Interest in the media's roles in conflict and conflict resolution has been increasingly growing in the last fifteen years (Gilboa, 2000a, 2002a).
Most studies, however, have focused on the often negative contributions of the media to the escalation and violence phases of conflict. Scholars have paid much less attention to conflict resolution and reconciliation.
The interest in the media effects on conflicts stem from technological innovations in mass communication, primarily in proliferation of global television news networks and the Internet. The global networks can broadcast live from almost any place on the globe to any other place. Websites and weblogs provide state and non-state actors, as well as individuals, with endless opportunities to exchange and debate events and processes both inside and outside political entities (Bollier, 2003; Larson, 2004). The Internet can penetrate any national boundaries, even those of the most closed and authoritarian societies.Commentators and scholars invented the term “CNN effect” to describe how dominant global television coverage has become in world affairs, especially in acute international conflicts. The term implies that television coverage forces policy makers to take actions they otherwise would not have taken (Gilboa, 2005a; Robinson, 2002). It means that the media determine the national interest and usurp policymaking from elected and appointed officials. Scholars and practitioners have also noticed how the media, particularly radio, was instrumental in fomenting conflict and violence in places such as Rwanda and Bosnia (Buric, 2000; Kellow & Steeves, 1998; Temple-Raston, 2005), and concluded that roles can be converted into positive contributions to conflict resolution. Experts in conflict resolution have been very optimistic and enthusiastic about these contributions (Howard, 2003; Reljic, 2004; Melone, Terzis, & Beleli, 2002). They have designed and established many media programs in conflict regions, wrote manuals for journalists both in the developed and the underdeveloped world, organized conferences, and wrote books, reports and surveys (Hieber, 2001; International Media Support, 2003; Ukpabi, 2001; Walton, 2004).
Early studies of actual and potential contributions of the media to conflict resolution focused on the Cold War, arms races, international negotiation and images of the enemy (Arno & Dissanayake, 1984; Bruck, 1989; Davison, 1974; Korzenny & Ting-Toomey, 1990; Roach, 1993). “Peace journalism” prescribes certain roles for the media in international conflicts (Galtung, 1998, 2002; Lynch, 2002; McGoldrick & Lynch, 2000), but this approach focused more on war and violence. It compared and contrasted “war journalism” with “peace journalism,” heavily criticizing the first and passionately advocating the second. Peace journalism has been very controversial because it touches on sensitive nerves of professional journalism norms such as objectivity, impartiality and balance (Hanitzsch, 2004; Seib, 2002).
Scholars and practitioners have used many terms, concepts, approaches, theories and models to describe and analyze effects of the modern media on conflict resolution. Many of these terms and approaches are highly vague or even confusing. One popular example is “peace building” which is too general and imprecise. The same applies to “peace operations” or “peacemaking.” This work adheres to the organizing concept of this volume: conflict resolution. Most writers divide conflict into three phases: pre-conflict, conflict and post-conflict. The emphasis in this framework is on conflict, the pre- and post-phases are defined only by a time factor. In this context, conflict is equated with violence and conflict resolution is equated with negotiations and may appear at each phase.
This work views conflict resolution as a distinctive phase in the dynamic development of conflict. Scholars and practitioners have interchangeably employed different terms to describe media effects such as intervention, roles and coverage. Coverage is different from the other functions. It refers to the media output: newspapers or broadcasts. Coverage includes reports but also opinions on current events and processes.
Roles refer to various activities other than coverage, such as performing confidence-building measures or mediation, and to values and standards that should determine coverage (Gilboa, 2000a, 2002b). This work explores both coverage and roles but the emphasis is on roles.The chapter presents what we know about the media's roles in conflict resolution, what we need to know, and how we should fill the gaps in existing knowledge. It includes three parts. The first presents and analyzes various typologies of media intervention in conflict resolution and media coverage. The second part presents an analysis of positive and negative media contributions to several critical areas of conflict resolution, including signaling and communication, confidence building and destruction, mediation, and promoting and cultivating negotiations and agreements. The last part offers a new framework for future research and practice based on integration of theories and approaches from the fields of communication and conflict studies.