Journalism2014, Vol 15(1) 72 –88© The Author(s) 2013

Reprints and permissions: sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/1464884912470313jou.sagepub.com

Peace journalism case study: US media coverage of the Iraq War

Marianne Perez de FransiusPeace Is Sexy, Sweden

AbstractThis article examines Johan Galtung’s concept of peace journalism. First it examines the fields out of which peace journalism was born – peace studies and conflict analysis – and the current viability of this framework. These theories are then applied to a case study of the American coverage of the war in Iraq, itemizing and explaining each of the peace journalism tenets and contrasting them with the dominant style of war reporting.

KeywordsGaltung, Iraq, peace journalism, peace media, war coverage

This article presents an in-depth analysis of peace journalism (PJ), using US media cov-erage of the Iraq War as a case study. First it lays out some of the basic tenets of peace studies, specifically Johan Galtung’s discourses. It then applies these theories to an anal-ysis of Iraq War coverage in the American media. This analysis shows how an approach rooted in peace journalism could alter the way in which such conflicts are portrayed in the media. Such a strategy can move the public discourse away from a focus on violent means, to find creative conflict transformation mechanisms that allow different voices and interests to be heard. While this article focuses on the content of journalism, rather than the structures,

We do not need to conclude that editors and reporters are mere cogs in a machine of their own making, and therefore efforts to reform journalism from within are pointless. Structural constraints govern the content of news, but they do not altogether determine it. Pressure from without and renewal from within are not mutually exclusive avenues […]; they may, indeed, be necessary counterparts. (Lynch et al., 2011: 8)1

Corresponding author:Marianne Perez de Fransius, Peace Is Sexy, Byggmästarvägen 13, Bromma 168 32, Sweden. Email: mariannehperez@gmail.com

470313 JOU0010.1177/1464884912470313JournalismPerez de Fransius2013

Article

Perez de Fransius 73

This study examines the content of conflict coverage and how it can be altered by systematically exploring the founding document of peace journalism, Galtung’s Peace Journalism–War Journalism table, and fully understanding each rubric. There is a grow-ing body of research that has operationalized the PJ model into evaluative criteria for content analysis, such as the studies collected in Ross and Tehranian’s Peace Journalism in Times of War (2008). They all find that there is some peace journalism in the coverage they analyze. Civil society initiatives to spread PJ have also grown, as documented in the case of the Pecojon network by Patindol (2010). With this increase in peace journalism and its accompanying analysis, a point-by-point examination of each of Galtung’s rubrics and its application is relevant to further efforts in the field. This article undertakes this analysis using American coverage of the war in Iraq as a case study.

Galtung’s peace and security discourses

Discourses are mental mechanisms by which we organize our thoughts, ideas and world views. Any new information is integrated into pre-existing frames or discourses which help us make sense of the world. We generally use these mechanisms unconsciously, yet they critically color the reality we see in the world. For the media, especially journalism, which attempts to say something about reality, it is important to bring our discourses to the light of consciousness.

Johan Galtung, founder of the field of peace studies, identifies a peace discourse and a security discourse according to which people around the world organize their under-standing of conflict and violence. His theory is based on years of observation of conflict situations around the world. Such dichotomy and dualism is misleadingly simplified, but these theoretical approaches help us better understand the world. Galtung’s approach can give us a fuller understanding of how and why we interpret the world in a certain way and how journalists can report a more accurate vision.

The difference between the peace discourse and security discourse is summarized in Table 1.

Table 1. Galtung’s peace and security discourses.

Peace discourse (horizontal)1 Security discourse (vertical)2

• Unresolved or untransformed conflict.

• Evil Party with strong capabilities and evil intentions.

• Danger of violence as one way to ‘settle conflict’.

• Clear and present danger of violence, real or potential.

• Empathetic, creative and non-violent conflict transformation produces:

• Strength to defeat or deter the evil party produces:

• Peace, the best approach to ‘security’. The approach works through acceptable or sustainable outcomes.

• Security, also the best approach to ‘peace’. The approach works when evil parties are weakened through defeat or deterrence and/or converted into good parties.

Notes: 1flat/egalitarian; 2top-down/hierarchical. Source: Galtung, 2004.

74 Journalism 15(1)

The peace discourse addresses issues more comprehensively and examines root causes of conflicts. It focuses on contradicting goals rather than on violence. Conflict can be defined as a situation where two or more parties try to pursue goals or ambitions which they believe they cannot share (Howard, 2004: 6). Conflict is not necessarily negative, nor does it necessarily lead to violence. It can lead to progress and evolution. Any change in the world can be understood as a conflict with the status quo, and change can have positive effects.

The peace discourse makes use of tested conflict analysis techniques. A number of theo-ries and explanations have emerged, but generally their focus is larger than those employed by the security discourse. Conflict analysis broadens the scope of actors and stakeholders, takes into account root causes and basic needs and assumes that solutions must be based on legitimate goals. This article argues that the peace discourse therefore presents a more complete understanding of reality. Additionally, neuroscientific research is increasingly demonstrating that human beings are ‘soft wired for empathy’, a key component of peace journalism. Thus it can ‘be seen as a form of representation that is preferable, because it appears more authentic to [readers’] needs and instincts’ (Lynch et al., 2011: 18).

On the other hand, the security discourse places its emphasis on violence, which it confuses with conflict. Violence can be understood as the use of force to achieve a goal. An alternative definition is the physical or psychological degradation of someone or something. As Jake Lynch and Annabel McGoldrick write in Peace Journalism:

Violence is only one possible response to conflict – a collective expression, or political tool to achieve ends. It can easily be self-defeating, in the long term nullifying any gains or even killing those who would have benefited from the achievement. (2005: 38)

The security approach tends to gloss over the distinction between violence and conflict and neglects root causes of conflict.

Galtung identifies three interlocking types of violence: direct, cultural and structural. Direct violence is what we usually think of: aggression, military force, etc. Cultural vio-lence can be understood as the way a group thinks about another group over time. It can include talk, images or beliefs which glorify direct violence, including those in the media and, more specifically, in journalism. Structural violence is harm which is built into the laws and traditional behavior of a group or society. Harm is permitted or ignored. Each of these forms of violence can be equally destructive and detrimental.

The above definitions of violence and conflict inform the peace discourse and intro-duce important concepts in conflict analysis and transformation. This conception is quite different from the prevailing understanding of violence and conflict which is perpetuated by the security discourse.

While Galtung favors the peace discourse, he acknowledges that at times there is a need for the alternative worldview. The peace discourse must avoid a reactionary stance to the security discourse and instead ought to put forth its own concepts and values. How can this be done?

Part of the answer is found in examining an important vector of the security discourse. The most obvious vectors of structural and direct violence in the USA are the Department of Defense (DoD) and its extension, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The

Perez de Fransius 75

DoD and DHS act as institutional, government pillars for the promotion of the security discourse. Their premise is that through the use of force and violence, the USA will maintain its strength and impose its moral authority. The goal is victory and annihilation of the evil enemy. The enemy, however, is not just a foreign military, but can take a num-ber of less tangible forms, and may even be hiding among us (Rothschild, 2005).

In his farewell address, President Dwight Eisenhower warned of the dangers that a powerful military could have on American society. His presidency (1953–1961) oversaw the expansion of the military-industrial complex in the United States. While he believed the military-industrial complex was necessary for American security, he realized that, if not kept in check, it could endanger American freedoms (Eisenhower, 1961).

In other words, Eisenhower warned against the militarization of the United States, or the total economic, political and spiritual influence of the military-industrial com-plex. He cautioned against ‘unwarranted influence’ and upheld the necessity of ‘a knowledgeable citizenry’. Unfortunately, the military-industrial complex in the USA acquired and continues to acquire ‘unwarranted influence’ and the citizenry is no longer ‘knowledgeable’.

The very presence of the DoD militarizes American society. Michael Geyer defines militarization as ‘the contradictory and tense social process in which civil society organ-izes itself for the production of violence’ (1989: 79). The DoD legitimizes the use of violence and adherence to an authoritarian order. In 2012, its enacted $530.5 billion budget (Office of Management and Budget, 2012) puts at its disposal a vast amount of resources – physical, human and intellectual. When the other security agencies (Homeland Security, Veterans Affairs, Intelligence, etc.) are factored in, the total for 2012 rises to $684 billion, or 57 percent of the US government’s total discretionary budget. This does not take into account the infrastructure that has been built up around the DoD, which includes a variety of institutions, think tanks, and university departments devoted to mili-tary and security studies. Furthermore, because the DoD has an effective public relations strategy and feedback loop, it can easily promote these views to the media for mass transmission to American society.

Some of the most effective ways to advance discourses or frames are through educa-tion, social groups and the media. We examine the last of these. In a society as media-tized as the one in the United States, messages are conveyed and repeated to the public using television, radio, print (newspapers, magazines, mailings, leaflets, billboards) and the internet. We are reminded constantly through fictional and non-fictional stories that evil lurks; that violence is inevitable through its portrayal in movies, TV shows and the news; that we need to use strength to combat everything from laundry stains to terrorism; and that fear is what keeps us alert and poised for action. This list is neither exhaustive nor systematic; it is merely illustrative.

George Lakoff reminds us of the importance of vocabulary and concepts in perpetuat-ing frames. He argues that conservatives effectively monopolize the language of American politics and that is how they are able to control policies and the electorate. But he offers some suggestions:

Reframing is everybody’s job. Especially reporters’. […] It is a duty of reporters not to accept this situation and simply use those right-wing frames that have come to seem natural. And it is

76 Journalism 15(1)

the special duty of reporters to study framing and to learn to see through politically motivated frames, even if they have come to be accepted as everyday and commonplace. (2004: 50–51)

While Lakoff argues that reporters have a special duty to be aware of the frames that their subjects are promoting, Robert Hackett examines three frameworks for assessing struc-ture and agency in journalism: Herman and Chomsky’s Propaganda Model, Shoemaker and Reese’s Hierarchy of Influences Model and Pierre Bourdieu’s Fields Model. The last of these, he argues, sees journalism as a sufficiently autonomous field to make peace journalism a realistic proposition for implementation, at least to some degree (2006: 1–10). Jake Lynch furthers this view by arguing that while there are constraints on jour-nalists and editors which derive from the very structure of journalism, the limitations of journalists’ own education (lack of conflict analysis skills) and critical self-awareness act as a ‘force multiplier’ of some of the negative impacts of those structures. Thus, there is an opening within the field of journalism for reform grounded in the tenets of peace jour-nalism (Lynch, 2007: 1).

Case study of peace journalism: Coverage of the Iraq War

This section examines the growing field of peace journalism (Hackett, 2006: 2). It begins by applying Galtung’s theories to journalism and building on Lynch and McGoldrick’s in-depth framework for journalists based on the peace discourse model. Then it applies this vision of peace journalism to American coverage of the Iraq War, demonstrating the failings of war journalism and the purpose of conflict analysis in peace journalism.

The peace journalism model can give journalists and their audiences a fuller under-standing of conflict and alternatives to violence. In this way, journalists can avoid falling prey to political war rhetoric veiled in peace and humanitarian language or other military tactics. As Philip Hammond notes, ‘American military muscle was thus to be given new meaning in the post-Cold War era, no longer as a guarantor of the West’s freedoms against the menace of communism but as the steel fist inside a humanitarian velvet glove’ (2007: 38). In coverage of the lead-up to the Iraq War, the ‘velvet glove’ appeared in the form of American and British political leaders claiming that an invasion of Iraq was necessary to protect their populations from the threat of Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction and to bring freedom and democracy to the people of Iraq; that argu-ment was barely questioned by the mainstream media.

Galtung offers some concrete points in his vision of peace journalism and war jour-nalism, as interpreted by Lynch and McGoldrick (2005) in Table 2.

Essentially, Galtung is calling for journalists covering conflicts to use conflict analy-sis skills. Just as health journalists have some specialized knowledge of medicine and medical issues in order to better write stories, journalists covering war, violence and conflict should know how to analyze a conflict properly.

In order to better understand what conflict analysis is, let us examine the most recent American invasion of Iraq. We look at how war journalism reported it and how it could have been understood differently – and more accurately – through the lens of peace journalism using the tools of conflict analysis. We will do this by systematically

Perez de Fransius 77

analyzing each of the items in Galtung’s peace journalism-war journalism table, a paired example approach. This analysis will serve both as an in-depth exploration of Galtung’s journalism table and as a demonstration of alternative avenues for reporting war. Examples come from various American media including the New York Times, National Public Radio (NPR), Newsweek, and smaller audience media available on the internet.

Table 2. Galtung’s peace journalism and war journalism.

Peace journalism War journalism

1. Peace/conflict orientated 1. War/violence orientated Explore conflict formation, x parties, y

goals, z issues Focus on conflict arena, 2 parties, 1

goal (win) war General ‘win, win’ orientation General zero-sum orientation Open space, open time; causes and

outcomes anywhere, also in history/culture

Closed space, closed time; causes and exits in arena, who threw the first stone

Making conflicts transparent Making wars opaque/secret Giving voice to all parties; empathy,

understanding ‘Us-them’ journalism, propaganda, voice

for ‘us’ See conflict/war as problem, focus on

conflict creativity See ‘them’ as the problem, focus on

who prevails in war Humanisation of all sides; more so the

worse the weapon Dehumanisation of ‘them’; more so the

worse the weapon Proactive: prevention before any

violence/war occurs Reactive: waiting for violence before

reporting Focus on invisible effects of violence

(trauma and glory, damage to structure/culture)

Focus only on visible effect of violence (killed, wounded and material damage)

2. Truth orientated 2. Propaganda orientated Expose untruths on all sides / uncover

all cover-ups Expose ‘their’ untruths / help ‘our’

cover-ups/lies3. People orientated 3. Elite orientated Focus on suffering all over; on women,

aged, children, giving voice to the voiceless

Focus on ‘our’ suffering; on able-bodied elite males being their mouth-piece

Give name to all evil-doers Give name to their evil-doers Focus on people peace-makers Focus on elite peace-makers4. Solution orientated 4. Victory orientated Peace = non-violence + creativity Peace = victory + ceasefire Highlight peace initiatives, also to

prevent more war Conceal peace initiative, before victory

is at hand Focus on structure, culture, the

peaceful society Focus on treaty, institution, the

controlled society Aftermath: resolution, reconstruction,

reconciliation Leaving for another war, return if the

old flares up again

Source: Lynch and McGoldrick, 2005: 6.2

78 Journalism 15(1)

War and violence orientated – Peace and conflict orientated

War journalism (WJ): Focus on conflict arena, 2 parties, 1 goal (win) war. The conflict was portrayed as the USA versus Iraq, more precisely, George W. Bush versus Saddam Hus-sein. This is epitomized by Newsweek’s cover on 30 September 2002 with portraits of Hussein and Bush and, between them, the headline ‘Who Will Win?’. It presumes that the only two actors are Bush and Hussein and they have the same incompatible goal: win the war (Lynch and McGoldrick, 2005: 7).

Peace journalism (PJ): Explore conflict formation, x parties, y goals, z issues. This view assumes a wider perspective of the conflict, looking at Bush and Hussein, as well as the various persons and groups within their governments and states, political and military allies, the military-industrial complex, the Kurdish minority in Iraq, United Nations weapons inspectors, French and German heads of state, protestors opposed to the invasion … PJ also examines each party’s goals and issues. For Bush, an analysis would question if Bush’s goal was really to deflect the threat posed by weapons of mass destruction, or if it had something to do with securing oil for ‘the American way of life’, landing big contracts for corporations or building up a long-term American military presence in the Middle East. Issues Bush was facing included decreased popularity, a lagging economy and possibly a psychosis of fear induced by September 11. Hussein’s goals included retaining control over Iraq and its oil reserves, saving face and maintaining honor. His issues included a belief that he was dealing with rational US actors and his disbelief that the USA was actually targeting Iraq. PJ would then examine other parties, their goals and issues, and do so in a way that lends them credibility and legitimacy. Although the French and German positions against the American invasion of Iraq were ridiculed and/or downplayed in most mainstream coverage (Erlanger, 2002), PJ would have legiti-mated these concerns. It is a fundamental tenet in conflict transformation theory that each party has at least one legitimate goal.

WJ: General zero-sum orientation. This is the belief that only one party can win and that both parties aim to win. This view is based on classical international relations game theory. The outcomes are limited to: 1. Bush wins, Saddam loses; 2. Saddam wins, Bush loses. The zero-sum orientation tends to be the default reporting style, as illustrated by the Newsweek cover and headline cited above.

PJ: General ‘win, win’ orientation. This orientation considers that if the parties work together they can enhance both their positions. Regarding oil, one possibility would have been for Iraq to give the USA full access to its reserves, ensuring the American supply and allow-ing Iraq to maintain control over it, even making a profit from the sales. In this way, the USA would be assured of its oil supply and Saddam Hussein would retain control of his oil fields. This proposal was actually suggested by Hussein prior to the invasion, but was ignored (Risen, 2003: 1). If mainstream journalism had the win-win orientation, a very different public discourse would have ensued around the above proposals, potentially avoiding an American invasion.

Perez de Fransius 79

WJ: Closed space, closed time; causes and exits in arena, who threw the first stone. This type of coverage was especially evident when the US administration started beating on the war drums. On 12 September 2002, George W. Bush addressed the United Nations Gen-eral Assembly in an effort to convince fellow heads of state that Iraq posed a threat to world security (Miller and Gordon, 2002). Little mention was made of previous US–Iraq entanglements. Coverage only delved into the past to demonstrate links between Iraq and Al-Qaeda. The invasion was portrayed as the only possible course of action as a result of Iraq’s supposed weapons program.

PJ: Open space, open time; causes and outcomes anywhere, also in history/culture. Journalists could have considered alternatives to the invasion, examined proposals put forth by Iraq, France, Germany and the United Nations, considered what the likely outcomes would be of an invasion, and recognized it as a militaristic ‘steel fist inside a humanitar-ian velvet glove’ (Hammond, 2007: 38). Journalists could have asked tougher questions about the contradiction of using massive military force to uphold civil liberties. Con-flict-sensitive journalists would have also looked at the US policy in Iraq since the 1991 Gulf War and considered the impact that bombing sustained for over a decade had on the Iraqi people.

WJ: Making wars opaque/secret. This point is probably the most closely related to how journalists act as an extension of the Department of Defense by parroting official state-ments and adhering to the news agenda set by the DoD’s Public Affairs Office. The rea-sons for the US invasion of Iraq were kept secret, and most reporters echoed the official weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and regime change arguments (Boot, 2003). The extent to which there were cover-ups and secrecy has become clearer since then with evidence that relevant intelligence information had been kept from Congress and the American people, that there was a deliberate misinformation campaign, that the Iraq– Al-Qaeda link was fabricated, that Iraq did not actually acquire or attempt to acquire uranium from Niger and that the administration dismissed all uncomfortable questions by stating that ‘information cannot be disclosed for national security reasons’. In October 2001, the White House announced that its official policy was to keep all war-related information secret (Bumiller, 2001).

PJ: Making conflicts transparent. While the DoD must certainly have some legitimate rea-sons for keeping some information top secret, it is also the public’s right to know how their tax dollars are being spent. It is the job of journalists to insist the government address citizens’ concerns. This policy may seem counter-intuitive in the classic interna-tional relations approach in which conflicts are viewed as a high-level poker game, with each player hiding his cards and anteing, raising the stakes and bluffing, based on assumptions about the others’ strategy and psychology. In contrast, the school of conflict transformation tries to foster as much communication and dialogue as possible amongst the parties. Galtung, however, is particularly careful to not bring the parties together too soon. Rather, he begins by working with each party individually so that it can fully understand what its needs and position are in the conflict. This can be understood as each party making the conflict transparent for itself. Journalists in the USA should engage in

80 Journalism 15(1)

some introspection on behalf of the public and the government to foster a discussion about what the USA’s needs really are and what is the best way to meet them.

WJ: ‘Us-them’ journalism, propaganda, voice for ‘us’. This is perhaps most easily seen in journalists covering the military beat. It comes out clearly when we see that the number of US soldiers is meticulously counted and reported, whereas the number of Iraqi dead is based on guesswork. Furthermore, there is sloppiness in distinguishing between Iraqi civilians, soldiers and freedom fighters. It is as if it doesn’t really matter who was killed since they are just Iraqis. ‘Roadside Blasts Kill U.S. GI, 11 Iraqis’ (AP, 2006) offers typical coverage: ‘bombings[…] killed a U.S. soldier and at least 11 Iraqis’. The story goes on to offer a few details about the soldier, but makes no attempt to discuss the Iraqi victims. When discussing the total number of dead, the Associated Press (AP) writes, ‘the number of U.S. personnel killed in Iraq [is] at least 2273’, whereas ‘Scores of Iraqis have been killed and wounded’. The AP can offer an estimate to the unit for American deaths, but cannot offer an estimate even to the tens of thousandths for Iraqi deaths. For reference, on the day the article appeared (18 February 2006), IraqBodyCount.org esti-mated the number of Iraqi civilians killed by the military intervention as between 28,427 and 32,041.

PJ: Giving voice to all parties; empathy, understanding. This precept of peace journalism already exists to an extent in so-called ‘human interest pieces’; for example, looking at the effects of war on the life of a particular Baghdadi family or delving into the role of the Kurdish minority. While most attempts are earnest, there is a danger of these pieces having an Orientalist tone with the reporter deliberately picking the most exotic stories because they are the most provocative and then treating the interviewees as subjects, or even objects, to be studied and observed. Genuine empathy and curiosity create openings through which these voices can be heard. Journalists who write this kind of story would greatly benefit from Marshall Rosenberg’s techniques in non-violent communication.

WJ: See ‘them’ as the problem, focus on who prevails in war. This was evident when Sec-retary of State Colin Powell made his presentation at the UN on Iraq’s WMD program and argued for a US invasion. Blame was squarely placed by the administration – and supported by the American press – on the Iraqi government. Patriotic journalism was filled with estimates on how long it would take for American troops to prevail and bring order and justice to the world. Stories on the US’s military tactics for toppling Saddam Hussein appeared as early as April 2002, nearly a year before the American invasion happened (Shanker and Sanger, 2002). Offering such coverage, so early prior to the actual military intervention, in effect acts as publicity for the military point of view. Such coverage legitimizes and reinforces it, making war seem logical and inevitable.

PJ: See conflict/war as problem, focus on conflict creativity. In the lead-up to the Iraq inva-sion, there was a lack of coverage in the mainstream media of the anti-war protests that took place worldwide. The 15 February 2003 anti-war protests were the largest ones ever on record with estimates varying from eight to 30 million protestors

Perez de Fransius 81

worldwide. Such a huge event received relatively little coverage, particularly in the USA. Furthermore, there was little coverage of the protesters’ point of view and their arguments against this specific war and war in general.3 A search in the New York Times (NYT) archive for the terms ‘protest’ and ‘Iraq’ for the month of February 2003 yielded six stories covering the national protests on 15 February 2003, six covering the protests abroad and one story giving both the domestic and international perspec-tive. All these stories appeared on 16 February 2003. There were no other stories for the rest of the month that focused on the protests aside from some passing comments about how they did not impact on Bush’s decision to invade Iraq. As soon as the memory of the protests faded, the peace view was rarely solicited. While there was some coverage of the protests, unfortunately, journalists did not solicit any concrete solutions for how to deal with the conflict.

WJ: Dehumanization of ‘them’; more so the worse the weapon. Consistently, Iraqis are given the epithet ‘insurgent’ or ‘terrorist’. Ross Howard believes these terms are emo-tional and such ‘words take sides, make the other side seem impossible to negotiate with. Call people what they call themselves’ (2004: 16). While most journalists wouldn’t question the use of the term ‘terrorist’, some consideration of the term and its connota-tions sheds light on how demonizing and dehumanizing the term is. In fact, since the war in Iraq, both the BBC and Reuters have made editorial decisions to stop making unattributed use of the term.

PJ: Humanization of all sides; more so the worse the weapon. This was done to a certain extent when the US military’s use of white phosphorus in Fallujah was made public. Stories, however, tended to center more on the use of white phosphorus and the contro-versy within the military rather than on the Iraqi suffering.4 Similar coverage existed with the Abu Ghraib torture incidents. More could be done to humanize and empathize with the victims. Another vacuum exists in coverage of US veterans, with their situation largely ignored by the mainstream media. When they are mentioned, it is usually in the form of statistics counting the number of amputated limbs, post-traumatic stress disorder cases or other detrimental effects of active duty. But coverage of returning soldiers as people rather than numbers has been limited.

WJ: Reactive: waiting for violence before reporting. Interest in Iraq only began when the war and violence were imminent. Coverage is still dominated by updates on the number of people killed or bombs detonated (AP, 2006). Occasionally there is a report on Iraqi elec-tions or the growth of democracy, but the nation-building frame is not reinforced as much as the war frame.

PJ: Proactive: prevention before any violence/war occurs. Peace proposals and anti-war pro-testors could have received more serious coverage. Iraq, the United Nations, France and Germany all made proposals to prevent war and violence (Erlanger, 2002; Risen, 2003: 1), but these were not given much credit by the American press. Had they considered these alternatives more seriously, perhaps the administration would have been more deliberate in its decision to invade Iraq.

82 Journalism 15(1)

WJ: Focus only on visible effect of violence (killed, wounded and material damage). Reports on the Iraq War count the dead, the wounded, the bombs detonated and the buildings and tanks damaged (AP, 2006). In Galtung’s terms, the focus is on direct violence.

PJ: Focus on invisible effects of violence (trauma and glory, damage to structure/culture). There is almost no coverage of structural or cultural violence. The extent of this type of reporting is on post-traumatic stress disorder of returning soldiers.5 Mainstream media has almost no stories on the damage done to family structures (Sengupta, 2004), to cultural institu-tions, the implications of a disrupted school education, etc.

Propaganda orientated – Truth orientated

WJ: Expose ‘their’ untruths / help ‘our’ cover-ups/lies. Perhaps the greatest cover-up of the American invasion of Iraq was the alleged connection between Iraq and Al-Qaeda and the WMD dossier. Allusions that Iraq supported Al-Qaeda began appearing in August 2002 (Erlanger, 2002; Janofsky, 2002). This assertion is now considered bunk (Jehl, 2005). The New York Times reported on 25 September 2002 that Britain had confirmed intelligence that Iraq had chemical and biological weapons (Hoge, 2002). It turns out that this claim was based on ‘flawed intelligence assessments’ (New York Times, 2004). Iraqi denials of a WMD program were deemed untrue (Sanger, 2002).

PJ: Expose untruths on all sides / uncover all cover-ups. The extent to which the administra-tion distorted the truth becomes clearer and clearer with each passing day. Unfortunately, the information comes at a time when it is too late to avert war. Furthermore, the efforts to expose all the untruths and cover-ups were diverted by the Department of Justice’s whistle-blower investigations, which attempted to place blame on insiders who leaked information about the cover-ups, rather than on the administration’s cover-ups (On the Media, 2006)

Elite orientated – People orientated

WJ: Focus on ‘our’ suffering; on able-bodied elite males, being their mouth-piece. Embedded reporters served primarily this function – to report on the war from the point of view of young, virile soldiers. The DoD’s tactic of allowing American reporters to experience the war with troops on the ground made it easy for journalists to see first hand the suffer-ing of American soldiers. While certainly they witnessed what happened to the Iraqis, because the reporters were protected by and mobilized with the American troops, their ties were much stronger there (Meyers, 2010).

PJ: Focus on suffering all over; on women, aged, children, giving voices to the voiceless. Again, this is somewhat achieved with human interest pieces. Another interesting development was the attention Cindy Sheehan brought to the grief of parents who lost their children in Iraq. While Sheehan’s empathy extends to grieving Iraqi parents, little has been done by the American media to cover their stories, or the countless other voiceless sufferers. A search in the NYT archive generated no stories of Iraqi parents who lost their children in the war,

Perez de Fransius 83

but did turn up one human interest piece on Baghdadi teenage girls’ difficulties in pursu-ing their education and going out alone (Sengupta, 2004). Most of the 82 other stories that turned up in the search focused on American suffering and the loss of American parents.

WJ: Give name to their evil-doers. From the beginning, Saddam Hussein was characterized as the primary evil-doer. The US military even went so far to print a deck of cards with the 52 most wanted Iraqis (Van Natta and Jehl, 2003). Some journalists even referred to captured Iraqi leaders according to their position in the deck (Worth, 2003).

PJ: Give name to all evil-doers. Any reference to the Bush administration’s violation of international laws and treaties was considered either unpatriotic or fanatically liberal. The media could do much more to examine this and previous administrations’ record of unwarranted violence around the world. By failing to do so, violence is legitimized. In a typical story, ‘The roots of Abu Ghraib: A President beyond the law’, Anthony Lewis (2004) presents the administration’s case for defying domestic and international law in about 710 words and only devotes about 115 words to criticism of the policy. Further-more, criticism comes in the guise of a reference to Justice Lewis Brandeis and his 75-year-old plea to lead by example. The media should be more assertive in its denuncia-tion of egregious and illegal conduct.

WJ: Focus on elite peace-makers. Aside from Cindy Sheehan’s voice, the voice that has received the most coverage for withdrawing troops from Iraq has been Congressional Representative John Murtha’s (Stout, 2005). Only when a respected legislator emphati-cally requested withdrawal of troops was the proposition seriously entertained in the mainstream media.

PJ: Focus on people peace-makers. There is limited coverage of peace groups working in the USA to end the war. Members of the Christian Peacemakers Team only appeared in the media when their members were kidnapped (Kayal, 2006). The mainstream media mentioned nothing about other grassroots peace teams that have gone to Iraq or Iraqi organizations and individuals working for peace, such as the Muslim Peacemakers Team, Women for a Free Iraq and Iraqi Organization for the Defense of Journalists. Even the alternative media is disappointingly silent in its coverage of Iraqi peace groups.

Victory orientated – Solution orientated

WJ: Peace = victory + ceasefire. This understanding of peace stems from a classic interna-tional relations view and the lack of journalistic training in conflict analysis. It disregards the efforts necessary before and after a ceasefire agreement is signed. Indeed, it attempts to make peace an event and give it a date. This view does not take into account basic needs on either side and therefore fails to see that a ceasefire is likely to be breached with rising frustrations. On 2 May 2003, the day following Bush’s announcement that ‘major combat’ was over, NYT’s Michael Gordon (2003) wrote, ‘American forces are operating in a netherworld between war and peace’. For over eight years after that, American forces were in limbo. Gordon’s understanding of peace was quite misguided.

84 Journalism 15(1)

PJ: Peace = non-violence + creativity. Galtung’s equation for peace means that peace is not simply the absence of violence, it is actively engaging in non-violence, and doing so requires creativity. In his vision, journalists create the space for and propose non-violent solutions for conflicts. But, in order to do so, journalists need to be properly trained in conflict analysis and transformation. It begins by understanding that peace is something that needs to be worked at constantly, not just in order to negate war, but to actively engage in peace. Peace is a daily matter, governing our relations with others, the choices we make and our understanding of the world. Opportunities for non-violent action abound, from consciously choosing to buy clothes which were not produced in sweat shops to withholding taxes which fund unnecessary military action. Journalists should put in as much effort to seek out and report on these alternatives as they do on violence and war.

WJ: Conceal peace initiative, before victory is at hand. This relates to the WJ understanding of peace: it only comes when there is a victory and ceasefire. Coverage of the Iraq War is devoid of any mention of peace initiatives, most likely because journalists do not see any. While there are public calls for troop withdrawal, there has been no mention of American–Iraqi reconciliation.

PJ: Highlight peace initiative, also to prevent more war. PJ looks into ongoing proposals for reconciliation, transformation and reconstruction. While military correspondents plot troop movements and achievements (Gordon, 2003), peace correspondents should be abreast of peace initiatives and create a space for public dialogue. This can prevent esca-lation of war and future conflicts resorting to violence.

WJ: Focus on treaty, institution, the controlled society. Galtung clarifies, ‘The classical war-based approach end[s] typically with a ceasefire agreement, possibly with a capit-ulation, based on the winner-loser idea. The point, then, is to control the loser’s society so there is no mischief’ (2006). This type of coverage can be seen in pieces after Hus-sein’s capitulation in which the American military presence in Iraq is necessary in order to bring order and democracy to Iraq. The slogan of instilling democracy has so far just been a pretext for maintaining US control of Iraq for defense or economic rea-sons. Indeed, true democracy cannot be implemented with bullets, especially foreign ones, over ballots.

PJ: Focus on structure, culture, the peaceful society. The task of PJ is to help unveil a culture of peace. Instead of justifying control of a society, it should report on initiatives that rebuild the structures and cultures of society in a peaceful way. As John Paul Lederach states, in all societies there are always individuals or groups with visions of peace. Grass-roots organizations, women’s associations and religious groups are but a few examples of those working on shifting from cultures and structures of violence to those of peace. Often their stories are remarkable and their work inspiring (1997: 94).

WJ: Leaving for another war, return if the old flares up again. In the USA, the war drums started beating for an attack on Iran shortly after Bush declared victory (Gordon, 2003).

Perez de Fransius 85

It seems that the novelty of Iraq has worn off and it is time to turn to another escalating conflict. The question is: will journalists learn from their mistakes in covering Iraq or will they fall into the same propaganda traps and blinded understanding of the conflict? Of course, Iraq will not be completely forgotten, because when something goes awry in the ‘democracy building’ process, the media will shift its glare back to Iraq.

PJ: Aftermath: resolution, reconstruction, reconciliation. This begins with reporting on the active work of peace building. With a better understanding of conflict, journalists would understand the importance of transformation, reconstruction and reconciliation. Peace does not come when a head of state declares the end of a war or signs a treaty. Rather, it is an extensive and exciting process which should engage all levels of society in imple-menting a vision for their state. Reconstruction and reconciliation in themselves are rife with conflict which when properly addressed can be generative and constructive. There are many stories to be uncovered at this stage of a conflict.

Conclusion

This article gives an introduction to peace studies and compares and contrasts war jour-nalism with peace journalism by presenting a case study of mainstream coverage of the Iraq War and alternatives to that reporting. A peace journalism approach would have opened up alternative ways for transcending the conflict between the United States and Iraq by bringing in more varied voices and points of view into the public conversation. This alternative is both comprehensive and viable (Lynch et al., 2011: 15) and can used for coverage of any subject journalists wish to cover. With the advent of social media and wider access to the internet giving more individuals the ability to replicate and dissemi-nate information, some elements of peace journalism are already becoming prevalent, notably making conflicts transparent, giving voice to all parties, humanization of all sides, exposing untruths on all sides, focusing on suffering all over including on women, the aged, children and the voiceless.

While peace journalism presently exists largely in alternative media, Lynch et al. argue that peace journalism can help bridge the gap between mainstream and alterna-tive media by giving mainstream journalists a chance to ‘wise up’, by providing activists an opportunity to move their messages from alternative to mainstream media, by democratizing the acquisition of content and by highlighting the calls for structural reform in mainstream media (2011: 28). According to Lynch et al. (2011: 20–21), the Hindustan Times responded to the 2008 Mumbai attacks with expanded peace journalism coverage, demonstrating that it is possible to undertake, even under duress. With the economic model of mainstream journalism being tested more and more, peace journalism may transcend the structural conflicts mainstream journal-ism faces daily.

Interestingly, the UK, which increasingly has shown signs of peace journalism in mainstream media, most notably in the BBC’s conflict coverage,6 has improved its over-all Global Peace Index (GPI) ranking from 48 in 2007 to 29 in 2012 – a 19-point increase. Over the same period, the United States’ rankings only rose by seven points, from 95 to 887 (Global Peace Index, 2012). While the United States’ overall GPI score did improve,

86 Journalism 15(1)

it still remains extremely low for a developed country. The United Kingdom, on the other hand, scores better and perhaps peace journalism contributes to this better peace perfor-mance. What the exact correlation between peace journalism and a more peaceful society is remains to be researched. But given that human beings tend to want to live in peace, why not further develop the structures and cultures that support peace, including in journalism?

Funding

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

Notes

1. For more on journalistic agency and media structures, see Lynch et al. (2011).2. Recently, Galtung has ‘added entertainment value as a news factor, in the form of “infotain-

ment”’ (Galtung, 2012).3. Peace activists can use this as a lesson in the need to more clearly formulate the peace per-

spective and articulate it in a media-savvy way. Just as the military spokespeople have clear talking points that they feed to the media, so too should peace activists.

4. An open search in the New York Times for ‘Fallujah’ and ‘white phosphorus’ yielded four news stories, two editorials and two opinion pieces. Only one story discussed the impact of white phosphorus on Iraqis, and this was in the context of an Italian documentary comparing the use of white phosphorus in Iraq to napalm in Vietnam.

5. An open search in the New York Times for ‘PTSD’, ‘Iraq’ and ‘soldier’ yielded over 1100 stories.

6. See particularly its coverage of Somalia throughout 2011 and 2012.7. The UK’s Freedom of the Press ranking (one of the GPI’s positive peace indicators) went

from 6.5 to 2.0 (the lower the score the better) in the same time period and the US’s from 13.0 to 14.0.

References

Associated Press (2006) Roadside blasts kill US GI, 11 Iraqis. New York Times, 18 February. Available at: http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-Iraq.html (accessed 18 February 2006).

Boot M (2003) A war for oil? Not this time. New York Times, 13 February. Available at: http://select.nytimes.com/search/restricted/article?res=F20E17FF3C5E0C708DDDAB0894DB404482 (accessed 17 February 2006).

Bumiller E (2001) A nation challenged: Flow of information; The new slogan in Washington: Start watching what you say. New York Times, 7 October. Available at: http://select.nytimes.com/search/restricted/article?res=F40B14F939580C748CDDA90994D9404482 (accessed 17 February 2006).

Eisenhower DD (1961) Farewell Address to the Nation, 17 January. Military Industrial Complex Speech. Available at: http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~hst306/documents/indust.html (accessed 11 February 2006).

Erlanger S (2002) US quietly chides German for his dissension on Iraq. New York Times, 17 August. Available at: http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=FA0D13F63E590C748DDDA10894DA404482 (accessed 18 February 2006).

Galtung J (2006) Personal email to Marianne Perez, 10 January.

Perez de Fransius 87

Galtung J (2011) Preface. In: Lynch J, Seaga Shaw I and Hackett RA (eds) Expanding Peace Journalism: Comparative and Critical Approaches. Sydney: Sydney University Press.

Galtung J (2012) Personal email to Marianne Perez, 16 May.Geyer M (1989) The militarization of Europe, 1914–1945. In: Gillis J (ed.) The Militarization of

the Western World. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.Global Peace Index (2012) Vision of Humanity, 11 September. Available at: http://www.visionof-

humanity.org/gpi-data/Gordon MR (2003) Aftereffects: The military; between war and peace. New York Times, 2 May.

Available at: http://select.nytimes.com/search/restricted/article?res=FB0C13F83C580C718CDDAC0894DB404482 (accessed 18 February 2006).

Hackett RA (2006) Is peace journalism possible? Three frameworks for assessing structure and agency in news media. Conflict and Communication Online 5(2). Available at: http://www.cco.regener-online.de/2006_2/pdf/hackett.pdf (accessed 5 January 2012).

Hammond P (2007) Media, War and Post-Modernity. Oxford: Routledge.Hoge W (2002) Threats and responses: Indictment; Blair says Iraqis could launch chemical warheads

in minutes. New York Times, 25 September. Available at: http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F10716FD385D0C768EDDA00894DA404482 (accessed 18 February 2006).

Howard R (2004) Conflict Sensitive Journalism Handbook. Vancouver: Institute for Media, Policy and Civil Society, April. Available at: http://www.impacs.org/actions/files/MediaPrograms/Handbook%20conflict%20sensitive%20eng%20220404%20final%20version.pdf (accessed 17 January 2005).

Janofsky M (2002) Backing Bush all the way, up to but not into Iraq. New York Times, 3 August. Available at: http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F30C14FA3E5F0C708CDDA10894DA404482 (accessed 18 February 2006).

Jehl D (2005) The reach of war: Intelligence; Qaeda-Iraq link US cited is tied to coercion claim. New York Times, 9 December. Available at: http://select.nytimes.com/search/restricted/article?res=F10617FF3A550C7A8CDDAB0994DD404482 (accessed 18 February 2006).

Kayal M (2006) Christian worker kidnapped in Iraq last year is found slain. New York Times, 11 March. Available at: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0DE3D71331F932A25750C0A9609C8B63&sec=&spon= (accessed 5 October 2012).

Lakoff G (2004) Don’t Think of an Elephant! Know Your Values and Frame the Debate. White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green.

Lederach JP (1997) Building Peace – Sustainable Reconciliation in Divided Societies. Washington, DC: United States Institute of Peace Press.

Lewis A (2004) The roots of Abu Ghraib; A president beyond the law. New York Times, 7 May. Available at: http://select.nytimes.com/search/restricted/article?res=F5071FFB3D580C748CDDAC0894DC404482 (accessed 18 February 2006).

Lynch J (2007) Peace journalism and its discontents. Conflict and Communication Online 6(2). Available at: http://www.cco.regener-online.de/2007_2/pdf/lynch.pdf (accessed 12 January 2012).

Lynch J and McGoldrick A (2005) Peace Journalism. Gloucestershire: Hawthorn Press.Lynch J, Seaga Shaw I and Hackett RA (eds) (2011) Expanding Peace Journalism: Comparative

and Critical Approaches. Sydney: Sydney University Press.Meyers SL (2010) Embedistan: Embedding in Iraq during the invasion and drawdown. New York

Times, 20 August. Available at: http://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/20/embedistan-embedding-in-iraq-during-the-invasion-and-the-drawdown/ (accessed 5 October 2012).

Miller J and Gordon MR (2002) Threats and responses: Baghdad’s arsenal; White House lists Iraq steps to build banned weapons. New York Times, 13 September. Available at: http://select.nytimes.com/search/restricted/article?res=FA0811F63B550C708DDDA00894DA404482 (accessed 15 February 2005).

88 Journalism 15(1)

New York Times (2004) The reach of war; A hedged apology from Blair on Iraq. Foreign Desk, 14 October. Available at: http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F10612F6345F0C778DDDA90994DC404482 (accessed 18 February 2006).

Office of Management and Budget (2012) Department of Defense Fact Sheet, 4 February. Available at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/factsheet_department_defense/

On the Media (2006) Broadcast on WNYC, 8 January.Patindol JL (2010) Building a peace journalists’ network from the ground: The Philippine expe-

rience. In: Keeble R, Tulloch J and Zollmann F (eds) Peace Journalism, War and Conflict Resolution. London: Peter Lang.

Risen J (2003) Iraq said to have tried to reach last-minute deal to avert war. New York Times, 6 November, p. 1.

Ross S and Tehranian M (eds) (2008) Peace Journalism in Times of War. Peace and Policy, Vol. 13. Rutgers University, NJ: Transaction.

Rothschild M (2005) Rumsfeld spies on Quakers and grannies. The Progressive, 16 December. Available at: http://progressive.org/mag_mc121605

Sanger DE (2002) Threats and responses: The White House; US disputes Iraqi denial that it has weapons banned by UN. New York Times, 14 November. Available at: http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F60C16FD3D540C778DDDA80994DA404482 (accessed 18 February 2006).

Sengupta S (2004) The reach of war: The occupation; For Iraqi girls, changing land narrows lives. New York Times, 27 June. Available at: http://select.nytimes.com/search/restricted/article?res=F10F16FB3C5C0C748EDDAF0894DC404482 (accessed 18 February 2006).

Shanker T and Sanger DE (2002) A nation challenged: The military; US envisions blueprint on Iraq including big invasion next year. New York Times, 28 April. Available at: http://select.nytimes.com/search/restricted/article?res=F00C10FD355A0C7B8EDDAD0894DA404482 (accessed 17 February 2005).

Stout D (2005) Influential House Democrat urges immediate Iraq pullout. New York Times, 17 November. Available at: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/17/politics/17cnd-military.html?_r=0 (accessed 5 October 2012).

Van Natta Jr D and Jehl D (2003) A nation at war: Intelligence reports; Syria harbors Iraqis and grants transit to Hezbollah US asserts. New York Times, 15 April. Available at: http://select.nytimes.com/search/restricted/article?res=F0081FFC3A5F0C768DDDAD0894DB404482 (accessed 18 February 2006).

Worth RF (2003) After the war: The manhunt; Senior aide to Hussein is in custody, the US says. New York Times, 22 August. Available at: http://select.nytimes.com/search/restricted/article?res=F30C13F83D5D0C718EDDA10894DB404482 (accessed 18 February 2006).

Author biography

Marianne Perez de Fransius is a peace worker currently based in Stockholm. She earned her BS from Georgetown’s School of Foreign Service and her Masters in Peace and Conflict Studies from the European Peace University. She is the founder of Peace Is Sexy (http://www.peaceissexy.net).