Media

and conflicts in Pakistan: Towards a theory and practice of peace

journalism

Shabbir Hussein and Jake Lynch

Abstract

This study is mainly concerned with developing a more theoretically consistent and
practical model for peace journalism in the conflict-ridden fragile democratic milieu
of Pakistan. The researchers propose a critical pragmatic perspective for peace
journalism to address a number of queries relating to its theory, method and
practice in a de-Westernized setting. Building on the newly found scholastic
consensus on the definition of peace journalism as quality journalism about conflict
that may contribute resources for peace, its agenda is traced in a critical pragmatic
tradition that deals with achievable part of reality that can be accessed through
existing tools of critical enquiry (though imperfect and hence repairable) for solving
human problems. In other words, peace journalism is a real not idyllic concept
(ontology), believes in professional journalistic excellence that can help better serve
society (epistemology) and retains peace as a value (axiology). In the case study, the
scope for journalistic agency in covering issues of conflict is limited by the assumed
threats to national interests on the part of authorities that are prime sources for
news. Hence the agenda for peace journalism, the article argues, must be flexible,
contextual and pragmatic.

Conflicts and Communication

Conflict reporting is among the oldest journalistic genres alongside the

commercial and political beat assignments. In fact, since the late 19th century, all the
important conflicts have been reported by dedicated war correspondents, and the
significance of this beat has generally increased, in media around the world, with
the passage of time. Luckily, the scholars have been up to the task and excellent

analyses of war reporting are available in numerous books and articles from
different ages of journalism scholarship (Lasswell, 1927; Hovland, Lumsdaine &
Sheffield, 1965; Hallin, 1989; Taylor, 1992; Wolfsfeld, 1997; Knightley, 1999;
Thussu & Freedman, 2003; Allan & Zelizer, 2004; Strauss, 2007; Hamelink, 2008;
Herman & Chomsky, 2010; Goretti, 2007; Workneh, 2011). The mainstream
literature on conflict communication has identified an array of issues including
national interests, professional constraints and socio-politico and economic factors
that govern the ideational content of news about armed conflicts, in particular.

Alongside this traditional scholarship, an alternative approach of peace

journalism has emerged which for the last two decades has established a deficit
analysis of mainstream news about conflicts problematising it as war journalism,
likely to provide unwitting support for social violence through the routine
application of journalistic conventions. A substantial body of literature is available
on the topic in the forms of books (Lynch, 2013 and 2008; Lynch & McGoldrick,
2005 and 2013; Lynch & Galtung, 2010; Keeble, Tulloch & Zollman, 2010; Kempf &
Shinar, 2008; Ross & Tehranian, 2008 ) and hundreds of research articles and theses
that deal with its theory, method and practice.

Peace Journalism is defined by Lynch and McGoldrick as a set of choices of
what to report and how to report it which create opportunities for readers and
audiences to consider and value nonviolent responses to conflict (2005: 6). In the
model originally put forward by Galtung (1998), the dominant war journalism form
is characterised by four key orientations: towards war and violence; towards
propaganda; towards elites as peacemakers and towards victory. The remedial
Peace Journalism form, then, is oriented towards peace and conflict; towards truth;
towards people as peacemakers and towards solutions. Shinar, in a later survey of
the field, identified five key aspects of what researchers referred to as Peace
Journalism:

1. Explores backgrounds and contexts of conflict formation, and pre- senting

causes and options on every side so as to portray conflict in realistic terms,
transparent to the audience;
2. Gives voice to the views of all rival parties, not merely the leaders of two
antagonistic sides;
3. Airs creative ideas, from any source, for conflict resolution, develop- ment,
peacemaking and peacekeeping;
4. Exposes lies, cover-up attempts and culprits on all sides, and revealing excesses
committed by, and suffering inflicted on, peoples of all par- ties; and
5. Pays attention to peace stories and postwar developments (from Shinar, 2007:
200).
As Lynch (2014) notes, these are general headings, under which a great deal of
variation and range of specific content can be organised, for such purposes as
coding Peace Journalism to identify the extent of it in existing media coverage,
through such methods as applying evaluative criteria in content analysis.
The present study seeks to augment existing scholarship both explicitly on
Peace Journalism, and on the media reporting of conflict in general. To that end, it
aims at a synthesis of key perspectives from both fields, and to offer fresh
perspectives to make good on several important deficits in the overall research
record. Firstly, the literature is mainly written from Western perspectives. Secondly,
the theory-to-practice nexus is often ignored, or at least downplayed. Thirdly,
barring a few studies, scholars have primarily focused on a single conflict and
comparative analysis is missing. And, lastly but perhaps most importantly in the
context of the present study, the complex set of determinants of media reporting in
conflict-ridden fragile democracies is rarely considered in any detail.

Owing to these factors, this study is conducted in the setting of Pakistan (a

country marred by a number of conflicts) to propose a new theoretical approach to,

and program of action for, peace journalism. The researchers believe such an
arrangement would greatly contribute to the mainstreaming of peace journalism in
journalism education, and hence greater chances for its practice in areas where it is
needed the most. Before discussing the patterns of media reporting, here it is
important to briefly summarize the important issues in these conflicts.

The Taliban conflict:

The Taliban conflict is the most deadly conflict that Pakistan has experienced
since its birth in 1947. Its present phase started in 2004 when Pakistani security
forces entered into the tribal region as part of the so-called global war on
terrorism. According to government, as many as 80,000 people have been killed in
the conflict (though independent sources say the number is much higher) and many
more injured, with as much as a trillion dollars attributed losses to the national
exchequer. Millions of people have been displaced and the regions socio-political
structure is in disarray. The dominant view among Pakistans political and military
elites is that the Taliban and Al-Qaeda want to disintegrate Pakistan and enforce an
archaic system in the country. Pakistan media mainly report this conflict from a
high-risk security perspective (Shabbir, 2011; Siraj & Shabbir, 2012; Ottosen, 2014;
Shabbir, 2014; Shabbir & Shahira, 2015).

Balochistan conflict:

The Balochistan conflict took on a violent character from the 1970s onwards,
when Pakistans government resorted to war against the Baloch nationalists who
wanted more provincial autonomy. Insurgency is still ongoing in this resource-rich
province, the largest in the country. According to government figures, thousands
have been killed, many more are jailed and hundreds disappeared. The Pakistan
military is in-charge of operations in the province, and usually blames India and/or

Iran for creating a law and order situation, demanding their continuing security
operations. Information about this conflict is scant and media solely depend on the
military for reporting. In the past few years, occasionally the Supreme Court and a
few voices in political circles have broken the spiral of silence and questioned the
security establishment over the killings and disappearances of nationalists. While
many Pakistanis would profess themselves uninterested in the conflict, the media
mainly report it as a medium-level insurgency started by Baloch nationalists having
serious repercussions for national security (Shabbir & Haseeb, 2015; Prakash,
2013).

Ethnic conflict in Karachi:

The ethnic conflict in Karachi is mainly among three ethnic communities

including Mohajir, Sindhi and Pashtoon. While the Mohajir community enjoys a
virtual monopoly over the resources of this biggest city (providing 70% of national
income), the other two communities perceive themselves as struggling to secure a
fair share. Many analysts in Pakistan, however, agree that the politics behind the
ethnic conflict (all three communities have separate political parties) is a key
contributory factor in the ongoing tension. The Mohajir dominated party is
unwilling to share political power with the Sindhi and Pashtoon-representing
parties. All these parties have militant wings and are involved in violence, which has
potential to ratchet up the ethnic tensions and resentments still further. Recently, a
top military commander who was in charge of army operation in the city, declared
that this conflict is more complicated than the Taliban conflict. Pakistan media
mainly report this conflict as a dangerous medium-level security threat though in a
very lopsided way tilted towards the Mutahidda Qomi Movement (a representative
party of Mahajir community) (Yusuf, 2013; Kiani, 2015; Shabbir & Rauf, in review).

Sectarian conflict:

The sectarian conflict between Shia and Sunni was ignited in Pakistan after
the 1980s when (due to the pro-US policies of the military regime under General
Zia) both Saudi and Iranian operatives made it a platform for promoting their
religious and political agendas. Though sectarianism has claimed thousands of lives
in Pakistan in the past four decades, the media consider it a low-level national
security threat that needs to be resolved peacefully and harmoniously (Shabbir,
2015; Nida, 2015).

Political conflict on NRO:

This study also includes a non-violent political conflict on a controversial

presidential ordinance (National Reconciliation Order) between the government

and the supreme court of Pakistan. The government claimed the ordinance was
essential for democracy and the Court maintained that the ordinance had
institutionalized corruption in the country and that it was against the spirit of the
constitution. The court prevailed at last and disqualified the Prime Minister but the
country was plunged into crisis and uncertainty. The Pakistan media treated the
conflict as a low to zero-level security matter, though typically adopting a
sensationalistic and escalatory tone (Shabbir, 2015; Shabbir & Inam & Haseeb, in
press).

Keeping in view the dynamics of these conflicts, the existing scholarship on

peace journalism will now be analyzed to understand its scope and limitations in the
specific Pakistani context. Next, a more contextual framework for peace journalism
is proposed, with the aim of offering a synthesis that is both theoretically consistent
and practically feasible for implementation by journalists.

Peace journalism and communication theories

Peace journalism sits at an academic juncture of many disciplines that

arguably enrich its scope but make it harder to establish its theoretical moorings
(Gilewicz, 2012). The concept has evolved with time and while some exponents

have sought to ally it with more radical agendas, others have cautioned against
attacking the widely accepted basics of journalism and instead conceive it as a
reform agenda for professional journalistic practice (Galtung, 2000, 2006; Lynch,
2008, 2013; Hackett, 2006, 2010; Kempf, 2003, 2012; Ottosen, 2008, 2014).

Judging from the perspective of social theory, the existing literature on peace

journalism can be categorized in four major theoretical streams. First, the studies
inspired by the critical approach on peace journalism (Galtung, 2000; Tehranian,
2002; Fawcett, 2002; Hackett, 2005; Ross, 2006; Peleg, 2007) that called for a
complete overhaul of the existing journalistic profession to constructively report on
conflicts. Second, studies mostly influenced by the post-positivism approach
(Kempf, 2003; Maslog & Lee, 2005; Lee, 2010; Shahira, 2010; Ottosen & Nohrestedt,
2009; Siraj & Shabbir, 2012; Prakash, 2013) where large-scale data about media
texts are collected and analysed by operationalising the Peace Journalism model to
derive and develop evaluative criteria. Third, a sizeable scholarship on peace
journalism can be fitted into the normative approach (Hanitzsch, 2004; Irvin, 2006;
Bratic, 2006; Becker, 2004; Obonyo & Fackler 2009; Nyambuga, 2011; Goretti,
2007) which is concerned with an idealist system but offers no practicable
suggestions as to how to implement it. Finally, the studies inspired by the
hermeneutic and critical realism approaches (Lynch, 2006, 2008, 2013; Kempf,
2007; 2012) that call for reliance on established journalistic methods but emphasize
refinement and the inclusion of unattended perspectives.

In summary, it can be concluded from the above discussion that peace

journalism based on the existing theoretical streams either makes it docile (like
positivism and normative approach) or too radical (like critical approach and
critical realism). While a docile approach may not be of any real worth, the critical
approach has to be made a bit less scratchy in order to be practised in a national
context. Any practical solution for peace journalism must be somewhere in the
middle; that is styled in professionalism but critical in approach and strategic in
outreach.

Critical Pragmatism as a theoretical base for peace journalism

This study therefore proposes a theoretical approach of critical pragmatism to

offer the most needed philosophical moorings to peace journalism if it is to attain

relevance and traction in a semi-democratic dispensation such as Pakistan.

Critical pragmatism relies heavily on the works of John Dewey and Jurgen

Habermas, Donald Schon and John Forester. It combines the scholarship of both
critical theory and a pragmatic approach. An important line of critique of
pragmatism concerns its apparent downplaying of power relations, as suggested by
a plethora of studies since the days of Frankfurt school of critical studies (Calder,
2010). Approaches based on critical theory, on the other hand, can be criticised as
lacking in practical applicability (Hammond & Calcutt, 2011) and over their
apparent indifference to questions of choice and value. The philosophy of critical
pragmatism synergizes the extremes between positivism and critical theory. While
it does not share the optimism of post-positivism of claiming to understand the
whole reality and gaining absolute knowledge, it does believe that maximum
possible knowledge can be gleaned through credible means to find a solution to the
problems of humanity, though this corpus of knowledge is fallible and subject to
improvement (Rorty, 1991; Quine, 1992; Dewey, 1938).

Theoretically, most important challenge for peace journalism is to position

itself against what Hackett calls the regime of objectivity (2011: 34), while
retaining the potential for journalism to create social value by distinguishing facts
from claims. Peace journalism made a foray into academic circles with a strong
attack on journalistic objectivity (McGoldrick, 2006; Hackett, 2006; Peleg, 2007),
along lines familiar from a much larger body of writing in the background fields of
Communication and Journalism Studies (Durham, 1998; Gans, 2003; Schudson,

1995; Tuchman, 1978; Hall, 2001; Entman, 1993; Hackett & Zhao, 1998; Hackett &
Carrol, 2006). But many agree, that despite criticism, the regime of objectivity
cannot be completely extricated from the profession of journalism, though it needs
to be refined and conceived in less absolute terms (Schudson, 2010; Street 2005;
Ward, 2004). Peace journalism, in its most refined form, calls for a more flexible and
practical definition of objectivity (Galtung, 2006; Lynch, 2014; Kempf, 2007) and
hence can easily be embedded in theory of critical pragmatism. The ontology
(objectivity) of critical pragmatism is the achievable part of reality, which serves
humanity (hence epistemology is meaningful knowledge) and the
researcher/practitioners values (axiology) are honoured. This explains the
philosophical moorings for peace journalism; as a researcher/practitioner, one is
critically aware of ones position, has to exert agency from that position in a
compromise with the structures within which it is produced, and constantly
strategize for achieving the desired outcome (peace) as the axiology allows for
retaining the value. This corresponds with the original scheme of peace journalism
where reporters and editors make choices to prompt and enable readers and
audiences the opportunity to consider and value nonviolent conflict responses
(Lynch & McGoldrick, 2005).

The Proposed Critical Pragmatic Model for Peace Journalism

Based on the above theoretical formulations, the researchers have developed a

critical pragmatic model that will serve as theoretical framework for this study. This
model draws on the scholarship of peace journalism and critical pragmatists John
Dewey and Jurgen Habermas and combines it with the researchers previous studies
in conflict journalism.

The model suggests that any viable strategy for peace journalism must be

cognizant of the two important aspects in any conflict scenario. These are (a) the
perception, on the part of elites, of the seriousness of threat to national security and
(b) the resultant flak associated with conflict(s) at different levels, as a key element

of the ideological structuration within and against which journalistic agency can be
exerted. This pragmatic model provides a roadmap for peace journalism based on a
thorough analysis of these two factors.

Flak is defined as a filter on news content in the Propaganda Model
proposed by Herman & Chomsky as a concerted effort, by identifiable actors, to
manage the flow of public information. It may typically take such forms as: negative
responses to a media statement or [TV or radio] program. It may take the form of
letters, telegrams, phone calls, petitions, lawsuits, speeches and Bills before
Congress and other modes of complaint, threat and punitive action (Herman &
Chomsky, 1988).

1. The perception of seriousness of threat to national security:

The presumed threat can be of high, medium and of low levels in a conflict

or there may be conflicts of different nature at these levels. A conflict is usually

labeled, in communications from political and military elites (who are, as noted
above, the prime sources for journalists reporting the conflicts) as representing a
high security threat level if the casualty rate is high; if other state or foreign groups
are claimed to be involved having deep social differences and deemed to be intent
on disintegrating the country. A medium-level security conflict is the one where the
casualty rate is lesser; the conflicting groups belong to the same country, having no
serious social differences, and threats to national integration are not seen as
imminent. Finally, a low-level security conflict usually has a relatively low casualty
rate, the stakeholders involved are all national actors having no real social
differences and is not seen as posing a threat to the integrity of the country.

If media personnel perceive a high threat to national security, they will

typically be more reluctant to adopt a distinct and independent perspective on the

conflict that may be against the elitist (political/military) perspective. This is due
mainly to the strong belief, in a developing country such as Pakistan, that media

10

institutions share equal responsibility with other state institutions to protect the
core interests of society and serve the country. They will not lag behind other state
bodies if media editors are brought (or obliged) to adopt the belief that state
sovereignty is at stake. The media may be dependent on elite sources for
information, but may not necessarily share the perspective with them rather they
would narrativize the information as per their own stance on conflict.

Secondly, if the perception of threat to national security is of medium level

(concerns exist but there is a belief that things would improve), media become
dependent on elites (political/military) in the conflict and hence focus more on the
provision of news rather than playing as an active stakeholder in the conflict. Media
tend to trust the national strategic setup (military cum political), which leads them
generally to accept the official discourse and hence rarely go for independent
analyses. This abdication makes it easy for the elites in the conflict to put media
under tremendous pressure to toe their line because they will manage news and
restrict journalists activities. The elites can be either the government, military or
any other powerful pressure group that would use media for its advantage either for
silencing the opposition to its policies or using it as a publicity wing. In such a
scenario, the medias institutional adventurism gives way to the elitist discourse.
Dependence on elites makes media subservient but occasionally they get a bit more
freedom when there is elite dissensus (Hallin, 1986; Wolsfeld, 2010).

Finally, if the perception of threat to national security is at the low level and

there is no danger of violence, media engage in sensational reporting to attract large

audiences and hence the economic interests are prioritized. However, in conflicts
where public sensibilities are involved, media exercise restraint due to fears of
escalation. In this case, popular sentiments are regarded and media follow a neutral
role, so as not to be dubbed as favoring a single party in a conflict.


2. Threat of flak

11

Behind the presumed levels of threat to national security, an array of different

types of flak (Herman and Chomsky, 1998: ) operate, which influence conflict
journalism. It can be in form of institutional requirements of journalistic profession;
security prescriptions for journalists issued by military, or some powerful pressure
groups, commercial interests of media industry or the professional flak emanating
from media ethics. The various forms of flak vary with the presumed levels of
threats to national security.

If the level of security threat were at the highest, so would be the institutional

flak. The profession of journalism, like other institutions in Pakistan, is supposed to

play its national role in case of danger to national security by uniting the nation and
safeguarding the core national interests. Media may become critical of elite policy-
making if criticism emerges and grows that decisions are not in the national
interests. Media criticism ranges from outright rejection of elite policies to a tight
watchdog role where it starts asking tough questions from elites and pressurizes
them to eschew certain policy decision that media believe would endanger national
security. There is a feeling that journalists have to prove themselves as
spearheading efforts to save the nation and fight the enemy. They need to be
patriotic and do their utmost for securing national interests. Those journalists not
sharing this perspective are forced to keep a low profile, which will significantly
diminish their chances of promotion in the profession. This flak usually comes in the
forms of being framed as unpatriotic, traitor, foreign spy etc. At this position, the
commercial, security or other flaks are not much influential in determining media
content.

On the other hand, if the presumed level of threat to national security were at

medium position, the elite flak would be determining conflict reporting. As media
eschew their role as a stakeholder in the conflict and relegate themselves to a role of
information-provider, elite bodies in the conflict take advantage of media quietism
and start controlling the information. The dependence on military/powerful groups

12

renders conflict reporting as propagandist. The media get some relief when there is
tension among elites, as now the threat of security flak may be occluded. The flak
usually exists in forms of threats to journalists and their families, killings of more
critical reporters, termination from jobs due to elites pressure on owners etc. At
this level, the systemic and commercial flaks are not much influential.

Finally, the commercial or professional flaks will get precedence if the

presumed threat to national security is either non-existent or at the lowest level. In

case of perception of no-escalation, the commercial flak would determine the
approach and media content sensationalized to maximize profits by engaging more
and more people. This flak exists in the form of meeting unending deadlines, brining
new and interesting news, looking for more drama etc. However, in case of
perception of escalation to violence, the professional flak come into play and
journalists become responsible in reporting as they fear sensational reporting
would damage societal peace and also damage the reputation of their media outlet
for being partial or irresponsible. This flak comes in the form of public pressure,
fears of being dubbed as anarchist and sectionalist or favoring one party in the
conflict.

How to do peace journalism?

The theory of critical pragmatism for peace journalism would suggest that its

task varies with the conflict scenarios. It may be easy to practice it at one scenario
and nigh impossible at another. Likewise, in some conflict scenarios, passive peace
journalism would work and in others, active peace journalism is needed. Critical
pragmatism suggests that journalist is aware of the power relations and the
complex nature of the conflict but at the same time has to strategize to remain
professional. S/he must be aware of the flaks and pressures and how these affect
his/her professionalism and what is the antidote. The journalist must be aware of
the neglected perspectives in the conflict and the realization to complement them
with more innovative strategies. The peace journalist is aware of the limitations of

13

traditional journalism in conflict reporting and does his/her best to report on the
neglected but important aspects such as sufferers in the conflict, causes of the
conflict, including voices of the peacemakers and other habitually excluded or
subjugated content.






A pragmatic model for Peace Journalism

Factors in Conflicts

Conflict
scenarios
High casualty rate,
High
Presence of foreigners, security
Social differences
threat
Territorial ambitions
Lesser casualties
Medium-
National groups
level
No serious social
Threat
differences
Ambivalent territorial
claims
Low/no casualties
Low-level
National groups
security
Lesser threat of
threat
escalation
No territorial
ambitions

Type of
Flaks
Institutional
flak

Dominant
Narrative
Patriotic

Elite flak

Elitist,

PJ Narrative


PJ narrative
would depend
on contextual
factors in each
of these
conflicts.

Commercial Sensationalist
/
ic/responsible
Ethical flaks

Based upon the above model, media performance will be analyzed in the

following three scenarios.

1. If the presumed threat for national security were higher, effective would be the
institutional flak and hence more securitized media discourse. The

14

alternative would be to practice passive peace journalism.

2. If the presumed threat for national security were of medium-level, effective
would be the elite security flak and hence more elitist media discourse. The
alternative would be to oscillate between passive and active peace
journalism.
3. If the presumed threat for national security were of low-level, effective would
be commercial/ethical flaks and hence more sensationalistic/responsible
media discourses. The alternative would be to practice active peace
journalism.



Methodology

The databank for this study comes from detailed semi-structured interviews

with 35 leading conflict reporters, six media editors, 12 conflict stakeholders, six
media analysts and five conflict resolution experts on the five different conflicts
including (Taliban conflict, sectarian conflict, Balochistan conflict, ethnic conflict and
the political conflict between government and judiciary). These interviews were
conducted in face-to-face interaction and some of the interviewees were
interviewed twice to clarify their positions. Some of the interviewees agreed to have
their comments attributed to them by name, while others preferred to contribute
anonymously, with their remarks attributed to an agreed descriptor of their
position.

Research findings and analyses

Scenario 1: When the level of perception of threat to national security is high

Taliban conflict:

15

All the journalists declared the Taliban conflict of high security threat and
agreed Taliban posses existential threat to the security of Pakistan and hence it is
in line with previous studies (Shabbir, 2011; Siraj & Shabbir, 2012; Ottosen, 2014;
Shabbir, 2014; Shabbir & Shahira, 2015). The researchers found almost all of them
were unanimous that Taliban are the common enemy and needed to be dealt
forcibly. One editor said Taliban are the enemies, a threat to our system and we
are united against them to defeat them. We need to get rid of them if peace is to be
ensured said one reporter. They believed Taliban are despised all over the country
and there is a consensus to call them terrorists and miscreants who are killing our
security forces and innocent peoples. Emphasizing the institutional flak behind this
approach, a reporter, Ali Hazrat Bacha of Dawn newspaper, said, First, I am a
Pakistani and then a journalist. My profession wont allow me to be sympathetic to
enemy to get news. If I use the word militant for Taliban, they (news editors) will
immediately change it as terrorist, said another reporter Musarrat Jan of Dunya TV.
They agreed remaining objective in this conflict was no choice and they had to take
side against the Taliban. When asked about objective reporting of this conflict, an
editor said there is no mechanism to get balanced reporting of this conflict. Taliban
cannot be provided this platform where they can air their obnoxious agenda. A
renowned anchor and Taliban affairs expert Saleem Safi said you risk your life and
career if (insist on) objectively reporting this conflict and added when national
security is at risk, media need to be patriotic.

The journalists agreed that media was controlled by the military in this
conflict and their freedom curtailed but they reminded this researcher how they
turned against the military and all the political parties including government when a
peace agreement was about to be signed with the Taliban fighters. So in this case,
even the elite consensus couldnt pressure media to follow a certain perspective on
Taliban conflict. Though media is dependent on military for information but they
narrativize the reports differently as per their choice and at times it conflicted with
the elite perspective. These findings challenge the perspective of theorists including
(Wolsfeld, 2004; Hallin, 1986) and somehow supports the accounts of Philip

16

Knightly (1999) that how UK journalists spearheaded war messages even though
the government was reluctant at the start during the two World Wars. However,
that doesnt mean that media remained anti-military or government most of the
times in this conflict. In fact, media have supported the military operation against
the Taliban but it became critical only when it realized that government or the
military were erring in some policy and they had to step up and dissuade them
against policies that can hurt national interests. Media consider itself as a genuine
national institution and have to prove its credentials when security of the state is in
question. The reporters, editors and analysts believed that media shouldnt remain
silent against certain policies, which can damage national interests.

A critical pragmatic strategy for peace journalism

How peace journalism become a practical proposition in such a scenario,
when journalists consider it their duty to save society from the clutches of
terrorists and are the sworn enemies of a party in a conflict? Anyone disagreeing
with this proposition is discredited. The institutional flak is so coercive that
dissenting journalists will face professional implications for their stance. In fact, the
dissenting journalists cant take liberty and would have to change their approach.
Journalists will have to fight against the national foes even if powerful elites (both
military and political) succumb to their pressure or misjudge the situation. This
perspective allies with the field theory of Pierre Bourdieu (1998), which Hackett
(2006) argued allows for journalistic agency and creativity in shaping the content of
news, distinguishing it from the linearity in cause and effect inscribed in such
models as the Propaganda Model. However, Hackett was making this argument to
advocate for Peace Journalism, whereas in situations in Pakistan where media
perceive a high risk to national security, it may actually intensify war journalism.
Media do occasionally confront powerful military and government factions if they
fear that national security is threatened, sometimes making common cause, at times
of elite dissensus, with other factions advocating a harder line.

17

When journalists, analysts and conflict stakeholders were asked about the
possibility of peace journalism in such a scenario, the feedback varied significantly
but two important themes were recognized that needed to be incorporated in the
media discourse. First, highlight the humanitarian issues in the conflict by reporting
on the plight of refugees, their sufferings and problems, their rehabilitation and
repatriation, food and health facilities at the camps and most importantly to give
voice to them and share their perspectives on the conflict. While human-interest
stories are always considered important in journalism, these will also provide an
added perspective in conflict journalism. Taliban affairs expert Ayaz Wazir was
concerned about the Pakistan media ignorance of the plight of displaced people in
this war. It is strange that millions of refugees are languishing in camps, and our
media is least concerned, he said. Politicians from different parties also urged
media to focus on the issues of refugees so that the nation can know their sacrifices
for the country. Many peace researchers including (Galtung, 2006; Kempf, 2003;
Ottosen, 2010) believe media focus on sufferers would constructively transform
conflicts. Galtung (2006) while explicating the concept of balance in journalism
believe that the securitized perspective should be balanced with neglected
perspectives to ensure good journalism.

Secondly, contextualize the conflict by sharing the background information
with the audience. The conflict reporters and others agreed it was also a workable
provision that has got professional value. The advantage of contextualization in this
specific conflict would balance the aggressive nationalism in Pakistan media.
According to senior journalist Rahimullah Yusafzai, people in Pakistan are
suspicious over peace agreements with Taliban because majority of them are
unaware of the history. He believes that for permanent solution to this conflict,
Pakistanis have to be convinced that Taliban cant be wiped out and that they are a
reality and that we can have peace with them if things are properly strategized.
While many editors agreed that these discussions could be editorialized
professionally and hence workable, many peace journalism scholars (Galtung, 2000;
Lynch & McGoldrick, 2005; Kempf, 2003; Shinar, 2007; Lee & Maslog, 2005) hope

18

such endeavors will lead to a more de-escaltory coverage and ultimately contribute
towards peace. These two categories of peace journalism are essentially passive and
hence it can be deduced that when institutional flak in practice, passive peace
journalism strategy would work (Kempf, 2007).

Scenario 2: When the level of perception of threat to national security is
medium

Balochistan conflict:

The reporters, editors and media analysts put the Balochistan conflict
passing through the medium stage in terms of security threat for the state and hence
consistent with previous work (Shabbir & Haseeb, 2015; Prakash, 2013). Though
worried, still they reposed confidence in the institutions (both military and political)
that this conflict would be resolved without endangering the basic values of the
statehood. The present setup has the potential to resolve it, but it can also
degenerate into unwanted consequences, said a reporter from a daily newspaper,
Jang. Almost all the journalists were unanimous that their hands were tied while
reporting this conflict due the strongly elitist flak of army. They confided that
security agencies have completely confiscated their freedom. A senior reporter and
a member of a Balochistan Journalists Union told that dozens of journalists have
been killed and many more received threatening messages. How can you expect
objective reporting in this tough terrain (most areas are inaccessible due to poor
roads and other infrastructure) when you have to just report what is told to you by
certain groups, said a reported from Dunya TV.

The media cant report on the real causes of the conflict due to pressure from
army when it comes to extra-judicial killings, kidnappings of youth, and
establishment of military cantonments in vast areas. We are allowed to speak half-
truth but not the whole truth said one editor. Others said there are genuine issues
behind this conflict but media cant discuss those due to fear from army. One expert

19

said, If media cross the limit, they will be penalized for being dubbed as anti-
military, anti-state, foreign agent and hence killed. When asked about the oft and on
instances of constructive reporting from the province, the journalists agreed that it
was due to elite dissensus. When the Supreme Court chides military for illegal
detentions, when some senior minister criticizes the government policies and the
provincial government accepts its failure, we get the opportunity to report
something different, said a senior director of a TV channel.



A pragmatic strategy for peace journalism

Regarding the Balochistan conflict, guidance from relevant scholarship and
long session with journalists, analysts and stakeholders helped identified two
strategies for constructive coverage of this conflict. First is to provide opportunity to
different stakeholders in the conflict to share their perspectives. Though army being
at the center-stage may disallow the inclusion of hardcore separatists, still many
stakeholders in this conflict hold moderate perspectives (who right now are ignored
in media) and they can be easily accommodated. Such an approach would diversify
media reportage of this conflict (which is good journalism) and more constructively
inform the people by shedding light on the structural injustices that spawns tension
in this conflict. While the journalists agreed that it was workable and within the
parameter of professional media, leaders of political parties and the one separatist
leader interviewed for his study appreciated that such a step will help bring the
estranged elements into the mainstream. In fact, pragmatic objectivity requires the
same approach to include multi-perspectives to resolve social problems (Ward,
2010) and create a rational public debate in the society (Habermas, 1993).

Secondly, highlight the efforts of peacemakers in this conflict. In fact, there
are many organizations and actors who are actively working to pacify the Baloch
nationalists and bringing their efforts to the fore would result in prioritizing the

20

peace perspectives. The missing crucial information about the configuration and
complex nature of this conflict (due to elite flak) can be complemented through the
inclusion of the voice of peacemakers to facilitate a solution to this conflict (Lynch,
2006; Shinar, 2011). These elements can be considered as the mid-level from
passive to active peace journalism, and are part of good journalism as it engages
worthy sources of information.


Ethnic conflict:
The journalists considered the ethnic conflict in Karachi as posing medium
level threat to security of the country, which at present though under control, can
degenerate into full crisis. Many believe it is the most misreported conflict in
Pakistan (Yousuf, 2013; Shamoon, 2015; Shabbir & Arif, in press) due to pressure on
media by the citys ruling party Mutahidda Qomi Movement (MQM). This party has
virtually divested media from free reporting when it comes to reporting the violence
in Karachi.

Through a stick and carrot policy, this party dictates media narrative on
ethnic conflict in the city. All the reporters interviewed were unanimous in their
assertions that their editors do not allow them to report stories against the MQM.
The security flak exercised by this party is so stringent that not a single reporter
wished to be identified for this research. Non-compliance with party directives often
result in burning of offices and publications and death threats to employees. The
reporters are aware of forbidden subjects and avoid issues that can put media in
conflict with MQM. One senior reporter working for an English daily presented the
following picture:

We are always monitored and are expected to offend no-one. They are so powerful
and organized and none of us is ready to take chance against them. No reporter can
claim to be free while covering issues in that city. Even the editors and owners will
edit information that can bring displeasure of MQM.

21


Another reporter working for a TV channel said MQM, which has well
established itself in the city, is dictating terms for media. The top management will
never allow us to tell truth if it involves MQM. Another reporter working for an Urdu
newspaper said there are sacred cows and no-go areas. Violating these codes will
incur varying degrees of reprimands ranging from threats, job termination and
killing. A young and enthusiast journalist said how often he insists to tell the truth
but his editor convinces him that you will lose job and also life for stubbornness.
While the editors prevaricated on the issue of how MQM was dictating its terms but
they agreed they were often pressurized not to report certain events. One editor
said how can a reporter be impartial and objective when militants having political
affiliations will tell you to take care of your family (obviously indicting that we will
harm your family if you go against our interests). Media analysts confirmed that
they were often discouraged to write critically against the MQM due to their
pressure on top management.

A pragmatic strategy for peace journalism

Doing peace journalism is probably most difficult in this conflict, many
journalists agreed due to the MQM flak. However, the interviewers agreed that
quality reporting of this conflict is possible in two ways in the present scenario.
First, the conflict needs to be humanized by depoliticizing the victims. The
difference between political victims and non-political victims need to be reduced.
While the violence may be of political nature but its effects must be reported from
humanitarian perspective. Likewise majority of reporters and editors agreed that
such a shift wouldnt subject them to too much pressure from belligerent parties
and hence doable. Media researcher Dr. Hasan agreed that emphasis on non-
political sufferers in the conflict would be a great contribution to unravel this multi-
layer conflict. He hoped such a transformation would expose the conflicting parties
and hence chances for peace maximized.

22

 Secondly, the media need to initiate solution-oriented coverage to this

conflict. A senior TV anchor Ihtasham ul Haq said, our shows get more ratings when
we discus situation in Karachi because this city has got more viewers. So, I am
confident that solution-oriented programs would be both informational and
effective for resolving this issue. An editor said, probably this would give chance to
report on issues more impartially from this city, and argued this seems to be the
most practical idea. Analyst Mehboob said that in Karachi conflict, violence is the
norm and peace an exception. He was confident that peace-oriented reporting
would be hailed more than warring reporting as illustrated in surveys in Pakistan
(Shamoon, 2015) and elsewhere (Lynch, 2013; Kempf & Theil, 2014).


Scenario 3: When the level of perception of threat to national security is low

Sectarian conflict:

Journalists considered the sectarian conflict as having low-level security
threat for the country (unlike in the Middle East, sectarianism, pitting Sunni against
Shia Islam, does not have wider societal recognition). It is a sensitive issue and the
dominant view is to underplay it to avoid escalation. Media in Pakistan remain
strictly neutral in this conflict because partiality in this conflict has ramifications for
both society and the media industry, said a media executive. If you are dubbed as
supportive of one group, you are out of competition. However, one fallacy in media
reporting is the missing of details like who are involved in the conflict, who are the
funders, from where are they getting recruits, who are supporting them and for
what cause (Shabbir 2015; Shabbir & Shahira; 2015). A reporter from a daily
newspaper, Express, who requested anonymity said, even if we know certain
individuals are responsible for attacks, we often avoid to divulge their names to
downplay things. An editor of an English daily echoed the same understanding that
journalists were wary of the public sensitivity and media usually avoid to go into

23

details. We always fear that any misadventure on our part, will have horrendous
implications for, so half-reporting is better than complete reporting.

A pragmatic strategy for peace journalism

From peace journalism perspective, media need to expand the range of
stakeholders by engaging political parties, human right organizations, peace
activists and other actors by providing them equal time and space. At present media
has reduced this conflict to Shia and Sunni groups. The multi-perspectival approach
would enrich media debates on the issue (and hence good journalism) and also
expose the agenda of sectarian groups. Majority of journalists and analysts agreed
that it was a pragmatic solution to the hurdles in reporting which could be done
without much hassles. In fact, this has been long stated by peace researchers
(Galtung, 2006; Lynch, 2013) that media reportage pragmatically needs to be
balanced by echoing the neglected perspectives on the formation of conflict.

Secondly, media can initiate extensive programs on sectarian harmony by
arranging seminars and conferences. These gatherings provide media people to
collect important stories about the state of affairs and help assure the conflict
stakeholders that journalist community are with them. Both the Shia and Sunni
leaders agreed with the proposal to participate and cooperate at media-sponsored
harmony debates. This would be an example of active peace journalism (Lynch,
2006). All the editors told this researcher they usually hold these types of seminars
before the holy month of Moharram when sectarian tension is high. In fact, in a
survey, a thumping majority of 90 percent Pakistanis supported media proactively
engaging in this conflict to help resolve it (Shabbir, 2015).



Political conflict on NRO:

24

Finally, on the political conflict between the state institutions, the journalists
agreed that they were free from external forces but the economic competition
among the media outlets (commercial flak) put the journalists under extreme
pressure. It was such a huge event that missing an event was no option said Qayum
Siddiqui of Geo TV. A bureau chief of Dunya TV narrated the situation like this: As
the whole nation was interested in the court proceedings, the journalists were
under constant pressure to come up with new information, new angles and more
interesting news which necessitated drama and sensationalism. The information
minister Qamar Zaman Kaira said, The judges remarks during proceedings were
reported like final judgment, creating unrest and tension in the country. A senior
journalist said that media exploited the national obsession with media during this
saga to come up with more interesting information, get more ratings and outdoing
competitors.

A pragmatic strategy for peace journalism

Regarding this political conflict between the government and judiciary, it is
interesting to answer that how can one do quality journalism when the journalists
are pressurized by market forces to come up with more interesting and dramatic
narrations. Many scholars believe such flak could be more stringent than any other
restriction (Herman & Chomsky, 2010; Bourdieu, 1998; Hackett & Zhao, 2006). One
strategy could be to launch solution-oriented perspective by engaging the
stakeholders to fizzle out the tension. From media perspective, such a project is both
newsworthy and also proactive on the part of media.

Secondly, media can launch a serious attack on the motives and objectives of
concerned parties by being resurgent and creating critical awareness among the
audiences. No political party worth its name can afford to be discredited by the
people for its inefficacy and bad-governance. In fact, in the study, a majority of
respondents criticized media for sensationalizing the conflict and not discussing it
from critical perspectives (Shabbir, 2015).

25


Conclusion

This study situates the theory, method and practice of peace

journalism in the critical pragmatic approach of social theory by analyzing media

reporting of five different conflicts in Pakistan. Peace journalism is in its most
refined reform is quality journalism during conflict times which though dont
advocate peace as a practice but supports it as a most desirable value (Lynch, 2013;
Kempf, 2013; Lynch & Galtung, 2010; Galtung, 2006). Judging by this standard, other
key approaches of social theory (post-positivism, hermeneutism, critical theory and
normative approach) either ignore the value while stressing for professional
journalism (like positivism or over-emphasize it (like critical and normative
approaches).

The critical pragmatic approach overcomes this problem by stressing
prospects for professional improvement, and due distance from the agendas and
interests of power structures, combined with an underlying value of peace
(Forester, 2012; Galtung & Lynch, 2010; Kempf & Shinar 2014). The pragmatic
approach calls for a thorough analysis and continual improvement of journalistic
strategies. Different conflict scenarios result in different media approaches and
hence peace journalism demands and opportunities may vary with the
circumstances. In some scenarios, simple good journalism may be equivalent to
peace journalism and in others; the advancement of peace (an element of advocacy,
typically by reporting the words and deeds of peace advocates operating at various
levels) may perfectly fit with the considerations of good journalism. Different
conflict scenarios exhibit different narratives of conflict journalism and the
alternative course of peace journalism/quality journalism can be introduced after a
critical examination of the existing practices and creatively introducing new themes.
The pragmatic approach of peace journalism has the capacity to account for these
aspects by providing the theoretical scaffolding and ensuring its achievement to the
best possible level.

26




References


Bratic, V. (2008). "Examining peace-oriented media in areas of violent conflict."
International Communication Gazette 70(6): 487-503.

Chomsky, N. and E. S. Herman (2010). Manufacturing consent: The political
economy of the mass media, Random House.

Dewey, John (1938), Logic: The Theory of Inquiry, Henry Holt and Company, New
York.

Fawcett, L. (2002). "Why peace journalism isn't news." Journalism Studies 3(2):
213-223.


Gilewicz, N. (2011). "Peace is War: Epistemological and Ethical Concerns in Peace
Journalism's Theory, Praxis, and Practice" Paper presented at the annual meeting of
the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, available
online at: http://citation.allacademic.com/meta/p520049_index.html


Galtung, J. (2002). "Peace journalismA challenge." Journalism and the new world
order 2: 259-272.

Galtung, J. (2006). Peace journalism as an ethical challenge. Global Media Journal:
Mediterranean Edition, 1(2), 1-5.

Gilboa, E. (2009). "Media and conflict resolution: a framework for analysis." Marq. L.
Rev. 93: 87.

Habermas, J (2002): On the pragmatics of communication, MIT press.

27

Hackett, R. A. (2006). "Is peace journalism possible? Three frameworks for assessing
structure and agency in news media." Conflict & Communication 5(2): 1-13.

Hallin, D. (1989). The uncensored war: The media and Vietnam. Berkeley:
University of California Press.

Hamelink, C. J. (2008). "Media between warmongers and peacemakers." Media, War
& Conflict 1(1): 77-83.

Hanitzsch, T. (2004). "Journalists as peacekeeping force? Peace journalism and mass
communication theory." Journalism Studies 5(4): 483-495.

Kempf, W. (2003). "Constructive conflict coverageA social-psychological research
and development program." conflict & communication online 2(2).

Kempf, W. (2007). "Peace journalism: A tightrope walk between advocacy
journalism and constructive conflict coverage." Conflict and Communication Online
6(2).

Knightly, P. (2002). Journalism, conflict and war, Journalism studies, 3(2).

Lasswell, H.D. (1938). Propaganda technique in the world war. New York: Peter
Smith.


Lynch, J. (2006). "Whats so great about peace journalism." Global Media Journal,
Mediterranean Edition 1(1): 74-87.

Lynch, Jake (2002) Reporting the world, Taplow, UK: Conflict and Peace Forums,
104pp booklet. Full text available online at http://
www.reportingtheworld.net/RtW_book.html,

Lynch, J. (2008) Debates in peace journalism, Sydney, Sydney University Press

Lynch, J. (2014) A global standard for reporting conflict, New York, Routledge


Lynch, J. and McGoldrick, A. (2005) Peace journalism, Stroud, Hawthorn Press

28

Nohrstedt, S; Ottosen, R. (2010): Brothers in arms and peace: The media

representation of Swedish and Norwegian defense and military cooperation,
conflict & communication online, vol 9, no 2.


Prakash, A. (2013). "Peace or War Journalism: Case Study of the Balochistan Conflict
in Pakistan." Strategic Analysis 37(5).

Putnam, H (1990): Realism with a Human Face, Harvard University Press, 1990.



Siraj, S.A., Hussain, S. (2012). War Media Galore in Pakistan: A Perspective on
Taliban Conflict, Global Media Journal: Pakistan Edition; 5,1, p49

Taylor, P. M. (1992). War and the media: Propaganda and persuasion in the Gulf
War, Manchester. Manchester University press.

Thussu, D.K. and Freedman, D. (Eds.) (2003). War and the media: Reporting conflict
24/7. London: Sage.

Ward, S. (2006): Ethical Ideals in Journalism: Civic Uplift or the Pursuit of Truth?
Journal of Mass Media Ethics 21, 4.


WOLSFELD, G. (2004). Media and the Path to Peace. Cambridge, Cambridge:
University Press.

29