2000
17
Tips:
What A Peace Journalist Would Try To Do
The following notes are from Peace Journalism — How To Do It, by Jake
Lynch and Annabel McGoldrick (annabelmcg@aol.com), written Sydney, 2000. See the two
contrasting articles by Jake Lynch
which illustrate some of these points.
|
|
Also on MediaChannel |
|
Special Report: |
1. AVOID portraying a conflict as consisting of only two
parties contesting one goal. The logical outcome is for one to win and the
other to lose. INSTEAD, a Peace Journalist would DISAGGREGATE the two parties
into many smaller groups, pursuing many goals, opening up more creative
potential for a range of outcomes.
2. AVOID accepting stark distinctions between
"self" and "other." These can be used to build the sense
that another party is a "threat" or "beyond the pale" of
civilized behavior — both key justifications for violence. INSTEAD, seek the
"other" in the "self" and vice versa. If a party is presenting
itself as "the goodies," ask questions about how different its
behavior really is to that it ascribes to "the baddies" — isn't it
ashamed of itself?
3. AVOID treating a conflict as if it is only going on in
the place and at the time that violence is occurring. INSTEAD, try to trace the
links and consequences for people in other places now and in the future. Ask:
* Who are all the people with a stake in the outcome?
* Ask yourself what will happen if ...?
* What lessons will people draw from watching these events unfold as part of a
global audience? How will they enter the calculations of parties to future
conflicts near and far?
4. AVOID assessing the merits of a violent action or policy
of violence in terms of its visible effects only. INSTEAD, try to find ways of
reporting on the invisible effects, e.g., the long-term consequences of
psychological damage and trauma, perhaps increasing the likelihood that those
affected will be violent in future, either against other people or, as a group,
against other groups or other countries.
5. AVOID letting parties define themselves by simply quoting
their leaders' restatement of familiar demands or positions. INSTEAD, inquire
more deeply into goals:
* How are people on the ground affected by the conflict in everyday life?
* What do they want changed?
* Is the position stated by their leaders the only way or the best way to
achieve the changes they want?
6. AVOID concentrating always on what divides the parties,
the differences between what they say they want. INSTEAD, try asking questions
that may reveal areas of common ground and leading your report with answers
which suggest some goals maybe shared or at least compatible, after all.
7. AVOID only reporting the violent acts and describing
"the horror." If you exclude everything else, you suggest that the
only explanation for violence is previous violence (revenge); the only remedy,
more violence (coercion/punishment). INSTEAD, show how people have been blocked
and frustrated or deprived in everyday life as a way of explaining the
violence.
8. AVOID blaming someone for starting it. INSTEAD, try
looking at how shared problems and issues are leading to consequences that all
the parties say they never intended.
9. AVOID focusing exclusively on the suffering, fears and
grievances of only one party. This divides the parties into
"villains" and "victims" and suggests that coercing or
punishing the villains represents a solution. INSTEAD, treat as equally
newsworthy the suffering, fears and grievance of all sides.
10. AVOID "victimizing" language such as
"destitute," "devastated," "defenseless,"
"pathetic" and "tragedy," which only tells us what has been
done to and could be done for a group of people. This disempowers them and
limits the options for change. INSTEAD, report on what has been done and could
be done by the people. Don't just ask them how they feel, also ask them how
they are coping and what do they think? Can they suggest any solutions?
Remember refugees have surnames as well. You wouldn't call President Clinton
"Bill" in a news report.
11. AVOID imprecise use of emotive words to describe what
has happened to people.
* "Genocide" means the wiping out of an entire people.
* "Decimated" (said of a population) means reducing it to a tenth of
its former size.
* "Tragedy" is a form of drama, originally Greek, in which someone's
fault or weakness proves his or her undoing.
* "Assassination" is the murder of a head of state.
* "Massacre" is the deliberate killing of people known to be unarmed
and defenseless. Are we sure? Or might these people have died in battle?
* "Systematic" e.g., raping or forcing people from their homes. Has
it really been organized in a deliberate pattern or have there been a number of
unrelated, albeit extremely nasty incidents? INSTEAD, always be precise about
what we know. Do not minimize suffering but reserve the strongest language for
the gravest situations or you will beggar the language and help to justify disproportionate
responses that escalate the violence.
12. AVOID demonizing adjectives like "vicious,"
"cruel," "brutal" and "barbaric." These always
describe one party's view of what another party has done. To use them puts the
journalist on that side and helps to justify an escalation of violence.
INSTEAD, report what you know about the wrongdoing and give as much information
as you can about the reliability of other people's reports or descriptions of
it.
13. AVOID demonizing labels like "terrorist,"
"extremist," "fanatic" and "fundamentalist."
These are always given by "us" to "them." No one ever uses
them to describe himself or herself, and so, for a journalist to use them is
always to take sides. They mean the person is unreasonable, so it seems to make
less sense to reason (negotiate) with them. INSTEAD, try calling people by the
names they give themselves. Or be more precise in your descriptions.
14. AVOID focusing exclusively on the human rights abuses,
misdemeanors and wrongdoings of only one side. INSTEAD, try to name ALL
wrongdoers and treat equally seriously allegations made by all sides in a
conflict. Treating seriously does not mean taking at face value, but instead
making equal efforts to establish whether any evidence exists to back them up,
treating the victims with equal respect and the chances of finding and
punishing the wrongdoers as being of equal importance.
15. AVOID making an opinion or claim seem like an
established fact. ("Eurico Guterres, said to be responsible for a massacre
in East Timor ...") INSTEAD, tell your readers or your audience who said
what. ("Eurico Guterres, accused by a top U.N. official of ordering a
massacre in East Timor ...") That way you avoid signing yourself and your
news service up to the allegations made by one party in the conflict against
another.
16. AVOID greeting the signing of documents by leaders,
which bring about military victory or cease fire, as necessarily creating
peace. INSTEAD, try to report on the issues which remain and which may still
lead people to commit further acts of violence in the future. Ask what is being
done to strengthen means on the ground to handle and resolve conflict
nonviolently, to address development or structural needs in the society and to
create a culture of peace?
17. AVOID waiting for leaders on "our" side to
suggest or offer solutions. INSTEAD, pick up and explore peace initiatives
wherever they come from. Ask questions to ministers, for example, about ideas
put forward by grassroots organizations. Assess peace perspectives against what
you know about the issues the parties are really trying to address. Do not
simply ignore them because they do not coincide with established positions.
— Jake Lynch is a correspondent for Sky News and The Independent, based in London
and Sydney. He is a consultant to the POIESIS Conflict and Peace Forums and
co-author of "The Peace Journalism Option" and "What Are
Journalists For?"
Back to War and Peace Journalism | Home
Jake
Lynchs fredsjournalistik: ”Undvik att anklaga någon part i konflikten”
2 oktober 2001
Den brittiske journalisten Jake Lynch har skapat en metod han kallar freds- journalistik. Han beskriver det som ett sätt att rapportera om en konflikt som gynnar freden. Ursprungligen hade Jack Lynch konflikten i Mellanöstern i åtanke, men hans synpunkter kan vara intressanta att ta del av vid bevakning av andra oroshärdar i världen.
Den brittiske journalisten Jake Lynch har skapat en metod han kallar freds- journalistik. Han beskriver det som ett sätt att rapportera om en konflikt som gynnar freden. Ursprungligen hade Jack Lynch konflikten i Mellanöstern i åtanke, men hans synpunkter kan vara intressanta att ta del av vid bevakning av andra oroshärdar i världen.
Några av de punkter Jake Lynch anser att journalister skall tänka på då de bevakar en konflikt:
bryt
* 1. Undvik att beskriva en konflikt som om det är två parter som tävlar om ett och samma mål och att endast en kan vinna. Istället bör en journalist visa att det ofta finns fler intressen, många mål.
bryt
* 2. Undvik att beskriva en konflikt som vi mot dom, vilket lätt kan leda till att läsarna eller tittarna får en känsla av att de är hotade och rättfärdigar våld mot de andra. Istället, om en grupp anser sig tillhöra ”de goda” ställ dig då frågan hur goda de egentligen är i jämförelse med ”de onda”.
bryt
* 3. Undvik att endast beskriva en konflikt i våldsamma bilder. Istället, försök att rapportera om de långverkande konsekvenserna och psykologiska effekterna.
bryt
* 4. Undvik att parterna i en konflikt får beskriva sig själva genom att citera sina ledare eller redan kända krav. Istället, fråga efter mera långsiktiga mål. Hur kommer vanligt folk att bli påverkade av konflikten? Vad vill de förändra? Är ledarens ståndpunkt den enda eller den bästa vägen att nå dessa mål?
bryt
* 5. Undvik att koncentrera dig på vad som skiljer de två parterna åt. Istället, försök att ställa frågor som visar att de har mycket gemensamt.
bryt
* 6. Undvik att rapportera enbart om våldet. Om du utesluter allt annat blir orsaken till våldet det tidigare våldet. Istället, försök att hitta en förklaring till varför människor tar till våld som en sista lösning.
bryt
* 7. Undvik att anklaga någon för att ha startat våldet. Istället, försök att leta efter problem som båda parter delar.
bryt
* 8. Undvik att fokusera på den ena partens lidande, fruktan och sorg. Detta leder till att de två parterna i en konflikt delas in i offer och förövare. Istället, försök att så nyhetsmässigt som möjligt beskriva båda sidors problem.
bryt
* 9. Undvik ord som ruinerad, skövla, försvarslös, patetisk och tragedi. Detta gör att en grupp beskrivs som utan inflytande över sitt öde. Istället, rapportera vad som kan och bör göras för dessa människor. Fråga dem inte enbart vad de känner utan också hur de vill lösa sina problem.
bryt
* 10. Undvik oprecisa och emotionella ord som folkmord, decimerade, massaker och systematisk. Istället, var alltid precis i vad du vet. Minimera inte lidandet men reservera de starka orden för de allvarliga situationerna, annars finns det en fara för att orden blir utvattnade.
bryt
* 11. Undvik demoniserande ord som hämndlysten, grym, brutal, barbarisk. Detta beskriver alltid en parts åsikt om den andre. Att använda dessa ord innebär att journalisten tar ställning och rättfärdigar våldet. Istället, rapporter om vad du vet om de brott som begåtts och ge mycket information utan att lägga in värderande ord.
bryt
* 12. Undvik att sätta en stämpel på en part i en konflikt genom att kalla dem terrorister, extremister, fanatiker eller fundamentalister. Dessa ord används aldrig av en part för att beskriva sig själva, vilket innebär att en journalist som använder dessa ord valt sida. Istället, försök att kalla människor med det namn som de själva valt eller var mer precis i din beskrivning.
PÄR JANSSON
pj@sjf.se
Fotnot : Jake Lynch är korrespondent
för Sky News och The Independent och har skrivit böckerna ”The peace journalist
option” och ”What are journalist for?”
@länk: Alla Lynchs fredspunkter; http://www. mediachannel.org/originals/warandpeace2.shtml
Tilbage til forsiden