A top European Union official recently cautioned against the concept of ‘peace journalism‘, under which journalists actively promote peace as part of their coverage of conflicts. His views resonated much with my own reservations about this particular brand of journalism.
Javier Solana, EU High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy, made the remarks in a written contribution to the Deutsche Welle Global Media Forum, held in Bonn, Germany, from 3 to 5 June 2009. I wasn’t there in person, but have been reading up some of the presentations and media coverage of the event.
The Spanish physicist-turned-politician added: “We all want to promote peace, reconciliation and conflict resolution and we want the media to help us in this. The best way in which they can do this is to inform us. This is the journalist’s fundamental task.”
He then sounded a word of caution: “The reporter is there to report. We should be careful not to weigh down the media with additional responsibilities over and above their primary task of providing information. A healthy media environment is diverse and plural; it is there to explain but not take sides. The profession of journalism needs no justification and no sophisticated qualification.”
Solana also referred to the early notion of ‘development journalism’ that was promoted in the 1970s, which called upon journalists in the developing countries to always support their governments’ development efforts. Such uncritical cheer-leading, which resulted in many ‘sunshine stories’ that glossed over problems, eventually did a lot more harm than good: development journalists became mere propagandists for governments pursuing wrong development models that squandered natural resources and brought misery to millions.
In fact, after having been part of the media and communications profession for over two decades, I no longer like to box myself into any category. For some years during my first decade of working life, I proudly called myself an ‘environmental journalist’. I still cover environmental issues with the same interest and passion, but now question whether the growth of environmental journalism as a media specialisation has, inadvertently, ghettoised environmental issues within the editorial considerations of media organisations. I also feel that at one point we became too ‘green’ for our own good.
At best, such specialist journalists can only weave part of the much-nuanced, multi-faceted tapestry of sustainable development. To grasp that bigger picture, and to communicate it well, we need the informed and active participation of the entire media industry -– from reporters, feature writers and producers to editors, managers and media owners.
What we lack – and urgently need – is plain good journalism that covers development, conflict and other issues as an integral part of human affairs. Noble intentions of saving the planet, or making world peace, sound good at beauty pageants. But these catch-all lines don’t give anyone the license to engage in shoddy journalism that lacks accuracy, balance and credibility – the core tenets of the profession. It applies equally to mainstream and citizen journalists.
So it’s time to take a few steps back, grasp the bigger picture ourselves, and then show it as is to our audiences. We need Reporters Without Labels.
The only label worth aspiring to is a good journalist. May their tribe increase!
Open Minds! (formerly: Moving Images blog) 
I’ve just left this comment on a fellow South Asian journalist’s blog where she excerpted parts of my above post:
The pros and cons of advocacy journalism have been debated for at least three decades, and perhaps even longer. I’m not opposed to advocacy journalism, and in fact, far prefer that to the clinically detached, cold and dispassionate approach to reporting and commenting on events. Whether we like it or not, we do get involved when we bear witness — either as mainstream or citizen journalists.
Our challenge, in my view, is to resist becoming crusaders to the point where we lose sight of the first principles and primary responsibilities. It’s a sad truth that many use the media outlets and platforms to peddle hatred, suspicion, xenophobia and other sentiments that fuel and sustain conflicts. But the reaction to such extremism should be show and discuss matters as is – warts and all – rather than become dove-bearing, see-no-evil ‘peace journalists’. This is why I have always found the populist brand of peace journalism naive, ineffective and irrelevant.
But let’s see what others think!
See her full post at: http://www.angileeshah.com/2009/06/19/a-journalists-role-in-reporting-on-conflict/
The world is full of evil, so we’d better come to terms with it. My impression of Peace journalists is a group in permanent denial looking for elusive (and endangered?) peace in a world full of greedy men who are killing each other for control over land, money and political power. If media is a mirror of our times and societies they cannot avoid showing things as they are. Sanitising content is best left to government censors.
Spot on, Nalaka. I like the idea of Reporters without Labels. I think we need to encourage good quality journalism and set aside agendas.