PEACE JOURNALISM VERSUS WESTERN MEDIA BIAS AGAINST ISLAM
by Syarif Hidayat*
Peace Journalism is now a globally distributed reform movement of reporters, academics and activists from Africa to the Antipodes (any place on Earth). Academic courses are now being taught in the UK, Australia, the USA, Mexico, South Africa, Costa Rica, Norway, Sweden and many others.
Peace Journalism is defined “when editors and reporters make choices – of what to report, and how to report it – that create opportunities for society at large to consider and value non-violent responses to conflict” (Lynch and McGoldrick, 2005)
Originally conceived by the eminent peace scholar, Johan Galtung, the Peace Journalism model is a source of practical options for journalists; a lead in to media monitoring for peace activists and offers a firm basis for drawing distinctions in content analysis by academic researchers. Peace journalism: shows backgrounds and contexts of conflicts; hears from all sides; explores hidden agendas; highlights peace ideas and initiatives from anywhere at any time.
Peace Journalism has been embraced, under that name, by journalists in mainstream (corporate) media in Indonesia, and some in the Philippines, following grassroots campaigns and journalist training interventions by Jake Lynch and Annabel McGoldrick. But much more Peace Journalism is being practised by many journalists, in many different places around the world, all the time. There is some – so there could be more!
Key factors in determining the media’s traditional approach
Power, politics and profit have been the key factors in determining the media’s traditional approach towards conflict. But in recent decades, the debate on ‘peace journalism’ as an approach to conflict has gained momentum and several scholars (Galtung, 1973; Lynch, 2005; Bell, 1998; Howard, 2003; Allan, 2007; Keeble, 2010) have argued in favour of the concept.
However, many questions pertaining to the extent of effectiveness of peace journalism and its application to other forms of media remain unanswered. This article is an attempt to explore answers to these questions. It argues that there is a beginning of a paradigm shift in the traditional media’s approach to conflict situations.
While peace journalism was been linked with conflict resolution and advocacy, there is now greater acceptance of it as an attitude that frames a news story. There are also examples to show that it is being applied to other media such as photojournalism, documentary making, film production, investigative journalism, community and specialised media. At the same time, advocates and practitioners of peace journalism face several challenges as there is no universal standard to deal with conflicts.
Peace journalism has been developed from research that indicates that often news about conflict has a value bias toward violence. It also includes practical methods for correcting this bias by producing journalism in both the mainstream and alternative media, and working with journalists, media professionals, audiences, and organizations in conflict.
This concept was proposed by Johan Galtung. Other terms for this broad definition of peace journalism include conflict solution journalism, conflict sensitive journalism, constructive conflict coverage, and reporting the world.
War journalism is journalism about conflict that has a value bias towards violence and violent groups. This usually leads audiences to overvalue violent responses to conflict and ignore non-violent alternatives. This is understood to be the result of well documented news reporting conventions. These conventions focus only on physical effects of conflict (for example ignoring psychological impacts) and elite positions (which may or may not represent the actual parties and their goals). It is also biased toward reporting only the differences between parties, (rather than similarities, previous agreements, and progress on common issues) the here and now (ignoring causes and outcomes), and zero sums (assuming that one side’s needs can only be met by the other side’s compromise or defeat).
Peace journalism aims to correct biases
Peace journalism aims to correct for these biases. Its operational definition is “to allow opportunities for society at large to consider and value non-violent responses to conflict”. This involves picking up calls for, and articulations of, non-violence policies from whatever quarter, and allowing them into the public sphere.
Peace journalism analysis suggests that typical news on conflict, with its value bias towards violence and violent groups, has important effects on the parties to conflict. Firstly, peace journalism proponents argue that the bias in favour of publicity for violence and violent actors, “plays into” the interests of violent actors to intimidate and disrupt the peace process.
This is an important example of the Feedback Loop effect: “it is not the influence of news on public opinion as such, but assumptions by parties to conflict about its likely or possible influence, that condition their behaviour”. This bias also weakens and punishes, with less publicity, non-violent groups affected by a conflict, for their lack of violence. Nohrstedt and Ottosen (2002) note: “if traditional media themselves are unable to transmit alternative perspectives and voice the danger is that those […] that feel marginalised will turn to terror in order to make a difference in the media agenda”.
The most visible actions of a group, of which one is not a member, are often considered representative of that group’s behaviour (an effect called the “availability heuristic”). Therefore war journalism’s over-selection of violent, as opposed to non-violent, responses to conflict may actually foster a misperception of excessive threat between parties.
This is then generally exaggerated by other inter-group social-cognitive biases within war journalism. These include biases towards: seeing an outgroup as more homogeneous (with less internal variety) than it really is, ignoring the variety of attitudes towards the conflict; seeing ambiguous situations, or negative group behavior, as playing out internal, and stable, group characteristics rather than external, and variable, circumstances, favourable ingroup/outgroup comparison to increase collective self esteem; and members of groups who perceive themselves to be under threat to be more pressured internally to conform with and reinforce dominant group norms; premature and immediate resistance to ideas on positive responses to violence offered by members of outgroups.
The unfair treatment of western media towards Islam
The unfair treatment of western media towards Islam and Muslims is not new to many people. The biased reporting, stereotype stories and hidden hate towards Muslims of the world are facts of western journalism. These champions of the free world who claim that their reporting standards are very high, they are honest and feel responsible to provide correct information to their audiences are in fact, have dual standards of reporting. They intentionally dramatize a situation in order to market their programs and increase their market share at any cost. They are not honest when a news item or a story involves a practicing Muslim or religion of Islam.
The Muslims of North America, Europe and Australia have been under a constant threat from these media organizations. These media organizations including all TV network, most of the Radio stations and all-major newspapers of North America, Europe and Australia have been controlled / influenced by special interest groups. These special interest groups through the western media are not only misleading the people of North America, Europe and Australia but also trying to build walls between Islam and the people of other faiths such as Christians and Jews.
These media organizations are purposely creating a very wrong image of Islam and Muslims. The main objective of these media organizations is to create, through their own judgments, such a horrible image of Islamic teachings that the people in the west not only consider Islam as a threat towards western cultures but also feel threatened by the Muslims.
A common person who is very busy to fulfill his / her economic and social needs and does not have time to investigate the situation, heavily depends upon the media reporting. If TV, Radio and the Newspapers are not honest in their reporting then the listeners or the readers of western media will not be able to get the truth.
Rather, it creates misunderstanding among the various religious and ethnic groups, which creates animosity, hate and intolerance for each other. The Muslim minority of North America, Europe and Australia has been suffering from this unfair and very biased treatment of the media for a long time.
Western Media Circus Double Standards
Every time when an incident of terrorism happens anywhere in the world the Muslims living in Western World specially in North America gets terrorized by the horrors of the news media. The way newscasters on radio and TV broadcast and print media prints the news, it’s always very clear that all these newscasters and reporters not only try very hard to find a Muslim name to be associated with the incident.
These journalists who portray themselves as the champions of humanity and professionalism become so unprofessional and inhuman that sometime they do not realize the outcome of their hurried and rushed reporting.
The Western mainstream media circus apply a policy of controlled news reporting on their domestic problems and at the same time they apply the lies and biased news reporting on international affairs especially on Islam, the Muslim World, the Middle East Conflict and international terrorism.
The western Media circus’ biased news reporting are terrorizing people with unbalanced news and lies that create fear and xenophobia. Terror is the most dreaded weapon in modern age and the Western media is mercilessly using it against its own people. It can add fear and helplessness in the psyche of the people of Europe and the United States. It means that what the enemies of the United States cannot do, its media is doing that.
The Zionist-controlled Western Media circus‘ biased news reporting on Islam, the Muslim World, the Middle East conflict and international terrorism create fear and xenophobia. This situation leads to more xenophobia including Islamophobia in the US and the other Western Countries that influence not only the general public but also the government officials in the individual western countries.
These media circus members that include electronic (TV Stations and Radios) and print media are the most powerful Hate Propaganda Machines Against Islam and the Muslim world!
If the terrorist attack anywhere on this planet was perpetrated by a Muslim, Fox News, CNN, BBC AND THE OTHER MEMBERS OF THE WESTERN MEDIA CIRCUS would be working overtime with breaking news almost every minute, COMPLETE SILENT or SO LITTLE IS SAID in the western media circus news reporting when the terrorists are Christian, Zionist, Jewish, Hindu or Buddhist fundamentalists or extremists …They simply call the perpetrators as Right-wing extremists or right-wing nuts, paranoid schizophrenic persons or a deranged persons.
Propaganda tools
“The current state of the news media is partially to blame for the public’s general lack of information vital for responsible citizenship in a democracy. The news media has become an aspect of show business, offering merely infotainment. It has evolved into an entity that tends to function as a public relations agency for wealthy and powerful multinational corporations, members of Congress, the current Presidential Administration including the administrations that preceded it. The news media is being utilized as a political tool of suppression and propaganda by those in power, and propaganda is psychological in nature. Full of half-truths and utter misinformation, it’s an arrogant and very commercial strategy that is implemented because it appeals to emotions, fear being the main one relentless talk of national security, personal and community safety, can trigger childhood insecurities and indoctrinated views of authority.” – Teresa Stover
Western Bias and Double Standards
THE US-LED WESTERN MEDIA CIRCUS DOUBLE STANDARDS IS VERY MUCH THE SAME AS THEIR GOVERNMENTS DOUBLE STANDARDS POLICIES.
Here are some of the Zionist-controlled Western media circus “BIASED” or “IDIOTIC” Interpretation Standards ON TERRORISM, REVOLUTION, REVOLUTIONARIES, A DICTATOR, A DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED LEADER, STATE TERRORISM and AGGRESSION.
If a terrorist suspect is a Muslim = Muslim terrorist
If a terrorist suspect is a Christian = Right-wing nut
Israeli state terrorism = Self defense
Palestinian resistance and freedom fighting = Palestinian terrorism
The US state terrorism = War on terror
A dictator friendly to the US-led western civilization regimes = A democratically elected leader.
A democratically elected president, but unfriendly to the US-led western civilization regimes = A dictator.
The US aggression = Intervention to liberate local citizens from a dictator.
Revolutionaries (with US interests) = Freedom Fighters
Revolutionaries (against US interests) = Terrorists
When u attack White people, they call it Racism.
When u attack Jewish people, they call it Anti-semitism
When u attack ur country, they call it treason.
When u attack ur religious sect, they call it hate.
But, When u attack the Muslim countries, they call it War on Terror;
When u attack the Prophet Muhammad PBUH, they call it FREEDOM of SPEECH and When u produce a mocking caricature of Prophet Muhammad PBUH, they call it FREEDOM of EXPRESSION. (T/E01/IR)
Mi’raj Islamic News Agency (MINA)
*Editor MINA (He can be reached via email: [email protected])
Bibliotheque:
