarkable impact it plays in the creation of perceptions and ‘relational frames’ mediating be- haviors and attitudes toward political facts. This composes an inevitable influence on peoples’ perceptions that should be considered in solving political conflicts. Not to mention the nowadays increased demand for explanations and clarifications to everything that goes on in political conflicts worldwide, forcing people to turn more to mass media seeking for answers and validations of their points of views, which again, emphasizes the significant contribution mass media provides in the devel- opment of political conflicts (Ibid, p. 150). This led to the emergence of the new trend of peace journalism, which offers an approach for media professionals en- abling them to research into the structural and cultural causes of the conflict and its impact on the lives of citizens and to provide a content that reflects the commonal- ities between all conflict parties in a particular community and produce proposals and initiatives to mitigate this conflict. In line with this, I will explain below how Galtung defined peace journalism, its goals and the Hierarchy of Influences Model.
Peace Journalism
This new trend emerged at the beginning of the nineties of the last century under the name of the alternative press or peace journalism at the hands of John Galtung (Galtung, 2002), in which he identified the role of the press in conflict management and peace-building. It stems from the ability of the media to narrow the differences between the parties of the conflict and try to focus on the commonalities between these parties. Especially that the media in all its forms audiovisual, electronic and written has become the most powerful weapon as viewed by some people. Tradi- tionally viewed, it’s no more the fourth power, but it might be considered now as the first power. This assumes the journalist responsible for additional burdens in the commitment to turn and moves the news and picture objectively, balanced and im- partial and without misguidance, incitement and sedition or distortion of the facts, and without the use of vocabulary that might fuel conflicts, as well as seditious speeches that encourage violence. In any case, the functions of the peaceful media are to highlight the humanitarian aspects and reject disputes (Hanitzsch, 2007, p. 2).
The concept of peace journalism emerged as an opposite reaction (backfire) to the concept of the war press that covers issues of violence in a biased manner by focusing on violent incidents and details of their own, such as the number of casu- alties and the type of the weapons used, but doesn’t care about the processes and the reasons that led to the violence and its consequences on human life. It believes that the conflict consequences should end with the victory of one of the parties and the defeat of the other party (it was described by Galtung and Fischer (2013) as the
the low road). Peace journalism, however, seeks to leave the interpretation to the reader or viewer or listener on the background of the conflict and its causes with- out bias, and that through conflict analysis and focusing on the facts broadcast as these are without bias in favor of a party at the expense of the other one, and with- out manipulation of the emotions of masses through the use of emotional words like ‘tragedy’ or ‘innocent’ in order to achieve a higher rate of follow-up, which is the responsibility of the media parties to highlight conflicts and their causes and how to develop solutions to the causes by experts and specialists (or the high road) (Galtung & Fischer, 2013, p. 96).
Goals of Peace Journalism
The concept of peace journalism offers an alternative entry point for journalists. The media here focus on the structural and cultural causes of conflicts and their impact on the lives of citizens. They reflect the views of all conflict parties and sug- gest possible solutions and initiatives to reduce the level of violence (Ibid.). The aim of peace journalism is to provide background on how the conflict began and its dimensions so that the public recognizes these dimensions through transparency. It investigates the causes of conflict and approaches solutions thereto through the presentation of perspectives and vision of all parties about the conflict. The press here takes this relying on the strategy of all parties advantage from conflict resolu- tion (Win-Win Strategy) and focusing on the conflict itself as a problem rather than focusing on a particular party as the reason for this conflict (Hanitzsch, 2007, p. 3; Hanitzsch, 2004).
In the case of a lack of trust between the conflict parties, peace journalism comes as a third party that can facilitate communication between these parties and reduce the degree of tension between rivals and prevent the conflict from widening and works as means to build and not to tear down. Although the responsibility for re- solving the conflict should be assumed by all groups and institutions of the society, journalists, however, with their ability to have access to information and influence the decision-making process can cover the conflict news in a manner that reduces its effects and provide the principles to overcome it (Shinar, 2007; Mitchell, 2012).
With the development of modern means of communication and the trend to- wards the so-called globalization, there has been an overlapping between the role the means of communication can carry out at the national and international levels. It has become an imperative for the means of communication to change its media strategy in light of the diminishing role of the national state in the field of media, and thus it has been associated with that role played by modern means of com- munication to add a new force at the international level to countries that acquire these means. After we had two types of powers that countries enjoy and employ to
achieve their goals, namely the Hard Power and the Soft Power, developed countries have now a third power, which is called the Smart Power, and which has emerged after the events of the 11th of September. This power is associated with the use of modern means of communication in the information collection and decision-making process. Despite the claims of Western countries for the inevitability of employing their smart joined powers to fight terrorism, but it has become one of the fundamen- tal powers that are used to impact decision-making at the international and national process level (Chetail, 2009).
Hierarchy of Influences Model
Hackett (2006) in his article ‘Is Peace Journalism Possible?’ investigated the con- ceptual framework of the ‘hierarchy of influences’ model by Shoemaker and Reese, and he highlighted the importance of this micro-to-macro model “to identify spe- cific influences on the news, and to explore relationships between them” (p. 6), moreover, it “helps to assess pressures for and against peace journalism at each of five levels of factors” (Ibid., p. 6). The model comprise of the following levels: (1) individual, where media content is driven by newsworker’ attitudes, ideologies and socialization, (2) routines; where the content is influenced by organizational struc- tures and constraints, (3) extramedia (institutional); where it is shaped by “eco- nomic, political, and cultural forces”, and ideological (sociocultural); where news content go along with the status quo and in support of those in power in the so- ciety, as shown in the figure below (Reese, 2007, p. 35). Sujoko (2013) described the process of influence: ‘Organizational factors play a major role in managing other factors in order to win media business competition. Within the political and economic context, the existence of media (organization) can create “power-making space”’.
FIGURE3.9 HIERARCHY OF INFLUENCES MODEL JOURNALISTS MEDIA ROUTINES ORGANIZATION EXTRAMEDIA FORCES IDEOLOGICAL, SOCIOCULTURAL FORCES
Source: Shoemaker and Reese (1996).
Role of Journalists’ Media Framing in Conflict Resolution
Journalists and the neutrality of their reports are becoming targets in modern con- flicts. In this context, the absence of pure neutrality in political conflict reports does not mean that journalists are “dishonest or deliberately manipulate the informa- tion” (Hackett, 2006, p. 5). On the contrary, it is the status where neutrality is some- thing undesirable to appeal, especially in the situations of violence, injustice and so forth. As has been said, “the worst place in hell is reserved to those who stay neutral in times of crisis” (Lopez & Sabucedo, 2007, p. 151). Luhmann (2000) once stated: “the news that ‘sells’ are those that captures the attention of the audience is spectacular, unforeseen, and dramatic facts”.
Although scholarly attempts to pinpoint the complexity of the heuristic process of news decisions have failed to have a firm grasp of the pattern used by journalists to include or exclude a story, scholars agreed on the following main factors that ap- parently seem to have an influence on this process: news factors. It was empirically proven that the more personalized, negative, and factual the story, the bigger the chance to be included. At the same time, this type of news factors seems to explain lots of news selection by the audience. Institutional objectives; it summarizes the pressure imposed by the employer and the journalist employment status to high- light specific kind of news and disregard others, how to present it, and to follow and frame it in line with the political agenda of the institution or employer (Donsbach, 2004, p. 134). Figure 3.10 hereunder illustrates the elements of journalists’ dilemma in news decisions.
FIGURE3.10 JOURNALISTS’DILEMMA IN NEWS DECISIONS
make factual and evaluative decisions. As this is a feature of many professions, journalists face four additional problems. They have to make these decisions usually under severe time constraints and under the pressure of competition. For many news decisions they lack objective criteria and their decision becomes immediately public, i.e. visible to many others, which carries the risk of public failure. Figure 1 summarizes this dilemma of the journalistic profession.
The lack of objective criteria does not, however, apply to all kinds and objects of reporting. Decisions of truth can often be verified objectively and good and professional news-reporting can be distinguished from a poor reporting by the extent to which available sources and data have been exploited. This is a question of research activity, of professional knowledge about sources and the readiness to ‘falsify’ one’s own assumptions and hypo- theses (Stocking and LaMarca, 1990). For instance, in many cases reporters can prove the truth of a spokesperson’s assertions by asking the right experts or digging into the relevant databanks, thus building their final decision about the legitimacy of a particular assertion on an objective basis.
But often such criteria for evaluation do not exist or cannot be supplied under the typical constraints of the business. Claims made by scientists that, for instance, BSE can be transferred to humans or forecasts by an economist of how the economy will develop in the next 12 months can hardly be verified by a journalist him- or herself even if he or she has been trained in these fields. Other than factual decisions, evaluative judgements such as the news value of an event or the moral acceptability of a political actor’s behavior lack, by definition, such objective criteria. They are always based on value judge- ments which can neither be verified nor falsified (Popper, 1977; Albert, 1980).
Figure 1 Journalists’ dilemma in news decisions
Donsbach Psychology of news decisions 1 3 7
Source: Donsbach, 2004, p. 137.
Tankard (2001) believed that journalists at times circulate frames to skew audi- ences’ attitudes toward an issue, and viewed frames as a mean to manipulate and spin the interpretation of messages by audiences, which can be true. Other scholars believed that frames were being used as tools to reduce the complexity of issues and to convey, identify and classify information in a way that allows audiences to have easy accessibility to and to make sense of that issue even if they were ignorant of it (Scheufele, 2008a). Reese (2001) however moved beyond all this to the con- scious side of framing and suggested that “it always implies an active process”, and analysts should determine the degree to which framing is prevailing (K¨onig, 2008).
A lot of questions are raised on the subject of peace journalism. Can a journalist maintain peaceful coverage or write while his country is under a certain external aggression? Can this concept remain theoretically sound, whilst it’s actually diffi- cult to achieve, where the journalist is exposed to pressure from the management of the media institution in which he works as to follow a particular style that serves the interests of the management? It’s the duty of the journalist to cover the facts, but instead of fomenting the psychological situation of the public, he can draw at- tention to the existing peace initiatives. Furthermore, the journalist can highlight the humanitarian demands rather than focusing exclusively on the stances of politicians.
Hackett (2006, p. 11) concluded with three approaches for changing journalistic strategies, one of which focused on reforming journalism from within, meaning, to let journalists take the lead away from an agency restrictions or whatsoever. He added: ‘PJ is likely to derive from the victims of war, from activists committed to peace-building processes, and/or from social justice movements marginalized by current patterns of national or global communication’.