A paper presented to the department of Mass Communication, Bayero University Kano, for continuous assessment

1. 1
BAYERO UNIVERSITY KANO
FACULTY OF COMMUNICATION
DEPARTMENT OF MASS COMMUNICATION
COURSE TITLE: PEACE JOURNALISM AND SAFETY EDUCATION
COURSE CODE: 8315
QUESTIONS
JOHAN GALTUNG: TOWARDS PEACE AND CONSTRUCTIVE JOURNALISM
BY
FATIMA MURITALA
SPS/18/MMC/00014
COURSE FACILITATOR:
Gambo Shehu Nababa, Ph.D
OCTOBER, 2019

2. 2
ABSTRACT
Reportage of news/happenings by journalist, mostly have elements of conflict, ignoring peace
journalism, which is vital in promoting peace and how people reacts to media messages in the
society. Peace journalism ‘uses the insights of conflict analysis and transformation to update the
concepts of balance, fairness and accuracy in reporting’. Since peace journalism has the element
of balance, equity, fairness, etc. that create opportunities for society at large to consider and to
value non-violent responses to conflict.
This paper looks into how journalist can report happenings/stories, to avoid taking sides, it
further highlighted elements to be considered when writing and reporting news, so as to avoid
reportage promoting and having elements of conflict.
KEY WORDS: Peace, Peace journalism, Conflict journalism, Reporting, journalism

3. 3
INTRODUCTION
Defining Peace Journalism
Peace has a positive and a negative face. Negative peace involves absence of conflict or
violence. Positive peace consists of conditions where justice, equity, harmony, and so on can
flourish (Frederick Ogenga, (ed.) n.d, p. 1).
Hassan (2013), quoting McQuail, said journalism is a ‘paid writing for public media with
reference to actual and ongoing events of public relevance’. Journal, journalist and journalism all
owe their origin to the Latin ‘diurnal’, for ‘daily’. The Acta Diurna, a handwritten bulletin put
up daily in the Forum, the main public square in the ancient Rome, was perhaps the world’s
oldest newspaper (Hassan 2013, p, 174).
Peace journalism, therefore, can defined as an attempt to write stories for print and broadcast
media which give room for justice, equity and harmony to flourish in the society.
Lynch and McGoldrick (2005) observe that peace journalism occurs ‘when editors and reporters
make choices – about what to report, and how to report it – that create opportunities for society
at large to consider and to value non-violent responses to conflict’. Peace journalism ‘uses the
insights of conflict analysis and transformation to update the concepts of balance, fairness and
accuracy in reporting. It also provides a new road map tracing the connection between
journalists, their sources, the stories they cover, and the consequences of their journalism, and
builds an awareness of nonviolence and creativity into the practical job of everyday editing and
reporting’.
The Centre for Global Peace Journalism (CGPJ) at Park University, US, adapts and expands on
Lynch and McGoldrick’s definition. The CGPJ notes that peace journalism is a practice in which

4. 4
“editors and reporters make choices that improve the prospects for peace. These choices,
including how to frame stories and carefully choosing which words are used, create an
atmosphere conducive to peace and supportive of peace initiatives and peacemakers, without
compromising the basic principles of good journalism. Peace journalism gives peacemakers a
voice while making peace initiatives and non-violent solutions more visible and viable.”
It is important to note that being kind and nice is not the top priority of peace journalism.
According to CGPJ and Lynch, peace journalism is ‘not an open advocacy for peace’. Instead,
in Lynch own words, peace journalism is ‘to give peace a chance’.
Origin of Peace Journalism
Peace journalism has emerged since the mid-1990s, as a new field within Peace and Conflict
Studies.
The very concept ‘Peace Journalism’ belongs to Norwegian professor Johan Galtung, the
founder of ‘Peace and Conflict Studies’ and ‘Peace Research’. Peace Journalism entered the
academic and professional arena during the late 1990s and the theory was championed by former
journalists Jake Lynch and Annabel McGoldrick. The idea of Peace Journalism first introduced
by Johan Galtung to a group of journalist from a variety of different countries in 1997 at the
‘Conflict and Peace Journalism Summer School in Taplow Court, UK’ (Youngblood, 2017). ‘A
group of academicians and journalists candidly engaged in discussions and debates concerning
the strengths and weaknesses of peace journalism during the lectures and workshops held each
summer between 1997 and 1999’ (Lee, 2008). Jake Lynch wrote a manual from the proceedings
of the summer schools, titled ‘The Peace Journalism Option’ (Lynch, 1997). Following the
summer schools, a web page was created by a group of journalists, including Jake Lynch, called
reportingtheworld.net, and it hosts discussions between journalists who are interested in a wide

5. 5
variety of conflicts worldwide and especially in how to report on them. During 2000, Lynch and
McGoldrick began teaching peace journalism at the M.A. level at the University of Sydney and
followed this with several ‘peace journalism training workshops’ for journalists in several
countries including Indonesia, Nepal and Armenia (Lynch, 2008). Lynch claims that both
Indonesia and the Philippines are the ‘two countries where the peace journalism movement
gained traction’ among journalists through focused training sessions conducted by trainers who
had been themselves first trained by he and McGoldrick in Indonesia (Lynch, 2013).
Today, the cardinal principles and main argument for peace journalism may be applied to many
areas of journalism, not necessarily to the conflict reporting.
Keeping in mind the applicability of peace journalism to many domains, the Centre for Global
Peace Journalism, Park University, United States, has devised a ten-point list that describes the
elements of peace journalism.

6. 6
Elements of Peace Journalism
• PJ is proactive; it examines the causes of conflict and leads
discussions about solutions.
• PJ looks to unite parties rather than divide them and eschews
oversimplified “us” vs. “them” and “good guys vs. bad guys
reporting”.
• Peace reporters reject official propaganda and instead seek facts
from all sources.
• PJ is balanced, covering issues/suffering/peace proposals from all
sides of a conflict.
• PJ gives voice to the voiceless, instead of just reporting for and
about elite and those in power.
• Peace journalists provide depth and context rather than just
superficial and sensational “blow by blow” accounts of violence
and conflict.
• Peace journalists consider the consequences of their reporting.
• Peace journalists carefully choose and analyze the words they
use; they believe that carelessly selected words are often
inflammatory.
• Peace journalists thoughtfully select the image they use
understanding that they can misrepresent an event, exacerbate an
already dire situation, and re-victimize those who have suffered.
• Peace journalists offer counter-narratives to debunk media
created or otherwise perpetuated stereotypes, myths and
misrepresentations.
Source: Centre for Global Peace Journalism, Park University, United states

7. 7
Johan Galtung’s Table of Peace/Conflict Journalism Versus War/Violence Journalism
PEACE/CONFLICT JOURNALISM WAR/VIOLENCE JOURNALISM
I.PEACE/CONFLICT-ORIENTED I. WAR/VIOLENCE-ORIENTED
a. Explore conflict formation, x parties a. Focus on conflict arena, 2 parties, 1 goal
y goals, z issues general (win), war general zero-sum orientation
‘win, win’ orientation
b. Open space, open time; causes and out- b. Closed space, closed time; causes and exit
comes anywhere, also in history/culture in arena, who threw the first stone.
c. Making conflict transparent c. Making wars opaque/secret.
d. Giving voice to all parties, empathy, d. ‘Us-them’ journalism, propaganda,
Understanding, see conflict/war as problem, voice, for ‘us’.
focus on conflict creativity
e. Humanization of all sides; more so the e. Dehumanization of ‘them’ more so the
worse the weapons worse the weapon.
f. Proactive: prevention before any violence/ f. Reactive: waiting for violence before
war occurs. reporting
g. Focus on invisible effects of violence g. Focus only on visible effects of violence
(trauma and glory, damage to structure/ (killed, wounded and material damage).
culture)
II. TRUTH-ORIENTED II. PROPAGANDA-ORIENTED
a. Expose untruths on all sides/uncover all a. Expose ‘their’ untruths/help ‘our’ cover-
cover-ups ups/lies
III. PEOPLE-ORIENTED III. ELITE-ORIENTED
a. Focus on suffering all over; on women, a. Focus on ‘our’ suffering; on abled bodied
aged, children, giving voice to voiceless elite males, being their mouthpiece.
b. Give name to all evil-doers, focus on b. Give name to their evil doers and focus on
people peacemakers elite peacemakers.
IV. SOLUTION-ORIENTED IV. VICTORY-ORIENTED
a. Peace = non-violence + creativity a. Peace = victory + ceasefire
b. Highlight peace initiatives, also to b. Looking for another war, return if the old
prevent more war focus on structure flares up again.
culture, the peaceful society. Aftermath:
resolution, reconstruction, reconciliation.

8. 8
Analyzing Galtung’s Table of Peace Journalism
Former reporters and leading proponents of peace journalism, Jake Lynch and Annabel
McGoldrick, in their groundbreaking book, ‘Peace Journalism’, adopted and modified Galtung’s
peace journalism table. Their seventeen-point principles of peace journalism are the breakdown
of the Galtung’s four-theme table shown above.
1. AVOID portraying a conflict as consisting of only two parties, contesting the same
goal(s). The logical outcome is for one to win and the other to lose. INSTEAD, try to
DISAGGREGATE the two parties into many smaller groups, pursuing many goals,
opening up more creative potential for a range of outcomes. And ask yourself – who else
is involved?
2. AVOID accepting stark distinctions between ‘self’ and ‘other’. These can be used to
build the sense that another party is a ‘threat’ or ‘beyond the pale’ of civilised behaviour.
Both key justifications for violence. INSTEAD seek the ‘other’ in the ‘self’ and vice
versa. If a party is presenting itself as ‘the goodies’, ask questions about how different its
behavior really is to that it ascribes to ‘the baddies’ – isn’t it ashamed of itself?
3. AVOID treating a conflict as if it is only going on in the place and at the time that
violence is occurring. INSTEAD try to trace the links and consequences for people in
other places now and in the future. Ask (the questions):
 Who are all the people with a stake in the outcome?
 What are they doing to influence the conflict?
 Ask yourself what will happen if…?
 What lessons will people draw from watching these events unfold as part of a global
audience? How will they enter the calculations of parties to future conflicts near and far?

9. 9
4. AVOID assessing the merits of a violent action or policy of violence in terms of its
visible effects only. INSTEAD try to find ways of reporting on the invisible effects,
e.g. the long-term consequences of psychological damage and trauma, perhaps increasing
the likelihood that those affected will be violent in future, either against other people or,
as a group, against other groups or other countries.
5. AVOID letting parties define themselves by simply quoting their leaders’ restatements of
Familiar demands or positions. INSTEAD enquire deeper into goals:
 How are people on the ground affected by the conflict in everyday life?
 What do they want changed?
 Is the position stated by their leaders the only way or the best way to achieve the
 (What) changes they want?
 This may help to empower parties to clarify and articulate their goals and make creative
outcomes more likely.
6. AVOID concentrating always on what divides the parties, the differences between what
they say they want. INSTEAD try asking questions which may reveal areas of
common ground and leading your report with answers which suggest that some goals
may be shared or at least compatible, after all.
7. AVOID only reporting the violent acts and describing ‘the horror’. If you exclude
everything else you suggest that the only explanation for violence is previous violence
(revenge); the only remedy, more violence (coercion/punishment). INSTEAD show how
people have been blocked and frustrated or deprived in everyday life as a way of
explaining how the conditions for violence are being produced.

10. 10
8. AVOID blaming someone for ‘starting it’. INSTEAD try looking at how shared
problems and issues are leading to consequences which all the parties say they never
intended.
9. AVOID focusing exclusively on the suffering, fears and grievances of only one party.
This divides the parties into “villains” and “victims” and suggests that coercing or
punishing the villains represents a solution. INSTEAD treat as equally newsworthy the
suffering, fears and grievances of all sides.
10. AVOID ‘victimizing’ language like “devastated”; “defenseless”; “pathetic”; “tragedy”
which only tells us what has been done to and could be done for a group of people (by
others). This disempowers them and limits the options for change. INSTEAD report on
what has been done and could be done by the people. Don’t just ask them how they
feel, also ask them how they are coping and what do they think? Can they suggest any
solutions?
11. AVOID the imprecise use of emotive words to describe what has happened to people.
 “Genocide” literally means the wiping-out of an entire people – in UN terminology
today, the killing of more than half a million people.
 “Tragedy” is a form of drama, originally Greek, in which someone’s fault or weakness
 Ultimately proves his or her undoing.
 “Assassination” is the murder of a head of state.
 “Massacre” – the deliberate killing of people known to be unarmed and defenseless. Are
 We sure? Or do we not know? Might these people have died in battle?
 “Systematic” e.g raping, or forcing people from their homes. Has it really been organized
in a deliberate pattern or have there been a number of unrelated, albeit extremely nasty

11. 11
incidents? INSTEAD always be precise about what we know. Do not minimize
suffering but reserve the strongest language for the gravest situations or you will beggar
the language and help to justify disproportionate responses which escalate the violence.
12. AVOID demonizing adjectives like “vicious”, “cruel”, “brutal” and “barbaric”. These
always describe one party’s view of what another party has done. To use them puts the
journalist on that side and helps to justify an escalation of violence. INSTEAD, report
what you know about the wrongdoing and give as much information as you can about
the reliability of other people’s reports or descriptions of it. If it is still being investigated,
say so, as a caution that the truth may not yet be known.
13. AVOID demonizing labels like “terrorist”; “extremist”; “fanatic” or “fundamentalist”.
These are always given by “us” to “them”. No-one ever uses them to describe himself or
herself and so for a journalist to use them is always to take sides. They mean the person is
unreasonable so it seems to make less sense to reason (negotiate) with them. INSTEAD
try calling people by the names they give themselves. Or be more precise in your
descriptions, e.g. “bombers” or, for the attacks of September 11, 2001, “suicide
hijackers”, are both less partisan and give more information than “terrorists”.
14. AVOID focusing exclusively on the human rights abuses, misdemeanors and
wrongdoings of only one side. INSTEAD try to name ALL wrongdoers and treat equally
seriously allegations made by all sides in a conflict. Treating seriously does not mean
taking at face value, but instead making equal efforts to establish whether any evidence
exists to back them up, treating the victims with equal respect and the chances of finding
and punishing the wrongdoers as being of equal importance.

12. 12
15. AVOID making an opinion or claim seem like an established fact. (Osama bin Laden,
said to be responsible for the attack on New York….”) See also “thought to be”; “it’s
being seen as” etc. INSTEAD tell your readers or your audience who said what. (“Osama
bin Laden, accused by America of ordering the attack on New York….”) That way you
avoid implicitly signing yourself and your news service up to the allegations made by one
party in the conflict against another.
16. AVOID greeting the signing of documents by leaders, which bring about military victory
or ceasefire, as necessarily creating peace. INSTEAD try to report on the issues which
remain and which may still lead people to commit further acts of violence in the future.
Ask - what is being done to strengthen the means on the ground to handle and
resolve conflict non-violently, to address development or structural needs in the society
and to create a culture of peace?
17. AVOID waiting for leaders on ‘our’ side to suggest or offer solutions. INSTEAD pick
up and explore peace initiatives wherever they come from. Ask questions to
politicians, for example, about ideas put forward by grassroots organisations. Assess
peace perspectives against what you know about the issues the parties are really trying to
address, do not simply ignore them because they do not coincide with established
positions. Include images of a solution, however partial – they may help to stimulate
dialogue.

13. 13
Peace Journalism in Practice: Sample Stories Using Inflammatory Narrative and How
They can be treated by a Peace Journalist
Lynch and McGoldrick (2005: 162) examine a story from the English-language Jakarta Post
newspaper, about a series of bombs planted in the Indonesian city of Palu, Central Sulawesi. The
province, which has a mixed Muslim and Christian population, saw several rounds of
interreligious clashes in the early 2000s, centered on the nearby town of Poso. The bombs can be
seen as a form of ‘propaganda by deeds’, or provocation, aimed at re-igniting the violence.
Participants in workshops in Indonesia, the Philippines, Norway, Sweden and Australia, among
others, have all carried out the exercise of weaving into this story testimony from two local
characters, a Muslim refugee and the leader of a Christian lay association, both loosely based on
real people. It involves practicing one of the most important skills for Peace Journalism, creating
a ‘framework of understanding’ (Lynch 1998: 24) in which the relevance of such sources, to the
‘main’ story, can be made clear to readers. To do so, requires particular techniques to ‘turn the
corner’ from one narrative direction to another; in this example, the italicized section of Peace
Journalism is dovetailed so as to follow on from a chunk of the Post’s original story:
Traditional Style of News Reporting – Violence Perspective
‘Asked whether rioters were moving to Palu as the nearby conflict-torn town of Poso was under
tight security, [the police chief] said the provincial police were investigating possible links
between the two incidents. Poso has been the site of religious fighting since 2000, with
thousands of people killed in clashes. Muslim and Christian leaders signed a peace deal last
December but it appeared to be ineffective with the renewed outbreaks of violence.’
Alternative Style of News Reporting – Peace Journalism Perspective
Civic leaders have raised fears that refugees from conflict-torn areas of Indonesia might bring
the contagion of inter-communal strife to Palu. One of them, Mrs Hidayat, was forced to flee her
home in Poso, two years ago. She lost her husband and one child, but despite her tragic story,
she is very firm that her two teenaged sons should not seek revenge or join in the violence . . .
(Lynch and McGoldrick, 2005, p. 166)

14. 14
Another example of war/violence news reporting alongside alternative sample of peace
perspective is adopted from Centre for Global Peace Journalism, and is shown below:
Traditional Style of Reporting – War perspective
Gatu City, Republic of Gatu—Green Party Presidential Candidate Moses Akena said yesterday
that Blue Party nominee Steven Oguti has been stealing money from the state treasury for many
years, and that’s why Oguti has been able to afford nice cars and fancy vacations. “This kind of
thievery is typical of people from his tribe,” Akena observed. “It is clear that Oguti and those
like him are no-good snakes.” Further, Akena said that Oguti’s corruption will extend to the
upcoming election. “We know if he wins, that he will be cheat ing. Now the question is, what
will we do about this? Will we stand by and let him steal from us?” Akena went on to compare
his manifesto to that of his opponent. Akena said the Green Party promises to tarmac (pave)
1,000 km of roads per year if elected. He also said that they will hire 2,000 more primary school
teachers when they come to power.
Alternative Perspective – Peace journalism
Gatu City, Republic of Gatu—Two of Gatu’s presidential candi dates continue to engage in a
campaign of mudslinging while two other candidates yesterday pledged to stick to issues. At a
press conference yesterday, Green Party Presidential Candidate Moses Akena made
unsubstantiated charges against one of his opponents, Blue Party nominee Steven Oguti. Akena
did briefly discuss his platform, including promises to tarmac 1,000 km of roads and hire 2,000
more primary teachers, but did not explain how or if these projects could be financially realized.
Meanwhile, Oguti responded with similar personal at tacks against Akena. When pressed about
roads and schools, he promised to issue a manifesto on these issues tomorrow. Several voters
interviewed are tired of the mudslinging. Gatu City resident Stephanie Mulumba said, “I wish
they’d talk about things that really matter. How can I afford to send my son to school? That’s
what I really care about.” As Oguti finished meeting the press, Purple Party candidate Alex
Busiga and Orange Party candidate Betty Aciro held their own joint press conference where they
pledged to discuss issues in this election. “The people want to know about roads and hospitals,
and that’s what I’m going to talk about,” Aciro said. However, neither candidate was ready to
discuss their positions on these issues in detail.
- Centre for Global Peace Journalism

15. 15
Conclusion
The news media, with other factors have the tendency to exact influence on perception, behavior
and actions. Government and individuals both have some degree of trust on the media report.
The ubiquity of media in the society makes it impossible for members of the public to escape
media messages thus becoming subject media influence in one way or another.
For reasons best known to them, media are becoming overly obsessed with reporting violence.
Whether consciously or subconsciously, media reportage of conflict plays significant role in
shaping the minds of individuals in understanding and interpretation of the conflict.
In order to change from old, negative way, scholars advocated a new way – the peace journalism
way. Although it face fierce rejection from scholars and professionals, others still see it as a
viable way to solve the obsessive negativity in today’s conflict reporting.

16. 16
References
Achebe, C. (1988). Morning yet on the creation day. London. Oxford University Press.
Baran, S. (2004). Introduction to mass communication: Mass media literacy and culture (2nd
Ed.). Boston, MA. McGraw Hill.
Brighton, F. & Foy, D. (2007). News values. New York, NY. SAGE Publishers.
Fowler, R. (1991). Language in the news: Discourse and ideology in the press. London.
Routledge.
Fedler F., John, R.B., Lucinda, D., & Michael, W. D. (2005). Reporting for the media (8th ed.).
New York, NY. Oxford University Press.
Lynch, J., & McGoldrick, A. (2005). Peace Journalism. Gloucestershire. Hawthorne Press.
Ulrik, H., (2019, 18, 01) Academic who defined news principles says journalists are too
negative. The Guardian. Retrieved from: www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com
Patterson, P. & Wilkin, L. (2008). Media ethics: Ethics and cases (6th ed.). New York, NY.
McGraw Hill International Edition.
Hassan, S. (2013). Mass communication principles and concepts (2nd ed.). New Delhi. CBS
Publishers and Distributors PVT LTD.
The Edelman Trust barometer (2017). Retrieved from http://www.edelman.com
Elements of Peace Journalism. Centre for Global Peace Journalism. Retrieved from
Shay, S. (2001). Qualitative methods for marketplace research. London. SAGE Publishers.
Michael, M. O. (2003). Political leadership and corruption in Nigeria.
Rene, M. (1929). The treachery of images (this is not a pipe). Los Angeles Country Museum
of Art (LACMA).
Ivancheba, T. (n.d.). Comparative analysis of linguistic and nonlinguistic methods of projecting
news values in dailies Trud and the Times. New Bulgarian University. Vol 6.
Youngblood, S. (n.d.). Peace Journalism approach. In Africa Peace Journalism: A manual for
media practitioners in East Africa (ed.) Frederick Ogenga (editor). Kenya.
Rongo University Press.
Lynch, J. (1998). Peace Journalism option. Taplow. Conflict and Peace Forums. 24.
Lynch, J. (2006). Peace journalism. In Johan Galtung and Charles Webel (eds.) Routledge
Hand Book of Peace and Conflict Studies. Abingdon. Routledge.