Twelve Ways The Media Misrepresents Violence
Where do the media go wrong in dealing with violence?
This round-up gives us a start in understanding.
Norwegian peace studies professor
Johann Galtung has laid out 12 points of concern were journalism often goes
wrong when dealing with violence. Each implicitly suggests more explicit
remedies.
1. Decontextualizing violence: focussing on the
irrational without looking at the reasons for unresolved conflicts an dpolarization.
2. Dualism: reducing the number of parties in a
conflict to two, when often more are involved. Stories that just focus on
internal developments often ignore such outside or `external` forces as foreign
governments and transnational companies.
3. Manicheanism: portraying one side as good and
demonizing the other as `evil`.
4.
Armageddon: presenting violence as inevitable, omitting alternatives.
5. Focussing on individual acts of violence while
avoiding structural causes, like poverty, government neglect an dmilitary or
police repression.
6. Confusion: focussing only on the conflict arena
(i.e. the battlefield or location of violent incidents) but not on the forces
and factors that influence th eviolence.
7. Excluding and omitting the bereaved, thus never
explaining why there are acts of revenge and spirals of violence.
8.
Failure to explore the causes of escalation and the impact of media coverage
itself.
9.
Failure to explore the goals of outside interventionists, especially big
powers.
10.
Failure to explore peace proposals and offer images of peaceful outcomes.
11. Confusing cease-fires and negotiations with
actual peace.
12. Omitting reconciliation: conflicts tend to re-emerge if attention is not
paid to efforts to heal fractured societies. When news about attempts to
resolve conflicts are absent, fatalism is reinforced. That can help engender
even more violence, when people have no images or information about possible
peaceful outcomes and the promise of healing.
Read
more:
http://www.mediachannel.org/views/dissector/coveringviolence.shmtl