Alternative Editorial: Planet A, reporting the world
From New York Times
As we write, it's day 17 of the unalloyed atrocity that is war in the Ukraine. Who amongst us would not condemn the loss of life, the suffering of those trapped by the military machine, the destruction of so much that is beautiful in the cities and towns under siege? The threat to a nation's independence. When we have the chance to look at it up close, as we do in 2022, war is murder and mindless destruction.
And yet, when we look closely at the social media or the mainstream news headlines, there is often a stronger focus on the evil-doer Putin and the desire to defeat him, as if removing this individual from the scenario solves the problem of this war at hand?. President Zelensky has become a hero for standing up to the invader and motivated thousands of young European men, otherwise disconnected to the war, to travel to Ukraine to fight. Rather than keep us clear on 'war as murder', we begin to think of 'war as necessary' and even worse, 'war as heroism'.
Some caricature that moment for leaders as 'their finest hour' - but would those leaders ever have chosen that for themselves? President Zelensky is now as far away from his comedy roots as a human can be. Forced to preside over the terrible deaths of the people he wanted to serve humanely.
For so many of us - distant observers - this experience of war has come out of the blue. Despite the 21 other national wars going on around the world, the rhetoric around Ukraine jerks us back into the 20th Century to invite comparisons with Hitler's invasion of Austria in World War Two. We are warned that any breach of the NATO boundary, such as dropping bombs on Poland, would mean that we are in World War 3.
The news fills our lives with dread and many are depressed by the evidence that governments still resort to violence to achieve their aims. Our attention is brought back to our trust in a nuclear bomb to keep the peace and the extreme febrility of our lives.
In the meantime, how many of us feel we have some understanding of why this war broke out - whether or not that analysis is correct? Can we identify the many parties to the conflict other than Russia as a simple aggressor? Do we understand the structural - as well as cultural - conditions that framed this outbreak of violence?
How do we imagine this war ending? And when it does, how much will we think about it afterwards, unless violence breaks out again? Are we all simply waiting for that moment when we can say 'Never Again' once more? To be able to get back to our previous lives, without changing any of the underlying conditions that made this war likely?
If you are feeling caught short by most of these questions, don't blame yourself: you are experiencing the effects of what 'the father of peace studies' Johan Galtung first described as 'war journalism'. While most journalists would claim they are simply stating the facts - witnessing without an agenda - Galtung's analysis helps us to see differently: the way we report a conflict has a direct bearing on whether or not it leads to and prolongs violence. He then proposes Peace Journalism as an alternative: a way or reporting that has as its clear agenda, the establishment of peace.
Here is how one of his students Kirthi Jayakumar describes the way war journalism works:
"War journalism is exactly what 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 in projecting the conflict arena in a two-party and one-goal deal, confines itself to closed spaces and time, and studies the cause and effect only in the arena.
• 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.
• is heavily reactive in that it waits for violence to start before it does or says anything.
• is heavily propaganda-oriented, seeking only to expose ‘their’ untruths while helping to cover up ‘our’ own flaws.
• 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.
• is skewed toward victory, in that it considers peace and ceasefire as victory while concealing peace initiatives even before victory is at hand.
• gives up on a war once it is through – not looking at the root of the issue that needs solving – and returns only if the war flares up again.
• 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.
So what is the peace journalism alternative? In their book on Peace Journalism, Dr. Annabelle McGoldrick and Prof. Jake Lynch describe this alternative form of reporting as:
· constant, not only as a reaction to violence
· exploring conflict formation - parties, goals, issues - with a peace perspective
· describing the cultural and structural violence which is leading to conflict
· humanising all parties and revealing their connectedness
· exposing untruth on all sides
· highlighting peace initiatives at multiple levels not just elite diplomacy
· focusing on the vision and hunger for change amongst the people on both sides
· presenting peace as positive (non-violent and creative) rather than negative (the absence of war)
For Galtung's own table comparing the two, see here.
This should not be seen only as a reaction to war breaking out - the situation we find ourselves in now. But as an ongoing way to report conflict that makes violence less likely. For example, as Jake Lynch explains in a recent interview with Ayesha Jahengir from the Centre for Media Transition, since the end of the Cold War, we have never openly questioned the need for NATO. Originally formed as a coalition against the communist bloc, why did it persist after the world celebrated the fall of the Berlin Wall? As Professor Lynch describes, we are "frozen in a dyadic structure". Structurally, we have continued to be always prepared for war with Russia. Not just a war of words but backed up by nuclear weapons on both sides.
This doesn't make Putin any less of a war criminal, but it has made it much easier for him to justify his actions with the Russian people: he can point at the forces ranged against them and outlaw the voice of reason. The machinery of the Cold War is still very much present in their lives and ours.
Is Ukraine the only example of how war journalism wrongly defines our options going forward? Military operations, as the dominant response to conflict, are not the only example we have of a media system that leads us to the wrong conclusions. Right behind the war dominating our headlines is the catastrophe of a media unable to deliver the truth about climate change. And behind that the truth about social injustice.
If anyone is now thinking, hang on, each of these do have their chance to dominate the headlines. Didn't we spend plenty of time on climate during Cop26?. Haven't Black Lives Matter, the rise in the cost of living and even gender disparity all have their moment in the spotlight over the past few years? And we would have to agree, they have.
Yet what the war journalism analysis shows us, is that each of these are presented as dramas unfolding on their own terms: outbreaks of unfortunate events that we have to react to by dropping everything else. The war in Ukraine shows us our over-dependency on Russian oil, but fails to deliver the news on our over-dependency on oil itself. Instead, as we are emotionally embroiled in Ukraine's suffering, we are invited to believe that lifting the ban on fracking and turning to Saudi Arabia for oil is an act of solidarity to be applauded.
Peace journalism by contrast is intersectional, bringing together the different spheres of conflict into a wider map of cultural and structural inquiry. Writing about violence as a response to be challenged not only at the international level between nations, but also internally between political and cultural tribes. (ref). Consider the violence of economic inequality between communities competing for resources. The everyday violence between individuals competing for status (ref). And at the planetary level, the violence in the relationship between humans and nature. How has our treatment of the earth - extracting its resources for our growth economy - led to the possibility of our extinction?
Within that systemic inquiry we'll find that there is a direct relationship between the flourishing of a human being anywhere in the world, with the flourishing of their community and the impact on the planet.
Of course, this cannot be achieved by the media on its own, as if it were an actor independent of its sources. But the relationship between the evolving human capacity for change at every level and an effective whole system media capable of delivering those new narratives has to improve. As it stands today, the perception is that those of us who can see that transformation is possible are deluded or unrealistic. This prevents journalists from turning to them - us - as authorities. Because the numbers and criteria for measurement are different - by necessity, as we move away from the growth economy - they are not cited (ref).
The need to be able to write the news from the perspective of the future we wish to see unfolding is vital. Most clearly, in order to pivot away from impending civilisational disaster. But also, in order to take advantage of our growing collective ability to do something very different as a global citizenry.
Now is the time for a media that directly serves the desire for people to come together in the face of crises - transnationally. To build a new socio-economic-political system that has the clear agenda of moving us towards cosmolocal [ref?] solutions, including everyone. At The Alternative Global we are building a consortium of international media partners - many of whom are already themselves reaching out to others - capable of delivering peace journalism. (See our blog this week on the Opt Out app, as an example of what such a media consortium could make happen).
Our recent reframe as “Planet A” is the first step in naming the common ground we already stand on, which will be co-owned and co-reported. If you can see war journalism for what it is; if you are ready to let go of its illusion that we have no choice but to go along with war and destruction - you are standing on it too.