COMMON GROUND JOURNALISM

A guidebook

Search for Common Ground, Krygyzstan
Table of Contents

A.Introduction to this Guidebook

B.Understanding Conflict

What is conflict?

What causes conflict?

Responding to conflict

C.How to Transform Conflict

Conflict mapping

Positions and interests

Framing the conflict

Facts and values

Transforming Stereotypes and Humanizing

D.The Common Ground Approach

E.Media and Conflict: positive and negative Impacts

The Building Blocks of Common Ground Talk

F.Common Ground Talkshows

Can talkshows help or hinder the transformation of conflicts?

What makes a good peacebuilding talkshow?

Technical tips

A.Introduction to this Guidebook

The media feeds on conflict. Whether it is television, radio, newspapers, or websites, the media has an obligation to cover violent conflict, to report on death and destruction. Conflict and adversity draws audiences. But on closer look, how much is the way in which media is covering conflict having an impact on that same conflict, and on how people respond to it? Is the media inflaming or defusing the conflict? Is media inadvertently giving the impression that violence and destruction are the only ways of responding to disagreements?

Most journalists chose their profession with good intentions. And yet without a change of perspective and a refinement of our skills, we inadvertently reward discordant behaviour in our communities, while ignoring efforts to use dialogue and collaborative problem solving. In the way we produce our programs, we go against what most of us do each and every day: find ways of working through disagreements and conflicts without violence. Journalists become conditioned to ask adversaries, “Where do you disagree?” rather than “How do you think you can work together to solve the problem?”

This guidebook aims to equip journalists with a new perspective on conflict and media. It aims to bring to light the choices they can make at each step of the process of producing programs, doing interviews and special reports, and hosting talk shows. By professionalising our skills, and by understanding conflict better, media can make a substantial contribution to the process of building peace.

Changing the way we cover conflicts can help our audiences see that violent conflict is not inevitable and that peaceful solutions really are achievable. Peace is a process, with many setbacks along the way. As former US Senator George Mitchell, the lead mediator for Northern Ireland, has said, “There is no conflict that cannot be resolved. Violent conflict is created and sustained by human beings, and it can be ended by human beings.”

This guidebook is aimed at media professionals of all levels, working across print, electronic and new media. All forms of print and electronic media are potential tools for peacebuilding. Moreover, virtually any format – including chat shows, roundtables, documentaries, drama, children’s programs and even sports – can be reframed to encourage the principles needed for us to peacefully transform conflict.

This guidebook draws on extracts from previous manuals by Search for Common Ground, as well as other manuals, notably “Conflict Sensitive Journalism” by Ross Howard of Impacs. For more information, visit

B.Understanding Conflict

Conflict itself is neither positive nor negative. Only violent conflict is negative. What’s important is how we respond to conflict, so as to ensure that it doesn’t develop into violence. Professional journalism can help people and communities transform conflict without violence.

What is conflict?

Conflict is a situation where two or more individuals or groups try to pursue goals or ambitions which they believe are incompatible.

Conflict and violence is not the same thing. Not all conflict is violent. Not all conflict is ethnic. Conflict is not inherently negative or damaging, and can in fact produce positive outcomes. Violence always results in injury and destruction. Conflict is normal when there is change. Some people want change, but others disagree. If their disagreement or their conflict is managed peacefully, it can be a positive process. But when conflict is not managed properly, it becomes violent. In violent conflict, people fear for their safety and survival.

What causes conflict?

Journalists make news reports on violent conflict as it happens, and presenters talk about it on the air, often without an appreciation of the root causes, knowledge of the different kinds of conflict, or awareness of how it can end.

This is similar to describing an illness without reporting on what causes it and without reporting on the medicines that can cure it.Imagine if our newspapers were filled with articles about people dying in hospitals, but nothing about the reasons behind their deaths? What if the AIDS pandemic of the 1980s simply showed images of people dying, without interviewing the thousands of doctors and health care practitioners working hard to find the cause of the virus and how to cure the sick? And yet, very often, journalists covering conflict often talk about the effect of the conflict, without looking at the underlying causes.

Most lasting changes in a society are brought about by questioning and debate on the merits of the changes. In short, this disagreement or conflict is an integral part of everyone’s lives. If conflict is well managed the parties will develop a common approach about the speed and dimension of the changes they want. If it’s badly managed, then the conflict will probably become violent.

Circumstances in which conflicts are likely to turn violent are the same almost everywhere in the world:

Little or no communication between two or more sides who disagree

False ideas and beliefs about each other held by the different sides

Historical, long-time grievances between the different sides

Uneven distribution of power, and/or resources (such as food, housing, jobs and land)

Conflicts can also result from the clash of beliefs with facts. “Vanni” or honour killing is one such example – even the different ways of describing the practice demonstrate that it is a conflict issue. In this case the clash is between cultural traditions (values), and the consequences of the practice (facts). (put in Krygyz example)

Conflicts are often caused by more than one of these factors. Conflicts driven by the inequitable distribution of resources can become structural, and can spin off to become identity-based conflicts. As media practitioners, it’s important to recognize that conflicts are usually the result of a combination of impulses, desires, needs, beliefs and perceptions. In violent conflicts there are often multiple perceptions of causes; they are almost never simple tugs-of-war between two groups. Most violent conflicts result from a whole collection of sometimes widely differing and even incompatible views, ideas, ideals and perceptions.

Responding to conflict

Responses to conflict vary widely, but can generally be categorized as seen below and in the illustration.

One side wins (win-lose): Because it is physically stronger, or is financially more powerful, or is supported by some authority such as the courts, one side wins and the other loses. The loser is likely to be unsatisfied, and may suffer violence and harm. Often, the seeds of vengeance are planted to spark the same conflict later down the lie.

Withdrawal (lose-lose)is another way of ending a conflict, at least temporarily. One or both sides back away, although neither side is really satisfied. The causes of conflict remain.

Compromise (partial win, partial lose) is when, either through dialogue or with a third party, the two sides agree on at least a small change in their position, to accommodate the position of the adversary and avoid violence. The compromise may not be completely fair to both parties, but both agree temporarily in the absence of any better alternative.

Collaboration (win-win), involves both sides achieving a newunderstanding of their real needs, and thus adjusting their initial adversarial positions towards collaborative solutions. This conflict transformation only happens when the two parties are able to identify the interests behind their positions, and find ways of satisfying those by adopting new or revised positions. It very often recognizes that the inter-dependence between the two parties is central to their interests, and thus the interest of finding a mutually acceptable solution grows within both parties.

In the below drawing, we can see how the interests of both parties is satisfied when there is collaboration, a recognition of the mutually shared interests. Usually, to arrive at this highest circle requires a process of understanding and trust, leading to the enabling of the parties in the conflict to feel safe in shifting or changing their position.

C.How to Transform Conflict

We have lived for all of history with conflict. Almost all societies have developed ways to respond to conflict without violence. Usually, a fair-minded person — a village elder or a judge or an international tribunal — is given authority by the community to decide how to resolve the conflict. The decision is respected by everyone. If the decisions seem unfair and are not accepted, the conflict may become violent. This approach has developed into formal justice systems in some countries over time, while in many countries, both traditional and formal justice systems co exist.

But do we need a third party to resolve each conflict? As the field of study of conflict over recent decades has evolved, it has become clear that one of the most important things that is needed to help people in a conflict avoid violence and find a solution is communication. For two sides in a conflict to move towards a non-violent resolution, they must first talk. This is where good journalism comes in.

Journalists and producers tend to think of a conflict as being a ‘zero sumgame’, or a battle between two parties for whom there is either victory or defeat. If I win, you lose,and vice versa. But the only way of coming out of a conflict is to find a solution in which everyoneis a winner (the ‘win-win’ approach). The way in which we describe or see the conflict is thereforefundamental. At this level, the men and women who work in the media play an essential role.The tools presented below (conflict map, positions/interests, and facts/values) helps us to seeconflict in a different way.

Conflict mapping

This exercise helps us to understand a conflict more deeply as well as the different factors whichare involved. It helps us as journalists to think of questions which we may not havethought of before, and should give us a better understanding of the situation.

Conflicts are complex and it’s difficult to summarise them, so remember that the objective of theconflict map isn’t to simplify things. Creating a conflict map simply allows us to see the situationwith more clarity. And this may lead towards resolution.

There are many ways of creating a conflict map. Writing the results of the discussion outlinedbelow on a flip chart will help ‘visualise’ the conflict.

Identifying the actors

This means identifying:

• the main protagonists/key actors in the conflict

• the other parties implicated or associated with the conflict in one way or another (including marginalized groups or external players)

Replying to the following question will help in the identification process: Who has an interest inbeing involved in the conflict?

It’s equally useful to imagine and to visualize the relationships between the parties in the conflict(alliances, breakdowns in communication, confrontations, broken contacts etc.).

Identifying the issue

This means:

• identifying the positions of each of the parties (see the next section). List the positions of all theparties (their needs and declared objectives)

• defining the problem. This isn’t easy because it means describing what the conflict is about. Andoften there is no single definition. Write them all down, this exercise helps to demonstrate thecomplexity of conflict.

Positions and interests

A key skill for journalists to develop in analyzing any conflict – not only a violent one – is to be able to identify the positions and the interests of the opposing sides.

Aposition is what someone declares that they want. This is their “stand” --what they say they want, what they declare or act upon. The position is stated publicly, as a way for the person or party to communicate the viewpoint or the action to be taken in order to defend or acquire what is needed.

An interest represents what is important for an individual or a group. It is a need, a deep motivation. Interests include fears, worries, needs and motivations of the parties involved. An interest may often be unstated, but it is real. There is at least one interest behind every position.

A conflict exists when two people or groups appear to be incompatible. Yet, their interests may not at all be incompatible. This is why the starting point for journalists when covering conflict, is to understand the interests behind the positions. Two sides may have positions which appear totally opposed but the interests underneath may have similarities, or even share common ground.

A conflict may be irresolvable as long as the debate focuses only on the positions, without examining each side’s interests. Positions separate two sides whereas interests hold the possibility of bringing them together. For this reason those who make successful peacebuilding media programmes try to discover the real interests of the parties involved and focus on those,rather than on their positions.There are always places where parties' interests overlap in a conflict, whereas positions may appear mutually exclusive.

Asking why is a useful way to identify the interest or need that lies below a position.

?Why do you want that?

?Why do you need that?

?Why do you say that?

?Why do you think that?

As one talkshow host described it: In a conflict situation, there are sides, and the two sides will each have a way they think the problem could be solved, their solution. What’s most important is the question, ‘Why do you want the problem to be solved that way?’ The answer to that question tells you what their interest is, what it is they are after.

Professional journalists will not only report on the ‘position’ of the parties in conflict, but will also report on the underlying need.

Framing the conflict

When we look through a video camera lens we’re only able to see what is in the frame. As journalists, we are constantly making choices about what will be IN the frame and OUTSIDE of the frame. We make these choices based on what we think our audience needs to know, but more importantly, what we perceive as important.

As we reflect on the impact of our programs and articles on conflict, it is important to be more conscious of how we choose to frame the conflicts we cover. If we cover two people shouting at each other, but don’t look at the history of their relationship, we are giving an incomplete picture of the situation. Similarly, if we only interview the two people in conflict without speaking to other interested parties and observers, we will not be able to present the situation accurately.

Often, it is only as we become more aware of ourselves and our surroundings that we develop an awareness of the complexity of others. On an individual level, as we become more aware of the various influences that shape us such as our relationship with our parents, families, friends and communities, we are more able to see such patterns in the way other people interact with their environments. Without an in-depth understanding of the motivations and viewpoints of the other person, we often build assumptions that may not be accurate. Journalists know that the most professional way to discover information is to be curious, investigate, ask, listen, and observe before deducing. This works when turning the process inwards and finding out about our own motivations, thoughts and emotions. It also works well when trying to discover the motivations of others. At the same time it reduces the risk of stereotyping and making assumptions that are not based on thorough investigative reporting.

Prior to preparing a journalistic piece, it is worthwhile looking inwards and taking a “spot-check.”– Ask yourself the following questions – and reflect on the answers: How aware am I of my own thoughts, feelings and views on the event in question? Do I identify with a particular side? What assumptions might I hold about the event that need verifying? Answering these questions is the first step.

What does conflict analysis mean for journalists?

Journalists should seek out other parties and other points of view. They should not only repeat old grievances by the old elites.

Journalists should examine what the parties are seeking and the possibility for withdrawal, compromise or transcendence. Journalists should write about these possibilities.

With conflict analysis, journalists can understand what diplomats and negotiators are trying to do, and can report it more reliably.

With conflict analysis, journalists can identify more sources to go to for information.

Facts and values

A fact is a truth about the world. It is information which can be observed or calculated, such as cows eat grass, or the height of Mt. Kilimanjaro. A fact does not change, regardless of who presents it. Eventually, perhaps with independent verification, facts become accepted.

A value is different. It can be a deeply held personal belief or a widely-shared viewpoint, such as: killing is wrong except in self-defence. But values are not verified by fact. They are subjective.

A belief that one political party has better policies for farmers than another party is a value. As another example, it is a fact that smoking causes cancer. But the right to smoke in public is a widely-held value. Even if they are not verifiable, values may be very resistant to change.