Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
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
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.
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:
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:
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:
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
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.
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 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).
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
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
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.
(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
11
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
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.
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
14
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
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
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
29