Conflict Sensitive Journalism- what society cannot afford to ignore

With the general election in Kenya just a few days away, and local journalist already facing charges at the International Criminal Court in The Hague over the 2007/08 post election violence, the place of conflict sensitive journalism in the country appears to be critical more than ever before.

Each day, journalists both in print and electronic mainstream media are grappling with the question on whether it is indeed their role to promote peace in the country. They are each day wrestling with the question on whether it is indeed their role to give out a “black out” to inciting statements being churned out every day by mainly political leaders both at national and grassroots level. The journalists, in the comfort of their newsrooms or while in the field are each day grappling with the question on exactly what constitute “inciting statement” or what constitute “hate speech”.

They are each day concerned whether it is indeed their role to “gate keep” and ensure only what cannot cause conflict in the society is published or aired. They are each day haggling on whether they should stick to the journalistic rules that media is the mirror of the society and what is published or aired is indeed a mere reflection of what is happening in the society whether good or bad.

I posed several questions to a few journalists in the Kenya’s mainstream media on some of these issues. Do you think it is your role as a journalist to promote peace in the country? Do you think it is your role as a journalist to report in such a way that you promote peace and not violence? And if yes, how can you do that?

In response, a veteran political journalist, Mr. Walter Menya who has worked for Daily Nation for a considerable number of years and who now works for the Star Newspaper stated that one needs to look at the legal provisions regulating media that prohibit publishing material that could cause hatred among individuals or groups of individuals. He added that in particular, The National Cohesion and Integration Act of 2008 as well as the Communication Act of Kenya require that journalists promote peace in their reporting.

“It is the duty and responsibility of a journalist, therefore to promote peace all the time. However, in doing so, it is ethically wrong to 'kill' stories based on our individual and idiosyncratic value-judgment,” Menya opined.

Mr. Yusuf Juma, a journalist at Radio Jambo, one of the leading Swahili stations in the country, on his part stated that reporting facts and doing so responsibly is a cardinal role for a journalist.

“I don't know if that entails promoting peace, but what if there's violence in a certain area, are you supposed to hide that in the name of promoting peace? But reporting on it with a measure of responsibility and here I mean fairness, objectivity and reason is important,” stated Juma.

Alphonce Shiundu, a political writer with the Daily Nation when asked if he considered it his role as a journalist to promote peace had this to say: “Yes! I do have a moral compass. The thing is I do what I do because I believe we need a better way of life. My obligation is to the citizen. The citizen has to know that it is in his interest to live in peace. My role is to give reliable, truthful information, to help that state of tranquility to persist. Nobody likes violence in their backyard. It all looks cool running all over war zones and other conflict zones donning this tough-guy jungle shirt, with a bullet-proof vest and looking oh-so-tough. But when that violence is in your backyard, and your family, friends and everyone you know is threatened, it stops being a job.”

From these comments, one can deduce a fact that the media can be a source of antagonism and an instigator of conflict rather than a source for peace.  It has potential to create “us versus them” mentality among the respective populations, to the point of inventing crimes and fuelling atrocities. 

In addition to fanning the flames of ethnic tensions, the media can be guilty of obstructing peacemaking efforts by failing to objectively present views of the minority.  Hitler used the media to create an entire worldview of hatred for Jews, homosexuals, and other minority groups. Rwanda’s Radio Télévision Libre des Mille Collines (RTLM) urged listeners to pick up machetes and take to the streets to kill what they called ‘the cockroaches.’

Broadcasters in the Balkans polarized local communities to the point where violence became an acceptable tool for addressing grievances between Serbs and Croats in former Yugoslavia.

Locally, at no other forum has the media been indicted so strongly in its role in conflict as was the case before the Commission of Inquiry into Post-Election Violence (CIPEV) which is commonly referred to as the Waki commission and which investigated the 2007/2008 violence.

The report documents that many witnesses “recalled with horror, fear, and disgust the negative and inflammatory role of vernacular radio stations in their testimony and statements to the Commission.” 

The witnesses indicted journalists for “having contributed to a climate of hate, negative ethnicity, and having incited violence.”

To the government, and going by the testimony of the Information and Communication Permanent Secretary Bitange Ndemo, there was absence of a new regulatory and legislative framework, leading to something of an uncontrolled free for all.

According to the PS, some media took advantage of this lacuna and began to “operate freely and sometimes recklessly and irresponsibly,” including using individuals who were not trained journalists, who were partisan, and sometimes were politically biased.

I posed the same question to practicing journalists and who indeed covered the events leading to the violence as well as the aftermath and sought to know if they think the media let down Kenya in 2007 and 2008.

An editor in one of the leading media houses and who did not wish to me named had this to say: “If I was Philip Ochieng, I would do a revision of the book 'I accuse the Press' to incorporate the failures of the Kenyan media in 2007. Every media house in Kenya worth writing about invested heavily in the 2007 elections, including paying correspondents up to Sh20, 000 to report results in real time from tallying centres. That investment however bore nothing as no media exhibited the muscle to stand up and be counted. Secondly, certain journalists became mouthpieces of various politicians and political parties, spewing out the garbage that they were handed in press releases. Same journalists also 'glorified' opinion polls without asking the very basic questions that any journalist worth the designation ought to have asked.”

To Yusuf Juma, the radio journalist, “the media partly let down Kenyans during that period (2007/2008). In as much as facts were reported, there was no objectivity, some news items, both in print and electronic bordered on incitement. Our nuances and attitudes crept into the tone of our stories and the manner of reporting. The Rules of professional Journalism were violated and that's the yard stick of gauging our performance during that time.”

But the most interesting comment came from Shiundu, the Daily Nation journalist. “There was exceptionally good journalism, and there was pathetically horrendous journalism. Mistakes happened. How else do you explain the perception all over the country that some media houses were allied to some politicians? Perceptions of bias are hard to beat at election time. And so it was during the conflict. Every word is scrutinized, even the angle, no matter how newsworthy it is, is questioned. From a professional standpoint, the media did not fabricate the stories. It was a depiction of what was going on, on the ground, so, really, were we supposed to black it out just because it was gory?”

From these comments from practicing journalists, who all covered the events of 2007 and 2008 in the country, it is clear there is a nexus between media and conflict, hence the need for conflict sensitive journalism.

Clearly, while a considerable amount of analysis has focused on the media’s potential to support democracy efforts and build sustainable peace, no similar effort has been given to analyze the role media can play in conflict prevention. Nor has the media’s capacity to incite conflict been sufficiently analyzed and the lessons learned.

As a practicing journalist, who also covered the post election violence, I believe there is need for journalists to be empowered on how they are supposed to determine the kind of attention in the course of their work they ought to give to a given conflict whichever stage that conflict is at.

My own experience is that in any conflict, irrespective of the stage, the parties involved put efforts to “spin” stories in certain way to favour their side and advance their goals and interests. Some of these interests may indeed be geared towards fuelling conflict and exacerbating atrocities to overpower the opponents.

With proper training and continuous retraining, and focus being conflict sensitive journalism, the journalists can easily pick on these “spins” and know how to deal with them in order deflate conflict triggers and turn them into peace and reconciliation drivers.

With proper training on conflict sensitive journalism, journalists, without compromising their work, can contribute to peace and reconciliation merely by restoring levels of trust and self-worth in a population on the brink of or emerging from violence.

Further, journalists have the potential to influence governments, international and local organizations and drive them towards promoting peace and reconciliation in a society. But this cannot happen when the journalists themselves are unaware of the need for conflict sensitive journalism.

Clearly, in training the media practitioners on conflict sensitive journalism, emphasies also ought to be on areas such as what hate speech is and how dangerous it is to advance hatespeech in the media. This is one term whose meaning remains contentious in virtually all newsrooms.

The Media Council, whose responsibilities include investigating complaints against the media, describes hate speech as language “that might incite violence or cause social turmoil.”

The National Cohesion and Integration Act of 2008 defines it as words “intended to incite feelings of contempt, hatred, hostility, violence, [or] discrimination against any person, group or community on the basis of ethnicity or race.” But these remain mere definitions which may not help much unless they are clearly understood by the media practitioners.

In April 2012, The Media Council of Kenya launched guidelines for journalist while covering the general election with an aim of trying to stop a repeat of the events of 2007.

The council said the guidelines are aimed at helping journalists provide comprehensive, accurate, impartial, balanced and fair coverage of the elections.

The council added that this will help the voter to make informed choices.  The council made it clear that the guidelines will apply to all media houses - whether private or state owned – as well as the authorities involved in or policing the process and that have voluntarily adopted them.

Among the issues that journalists are required to uphold are avoiding corruption as it affects journalists, reporting in a balanced and fair manner, ensuring gender balance, diversity of voice and ensuring equitable coverage.

The guidelines are also strict on social media and stated, “Social media is continuing to play a major role in journalism and will be an important future in election coverage. However, the same core principles of journalism as practiced in traditional media should apply to social media journalism.”

The guidelines also request individual media houses to come up with specific social media policies for their journalists. The guidelines want individual journalist to think carefully before posting anything on Twitter or Facebook saying that they will still be identified by individual media houses.

Clearly, this is a positive step, but rules and regulations may not achieve the desired goals if the minds of the media practitioners themselves are not ready to promote conflict sensitive journalism.

Proper training to journalists on conflict sensitive journalist will enable them adequately understand the role of media in the phases of conflict.

For example, in the Pre-conflict phase, the media publicizes the competing interests of conflicting parties, which my lead to a conflict situation, with a view of striking common grounds for a negotiated settlement of differences and thus raise demands for peace.

In the Conflict Stage, the media brings to the society the human, economic, social and political impacts and hence journalist can easily use their platform to reinforce the need for peace.

And in the Post Conflict phase, the media keeps an eye on the enforcement of peace deals, pledges, promises that have been put in place by competing parties and ensures they are implemented.

Journalists also need to be empowered on working in conflict zones. For example they need skills on how they can use their tools to protect life, avoid exacerbating conflict, promote peaceful political, socio-economic and ethno-geographical solutions to conflict as well as how they can help the local communities disengage from violence and develop nonviolent alternatives.

They also need skills on how they can use their tools of trade to address the underlying causes of conflicts and positively influence policies and effective interventions. After all, once violence occurs, journalists and their families, just like anyone else in the society suffer in equal if not worse measure!

(The Writer is a Senior Political Writer for the Star newspaper and also holds a  Masters of Arts degree in International Conflict Management from  University of Nairobi.)