previous | next | table of contents

Can the Media Stop Conflict? ¹

Do television news organizations have a responsibility to stop wars? In considering this question, I will begin by stating that it is our individual responsibility to prevent war. (This bypasses important questions such as whether all wars are necessarily evil or whether there is such a thing as a "just" war. It ignores questions of sovereignty and self-determination.) I am also considering the question only from the perspective of international television news organizations. The role that national and local news media can play in fomenting or preventing conflict, being more complicated because it directly involves participants, deserves a more detailed treatment than is possible here.

If we accept that it is our responsibility as individuals to do our best to avoid war, should this responsibility also apply to television news organizations, which are, after all a collection of individuals?

Before looking at what role television news media should play in conflict prevention, is it correct to assume that television can prevent wars? It is clear that international television news coverage alone cannot stop wars in their tracks. Once wars start, they can be stopped only by force or mediation. The question, then, is whether television should influence what kind of force is applied to end wars.

The idea that television can in some way prevent conflicts has emerged as a result of the effect that television images have on the conduct of foreign policy. Images from the war in Bosnia - most notably those of the Muslim detainees in the Bosnian Serb detention center at Trnopolje in August 1992 and the pictures from the Sarajevo market bombing in February 1994 - have led to changes in the application of foreign policies that have had a direct bearing on the war. These examples suggest that television images, by prompting intervention from superior powers, certainly influence the course of wars and may even lead to their conclusion.

This view is countered by the argument that television news footage does not have a dramatic effect on the conduct of foreign policy. The foreign policies of countries, alliances, and organizations that constitute the international community are determined by national or self-interest. While the stimulus of media pressure may prompt short-term action, this does not affect the long-term policy. The media may wish to believe that their reporting is making a difference, but in reality the underlying foreign policy is not altered.

The answer to whether the media can influence foreign policy probably lies somewhere in the middle, with varying short-term policies. Let us imagine that the policy of Western European governments in Bosnia was to contain the war within the region. Direct military intervention, complete inaction, or the slow invasion that has taken place would probably have made little difference to the success or failure of containment. (Short-term policies do affect those in Bosnia, though. They can mean the difference between winning and losing, between destruction and salvation.)

The effectiveness of the media in driving government policy may be overestimated, but it should not be ignored. The media may not influence long-term policy, but it can affect the application of that policy. Governments are adept at responding with short-term measures to assuage an outraged electorate whipped up by a dramatically presented news story. What may not actually concern a policymaker, for example, is how a war is to be stopped or in whose favor. Here, the argument that television cannot influence policy does not necessarily mean that the media is incapable of stopping - or on the other hand prolonging - wars.

In Bosnia, media attention played a major role in preventing the complete defeat of the Sarajevo government forces. Yet the same attention did nothing to prevent the destruction of Grozny. It still remains for governments to produce the political will to change the course of conflicts, and the influence of the media may not be enough to do that even if it is able to prompt some act of political expediency. Media effort is not guaranteed to influence conflicts. Even if there are no guarantees, should the media still make every effort to stop wars?

Everyone takes sides in conflicts. But whatever their views on the power of television to influence events, the old-fashioned "who, what, where, why, and how" news reporters would set aside their personal feelings in an attempt to report accurately what is happening. This is professionalism at work. It is a recognition of the role of a reporter - to report.

Today, this professionalism is being undermined. The struggle for power and influence among network reporters is as fierce as it is in any government. There is also a battle for ratings and advertising revenue. Cutting costs to feed price wars tends to hit the foreign news budgets first. This leads to a reduced number of correspondents abroad, so that the media often does not report in-depth from many regions until a crisis has spiraled out of control.

These factors may lead to healthy free-market competition, but they also lead to declining standards in news reporting because effort is applied to maintaining an image rather than actual reporting. The sensation is preferred to the fact; the instant reaction is preferred to the considered reflection.

Reporters flock to conflict zones once the crisis breaks. Many arrive lacking an understanding of history and current events and are required to gain the necessary knowledge rapidly in order to file their reports. Some do this more diligently than others but it is surely impossible for one reporter to keep abreast of events in conflicts.

The individual reporter cannot hope to gather enough material to maintain an impartial viewpoint. The reporter is bombarded by propaganda and is often unable to cross frontlines to check facts. There comes a time when the reporter begins to identify with one party to the conflict simply because the weight of information received is very one-sided.

The difficulties are made worse by the thirst of news desks for stories that must be delivered before those of competing organizations. Dry facts and policy explanations do not make interesting television. Stories about individual suffering do and those who suffer more receive more media attention. This has a distorting effect. Instant responses to images of suffering may cloud an appreciation of the underlying causes of a conflict, which in turn can delay the search for lasting solutions. Instant news, and the demands for action that so often accompany it, may be denying us time for reflection.

Reporters are dispatched with briefs to uncover atrocities committed by one side. Somehow in this process the misdeeds of the other side are diluted. Right and wrong, and the attribution of blame, is decided on utilitarian grounds. Whoever tugs at the media's heartstrings first wins the propaganda war. But this lack of balance may lead to one side in a conflict losing faith in international efforts to mediate fairly.

The change in reporting styles - the demands imposed by the requirement to produce instant news and analysis (how often does a live TV interview with a reporter in the field add significantly to an understanding of the situation?) and the emergence of the reporter as a personality - promotes the reporter to a position as an advocate. It appears that news reports must have a point of view. The reporter must take sides overtly or implicitly. Is this a change for the better?

An additional problem for television is that it needs pictures to tell the news story. In the absence of those pictures, it has to substitute material from archives or other sources. This may be justified on the grounds that the images selected fairly illustrate the real situation.

The dangers of this approach are clear. The first is the notion that, in the pursuit of a greater truth, a substitute image can pass for a fair representation of facts. If this is accepted, then it means that facts may be set aside if they do not confirm the greater truth. But truth is a matter of perception until the facts are marshaled to support it. Ignoring or bypassing facts distorts the truth.

A second danger is that the unscrupulous can use this weakness to promote falsehoods and misinformation. In Bosnia, figures produced by the government in Sarajevo were accepted and broadcast with not nearly as much skepticism as greeted similar information coming from the Bosnian Serb leadership in Pale.

Television news professionals should not allow themselves to become instruments of policy. Independence and balance must be preserved, more so when an ever increasing number of people, movements, governments, and international organizations are aware of the power of the media in forming public opinion and are working towards making sure that their view is the one presented.

Once a journalist has set for himself the goal of stopping or influencing wars, it is a short step to accepting that any means to achieve that end are justified. At that stage, it becomes possible to use the good lie, if it leads to a greater truth. Lies then become more important that the truth. There can be no greater betrayal of journalistic standards. Journalists and news organizations should stand up for the truth, not compromise it.

The role of television news is to report the facts. Within the media, there are opportunities for opinions to be expressed, and the distinctions between news reporting, news analysis, and comment have to be maintained. These distinctions must also be made clear to the audience. Television news must regulate itself; those who work in it must decide between political commitment or commitments to the standards of fair reporting.

There is a way in which the media in general, and television in particular, can play a part in preventing or influencing conflicts. This lies in producing fair and accurate reports that inform the audience. Otherwise, the media can have no role in trying to positively or negatively influence conflicts, but only in fighting them on behalf of one side against the another. And that is the job of the soldier, not the reporter.

1. This article was originally published in the March/April edition of Crosslines Magazine.