War journalism keeps war alive. It is the frontrunner element that campaigns for the prolonged business of war. For the uninitiated, as the name suggests, War Journalism refers to journalism that is focused on war, and encourages a presentation that is heavily-oriented towards violence and projects the conflict arena in a two-party and one-goal deal. It confines itself to closed spaces and time, and studies the cause and effect only in the arena. It typically concerns itself only with the visible or tangible effects of violence, making the conflict opaque. The focus is on an ‘us-and-them’ rhetoric while seeing the enemy ‘them’ as the problem and dehumanising them. War journalism is heavily reactive in that it waits for violence to start before it does or says anything, and is heavily propaganda-oriented, seeking only to expose ‘their’ untruths while helping to cover up ‘our’ own flaws.
It tends towards the elite, by focusing on ‘their’ violence and ‘our’ suffering, calling ‘them’ evildoers and focusing only on the elite segments of society – spokespersons and peacemakers. In sum, what War Journalism does is create a hype that gets everyone to say “Never Again” and employ powerful sounding hashtags – but it stops with that. Once the conflict is resolved or becomes old news, there is a massive decline regarding concern over the issue, yet without ever understanding the root of the problem in the first place. This leaves a sort of Band-Aid on the sore, without any concern for preventing the conflict from recurring.
Take any conflict in the world today. There are a range of different narratives, conflicting ones no less. Each passes off a version as the truth, some building on propaganda and a political agenda that they are either paid for, or were founded for, in the first place. This makes getting an accurate idea of the events around the country or the issue virtually impossible.
Assessing the role of the media globally, it is no guess that reporting on most conflict zones presents a torrid dilemma. With the many actors involved in any conflict, there are scores of outlets that offer partisan accounts of the news. Ethics continue to be flouted with tampered videos being passed off as news, media houses imposing value judgments and aligning themselves by taking sides. That a biased report or one constructed on untruths can culminate in distrust, disillusionment and cynicism about the media is a given. In an already polarised society that is divided, or on the brink of conflict, a section of the society can end-up feeling disadvantaged. Their voices being silenced renders the essence of a democracy redundant.
A community of people who subscribe to such forms of media reporting, where violence continues to remain the key theme, will be more inclined to sponsor or create conflict. The saying that history is written by the hands of the victors rings true in the context of the media. Accordingly, the foundations of hatred will continue to be built upon, and a future citizenry swearing by hatred and anger will be built on the founts of false or incorrect or unverified information.
In contrast, Peace Journalism doesn’t concern itself with the winner-versus-loser rhetoric, but rather zooms right into the root of the very issue. It portrays conflicts in realistic terms and encourages the exploration of backgrounds and contexts of conflict formation. It presents the causes and options of every side involved, without introducing the ‘us’ versus ‘them’ perspective. It effectively serves the purpose by being transparent in the representation of the causes, background and issues concerning a conflict; giving a voice to the rival parties involved and their views; exposing lies, cover-ups and attempts to cover-up as well as culprits on all sides unequivocally; revealing the suffering inflicted on people of all parties involved in the conflict; paying attention to peace stories and efforts for peace and providing information on post-war developments. Peace Journalism is about transparent journalism that relies on facts and explores the reality of the situation.
Calling for a Feminist Peace Journalism
Even as peace journalism centers on the root cause and asks for attention to be drawn to solutions, the truth, and the realities surrounding a conflict, feminist peace journalism draws upon the principles of intersectionality and standpoint feminism. It seeks to center those whose lived experiences shape the narrative, presents their truth only with the exercise of their agency - and in their original, authentic voice rather than have another occupy or appropriate that space. Feminist peace journalism addresses structural violence and cultural violence, and acknowledges the need to dismantle these factors by shining a light on the root causes and the enabling environment that culminate in particular forms of violence.
Central to feminist peace journalism is gaze: who is producing what, for whom, and to what end? Feminist inquiry aims at subverting the patriarchal male gaze, and instead, strives to look at the world, gathering and interpreting knowledge through the subversion of patriarchal structures, and to look at the world with a non-cis-het male lens. It serves to question structures that are oppressive, discriminatory, unequal and exclusionary. Put together, Feminist Peace Journalism aims at passing the mic to facilitate transparent journalism, storytelling, truth-telling, and creating information by relying on facts, and exploring the realities of the situations around us. Drawing from the values of intersectional and contemporary standpoints feminism, feminist peace journalism takes the formula of peace journalism and amplifies it further by centering the voices of those that have been marginalized, excluded, oppressed, and talked over. It is cautious about who holds the pen while telling a story, and builds in a committed, and dedicated approach to stay away from sensationalism.
The media as a platform is meant to crystallise public opinion as only one part of its duty. Its primary responsibility is pivoted around being a conduit between the incident and those who should be informed of it. Deploying feminist peace values, the media would not only have a duty to collect facts, ascertain and verify the truth behind them, and put them out before the masses in black and white. It is not for the media to insinuate, to decide, or to pass value judgment on any subject it explores: but to deliver the truth as it is, by centering those whose truth it is only if they exercise their agency freely and fully in deciding whether to tell their story or not, and accordingly, if they decide to tell their story, then how.
The duty of the media begins and ends with the sole duty of dispensing impartial information for public awareness. In the course of doing so, it has a duty to be blind to prejudice, and to expose facts that are grounded in committed verification. The role of the media in containing tension by reporting pure fact cannot be emphasised enough. As a voice that offers information, the media is perhaps among the earliest to know about the country’s fragile state, or at the very least, to know where the country’s fragile areas lie. Instead of exacerbating conflict by playing up on these divisive aspects, the media should function from a place of commitment to truth-telling.
Refraining from alarmist or over sensationalised reporting will go a long way towards keeping the media within its line of duty. What the media needs to be providing is wholesome information and a statement in no clear terms that what it does not know, it does not know. Bridging the objective with purported statements covered with the subjective are counterproductive at best, and only go to create space for baseless propaganda to thrive.