Epistemological and Ethical Concerns in Peace Journalism

Peace is War:

Epistemological and Ethical Concerns in Peace Journalism's Theory, Praxis, and Practice

Nicholas Gilewicz

Temple University

PEACE IS WAR: EPISTEMOLOGICAL AND ETHICAL CONCERNS IN PEACE JOURNALISM'S THEORY, PRAXIS, AND PRATICE

Abstract

Peace journalism—journalistic practice attempting to critique and correct war journalism—arises

from structuralist analysis, has culturalist aims, and emerges as a normative media frame. 42

recent publications about peace journalism's theory, praxis, and practice indicate the field's

failure to fully consider its own discursive structure and suggest epistemological and professional

problems that parallel those of war journalism. To support peace journalism's admirable ethical

aims, proponents should attend to refining and strengthening its theoretical bases.

Keywords: conflict studies, epistemology, journalism studies, media ethics, peace journalism.

2


Introduction

Journalism has a long history of reporting war, and journalism studies has a substantial

history of studying war reporting. Pacifism and its academic outgrowth, peace and conflict

studies, stand in opposition not only to war, but also to structures that support it. Peace

journalism, a professional adaptation of those positions, purports to offer a solution to ameliorate

conflict and what the field's proponents view as the deleterious effects of war journalism.

Peace journalism is variously articulated as "a 'journalism of attachment' to all actual and

potential victims" (Galtung, 1998), as something that occurs when journalists create a space for

the public to contemplate analyses of and solutions to conflict that do not rely on violent means

(Lynch and McGoldrick, 2005a), and as a revolutionary political practice to ensure the "right of

all" to communicate in journalistic ways (Keeble, 2010). In recent years, media scholars' interest

in peace journalism has accelerated in parallel with the adoption of Johan Galtung's peace

journalism prescriptions by journalist-academics Jake Lynch and Annabel McGoldrick in the late

1990s. A growing number of empirical studies have sought to use—and to test—peace

journalism in academic research. In turn, an evaluation of recent theoretical debates in peace

journalism, of how those debates reflect or respond to previously problematized issues in

journalism studies, and of how recent empirical studies apply peace journalism concepts has

become increasingly necessary.

This paper focuses on articles that clearly articulate theoretical facets or underpinnings of

peace journalism, and that clearly relate those theoretical aspects to communication scholarship.

The intent is not to comprehensively address the history of peace journalism or to be a complete

assessment of the field.1 Rather than addressing the entire field and journalism's relationship to

1 For insights into peace journalism and conflict theory, see Peleg, and for a wider-ranging discussion of war and peace journalism literature, see Ross.

3


peace studies, this paper's concerns are peace journalism's epistemology, its relationship to

journalism studies, and its potential contributions to journalism practice.

Peace journalism is a highly problematic concept. It is heuristic, as a model that both

critiques and proposes an alternative to war journalism. It is normative, prescribing a journalistic

response to conflict situations and advocating a journalistic practice with specified goals. It is

transnational in scope, but relies heavily upon critiques of objectivity that emerged through study

of United States news media. It has structuralist origins, but culturalist aims insofar as it attempts

to increase the number and types of voices and messages reflected in news stories about conflict.

And peace journalism's agenda raises numerous questions about the role journalism should play

—and how it should play it—in creating or improving knowledge about the world.

Structuralist origins, culturalist aims

Galtung and Ruge's (1965) seminal paper "The Structure of Foreign News" focuses on

how world events become news stories. In this model, media actors perceive world events, and

transform them into "media images." Actual (that is to say, objectively real) events undergo

"selective distortion" as they become news stories. This model hypothesizes twelve conditions

that foreign events must satisfy in order to become news: frequency, threshold (of intensity),

unambiguity, meaningfulness, proximity (and concomitant relevance), consonance (meshing

with local understandings of the wider world), unexpectedness, continuity (having been in the

news before), composition, mentioning elite nations, mentioning elite people, personalization,

and negativity. Because "international action will be based on the image of international reality"

(Galtung and Ruge, 1965, p. 64), the authors propose that journalists should work actively to

counter these conditions, in order to better report on nations—especially newly established

4


nations emerging in the postcolonial era—identified in this paper and others as "peripheral" (e.g.

Galtung, 1971).

Galtung's work in peace studies is consistently anti-imperialist, pro-peace, and counter-

hegemonic. Those traits—and concerns—perpetuate themselves across peace journalism. While

the field of peace studies advanced in the decades following Galtung's early papers, peace

journalism did not fully emerge until Lynch and McGoldrick seized upon, refined, and became

international advocates for Galtung's vision. War journalism, according to Galtung, is war-,

propaganda-, elite-, and victory-oriented. Peace journalism is peace-, truth-, people-, and

solution-oriented (in Lynch, 1998b). Through peace journalism, they suggest that journalists can

resist distorting events. Because "information is never innocent, and no reporting is agenda-free"

(Lynch, 1998a, p. 69), peace journalism's proponents contend that peace-as-agenda should be

adopted.

This seemingly simple dialectic and corrective response is in fact quite complicated and

contentious. Critics have attacked this stance as "naive realism" (Hanitzsch, 2004, 2007b) and an

insufficient response to the "narrow nationalistic outlook of mainstream journalism" (Nohrstedt

& Ottosen, 2008). Ironically, much of this criticism is structuralist in origin, contending that

peace journalism does not accommodate structural issues such as media organization, journalistic

expertise, or political climates—all of which influence conflict coverage (Bläsi, 2004).

Structuralism and culturalism are twin bases of Cultural Studies. The great contribution

of structuralism, according to Hall (1993), is its insistence on studying determinate conditions to

reveal the holistic nature of, and the ideologies behind, cultural structures. Galtung's structuralist

criticisms of war journalism are reactive, and the solution of peace journalism is oppositional.

Essentially, to counter the problems introduced by war journalism, the proposal is that journalists

5


must enact its opposite.

In practice, then, peace journalism is actually culturalist in nature, particularly where it is

people- and solution-oriented. Where war journalism deals with official sources and examines

military victory and its likelihood, peace journalism looks to report wide-ranging effects of

conflict and seeks opportunities for conflict resolution and reconciliation. The intent of peace

journalism is neither conquest nor the reporting thereof; rather, it "calls for any and every peace-

enhancing discourse, whatever its provenance, to be highlighted" (Lynch, 1998a, p. 65). Raising

news consumers' consciousness about the destructive effects of war on all humanity—a role

fitting with the culturalist side of Cultural Studies—is the aim of peace journalism.

Truth-orientation, objectivity, and professional norms

A pointed critique of objectivity emerges from the structualist critique of war journalism.

Peace journalism's supporters contend that journalism's professional norm of objectivity

naturally sympathizes with war journalism. They argue objectivity leads journalists to favor

government sources over individuals, discrete events over ongoing processes, and dualism—a

binary and oppositional story frame—over a frame that values diverse perspectives on conflicts

(Lynch and McGoldrick, 2005a).

This critique of objectivity is well-grounded in journalism studies literature. Journalists

have used objectivity to rely upon official sources just because they are official, and to the

exclusion of other sources, in order to deflect criticism of their work (Tuchman, 1999; Bennett,

2007). Objectivity as a professional norm has created firm boundaries for acceptable news

subjects (Soloski, 1999), yet at the same time, the pursuit of objectivity for objectivity's sake

introduces bias into news stories that reflects the structure in which those stories are created

6


(Bennett, 2007)—precisely as Lynch and McGoldrick suggest it could.

Journalism studies scholarship does not necessarily treat these issues in structuralist

terms, but its work on journalistic routines is related. According to this line of thinking,

objectivity is not only ideology, but also social and professional practice. And in the structures of

all social practices, social influences are present.

The production of news is not just routine, but routinized—that is, news production takes

place within a system that churns out news. That news, in turn, bears indelible marks of its

system of production (Golding and Elliott, 1999). News organizations offer interpretations of

facts and events—what Galtung called "selective distortion"—while journalistic norms and

routines affect these interpretations. News practice itself can affect, create, or perpetuate the

biases of people working in the news, because of a reflexive relationship between reporters and

what they cover (Fishman, 1999).

Reporters are not outside of the frameworks in which they work; rather, they are a part of

what composes those frameworks. Their actions affect these frameworks; the frameworks affect

them. Numerous other examples from journalism studies reiterate the point that journalists

absorb the political expectations of their supervisors or owners (Breed, 1999), and that the

mechanisms of journalistic production at once defuse the potential for political conflict in the

newsroom and reinforce the political biases of a news organization (Siegelman, 1973).

Thus when journalists' attention turns towards war, conflict, and crisis on an international

scale, they bring interests and prejudices—both professional and national—to bear. For example,

Entman’s study (1991) comparing United States news coverage of a KAL flight shot down by

the Soviet military in 1983 with that of an Iran Air flight shot down by the United States military

in 1998 revealed how coverage of these incidents parroted government perspectives and policies.

7


And in international news, a very small number of gatekeepers have traditionally served a

very large amount of international news to what, ultimately, is a very large audience. These

gatekeepers determine the frame of international events, a seam in routinized newsgathering that

predictable, powerful or influential (usually governmental) sources can exploit. The danger of

bias affecting news is high: “Once established, story stereotypes become fixed; countries,

leaders, and specific policies that gatekeepers have evaluated in particular ways may be

characterized that way long after the reality has changed” (Graber, 2002, p. 348).

In Galtung's terms, "selective distortion" may be at work. But if objectivity as a practice

cannot produce an epistemologically objective representation of news events, and leads to a war

journalism that perpetuates war, then peace journalism, its obverse, may run into the same

epistemological problems (although its proponents would surely be pleased to perpetuate peace).

Thus, peace journalism must turn to the construction of knowledge.

The problem of epistemology

Peace journalism strives to be corrective, reparative and counter-hegemonic. In turn, it

seeks to inscribe a new preferred reading into news stories, one that runs counter to the dominant

ideologies it claims war journalism replicates. Critics of peace journalism retain objectivity as a

point of contention because they see objectivity as the epistemological foundation of journalism

(Hanitzsch, 2007b), an essential tool to pursue the goal of truthfulness (Loyn, 2007), and

"professional epistemology that assumes a transparent reality" (Nohrstedt and Ottosen, 2008)

that, in turn, constrains journalists' abilities to follow peace journalism's prescriptions.

According to Hanitzsch, Galtung is an epistemological realist because he believes

traditional war reporting to distort or misrepresent an objective reality. Peace journalism, under

8


this logic, then aims to restore some sort of proper understanding of that objective reality. But

following on the argument in the section above, Hanitzsch (2004) argues that journalism cannot

offer an objective representation of actual reality: "war correspondents can only provide one

version of reality that is just as 'true' as numerous other versions" (p. 488).

This constructivist perspective—that journalists can create meaning through their work—

is the perspective to which peace journalism seems to turn. And in a later paper, Hanitzsch

(2007a) implicitly backs off his claim that peace journalism is realist, and aligns peace

journalism against philosophical objectivism (and thus with the constructivist ideas he espouses),

and also with empiricism, which requires that truth claims be justified through experience.

This is perhaps the fundamental tension in peace journalism scholarship: peace

journalism's intent is to further peace, or political opportunities for it; at the same time, it

requires journalists to go into the world to find stories ignored by conventional journalistic

practice and products. As a constructivist exercise, it aims to produce stories that actively

construct knowledge and promote peace; as an empirical exercise, it aims to uncover stories,

from some non-subjective reality, that better reflect the complexities of conflict situations.

At once, peace journalism has as its aims the active construction of knowledge, and the

derivation of knowledge from some non-subjective reality. These aims are not necessarily

unrelated, but they are by no means the same. Different approaches attempt to resolve the two,

including a journalistic application of standpoint epistemology, which "holds that less powerful

and marginalized members of society enjoy a certain epistemic privilege to see social reality

differently from those who dominate society" (Hanitzsch 2007b); "methodological

constructivism," which argues that reality "is the universe of states of affairs that is described by

true statements" (Kempf, 2006) and does not exist independently of those statements, and

9


"constitutive rhetoric," which "assigns meaning to new symbolic processes through the

combination of social or historical narratives with ideological objectives" (Shinar, 2004).

Standpoint epistemology—at least this application thereof—methodological constructivism, and

constitutive rhetoric all seem quite like media framing.

Intentional encoding, culturalist framing

Michael Schudson (1978) has argued that objectivity is "a moral philosophy, a

declaration of what kind of thinking one should engage in, in making moral decisions" (p. 8). By

attempting to ameliorate the problems created by objectivity in war journalism, peace journalism

is therefore a moral philosophy as well. In its attempts to inscribe into journalism about conflict a

new preferred reading that reflects an alternative moral philosophy, peace journalism prescribes

an active, conscious encoding. To use Hall's terms (1980), peace journalism attempts to construct

new connotative meanings, both to resist the hegemonic position of war journalism and to create

space for audiences to negotiate new meanings—that is, to create new frames for the

understanding of news events.

Frame theory is frequently used to discuss political contestation and political hegemony.

Entman (1993) has argued that news media have become increasingly interpretive, and that

frames "promote a particular problem definition, causal interpretation, moral evaluation, and/or

treatment recommendation" (p. 52). Frames are "little tacit theories" (Gitlin, 1980, p. 6) that

determine how news stories are selected and presented. And through media frames, news

audiences lay claim to knowledge about events that they themselves have not experienced, a

point to be addressed later in this essay.

As a consciously enacted frame, peace journalism is a set of guidelines for journalists,

10


and a set that can be determined from and studied in the text of news stories (Nicolás, 2008).

Shinar's (2009) description of the march of peace journalism indicates a markedly culturalist

approach:

This has led to reframing the understanding of conflict from terms of a tug-of-war

between two parties in which one side's gain is the other's loss, to the terms of

relationships between various sides; to consider the context and the need to identify a

range of stakeholders beyond the sides directly engaged in a violent confrontation; to

understand the distinction between stated demands and underlying objectives; to identify

voices working for creative and non-violent solutions and ways to transform and

transcend the lines of conflict (p. 452).

This is the peace journalism frame; these are the new threads of a "web of facticity" (Tuchman)

that, if peace journalism has its way, will connote new meanings out of conflict.

Peace journalism in research

Forty-five years after Galtung identified structural problems with reporting news from

peripheral nations and issued the first call for corrective reporting, everything old is new again.

Studies to evaluate whether, how, and how successfully this prescriptive peace journalism frame

is functioning have yielded mixed results at best.

This research frequently has relied upon content analyses that turn tenets of peace

journalism into testable hypotheses (Goretti, 2007; Lee and Maslog, 2005; Lee, Maslog, and Kim

2006; Lee 2010; Mandelzis 2003; Mandelzis 2007; Shinar 2009), although some papers have

engaged in framing or narrative analysis (Fawcett, 2008; Ottosen, 2007; Rolston, 2007). The

content analyses have suggested journalism as a whole still tends towards and reflects the

11


troubles of war journalism, although results often vary when interests parochial to the journalists

are not involved. Some of these find the routinized problem of reflecting primarily official

viewpoints to be ongoing (e.g. Mandelzis 2003), a criticism, as seen above, that is common to

journalism studies and peace journalism. Others derive further prescriptions for praxis and

practice, calling, for example, for journalists to increasingly follow the practices of peace

journalism (Goretti, 2007) or for peace journalism proponents to pay increased attention to

photojournalism (Ottosen, 2007).

The framing and narrative analyses of peace journalism show more clearly the ways in

which, as a frame, it often fails to accomplish its goals. In Northern Ireland, when a nationalist

newspaper and a unionist newspaper agreed to pursue editorial stances that would help foster

peace, according to Fawcett (2002), each became both politician and storyteller, crafting

narratives that reflected and perpetuated their politico-cultural biases even when purportedly

working to reconcile their respective communities. In turn, discursive structures within media

organizations may shape and constrain how journalists report news—not dissimilar from the

earlier findings of Bennett, Breed, and Sigelman.

Framing can also have unintended consequences. A study of a series of BBC programs

intended to support reconciliation amongst victims and survivors of violence in Northern Ireland

found that it approached the situation as reality television. Thus, the series explicitly defined

reality, while framing out victims and survivors who did not fit an ideal type (Rolston, 2007). In

turn, this attempt at peace journalism excluded an "other" inappropriate to the frame—just as war

journalism does.

And framing can even undermine the actual meaning of words. Between 2000 and 2007,

three different Israeli prime ministers, along with members of the Knesset, engaged in

12


"oppressive peace discourse" which served "as a fig leave to hide or legitimate the initiation of

military actions, including wars" (Gavriely-Nuri, 2010, p. 566). The meaning of peace was

perverted to justify violent actions; to invert Orwell, peace is war.

The speeches of the prime ministers are especially relevant because as official discourse,

their meanings are likely to be replicated in news coverage. Indeed, a content study of news

discourse about the Oslo peace accords found that the overuse of peace terms undermined peace

perspectives and ultimately degenerated into war discourse. Peace became a negative term,

because official framing treated peace as of dubious value and questionable likelihood. Israeli

newspapers followed the degeneration rather than engaging in a "reconciliation discourse"

intended to seek understanding of the "Other" and to investigate how different stakeholders can

come together (Mandelzis, 2007). The peace frame, here and in Northern Ireland, has failed.

The trouble with representation

Lynch writes that because it can accommodate a wider range of voices from varied facets

of conflict, peace journalism is "clearly more accurate than war journalism, and preferable as a

form of representation" (Lynch, 2007a). But if even the concept of peace can be perverted by

official discourse and news discourse into justification for war, whether the frame of peace

journalism can accurately represent anything is up for debate. Lynch, like many journalists and

scholars of journalism, here fails to fully understand representation as it relates to news. While

accuracy is an aim of journalism, it also suggests that audiences map news stories onto a fact-

checkable reality implied by representation.

For all the stories in a print newspaper, few readers, if any, will have any direct

experience of the events reported therein. To claim knowledge of those events, a reader must

13


make a leap of faith, and assume that the statements made in the paper are true, rather than

testing the truth-value of those statements themselves. Treating knowledge strictly, readers

cannot lay claim to knowledge of these events. What they can lay claim to is knowledge of

representations of those events. That newspapers published reports on events is true. The truth-

value of the underlying events, however, is indeterminate for most readers.

Thus, representation is reality for news consumers—a point emphasized by Hall, in a

discussion of news from the conflict in Northern Ireland: “Representation doesn’t occur after the

event; representation is constitutive of the event" (qtd. in Stephens and Mindich, 2005, p. 373). If

this is the case, then the reports news consumers read or view about events and the

representations of actors in those reports become those events and become those people. Perhaps

more finely, the reports become news consumers’ understandings of events and people—but

pragmatically, these reports become reality for consumers who did not witness the events or

encounter the actors. The news reports, instead of representation, are the presentation of reality.

This is the process by which readers of newspapers claim knowledge about the

underlying events of news reports. Peace journalism's intent is to take advantage of this process,

and to present an alternative reality that creates space for nonviolent solutions to conflict. In the

best-case scenario, conflict resolution of any kind will "create a new reality" in which conflicting

parties are comfortable engaging one another, a situation Galtung (2010) calls "positive

transcendence" (p. 28).

Peace journalism as ethical theory

Peace journalism then, is a media frame actively constructed with moral intent. One

14


implication of Hall's assessment that representation constitutes events is that, by constructing a

peace journalism frame, peace journalists engage in a propagandistic exercise themselves while

attempting to counter war propaganda. Following Durham (2003), by engaging in framing at all,

peace journalists may undermine the more discursive approach which they espouse, and

ultimately fall prey to a culturally dominant positivist ideology. This ideology may not

necessarily undermine Galtung's original dialectic critique of and proposed solution to the

problems of war journalism. But as currently promoted, practiced, and studied, peace journalism

relies upon culturalist and discursive approaches.

Some critics have argued that peace journalism does not go far enough in considering the

power that extant discursive news structures within newsrooms have to determine coverage

(Fawcett, 2002), although proponents have recently followed Foucault and contended that peace

journalism resists war journalism via discursive engagement within journalism practice (Lynch,

2010). However, the deliberately oppositional stance of peace journalism praxis, and peace

journalism's clear application as a frame, both question the extent to which its proponents

consider their own discursive structures.

So, peace journalism is a media frame established with moral intent. Yet peace

journalism's ethical strand is the one from which journalists, journalism scholars, and journalism

educators may derive the most value. Tehranian (2002) conflates media ethics and journalism

when defining peace journalism, and calls for a structuralist solution to the problem of war

journalism: a World Media Development Bank to prevent the "pious wishes" of ethics without

laws and to create "structural pluralism" in media ownership. The goal of such an organization

would be to counter the ongoing structural problems with reporting conflict detailed in the

aforementioned studies. Terzis (2008), like Tehranian, calls for structural changes, but in

15


journalism education, intended to stop reporting the "Other" in binary, oppositional terms with

regard to the conflict between Greece and Turkey over Cyprus. Similarly, Frangonikolopoulos

(2010) calls for Greek and Turkish journalists to more deeply consider the Other by working

collaboratively to report on Macedonia, and to understand that "the Other" is not "the Enemy."

El-Nawawy and Powers (2010) argue that Al-Jazeera English is doing just that, based on

content analysis and audience surveys. Considering the Other is vital because, they argue, peace

journalism neglects the role that collective identity plays in violence. They prefer the term

"conciliatory media," and suggest that such media would encourage "mediatized recognition" of

the Other.

Communication permits such recognition, even if it is mediatized, and even if it is a

construction of reality rather than reality itself. Christians (2010) contends that humanity is

"constituted by language" and argues that peace journalism's basis must be the consideration of

humans in relation to each other. Communication constitutes that relation. Through

communication we encounter the Other, and the ethical consequences are profound: "When the

Other's face appears, the infinite is revealed and I am commanded not to kill" (p. 15). Peace

journalism's intent is to remind news consumers of that command, and to remind journalism

practitioners of their ethical obligations to their field and to their publics.

Conclusion

So what, then, is peace journalism? Most of all, it is an ethical scheme, but one that has

yet to be fully grounded. Is it a deontological duty to the victims of violence? Or is it a

teleological concern with the consequences of reporting? From either perspective, it

reemphasizes the unique role journalists play in holding power to account, the numerous

16


challenges—political, social, professional, cultural, and discursive—they face in doing so, and

their unique ability to construct reality and thus promote specific social and cultural meanings of

events.

As this paper makes clear, the support for peace journalism is not always weak, but it is

muddled. Studies examining the extent to which news organizations perform peace journalism,

and how well they do so, have thus far yielded mixed results. From these results, scholars who

support the concept tend to derive further prescriptions for how peace journalism could be better

practiced, rather than questioning the tenets of peace journalism as a normative theory.

Following Fawcett (2002), scholars should pay increased attention to the discursive structures of

journalism as they evaluate the opportunities for and possibilities of peace journalism. Further,

proponents of the concept should increasingly reflect upon their own discursive structures,

especially in light of research questioning whether the peace journalism media frame can

successfully create a media space for contemplation and execution of nonviolent solutions to

conflict. Peace journalism has loose theoretical tethers, and drifts, somewhat unmoored, among

them. The field would benefit from studies that move it onto firmer ground.

Nonetheless, a call to resist the deleterious effects of war and war propaganda is surely

welcome. For example, while it has not issued a declaration of war since World War II, the

United States has been involved in undeclared wars or United Nations-authorized military action

for well over half of the intervening 65 years. This accounting of time includes only open

hostilities, not covert actions, which would likely extend it. In this situation, war journalism will

indeed fail, because journalists are reporting not on war but on state aggression. Politicians avoid

declarations of war to create the illusion of peace. And as with the discussion of peace in Israel,

in the United States, peace is war. To keep the peace at home, the War on Terror enters into

17


conflict not with state actors, but with civilian criminals. The cost is high: the number of United

States soldiers who have died at "war" since September 11, 2001 exceeds by 50 percent the

number of United States residents who died as a result of that day's terrorist attacks. The

numbers of war injured and civilian casualties increase geometrically.

If the logic of war is poor, its ethics are perverse. Peace journalism's strengths lie in its

relentless insistence of ethical considerations, and in its demand that journalists report on conflict

from holistic and humanistic perspectives. In this way, peace journalism can call for journalists

not to abrogate their responsibilities, but to consider their work with increasing care and to

recognize that their work plays a role in how humans comprehend, and thus engage with, the

wider world. Surely, the professional duty of journalists is not, as peace journalism's proponents

might have it, to advocate and to negotiate peaceful solutions to conflict. But the relational

human duty of journalists—people, above all else, who professionally use language to constitute

both humanity (as per Christians) and reality (as per Hall)—might be.

18


References

Bläsi, B. (2004). Peace journalism and the news production process. Conflict & Communication Online, 3(1/2). Retrieved from http://www.cco.regener-online.de/

Bennett, W. L. (2007). News: The politics of illusion (7th ed.). New York: Pearson.

Breed, W. Social control in the newsroom: A functional analysis. In H. Tumber (Ed.), News: A Reader, (pp. 79-84). New York: Oxford University Press.

Christian, C. G. (2010). Nonviolence in philosophical and media ethics. In R. L. Keeble, J. Tulloch, & F. Zollman (Eds.), Peace journalism, war and conflict resolution (pp. 15-30). New York: Peter Lang.

Durham, F. D. (2003). Breaching Powerful Boundaries: A Postmodern Critique of Framing. In S. D. Reese, O. H. Gandy Jr., A. E. Grant (Eds.), Framing public life: Perspectives on media and our understanding of the social world. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

el-Nawawy, M. & Powers, S. (2010). Al-Jazeera English: A conciliatory medium in a conflict-driven environment? Global Media and Communication, 6, 61-84.

Entman, R.M. (1991). Framing U.S. coverage of international news. Journal of Communication, 41(4), 6-27.

Entman, R.M. (1993). Framing: Toward Clarification of a Fractured Paradigm. Journal of Communication 43(4), 51-58.

Fawcett, L. (2002). Why peace journalism isn't news. Journalism Studies, 3, 213-223.

Fishman, M. (1999). Manufacturing the news (excerpt). In H. Tumber (Ed.), News: A Reader (pp. 102-111). New York: Oxford University Press.

Frangonikolopoulos, C.A. (2010). Foreign policy and the media in Greece: Marking a shift from 'confrontational' to 'peace' journalism. International Journal of Media and Cultural Politics, 6, 243-249.

Galtung, J. (1971). A structural theory of imperialism. Journal of Peace Research, 8, 81-117.

Galtung, J. (1998). High road, low road: Charting the course for Peace Journalism. Track Two, 7(4). Retreived from http://www.ccr.uct.ac.za/archive/two/7_4/p07_highroad_lowroad.html

Galtung, J. (2010). Peace studies and conflict resolution: The need for transdisciplinarity. Transcultural Psychiatry, 47, 20-32.

19


Galtung, J. & Ruge, M. H. (1965). The structure of foreign news. Journal of Peace Research, 2, 64-91.

Gavriely-Nuri, D. (2010). The idiosyncratic language of Israeli 'peace': A Cultural Approach to Critical Discourse Analysis (CCDA). Discourse & Society, 21, 565-585.

Gitlin, T. (1980). The Whole World Is Watching: Mass Media in the Making and Unmaking of the New Left. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Golding, P. and Elliott, P. (1999). Making the news (excerpt). In H. Tumber (Ed.), News: A Reader, (pp. 112-120). New York: Oxford University Press.

Goretti, L. N. (2007). Peace journalism applied: An assessment of media coverage of the conflict in Northern Uganda. Conflict & Communication Online, 6(2). Retrieved from http://www.cco.regener-online.de/

Graber, D. A. (2002). Mass media and American politics. Washington: CQ Press.

Keeble, R. L. (2010). Peace journalism as political practice: A new, radical look at the theory. In R. L. Keeble, J. Tulloch, & F. Zollman (Eds.), Peace journalism, war and conflict resolution (pp. 49-68). New York: Peter Lang.

Hall, S. (1980). Encoding/decoding. In S. Hall et al. (Eds.), Working papers in cultural studies, 1972-1979 (pp. 128-138).

Hall, S. (1993). Cultural studies: Two paradigms. In Richard Collins et al. (Eds.), Media, Culture and Society: A Reader (pp. 33-48). London: Sage.

Hanitzsch, T. (2004). Journalists as peacekeeping force? Peace journalism and mass communication theory. Journalism Studies, 5, 483-495.

Hanitzsch, T. (2007a). Deconstructing journalism culture: Toward a university theory. Communication Theory, 17, 367-385.

Hanitzsch, T. (2007b). Situating peace journalism in journalism studies: A critical appraisal. Conflict & Communication Online, 6(2). Retrieved from http://www.cco.regener-online.de/

Kempf, W. (2006). Social constructivism and its implications for critical media studies. Conflict & Communication Online, 5(1). Retrieved from http://www.cco.regener-online.de/

Lee, S. T. (2010). Peace journalism: principles and structural limitations in the news coverage of three conflicts. Mass Communication and Society, 13, 361-384.

Lee, S. T. & Maslog, C. C. (2005, June). War or peace journalism? Newspaper coverage of conflicts. Journal of Communication, 311-329.

20


Lee, S. T., Maslog, C. C., & Kim, H. S. (2006). Asian conflicts and the Iraq war: A comparative framing analysis. International Communication Gazette, 68, 499-518).

Loyn, D. (2007). Good journalism or peace journalism? Conflict & Communication Online, 6(2). Retrieved from http://www.cco.regener-online.de/

Lynch, J. (1998a). Listening to the outsiders. British Journalism Review, 9(3), 64-69.

Lynch, J. (1998b). The peace journalism option. Retrieved from http://www.globalissues.org/article/534/the-peace-journalism-option

Lynch, J. (2007a). Peace journalism and its discontents. Conflict & Communication Online, 6(2). Retrieved from http://www.cco.regener-online.de/

Lynch, J. (2007b). A reply to the replies. Conflict & Communication Online, 6(2). Retrieved from http://www.cco.regener-online.de/

Lynch, J. (2010). Propaganda, war, peace and the media. In R. L. Keeble, J. Tulloch, & F. Zollman (Eds.), Peace journalism, war and conflict resolution (pp. 69-83). New York: Peter Lang.

Lynch, J. & McGoldrick, A. (2005a). Peace journalism. Stroud: Hawthorn Press.

Lynch, J. & McGoldrick, A. (2005b). War and peace journalism in the holy land. Social Alternatives, 24(1), 11-15.

McGoldrick, A. (2007). War journalism and 'objectivity.' In D. Shinar and W. Kempf (Eds.), Peace journalism: The state of the art (pp. 17-25). Berlin: Verlag Irena Regener.

Mandelzis, L. (2003). The changing image of the enemy in the news discourse of Israeli newspapers, 1993-1994. Conflict & Communication Online, 2(1). Retrieved from http://www.cco.regener-online.de/

Mandelzis, L. (2007). Representations of peace in news discourse: Viewpoint and opportunity for peace journalism. Conflict & Communication Online, 6(1). Retrieved from http://www.cco.regener-online.de/

Nicolás, M. T. (2008, July). Framing the news: from political conflict to peace. How the Framing Theory and Political Context Model can enhance the peace journalism model. Paper presented at the International Peace Research Association Global Conference, Leuven, Belgium.

Nohrstedt, S.A. and Ottosen, R. (2008). War journalism in the threat society. Conflict & Communication Online, 7(2). Retrieved from http://www.cco.regener-online.de/

21


Ottosen, R. (2007). Emphasizing images in peace journalism. Conflict & Communication Online, 6(1). Retrieved from http://www.cco.regener-online.de/

Peleg, S. (2007). Peace journalism through the lense of conflict theory: Analysis and practice. In D. Shinar and W. Kempf (Eds.), Peace journalism: The state of the art (pp. 26-52). Berlin: Verlag Irena Regener.

Rolston, B. (2007). Facing reality: The media, the past and conflict transformation in Northern Ireland. Crime Media Culture, 3, 345-364.

Ross, S. D. (2007). (De)Constructing conflict: A focused review of war and peace journalism. In D. Shinar and W. Kempf (Eds.), Peace journalism: The state of the art (pp. 53-74). Berlin: Verlag Irena Regener.

Schudson, M. (1978). Discovering the News. New York: Basic Books.

Shinar, D. (2004). Media peace discourse: Constraints, concepts, and building blocks. Conflict & Communication Online, 3(1/2). Retrieved from http://www.cco.regener-online.de/

Shinar, D. (2009). Can peace journalism make progress? The coverage of the 2006 Lebanon war in Canadian and Israeli Media. International Communication Gazette, 71, 451-471.

Siegelman, L. (1973). Reporting the news: An organizational analysis. American Journal of Sociology 79(1), 132-151.

Soloski, J. (1999). News reporting and professionalism: Some constraints on the reporting of news. In H. Tumber (Ed.), News: A Reader (pp. 308-319). New York: Oxford University Press.

Stephens, M. & Mindich, D.T.Z. (2005). The Press and The Politics of Representation. In G. Overholzer & K. H. Jamieson (Eds.), The Press (pp. 372-383). New York: Oxford University Press.

Tehranian, M. (2002). Peace journalism: Negotiating global media ethics. The Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics, 7, 58-83.

Terzis, G. (2008). Journalism education crossing national boundaries: De-mainstreaming binary oppositions in reporting the 'other.' Journalism, 9, 141-162.

Tuchman, G. (1999). Objectivity as strategic ritual: An examination of newsmen’s notions of objectivity. In H. Tumber (Ed.), News: A Reader (pp. 297-307). New York: Oxford University Press.

Tuchman, G. (1979). Making News. New York: The Free Press.

22

Epistemological and Ethical Concerns in Peace Journalism

Documents

Transcript of Epistemological and Ethical Concerns in Peace Journalism