IOM International Organization for Migration IOM Rahvusvaheline Migratsiooniorganisatsioon “Public Awareness Raising in Estonia: Refugees and Migrants” (PAREM) March 2012 “WAR/CONFLICT/CRISIS/CATASTROPHES IN JOURNALISM” presented by Thomas R Lansner Adjunct Associate Professor, Columbia University School of International & Public Affairs PR PRESENTA NTATIO TION NO NOTE TES March 2 March 2012* * THESE NOTES COVER TOPICS DISCUSSED AND SOME OTHER RELEVANT POINTS THAT ARE OF INTEREST BUT COULD NOT BE COVERED IN THE TIME ALLOTTED FOR OUR MEETING OVE OVERVI VIEW Does access to honest and accurate information help prevent or resolve conflict? This is certainly the received wisdom regarding democratic development in general. The notion has been enshrined in western liberal tradition by thinkers, theorists and politicians including Milton, Mill, Madison, Jefferson, Carlyle, and many others. It is supported more recently as crucial to human development by Sen, and broadly by democracy advocates around the world. Anecdotally and instinctively, also, it sounds and feels right that any polity that aspires to democratic structures, or at least participatory governance, is best served by act active ve open en med edia , which promote understanding and respect for fundamental freedoms, demands for their realization, and transitions to democracy, and could help prevent or resolve conflict. Active open media must be at least in some combination free, independent and pluralistic, pursue a watchdog role over the broadest array of societal institutions, and provide a public sphere of civic forums and citizens’ debate. Government, business, religious groups, civil society organizations, and even the press itself, are subject to scrutiny by active open media. Such media are essential to providing transparency, accountability, and voice, across a society. Access to information offered by even active open media is also a crucial issue. The impact of even the most vibrant mass media is intrinsically related to who can see or hear their messages. Absent broad access, the media’s power to inform, to shape agendas, to provide a civic forum, may be severely limited.
PAREM Notes TR Lansner March 2012 page 2/6 DI DISCU CUSSION POINTS St Stereot otypi ping ng is an enemy of good journalism: homogenous, fixed images are resistant to change, even in the face of new information “ Pr Prox oximi mity ” is a key to what is reported anywhere… from anywhere. Perceived threats to what we hold dearest — our families, our homes, our identity — have the greatest proximity, and will be reported most, and often in the most biased manner. De Demonization of enemies is common in almost every conflict. From Iranian leaders’ denunciation of the US as the “Great Satan” to George • W Bush’s labeling of some countries as “axes of evil,” such rhetoric aims to rouse people's “righteous” anger. Imputing the literally diabolical to one’s temporal nemesis allows moral • justification and sometimes spiritual comfort to those who will be called upon to kill, and for those in whose name killing will be done. Innocent victims — real or conjured as propaganda — gather most media • attention. Alleged baby killers from World War I to Kuwait to Kosovo have been • denounced as evildoers who must be stopped. Images from Syria over the last days have again proved that, especially • citizen-witness-reporter videos of the killing of children. ME MEDIA ROLES IN CONFLICT In a free society, a crucial role of media is to serve as a watchdog that helps keeps governments, militaries, police, and non-state actors accountable. In times of in internatio ional l conflic lict, many media outlets too often abandon this role to serve as a “patriotic” promoter of conflict. During in internal l cris isis is, some media outlets help incite conflict by offering stereotyped and/or inaccurate coverage of groups and communities. First, How do we know media are important? How and when people receive information can significantly affect how they view their societies and themselves, and those with whom they might be in contact or conflict. Mass media’s potential to educate, to inform — and to misinform — is immense. The content of media messages clearly influences societies’ perceptions and expectations, helping to shape public opinion and set public agendas. It can stir (or
PAREM Notes TR Lansner March 2012 page 3/6 shame) authorities and non-state actors to action, and evoke, encourage, manipulate – or perhaps inflame or incite – popular reaction. In a few cases, media effects are all too obvious, such as accounts of Rwanda’s radio station RTML — as killers listened, radios in one hand, machets in the other, at roadblocks. It is also clear that most short-form journalism is much better at describing rather than explaining events, and lack the time/space to offer context that can allow better understanding of a conflict’s background and possibilities for de-escalation or resolution. Iraq War “Mis Ir isperceptio ions” A very interesting example of media power to mi misinform is from the run–up to the 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq. A very reputable US study [Program on International Policy Attitudes, clip provided] found many more people who shared one or more of three “misperceptions” about Iraq supported war: 1. Saddam Hussein was collaborating with Al Qaeda 2. Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction 3. World public opinion supported an invasion The study [with over 1300 respondents] found that people who watched FOX News as primary source had were mostly likely to believe three principal “misperceptions”, and to support the invasion. Those who watched public TV, or relied on print media much less likely to have these misperceptions. UNESCO states: “Since war begins in the minds of men, it is in the minds of men that the defences of peace must be constructed”. We must also recognize that like conflict, media reports also begin in the minds of men – and women. Jo Journalists must strive to rec ecognize e thei eir own biases es, and to gain learning ga g that allows them to better understand and more accurately an ac and f fully r report an and e explai ain t the c cau auses an and co consequence ces of co conflict.
PAREM Notes TR Lansner March 2012 page 4/6 FR FRAMING & NAR NARRAT ATIVE VES The power of media to FRAME our understanding of conflict, or to place a conflict or an issue within a conflict on the public record, or even raise it to the public agenda, is clear. The Do Dominant Narrative [or “prevailing cultural narrative”] is crucial. Does • media reporting follow a narrative that places all blame on one side to a conflict? Are stereotypes or biases evident? Wo Word Choice in reporting on a conflict is important. Are individuals called • “freedom fighters” or “terrorists”? The way people are described will influence the audience, and can reveal a reporter’s perspective. Sour Source Choi hoice – who is quoted and cited is a key factor in shaping the • information presented and influencing media consumer’s perceptions. A wide variety of sources, including non-official and marginalized voices, help create a fuller account of events. Im Image Choic ice can very strongly influence audience perceptions. Great care • should be taken that images that are atypical, stereotypical, or misrepresentative do not become dominant, and that caption material is clear. Vi Visual Images es are especially potent. Allegations that Americans were torturing Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib Prison became a major story only after ghastly photos were revealed. A BBC investigation revealing similar treatment to Afghan detainees is never gained similar attention — arguably, at least in part because there were not strong images to accompany the report. See: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8116046.stm Yet, keep in mind an important caveat: understanding the precise effect of media reporting on public behaviors relating to conflicts remains problematical. Many other factors affect people’s actions, and much research remains to be done. HYPOT HY OTHE HETICAL AL EXERCISE The hypothetical exercise we discussed involved the role of journalists in a zone of violent conflict. Would you as a journalist join “fighters” planning to attack other “fighters” to report on the event? If the fighters to be attacked were from your own country, would you do so? Would you seek to warn your compatriots? If yes, would you then be a spy? If civilians were to be attacked, would you warn them? Would you reaction change if the fighters were to engage in a “crime of war” rather than an “act of war”? Please see more on this attached in the attached clip by James Fallows from Why We Hate the Media .
Recommend
More recommend
