1/31/2012
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Abstract This study is an expansion on the research done on the operationalization of Galtung’s categorization of
war/peace journalism frames. Local newspapers (produced within the conflict-country) and foreign
newspapers were analyzed for their use of both frames in the conflict in Northern Ireland and the Muslim
insurgency in Mindanao (Philippines). A content analysis of 123 news stories reveals neither a significant
difference in war/peace journalism framing between local and foreign sources nor interculturally. However,
there are indications that there are differences in framing between the coverage in Asia, compared to that of
the West. Further comparative research should include more sources, articles and countries and suggestions
are made in terms of the categorization scheme.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MEDIA SYSTEMS
AND POLITICS:
THESIS
IMPLEMENTATION OF PEACE JOURNALISM
News framing in two cases: “The Troubles” in Northern Ireland &
the Philippines-Mindanao conflict
Name: Christine Lindeloo [5873401]
Lecturer: M.L. Sudulich
Amount of words: 6400
Content
1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 3
Background information ............................................................................................................... 5
2. Theoretical Framework ................................................................................................................. 7
Hypotheses .......................................................................................................................................... 8
3. Method .................................................................................................................................................11
The Newspapers .........................................................................................................................11
Operationalization .....................................................................................................................12
4. Findings ...............................................................................................................................................13
5. Discussion ..........................................................................................................................................17
6. Literature ...........................................................................................................................................20
Appendix 1: Classification of war/peace journalism ..........................................................22
Appendix 2: Coding categories for frames ...............................................................................23
2
1. Introduction
News coverage of conflicts, including reporting about war, originates from the idea that conflict has
news value (Lee & Maslog, 2005: 311). Wolfsfeld states, in his book Media and the path to peace,
that conflict and violence are at the core of the news industry, whereas stories about peace are
scarcely discussed (2004: 9). According to some theorists, reporting driven by conflict results in good
profit for publishers, since conflict and war provide self-sustaining drama (Hackett, 1991; Wolfsfeld,
1997; Wolfsfeld et al., 2002, cited by Carter et al., 2010: 459). This means that the content of news
reports on conflicts is reduced to “a binary of good-and-bad and black-and-white”, thus failing to
report more subtly on the complexity of the issues (Hartley & Montgomery, 1985, cited by Carter et
al., 2010: 459).
Wolfsfeld mentions the detrimental effect the news media can have on the peace process:
they can emphasize dangers and risks associated with compromise; increase legitimacy of those
opposed to concessions; and reinforce negative stereotypes of the enemy (2004: 1). Using discourses
of tension and conflict has been described as war journalism (Lynch & McGoldrick, 2005, cited by
Carter et al., 2010: 459). War journalism has been subject of critique and has lead to an increase of
interest in an alternative way of reporting: peace journalism (Carter et al., 2010: 459).
Peace journalism was first coined by the Norwegian scholar Johan Galtung in the 1970’s, in his
influential critique of war reporting The Structure of Foreign News (Galtung & Ruge, 1965, cited by
Lee, 2010: 362). “By taking an advocacy, interpretative approach, the peace journalist concentrates
on stories that highlight peace initiatives; tone down ethnic and religious differences, prevent further
conflict, focus on the structure of society; and promote conflict resolution, reconstruction, and
reconciliation” (Galtung, 1986, 1998, cited by Lee & Maslog, 2005: 311-312).
According to Galtung, war journalism can be compared to sports journalism, with the focus
on winning in a zero-sum game (2002, cited by Lee, 2010: 362). Good war reporting however should
be more similar to health journalism (Galtung, 2002, cited by Lee, 2010: 362). A good health
journalist reports not only on the patient’s battle with a disease, but also about the disease’s causes
and the full range of cures and preventive measures (Galtung, cited by Lee, 2010: 362).
Consequently, good war journalism should focus on conflict transformation, in a creative manner, so
that opportunities are created, without violence (Galtung, 1998: 23, cited by Lee, 2010: 362).
Through emphasizing the benefits of peace news media can help transform images of the enemy
(Wolfsfeld, 2004: 1).
3
Peace journalism has received critique from media scholars and practitioners, who state that
reporting in this way is not in line with the traditional journalistic principles of objectivity and
neutrality (Carter et al., 2010: 459). However, characteristics of war such as patriotism; national
interest; anger; censorship; and propaganda, do also not work in favor of objective reporting
(Carruthers, 2000; Iggers, 1998; Knightley, 1975; Pedelty, 1995; Van Ginneken, 1998, cited by Lee &
Maslog, 2005: 312).
Peace journalism is journalistic intervention in conflict and war, in which the perspective is
that the need to do good trumps doing no harm, according to McGoldrick & Lynch, (2000, cited by
Lee, 2010: 363). Lee states that the active and non-objective role of peace journalists originates from
a commitment to the idea of civic participation, the understanding of social justice as a moral
imperative, and the view that worth of an individual is realized only in engagement in and through
communities (Lee & Maslog, 2005: 312; Lee, 2010: 363).
The active and conscious role of journalists in promoting peace remains controversial (Lee &
Maslog, 2005: 312). Much of the literature on peace journalism is philosophical and focuses on the
normative debate (Lee, 2010: 363).
Although the amount of literature on war journalism is plentiful, Wolfsfeld mentions a considerable
gap in research done on the role of the news media in ongoing peace processes (2004: 8). Peace
journalism literature consists mainly of how-to manuals based on case studies and anecdotes (Lee,
2010: 363), and of outlining its benefits (Lee & Maslog, 2005: 313).
Peace journalism has not benefited from research in its transition from theory to practice
(Lee, 2005: 313). To address this need, Lee & Maslog were the first to conduct an empirical research
on the topic of peace journalism in 2005 (Lee & Maslog, 2005: 313; Lee, 2010: 363), and to
operationalize Galtung’s indicators of peace and war journalism (363). This was done through a
content analysis of four Asian conflicts, in which English-language newspaper stories were analyzed
for their adoption of either war journalism or peace journalism frames (Lee & Maslog, 2005: 315;
Lee, 2010: 363). In 2007, another study on peace journalism was conducted on the conflict in
Northern Uganda by Nassanga. The analysis included quantitative and qualitative variables, including
frequency, type of story (news vs. non-news), authors of stories (journalists or non-journalists),
placement/prominence of story, balance in the story, information sources, language and tone, focus,
peace initiatives and use of photographs (Nassanga, 2007: 4-5). There have been several more
studies since on the application of peace journalism. Ersoy studied peace journalism in the Cyprus
conflict, through the evaluation of headlines, sources, topic of news article, framing of the news,
placement, length of the article, date etc. (Ersoy, 2010: 86). The research of Carter et al. was focused
on the theorizing of media constructions of peace journalism during peaceful periods (in this case
4
on the U.S. immigration debates in 2006), since most literature focuses on periods of conflict
(Carter et al. 2010: 459-460). Lee builds further on his work with Maslog (Lee & Maslog, 2005) in
2010, in his comparative study on English-language and vernacular newspapers in three Asian
conflicts (2010: 364).
This current study is on the implementation of peace journalism in two protracted, social conflicts,
with a strong, religious component: The Muslim insurgency in the Philippines-Mindanao conflict and
the unrest between Catholics and Protestants in the conflict in Northern Ireland. The
operationalization of the indicators for peace and war journalism, designed by Lee & Maslog in 2005,
will also be used in this content analysis of the newspapers. This comparative study will add on to
previous research through looking at the difference between national and foreign newspapers and,
in addition, the difference between Western and Asian newspapers, in their implementation of
peace journalism, both of which have not already been extensively researched.
Firstly, the section below will give a very brief summary of both conflicts. Consequently the
next chapter will discuss the theoretical framework and the hypotheses that will be tested. The third
chapter is dedicated to describing the method used to do the analysis, followed by the results in the
chapter Findings. Lastly, the discussion provides a summary of the most important research findings
and recommendations for future research.
Background information
This section will very briefly describe the conflicts in both
countries.
“The Troubles”
Political violence in Northern Ireland, part of the United
Kingdom, has caused over 3,500 deaths since 1969 (Archick,
2011). The origins of the conflict (also known as ‘The
Troubles’) can be found in the 1921 division of Ireland, and
consists of a struggle between different national, cultural, and
religious identities (Archick: 1).
“The Protestant majority
(53%) in Northern Ireland defines itself as British and largely
supports continued incorporation in the UK (unionists). The Catholic minority (44%) considers itself
Irish, and many Catholics desire a united Ireland (nationalists)” (Archick, 2011). British and Irish
governments have worked together to achieve a political settlement and after many years they
5
announced an agreement on April 10, 1998 (Archick). The Belfast Agreement (or the Good Friday
Agreement) called for devolved government, which meant the transfer of power from London to
Belfast, and a structure in which unionist and nationalist parties would share power (Archick).
The Philippines-Mindanao conflict
The southern island group of Mindanao in the Philippines
has been in a state of conflict for several decades. Minority
Muslim groups, collectively known as Moros, have been
fighting for self-determination since the 1960s (Reuters
AlertNet, 2010). The Autonomous Region in Muslim
Mindanao (ARMM) was founded in 1990, and included four
provinces, followed by two more 11 years later (IDMC,
2009: 12). Despite the establishment of the ARMM and the
peace accord signed by the both the government and the
Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF) in 1996, the armed
conflict did not cease (Schiavo-Campo & Judd, 2005: 1-2).
Apart from the religious fight of the Moros, violence can also be linked to: “*...B+reakaway rebel
groups, pan-Asian militant Islamic groups and communist rebels rubbing shoulders with mercenary
kidnap groups and clan militias” (Reuters AlertNet, 2010). Collectively, these conflicts have killed at
least 160.000 people and displaced over 2 million people since 1970. A recent development is the
truce signed in 2009 by the government of President Aquino III and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front
(MILF, a splinter group of the MNLF). The government of President Aquino III said in August 2010
that it was optimistic about securing a lasting peace (Reuters AlertNet, 2010).
6
2. Theoretical Framework
Peace journalism is supported by framing theory (Lee, 2010: 364). News framing is described as “a
process of organizing a news story, thematically, stylistically, and factually, to convey a specific
storyline” (Lee, 2010: 364). “It is based on the assumption that how an issue is characterized in news
reports can have an influence on how it is understood by audiences” (Scheufele & Tewksbury, 2007:
11). Framing entails selecting and highlighting some aspects of events or issues, and making
connections between them (Entman, 2010: 417). In so doing, framing can promote a particular
interpretation, evaluation, and/or solution (Entman, 2010: 417). This highlighting can take place
through repetition, placement, and reinforcement, which causes texts and images to provide a
dominant interpretation more readily perceivable, acceptable, and memorable than other
interpretations (Entman, 1991, cited by Lee, 2010: 364).
Lee mentions that framing is an extension of agenda setting (2010: 313). Agenda setting can
be understood as the idea that there is a correlation between the emphasis that media places on
certain issues and the importance audiences attribute to these issues (McCombs & Shaw, 1972, cited
by Scheufele & Tewksbury, 2007: 11). According to Lee & Maslog there is a large body of research on
the effects of framing that suggest that framing activates specific thoughts and ideas for news
audiences (2005: 313-314).
Framing of war has been researched in several studies (Lee, 2010: 365). According to Wolfsfeld, the
media in the conflict in the Middle East, in their search-for-“drama”-frames, offered extremists much
more attention in their reports than to those people calling for peace (1997, cited by Lee, 2010: 365).
In a study by Kolmer & Semetko, on the framing in the Iraq war, it was found that U.S. news reported
more and more favorably about the Allies, than other countries did. Another study demonstrates
that media prefer to use war frames, even when reporting on peace negotiations (Shinar, 2004: 85,
cited by Siraj, 2008). Fawcett finds, in her study on Irish media, that conflict frames are more
attractive than reconciliation frames (2002: 221). Lee describes how journalists themselves can be
easy targets for war propaganda, becoming accomplices and bringing about violence, due to the
employment of the same values in reporting war and conflict under state and military censorship as
in covering other news events (Carruthers, 2000, cited by Lee, 2010: 365). Lee & Maslog conclude in
their study that it is evident that war journalism dominates in the reports of the four Asian conflicts
that were analyzed (2005: 322). According to Lynch & McGoldrick, war journalists’ reports contain a
bias in favor of violence: making conflicts difficult to understand, obscuring underlying structural
7
factors of violence, and obstructing necessary political action to suspend and divert it (2005, cited
by Siraj, 2008).
According to Galtung, there are two competing frames to approach media coverage of armed
conflict: peace/conflict journalism and war/violence journalism (2007: 7). It is Galtung’s hypothesis
that the latter is more dominant and mainstream than the former (2007: 8). Galtung has ascribed
four broad practice and linguistic orientations to both (Lee & Maslog, 2005: 314). On the one hand,
peace journalism is orientated towards: (1) peace/conflict; (2) truth; (3) people; and (4) solutions
(Galtung, 2007: 8-9, see Appendix I). War journalism, on the other hand, is orientated towards: (1)
war/violence; (2) propaganda; (3) elite; and (4) victory (8-9). The peace journalism focus on conflict
seems contradictory, but is explained by Lee & Maslog as the need for journalists to acknowledge the
presence of conflict as necessary to explore the formation of conflict, by identifying the parties
involved, the issues, and the goals (2005: 314). In addition, this is necessary to understand the
historical and cultural roots, to make conflicts transparent, and to create empathy and understanding
by giving a voice to all parties (Galtung, 2007: 8, Keeble et al., 2010: 2). Conversely, the war
journalism approach frames conflict into an arena, where there are only two parties and one goal,
with a zero-sum outcome (Galtung, 2007: 8). Where war journalism focuses on the visible effects of
violence (such as the people killed and wounded, and material damage), peace journalism focuses on
the invisible effects (trauma and glory, and the damage to structure/culture) (Galtung, 2007: 9).
McGoldrick and Lynch elaborated on Galtung’s classification of war vs. peace journalism, and
settled on 17 good practices in covering war (2000, cited by Lee & Maslog, 2005: 314). Journalists
were advised to use precise language and to focus their reports on: solutions; long-term effects;
ordinary people (not just elites); and all sides of the conflict. Lee & Maslog argue that culturally
offensive issues should not be mentioned, for example in the conflict in Mindanao, the eating of pork
by Christians or the polygamous practice of Muslims (Maslog, 1990, cited by Lee & Maslog, 2005:
314). A focus on common ground should be a prime concern (314). As an example of linguistic
accuracy, they mention that terms such as ‘rebels’ should be replaced with, for instance, dissidents of
a particular political group (314).
Hypotheses
Lee’s comparative study demonstrates how English-language news is more likely to use a war
journalism frame than vernacular newspapers (2010: 376). This contradicts the idea that vernacular
newspapers are more likely to be affected by communal feelings and thus more likely to adopt a war
journalism frame (Chenoy, 2002; Khan, 2003; Nadaraja, 2005; Press Council of India, 2003, cited by
8
Lee, 2010: 376). This implicitly suggests that communal sentiments do not necessarily play a role in
producing more war journalism.
In this study, internationally/regionally read newspapers, produced in a country foreign to
the conflict, will be compared to nationally produced newspapers. If Lee’s finding applies here, then
national newspapers will also not be influenced by communal feelings and therefore not report more
with a war journalism frame than international (or foreign) newspapers. Lee & Maslog (2005), Lee et
al. (2006) and Lee (2010) found that news stories produced locally are more likely to adopt a peace
journalism frame than foreign produced news stories.
However, Lee et al. (2006: 511) found that Asian newspapers used war journalism framing in
covering local conflicts, but a peace journalism frame dominated in the coverage of a conflict not
taking place in their respective countries (the conflict in Iraq) (511). Lee et al. suggest this might be
due to a lack of involvement in the Iraq war. Supposedly, this is conducive to the adoption of a more
detached role in reporting war and therefore made it possible to focus more on a conciliatory
perspective (511).
In addition, there is literature suggesting that a country’s media are less likely to report a
conflict neutrally when their own government is involved (Bennett, 2003; Carruthers, 2000; Combs,
1993; Hiebert, 2003; Iggers, 1998; Keeble, 1998; Knightley, 1975; Pedelty, 1995; Reese and Buckalew,
1995; Taylor, 1992; van Ginneken, 1998, cited by Lee et al., 2006: 511). In short, according to the
literature:
H₁: There is a significant difference in peace/war journalism framing between newspapers produced
in the country where the conflict itself is taking place, and newspapers reporting on the same conflict
outside of that particular country.
Lee & Maslog found that locally produced newspapers tended to report longer (2005: 322) and that
the longer the news story, the more peace journalism framing was adopted and the shorter the
story, the more war journalism framing was adopted (322). If this is correct, than the following
hypothesis will be supported:
H₂: There is a positive correlation between the length of a news story and peace journalism framing
and a negative relationship between story length and war journalism framing.
There is research suggesting that Western foreign news agencies report violence and conflict more
saliently than news stories from developing countries do (Hachten & Scotton, 2006; Hess, 1996; Riffe
et al., 1994; Rosenblum, 1979, cited by Lee, 2010: 379). According to Lee (2010: 377), there are
9
Western news values and norms including news-writing standards that are not conducive to peace
journalism framing.
This study will devote attention to the difference between Western newspapers and Asian
newspapers in their adoption of peace/war journalism framing. The third hypothesis that follows
from the theory above is:
H₃: There is a significant difference in peace/war journalism framing between Western newspaper
stories and Asian newspaper stories.
Lastly, in the 2005 study by Lee & Maslog, there was a significant difference found in the use of
peace and war journalism frames in news stories, before and after a ceasefire, in Sri Lankan
newspapers (2005: 319). This study has also collected articles before and after a ceasefire was
implemented and accordingly this last hypothesis shall be tested:
H₄: There is a significant difference in peace/war journalism framing between articles collected during
relatively violent periods (before the date of the ceasefire) and relatively peaceful periods (after the
date of the ceasefire).
10
3. Method
This study on news media coverage and their use of the war/peace journalism frame is conducted
through the content analysis of 123 newspaper stories from two conflicts. The conflict in Northern
Ireland (also known as “The Troubles”) and the Philippines-Mindanao conflict. These particular
conflicts were chosen because they share one important similarity: both these cases can be
described as religious conflicts, in which one minority (Catholics in Northern Ireland and Muslims in
the Philippines) struggles for more autonomy against a majority (Protestants in Northern Ireland and
Christians in the Philippines). Also, these two conflicts make an intercultural analysis possible.
The Newspapers
For the conflict in Northern Ireland, which is a part of the United Kingdom, the British Guardian was
selected as the Western, local newspaper (54 stories). The New York Times (produced in the U.S.)
was chosen in this case as the Western, foreign news source (19 stories). The Filipino Philippine Star
was studied as the Asian, local newspaper (46 stories) and the Straits Times (based in Singapore) as
the Asian, foreign source of information (4 stories).
The stories have been collected through the online database LexisNexis. The Philippine Star
stories, which were not archived in this online database, have been obtained through its online
archive: www.philstar.com. All stories were gathered through searches using keywords such as
“Mindanao”, and consequently assessed for their direct relevance (for instance, a story on a typhoon
in Mindanao was excluded).
The unit of analysis is the individual news story, including ‘hard’ news stories, features,
opinion pieces and letters to the editor, collected between December 20, 2011-January 20, 2012. The
123 stories were gathered from newspaper issues in a period that was significant to each conflict:
1. In Northern Ireland, newspaper stories from both Western newspapers were collected that
cover the period leading up to, and the period shortly after the July 20, 1997 ceasefire (BBC,
1997). To be more precise, all articles concerning The Troubles were included starting exactly
two weeks before the ceasefire until one week after the ceasefire: July 6th to July 27th.
2. In the Philippines, Asian newspaper stories covering the period leading up to, and the period
shortly after the July 25, 2009 ceasefire were collected (Aljazeera, 2009). This included all
relevant stories in the period between July 11th and August 1st.
11
These particular periods were chosen, firstly, under the assumption that periods before and shortly
after ceasefires would involve both relatively peaceful and relatively violent phases, and secondly,
they would be comparable (both involving a ceasefire).
Operationalization
In this study, coding categories for frames as designed by Lee & Maslog (2005), based on Galtung’s
(1986, 1998) classification, are used. There are 13 indicators of war journalism and 13 indicators of
peace journalism (316, see appendix 2). “These indicators, used to elicit from the body text of each
story which frame – war or peace journalism – dominated the narrative, comprised two themes:
approach and language” (see appendix 2) (Lee & Maslog, 2005: 316). The criteria concerning
approach are as follows (316): (1) reactivity; (2) visibility of effects of war; (3) elite orientation; (4)
differences; (5) focus on here and now; (6) good and bad dichotomy; (7) party involvement; (8)
partisanship; (9) winning orientation; and (10) continuity of reports. The criteria for language are:
(11) victimizing; (12) demonizing; and (13) emotive. For example, concerning the war journalism
approach, to determine whether a story was reactive, or reported mainly on the visible effects of
war, or focused mainly on the elite, the following questions needed to be answered respectively:
“does it wait for war to break out before reporting it?”, “does it focus on the causalities, deaths,
wounded people and damage to property?”, “are leaders and elites the main actors and sources of
information in the story?”. All 13 indicators of both the war journalism and the peace journalism
approach were coded in this manner (see appendix 2 for more similar examples). Stories could be
classified as war journalism, peace journalism or neutral. Each time an indicator was found in the
text, a score of 1 was attributed to it. When the total score for peace journalism indicators exceeded
the total score for war journalism indicators it would be classified as a peace journalism story and
vice versa. A story was classified as neutral if the amount of peace and war journalism indicators
were equal.
The mean of the war journalism index, ranging from 1 to 13, was 3.01 with a standard
deviation of 2.324 (Cronbach’s α = 0.700). The peace journalism index, with the same range, had a
mean of 2.47 and a standard deviation of 2.400 (Cronbach’s α = 0.733). Both indices can be
considered as internally consistent, as their Cronbach’s alphas are not below the recommended level
of 0.70 (Field, 2005, cited by Lee, 2010: 370).
Other variables included story length (in amount of words), source (foreign or national/local)
and the phase (before or after ceasefire).
12
4. Findings
Out of the collection of 123 stories, there were 4 stories (3.3%) collected from the Straits Times, 19
(15.4%) from the New York Times, 46 (37.4%) from the Philippine Star and 54 (43.9%) from the
Guardian. Unfortunately, there were only four articles on the Philippines-Mindanao conflict available
in the Straits Times from the online database of LexisNexis. Even after extending the period, in which
the articles would have to been written, from the last week of May to the first week of August, there
was only limited coverage of this conflict. The relatively much larger contribution of the Guardian
and the Philippine Star to the total amount of articles is unsurprising since the conflicts were taking
place in the respective countries in which the newspapers were produced.
Of these 123 stories, 62 (50.4%) were framed as war journalism, 50 (40.7%) as peace
journalism, and 11 (8.9%) as neutral. In this sample of newspaper articles, the war journalism frame
was significantly more dominant than the peace journalism or neutral frames, with χ² (2, N = 123) =
34.683, p < 0.0001.*
In table 1 the distribution of the different frames across each newspaper is shown. There was no
significant difference found between the different newspapers and the adopted frame.
TABLE 1. DISTRIBUTION OF FRAMES ACROSS THE DIFFERENT NEWSPAPERS
FRAME
SOURCE
War Journalism
Peace Journalism
Guardian
29 (53.7%)
19 (35.2%)
New York Times
9 (47.4%)
7 (36.8%)
Philippine Star
22 (47.8%)
22 (47.8%)
Straits Times
2 (50.0%)
2 (50.0%)
TOTAL
62 (50.4%)
50 (40.7%)
χ²(6, N = 123) = 4.069, p = 0.667; Cramer’s V = 0.129, p = 0.667*
Neutral
6 (11.1%)
3 (15.8%)
2 (4.3%)
0 (0.0%)
11 (8.9%)
n
54 (100%)
19 (100%)
46 (100%)
4 (100%)
123 (100%)
Relating to the first hypothesis, there was no significant difference present between the framing in
locally produced news stories (the Guardian and the Philippine star) and foreign produced news
stories (the New York Times and the Straits Times) (see table 2.). The percentages of news stories
framed as either war journalism or peace journalism are almost equal.
TABLE 2. DISTRIBUTION OF FRAMES ACROSS SOURCES
SOURCE
War Journalism
Local/national
51 (51.0%)
Foreign
11 (47.8%)
TOTAL
62 (50.4%)
χ²(2, N = 123) = 0.585, p = 0.746
FRAME
Peace Journalism
41 (41.0%)
9 (39.1%)
50 (40.7%)
Neutral
8 (8.0%)
3 (13.0%)
11 (8.9%)
n
100 (100%)
23 (100%)
123 (100%)
* For example, in ‘χ² (6, N = 123) = 4.069, p = 0.667; Cramer’s V = 0.129, p = 0.667’: χ² refers to Pearson’s Chi-Square; 6 refers to the
degrees of freedom (df); N to the amount of articles; p to the probability that the finding is random (which needs to be smaller than 0.05 to
be considered significant); and Cramer’s V to the strength of the correlation. In this case there was neither significance nor a strong
correlation.
13
Secondly, the hypothesis that longer stories are positively correlated with the peace journalism
frame and negatively correlated with the war journalism frame has not been proven significant. The
relationship between story length and peace journalism was slightly positive, with a Pearson’s
correlation coefficient ‘r’ value of 0.141 for p = 0.120. The relationship between story length and war
journalism was very slightly negative, with Pearson’s ‘r’ = -0.101 for p = 0.268.
The third hypothesis, concerning the difference in framing between Asian and Western newspapers,
was also not significant (table 3.). Of the Western news stories, 35.6% were framed as peace
journalism and 48.0% of the stories as peace journalism. The Asian contribution therefore seems
much larger, but the χ² of 3.518, with a p = 0.172 prove this hypothesis to be insignificant.
TABLE 3. DISTRIBUTION OF FRAMES ACROSS CULTURES
Culture
War Journalism
Asian
24 (48.0%)
Western
38 (52.1%)
TOTAL
62 (50.4%)
χ²(2, N = 123) = 3.518, p = 0.172
FRAME
Peace Journalism
24 (48.0%)
26 (35.6%)
50 (40.7%)
Neutral
2 (4.0%)
9 (12.3%)
11 (8.9%)
n
50 (100%)
73 (100%)
123 (100%)
Lastly, the fourth hypothesis, regarding the distribution of frames across different phases of the
conflict (before and after a ceasefire) was tested (see table 4.). There is a slight decrease in the
percentage of war journalism after the ceasefires compared to before the ceasefires (51.9% to
47.6%). There is a somewhat bigger difference in percentages before and after the ceasefires
concerning peace journalism framing. The 37.0% of the articles before the ceasefire reported using
the peace journalism frame, turned into 47.6% of the articles after the ceasefires. However, none of
these differences were significant: χ² (2, N = 123) = 2.107, p = 0.349.
TABLE 3. DISTRIBUTION OF FRAMES ACROSS DIFFERENT PHASES IN THE CONFLICT
FRAME
PHASE
War Journalism
Peace Journalism
Neutral
After Ceasefire
20 (47.6%)
20 (47.6%)
2 (4.8%)
Before Ceasefire
42 (51.9%)
30 (37.0%)
9 (11.1%)
TOTAL
62 (50.4%)
50 (40.7%)
11 (8.9%)
χ²(2, N = 123) = 2.107, p = 0.349
n
42 (100%)
81 (100%)
123 (100%)
After splitting the cultures up and analyzing the distribution of the frames across the different phases
once again, there were also no significant differences found (see table 5.). In the Western news
stories there was however a very sharp increase in the percentage of peace journalism framing.
Before the ceasefire 25.0% of the articles were framed as peace journalism, compared to 51.7% after
the ceasefire. This difference was significant with χ² (1, N = 73) = 5.444, p = 0.020. A very clear change
took place in Western framing from war to peace journalism after the ceasefire was declared.
14
TABLE 5. DISTRIBUTION OF FRAMES ACROSS DIFFERENT PHASES AND CULTURES IN THE CONFLICT
FRAME
CULTURE
PHASE
War Journalism
Peace Journalism
Neutral
Asian
After Ceasefire
8 (61.5%)
5 (38.5%)
0 (0.0%)
Before Ceasefire
16 (43.2%)
19 (51.4%)
2 (5.4%)
TOTAL
24 (48.0%)
24 (48.0%)
2 (4.0%)
χ²(2, N = 50) = 1.707, p = 0.426
FRAME
CULTURE
PHASE
War Journalism
Peace Journalism
Neutral
Western
After Ceasefire
12 (41.4%)
15 (51.7%)
2 (6.9%)
Before Ceasefire
26 (59.1%)
11 (25.0%)
7 (15.9%)
TOTAL
38 (52.1%)
26 (35.6%)
9 (12.3%)
χ²(2, N = 73) = 5.710, p = 0.058
n
13 (100%)
37 (100%)
50 (100%)
n
29 (100%)
44 (100%)
73 (100%)
Further elaborating on the differences between Asian and Western framing, a bivariate correlation
analysis showed which individual indicators of both peace and war journalism had the strongest
significant relation to each of the cultures (table 6.). All of these following correlations were
significant at the 0.01 level.
TABLE 6. MOST SIGNIFICANT INDICATORS FOR WESTERN AND ASIAN PEACE/WAR JOURNALISM FRAMES (bivariate
correlation analysis)
Asian war journalism
Western war
Asian peace
Western peace
journalism
journalism
journalism
1.
Focus on here and
Orientation on
Focus on causes and
Orientation on
now (r = 0.792)
differences (r = 0.601) consequences of war
agreement (r = 0.625)
(r = 0.635)
2.
Use of demonizing
Focus on the here
Multi-party
Multi-party
language (r = 0.585)
and now (r = 0.508)
orientation (r = 0.584) orientation (r = 0.506)
3.
Describing visible
Two-party orientation
No labeling of good
Peopleeffects of war (r =
(r = 0.478)
and bad (r = 0.550)
orientation/win-win
0.546)
orientation/stays on
to report aftermath
of war (r = 0.489)
r = Pearson’s correlation coefficient
A multiple regression analysis to determine the relationship between the indicators and Asian war
journalism provided the following information: adjusted r² = 0.715, F = 10.847 and a probability
smaller than 0.0001, thus indicating a strong significant relationship between the independent
indicators and the frame. In this analysis the two strongest indicators for Asian war journalism
remained significant (p < 0.0001 and p = 0.003 respectively). However, the third variable was no
longer significantly correlated when analyzed in combination with the other variables (significance
level of 0.806). The only other variable that was still significantly correlated with the Asian war
journalism frame was the orientation on differences (p = 0.032).
The same analysis for Western war journalism gave: adjusted r² = 0.633, F = 10.048 and a p <
0.0001, therefore indicating a strong significant relationship. All three indicators remained significant
(p < 0.0001, p = 0.011, and p = 0.007 respectively).
15
The same was done for Asian peace journalism: adjusted r² = 0.701, F = 10.191 and p <
0.0001, also indicating a strong significant relationship. Only the first indicator has remained
significantly related (p = 0.001). In addition, the indicators people orientation (p = 0.007) and win-win
orientation (p = 0.024) were significantly related.
Lastly, Western peace journalism with adjusted r² = 0.853, F = 31.412 and p < 0.0001 also
indicates a very strong relationship between independent variables and the dependent frame. The
first and last indicators remained strongly significant (p < 0.0001 for all four), the multi-party
orientation was no longer significant (p = 0.081). Table 7 has incorporated these findings.
TABLE 7. MOST SIGNIFICANT INDICATORS FOR WESTERN AND ASIAN PEACE/WAR JOURNALISM FRAMES (adjusted after
multiple regression analysis)
Asian war journalism
Western war
Asian peace
Western peace
journalism
journalism
journalism
1.
Focus on here and
Orientation on
Focus on causes and
Orientation on
now (r = 0.792)
differences (r = 0.601) consequences of war
agreement (r = 0.625)
(r = 0.635)
2.
Use of demonizing
Focus on the here
People orientation (r
Peoplelanguage (r = 0.585)
and now (r = 0.508)
= 0.446)
orientation/win-win
orientation/stays on
to report aftermath
of war (r = 0.489)
3.
Orientation on
Two-party orientation
No labeling of good
differences (r = 0.302)
(r = 0.478)
and bad (r = 0.252)
r = Pearson’s correlation coefficient
16
5. Discussion
The theory of peace journalism originates mainly from the normative discussion on the subject. What
journalists should and should not do when reporting conflict and whether or not they have a moral
obligation to play a meaningful role in conflict resolution. However, there has hardly been any
research on the actual operationalization of Galtung’s classification of war or peace journalism. This
comparative study is a contribution to the few quantitative studies that have been done on this
subject. By quantitatively examining peace/war journalism framing, the structural limitations that
govern media coverage of war and conflict can be laid bare, and therefore contribute to building
peace journalism theory. Expectantly, this will help to eventually determine the effects that peace or
war journalism framing has on the public opinion (especially of the parties involved) and on the
policies that are designed in conflict situations. The comparison between Western and Asian
newspapers in their use of the frames is the most important contribution to the existing quantitative
research, since this comparison has not been made previously.
Overall, war journalism framing proved to be significantly more dominant than either the
neutral or the peace journalism approach. There was no significant difference found in the
war/peace journalism framing between local newspapers (based in the conflict-country) and foreign
newspapers and there was no significant correlation found between the amount of words dedicated
to the news story and war/peace journalism framing. Also, there was neither a significant difference
in use of the frames between Western and Asian newspapers, nor a significant difference in use of
the frames before and after a ceasefire. However a sharp significant increase was found in Western
peace journalism from before the ceasefire to after the ceasefire. Perhaps this is due to a decrease in
violence after a ceasefire thus creating more possibility for resolving conflict, prompting journalists to
focus more on the effects of the ceasefire (which will most likely contribute to peaceful resolution).
Curiously, there is an increase visible in Asian war journalism after the ceasefire compared to before,
further implying there is a difference between Western and Asian war/peace journalism framing. The
difference in most salient indicators for each type of frame used by either an Asian newspaper or a
Western newspaper also indicates the frames are being implemented differently by the two.
Differences between cultures in their use of the frames therefore also imply there are
different consequences for each when it comes to implementing peace journalism. Although most
hypotheses were proven to be insignificant, this may be largely due to the relatively small amount of
news stories admitted in the study. Further studies should incorporate a much larger sample of
newspapers, and to further increase the reliability and validity, more news sources from different
17
countries should be included to properly determine the differences in framing between different
cultures.
The most important indicators of the peace journalism frame in the study (see table 8.) were
nonpartisanship, a multi-party orientation and avoidance of both demonizing language and emotive
language. These indicators, as was also noted by Lee & Maslog (2005) & Lee (2010), are “mere
extensions of the objectivity credo: reporting the facts as they are” (Lee & Maslog, 2005: 325).
However important objective reporting is to the peace journalism frame (Lee, 2010: 379), these
indicators do not necessitate a proactive role for the journalist to contribute to resolving the conflict
creatively and does not take an advocacy, interpretative approach, “*…+concentrating on stories that
highlight peace initiatives; tone down ethnic and religious differences, prevent further conflict, focus
on the structure of society; and promote conflict resolution, reconstruction, and reconciliation”
(Galtung, 1986, 1998, cited by Lee & Maslog, 2005: 311-312).
TABLE 8. INDICATORS OF WAR AND PEACE JOURNALISM FRAMES
Frequency (%)
War Journalism Approach
1. Reactive
2. Visible effects of war
3. Elite-oriented
4. Differences-oriented
5. Focuses on here and now
6. Dichotomizes the good and bad
7. Two-party orientation
8. Partisan
9. Zero sum orientation
10. Stops reporting and leaves after war
11. Uses victimizing language
12. Uses demonizing language
13. Uses emotive language
15 (4.1)
47 (12.7)
61 (16.5)
36 (9.7)
74 (20.0)
11 (3.0)
32 (8.6)
12 (3.2)
17 (4.6)
0 (0.0)
3 (0.8)
31 (8.4)
31 (8.4)
Total
370 (100)
Peace Journalism Approach
1. Proactive
2. Invisible effects of war
3. People-oriented
4. Agreement-oriented
5. Focuses on causes and consequences of war
6. No labeling of good and bad
7. Multi-party orientation
8. Nonpartisan
9. Win-win orientation
10. Stays on to report aftermath of war
11. No victimizing language
12. No demonizing language
13. No emotive language
0 (0.0)
19 (6.3)
21 (6.9)
28 (9.2)
29 (9.5)
27 (8.9)
41 (13.5)
43 (14.1)
15 (4.9)
12 (4.0)
7 (2.3)
32 (10.5)
30 (9.9)
Total
304 (100)
18
The categorization scheme is therefore somewhat flawed, perhaps the indicators should be scaled in
some way for their importance to each frame. Actively seeking to empower people with a peopleorientation or offering up creative solutions to the conflict by focusing on areas of agreement should
perhaps be ranked as more important within the peace journalism frame than some other criteria.
Also, some categories in the scheme were very difficult to determine, such as: avoids labeling good
guys and bad guys. How is avoidance to be measured? This indicator could use a more precise
description, for instance: does the story praise or condemn/blame all sides of the conflict equally?
Apart from the small amount of news stories incorporated in this study, the limited amount of
different news sources (both for the “Western” vs. “Asian” case and the “local” vs. “foreign” case),
and a somewhat challenging coding scheme, there are several other limitations. Due to data
collection from online archives, the prominence of the stories could not be determined. Also, only
English-language news could be analyzed. Finally, an important limitation was the use of coding
categories designed by Galtung as meant for pre-publication of stories, therefore making a content
analysis of already published stories quite difficult. In addition, the absence of another coder to
determine proper intercoder reliability further frustrates the validity.
19
6. Literature
-
Aljazeera Asia-Pacific. (July 25, 2009). Philippines rebels call ceasefire. Consulted on January 10, 2012
at: http://www.aljazeera.com/news/asia-pacific/2009/07/2009725155535339769.html.
-
Archick, K. (February 18, 2011). Northern Ireland: The Peace Process. Congressional Research Service
Report for Congress 7-5700 www.crs.gov RS21333. Consulted on January 8, 2012 at:
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RS21333.pdf.
-
BBC ON THIS DAY. (July 19, 1997). 1997: IRA declares ceasefire. Consulted on January 10, 2012 at:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/july/19/newsid_2450000/2450845.stm.
-
Carter, D.L., Thomas, R.J., & Ross, S.D. (2010). You are not a friend. Journalism Studies, 12, 4: 456-473.
-
Scheufele, D.A., & Tewksbury, D. (2007). Framing, Agenda Setting, and Priming: The Evolution of Three
Media Effects Models. Journal of Communication, 57: 9–20
-
Entman, R.M. (2010). Cascading Activation: Contesting the White House's Frame After 9/11, Political
Communication, 20, 4: 415-432.
-
Ersoy, M. (2010). Peace journalism and news coverage on the Cyprus conflict. The Muslim World, 100:
78-99.
-
Fawcett. L. (2002). Why Peace Journalism Isn’t News. Journalism Studies, 3, 2: 213-223.
-
Galtung, J. (2007). Peace Journalism as Ethical Challenge. Asteriskos, 3, 4: 7-16.
-
Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre (IDMC). July 2009 ceasefire holds but peace talks fail to
progress on substantive issues (September 2009-April 2011). Consulted on January 7, 2012 at:
http://www.internaldisplacement.org/idmc/website/countries.nsf/(httpEnvelopes)/E73D7393A865970FC125774C00523C
6A?OpenDocument
-
Keeble, R.L., Tulloch, J., & Zollmann, F. (2010). Peace Journalism, War and Conflict Resolution. New
York: Peter Lang Publishing.
-
Kolmer, C., & Semetko, H.A. (2009). Framing the Iraq War: Perspectives from American, U.K., Czech,
German, South African, and Al-Jazeera News. America Behavioral Scientist, 52: 643-656.
-
Lee, S.T., Maslog, C.C., & Kim, H.S. (2006). Asian Conflicts and the Iraq War. International
Communication Gazette, 68, 5-6: 499-518.
-
Lee, S.T., & Maslog, C.C. (2005). War or peace journalism? Asian newspaper coverage of conflicts.
Journal of Communication, 23: 311-329.
-
Lee, S.T. (2010). Peace journalism: principles and structural limitations in the news coverage of three
conflicts. Mass Communications and Society, 13, 4: 361-384.
-
Loyn, D. (2007). Good journalism or peace journalism? Conflict and communication online, 6, 2: 1-10).
-
Nassanga, L.G. (2007). Peace journalism applied: An assessment of media coverage of the conflict in
Northern Uganda. Conflict and communication online, 6, 2: 1-9.
20
-
Reuters AlertNet. (November 16, 2010). Philippines-Mindanao Conflict: At a Glance. Consulted on
January 8, 2012 at: http://www.trust.org/alertnet/crisis-centre/crisis/philippines-mindanaoconflict?v=timeline
-
Schiavo-Campo, S. & Judd, M. (2005). The Mindanao Conflict in the Philippines: Roots, Costs and
Potential Peace Dividend. World Bank, Social Development Papers - Conflict Prevention and
Reconstruction - Paper No. 24, World Bank, Washington, DC.
-
Siraj, A.S. (May 21, 2008). War or Peace Journalism in Elite U.S. Newspapers: Exploring News Framing
on Pakistan-India Conflict. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Communication
Association, TBA, Montréal, Québec, Canada.
-
Wolfsfeld, G. (2004). Media and the path to peace. New York: Cambridge University Press.
21
Appendix 1: Classification of war/peace journalism
Galtung (2007: 8-9)
22
Appendix 2: Coding categories for frames
Lee & Maslog (2005: 325-326)
23