Roy Greenslade | Guardian
Can journalism about conflict actively promote peace? It's a question that I raise with my City University students every year in a lecture dedicated to the work of Johann Galtung and that of Jake Lynch and Annabel McGoldrick.
It is certainly a topic that arouses conflict among journalists. There are many vocal detractors of the Galtung/Lynch/McGoldrick thesis.
On the other hand, many of my students - who are usually sceptical at first - eventually find much to appreciate in such concepts.
Similarly, there appears to be a growing band of people, including some experienced reporters, who think journalism has a responsibility to give peace a helping hand.
In practical terms, however, there is clearly a long way to go, as a new study of the global media coverage of violence and conflict illustrates.
Measuring peace in the media, which analysed the output of 37 TV news and current affairs programmes from 23 networks in 15 countries, found that what it calls "positive-peace stories" made up just 1.6% of the total.
Claiming to be "the largest global study analysing the accuracy of international television networks' coverage of peace, violence and conflict", it was released on Tuesday by the Institute for Economics and Peace (IEP) and Media Tenor.
There are all sorts of fascinating facts to be picked up from the research. Examples: Al Jazeera provided the most balanced coverage on Afghanistan; US television networks broadcast more violence than other countries; and BBC World is widest ranging international news source.
Comments
No comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here