By Inna Sukhenko
Living within 250 km from the area of war activities and
even getting used to following the current events in the east of Ukraine, I
have a chance to reconsider some points about peace journalism. The SUSI
session on Media and Conflicts launched the process of my own reconsideration
of the peace journalist’s activities. Whether my reconsiderations are right or
wrong is a matter of opinion, but they are based on everyday’s records about
where the battle takes place, what city or village is under attack, who of my friends
is recruited for military service.
Instead of adding to the already existing division and rivalry, the
peace journalist should try to focus on the possible peaceful coexistence of
now rivaling parties. It also could be advisable for a peace journalism to draw
the public’s attention to the presence of some other parties that may act as
intermediaries, guarantors of the conflicting parties’ interests in case the
negotiated solution can be achieved.
Instead of drawing sharp lines between oneself and «other» –
especially when at the root of the conflict are issues extremely important for
the peace journalist him(her)self – one should try to understand the conflict
and its consequences as the «human» problem – the process (problem) of the
universal, all-human nature (rights and liberties of participants, their
expectations, life pursuits, etc.).
Instead of focusing both spatially and chronologically on
the ongoing conflict developments, the peace journalist reporting the conflict
should trace back this conflict’s origins trying to understand and present to
the public its roots, missed opportunities and all sides’ mistakes and lost
opportunities that paved the way to the outbreak of hostilities (as well as
opportunities still open to the rivaling parties).
Instead of focusing solely on violent dimension of the
conflict – or, more precisely, on the «effectiveness» of the violent means
employed by the sides of the conflict, the journalist should uncover nasty
dimension of the consequences of the conflicting parties’ resorting to violence
(death, suffering, injustice, disruption of the normal life, and, last not
least, closing opportunities for the conflict’s resolution for violence breeds
violence, creates vicious circle of violence and counter-violence, violent acts
and acts of revenge).
Instead of letting only leaders (who perfectly well could be
self-serving and insincere), the peace journalist should also listen to the
other voices – ordinary members of communities; those who benefit from the
conflict and those who suffer because of it; popular although not official
figures, etc. This will enable the peace journalist to cut through thick layers
of official rhetoric (quite often resembling Orwellian «New Speak») to the
voices of the real people, those who not just «lead» but live in the time of
the conflict.
Instead of concentrating on what divides the parties of the
conflict, the journalist should focus on their remaining common interests;
instead of following the logic of a «zero-sum game», the peace journalist
should try to show that despite the rivalry, there are still exist some
«pie-enlarging» scenarios.
Instead of «painting it black» and savoring violence – even
if the reasons for it are allegedly noble – the journalist should devote some
substantial share of his (her) attention to what remained of the normal life
even in the epicenter of the conflict. Not only will this make the picture more
complex and «colorful», it will also clearly demonstrate the strength of the
human spirit and raise the hope for the eventual reconciliation and
rehabilitation.
Instead of blaming exclusively one side of the conflict for
the outburst of the confrontation, the journalist, covering the war events,
should analyze impassionedly all sides’ ways and, so to say, «contributions» to
the conflict working to provide better understanding of the current
developments by putting them into multidimensional retrospective (as well as
helping at least to grapple for the conflicting sides’ common points and
possible subjects of negotiations).Instead of focusing exclusively on the
suffering of only one side of the conflict, the peace journalist should present
the whole picture with death and sufferings being faced by all sides. Not only
will this make the picture clearer and more truthful. It also may plant the
seeds of understanding how irrational and all-destructive the conflict is.
Instead of applying «victimizing» language to any of the
sides of the conflict, the peace journalist should try to depict those sides’
nature and activity (especially those parties that face the most serious
challenge in the course of the conflict) in terms of either neutral
characterization or underlying not only those parties’ losses and sufferings
but also their ability to act resolutely and productively under pressure, their
ability to retain their human dignity and their readiness to leave the trauma
of the conflict behind on move towards brighter horizons.
Thanks to SUSI for such vivid brainstorming. I actually
needed this.
No comments:
Post a Comment