The Media as actor in conflicts resolution

RESPONSE TO CONFLICT

Perhaps the most obvious trend in the response of the media to foreign
conflict is that there is so little of it. In some ways, this is
understandable. There may be 20 or 30 conflicts ongoing in the world at any
given time, but the amount of time available for a single television news
program maybe only about 20 minutes (minus commercial breaks). The vast
majority of this time is devoted to domestic news, and sports and weather must
also be included. 

On national news programs, there may only be room for 2 or 3
foreign news stories. The same can be said
for radio news. Even on 24-hour news channels, the same stories are often
repeated in the following program, and developments on previous stories are
followed up on. Newspapers may have more space to deal with, but domestic news
dominates. 

Within the limited space for foreign news, only a portion of this
will be about armed conflict — there are other international stories that don’t
involve violence. This means that the amount of reporting on foreign conflicts
is highly limited. Within this framework there are a number of trends in the
response of the media to conflict that will be dealt with below.

Concentration On A Single Conflict

The media has a tendency to
focus the limited time and space they have for covering conflict in foreign
countries on just one or two conflicts at any given time. Conflicts appear to
be ‘chosen’, or considered as newsworthy, and extensive or saturation coverage is
applied to following their progress. 

Such coverage is likely to peak during the
period of greatest violence, and then reduce as the violence subsides, and/or
it is eclipsed by the next conflict. There May be a secondary conflict, one
that receives a moderate amount of coverage compared to the ‘chosen’ conflict,
but few other conflicts are likely to receive significant coverage,
particularly^–in the broadcast media, where time is limited.

Looking
at levels of media coverage in recent years, a clear pattern emerges. From late
1998, Kosovo was the central conflict dominating media attention. In late 1999
East Timor briefly emerged, and in 2000 limited fighting in Israel-Palestine
became dominant. The terrorist attacks on the USA in September 2001 connected to
the attacks on Afghanistan, and then from 2003 to the present Iraq has been the
central conflict in the media. 

Throughout this time Israel-Palestine has been
in the unique position of relatively constant coverage (even if second place
behind the dominant conflict), and recently Darfur has become a secondary
conflict in the media. One thing these leading conflicts have in common is
either direct involvement of Western armed forces, or a strong Western interest
in the conflict area.

In the first 3 months of
1999, for example, as a Western coalition prepared to attack Yugoslavia over
the issue of Kosovo, the New York Times devoted roughly 15 percent of the space
on its international pages to that conflict. In 2000, the amount of coverage CNN devoted to the
conflict in Israel-Palestine was more than five times greater than the
second-most covered conflict (in the Philippines). 

In the same year, the
coverage to that conflict in the Japanese newspaper, the Yomiur was also almost five times that of the second-most covered
conflict (Hawkins, 2002). A study of the websites of three main global newswire
services (AFP, AP and Reuters UK) in the first half of 2005 found that the top
news items on their websites were dominated by news on USA, Iraq and
Israel-Palestine (in that order). Combined, the coverage of these countries
alone made up 36 percent of the top news items for AFP, 72 percent for AP, and
32 percent for Reuters UK.

Furthermore,
with less time and space for coverage, the content must be simple,
straightforward and easy to comprehend quickly. Conflicts are typically
‘framed’ in a morality play style, with one side determined as a ‘villain’ and
the other side a ‘victim’, and ‘heroes’ are encouraged by this type of coverage
to step forward and rescue the helpless victims.