Peace Journalism

This document discusses the role of journalism in times of conflict and how the role of journalism during the conflicts in Rwanda, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and the Middle East have confirmed the need to re-examine the role and position of the media in violent conflicts. It contrasts the role of journalists in exacerbating conflict and in promoting the possibility of peace through conflict transformation.


Academic literature criticises cases of media instigation of violence and conflict during all stages of conflict, specifically, "the precipitous destruction, in wartime, of a healthy journalistic sense, which becomes submerged and assimilated into the discourse of war." The kind of journalism that exacerbates violence - described here as: uses of the traditional language of bombastic propaganda; detailed information and strong action verbs; always referencing "well-informed, high-level" sources - is, according to the author, a universal phenomenon, embedded in almost all conflicted societies, and universally deplored as having acute and chronic deficiencies, particularly representing violent conflict as the natural consequence of insurmountable cultural differences between ‘us’ and ‘them’.


These deficiencies have caused some journalists, particularly Martin Bell, to renounce the ideal of absolute objectivity. Bell proposed a counter-thesis of journalism of attachment, or engaged journalism. However, the document cites a lack of consensus on an engaged journalism that counters conflict journalism with conflict transformation through peace journalism.



As stated here: "Peace journalism advocates for conflict transformation through constructive discourse. The aim is not to eliminate the conflict but to avoid the stage in which the conflict turns into violence. This is not attempted through the deconstruction of war discourse, in which the opponent is presented as the only problem. In peace journalism, on the contrary, the only problem is violence (1). Thus the parties in conflict, including their objectives and needs, are placed under a magnifying glass within a cultural and historic context. Instead of delivering bombastic reports, a process of peace agreement generation is followed, and instead of a careful recitation of losses and damage caused, we follow human peril, regardless of ethnic affiliation."


Because this style of journalism is criticised for following a bias in reporting "facts", another model, “conflict sensitive journalism”, has been developed. This model implies the enhanced sensitivity of a journalist to a conflict climate, sources of information, and information goals. It emphasises responsibility, truthfulness, and impartiality. In the proving ground of post-conflict Bosnia and Herzegovina, some editors have accepted a preference for topics on "unity above difference", but hesitate to commit to peace journalism; others insist that the media must be a model of tolerance and reconciliation and actively promote the values of coexistence, tolerance, and good neighbourly relations. Similarly, in Cambodia, Colombia, Northern Ireland, and Rwanda and Burundi, a majority of journalists appear to support some form of the principle of peace journalism.

The document concludes that "while the influence of the media in the generation of wars is well researched, the role of the media in the reconciliation process is still being examined. How and to what extent the media should be involved in promoting a peaceful solution to a conflict is open to question. Regardless of disagreements concerning the right position and model of peace journalism, we can none the less conclude that the media deserve special attention during war. Most authors and journalists agree on the basic and most important assertion that the media are likely to fall prey to war circumstances and transform into something Galtung calls war journalism. The sheer avoidance of this degradation of journalism is, to some extent, a form of peace journalism and should, as such, serve as the main postulate of the media in conflict situations. Those for whom this is not enough have scope to advocate for the prevention of war, or any other form of violence, within the definition of journalistic accountability. This does not mean, however, that they should ignore their main role – to inform the public about events."

1. Reference removed by this editor and placed here: (Lynch & McGoldrick, 2005)


Click here to read the full text of this document.