Why conflict-sensitive journalism is nothing more than good journalism - and we still need the concept...

by Johanna Wild

The main task of all journalists is to report on conflicts. Don't you think so? Then ask yourself what we are dealing with when the old corner pub in our town is to make way for a modern shopping complex and not everyone jumps for joy.

We are interested in the news because we want to know what's new in the world. "In every topic, look for the aspect where people disagree," is what experienced colleagues told me when I first started out in journalism. "That's where it gets exciting". They were right. Almost every change is supported by some and rejected by others. Media also gain their appeal by making us understand these different interests.

Most journalists do little peace and conflict research. And yet, with pen, recording device or camera, they get right into the middle of the dynamics of conflicts. And they play a key role in shaping them. By choosing which perspectives on the conflict reach the public. By establishing a communication channel between the conflicting parties. And by unconsciously ensuring that individuals or groups involved in the conflict change their actions in the hope of benevolent reporting.

The approach of conflict-sensitive journalism calls on journalists to become aware of the responsibility this entails. No more, but also no less.

The concept originally goes back to the peace researcher Johan Galtung. He described the generally practiced form of reporting as war journalism and contrasted it with the ideal of peace journalism.

The term peace journalism is still used today - mostly by non-journalists. This is done with good intentions, but in my opinion it is misleading. Because it often goes hand in hand with the demand for journalists to do advocacy work for "the good cause". They should focus their articles on peace initiatives and ignore the divisive elements of a conflict.

But when journalism mutates into advocacy work, it runs the risk of degenerating into propaganda. Take the role of the media before and during the Rwandan genocide in 1994. Journalists deliberately incited media consumers to murder the Tutsi minority. The result is well known. It is inconceivable that all these propagandists were genocide advocates from the very beginning. Presumably, many simply published what opinion leaders told them was the right way of thinking. The ability to question critically was weak in Rwanda at the time.

And even more than twenty years later, it remains limited. If journalists are now being asked to report specifically on peace-promoting measures in the name of peace journalism, this is going in the wrong direction. Because once again they are being encouraged to adopt ideas unquestioningly.

The great danger here is that it is very subjective what one or the other understands by a peace initiative. For example, could it mean kicking an identity group out of the country so that "we" can regain our peace? As a journalist trainer in the African Great Lakes region, I have found that some people see such ideas as peace initiatives out of conviction.

In my opinion, a conscious return to basic journalistic principles is much more helpful than a one-sided focus on peace ideas. A core principle of journalistic work is to present as many points of view as possible on a controversial topic. In this way, readers, listeners and viewers are enabled to critically weigh up the statements and form their own opinions.

The approach of conflict-sensitive journalism insists on doing this with particular care. This is because the tendency to present conflicts in a one-sided way is widespread (not only) in crisis regions. Governments or powerful opinion leaders are often one of the parties to the conflict, and they take advantage of the fact that they also dominate the media discourse.

Conflict-sensitive journalists develop fine sensors for who is neglected within national reporting. They help the people affected to make their views known to the public. After all, those who feel they are being taken seriously are less likely to resort to violent means to make their voices heard.

Depending on the context, the principle of journalistic balance requires courage and a high degree of self-reflection on the part of journalists. Since I have been working as a trainer for the journalist team of the Rwandan media organization Ejo Youth Echo (EYE), I have heard the following statement more than once: "I won't do an interview with them. They have radical ideas." In my opinion, this is exactly what we need to work on. Journalists often belong to one of the conflicting parties themselves. Learning that the "others" can and should also have their say in a professional journalistic piece is one of the learning processes that I go through with them every day.

For their radio program, the young journalists from EYE talk to politicians and Rwandan intellectuals every week. At the same time, they travel throughout the country and to the neighboring countries of the Democratic Republic of Congo and Burundi to interview "normal" young people on the same topics. In this way, the authorities do not feel that they are stepping on their toes and yet a wider range of opinions are made public. Classic journalism, but under the given circumstances a conflict-sensitive approach that is not a matter of course in practice.

This claim is supported by the fact that the EYE editorial team is made up of children of genocide survivors as well as descendants of perpetrators, accomplices and uninvolved parties. The young journalists belong to a wide variety of denominations and are made up of roughly equal numbers of young women and young men. No matter how hard journalists strive for balanced reporting, objectivity ultimately always remains a dream. By consciously selecting a team of journalists that represents all social groups, conflict-sensitive journalism ensures that as many perspectives as possible are represented in the editorial team.

Conflict-sensitive journalism does not mean excluding violent events from reporting. However, simply describing physical violence and bloodshed is not enough. Because these phenomena always have a cause. And it is the job of journalists to get to the bottom of this cause through good research. Only when society knows when and why conflicts became what they are today can it develop ideas for their peaceful transformation.

This requires journalists who know about the dynamics of conflicts and can analyze them. Anyone who writes about conflicts should be aware that they do not begin where blood flows, but long before that. He or she should know that a conflict does not only produce either winners or losers. And think specifically about which interests are involved in the course of the conflict without ever being openly communicated.

This is precisely where journalists benefit from peace and conflict research. Their findings can help to ensure that conflicts are not distorted in a one-sided way, but are made public in all their complexity. In a conflict-sensitive way.