Nonviolence is also an important ethical principle at present, and how to implement
it a major challenge. Mahatma Ghandi and Martin Luther King, Jr., developed
this principle beyond a political strategy into a philosophy of life. Vaclev
Havel and Nelson Mandella were totally committed to it. In Emmanuel Levinas,
interaction between the self and the Other makes peace normative. “The first word
from the Other’s face is ‘Thou shalt not kill.’ It is an order. There is a commandment
in the appearance of the face, as if a master spoke to me” (Levinas, 1985,
p. 89). In the dialogic, face-to-face encounter, the infinite is revealed. The Other’s
presence involves an obligation to which I owe my immediate attention. In communalistic
and indigenous cultures, care of the weak and vulnerable (children, sick,
and elderly), and sharing material resources are a matter of course. Along with
dharma, ahimsa (nonviolence) forms the basis of the Hindu worldview. For St
Augustine, peace is natural to human relationships. The public’s general revulsion
against physical abuse in intimate settings and its consternation over brutal crimes
and savage wars, are glimmers of hope reflecting this principle’s validity.
The golden rule is the ethical principle for dealing nonviolently with unrest,
protest, and civil disobedience (Battles, 1996). In fact, almost all discussion of ethics
in a violent context refers to the golden rule as the best guide for morally appropriate
action. It can function effectively as an ethical principle without borders, that
is, as an expression of the common moral wisdom of humanity worldwide. “Do
unto others as you would have them do unto you” is fully practicable in the face of
the extremely complex situations in which individuals or groups must often act. Its
brevity and simplicity obscure its radical implications (Kang, 2006).
The golden rule when understood generally as a rule of reciprocity between
others and oneself seems unarguable, the natural way to live harmoniously in
human community. It proceeds from the assumption of human equality; in thinking
about and living the golden rule we regard others as basically like ourselves. For
media institutions internally and externally, the golden rule leads away from hostile
actions and verbal abuse toward respect and goodwill.
Peace journalism is an illustration of how this principle works itself out for the
news in violent conflicts worldwide. As a form of reporting, peace journalism is an
interpretive process, and the principle of nonviolence gives the foundation and
direction by which the interpretation ought to be done.
The Norwegian scholar, Johan Galtung, has developed and applied the principle
systematically through peace studies, concerned not simply with the standards of
war reporting, but positive peace – creative, nonviolent resolution of all cultural,
social, and political conflicts (e.g., 2000, 2004). As with Galtung, Jake Lynch
recognizes that military coverage feeds the very violence it reports, and therefore
he has developed an on-the-ground theory and practice of peace initiatives and
conflict resolution (e.g. Lynch and McGoldrick, 2005; Lynch, 2008).
Conflict has significant news value. Peace journalism is a self-conscious, working
concept which denies that premise. Galtung (1998) has sought to reroute journalism
on the “high road to peace,” instead of the “low road” often taken by news media,
when they fixate on “a win-lose outcome, and simplify the parties to two combatants
slugging it out in a sports arena.” In his literature review of war and peace
journalism, Seow Ting Lee (2009) sees three contrasting features of each.
The three characteristics of mainstream war journalism are: (1) Focus on the
here and now, on military action, equipment, tangible casualties and material damage;
(2) An elite orientation: use official sources, follow military strategy, quote
political leaders, be accurate with the military command perspective; and (3) A
dichotomy of good and bad. Simplifying the parties to two combatants, them
versus us, in a zero sum game – binaries such as Arab intransigence and Israeli
militarism (Lee, 2009).
There are three salient features of peace journalism, grounded in the principle
of nonviolence (Lee, 2009). (1) Present context, background, historical perspective
following the golden rule. Use linguistic accuracy – not generic Muslim
rebels but rebels identified as dissidents of a particular political group. (2) Take
an advocacy stance editorially for peace, and focus in news on common values
rather than on vengeance, retaliation, and differences. Emphasis on people’s
perspective – not just organized violence between nations, but patterns of
cooperation and integration among people. 3) Multiplicity orientation. Represent
all sides and all parties. Create opportunities for society at large to consider and
value nonviolent responses to conflict. Include ways the conflict can be resolved
without violence (e.g. as in Dayton and Kriesberg, 2009). Consensus building
efforts are considered newsworthy.
Peace journalism is typically understood as an innovation in mainstream newsgathering
– along with developmental and public journalism. If these three, and
perhaps others, offer new paradigms for reporting then a detailed comparative
analysis is needed of their histories, demographics, achievements, and structure
(e.g., see Hackett and Zhao, 2005). In order to advance this demanding agenda,
journalism needs to give up its utilitarian neutrality and detachment, and adopt the
principle of nonviolence. Humans are moral beings and this ethical principle,
implemented through the golden rule, can inspire journalists to report on a violent
world and act peaceably at the same time.
Post a Comment