The Media Covering Conflict:
Conflict Reporting Project for Journalists

Journalists intervene in conflict - and in a sense mediate conflict - whether they intend to or not. Working with local and international conflict resolution practitioners, we've been developing a new approach to journalism which in many ways strengthens what journalists already do, and raises their awareness about the impact of their reportage. The training borrows from mediation/conflict resolution skills to promote more constructive reportage; they do not aim to transform journalists into mediators. Much of our time is spent on deepening journalists' understanding of conflict, as well as of their own biases and `frameworks' for reporting. The following are some of the areas we focus on:

I. FRAMING

As journalists we bring our own interpretive frameworks to whatever conflict we report on. These frameworks may be conscious or unconscious; often they are the latter. Further, the organisations for which we work operate within certain frameworks, as do the societies in which we live and their various groupings. The project tries to make journalists more aware of their own and others' frameworks. For instance, in South Africa, much of the violence has been framed - by the mainstream and conservative media - as `black on black violence'. This of course is a very crude, inaccurate `frame' for a much more complex phenomenon, which has involved security force, or `third force', intervention; political rivalry; and structural roots in poverty and disenfranchisement. On a grander scale, much of the media in America have framed the invasions of Iraq as `the defence of democracy'; many Muslims across the globe have framed them as the onslaught of Satan. It is interesting to note how certain frameworks - and the narratives, or stories attached to them - spread throughout the media, until they become the accepted wisdom, the prevailing `truth'.

Here are some variables in framing issues:

SCOPE - We need to look at how wide is the frame - e.g., are we reporting on the global contest over the dumping of toxic waste, or a local village's campaign against a multi-national dumping waste on its borders?

SPOTLIGHTING - Do we say `200 will live', or `400 will die'? (Is the cup half empty or half full?)

CONCRETE DATA VS. EUPHEMISM - Do we run a photo of a napalmed child or do we talk about `collateral damage'?

METAPHORS/MODELS - Do we describe the war with Iraq as 'another Vietnam' or as `stopping another Hitler'?

CHARACTERISATION/QUALIFIERS (use of language) -- Do we describe those involved in a liberation struggle as `freedom fighters' or `terrorists'?

SOURCES/AUTHORITY - Who are our sources? Journalists often tend to go for `the experts', and miss the range of persons who are `stakeholders' in a conflict. We need to ask, who else do we source? There are different types of `authority' - those in power, of course, have `authority' (but maybe not knowledge!), but we need to look beyond them to all potential sources with vested interests and experience in the conflict.

II. FACTS, PERCEPTIONS AND ASSUMPTIONS

What are `facts' in journalism? Different people hold different sets of `facts'. It is the journalist's job to try to decode the `facts' of the different parties to a conflict, and to try to somehow discern where truth lies. We can bring a lot towards helping resolve or manage a conflict if we can help parties understand their own and `the other's' assumptions and (mis)perceptions. Peoples in conflict - take the Israelis and Palestinians for example - have elaborate national `texts' or narratives that are perpetuated to maintain `their side' of the conflict, their story, their identity. (For instance, the Israelis have described their establishment of the state of Israel as the claiming of `a land with no people for a people with no land'. Obviously the Palestinians see it differently - the `fact' of there being `no people' in Palestine in 1948 is more than disputable!)

Here is an exercise which reveals a lot about different parties `facts' and perceptions:

(Note: Talk about `facts' relevant to the current conflict, which of course have roots going much further back. It is important to reach back through these layers of history to see how certain `facts' and perceptions are generated and maintained. Go through the exercise this way first, then reverse the roles, i.e.: Important `facts' that B (Ethiopia) sees as crucial; How A (Eritrea) sees the important `facts' of B (Ethiopia). It is of course up to the group how you define `A' and `B'.

PARTISAN PERCEPTIONS

Important `facts' that A sees as crucial How B sees the important `facts' of A

III. INTERVIEWING - ASKING THE RIGHT QUESTIONS

Journalists have unparalleled access to parties in conflict. We suggest that many `golden opportunities' are missed for deepening understanding of a conflict and for helping with its management/resolution because journalists don't ask the right questions. What are the `right' questions? Of course this varies somewhat with the conflict, but in general `right' questions are open questions, not closed - i.e. they don't predetermine the answer or they don't elicit a `yes' or `no' response. For instance, instead of asking (or only asking) "Will you go back to the negotiating table on this issue?", ask "What do you see as the remaining issues to be negotiated?" We suggest that journalists-through good interviewing - can help parties (and themselves and their audiences):

• improve their understanding of the conflict (its causes, dynamics and definition)
• better understand operative `facts', assumptions and perceptions
• dispel rumour and misconception
• build relationships and open lines of communication
• move beyond positions and into interests - and possible areas of common ground
• engage in joint problem solving (this doesn't mean that the journalists themselves
   offer solutions,lthough we see no reason that they can't offer proposals on occasions)

See list of key questions in "Reporting Conflict" article to ask parties-in-conflict.

(Go through `The 5 W's and Questions for Reporting on Conflicts'. Respond to the questions and noting responses on a flipchart/board. Beforehand write down the main categories of questions (who what when….options solutions etc)

(Copyright: Media Peace Center/CWPNM, 2002)