1/92

Moving Mainstream Media Towards a Culture of Peace

A thesis submitted by

Marianne H. Perez
perezm@georgetown.edu

to the European University Center for Peace Studies Stadtschlaining/Burg, Austria In partial fulfillment of the requirements For an MA degree in Peace and Conflict Studies

36 430 words

May 2006

Thesis advisor: Jake Lynch

2/92

ABSTRACT

The missing pillar for the promotion of a culture of peace discourse in American society is a Department of Peace (DOP). By having a DOP, this alternative view will be given institutional and government backing. The DOP will legitimize a position that stands for non-violence, empathy and cooperation. It will act as a powerful counterweight to the policies and worldviews that are promoted through the Department of Defense and the military-industrial complex. The infrastructure that will build up around the DOP, along with an effective communications strategy, will help gain common currency for its position. This will have an important impact on mainstream media. The DOP will anchor the peace discourse, nurturant parent frame, peace media, peace journalism, and democratic ownership structure, thus helping move mainstream media from a culture of war to a culture of peace. Using a framework which combines peace studies, cognitive linguistic theory, communications and media studies, this thesis demonstrates how this is possible.

3/92

Moving Mainstream Media Towards a Culture of Peace

Introduction............................................................................................................5 Chapter 1: The U.S. Department of Peace.6 1. Background 2. The International Peoples Initiative for Departments of Peace 3. The Field of Peace Studies and Conflict Transformation 4. Overview of the Role of a U.S. Department of Peace 5. The Role of the DOP in Relation to Media 6. Ensuring the Integrity of the DOP Chapter 2: Discourses and Frames...16 1. Johan Galtungs Peace and Security Discourses 2. George Lakoffs Nurturant Parent and Strict Father Frames 3. Galtungs and Lakoffs Theories and Institutional Pillars 4. Frames, Discourses and the Media Chapter 3: Peace Media...26 1. The Prevailing War Media 2. Characteristics of Peace Media 3. Examples of Existing Peace Media Chapter 4: Peace Journalism32 1. Applying Lakoff and Galtung to Journalism 2. The Case for Peace Journalism 3. The Role of the DOP in Supporting Peace Journalism 4. Other Models of News Analysis 5. Guidelines for Reporters and Editors 6. Guidelines for Peace Groups Chapter 5: Case Study: Coverage of the War in Iraq41 1. War & Violence Orientated Peace & Conflict Orientated 2. Propaganda Orientated Truth Orientated 3. Elite Orientated People Orientated 4. Victory Orientated Solution Orientated Chapter 6: Media structures.51 1. Levels of Media 2. Media as Industry 3. Does Ownership Influence Content? 4. Opportunities for Change

4/92

Chapter 7: The DOPs Media Research and Policy.60 1. A Proposed Research Agenda for the DOP a. Psychology b. Media and Communications Studies 2. Policy Recommendations 3. Collaboration with other Sectors Chapter 8: The DOPs Communications Office..64 1. Interaction with the Press 2. Internal Operations 3. Working with Peace Groups Conclusion68 Appendix A: Bill to Establish a Department of Peace and Non-Violence......71 Appendix B: Non-Violent Communication in Practice82 Works Cited..85

5/92 Introduction In January 2005, the Peace Alliance launched a grassroots effort for the establishment of a U.S. Department of Peace and Non-Violence (DOP) in the United States. This initiative is lobbying in support of legislation introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives (H.R. 3760) in September 2005 by U.S. Representative Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) and in the U.S. Senate (S. 1756) by Senator Mark Dayton (D-MN). The bill calls for the creation of a cabinet-level department in the Executive Branch which will be responsible for establishing mechanisms for conflict transformation at local, state, federal and international levels and would act as an institutional voice for the growing non-violence movement. Specifically, the DOP will design and disseminate information about policies in support of peace in the United States and the international community, primarily through coordination and cooperation with other government agencies on policy and program proposals for peace and non-violence, development and dissemination of peace curricula for formal education, operation of a peace academy to train military and civilian peace workers, and research and cooperation with the media on developing a peace media. To facilitate these efforts, it will sponsor grants for research in the field of peace studies to better understand conflict and its transformation. The current system of American government has a strong bias towards the Department of Defense which effectively militarizes all aspects of society. This is especially evident in the overwhelming presence of violence in the media with little or no analysis or contextualization. Violence is considered as a way to boost sales in the entertainment industry and as an inevitable result of conflict in the news. There are, however, in all strata of society groups working towards a culture of peace, but, for various reasons their voice is not heard in the mainstream media. This thesis will analyze the role that a Department of Peace will play in supporting a voice for peace and non-violence in the media. It will outline appropriate media structures and put forth a framework for the mission of the communications office of a future DOP. This paper will argue that a DOP will act as an institutional promoter for what Johan Galtung terms the peace discourse and George Lakoff calls the nurturant parent frame. The peace discourse / nurturant parent frame will support and be supported by peace media in all its forms, including educational, entertainment and news programming. Additionally, this paper will present the concept of peace journalism and explore it in terms of coverage of the current War in Iraq. Chapter 6 evaluates and proposes a structure of media ownership and regulation intended to ensure the successful promotion of peace media and peace journalism. Finally, in order for the DOP to be a leader in promoting peace generally and peace media specifically, Chapters 7 and 8 recommend research and policy proposals as well as guidelines for the DOP Communications Office.

6/92 Chapter 1: The United States Department of Peace This chapter outlines the campaign to establish the United States Department of Peace and Non-Violence 1 (DOP). It begins by providing a brief history of the movement in the United States, then looks at the emergence of parallel initiatives around the world. The role and functions of a potential DOP are examined within the context of the field of peace research and peace studies. The chapter will highlight media policies consistent with the mission of a DOP and addresses concerns regarding the integrity of a DOP.

1. Background On September 14, 2005, U.S. Representative Dennis Kucinich (a Democrat from Ohio) re-introduced the Department of Peace and Non-Violence Act, House Resolution (H.R.) 3760, in the U.S. House of Representatives. 2 Concurrently, Senator Mark Dayton (a Democrat from Minnesota) presented the Senate version of the bill, S. 1756, in the upper house of Congress. The same bill was originally introduced in the summer of 2001. H.R. 3760 seeks to establish a cabinet-level DOP with the mandate to research, articulate and facilitate non-violent solutions to domestic and international conflict. (Peace Alliance, 2006) It will provide other government departments, agencies and branches with an array of tools in the field of peace research, education, training, and conflict analysis for greatly expanded problem-solving. Although the bill did not pass in either the 107th or 108th Congress, Kucinich continued to promote the DOPfirst in his bid for the American presidency in 2004, then through the Peace Alliance, a campaign to establish the DOP. Kucinichs presidential bid, though ultimately unsuccessful, provided the catalyst for the formation, in January 2005, of the Peace Alliance (Maver, 2005). At the time of writing, in the 109th Congress, the bill is being reviewed by one Senate committee, the Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs, and by four House committees, the Committee on Education and the Workforce, the Committee on Government Reform, the Committee on International Relations and the Committee on the Judiciary. 3 (Peace Alliance, 2006) The Peace Alliance is an entity dedicated to mobilizing grassroots support for a DOP, lobbying legislators to vote in favor of H.R. 3760 and S. 1756, and obtaining endorsements from important public figures. The Peace Alliance has recruited volunteers in all 50 states to write letters to their local papers, to contact their legislators to

Although the official name of the government body would be the Department of Peace and Non-Violence, it is commonly referred to simply as the Department of Peace or DOP. We shall use this appellation for the remainder of this document.
2

See Appendix A for the text of the bill. The status of the bill is regularly updated on the Peace Alliance website: www.thepeacealliance.org.

7/92 encourage them to support H.R. 3760 and S. 1756, and to discuss the DOP in their communities, informally and through organized events. At the time of writing, in May 2006, the Peace Alliance has tallied 64 co-sponsors for H.R. 3760 and two for S. 1756. 4 The Peace Alliance has also obtained endorsements from over 30 organizations and from public figures such as television journalist Walter Cronkite and actor Joaquin Phoenix. 5 According to Peace Alliance Executive Director Dot Maver, the support and enthusiasm that this budding campaign receives from individuals and communities across the United States is a sign that the American public desires an alternative to the culture of violence and war that pervades American society and politics. The campaigns success is surely due to its ability to mobilize people at the grassroots, intermediary and top levels of society. This technique ensures that peoples concerns are expressed, addressed and transmitted through mid-level and top leaders who are engaged in the problem. By mobilizing all strata of society, more resources are available to change the system. (Johansen, 2004) While the current campaign for a Department of Peace is fairly new, the idea for such an institution has a historical precedent. In 1792, Benjamin Banneker and Benjamin Rush presented an outline for an Office of Peace. From the 1930s to the1960s, several proposals were made calling for a Department of Peace, a Secretary of Peace, or more modestly, a Peace Division in the State Department. The greatest period of activity around the issue was between 1955 and 1968, when 85 bills were presented in the House of Representatives and Senate. (IPIDOP, 2005) Despite all these efforts, none of these previous endeavors have enjoyed the success of the present Peace Alliance campaign.

2. The International Peoples Initiative for Departments of Peace The United States does not stand alone in its effort to establish a Department of Peace. At the time of writing, there are at least 17 movements around the world that have expressed interest in Departments or Ministries of Peace. PATRIR, the Romanian Peace Institute, heads the secretariat for the International Peoples Initiative for Departments of Peace (IPIDOP) to coordinate these efforts. 6 In Australia, Canada, Japan and the UK, working groups seek equivalent goals to the work done by the Peace Alliance. Campaigns are emerging in Israel, Italy, Nepal, and Palestine. In Costa Rica, Ghana, Jordan, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Nigeria, Romania, Spain and Uganda

All but one of these members of Congress are affiliated with the Democratic Party.

The latest information about the campaign can be found on the Peace Alliances website: www.thepeacealliance.org.
6

More information can be found on the IPIDOP website: www.peoplesinitiativefordepartmentsofpeace.org.

8/92 representatives have expressed interest, but there is not yet a formal approach to building a campaign. (Simon, 2006) In Canada, the campaign to establish a Department of Peace focuses on obtaining support from important political leaders and academics, including former Foreign Minister Lloyd Axworthy. In the UK, the Labor Party has taken the lead in sponsoring similar legislation and has gained support from the Conservative, Scottish Nationalist and Welsh Nationalist parties. (Rossi, 2005) Ultimately, the goal is for each state in the world to have a peace affairs representative that will dialogue and collaborate with other representatives, similarly to how foreign ministers or environmental representatives 7 function together. The 1972 United Nations Conference on the Human Environment in Stockholm called on governments to collaborate and address environmental degradation and led to the establishment of the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP). An analogous situation could be envisioned with ministers, secretaries and representatives of peace coming together and catalyzing international high level peace conferences and programs. Working internationally [] increases the probability that one of these countries will proclaim such a minister with the others likely following suit. (IPIDOP, 2005)

3. The Field of Peace Studies and Conflict Transformation With the field of peace studies and peace research rapidly expanding, it is no surprise that there are advocates for applying that knowledge to the improvement of society and the betterment of the human condition. Peace studies and research naturally lead to activism, easily moving between academia and social engagement. The founder of the field of peace studies is Johan Galtung, a scholar and practitioner from Norway. Galtung was inspired to create the discipline of peace studies while he was a mathematics student fellow in Finland in the fall of 1951, spending much of his time not studying mathematics, but reading Suttner, Kant, Anker and others to decide whether or not to become a conscientious objector to military service. (Galtung, 2006a) One day, Galtung went to the University of Helsinki and asked the librarian for all the books she could find on peace research (Rauhantitkumus in Finnish). She returned emptyhanded, but offered to contact the national libraries in Uppsala and Stockholm. Again, she had no books to offer Galtung, although she noted that there were a myriad books on the art of war and the study of violence. Galtung realized that there was something seriously lacking in academic research and in human society in general and has since dedicated his life to establishing the field of peace studies, conducting peace research and

In the United States, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is a cabinet-level position, although not technically a member of the cabinet. The position and the EPA were established in 1970 by President Richard Nixon.

9/92 translating the findings into concrete peace practice. The first book on Rauhantitkumus was written by Galtung (in Finnish) and published in 1969. (Galtung, 1969 and 2006a) Galtungs impetus has spawned thousands of courses, degrees and training programs around the world on peace studies, conflict transformation 8 and understanding violence. In the past few years, the United States, has seen a significant increase in the number of universities offering undergraduate and graduate coursework and degrees in peace studies and conflict transformation 9 . A number of think tanks and research groups have been established in the field as well. The academics reinforce the work of activist groups and practitioners who use those ideas for the betterment of society, fueling again academia. Galtung and peace studies have done a tremendous amount to elucidate the following questions: What is conflict? What is violence? What is peace? What are the root causes of violence? And, what are basic needs? In peace studies, conflict is often defined as a situation in which two or more parties perceive that they have incompatible goals. Conflicts can be as simple as a couple trying to decide how to spend their vacation or as complex as the situation in the Middle East. Outside the field of peace studies, conflict is often confused with violence. Most conflicts do not result in violence. Violence is defined as the use of force to attain a goal. In order to achieve peace, it is not enough to stop the violence. The underlying conflict, which is resulting in violence, needs to be addressed. The root causes of conflict and violence vary from case to case. Conflict usually arises when basic needs are not met. Basic needs include survival, well-being, identity and freedom. (Kramer, 2005) The field of peace studies has developed a gamut of analytical tools to map conflicts, to identify actors and their needs, and to propose viable solutions.

4. Overview of the Role of a U.S. Department of Peace The bill presented by Rep. Kucinich proposes to put these tools at the disposal of the United States government. According to the Peace Alliance website, The primary function of a United States Department of Peace will be to research, articulate and facilitate nonviolent solutions to domestic and international conflict. The Department of Peace will facilitate the most cutting edge ways to wage peace. From non-violent communication skills, to conflict resolution techniques

The term conflict transformation was coined by Galtung who is of the opinion that conflict cannot be terminated and therefore cannot be resolved. Conflict resolution is the term that currently is the most widely used. In this paper, conflict transformation will be used to encompass all the work which is being done in conflict transformation, conflict resolution, conflict management, conflict analysis, peace research etc., unless specific reference is required to one of these subfields. More information can be found at http://www.campus-adr.org/Classroom_Building/degreeprograms.html.

10/92 and cultural relationship building, the Department of Peace will employ proven and effective strategies for diminishing violence in our country and in our world. As a member of the Presidents cabinet, the Secretary of Peace will provide the President; the State Department; the Departments of Defense, Education and Justice with greatly expanded problem solving options. The Department of Peace will also provide support for state and local government[s] to address issues of domestic violence. (2006) The DOPs action area will be both domestic and international. Conflict transformation techniques are useful to address conflicts at all levels, from the micro level (intra- / inter-personal) to the mega level (inter-region / -civilization) by way of meso level (social / communal) and macro level (inter-nation / -state). (Galtung, 2004) Therefore, the DOP will focus on promoting proactive policies that address the root causes of or underlying factors leading to violence. Violence would include such areas as domestic violence, violence in schools, gang violence, police brutality, violence against police and war. Work will be conducted in conjunction with school, law enforcement, justice, and health officials and diplomats. The DOP will give an institutional voice to the peace community in the United States and help promote nonviolent communication, conflict transformation skills and alternatives to the use of force and waging war. All these techniques have been researched and tested. They have proven their effectiveness and tend to be more cost effective than the methods currently employed. (Peace Alliance, 2006) Two examples of successful meso-conflict transformation programs underway include Ohios State Wide School Conflict Management Initiative and the practice of Community Conferencing. The Ohio initiative reports an improvement in academic achievement, a reduction in truancy, fewer suspensions and expulsions, a decrease in time spent on dealing with discipline, financial cost savings to schools, and an improvement in overall school climate as a result of integrating non-violent dispute resolution techniques into middle-school and high school curriculums. The annual cost per student for the conflict management initiative is $12, compared to $231 for suspending a student and $431 for expelling a student. (Peace Alliance, 2006) In areas which suffer from high crime rates, there is social change through Community Conferencing, a restorative justice method which brings together all the relevant parties. In doing so, all parties have the chance to express themselves and their needs and can contribute to a solution which meets the needs of all parties. The program reports a 60% reduction in recidivism at 10% of the cost of current criminal justice and disciplinary practices. (Peace Alliance, 2006) Internationally, one of the best examples of conflict transformation is the bi-national zone created between Ecuador and Peru. After 57 years of legal and military attempts to resolve a border dispute between the two states, the then-Ecuadorian President consulted Johan Galtung. His suggestion was not to divide the territory, but rather to administer the territory jointly and create a natural park. Within three years, the bi-national zone with a natural park became a reality and Ecuador and Peru enjoy a stable peace, sweetened by

11/92 the additional revenue they both receive from tourism in the park. (Galtung, 2004a) Galtungs Transcend and Transform lists more examples of conflict transformation at all levels that the DOP can adopt for peace-building both domestically and internationally. The DOP will also support research to expand the base of existing knowledge and develop tools and policies for best practices. While much work has already been done in the past 20 years, the field could greatly benefit from more longitudinal and quantitative studies. Such research will only strengthen the DOPs ability to live up to its mandate, that is, to articulate and facilitate non-violent solutions to domestic and international conflict.

5. The Role of the DOP in Relation to Media H.R. 3760 specifically states the central importance of using the media to promote a culture of peace. It lists the DOPs duties as follows: Media-Related Responsibilities- Respecting the first amendment of the Constitution of the United States and the requirement for free and independent media, the Secretary shall-(1) seek assistance in the design and implementation of non-violent policies from media professionals; (2) study the role of the media in the escalation and de-escalation of conflict at domestic and international levels and make findings public; and (3) make recommendations to professional media organizations in order to provide opportunities to increase media awareness of peace-building initiatives. (Bill, 2005) 10 The importance of the media in the promotion of non-violence and conflict transformation should not be underestimated. Scholars in the field of peace studies intuitively recognize that the media have a tendency to normalize violence and promote misunderstandings about the nature of conflict (Fischer, 2004; Galtung, 2004; Johansen, 2004; Kramer and Graf, 2005; Wisler, 2005). Peace studies discourse consistently mentions the media as an actor in conflict mapping exercises and identifies it as an important vector in promoting a culture of peace and transmitting conflict transformation skills. 11 Generally, the media are considered to be a party to a conflict because of their coverageor absence of coverageof an issue. By discussing a particular topic, they

10

For full text of the bill, see Appendix A.

For new research on this subject, see Metta Spencers Two Aspirins and a Comedy: How Television Can Enhance Health and Society (Boulder: Paradigm Publishers: 2006).

11

12/92 bring outside attention to a conflict. This outside attention can translate into direct or indirect action on the conflict. The media, however, can also be a party (or a potential party) by not covering a conflict, that is, by not giving it attention and instead focusing on other issues. By bringing the media into a conflict, the conflict can be enlarged, potentially getting more attention, more funding, or other forms of support from decision makers and other interested or potentially interested parties. Enlarging a conflict helps identify all stakeholders, impacts of the conflict, and connected issues. With more stakeholders involved in transforming a conflict, there is an increased likelihood of proposing a long-lasting solution which meets all parties needs. Peace studies and conflict analysis methods use conflict mapping techniques to identify all actors in a conflict. By identifying all actors, more issues are vented and more opportunities for transformation can be discovered. For example, a peace studies analysis of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict lists among the actors: Israelis, Palestinians, the Jewish diaspora, Arab states, Muslim states, the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the Christian Right, the U.S. government, national and international media, and many more. A sustainable transformation of the conflict would not simply be brokered between the Israelis and Palestinians, but would take into account the relationships and objectives of the other actors. 12 While a significant amount of research has been done on the negative psychological and social implications of violence in the media, on the portrayal of conflicts in the news, and on the manipulation of the media and the use of propaganda to promote violent political agendas, little has been done to demonstrate positive uses of media and its potential for being a powerful tool in the promotion of non-violence.

6. Ensuring the Integrity of the DOP Concerns have been raised about ensuring the integrity of a Department of Peace within the United States government. Arguments center around whether a DOP could truly be autonomous even within an administration that has a penchant for war or security discourse 13 and prefers to fund traditional law enforcement and military programs. While there is no way to control what future administrations will do, there are reasonsboth in theory and in praxisto believe that a Department of Peace will remain true to its mission statement even after the term of the establishing administration expires and that it will strengthen the culture of peace in society at large. The theoretical argument founded on organizational behavior upholds arguments based on analogies to existing government structures (i.e. the Office of Net Assessments) and government-civil society

12

For more on conflict transformation, see TRANSCEND: A Peace and Development Network, www.transcend.org.
13

See Chapter 2 for a discussion of the security discourse.

13/92 configurations (i.e. the State Department and related non-government organizations and institutions). In The Politics, Power, and Pathologies of International Organizations, renowned political theorists Michael N. Barnett and Martha Finnemore (1999) argue that international organizations can become autonomous sites of authority [] because of power flowing from at least two sources: (1) the legitimacy of the rational-legal authority they embody, and (2) control over technical expertise and information. Because they consider international organizations (IOs) to be bureaucracies and bureaucracies are analogous in their constitution and organizational behavior, this argument can also be applied to domestic bureaucracies, such as the Department of Peace. They go on to argue that, Taken together, these two features provide a theoretical basis for treating IOs as autonomous actors in contemporary world politics by identifying sources of support for them [] in the larger social environment. Since rational-legal authority and control over expertise are part of what defines and constitutes any bureaucracy (a bureaucracy would not be a bureaucracy without them), the autonomy that flows from them is best understood as a constitutive effect, an effect of the way bureaucracy is constituted, which, in turn, makes possible (and in that sense causes) other processes and effects in global politics. (Barnett and Finnemore, 1999) This means that the Department of Peace would draw power from its rational-legal authority, that is, the legal act establishing a DOP (H.R. 3760), and its control over expertise in the field of peace research and implementation of non-violent solutions for domestic and international conflicts. According to Barnett and Finnemore (1999), this ensures the DOP will be an autonomous actor and will have an impact on politics. Bureaucracyespecially in the Weberian conception of a depersonalized, rulefollowing institution which can sometimes be oppressive 14 and control over technical expertise pose a particular problem in the field of peace and non-violence precisely because so much of the peace and non-violence movement is about dismantling oppressive power structures 15 and giving control to the individual. The Weberian understanding of bureaucracy, however, is challenged in the first two points of the DOPs mission to (1) hold peace as an organizing principle, coordinating service to every level of American society; (2) endeavor to promote justice and democratic principles to expand human rights. (Bill, 2005) If the DOP is to uphold these principles, then it will have to set up a bureaucracy which does not contradict them. The Peace Alliance is already

14

See Weber, Max. Theory of Social and Economic Organization. New York: Oxford University Press, 1947.

Cf. Mohandas K. Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr.s movements which used non-violence to dismantle government laws and their supporting bureaucracies which they believed were unjust.

15

14/92 acting on this principle by integrating non-violent communication (NVC) 16 into its campaign strategy. NVC strives to personalize interactions and make them as meaningful as possible. It promotes justice in the sense that it holds each individuals needs equally and empathetically. Most likely, civil servants in the DOP would receive training in NVC. For an example of what NVC looks like in action see Appendix B, an email exchange on the DOP listserve about the integrity of the DOP. Another issue that has been raised is the utility of the Department of Peace if the government decides not to follow its recommendations and prefers to implement the proposals of another department, say the Department of Defense (DoD). A DOP will ensure that the arguments for peace and non-violence are at least heardeven if they are not followedwithin the American presidential cabinet. This, according to Barnett and Finnemore (1999), makes possible and causes alternative processes and affects politics. The DOP can act as an internal arbiter for the federal government, a structure that already exists within some agencies. As Matt Axelrod (2006) states, the DOP would act as a loyal opposition. [] [The DoD has] an Office of Net Assessments. Part of their job is to challenge DoD policy within the organization. H.R. 3760 enumerates among the responsibilities of the DOP that the Secretary of Peace will provide non-violent policy proposals to the Attorney General, the Secretary of Defense, of State and of the Treasury, as well as to the President. (Bill, 2005) The establishment of a DOP would demonstrate that the U.S. government values peace and holds it as an organizing principle. This will not happen, however, until there is a strong source of support in the larger social environment. (Barnett and Finnemore, 1999) Conversely, the DOPs establishment will also strengthen support in the larger social environment by spawning a related civil society infrastructure. Just as independent non-governmental organizations (NGOs), think tanks, contractors, journals and university departments exist to analyze, critique and/or support the work of the State Department and the Environmental Protection Agency, a DOP would engender an analogous infrastructure. Furthermore, the establishment of a DOP would organize and empower existing peace and non-violence groups, peace studies university departments, peace journals, peace education programs etc. So even under administrations which do not place value on the DOP, this related civil society infrastructure would maintain its autonomy and integrity, with peace and non-violence as its organizing principle. Finally, concern regarding ensuring the funding of the DOP is addressed by H.R. 3760. Section 113 stipulates, There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this Act for a fiscal year beginning after the date of the enactment of this Act an amount equal to at least 2 percent of the total amount appropriated for that fiscal year for the Department of Defense. (Bill, 2005) Thus, funding for the DOP is guaranteed by law. In terms of financial management, H.R. 3760 requests a level of budget equivalent to 2% of the DoD

16

For more on non-violent communication see the Center for Non-Violent Communications website: www.cnvc.org.

15/92 budget 17 . This comparatively small budget should ensure fiscal responsibility and frugality. The DOP will only implement programs with proven track-records of efficiency and success. Focus will be on prevention which is a more cost-effective strategy than reaction. The intent is that the DOP will be exemplary for other federal departments and agencies, leading the way in streamlined, efficient, and effective government.

The following chapters will take a closer look at the current state of the American media and put forth a vision for more peace-oriented media based in part on the provisions mentioned in the bill above. As Majid Tehranian noted in his essay Peace Journalism: Negotiating Global Media Ethics, Structural pluralism may be considered a sine qua non of content pluralism. To achieve free and balanced flow of news and information, a serious attempt at closing the digital divide must be made (Norris 2001). For peace journalism to take on a sustained life, the voiceless in global communication must be empowered. To do so, it takes more than pious ethical codes or perfunctory international declarations. Major resources must be allocated to the development of the global information infrastructure. (2002) This paper will identify some of the resources and infrastructure that need to be developed in the United States to achieve free and balanced flow of news and information. (Tehranian, 2002) Chapters 3, 4, 5 and 6 will examine media content and structures; Chapters 7 and 8 will present policy and research recommendations, as well as operational guidelines for the future Department of Peace in the field of media. But first, we turn to the paradigm in which a Department of Peace would fit.

N.B.: The DOP budget is equivalent to 2% of the DoD budget, it is not taken from the DoD budget. For FY2005, the proposed DoD budget was $402 billion, 2% of this would be $8 billion which is less than the budget allotted to the Environmental Protection Agency (which is not a department) for FY2005, $8.4 billion. In fact, the only cabinet-level department to receive a smaller budget than that was the Department of Commerce at $5.7 billion. All other bodies that received less than $8 billion were agencies, special offices or administrations. More details at the Office of Management and Budget: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2005/tables.html (February 19, 2006)

17

16/92 Chapter 2: Discourses and Frames Discourses and frames are mental mechanisms by which we organize our thoughts, ideas and world views. Any new information is integrated into pre-existing frames or discourses which help us make sense of the world. Our use of these mechanisms is generally unconscious, yet they critically color the reality we see in the world. For the media, especially journalism, which attempt to say something about reality, it is vitally important to bring our discourses and frames to the light of consciousness. Johan Galtung, founder of the field of peace studies, identifies a peace discourse and security discourse according to which he believes people around the world organize their understanding of conflict and violence. George Lakoff, a cognitive linguist, believes that there are two competing frames governing American politics: the nurturant parent frame and the strict father frame. Lakoffs work is also significant because he demonstrates how frames impact politics. It should be noted that such dichotomy and dualism is misleadingly simplified, but such theoretical approaches help us better understand the world. The peace discourse and nurturant parent frame share many similar characteristics just as the security discourse and strict father frame do. Combining Galtungs and Lakoffs approaches can give us a fuller understanding of how and why we interpret the world in a certain way and how we can promote a more peaceful vision. After presenting Galtungs and Lakoffs theories, this chapter looks at how they relate to the establishment of a U.S. Department of Peace (DOP). Specifically, it posits that the DOP is the missing institutional pillar in promoting the peace discourse and nurturant parent frame. Finally, the chapter explains the medias role in promoting frames and discourses and what changes we can expect to see with the establishment of a DOP.

1. Johan Galtungs Peace and Security Discourses Galtung believes there are two competing discourses which inform our understanding of conflict and violence: the peace discourse and security discourse. His theory is based on years of observation of conflict situations around the world. The difference between the peace discourse and the security discourse is summarized in the following table:

17/92

Peace Discourse (Horizontal) Conflict which has not been resolved or transformed. A danger of violence as one way to settle the conflict. Conflict Transformation which is empathetic, creative and non-violent, in turn producing: Peace, which is the best approach to security. The approach works through acceptable or sustainable outcomes. (Galtung, 2004)

Security Discourse (Vertical) Evil Party with strong capabilities and evil intentions. A clear and present danger of violence, real or potential. Strength to defeat or deter the evil party, in turn producing: Security, which is also the best approach to peace. The approach works when evil/strong parties are weakened through defeat or deterrence, and/or converted into good parties.

The peace discourse addresses issues more comprehensively and addresses the root causes of conflicts. It focuses on contradicting goals rather than on violence. Conflict can be defined as a situation where two or more individuals or groups try to pursue goals or ambitions which they believe they cannot share. (Howard, 2004) Conflict is not necessarily negative, nor need it lead to violence. It is necessary for progress and evolution. The peace discourse makes use of tested conflict analysis techniques. A number of theories and explanations have emerged, but generally their focus is larger than those employed in security discourse. Conflict analysis broadens the scope of actors and stake holders, takes into account root causes and basic needs and assumes that solutions must be based on legitimate goals. On the other hand, the security discourse places its emphasis on violence which it confuses with conflict. Violence can be understood as the use of force to achieve a goal. An alternative definition is the physical or psychological degradation of someone or something. As Jake Lynch and Annabel McGoldrick write in Peace Journalism, Violence is only one possible response to conflicta collective expression, or political tool to achieve ends. It can easily be self-defeating, in the long term nullifying any gains or even killing those who would have benefited from the achievement. (2005) The security approach tends to gloss over the distinction between violence and conflict and neglects root causes of conflict. Galtung identifies three types of imbricated violence: direct, cultural and structural. Direct violence is what we usually think of in terms of aggression, military force, etc. Cultural violence can be understood as the way a group has been thinking about another group for many years. It can include talk, images or beliefs which glorify physical violence. Structural violence is harm which is built into the laws and traditional behavior of a group or society. Harm is permitted or ignored. Each of these forms of violence can

18/92 be equally destructive and detrimental, but often they operate concurrently, reinforcing and enabling each other. The above definitions of violence and conflict can help us understand the peace discourse and introduce important concepts in conflict analysis and transformation. This conception is quite different from the prevailing understanding of violence and conflict which is perpetuated by the security discourse around the world.

2. George Lakoffs Nurturant Parent and Strict Father Frames Lakoffs cognitive linguistic approach to American politics sees the political scene dominated by two competing frames: the nurturant parent frame and the strict father frame. He connects the nurturant parent frame to a progressive view of American society and the strict father frame to a conservative view. In his collection of essays Dont Think of an Elephant (2004), he offers suggestions on how to promote the progressive frame. Frames come with inferences, so each frame implies something different, writes Lakoff to demonstrate the importance of understanding frames. (2004) He also believes that the frames that dominate American politics are based on competing views of the family. The main points of each frame are summarized in the following table: Nurturant parent The world is basically good and can be made better. It is our responsibility to work towards that. Both parents share responsibility for raising children. Parents must nurture their children and raise them to be nurturers. Nurturing equals empathy (feeling and caring how others feel) plus responsibility (for taking care of oneself and others for whom we are responsible). Political values based on empathy: protection from harm, fulfillment in life, fairness, freedom, open communication. Political values based on responsibility: competence, trust, commitment, community building. Policies: government protection as social safety net and government regulation, military and police, Strict father The world is dangerous and difficult and children are born bad and must be made good. Father is the moral authority, has to support and defend family, tell his wife what to do and teach children right from wrong. This is achieved through painful punishment: physical discipline leading to internal [self] discipline and resulting in morality and survival. Must pursue your self-interest to become self-reliant. Social programs spoil people, giving them what they have not earned and keeping them dependent. Social programs are evil and should be eliminated. Role of government: protect nation, maintain order, administer justice (punishment), provide for orderly conduct and promotion of business.

19/92 universal education, civil liberties, equal treatment, accountability, public service, open government, economy that benefits all and promotes these values Role of government: provide infrastructure and services to enact these values Foreign policy: Promote cooperation and extend these values to the world. (Lakoff, 2004) While there is a dichotomy of frames, Lakoff argues that all Americans carry both models, either actively or passively, and that they can be activated at different times. In order to understand what frames actually are and how they operate in our minds, here are some key points about framing: Carry out the following directive: Dont think of an elephant! It is, of course, a directive that cannot be carried out and that is the point. In order to purposefully not think of an elephant, you have to think of an elephant. There are four morals. Moral 1. Every word evokes a frame. A frame is a conceptual structure used in thinking. The word elephant evokes a frame with an image of an elephant and certain knowledge: an elephant is a large animal (a mammal) with large floppy ears, a trunk that functions like both a nose and a hand, large stump-like legs, and so on. Moral 2: Words defined within a frame evoke the frame. The word trunk, as in the sentence "Sam picked up the peanut with his trunk," evokes the Elephant frame and suggests that "Sam" is the name of an elephant. Moral 3: Negating a frame evokes the frame. Moral 4: Evoking a frame reinforces that frame. Every frame is realized in the brain by neural circuitry. Every time a neural circuit is activated, it is strengthened. (Lakoff, 2005) Business is how disciplined people become self-reliant and wealth is a measure of discipline. Taxes take away from good, disciplined people what they have rightfully earned and spend on those who do not deserve it. Foreign policy: maintain sovereignty and impose moral authority while seeking self-interest. Trigger: fear.

The way that frames are transmitted and reinforced is through culture, and in the United States, one of the greatest purveyors of culture is the media. Lakoff argues that the conservative frame currently dominates the American political scene and is continuously reinforced in public debates and by the media because the progressives lack organization. This lack of organization has two implications: first, the progressives do not realize that they have a single cohesive frame towards which they can all work. Rather, progressives tend to be issue-focused and compete with each other and the opposition to gain support for their position on a specific issue. Second, because this common frame is not even acknowledged, there lack the vocabulary and concepts to

20/92 support it. Instead, progressives use conservative phrases and concepts, even when contesting them, which, according to Lakoff, serve to reinforce the conservative frame. Lakoffs proposal is to have the progressives unite and view all their issues and movements as part of the overarching nurturant parent frame. As he understands it, the pro-choice, anti-war, labor-rights, and environmental positions, among others, are all variations on the expression of the nurturant parent frame. Concomitantly, progressives must build their own vocabulary and gain common currency for their concepts. This is what cognitive linguists call reframing. Reframing is changing the way the public sees the world. It is changing what counts as common sense. Because language activates frames, new language is required for new frames. Thinking differently requires speaking differently. (Lakoff, 2004)

3. Galtungs and Lakoffs Theories and Institutional Pillars Galtungs and Lakoffs theories are analogous and complementary. Both see two basic worldviews which govern our relationships with others. The peace discourse shares many values and implications with the nurturant parent frame, while the security discourse runs parallel to the strict father frame. Presently, the security discourse and the strict father frame are dominant, and I believe this is so because the Department of Defense (DoD) creates an institutional pillar which legitimizes and supports this understanding of the world. With the establishment of a Department of Peace, I believe that the peace discourse and the nurturant parent frame will gain greater currency. The peace discourse and nurturant parent frame share similar values. Notably, they both believe that positive change is within our power; that there are alternatives to violence; that empathy is a key component of human relations; and that all are equal. These maxims imply that people should be engaged in the world and that cooperation and dialogue can be fruitful. What holds true for individuals also applies to groups, nations, and states because the latter are simply agglomerations of individuals. In contrast, the security discourse and strict father frame are based on the supposition that evil lurks in the world; that violence is inevitable; that those who are strong are those who win; and that fear is necessary and effective. The implications are that each has to look out for his or her own well-being and that demonstrations of strength and winning prove moral superiority. Again, this vision applies from the micro to the mega levels. Despite the fact that Galtung applies his theory to understanding conflict and Lakoffs pertains to his vision of American politics, they are still complementary. Galtungs paradigm is societal while Lakoffs theory is based on the American family, although it does extend itself to national society. Galtungs theory can be applied around the world, while Lakoff demonstrates his theory according to the specific American case study. While Lakoff favors the nurturant parent frame and Galtung the peace discourse, they both acknowledge that at times there is need for the alternative worldview.

21/92 It can be of interest to combine Lakoffs cognitive linguistics with peace studies in terms of diagnosis, prognosis and therapy (DPT) (Galtung, 2004). Lakoff posits the following: Diagnosis conservatives have the upper hand in American politics because they have consolidated their efforts, plugging into an over-arching framework, and know how to promote their frame. Prognosis if nothing is done, conservatives will continue to gain power, completely crippling the progressive movement. Therapy progressives can promote their view by understanding that they have an over-arching frame into which they can plug in all their views and issues; reclaiming vocabulary and concepts is necessary to put forth a new progressive agenda. The above DPT can easily be applied to the promotion of peace discourse. Ideally, peace activists and workers should team up with progressives to strengthen their position. Lakoff would probably argue that peace activists and workers are one of the groups that make up the progressive movement, while Galtung would say that Lakoffs progressive values are part of a wider vision of peace. According to this DPT, the peace discourse needs to avoid a reactionary stance to the security discourse and instead needs to put forth its own concepts and values. The question is, How can this be done? Part of the answer can be found in examining an important vector of the security discourse and strict father frame. The most obvious vector in the United States is the Department of Defense 18 . The DoD acts as an institutional, government pillar for the promotion of the security discourse and the strict father frame. Its premise is that through the use of force and violence, the United States will maintain its strength and impose its moral authority. The goal is victory and annihilation of the evil enemy. The enemy, however, is not just a foreign military, but can take a number of less tangible forms, and may even be hiding among us. Most recently the DoD has been spying on threatening American citizens such as peace activists, environmental groups and animal rights lobbyists. (Rothschild, 2005) In his farewell address, President Dwight Eisenhower warned of the dangers that a powerful military could have on American society. His presidency lasted from 1953 to 1961 and largely oversaw the expansion of the military-industrial complex 19 in the United States. While he believed the military-industrial complex was necessary for

Until 1949, the Department of Defense had a less euphemistic name and was aptly called the Department of War. The term military-industrial complex refers to the combination of the U.S. armed forces, arms industry and associated political and commercial interests.
19

18

22/92 American security, he realized that, if not kept in check, it could endanger American freedoms. Eisenhower proclaimed, This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influenceeconomic, political, even spiritualis felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. [] Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society. In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together. (Eisenhower, 1961)

In other words, Eisenhower warned against the militarization of the United States, or in his words the total economic, political and spiritual influence of the military-industrial complex. He cautioned against unwarranted influence and upheld the necessity of a knowledgeable citizenry. Unfortunately, the military-industrial complex in the United States acquired and continues to acquire unwarranted influence and, as later chapters demonstrate, the citizenry is no longer knowledgeable. The very presence of a DoD militarizes American society. Michael Geyer defines militarization as the contradictory and tense social process in which civil society organizes itself for the production of violence. (Orr, 2004) The DoD legitimizes the use of violence and adherence to an authoritarian order. In 2005, its estimated $428.9 billion budget (Office of Management and Budget, 2005) puts at its disposal a vast amount of resourcesphysical, human and intellectual. This does not even take into account the infrastructure that has been built up around the DoD which includes a variety of institutions, think tanks, university departments devoted to military and security studies, etc. Furthermore, because the DoD has an effective public relations strategy 20 , it can easily promote these views to the media for mass transmission to American society.

Not only does the DoD have a strategy for disseminating information to the public, but it has an effective feedback loop in which a Lessons Learned paper is circulated after each operation. (Axelrod, 2006) This allows the DoD to critically examine its portrayal and performance in the media and make appropriate changes to better promote their position in the future.

20

23/92 The missing pillar for the promotion of the peace discourse and nurturant parent frame is a Department of Peace. By having a DOP, this alternative view will be given institutional and government backing. The DOP will legitimize a position that stands for non-violence, empathy and cooperation. It will act as a powerful counterweight to the policies and worldviews that are promoted through the DoD. The infrastructure that will build up around the DOP and an effective communications strategy will help gain common currency for its position. Not only does the DoD inform the security discourse and strict father frame, but it also impacts media by promoting what can be termed war media and war journalism, centralized ownership of media and an information distribution dynamic of one authoritative voice to many uninformed ears. The DOP will counter this phenomenon by anchoring the peace discourse, nurturant parent frame, peace media, peace journalism, democratic ownership structure and a many-to-many information distribution dynamic. Each of these will be discussed in greater depth in the following chapters. Peace discourse (Galtung) Nurturant parent frame (Lakoff) Peace media Peace Journalism Democratic ownership structure Dynamic: Many-to-many Security discourse (Galtung) Strict father frame (Lakoff) War media War Journalism Centralized ownership structure (corporate or government) Dynamic: One-to-many Department of Defense

Some of the most effective ways to advance discourses and frames is through education, social groups and the media. This section will examine the latter. In a society as mediatized as in the United States, messages are conveyed and repeated to the public using television, radio, print (newspapers, magazines, mailings, leaflets, billboards) and the internet. Constantly, we are reminded that evil lurks through fictional and nonfictional stories; that violence is inevitable through its portrayal in movies, TV shows and the news; that we need to use strength to combat everything from laundry stains to terrorism; and that fear is what keeps us alert and poised for action, through security

Department of Peace

4. Frames, Discourses and the Media

24/92 alerts and weather forecasts. These are just a few examples of how the security discourse and strict father frame are presented and reinforced, but many more exist. Lakoff reminds us of the importance of vocabulary and concepts in perpetuating frames. He argues that the conservatives effectively monopolize the language of American politics and that is how they are able to control policies and the electorate. But he does offer some suggestions: The media does not have to accept the right wings frames. [] Reframing is everybodys job. Especially reporters. [] It is a duty of reporters not to accept this situation and simply use those right-wing frames that have come to seem natural. And it is the special duty of reporters to study framing and to learn to see through politically motivated frames, even if they have come to be accepted as everyday and commonplace. (Lakoff, 2004) In Peace Journalism, Lynch and McGoldrick (2005) argue for journalistic balance. Many news outlets hold balance and objectivity as a core value for their reporting. By reinforcing one sides frames, whether consciously or not, can result in an accumulation of patterns of omission which may compromise access to a range of views, perspectives and versions of events. (Lynch, 2006) Thus, reframing is in fact consistent with journalistic values. There is a caveat, however, in relying solely on framing. While consistent framing of an issue can have an impact on public opinion, research indicates that there are some values which remain constant despite the dominance of one frame or another in the media. Alan Kay (2000) at the Americans Talk Issues Foundation has found that there are six screens which, when entirely or mostly met, give use of military force a 80%90% public approval rating across conflicts. These six screens are: rogue leaders evidence tying them to heinous crimes non-military means exhausted military allies (to share the risk and cost) a visionary objective (e.g. turn an enemy into an ally or bring long-term peace to a region) early non-military intervention

Given these screens, it is not surprising then that American administrations repeat these themes to the public through the media to garner support for a military intervention 21 . When thinking about the war in Iraq, it is easy to think of how these screens were fulfilled: Saddam Hussein was characterized as a rogue leader with weapons of mass destruction who refused to comply peacefully with the United Nations

Administrations may not necessarily be conscious of these screens, but may stumble upon them through trial-and-error or by mimicking tactics of previous administrations.

21

25/92 and the International Atomic Energy Agency which left the United States with no choice but to intervene, with the help of the Brits, the Spaniards, the Japanese and other allies, in order to turn Iraq into a bastion of democracy in the Middle East, stabilizing the entire region. These screens essentially tap into Lakoffs strict father frame. Lynch and McGoldrick (2005) outline how these screens are staples of war propaganda, why it is necessary to decode war propaganda and how to do it 22 . When done correctly, it ensures that the public has access to a range of views and perspectives, not just the dominant government position. We should not limit reframing to journalism, but expand it to all forms of media. Frames are not just present in the news, but also in movies, TV programs, books, advertisements etc. Indeed, among the best-selling books in the United States are the Left Behind series, which for all intents and purposes are the conservative movements use of fiction to promote its world view. (Galtung, 2004) In peace studies, efforts to implement a culture of peace also incorporate the arts (high and popular), public education and awareness. While the relationship between frames and discourses and media content is relatively easy to grasp, the structures that govern media outlets should not be neglected. The economic application of the strict father / security model is centralized, profit-driven ownership either through corporations or the government. Since the signing of the 1996 Telecommunications Act, the U.S. government increasingly supports and strengthens corporations. Currently, a small number of corporations that include Time Warner, Disney, Murdoch's News Corporation, Bertelsmann of Germany, Viacom (formerly CBS) and General Electric's NBC control most of the market (MRIC, 2004). A nurturant parent / peace model of media ownership would have greater diversity of owners, including a mixture of public and private, corporate-owned and locally-owned, profit-seekers and public interest outfits. In conclusion, this chapter presented Galtungs theory of peace and security discourse as well as Lakoffs nurturant parent and strict father frame which are analogous and complementary. Then it considered the role of the Department of Defense in the consolidation and promotion of the security discourse and strict father frame. The establishment of a Department of Peace, however, will act as an institutional pillar for the peace discourse and nurturant parent frame. Galtungs and Lakoffs models shed light on media content and media structure, and their relationship to government agencies. These themes will be developed in the following chapters.

22

Peace Journalism will be discussed in greater depth in Chapters 4 and 5.

26/92 Chapter 3: Peace Media This chapter will examine the prevalence of war media, define the characteristics of peace media, and present some examples of existing peace media. For the purpose of this paper, I shall characterize media as any form of communication used to convey a message to the public. It can be print, audio, visual, electronic media or any combination of the above. This definition of media includes the arts, non-profit and commercial media. The specific case of journalism, i.e. conveying news through print, broadcast and electronic media, will be examined more closely in the following chapter. I define war media as media that support the security discourse / strict father frame paradigm, while the term peace media refers to media adhering to the peace discourse / nurturant parent frame model discussed in the previous chapter.

1. The Prevailing War Media In this paper, I refer to war media as mediaof all varietiesthat transmit, support or conform to, deliberately or not, the security discourse and strict father frame. The term war was chosen because it is the ultimate expression of this paradigm, not necessarily because it always advocates war. As stated in the previous chapter, the security discourse and strict father frame are based on the supposition that evil lurks in the world; that violence is inevitable; that those who are strong are those who win; and that fear is necessary and effective. The implications are that each has to look out for his or her own well-being and demonstrations of strength prove moral superiority. Most of the media that exist in the United States today exhibit characteristics of war media. At any given time, television channels broadcast the following items (or variations on these themes): sit-com actors who make derisive comments to get a laugh; cartoon characters that beat each other up in order to survive until the end of the episode; dramas that uphold the stereotype that rapists, abductors and serial killers prey on middleclass women; documentaries which show how only the strongest animals survive; athletes who compete to prove that only one can win; and news stories that recount endless acts of violence. A number of psychological studies demonstrate the negative impact that violent media exposure has on society. Wendy Wood (1991) and her colleagues suggest that exposure to media violence significantly enhanced viewers' aggressive behavior. In a more focused study, Richard Felson (1996) concludes that television violence can direct viewers attention to new forms of violence they had not previously considered. To corroborate this, L. Rowell Huesmann et al.s (2003) longitudinal study finds that male and female children exposed to media violence are likely to have aggressive behavior as young adults. Concurrently, in their study on violent song lyrics, Anderson, Carnagey and Eubanks (2003) suggest that such exposure leads to aggressive thoughts and behavior. In a more comprehensive study, Anderson, Berkowitz et al. (2003) conclude that Research on violent television and films, video games, and music reveals

27/92 unequivocal evidence that media violence increases the likelihood of aggressive and violent behavior in both immediate and long-term contexts. Related studies have been conducted in sociology and epidemiology. David Phillips study of the epidemiology of suicides and traffic fatalities demonstrated that for four days after a highly publicized suicide, the number of suicides and traffic fatalities significantly increased. The coverage the stories receive acts as a permission-giving advertisement, legitimizing suicide as a solution to personal problems. (Gladwell, 2002) While the link between violent media and behavior has been scientifically demonstrated, what is less clear is the impact of war media which is not physically violent, but verbally and/or psychologically abusive. That is to say, what effect does exposure to films in which certain groups are always in submissive roles or television shows in which the main characters are constantly ridiculing each other and putting each other down have on viewers? Lakoff would probably argue that it serves to transmit the strict father frame, reinforcing the neural circuitry. Galtung believes that it is a carrier of deep culture (collective subconscious) and deep structure (engrained rules and ways of thinking). The frames and discourses have significant implications for how we understand the world and how we respond to conflict. If we want to change the world we live in and how people deal with violence and conflict, then it is necessary to change the way we frame the information we provide and absorb. The extent to which conflict-sensitive media will lead to greater empathy and non-violent behavior in viewers of such media is not yet well researched scientifically, but there are already numerous examples of peace medias positive impact. Some of these cases are presented later in this chapter. 23

2. Characteristics of Peace Media Peace media include all forms of media which consciously and unconsciously transmit, support or promote the peace discourse and the nurturant parent frame. This assumes the belief that positive change is within our power; that there are alternatives to violence; that empathy is a key component of human relations; and that all are equal. It implies that people should be engaged in the world and that cooperation and dialogue can be fruitful. If peoples behavior is made more aggressive due to exposure to violent media, it follows that they would enhance empathetic behavior traits from exposure to conflict-sensitive media.

For new research on how mainstream media can have a positive impact on society, see Metta Spencers Two Aspirins and a Comedy: How Television Can Enhance Health and Society (Boulder: Paradigm Publishers, 2006).

23

28/92 Peace media can be educational, informative or entertaining. It can be audio, visual, print, and/or electronic. The format of peace media is only limited by our own creativity and includes fiction, fantasy, drama, documentary, reality TV, music (from classical to contemporary), game shows, etc. One could imagine the following peace media productions: A game show in which the goal is to have participants cooperate with each other and offer creative solutions to problems posed. A daily radio segment presenting opportunities for local activism and stories of successful conflict transformation. A soap opera which constructively addresses current social issues such as class and race relations and public health concerns. A reality TV show in which individuals from various countries live in the same house and learn about each others cultures and successfully deal with conflicts that arise in the house. A music festival in which artists celebrate with songs of peace. A fantasy book series teaching conflict transformation skills.

In order to effectively address peoples needs and engage them in dialogue, peace media must adopt the best practices established in peace education. Paolo Freires and Betty Reardons philosophies provide concrete frameworks which are adaptable to peace media. Paulo Freires model advocates problem-posing education (emphasizing dialogue and critical thinking) over banking education (depositing information). Instead of having media consumers, the emphasis should be shifted to having media participants. These themes are addressed further in the chapter on media structures. Betty Reardon speaks of three values important to peace education: planetary stewardship, global citizenship, and human relationships. She sees planetary stewardship as fostering a consciousness of personal connection to the whole world and planet. Global citizenship or cosmopolitanism places our identity as a part of the human family over our affiliation with a group or clan. Human relationships, which are part of the web of life, imply that only in connecting with other people can we fulfill our own potential (Wisler, 2005) Reardons philosophy should be supplemented with a component on personal development or cultivation of the inner self such as Ian Harris and Mary Lee Morrisons (2003) points on the pedagogy of peace education. These values include developing moral sensibility, encouraging critical thinking and enhancing self-esteem. (Wisler, 2005) The above discussion focused mostly on the peaceful and positive aspects of peace media because there is a dearth of it in the current mainstream media landscape. Peace media, however, need not focus solely on peace and love. Its intent is not to sanitize coverage by ignoring violence and war. Rather, it would frame violence not as a deterministic eventuality of conflict, but as a dire choice for dealing with conflict. Peace

29/92 media should be honest about the nature and extent of a problem while making room for non-violent conflict transformation.

3. Examples of Existing Peace Media While it may seem that war media has an overwhelming head start on peace media, it is important to recognize the successful and popular examples of peace media that already do exist in video, audio, multi-media and print formats. There are many more than the ones cited below, although they are vastly outnumbered by war media productions. In the audiovisual format, some very clear examples of peace media include productions such as the Cosby Show, Sesame Street and other Public Broadcasting System (PBS) childrens shows, and the films issued by Participant Productions (North Country, Syriana, Good Night and Good Luck, Murderball, An Inconvenient Truth and The World According to Sesame Street). Lakoff (2004) cites The Cosby Show as a key example of the nurturant parent frame. Indeed, The Cosby Show was one of the first sit-coms about an African American family in New York City. In the show, Cliff and Clair Huxtable share responsibility for raising their children and have a relationship in which they are equal partners. They teach their children to value fairness and freedom and help them fulfill their potential. Yet the show was hysterically funny and maintained a diverse audience over the eight years that it was on the air. The fact that The Cosby Show reruns still air on broadcast, cable and satellite channels demonstrates its broad popular appeal. Another example of peace media is Sesame Street and the other PBS childrens shows such as Reading Rainbow, 3-2-1 Contact, and Square One. While their aim is educational, they purport a peace education philosophy: encouraging critical thinking, analysis, dialogue, and engagement in the world. Studies of Sesame Street have demonstrated its lasting positive impact even 15 years after viewing. (Gladwell, 2002) More contemporary examples of peace media are the movies released by Participant Productions which include North Country; Syriana; Good Night, and Good Luck; Murderball; An Inconvenient Truth and The World According to Sesame Street. Jeff Skoll, Participant Productions chief executive officer, articulates the very precepts of peace media when he says, I believe that people are basically good and want to do good things, and this was a way to help them do that. [] I believe that movies and documentaries can be a wonderful pathway to change the world. (Newsome, 2005) Skolls movies address social issues in a critical way, but he takes engagement a step further. With the release of each film, the companion website, Participate.net, proposes a list of social action items from writing to legislators, to joining an advocacy group to raising awareness at home.

30/92 Rock The Vote is an issue-based initiative which uses media to effectively promote its cause. In 1990, members of the recording industry founded Rock The Vote in response to increased censorship. Over the years it has evolved to become one of the greatest mobilizers for youth participation in politics. Its success is in part due to enlisting pop celebrities to make voter registration public service announcements (PSAs) which are aired on MTV, VH-1, BET, Comedy Central and the WB. PSAs are also printed in magazines with a large youth readership such as Rolling Stone, Vibe, Seventeen, Young and Modern. A strategy that employs a variety of media including television, the internet (with the creation of a voter registration and absentee ballot request site), music concerts, and print advertisements, as well as current music celebrities has been key to Rock the Votes record of achievement. (Rock the Vote, 2005) Other examples of the music industry being socially engaged include the efforts of U2s Bono and singer-songwriter Woody Guthrie. In 2002, Bono founded DATA (Debt, AIDS, Trade, Africa) as a kind of celebrity policy institute. Bono hired Jeffrey Sachs, a prominent American economist, to teach him about international economics and trade policy and then used his pop star stature to gain access to the worlds leaders and share his vision of a more compassionate world economic system. (Traub, 2005) Nonetheless, Bono continues to remember his roots and what made him famous, so he writes songs with a political message and engages his fans in his causes. Woody Guthries approach to social engagement was more modest. His lyrics, which tell it like it is, became political songs of protest tackling issues such as Union organizing, anti-Fascism, and strengthening the Communist Party. His work influenced other popular singers famous for their social engagement: Pete Seeger, Sis Cunningham, Bob Dylan, and many more. (Arevalo, 2005) Woody Guthrie also believed in nurturing children and compiled an album titled Songs to Grow on for Mother and Child. Based on his songs, peace education lesson plans have been developed. Other examples of audio peace media include two radio projects, the Mainstream Media Project (MMP) and La Benevolencija. MMP (2006) produces a weekly syndicated radio show, A World of Possibilities, which is distributed to 550 radio stations across the United States (figures for 2003). The aim of the show is to open up the discussion on a current issue by giving a voice to those who offer alternative points of view and constructive solutions to issues within the peace discourse and nurturant parent frame. Mark Sommers, the projects director, hopes to have an impact on mainstream media by offering constructive conversation in an appealing format. (Sommers, 2005) To corroborate this, MMP has Guests on Call, a project which issues media alerts and maintains a database of experts and practitioners to be interviewed by other programs. La Benevolencija, a Dutch non-governmental organization (NGO), produces Rwandas most popular weekly radio drama, Kuki. Its aim is to help in Rwandas postgenocide reconstruction and reconciliation. The method is to use a fictional storyline and characters to enable the discussion of taboo topics and demonstrate conflict transformation skills. Scripts are carefully crafted with a team of psychologists who have researched how best to transmit messages and ensure audience retention. The NGO uses

31/92 focus groups to test for comprehension and retention of messages. (Deflander, 2005) Each episode is crafted in much the same way that Sesame Street was developed in order to teach children lasting skills in an entertaining way. While this project promotes the peace discourse / nurturant parent frame in Rwanda, a similar radio or television drama could be envisioned in the U.S. The promotion of the security discourse / strict father frame is already done in a similar manner through the Left Behind book series by Tim LaHaye and Jerry B. Jenkins. (Galtung, 2004) An example of print peace media which enjoys popularity in the United States is the collected work of Indian-born writer and philosopher Deepak Chopra. He reconciles the often competing discourses of science and religion to put forth a transcendental vision of the workings of the world in his books Synchrodestiny: Harnessing the Infinite Power of Coincidence to Create Miracles (2003) and The Book of Secrets: Unlocking the Hidden Dimensions of Your Life (2004). Costa Rican President Oscar Arias says, Spiritual health and moral responsibility are two of the most precious gifts that any leader can offer. Few thinkers have done as much as Deepak Chopra to allow millions to embrace the project of personal and social transformation. (Chopra Center, 2006) This perfectly embodies peace medias ideals of positive change and empathy.

In this chapter, the concepts of peace and war media were defined as supporting the peace discourse / nurturant parent frame and the security discourse / strict father frame. Studies on the negative impact of the prevailing war media were presented. Therapy is suggested in the form of peace media and examples were given of existing peace media. While it is important to note that there already exist popular peace media, their influence is severely limited by the overwhelming presence of war media. The DOP will play a critical role in supporting and promoting peace media. This role will be detailed in the chapters on media structures and the DOPs policy and research guidelines. But first, peace media is delved into further by looking at peace journalism and the important role it plays in promoting the peace discourse / nurturant parent frame.

32/92 Chapter 4: Peace Journalism This chapter examines the growing field of peace journalism. It begins by applying Lakoffs and Galtungs theories to journalism. While Johan Galtung, Jake Lynch and Annabel McGoldrick have developed an in-depth framework for journalists based on the peace discourse model, it is of interest to supplement it with cognitive linguistic theory. The following sections make a case for peace journalism and address the role a future DoP will have in supporting peace journalism. We will then examine other models of news analysis, specifically the work of Gadi Wolfsfeld and Edward Said. The chapter concludes with guidelines for reporters, editors and peace workers based on the precepts of peace journalism.

1. Applying Lakoff and Galtung to Journalism In previous chapters, we examined Galtungs peace and security discourse model and Lakoffs nurturant parent and strict father frame paradigm, as well as their complementarity to each other and their relevance to media. Now, these models will be applied specifically to journalism. A presentation of Lynch and McGoldricks vision of peace journalism based on Galtungs work will supplement Lakoffs work on framing. We will see how these models give journalists and the audience a fuller understanding of conflict and alternatives to violence. To recap, the security discourse and strict father frame lay their foundation on the supposition that evil lurks in the world; that violence is inevitable; that those who are strong are those who win; and that fear is necessary and effective. The implications are that each has to look out for his or her own well-being and demonstrations of strength prove moral superiority. On the other hand, the peace discourse and the nurturant parent frame assume the belief that positive change is within our power; that there are alternatives to violence; that empathy is a key component of human relations; and that all are equal. It implies that people should be engaged in the world and that cooperation and dialogue can be fruitful. Lakoff believes that it is possible to shift from the strict father frame to the nurturing parent frame through reframing. Reframing is everybodys job. Especially reporters, he writes (2004). He suggests asking questions that open up the issue and do not repeat the established frame. Lakoff also warns against the malicious use of framing: Spin is the manipulative use of a frame. Spin is used when something embarrassing has happened or has been said, and its an attempt to put an innocent frame on itthat is, to make the embarrassing occurrence sound normal or good.

33/92 Propaganda is another manipulative use of framing. Propaganda is an attempt to get the public to adopt a frame that is not true and is known not to be true, for the purpose of gaining or maintaining political control. The reframing I am suggesting is neither spin nor propaganda. Progressives need to learn to communicate using frames that they really believe, frames that express what their moral views really are. I strongly recommend against any deceptive framing. I think it is not just morally reprehensible, but also impractical, because deceptive framing usually backfires sooner or later. (2004)

Lynch and McGoldrick, however, do not conflate propaganda with adopting false frames. They cite G.S. Jowett and V. ODonnells largely accepted definition of propaganda as the deliberate and systematic attempt to shape perceptions, manipulate cognitions, and direct behaviour to achieve a response that furthers the desired intent of the propagandist. (1992) This brings propaganda much closer to framing for political purposes with the intent to mislead. Lynch and McGoldrick go on to argue, Crucially, if propaganda is not the same as lies, then reporting the facts or telling the truth will not do as a corrective. What is needed is some organized form of reflexivity, identifying cumulative patterns of omission and marginalizationand which facts, which parts of the truth, we therefore need to confirm and bring back into the central thrust of our coverage, in order to counter distortion intended to mislead. (2005) Part of what Lynch and McGoldrick advocate is reframing, but their vision is in fact larger than that. They call for critical examination and introspection of the journalism industry. So it is not enough to promote an alternative frame in the hope that it will supercede the current dominant one. Rather, the onus is on the journalist and the editor to adhere to journalisms code of ethics which, in the liberal theory of press freedom, calls for balance in reporting. Ensuring balance requires not only committing to reporting the news agenda, but also looking at what does not make it on the agenda, and being alert to the fact that this omission, especially when looking at the cumulative effect, does not contribute to a distortive or marginalizing pattern. The distinction is that Lakoff holds the propagandistor group seeking to access the mediaresponsible, whereas Lynch and McGoldrick focus on those producing media. Their articulate and pragmatic philosophy of peace journalism rests on a foundation developed by Galtung. It is important to note that Galtung, Lynch and McGoldrick perceive that news is currently skewed in favor frames that support war and violence and that peace journalism is a way to redress that imbalance. Galtung offers some concrete points for reframing in his vision of peace journalism and war journalism. They are outlined in the following table (Lynch, 2005). These terms will be further explicated in Chapter 5, identifying examples of each point within recent coverage of the war in Iraq.

34/92 PEACE/CONFLICT JOURNALISM I. PEACE/CONFLICT ORIENTATED - Explore conflict formation, x parties, y goals, z issues - General win, win orientation - Open space, open time; causes and outcomes anywhere, also in history/culture - Making conflicts transparent - Giving voice to all parties; empathy, understanding - See conflict/war as problem, focus on conflict creativity - Humanisation of all sides; more so the worse the weapon - Proactive: prevention before any violence/war occurs - Focus on invisible effects of violence (trauma and glory, damage to structure/ culture) II. TRUTH ORIENTATED - Expose untruths on all sides / uncover all cover-ups III. PEOPLE ORIENTATED - Focus on suffering all over; on women, aged, children, giving voice to voiceless - Give name to all evil-doers - Focus on people peace-makers IV. SOLUTION ORIENTATED - Peace = non-violence + creativity - Highlight peace initiatives, also to prevent more war - Focus on structure, culture, the peaceful society - Aftermath: resolution, reconstruction, reconciliation WAR/VIOLENCE JOURNALISM I. WAR/VIOLENCE ORIENTATED - Focus on conflict arena, 2 parties, 1 goal (win) war - General zero-sum orientation - Closed space, closed time; causes and exits in arena, who threw the first stone - Making wars opaque/secret - Us-them journalism, propaganda, voice for us - See them as the problem, focus on who prevails in war - Dehumanisation of them; more so the worse the weapon - Reactive: waiting for violence before reporting - Focus only on visible effect of violence (killed, wounded and material damage) II. PROPAGANDA ORIENTATED - Expose their untruths / help our cover-ups/lies III. ELITE ORIENTATED - Focus on our suffering; on able-bodied elite males, being their mouth-piece - Give name to their evil-doers - Focus on elite peace-makers IV. VICTORY ORIENTATED - Peace = victory + ceasefire - Conceal peace initiative, before victory is at hand - Focus on treaty, institution, the controlled society - Leaving for another war, return if the old flares up again

Essentially, Galtung is calling for journalists that cover conflict to use conflict analysis skills. Just as the health journalist has some specialized knowledge of medicine and medical issues in order to better write stories, journalists covering war, violence and conflict should know how to analyze a conflict properly. His analogy of the current state of conflict coverage to health coverage is that it would be like having the health pages of the newspaper only report discoveries of new diseases and continuously recount lethal epidemics while ignoring stories of breakthroughs in medical cures and proven public health recommendations.

35/92 2. The Case for Peace Journalism There are several strong arguments supporting the case for peace journalism, from dealing with journalisms actual function, to ideals that journalism should support. Arguments that relate to the former include that peace journalism more accurately reflects what is happening in the world, it provides greater context for stories and it calls for increased critical awareness on behalf of journalists and editors. The greatest argument pertaining to the ideals of journalism is that peace journalism opens up much needed space for non-violent solutions to conflicts. (Lynch, 2005) Peace journalism more accurately reflects the state of the world. Most normal daily interactions take place without resorting to violence. For most people, most of the time, direct violence is in fact quite marginal to their daily lives. From watching the evening news or reading the paper, however, we get quite a different impression: there are terrorists lurking, sex-offenders preying and politicians (or celebrities) deciding the fate of the world. While these are certainly matters of concern, there are many untold stories, like the successful re-integration of former convicts into society, the effects of structural violence (poverty, malnutrition) in our own communities, and the engagement of ordinary citizens to change the situation. Omitting or marginalizing such stories in the systematic way that current journalism conventions dictate grossly misrepresents what is actually happening in the world. Contextualizing stories ought to be standard practice in journalism, however it tends to be the exception rather than the norm. Peace journalism calls for reporters to do what they ought to be doing in any event and gives tools for contextualizing conflicts. With a few simple skills learned from conflict analysis, reporters and editors can better address conflict in their stories. Distinguishing between conflict 24 and violence 25 , identifying all parties to a conflict and searching for root causes of conflict all help contextualize the story. Peace journalism also calls on reporters and editors to be more critically self-aware. Some of this is fulfilled through the emergence of the media beat in major newspapers and radio news programs (On the Media, 2006), but the beat tends to be reactive rather than pro-active. In the highly media-saturated society of the U.S., it is nave to believe that the world goes about its business as usual and the media simply report on it. Most organizations and companies have a media-relations office, public figures hire speech writers, and events are staged in order to obtain media coverage. Press conferences are given and press releases written to tell the media what to say and qualitative impressions lead me to believe that journalists do little to get more information aside from what is spoon-fed to them 26 . This can be particularly dangerous when we realize that the DoD
24

Conflict is a situation in which two or more parties perceive they have incompatible goals. Violence is the use of (physical, psychological, political, military) force to achieve an end. Part of the reason for this being that news rooms tend to be understaffed and all deadlines urgent.

25

26

36/92 has a dynamic Public Affairs Office which is constantly monitoring coverage of the DoD in the media and issues Lessons Learned to personnel after each major incident. (Axelrod, 2006) What this means is that the DoD has an effective feedback loop so that it can influence its coverage in the media. To my knowledge, no major U.S. news organization has such a feedback system to analyze and learn from errors it has made in covering military matters, be it falling prey to propaganda or misinformation, or inaccurate reporting of certain incidents. Peace journalism asks journalists to take responsibility for their reporting and understand the dynamics of an information economy. There is also an argument for peace journalism based on an ideal vision of journalism: that it should give space for alternatives to war and violent interventions. Lynch and McGoldrick write: Peace Journalism entails picking up on suggestions for non-violent responses from whatever quarter, and remitting them into the public sphere. There is never, in any conflict, any shortage of them. In the words of distinguished peace researcher John Paul Lederach: I have not experienced any situation of conflict, no matter how protracted or severe, from Central America to the Philippines to the Horn of Africa, where there have not been people who had a vision for peace, emerging often from their own experience of pain. Far too often, however, these same people are overlooked and disempowered either because they do not represent official power, whether on the side of the government or the various militias, or because they are written off as biased and too personally affected by the conflict. It means their omission or marginalization in representations of conflictperhaps the most noticeable characteristic of War Journalismis a serious and systemic factual inaccuracy. (2005) One group that is already working on this issue in the United States is the Mainstream Media Project 27 . Their aim is to produce radio programs which give a voice to these generally marginalized proposals and get them heard on mainstream stations. They also maintain a list of speakers, Guests on Call, who have such visions of peace and help set up interviews with them on mainstream programs. It is a step in the right direction that such a program exists, but there is still a serious lack of this type of coverage in most media in the U.S. and it would be a tremendous improvement for media and society if there were more such programs and if they reached an even broader spectrum.

27

More information at http://mainstream-media.net.

37/92 3. The Role of the DOP in Supporting Peace Journalism While much of the work to implement peace journalism needs to be done within news organizations by reporters and editors, there are some important ways in which the Department of Peace can support such a shift. The DOP can do this by voicing an official government position for peace, acting as a clearinghouse for peace organizations and peace activities 28 , promoting efforts that work towards peace journalism and helping develop a critical awareness of the media. Perhaps the greatest way that the DOP can support peace journalism is simply through its existence. Its presence would legitimize and institutionalize peace. One of the reasons that war journalism is so prevalent is because of the existence and clout of the Department of Defense and the military-industrial complex. The DoD is not only effective in conveying the military point of view to the press, but it also contributes tremendously to the militarization of society at all levels. Mainstream media thoroughly covers the military angle. Most major news organizations have at least one reporter assigned to the military beat. The DoD regularly calls press conferences to feed information to journalists. By convention, the news agenda is set by official source and the DoD is an official source with a lot of clout and a battery of experts to back it up. Part of the reason the peace position has such difficulty getting coverage in the press is because there is not an institutional voice to present it. A DOP will act as an official source putting the peace discourse on the agenda. To be a successful counterweight to the DoD, the DOP will need a well-run communications office capable of explaining the peace position to the press and constantly supplying the press with information. This would take the form of press conferences and media advisories, as well as maintaining a list of speakers who media outlets could invite to present on their shows. 29 Chapter 8 will discuss workings of the DOPs Communications Office in greater depth. As an official government institution, the DOP will be a clearinghouse or umbrella for peace organizations and peace activities nation-wide. It will maintain a database of groups throughout the country who do peace work. Regular updates will be given on the overall work these organizations accomplish with spotlights on smaller organizations which do not have the resources for a media campaign. Ideally, the DOP will present a nurturant parent framework with which a variety of organizations will be able to identify and coalesce all their messages into an over-arching presentation which will be picked up easily by the media. This will require constant contact and collaboration with peace workers across the United States and around the world.

28

A similar project has already begun with the Peace Alliance Foundations Peace Registry http://www.peacealliancefound.org/content/blogsection/28/92/.
29

This can be done in collaboration with the Mainstream Media Projects Guest on Call mentioned above.

38/92 The DOP will act as an agenda setter. This means pitching certain stories to the media or raising awareness about neglected issues. The DOP can generate a list of stories it feels lack coverage in the mainstream media and set the agenda by discussing those issues. Several organizations including Project Censoreds Top 25 Censored Stories, Mdecins Sans Frontires Top 10 Most Underreported Humanitarian Stories and the United Nations 10 Stories the World Should Hear More About already enumerate lists annually. Generating such lists, however, does not ensure that the stories will receive coverage. The issues need to be discussed, contextualized and demonstrated as newsworthy to reporters and editors. Collaboration amongst these organizations and knowledge sharing about successful media placements will help them all place their issues on the media agenda. Not only can the DOP promote more peace content in the media, but it can also promote more sensibility on the part of the viewers. The DOP can play a role in developing critical awareness of the media, their biases and modus operandi. Firstly, the DOP can work with news organizations to implement the reflexive skills of peace journalism. It can also work with the Education Department to develop curricula on critical analysis of the media for high school and university students. Other venues for such modules include adult education classes, professional training sessions, and educational radio and television programs. 30

4. Other Models of News Analysis The Peace Journalism model developed by Johan Galtung, Jake Lynch and Annabel McGoldrick has been the center of this chapter. There are, however, other models of news analysis and critiques of journalism. Gadi Wolfsfeld and Edward Said put forth some of the most widely read critiques, however neither one provides a framework that is as comprehensive as Galtung, Lynch and McGoldricks model. Gadi Wolfsfeld has had a long career in media analysis. Until recently, most of his work has focused on analyzing conflict and violence in the media. In his most recent volume, Media and the Path to Peace (2004), Wolfsfeld uses content analysis and indepth interviews to support his theory that in order for there to be reporting about peace, there has to be a broad level of consensus on peace from the political leadership. His case studies are coverage of various stages of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the Good Friday Agreement in Northern Ireland. His theory, however, is limited by his (lack of) expertise in conflict analysis and peace. Furthermore, influence on the media which he attributes to the political leadership could also be the result of various social and cultural attributes, education of journalists and media workers and varying degrees of reflection and introspection on the part of the media. The conflicts in Israel-Palestine and

Chapter 7 will cover further suggestions on the DOPs policy and research agenda pertaining to media and Chapter 8 will present an outline for the DOPs Communications Office.

30

39/92 in Northern Ireland also have too many differences to successfully prove Wolfsfelds theory. Instead, a more similar case study to Israel-Palestine is the Sri Lankan conflict, whereas Northern Ireland could be compared to the Basque movement in Spain. Finally, Wolfsfelds deterministic vision of conflict, politics and the media limit his creativity in offering solutions. Edward Said is most famous for having developed a critique of Orientalism 31 in which he argues that Arab Islam is objectified in the media and subservient to Western civilization. His work is often centered on text analysis supporting his theory. In Covering Islam (1981), Said laments the portrayal of Islam in the American media. He sees it not as objective, but as objectifying, racy and racist. Furthermore, he questions the use of so-called impartial experts that newspapers and television stations use to enhance discussions of current events by effectively arguing that they are neither impartial nor experts. While his discussion focuses on Islam, certainly it raises relevant questions and concerns that are relevant to the portrayal of the otherArab, Muslim, or otherwise in American media. Said makes two points which are applicable to peace journalism: first, the position and bias of the writer needs to be taken into account and second, he sheds light on the forms that us-them reporting and dehumanization of them take. While these models are important in media studies, they lack in the fundamentals of peace studies. Wolfsfeld and Said do not have an understanding of the dynamics of conflict which therefore limits their vision of what journalism can and should do to improve the situations of which they are so critical. This vision can be found in Galtung, Lynch and McGoldricks conception of peace journalism.

5. Guidelines for Reporters and Editors Ross Howard, at the Institute for Media, Policy and Civil Society in Canada has developed a handbook entitled Conflict Sensitive Journalism which is based on the precepts of peace journalism put forth by Galtung, Lynch and McGoldrick. In it, he offers guidelines for reporters and editors on some key points of peace journalism: Avoid reporting a conflict as consisting of two opposing sides. Avoid defining the conflict by always quoting the leaders who make familiar demands. Avoid only reporting what divides the sides in conflict. Avoid always focusing on the suffering and fear of only one side. Avoid emotional and imprecise words. Avoid making an opinion into a fact. Avoid waiting for leaders on one side to offer solutions.

31

Cf. Said, Edward. Orientalism. New York: Pantheon Books, 1978.

40/92

As journalists, our most powerful tools are the words we use. And the pictures and sounds. We can use our tools to build understanding instead of fears and myths. (2004)

Howards list is a commendable beginning. To it, I add: Seek out peace proposals, even if they do not come from official sources. Give a voice to the voiceless. Be aware of your own and your organizations biases. Strive for accuracy and correct previous errors. Learn from your mistakes.

6. Guidelines for Peace Groups Those who would like to see the peace discourse and nurturant parent frame more present in the media should not leave everything up to journalists; they must be proactive if they are to get their voice heard. Here are a few suggestions: Cultivate contacts with your local journalists. Know which ones are assigned to the beat that concerns you or your group. Learn how to write effective press releases and hold successful press conferences. Collaborate with other peace groups to show that you are a part of a larger movement. Be consistent in your messages. Try to repeat the same vocabulary and concepts so that they have a better chance of sinking into the audience.

This chapter focused on peace journalism. It began by applying the strict fathernurturant parent paradigm and the security-peace discourse to journalism and then demonstrated how these concepts provide some useful tools for improving journalism. Peace journalism provides the most comprehensive framework which ought to be used as the basis for this improvement. While Wolfsfeld and Said put forth widely read models of news analysis, neither of them provides solutions which are as complete as the peace journalism model. The peace journalism framework is accessible to the Department of Peace, reporters, editors and peace groups. Now, we turn to an in-depth analysis of American coverage of the War in Iraq to better understand the differences between peace journalism and war journalism.

41/92 Chapter 5: Case Study: Coverage of the War in Iraq This chapter will examine Galtung, Lynch and McGoldricks vision of peace journalism 32 in close detail, using American coverage of the war in Iraq to demonstrate the failings of war journalism and the purpose of conflict analysis in peace journalism. In order to better understand what conflict analysis is, let us examine the most recent American invasion of Iraq. We will look at how war journalism reported it and how it could have been understood differentlyand more accuratelythrough the lens of peace journalism using the tools of conflict analysis. We will do this by systematically analyzing each of the items in Galtungs table describing the two types of journalism (see page 34 in Chapter 4). Examples come from various American media including The New York Times, National Public Radio (NPR), Newsweek, and other print media available on the internet. Because television broadcasts are not easily accessible or searchable for logistical reasons, they were not consulted for this study. This analysis will demonstrate that peace journalism is not only compatible with journalists code of ethics, but in fact better suited to ensure fair, unbiased, accurate, honest and respectful coverage (Drake, 2006). NPRs News Code of Ethics and Practices (Drake, 2006) defines the terms in the following way: Our coverage must be fair, unbiased, accurate, complete and honest. As NPR journalists, we are expected to conduct ourselves in a manner that leaves no question about our independence and fairness. We must treat the people we cover and our listeners with respect. 1. Fairness means that we present all important views on a subject and treat them even-handedly. [] 2. Unbiased means that we separate our personal opinions such as an individual's religious beliefs or political ideology from the subjects we are covering. We do not approach any coverage with overt or hidden agendas. 3. Accuracy means that each day we make rigorous efforts at all levels of the newsgathering and programming process to ensure our facts are not only right but also presented in the correct context. [] 4. Honesty means we do not deceive the people or institutions we cover about our identity or intentions, and we do not deceive our listeners. [] 5. Treating the people we cover and our listeners with respect means we recognize the diversity of the country and world on which we report, and the diversity of interests, attitudes and experiences of our audience. While NPR may profess these values, and other news organizations, including The New York Times, offer similar guidelines to their journalists and editors, the dominant paradigm remains war journalism. The following comparison will show how peace journalism effectively produces fair, unbiased, accurate, honest and respectful reporting.

32

For a presentation of peace journalism and war journalism, see Chapter 4.

42/92 1. War & Violence Orientated Peace & Conflict Orientated War Journalism (WJ): Focus on conflict arena, 2 parties, 1 goal (win) war. The conflict was portrayed as the United States versus Iraq, more precisely, George W. Bush versus Saddam Hussein. This is epitomized by Newsweeks cover on September 30, 2002 with portraits of Hussein and Bush and between the two the headline Who Will Win? It presumes that the only two actors are Bush and Hussein and they both have the same incompatible goal: to win the war. 33 (Lynch, 2005) Peace Journalism (PJ): Explore conflict formation, x parties, y goals, z issues. This view assumes a wider perspective on the conflict, looking not only at Bush and Hussein, but also the various persons and groups within their governments and states, political and military allies, the military-industrial complex, the Kurdish minority in Iraq, United Nations weapons inspectors, French and German heads of state, protestors opposed to the invasion PJ also examines each of the parties goals and issues. For Bush an analysis would question if his goal was really to deflect the threat posed by weapons of mass destruction, or if it had something to do with securing oil for the American way of life, landing big contracts for his friends, or perhaps finishing what his father started. Issues Bush was facing included decreased popularity, a lagging economy and arguably a psychosis of fear induced by September 11, 2001. Husseins goals included retaining control over Iraq and its oil reserves, saving face and maintaining his honor. His issues included a belief that he was dealing with rational U.S. actors and his disbelief that the U.S. was actually targeting Iraq. PJ would then go on to examine other parties, their goals and issues, and do so in a way that lends credibility and legitimacy to each. Although the French and German positions against the American invasion of Iraq were ridiculed and/or downplayed in most mainstream coverage, PJ would have legitimized these concerns. It is a fundamental tenet that conflict transformation assumes that each party has at least one legitimate goal. To be clear, while PJ would cover opposition to the invasion of Iraq, it would not lend its support to defenders of the status quo in the Middle East. (Kaldor, 2003) It would examine the context in which the Iraq invasion is taking place and identify non-violent measures that could open up the [Baathist] regime and provide leverage for courageous opposition groups. (Kaldor, 2003) WJ: General zero-sum orientation. This is the belief that only one party can win and that both parties aim to win. This view is based on classical international relations game theory 34 . The outcomes are limited to: 1. Bush wins, Saddam loses; 2. Saddam wins, Bush loses. The zero-sum orientation is corroborated by the Newsweek cover and headline cited above.

Note: This cover was printed before the U.S. invasion of Iraq, but it implies that war is inevitable and that anyone who avoids the war or offers alternatives is a loser, or even a coward. Cf. Kenneth Waltz Man, the State, and War: A Theoretical Analysis (New York: Columbia University Press, 1959) and Nicholas Wheeler and Ken Booth, The Security Dilemma, in Baylis & Rengger, eds. Dilemmas of World Politics (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992).
34

33

43/92 PJ: General win, win orientation. This orientation considers that if the parties work together they can enhance both their positions. Regarding oil, one possibility would be for Iraq to give the U.S. full access to its reserves, ensuring the American supply and allowing Iraq to maintain control over it, even making a profit from the sales. This proposal was actually suggested by Hussein prior to the invasion, but was paid no heed. (Risen, 2003) WJ: Closed space, closed time; causes and exits in arena, who threw the first stone. This type of coverage was especially evident when the U.S. administration started beating on the war drums. On September 12, 2002, George W. Bush addressed the United Nations General Assembly in an effort to convince fellow heads of state that Iraq posed a threat to world security. (Miller and Gordon, 2002) Little mention was made of previous U.S.-Iraq entanglements or the U.S. role in the military build-up of Saddam Husseins regime as an ally against its then-enemy Iran. Coverage only delved into the past to demonstrate the links between Iraq and Al Qaeda. The invasion was portrayed as the only possible course which could be taken as a result of Iraqs supposed weapons program. PJ: Open space, open time; causes and outcomes anywhere, also in history/culture. Journalists could have considered alternatives to the invasion, examined proposals put forth by Iraq, France, Germany and the United Nations, considered what the likely outcomes would be of an invasion, etc. Conflict-sensitive journalists would have also looked at the U.S. policy in Iraq since the 1991 Gulf War and considered the impact that bombing sustained for over a decade (mostly under Clinton) had on the Iraqi people. WJ: Making wars opaque/secret. This point is probably the most closely related to how journalists act as an extension of the Department of Defense by parroting official statements and adhering to the news agenda set by the DoDs Public Affairs Office. The real reasons for the U.S. invasion of Iraq were kept secret, and most reporters bought the official weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and regime change arguments. (Boot, 2003) The extent to which there were cover-ups and secrecy has become clearer in recent months with evidence that relevant intelligence information had been kept from Congress and the American people, that there was a deliberate misinformation campaign, that the Iraq-Al Qaeda link was fabricated, that Iraq did not actually acquire nor attempt to acquire uranium from Niger and that the current administration dismisses all uncomfortable questions by stating that information cannot be disclosed for national security reasons. In October 2001, the White House announced that its official policy was to keep all war-related information secret. (Bumiller, 2001) PJ: Making conflicts transparent. While the DoD must certainly have legitimate reasons for keeping some information top secret, it is also the publics right to know how their tax dollars are being spent. It is the job of journalists to insist the government address citizens concerns. This policy may seem counter-intuitive to the classic international relations approach in which conflicts are viewed as a high-level poker game, with each player hiding his cards and anteing, raising the stakes and bluffing based on assumptions about the others strategy and psychology. In contrast, the school of conflict

44/92 transformation tries to foster as much communication and dialogue as possible amongst the parties. Galtung, however, is particularly careful to not bring the parties together too soon. Rather, he begins by working with each party individually so that she can fully understand what her needs and position are in the conflict. This can be understood as each party making the conflict transparent for herself. Journalists in the U.S. should engage in some introspection on behalf of the public and the government to foster a discussion about what really are the U.S.s needs and what is the best way to meet them. Another aspect of making conflicts transparent is revealing the underlying causes; in this case, journalists should have more rigorously questioned the WMD premise and insisted more on the desire to control foreign oil reserves. WJ: Us-them journalism, propaganda, voice for us. This is perhaps most easily seen in journalists covering the military beat. It comes out clearly when we see that the number of U.S. soldiers is meticulously counted and reported, whereas the number of Iraqi dead is very much based on guesswork. Furthermore there is a certain sloppiness in distinguishing between Iraqi civilians, soldiers and freedom fighters. It is as if it did not really matter who was killed since they are just Iraqis. Road-side Blasts Kill U.S. GI, 11 Iraqis (AP, 2006) offers typical coverage: bombings [] killed a U.S. soldier and at least 11 Iraqis. The story goes on to offer some details about the soldier, but makes no attempt to discuss the Iraqi victims. When discussing the total number of dead, the Associated Press (AP) writes the number of U.S. personnel killed in Iraq [is] at least 2,273, whereas Scores of Iraqis have been killed and wounded. The AP can offer an estimate to the unit for American deaths, but cannot offer an estimate even to the tens of thousands for Iraqi deaths. For reference, on the day the article appeared (February 18, 2006), IraqBodyCount.org estimated the number of Iraqi civilians killed by the military intervention between 28,427 and 32,041 35 . PJ: Giving voice to all parties; empathy, understanding. This precept of peace journalism already exists to an extent in so-called human-interest pieces, for example looking at the effects of war on the life of a particular Baghdadi family or delving into the role of the Kurdish minority. While most attempts are earnest, there is a danger of these pieces having an Orientalist tone with the reporter deliberately picking the most exotic stories because they are the most provocative and then treating the interviewees as subjects, or even objects, to be studied and observed. Genuine empathy and curiosity open up many more windows through which these voices can be heard. Journalists who write this kind of story would greatly benefit from Marshall Rosenbergs techniques in non-violent communication. 36 WJ: See them as the problem, focus on who prevails in war. This was especially evident around the time that Secretary of State Collin Powell made his presentation at the United Nations on Iraqs WMD program and argued for a U.S. invasion. Blame was

35

More information at www.iraqbodycount.org For more information, visit the Center for Non-Violent Communication: www.cnvc.org

36

45/92 squarely placed by the administrationand supported by the American presson the Iraqi government. Patriotic journalism was crammed with estimates on how long it would take for American troops to prevail and bring order and justice to the world. Stories on the U.S.s military tactics for toppling Saddam Hussein appeared as early as April 2002, nearly a year before the American invasion actually took place. (Shanker and Sanger, 2002) By offering such coverage, especially so early prior to the actual military intervention in effect acts as publicity for the military point of view. Such coverage legitimizes it and reinforces it, making war seem logical and inevitable. PJ: See conflict/war as problem, focus on conflict creativity. In the lead up to the Iraq invasion there was a distinct lack of coverage in the mainstream media of the antiwar protests that took place world-wide. The February 15, 2003, anti-war protests were the largest ones ever on record with estimates varying from eight to thirty million protestors world-wide. Such a huge event received relatively little coverage, particularly in the U.S. Furthermore, there was little coverage of the protesters point of view and their arguments against this specific war and war in general. A search in The New York Times archive for the terms protest and Iraq for the month of February 2003 yielded six stories covering the national protests on February 15, 2003, six covering the protests abroad, and one story giving both the domestic and international perspective. All these stories appeared on February 16, 2003. There were no other stories for the rest of the month that focused on the protests aside from some passing comments about how they did not impact Bushs decision to invade Iraq. As soon as the memory of the protests faded, the peace view was rarely solicited. While there was some coverage of the protests, unfortunately, journalists did not solicit any concrete solutions for how to deal with the conflict. The irony of this is that The New York Times gave a great boost to the anti-war movement by stating, The fracturing of the Western alliance over Iraq and the huge antiwar demonstrations around the world this weekend are reminders that there may still be two superpowers on the planet: the United States and world public opinion. (Tyler, 2003) The New York Times however, did not deign to give world public opinion and especially the anti-war movement the coverage that befits a superpower. WJ: Dehumanization of them; more so the worse the weapon. Consistently, Iraqis are given the epithet insurgent, terrorist or enemy. Ross Howard believes these terms are emotional and such words take sides, make the other side seem impossible to negotiate with. (2004) While most journalists would not question the use of the term terrorist, some consideration of the term and its connotations sheds light on how demonizing and dehumanizing the term is. Lynch and McGoldrick point out that the definition of terrorist could also apply to actions undertaken by organizations such as NATO. Since that application of the term in that context would not be generally acceptable, they recommend not using the term at all. (2005) PJ: Humanization of all sides; more so the worse the weapon. This was done to a certain extent when the U.S. militarys use of white phosphorus in Fallujah was made public. Stories, however, tended to center more on the use of white phosphorus and the

46/92 controversy within the military rather than on the Iraqi suffering 37 . Similar coverage existed with the Abu Ghraib torture incidents. More could be done to humanize and empathize with the victims. Another vacuum exists in coverage of U.S. veterans, with their situation largely ignored by the mainstream media. When they are mentioned, it is usually in the form of statistics counting the number of amputated limbs, post-traumatic stress disorder cases or other detrimental effects of active duty. But coverage of returning soldiers as people rather than numbers was limited, although my subjective impression is that it increased in the early months of 2006. WJ: Reactive: waiting for violence before reporting. Recent interest in Iraq only began when the war and violence were imminent. Coverage is still, in early 2006, dominated by nearly daily updates of the number of people killed or bombs detonated. Occasionally there is a report on Iraqi elections or the growth of democracy, but that frame is not reinforced as much as the war frame. PJ: Proactive: prevention before any violence/war occurs. Peace proposals and antiwar protestors could have received more serious coverage. Iraq, the United Nations, France and Germany all made proposals to prevent war and violence, but these were not given much credit by the American press. Had they considered these alternatives more seriously, perhaps the administration would have been more deliberate in its decision to invade Iraq. WJ: Focus only on visible effect of violence (killed, wounded and material damage). Reports on the war in Iraq count the dead, the wounded, the bombs detonated and the buildings and tanks damaged. In Galtungs terms, the focus is on direct violence. PJ: Focus on invisible effects of violence (trauma and glory, damage to structure/ culture). There is almost no coverage of structural or cultural violence. The extent of this type of reporting is on post-traumatic stress disorder of returning soldiers. Mainstream media has almost no stories on the damage done to family structures, to cultural institutions, the implications of a disrupted school education etc.

2. Propaganda Orientated Truth Orientated WJ: Expose their untruths/ help our cover-ups/ lies. Perhaps the greatest coverup of the American invasion of Iraq was the alleged connection between Iraq and AlQaeda and the WMD dossier. Allusions that Iraq supported Al-Qaeda began appearing in August 2002 (Erlanger, 2002 and Janofsky, 2002). This assertion is now considered

A open-date search in The New York Times archive for the terms Fallujah and white phosphorus yielded four news stories, two editorials and two opinion pieces. Only one story discussed the impact of white phosphorus on Iraqis, and this was done behind the shield of an Italian documentary which compared the use of white phosphorus in Iraq to napalm in Viet Nam.

37

47/92 bunk. (Jehl, 2005) The New York Times reported on September 25, 2002, that Britain had confirmed intelligence that Iraq had chemical and biological weapons. (Hoge, 2002) It turns out that this claim was based on flawed intelligence assessments. (NYT Foreign Desk, 2004) Iraqi denials of a WMD program were deemed untrue. (Sanger, 2002) PJ: Expose untruths on all sides/ uncover all cover-ups. The extent to which the administration distorted the truth becomes clearer and clearer with each passing day. Unfortunately, the information comes at a time when it is too late to avert war. Furthermore, the efforts to expose all the untruths and cover-ups are diverted by the Department of Justices whistle-blower investigations, which attempt to place blame on insiders who leaked information about the cover-ups, rather than on the administrations cover-ups. (On the Media, 2006) Only in the spring of 2006 has the media begun tackling the Bush administrations cover-ups head on as evidenced by Ray McGoverns broadly televised grilling of Donald Rumsfeld. (Hecklers Interrupt Rumsfeld Speech, 2006)

3. Elite Orientated People Orientated WJ: Focus on our suffering; on able-bodied elite males, being their mouth-piece. Embedded reporters served primarily this functionto report on the war from the point of view of the young, virile soldiers. The new tactic of the DoD to allow American reporters to experience the war with the troops on the ground made it easy for journalists to see first hand the suffering of American soldiers. While certainly they witnessed what happened to the Iraqis, because the reporters were protected and mobilized with the troops, their ties were much stronger there. PJ: Focus on suffering all over; on women, aged, children, giving voices to the voiceless. Again this is achieved to an extent with human interest pieces. Another interesting development is the attention Cindy Sheehan brings to the grief of parents who have lost their children in Iraq. While Sheehans empathy extends to grieving Iraqi parents, little has been done by the American media to cover their stories, or the countless other voiceless sufferers. A search in The New York Times archive generated no stories of Iraqi parents who lost their children in the war, but did yield one human interest piece on Baghdadi teenage girls difficulties in pursuing their education and going out alone. (Sengupta, 2004) Most of the 82 other stories that turned up in the search focused on American suffering and the loss of American parents. WJ: Give name to their evil-doers. From the beginning, Saddam Hussein was characterized as the primary evil-doer. The U.S. military even went so far to print a deck of cards with the 52 most wanted Iraqis 38 . (Van Natta, Jr. and Jehl, 2003) Some

38

Images of the complete deck are available at: http://html.wnbc.com/sh/idi/news/iraq/cards/00.html

48/92 journalists referred to captured Iraqi leaders according to their position in the deck. (Worth, 2003) PJ: Give name to all evil-doers. Any reference to the Bush administrations violation of international laws and treaties is considered either unpatriotic or fanatically liberal. The media could do much more to examine this and previous administrations record of unwarranted violence around the world. By failing to do so, violence is legitimized. In a typical story, The Roots of Abu Ghraib: A President Beyond the Law, Anthony Lewis (2004) presents the administrations case for defying domestic and international law in about 710 words and only devotes approximately 115 words to criticism of the policy. Furthermore, criticism comes in the guise of a reference to Justice Lewis Brandeis and his 75 year-old plea to lead by example. The media should be more assertive and direct in its denunciation of egregious and illegal conduct. WJ: Focus on elite peace-makers. Aside from Cindy Sheehan, the voice that has received the most coverage for withdrawing troops from Iraq has been Congressional Representative John Murthas. Only when a respected, war-veteran legislator emphatically requested withdrawal of troops was the proposition seriously entertained in the mainstream media. PJ: Focus on people peace-makers. There is limited coverage of peace groups working in the U.S. to end the war. Members of the Christian Peacemakers Team only appeared in the media when their members were kidnapped. The mainstream media mentioned nothing about other grassroots peace teams that have gone to Iraq or Iraqi organizations and individuals working for peace, such as the Muslim Peacemakers Team, Women for a Free Iraq and Iraqi Organization for the Defense of Journalists 39 . Even the alternative media is disappointingly silent in its coverage of Iraqi peace groups.

4. Victory Orientated Solution Orientated WJ: Peace = victory + ceasefire. This understanding of peace stems from a classic international relations view and the lack of journalistic training in conflict analysis. It disregards the efforts necessary before and after a ceasefire agreement is signed. Indeed, it attempts to make peace an event and give it a date. This view does not take into account basic needs on either side and therefore fails to see that the ceasefire is likely to be breached with rising frustrations. On May 2, 2003, the day following Bushs announcement that major combat was over, The New York Times Michael Gordon wrote, American forces are operating in a netherworld between war and peace. Nearly three years later, it seems that American forces will remain in limbo for quite some time. Gordons understanding of peace was quite misguided.

39

More organizations are listed on the website of the Middle East NGO Gateway (MENGOs): www.mengos.net.

49/92 PJ: Peace = non-violence + creativity. Galtungs equation for peace means that peace is not simply the absence of violence, it is actively engaging in non-violence, and doing so requires creativity. In his vision, journalists create the space for and propose non-violent solutions for conflicts. But, in order to do so, journalists need to be properly trained in conflict analysis and transformation. It begins by understanding that peace is something that needs to be worked at constantly, not just in order to negate war and violence, but to actively engage in peace. Peace is a daily matter, governing our relations with others, the choices we make and our understanding of the world. Opportunities for non-violent action abound, from consciously choosing to buy clothes which were not produced in sweat shops to withholding taxes which fund unnecessary military action. Journalists should put in as much effort to seek out and report on these alternatives as they do on violence and war. WJ: Conceal peace initiative, before victory is at hand. This relates to the WJ understanding of peace, that it only comes when there is a victory and ceasefire. Coverage of the war in Iraq is completely devoid of any mention of peace initiatives, most likely because there are not any official ones. While there have been public calls for troop withdrawal, there has been no mention of American-Iraqi reconciliation. PJ: Highlight peace initiative, also to prevent more war. PJ looks into ongoing proposals for reconciliation, transformation and reconstruction. While military correspondents plot troop movements and achievements, peace correspondents should be abreast of peace initiatives and create a space for public dialogue. By doing so, the idea is that it will prevent escalation of war and future conflicts resorting to violence. WJ: Focus on treaty, institution, the controlled society. Galtung clarifies, The classical war-based approach end[s] typically with a ceasefire agreement, possibly with a capitulation, based on the winner-loser idea. The point, then, is to control the loser's society so there is no mischief. (2006) This type of coverage can be seen in pieces after Husseins capitulation in which the American military presence in Iraq is necessary in order to bring order and democracy to Iraq. The slogan of instilling democracy has so far just been a pretext for maintaining U.S. control of Iraq for personal or economic reasons. As Lynch and McGoldrick state, The proposition that violence could lead to a genuinely democratic, orderly society warranted far closer scrutiny when it was first made. (2005) Iraqi film maker Zeinas opinion illustrates that the U.S. government, in the three years following its 2003 invasion, has yet to succeed in bringing democracy to Iraq: Democracy? What democracy? We do not have democracy. This democracy that Bush talks about - it is a completely empty structure, based on sectarian and ethnic interests. How can you have democracy when you are afraid that your life will be threatened, or your husband will be killed if you express yourself freely? It is a bad joke. (Walter, 2006) PJ: Focus on structure, culture, the peaceful society. The task of PJ is to help bring a culture of peace. Instead of justifying control of a society, it should report on initiatives that rebuild the structures and cultures of society in a peaceful way. As John Paul

50/92 Lederach states (see page 36 in Chapter 4), in all societies there are always individuals or groups with visions of peace. Grassroots organizations, womens associations and religious groups are but a few examples of those working on shifting from cultures and structures of violence to those of peace. Often their stories are remarkable and their work inspiring. WJ: Leaving for another war, return if the old flares up again. In the U.S., the war drums are already beating for an attack on Iran. It seems that the novelty of Iraq has worn off and now it is time to turn to another escalating conflict. The question is: will journalists learn from their mistakes in covering Iraq or will they fall into the same propaganda traps and blind understanding of the conflict? Of course, Iraq will not be completely forgotten, because when something goes awry in the democracy building process, particularly if violence is involved, the WJ media will shift its glare back to Iraq. PJ: Aftermath: resolution, reconstruction, reconciliation. This begins with reporting on the active work of peace building. With a better understanding of conflict, journalists would understand the importance of transformation, reconstruction and reconciliation. Peace does not come when a head of state declares the end of a war or signs a treaty. Rather it is an extensive and exciting process which should engage all levels of society in implementing a vision for their state. Reconstruction and reconciliation in themselves are rife with conflict which when properly addressed can be generative and constructive. There are many stories to be uncovered at this stage of a conflict.

This chapter compared and contrasted war journalism with peace journalism by presenting mainstream coverage of the war in Iraq and alternatives to that reporting. The responsibility for implementing peace journalism lays largely with reporters and editors. One activity the DOP can pursue is to voice the peace position to the news media and draw attention to peace groups, non-elite peacemakers, peace initiatives etc. This is not to suggest that the DOP should forceindirectly or directlynews outlets to carry the peace view. It would be counterproductive for the DOP to employ coercion or propaganda tactics to ensure that peace journalism gains ground in mainstream media coverage. The DOPs role regarding media content is limited to voicing the peace view. In terms of media structure, however, there are some policies which the DOP can pursue.

51/92 Chapter 6: Media Structures This chapter will examine the structures that govern media in the U.S. Scholars generally agree that structures influence content, so if we want to move towards a more peaceful media, it is important to make the structures more peace-oriented. The first section will apply Galtungs theory of the levels of conflict to the media. Then, we address the American vision of media as a money-making industry. After that, we look at who owns the media in the United States and the relationship between media ownership and diversity of content. Finally, the chapter concludes with some areas in which the Department of Peace (DOP) can recommend changes towards a more peaceoriented media more reflective of American ideals of democracy.

1. Levels of Media In the preface to Transcend and Transform, Galtung describes levels of conflict in the following way: micro conflicts are within and between persons, meso conflicts are within a community or a society, macro conflicts are among states and nations, and mega conflicts are among regions and civilizations. (2004a) This theory of conflict levels also applies to levels of media. As stated earlier, media are any form of communication which conveys a message to the public. Media at the micro-level are media that circulate between and among individuals, i.e. home-movies, personal letters etc., in which the author and interlocutor have an established relationship and generally circulation is limited to a pre-defined group. There is very little government interference at this level and the barriers to entry are almost nonexistent. Meso media are more commonly known as community media. They include lowpower FM radio (LPFM), local cable television stations, church or community group newsletters, and even small circulation trade or special interest publications. In 1996, then-President Bill Clinton signed into law the Telecommunications Act. As a result, according to its most vocal critics, the act effectively drove LPFM to extinction. At the meso level there is increasing government involvement, but the barriers to enter this market are still relatively low. Macro media are defined as national media. They are generally corporate, although public broadcast media such as National Public Radio (NPR) and the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) also fall into this category. Large circulation newspapers and nationally syndicated columns are further examples. Characteristically, they have a national audience and a clear distance between the author and the audience. The more common term is mass media. Over the years, they have been influenced significantly by Congressional legislation. Production at this level of media requires significant working and investment capital.

52/92 Mega media are exported macro media. The clearest example of this is the highly exported Hollywood movie industry. Mega media also extend to the corporate music industry and increasingly, with the advent of satellite television, to internationally distributed channels and shows, such as CNN, HBO and Friends. Not only has the U.S. Congress played a role in promoting and protecting mega media distribution, but so has the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). The internet is a medium that operates at all levels, from the micro-level to the megalevel. Because of its relatively short existence, there has been relatively little legislation concerning it. The most significant U.S. policy regarding the internet has been allowing the U.S. Department of Commerce to contract out domain and IP address management of the internet to the California-based ICANN (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers). This became a major issue at the World Summit on Information Society which took place in Tunisia in November 2005, as other states sought to place internet management under international control. At the time of writing, in May 2006, another important issue regarding the internet was being discussed in Congress, that of Net Neutrality. Up for vote are bills which would hand over control of the internet to corporations such as At&T and Comcast allowing them to decide what kind of access to give to various websites. Effectively, this would set up a toll system in which those who want to ensure that their websites can be accessed easily and quickly would pay a premium. Those without the resources to pay these premiums would find their websites slow to load and, perhaps even, shut down. (SaveTheInternet.com, 2006) This could prove particularly detrimental for communications at the micro- and meso-level. The following discussion will focus attention on meso-, macro- and mega-level media as that is where most government intervention takes place. Micro-level media is generally not a matter of concern to the U.S. government and by its nature has a limited impact on society. In order to advance peaceful media structures, the DOP will propose policies that focus on meso-, macro- and mega-level media as government policies affect those the most.

2. Media as Industry The prevalent vision of the media in the United States is as a profit-making industry. Owners of media companies concern themselves with earning a profit, gaining market share, and driving out the competition. This falls squarely into Galtungs security discourse: strength is necessary to defeat the others, security is assured only when others are defeated or deterred, there can only be one ruling party. An alternative vision, closer to Galtungs peace discourse and Lakoffs nurturant parent frame, is one that sees the media as a public service, a common good and a purveyor of cultures. This vision is less concerned with profits as with forging a common human bond. Elements of this exist in

53/92 Western European states, especially where public broadcasting is bound by public service obligations set within a regulatory framework, as is the case with the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) in Great Britain. Some of the tensions that exist in visions of media structure are depicted in the table below:

Media as a consumer good, a legitimate money-making business

Media as a common good, necessary for democracy and education

Protection through the 1st Amendment

Protection through Public Service Agreements

Diversify ownership

Regulate content

Each row in the above table represents positions on a spectrum. In the United States the trend has been to consolidate the media as a consumer good, protecting all types of mediagenerally regardless of contentthrough freedom of speech and appeasing complaints regarding content by suggesting more diverse ownership. An alternative attitude sees media as a common good and cultural element necessary for a vibrant democracy. This means that various media (especially media targeted at minorities) can be protected through public service agreements and can be subject to content regulation to ensure a diversity of voices and better public education. The position in the U.S. was not always so staunchly in favor of the business view. In its initial stages, the government, especially in the person of James Madison, encouraged a highly vibrant print media. The government offered subsidies through the post office so that newspapers and pamphlets could be distributed throughout the fledgling democracy at virtually no cost to the publisher or subscriber. This meant that the barriers to entry for the newspaper market in the late 18th and early 19th century in the U.S. were relatively low, ensuring a plurality of voices and views. (McChesney and Hackett, 2005) Broadcast media was initially seen as benefiting from the public good of the common airwaves. Indeed, Congress stepped in so as to regulate which radio stations, and then television stations, would broadcast on which frequency. With the advent of more sophisticated technologies, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) also allots frequencies for everything from microwaves to air-traffic control. Because the airwaves are considered a public good, the FCC deemed it within its jurisdiction to instill the Fairness Doctrine in 1949, based on the anteceding Mayflower Doctrine, to ensure that broadcast media were indeed serving the public interest. The Fairness Doctrine stated that licensees

54/92 had an obligation to afford reasonable opportunity for discussion of contrasting points of view on controversial issues of public importance. The Commission later held that stations were also obligated to actively seek out issues of importance to their community and air programming that addressed those issues. (MBC, 2006) The Fairness Doctrine was repealed by President Ronald Reagan in 1987 as part of his economic deregulation policy. There have been a number of attempts to resurrect it, most recently in Fall 2003 by conservative radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh and by Representative Maurice Hinchey (D-NY) in his Media Ownership Reform Act presented to the American Congress in July 2005 (Hinchey, 2005). Opponents of the Doctrine, spearheaded by media corporations, maintain that it is not necessary because broadcasters and journalists can be relied upon to cover independently a variety of points of view on a subject. Furthermore, with the advent of technology, opponents argue many different voices find an outlet if not on television or radio, then definitely on the internet. Somewhere, in all the collected media, all points of view are accessible. Although, if bills overturning Net Neutrality are passed (see discussion above), then access to these points of view could be limited. As discussed in previous chapters, however, the mass media does not cover all points of view. There is an overwhelming bias toward a security discourse and strict father frame. Certainly, with some effort, peace media and peace journalism can be found, and there are some examples of it in the mass media 40 . Unfortunately, these examples are few and far between. Two valid reasons for more peace discourse in the mass media are because it more accurately reflects the reality of the world and because it gives all members of society better definitions of and proposals to deal with conflict and violence. Furthermore, economically, socially and militarily, peace is less costly than violence and war. There are two major problems that plague current media structures. First, mass media is heavily biased towards consumers, and specifically big-spending consumers. With it comes the assumption that consumers demonstrate their preferences through consumption. Second, there is a lack of understanding about the extent to which mass media, by virtue of their tremendous presence in the public domain, in fact have an impact on society. The current U.S. vision of understanding media as a consumer good has as its premise that the public is entirely made up of consumers. They consume media and they consume the products advertised in the media. With advertisement becoming the largest source of revenue for all forms of media, in order to attract advertisers, media outlets increasingly construct their programs so that they have the broadest appeal to the widest number of consumers. As demonstrated by Huntemanns discussion (1999) of the consolidation of

40

See Chapters 3 and 5.

55/92 radio stations following the 1996 Telecommunications Act 41 , broadcast radio effectively sidelined any groups that are not considered high spenders. The case is demonstrated with the minority populations which traditionally do not consume as much as the white, urban population. The result has been a sharp decline in ethnic programming in favor of more stations playing top 40 hits and oldies. The consumption model, for media and other goods, assumes that consumers demonstrate their preference by consuming. But that is not always true, as McChesney argues in his interview with Hackett (2005). McChesney makes an analogy between media and national parks. He states that during his free time he would much rather go to a football game than to a national park. That does not mean, however, that he believes that national parks should be leveled and paved with football stadiums. He believes that national parks are an important national treasure and should be preserved even though he himself does not consume them. He sees it as a big enough social issue that he would be willing to pay for park preservation, even expansion, with his taxes. National parks are a public good which are so important that they should be protected by government funds, regardless of who actually makes, or does not make, use of them. An analogous argument could be made in terms of media. While I myself may never listen to Latino radio programming, I do believe that it is important for it to exist, and be protected, for others who do listen to it. That is a rather altruistic act; however, there are many more selfish rationales. Let us look at childrens educational television shows, such as Sesame Street. Currently I do not watch Sesame Street, nor do I intend to watch it in the next few years. This does not mean that I believe it should be taken off the air. At some point in the future, I may have children who I would like to watch Sesame Street for its proven educational value. (Gladwell, 2002) I would like Sesame Street to continue programming until that point, not only for the benefit of my future children, but also for the current benefit of present children. By taking educational programming off the air because it does not earn enough profit means that no one gets to watch it and the audiences choice is reduced. Leaving it on the air allows for at least some viewers; and for this type of programming I strongly feel that some viewers are better than none. The paradox of the consumption model for mass media is while it assumes tremendous potential in convincing society to consume more through ingenious marketing and advertising techniques, it ignores its social impact. It disregards the negative effect of repeated exposure to violence; it fails to recognize the impact of the security discourse / strict father frame; and it does not consider the possibility for public education and awareness. In economic terms, it does not take into account the externalities (i.e. side effects) that this drive for consumption will have on society.

Title II, Section 202(a) of the 1996 Telecommunications Act eliminates any provisions limiting the number of AM or FM broadcast stations which may be owned or controlled by one entity nationally. Section 202(b) increases the number of stations which may be owned locally.

41

56/92 The view of media as a common good and part of public culture is more present in Western Europe. This allows for greater government intervention in the media, in terms of structures, content, and financial support, limiting the influence of corporations and advertising dollars. Throughout Western Europe, there exist public broadcasters which are profit-making corporations, but they are bound by public service obligations. Generally, they make an effort to address issues of public concern. European governments also reserve for themselves the right to set regulations on content and believe it is their duty to keep a watchful eye on the media. In 2002, the French Ministry of Culture and Communication prepared a report on television violence (Kriegel, 2002). It resulted in broadcasters having to display a symbol indicating the violence content on all their shows. Lynch (2006) argues that government regulation has been an effective tool throughout Europe and other parts of the world to ensure more peace-oriented and public-interest coverage in the mass media. To be clear, in the United States, government regulation of media should take place only to increase the diversity of voices in the media and to ensure that personal and corporate responsibility accompany the exercise of these rights. The government should under no circumstances have the power to decide that some media outlets are a public good and deserve government protection while other media outlets are not a public good. The policy should be to encourage diversity of voices, rather than censorship. By ensuring a broad set of views, the government effectively gives the public greater choice and liberty in its media intake.

3. Does Ownership Influence Content? In media studies, there is an agreement that media ownership has an impact on media content, but the extent of the impact is not clear. The consensus is that there is not a direct relationship between ownership and content. Rather there are many factors that influence content, ownership being only one of them. That being said, media scholars continue to wrestle with the question. Jake Lynch (2005, 2006) argues that there is no direct correlation, and that sometimes content is counterproductive to the owners interests, as was the case with coverage of the war in Iraq. Nina Huntemann, on the other hand, states that conglomeration of radio ownership in the U.S. has directly led to the homogenization of content to favor majority groups. Six major corporations own most of the media in the United States. These corporations are the News Corporation, General Electric, Viacom, Time Warner, Disney, and Bertelsmann. The following table outlines their revenue and holdings.

57/92

Company

Revenue in 2003

Holdings FOX Network, DirecTV, 34 TV stations, National Geographic Channel, FX, 20th Century Fox, the New York Post, Harper Collins Publishers, Regan Books, and sports teams. NBC, Telemundo, Universal Pictures, Universal Parks & Resorts, CNBC, Bravo, MSNBC, and vast holdings in numerous other business sectors. GE/NBC recently acquired Universal Pictures, Sci-Fi Channel, and USA Network from Vivendi. CBS and UPN networks, over 35 TV stations, MTV, Showtime, Nickelodeon, BET, Paramount Pictures, Blockbuster Video, over 175 radio stations, Simon & Schuster, and vast billboard holdings. Warner Bros, AOL, CNN, HBO, Time Warner Cable, Turner (TNT, TBS), Cartoon Network, New Line Cinema, Castle Rock Entertainment, Atlantic Recordings, Elektra/Sire, Rhino, TimeLife Books, DC Comics, Fortune, Sports Illustrated, People, Time Magazine, and Netscape Communications. ABC, Disney Channel, ESPN, A&E, History Channel, E!, Buena Vista, Touchstone Pictures, 10 TV stations, 60+ radio stations, ESPN Radio, Miramax Films, Hyperion Books, and theme parks. 11 TV networks, Random House Publishing (including Alfred A. Knopf, Ballantine, Doubleday, among many others), BMG Music, Arista Records and RCA Records.

News Corporation

$ 17.5 billion

General Electric

$ 134.2 billion

Viacom

$ 26.6 billion

Time Warner

$ 39.6 billion

Disney

$ 28.4 billion

Bertelsmann

$ 19.8 billion

(Who Owns the Media?, 2006) In Peace Journalism, Lynch and McGoldrick discuss some of the structures that influence news content. They argue that ownership is not the only source of influence and that there are many structures at work, including political, socio-economic and cultural ones. Conventions of journalism, namely objectivity, the liberal theory of press freedom, the gatekeeper theory and the propaganda model all contribute to what is considered news and how it gets reported. When asked directly about ownership, Lynch (2006) responds by citing a study conducted by Justin Lewis, deputy head of Cardiff Universitys School of Journalism. Lewis survey (2003) looked at coverage of the Iraq

58/92 War by four British broadcast stations, the BBC, Sky, ITN and Channel 4. Lynch argues that the BBC, being a public service station, and therefore most compelled to serve the public interest, should be the station to offer the greatest range of views on the Iraq war. According to Lewis study however, BBC, of all these channels, was in fact the most likely to support the government position and was the least anti-war. As a result, to influence content, Lynch argues for government regulation based on already established standards in journalism, rather than for diversifying media ownership. Huntemann, on the other hand, argues that ownership directly influences content. In Corporate Interference (1999), she examines the case in the United States of the consolidation of corporate radio stations after the 1996 Telecommunications Act. New rules in the Telecommunications Act have effectively created a market in which most of the radio stations through out the United States are owned by one of six major corporations. This oligopoly has had detrimental effects on minority programming, which has significantly decreased, because it is not considered an important source of advertising revenue. She further notes, The result of syndicated programming and corporate-developed playlists is a marked decrease in airplay for local talent and community tastes. Huntemann concludes that media controlled by Big Business can be even more oppressive than media controlled by Big Brother and believes that those who uphold democratic ideals need to address the issue of media ownership in the United States urgently. Both positions offer valid points which are not mutually exclusive. Lynch provides the broader context in which the media operates and in which media content is generated. Huntemann brings to light the current American problem of media oligopoly. In order to promote more peace-oriented media in the U.S., a solution would have to take both of these into account.

4. Opportunities for Change There are many opportunities in which the DOP can act to change the structure of the media. Perhaps the most important shift that needs to take place is to move away from a purely consumption-based model of the media. The DOP needs to help the public reclaim the notion of the media as a public good necessary for a vibrant democracy. Part of the solution lies in examining the levels of media: micro media is still relatively free from consumerism, whereas the resources for meso medias community-based approach have been usurped by macro and mega media. Over the past few years, the trend in the United States has been to privilege the consumption model of media, the apex being the 1996 Telecommunications Act. The consumption model drives domestic media policy as well as international media policy 42 .

42

A telling example is the U.S.-France debacle over their film exports. Part of the reason the trade discussions have been so harrowing is because the U.S. views its movies purely as commercial goods

59/92 The result, however, has been a loss in community-oriented media and a decline in the diversity of voices heard. The United States needs to reclaim the views that the founding fathers had of media being a necessary component for a strong and vibrant democracy, a tool for public debate and discussion and medium for public education. The precedents can be found in James Madisons writings, in the Mayflower Doctrine and the Fairness Doctrine. The Fairness Doctrine was upheld in court, most notably in the 1969 Red Lion Broadcasting Co., Inc. v. FCC decision (MBC, 2006). A return to the roots of democracy and the important role that media has to play in that would be a good place to begin. Another step in the solution process is to examine where the shift towards consumerism occurred. Effectively, what has happened is that resources from community-oriented meso-media have been taken over by macro and mega media. The only level which is still relatively free from the consumption-based model is micromedia. In order to get more peace-oriented content, the DOP needs to help shift resources back to meso media by re-regulating the media ownership and offering other protections for community and local media. This will help communities address their media needs and will ensure a plurality of voices that more accurately reflects each community. While there are many indications that media structure impacts media content, more research is necessary to understand fully the nature of this relationship. The current model of media as consumer good is not reflective of American democratic ideals. American history, in James Madisons writings and the Fairness Doctrine, as well as the current practices in Western Europe provide relevant examples of media which support and protect a diversity of voices and educate the public. We now turn to research and policy themes the future DOP will pursue.

which should benefit from open access to markets, whereas the French see their films as cultural crafts which should be protected from the winds of consumerism for the greater public good. (Perez, 2001)

60/92 Chapter 7: DOP Research and Policy in the Field of Media Section 102(e) of the Bill to Establish a Department of Peace and Non-Violence (H.R. 3760) puts forth some general guidelines for the DOPs media responsibilities. They include collaborating with media professionals in the design and implementation of non-violent policies, clarifying the role of the media in the escalation and deescalation of conflicts, and raising awareness through the media of peace-building activities. Based on these responsibilities, this chapter offers research and policy suggestions in the field of media for a future DOP. It addresses what issues require further research to better understand how media can promote peace and non-violence anchored in established scholarly work. Based on these areas of research, policy guidelines for the DOP are put forth. There is also ample opportunity for the DOP to collaborate with other sectors to promote peace media and peace journalism; some suggestions are outlined below.

1. A Proposed Research Agenda for the DOP Research on peace media and peace journalism has so far taken place mostly in the fields of psychology and communications / media studies. The proposals below come from established scholars in these fields as well as my own observations of the paucity of studies examining different angles of peace media and peace journalism. a. Psychology A number of studies have been conducted on the psychological impacts of exposure to various types of media. Most of the studies have focused on exposure to violence. Below are some suggested research questions for better understanding the link between peace media and psychology. Although it is clear that reducing exposure to media violence will reduce aggression and violence, it is less clear what sorts of interventions will produce a reduction in exposure. The sparse research literature suggests that counterattitudinal and parental-mediation interventions are likely to yield beneficial effects, but that media literacy interventions by themselves are unsuccessful. [..] Additional laboratory and field studies are needed for a better understanding of underlying psychological processes, which eventually should lead to more effective interventions. (Anderson, 2003) Large-scale longitudinal studies would help specify the magnitude of mediaviolence effects on the most severe types of violence. Meeting the larger societal challenge of providing children and youth with a much healthier media diet may prove to be more difficult and costly, especially if the scientific, news, public policy, and entertainment communities fail to educate the general public about the real risks of media-violence exposure to children and youth. (Anderson, 2003)

61/92 There is a need for more longitudinal studies on (cooperative) behavior as a result of exposure to peace media. What cognitive processes underlie peace frames or peace schemas? Applying Kempfs (2005) de-escalation oriented coverage model to articles in U.S. newspapers and to pre-war or war coverage. Building on Peleg and Alimis (2005) analysis of the construction of political discourse through the deliberate framing of news articles. How do cognitions translate to behavior, specifically within the realm of peace schemas? Psychological research should look into pro-social cognition and cooperative interaction as a result of exposure to peace media / peace schemas. How can peace media be used as a social reinforcer for cooperative behavior? What is the impact of psychologically or verbally violent mediarather than physically violenton attitudes and behavior?

b. Media and Communications Studies Media and communications studies research has so far focused on tracking violence, war and conflict in the media. Furthermore, there tends to be a reliance on a few select conflicts. Research in this area should be developed to track peace rather than violence and to broaden the range of case studies. Suggested areas of research include: Developing more case studies on the medias implication in macro-level conflicts. For now examples center on Israel/Palestine, Northern Ireland, Rwanda, South and Southeast Asia, and increasingly Iraq. The most glaring dearth is in Latin American case studies. Using behavior change and integrated marketing communications to teach conflict transformation skills. Applying public health communications techniques and public service announcements to peace communications. Assessing the impact of micro and meso media including low frequency radio, small and medium circulation newspapers, newsletters, trade publications, internet (blogs, non-corporate sites) on the public and their behavior. Researching viewer preferences for content (through questionnaires and actual viewing). Applying Lee and Maslogs (2005) model 43 to assess peace journalism content in American news media. Identifying precedents in American history for the media in the public interest model

Lee and Maslog (2005) developed a set of indicators to determine whether newspaper stories are peaceoriented or war-oriented. They applied their model to English-language papers in 4 South Asian countries to assess their propensity toward peace journalism.

43

62/92 What can be learned from systematic, reproducible studies of the breadth and consistency of war coverage and the coverage of periods of normal relations? (Ross, 2005) What is right in the practice of the media that can be built upon? (Ross, 2005) Under what conditions do media currently empower alternative perspectives beyond the range of government-indexed attitudes and act as agents of tolerance, peace and coexistence? (Ross, 2005) What is the relation between communication that informs about and critiques the role of power and one that marginalizes or disempowers? (Ross, 2005) Should peace journalism attempt to work within the existing structures of media or outside that power? How can peace journalism avoid the twin calamities of cooptation or lack of influence? (Ross, 2005) To what extent does the measurement of public opinion through polls and its substitution by the media for the public create the irreconcilable and intractable differences the media report? (Ross, 2005) To what degree does violent conflict inhere in human nature, politics and/or media and its technologies? (Ross, 2005) Is the personal/individual a legitimate and effective site of difference outside the nation/state? How can it be given mobilized without cooptation? (Ross, 2005) What characteristics are vital to legitimate, credible voices of difference and voices for peace? (Ross, 2005) Media and terrorism: How is the media exploited to instill fear and terror?

2. Policy Recommendations Aside from further research, this chapter suggests some policy recommendations which the DOP should endeavor to carry out in order to increase peace media in the United States. The recommendations include the following: Devising a public awareness campaign to educate about proven effects of violent media on anti-social behavior. Developing peace content ratings (e.g. CT: teaches conflict transformation, collaboration, and/or cooperation skills; CA: emphasizes critical analysis skills; NV: examines non-violence and alternatives to violence in conflict situations; V: contains violent content, but it is framed critically; E: educational; R: promotes respect for self and respect for others) and display them as prominently as the violent content ratings. 44 Working with the FCC to develop guidelines that ensure license-holders broadcast at least a minimum amount of the above-outlined peace content on their channels. Breaking up the current media oligopoly to foster democratic media structures.

The lack of applicability of this rating system may signal the dramatic need to develop more peace content in the mass media.

44

63/92 Supporting U.S. Representative Maurice Hincheys (D-NY) Media Ownership Reform Act (MORA) of 2005 (H.R. 3302). Providing information to the Future of American Media (FAM) Caucus chaired by Rep. Hinchey and working with FAM to educate legislators on media issues. Providing more support (legal and financial) for community-based media. Developing best-practices for peace media and peace journalism. Establishing a peace media endowment to give authors and artists resources to develop peace content in their work (along the same lines as the National Science Foundations Antarctic Artists and Writers Program). Adhering to the policies put forth by the Global Media Monitoring Project 45 on ensuring that women get equal coverage in the news.

3. Collaboration with other sectors In the field of peace media and peace journalism, there is ample opportunity for the DOP to collaborate with other sectors. Here are some possible projects: Working with commercial media outlets to make content more peace-oriented. Conducting peace journalism training for journalists and editors. Developing modules for peace journalisms application to business reporting, including more stories on labor, corporate social responsibility, small businesses, fair trade etc. Designing a high school and university curriculum to develop critical media analysis skills among students. Working with public relations firms to make peace sexy. Establishing a peace wire, based on peace journalism, as an alternative to current wire agencies (AP, AFP, Reuters, UPI). This could be done in collaboration with the Good News Agency and Reuters AlertNet. Working with authors, song writers, script writers, producers, game makers (video and otherwise), etc., to develop more peace media.

This chapter proposed further research that needs to be conducted to properly understand the relationship between media and conflict, policies that the DOP should undertake and opportunities for collaboration between the DOP and other sectors to promote the vision established in the bill. These functions can be carried out by a DOP Office for Media Research and Policy. The following chapter outlines the tasks of the DOP Communications Office.

45

The report can be downloaded at http://www.globalmediamonitoring.org/who_makes_the_news/report_2005

64/92 Chapter 8: The DOP Communications Office Chapter 2 posits that the Department of Peace is the missing pillar for the promotion of the peace discourse and nurturant parent frame in American society. By having a DOP, this alternative view will be given institutional and government backing. The DOP will legitimize a position that stands for non-violence, empathy and cooperation. In order for the DOP to successfully promote the peace discourse and nurturant parent frame, it needs to have an effective communications office. The action areas of the DOPs Communications Office include three main areas: interaction with the press, internal operations and collaboration with peace activists. If the DOP is going to be an effective voice in the promotion of the peace discourse and nurturant parent frame, the basic task of the Communications Office is to foster better understanding between journalists and peace workers. To carry out this mission, the Communications Office needs to have a clearly defined mode of operation. Some of the media strategies currently in use by the Peace Alliance to campaign for the establishment of the DOP will also be relevant for the DOP.

1. Interaction with the Press The Communications Office of the DOP ought to carry out the same tasks that other government press offices do vis--vis the press, essentially keeping journalists informed about developments and policies within the DOP. The most obvious way this occurs is through regular press conferences, press releases and media advisories. These can be conducted solely by the DOP or in collaboration with other government agencies and groups working towards peace. To be able to influence the media, the DOP will generate enough relevant content to necessitate the development of a peace beat in news organizations. This is not an indication to produce content for the sake of content, but rather a recommendation that the Communications Office work hard to uncover the peace angle on so many yet-untold stories. Part of the content that the Communications Office will produce will respond to items on the established news agenda and the other part will generate new items to be placed on the news agenda. In order to help the public and the press corps understand the peace discourse / nurturant parent frame and to see its importance to a balanced society, the Communications Office needs to respond to items on the news agenda with a peace angle. This involves reframing stories, developing peace arguments and adhering to the principles of peace journalism. Aside from responding to the news agenda, the DOP Communications Office should also set the agenda. This means keeping the press informed on developments in the DOP as well as in the peace movement. It also includes shedding light on neglected angles and untold stories. In the lead up to a military intervention or during escalation of violence, the DOPs task will be to promote alternatives to violence, explore and support peace proposals, and inform the public on predictable outcomes of resorting to violence. The DOP Communications Office can also

65/92 discuss untold stories like those of Project Censoreds Top 25 Censored Stories, Mdecins Sans Frontires Top 10 Most Underreported Humanitarian Stories and the United Nations 10 Stories the World Should Hear More About. To meet these objectives with success, the Communications Office will cultivate contacts with key journalists and train journalists on important concepts in conflict analysis and peace journalism. Developing relationships with journalists at the major news outlets will ensure proper coverage of DOP activities and the DOP agenda. It will behoove the DOP to conduct trainings for journalists in conflict analysis and peace journalism, not only so that the press has a better understanding of where the DOP is coming from, but also so that journalists can produce higher quality news on all subjects.

2. Internal Operations To succeed in its mission with the press and with peace groups, the Communications Office needs to have a clear strategy for internal operations. This includes monitoring press coverage of the DOP, establishing an efficient feedback loop, building concepts and vocabulary and adhering to the principles of peace journalism. For the DOP to get a sense of whether its communications strategies are successful, it will closely monitor the DOP and the peace movements portrayal in the media. This includes collecting daily press clippings, recording broadcasts and surfing the internet. Special attention will be paid to the frames in which the DOP is mentioned. Is it within a security discourse / strict father frame or a peace discourse / nurturant parent frame? The DOP will only be truly successful it can convey not only the content of its messages, but also its frames. This will require an efficient feedback loop and self-assessment mechanism. If the DOP is not satisfied with the coverage it is getting in the press, a reflection will be undertaken to understand why this happened. Was the message communicated effectively? Did the journalist understand the message? Was the message relevant to the news agenda? Was the message blocked by gatekeepers? Why did the content get through, but not the frame? Conversely, when the DOP is successful in its media strategy it should determine the reason for its success. These findings will be documented in lessons-learned papers and distributed to the staff. They will be periodically re-examined to evaluate if there has been any shift in the trends. The Peace Alliance is currently deploying a media strategy that the DOP can adapt. It consists of training state media coordinators in all 50 states. Each coordinator administers the media strategy for the state. This includes appointing a media spotter whose job it is to compile a digest with both positive news about the DOP campaign and missed opportunities in which there was a perfect hook for a story on the DOP campaign, but the journalist, for whatever reason, did not include any information about the campaign. (Kuderer, 2006)

66/92 The Peace Alliance also coordinates quarterly media events and monthly media activities. For 2006, the events are the Peace of the Pie Campaign which took place around Mothers Day, a July 4 event with a Peace is Patriotic theme, and an event in October focused on candidates forums in preparation for the November Congressional elections. Monthly media activities include a letter-writing campaign to newspaper editors and training on how to become an effective interviewee and spokesperson on behalf of the Peace Alliance. (Kuderer, 2006) These strategies are relevant to and usable by the DOP Communications office. In the introduction to Dont Think of an Elephant, Lakoff discusses the importance of building concepts and vocabulary. He states, Because language activates frames, new language is required for new frames. Thinking differently requires speaking differently. (2004) The DOP will be clear on its definition of concepts, especially with ones that the public and press may not be familiar or comfortable (i.e. conflict, violence, conflict transformation, peace media, structural and cultural violence), and will be consistent in its use of vocabulary. At the beginning the success rate may be limited, but according to Lakoff, repetition and consistency are important in the adoption of new frames. (2004) Finally, the staff of the Communications Office will be well versed in the principles of peace journalism. Regular trainings will be held to ensure that key concepts in conflict analysis are understood and honed. It will ensure that a plurality of voices are heard within the office and given space to express themselves. If the DOP is going to promote peace journalism, then, to paraphrase Gandhi, it must be the change it wishes to see.

3. Working with Peace Groups The DOP will not be the only actor promoting peace and as such will maintain close contact with and support other organizations working for peace. The Communications Office will maintain a database of peace speakers and refer journalists to the Mainstream Media Projects Guests on Call program. Related to this, the Communications Office will be aware of peace organizations and activities and be able to refer journalists to them. This can take the form of an online calendar in which peace groups can register events for which they would like press coverage. The Communications Office will support the media campaigns of peace organizations, especially smaller ones that lack resources. This can be done by holding joint press conferences or issuing joint statements. To everyones benefit, the DOP will conduct training in press relations for peace organizations so that they can be effective in disseminating their message. It will also encourage synergy amongst peace activists so that they can share their resources and experience.

67/92 In this chapter, we examined the functions of the DOPs Communications Office in order to be a successful actor in the promotion of peace media and peace journalism. The Communications Office will develop a strategy to convey its message effectively to journalists and will adhere to guidelines for the internal operations of the DOPs Communications Office. Because journalists tend to follow news agenda dictated by officiali.e. governmentsources, the DOP will be able to promote the peace position easily in the media. It will do this not only for its own benefit, but also to increase coverage of peace, truth and solution news orientations, as well as people peace makers.

68/92 Conclusion Readers of this thesis expressed concern regarding the feasibility of a Department of Peace and the extent to which it should or would intervene in media. These are legitimate reservations and the following remarks will address them. If a DOP is to become a reality, its establishment cannot take place without careful consideration of the creation of the latest cabinet-level government department, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Furthermore, the DOP cannot be a partisan department; rather, it needs to generate broad-based bipartisan support both in Congress and amongst American citizens. In addition, the DOPand particularly in matters concerning media and communicationsshould not resemble or attempt to implement an Orwellian Big Brother policy. (Orwell, 1949) The establishment of the DOP should take into consideration the latest assessments of the DHSs performance. In the wake of the September 11, 2001, attacks on the World Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon in Washington, the president created the Office of Homeland Security and in March 2003, Congress replaced it with the DHS, in accordance with the Homeland Security Act of 2002. (Wikipedia, 2006) Critics of the DHS see it as an added layer of bureaucracy and view some of its practices as infringements on civil liberties. Two reports made public in December 2005, Major Management Challenges Facing the Department of Homeland Security (Skinner, 2005) and Leaving the Nation at Risk: 33 Unfulfilled Promises From the Department of Homeland Security (2005), point out the major shortcomings of the DHS. Criticisms center on financial and personnel mismanagement, lack of effective internal and external communications measures and inefficiency in program implementation. It is reasonable to wonder how the DOP will prevent these problems. The campaign for the establishment of a DOP, spearheaded by the Peace Alliance, is a grassroots effort. Concerned citizens who have read the bill feel that it will protect their freedoms and security. Advocates argue that peace is more efficient, less wasteful and gives government lessnot moreopportunity to meddle with civil rights. The sense within the Peace Alliance is that the organization already acts as a foreshadow of the DOP, therefore the management model within the Peace Alliance will transfer easily to the DOP. The Peace Alliances model is highly democratic and consultative. Each local campaign assesses its needs and mobilizes resources to meet those needs. The process is highly participatory and non-hierarchical. The national campaign provides guidance for and facilitates communication amongst the local campaigns. Furthermore, the DOP will advocate the implementation of evidenced-based, cost effective violence reduction programs. This is meant to help taxpayers save money, as well as make the public more secure.

69/92 These values are important to both the Democratic and Republican parties 46 . According to the Peace Alliance, it is the collaboration between Republicans and Democrats to come up with a bill that all parties can support which will lead to a successful and representative Department of Peace. H.R. 3760 is not a perfect bill and merits revision, particularly in the sections dealing with media. Recommendations based on the policies put forth in this thesis, particularly in Chapter 7, could frame the revision. An additional Division of Media Policy and Research, perhaps within the Office of Peaceful Coexistence and Non-violent Conflict Resolution 47 , would strengthen many of the programs and positions outlined in this paper. This leads us to the mandate of the DOP regarding media and the extent to which it should be able to intervene in a largely privatized yet constitutionally protected industry. To be clear, the proposals discussed in this paper represent alternatives to the current media system. In a society which preaches the doctrine of the consumers choice, it may surprise some readers the extent to which the government acts on the current media system and how this involvement is in fact limiting media choices. The chapters on Peace Media, Peace Journalism and Media Structures, however, are not meant to serve as guidelines for increased government intervention, albeit in a different direction. The peace media model does not require any intervention from the government; it is meant to illustrate an alternative to the current media content which elicits complaints from groups across the political and ideological spectrum. In Peace Journalism, Jake Lynch and Annabel McGoldrick successfully present the merits and modalities of peace journalism as a model for journalists and editors, irrespective of government intervention. Chapter 4 does not call for the government to meddle in the affairs of journalists. Rather, it aims to demonstrate that with the establishment of a DOP, peace journalism will be strengthened and legitimized because peace will be an official position of the government. It calls on the DOP to do what other departments already legitimately do: that is, present their perspective to the news media. The media structures presentation does request government action on issues which are already the subject of public outcry. Media ownership reform was one of the key issues for which citizens lobbied their Congressional representatives in 2005. The current system is not satisfactory and needs to be changed. Because the United States is a highly mediatized society, media content and media structures have a direct impact on the public. It is therefore important that the media serve the public interest by protecting a broad range of voices in the media, supporting educational programming and ensuring accurate and timely information.

46

These values are also important to smaller American parties including the Green Party and Working Families party, but they are not discussed in depth here because of their lack of clout in the current political system. See Section 109 of the Bill to Establish a Department of Peace and Non-Violence (Appendix A).

47

70/92 To conclude is a media analysis presented in the last verse of the hip-hop group Black Eyed Peas inspiring and peace-oriented 2003 hit Where is the Love?: I feel the weight of the world on my shoulder. As I'm gettin' older, y'all, people gets colder. Most of us only care about money makin'. Selfishness got us followin' in the wrong direction. Wrong information always shown by the media: Negative images is the main criteria; Infecting the young minds faster than bacteria; Kids wanna act like what they see in the cinema. Yo', whatever happened to the values of humanity? Whatever happened to the fairness in equality? Instead in spreading love, we spreading animosity. Lack of understanding, leading lives away from unity. That's the reason why sometimes I'm feelin' under. That's the reason why sometimes I'm feelin' down. There's no wonder why sometimes I'm feelin' under. Gotta keep my faith alive till love is found. People killin', people dyin', Children hurt and you hear them cryin'. Can you practice what you preach? And would you turn the other cheek? Father, Father, Father help us. Send us some guidance from above. 'Cause people got me, got me questionin': Where is the love?

71/92 Appendix A Bill to Establish a Department of Peace and Nonviolence

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES September 14, 2005 Mr. KUCINICH (for himself, Mr. ABERCROMBIE, Ms. BALDWIN, Mr. BOSWELL, Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida, Mr. BROWN of Ohio, Ms. CARSON, Mr. CLAY, Mr. CONYERS, Mr. CUMMINGS, Mr. DAVIS of Illinois, Mrs. DAVIS of California, Mr. DEFAZIO, Mr. EVANS, Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA, Mr. FARR, Mr. FILNER, Mr. GRIJALVA, Mr. GUTIERREZ, Mr. HINCHEY, Mr. HOLT, Mr. HONDA, Mr. JACKSON of Illinois, Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas, Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas, Mrs. JONES of Ohio, Ms. KAPTUR, Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan, Ms. LEE, Mr. LEWIS of Georgia, Mrs. MALONEY, Ms. MCCOLLUM of Minnesota, Mr. MCDERMOTT, Mr. MCGOVERN, Ms. MCKINNEY, Mr. MEEKS of New York, Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California, Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin, Mr. NADLER, Mr. OBERSTAR, Mr. OLVER, Mr. OWENS, Mr. PAYNE, Mr. RAHALL, Mr. RANGEL, Mr. RYAN of Ohio, Mr. SABO, Mr. SANDERS, Ms. SCHAKOWSKY, Mr. SERRANO, Mr. SHERMAN, Ms. SOLIS, Mr. STARK, Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi, Mr. TOWNS, Ms. WATERS, Ms. WATSON, and Ms. WOOLSEY) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Government Reform, and in addition to the Committees on International Relations, Judiciary, and Education and the Workforce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned A BILL To establish a Department of Peace and Nonviolence. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS. (a) Short Title-This Act may be cited as the `Department of Peace and Nonviolence Act'. (b) Table of Contents-The table of contents for this Act is as follows: Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents. Sec. 2. Findings.

TITLE I--ESTABLISHMENT OF DEPARTMENT OF PEACE AND NONVIOLENCE Sec. 101. Establishment of Department of Peace and Nonviolence. Sec. 102. Responsibilities and powers.

72/92

Sec. 103. Principal officers. Sec. 104. Office of Peace Education and Training. Sec. 105. Office of Domestic Peace Activities. Sec. 106. Office of International Peace Activities. Sec. 107. Office of Technology for Peace. Sec. 108. Office of Arms Control and Disarmament. Sec. 109. Office of Peaceful Coexistence and Nonviolent Conflict Resolution. Sec. 110. Office of Human Rights and Economic Rights. Sec. 111. Intergovernmental Advisory Council on Peace and Nonviolence. Sec. 112. Consultation required. Sec. 113. Authorization of appropriations.

TITLE II--ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS AND TRANSFERS OF AGENCY FUNCTIONS Sec. 201. Staff. Sec. 202. Transfers. Sec. 203. Conforming amendments. TITLE IIIFEDERAL INTERAGENCY COMMITTEE ON PEACE AND NONVIOLENCE

Sec. 301. Federal Interagency Committee on Peace and Nonviolence.

TITLE IV--ESTABLISHMENT OF PEACE DAY

Sec. 401. Peace Day.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS. Congress finds the following: (1) On July 4, 1776, the Second Continental Congress unanimously declared the independence of the 13 colonies, and the achievement of peace was recognized as one of the highest duties of the new organization of free and independent States. (2) In declaring, `We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal,

73/92
that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness', the drafters of the Declaration of Independence, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the World, derived the creative cause of nationhood from `the Laws of Nature' and the entitlements of `Nature's God', such literal referrals in the Declaration of Independence thereby serving to celebrate the unity of human thought, natural law, and spiritual causation. (3) The architects of the Declaration of Independence `with a firm reliance on the protection of divine providence' spoke to the connection between the original work infusing principle into the structure of a democratic government seeking to elevate the condition of humanity, and the activity of a higher power which moves to guide the Nation's fortune. (4) The Constitution of the United States of America, in its Preamble, further sets forth the insurance of the cause of peace in stating: `We the People of the United States, in Order to Form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.' (5) The Founders of this country gave America a vision of freedom for the ages and provided people with a document which gave this Nation the ability to adapt to an undreamed of future. (6) It is the sacred duty of the people of the United States to receive the living truths of our founding documents and to think anew to develop institutions that permit the unfolding of the highest moral principles in this Nation and around the world. (7) During the course of the 20th century, more than 100,000,000 people perished in wars, and now, at the dawn of the 21st century, violence seems to be an overarching theme in the world, encompassing personal, group, national, and international conflict, extending to the production of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons of mass destruction which have been developed for use on land, air, sea, and in space. (8) Such conflict is often taken as a reflection of the human condition without questioning whether the structures of thought, word, and deed which the people of the United States have inherited are any longer sufficient for the maintenance, growth, and survival of the United States and the world. (9) Promoting a culture of peace has been recognized by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) through passage of a resolution declaring an International Decade for a Culture of Peace and Non-Violence for the Children 2001-2010. The objective is to further strengthen the global movement for a culture of peace following the observance of the International Year for the Culture of Peace in 2000. (10) We are in a new millennium, and the time has come to review age-old challenges with new thinking wherein we can conceive of peace as not simply being the absence of violence, but the active presence of the capacity for a higher evolution of the human awareness, of respect, trust, and integrity; wherein we all may tap the infinite capabilities of humanity to transform consciousness and conditions which impel or compel violence at a personal, group, or national level toward developing a new understanding of, and a commitment to, compassion and love, in order to create a `shining city on a hill', the light of which is the light of nations. TITLE I--ESTABLISHMENT OF DEPARTMENT OF PEACE AND NONVIOLENCE SEC. 101. ESTABLISHMENT OF DEPARTMENT OF PEACE AND NONVIOLENCE. (a) Establishment-There is hereby established a Department of Peace and Nonviolence (hereinafter in this Act referred to as the `Department'), which shall(1) be a cabinet-level department in the executive branch of the Federal Government; and (2) be dedicated to peacemaking and the study of conditions that are conducive to both

74/92
domestic and international peace. (b) Secretary of Peace and Nonviolence-There shall be at the head of the Department a Secretary of Peace and Nonviolence (hereinafter in this Act referred to as the `Secretary'), who shall be appointed by the President, with the advice and consent of the Senate. (c) Mission-The Department shall(1) hold peace as an organizing principle, coordinating service to every level of American society; (2) endeavor to promote justice and democratic principles to expand human rights; (3) strengthen nonmilitary means of peacemaking; (4) promote the development of human potential; (5) work to create peace, prevent violence, divert from armed conflict, use field-tested programs, and develop new structures in nonviolent dispute resolution; (6) take a proactive, strategic approach in the development of policies that promote national and international conflict prevention, nonviolent intervention, mediation, peaceful resolution of conflict, and structured mediation of conflict; (7) address matters both domestic and international in scope; and (8) encourage the development of initiatives from local communities, religious groups, and nongovernmental organizations. SEC. 102. RESPONSIBILITIES AND POWERS. (a) In General-The Secretary shall(1) work proactively and interactively with each branch of the Federal Government on all policy matters relating to conditions of peace; (2) serve as a delegate to the National Security Council; (3) call on the intellectual and spiritual wealth of the people of the United States and seek participation in its administration and in its development of policy from private, public, and nongovernmental organizations; and (4) monitor and analyze causative principles of conflict and make policy recommendations for developing and maintaining peaceful conduct. (b) Domestic Responsibilities-The Secretary shall(1) develop policies that address domestic violence, including spousal abuse, child abuse, and mistreatment of the elderly; (2) create new policies and incorporate existing programs that reduce drug and alcohol abuse; (3) develop new policies and incorporate existing policies regarding crime, punishment, and rehabilitation; (4) develop policies to address violence against animals; (5) analyze existing policies, employ successful, field-tested programs, and develop new approaches for dealing with the implements of violence, including gun-related violence and the overwhelming presence of handguns; (6) develop new programs that relate to the societal challenges of school violence, gangs, racial or ethnic violence, violence against gays and lesbians, and police-community relations disputes; (7) make policy recommendations to the Attorney General regarding civil rights and labor law; (8) assist in the establishment and funding of community-based violence prevention programs, including violence prevention counseling and peer mediation in schools; (9) counsel and advocate on behalf of women victimized by violence; (10) provide for public education programs and counseling strategies concerning hate

75/92
crimes; (11) promote racial, religious, and ethnic tolerance; (12) finance local community initiatives that can draw on neighborhood resources to create peace projects that facilitate the development of conflict resolution at a national level and thereby inform and inspire national policy; and (13) provide ethical-based and value-based analyses to the Department of Defense. (c) International Responsibilities-The Secretary shall(1) advise the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of State on all matters relating to national security, including the protection of human rights and the prevention of, amelioration of, and de-escalation of unarmed and armed international conflict; (2) provide for the training of all United States personnel who administer postconflict reconstruction and demobilization in war-torn societies; (3) sponsor country and regional conflict prevention and dispute resolution initiatives, create special task forces, and draw on local, regional, and national expertise to develop plans and programs for addressing the root sources of conflict in troubled areas; (4) provide for exchanges between the United States and other nations of individuals who endeavor to develop domestic and international peace-based initiatives; (5) encourage the development of international sister city programs, pairing United States cities with cities around the globe for artistic, cultural, economic, educational, and faith-based exchanges; (6) administer the training of civilian peacekeepers who participate in multinational nonviolent police forces and support civilian police who participate in peacekeeping; (7) jointly with the Secretary of the Treasury, strengthen peace enforcement through hiring and training monitors and investigators to help with the enforcement of international arms embargoes; (8) facilitate the development of peace summits at which parties to a conflict may gather under carefully prepared conditions to promote nonviolent communication and mutually beneficial solutions; (9) submit to the President recommendations for reductions in weapons of mass destruction, and make annual reports to the President on the sale of arms from the United States to other nations, with analysis of the impact of such sales on the defense of the United States and how such sales affect peace; (10) in consultation with the Secretary of State, develop strategies for sustainability and management of the distribution of international funds; and (11) advise the United States Ambassador to the United Nations on matters pertaining to the United Nations Security Council. (d) Human Security Responsibilities-The Secretary shall address and offer nonviolent conflict resolution strategies to all relevant parties on issues of human security if such security is threatened by conflict, whether such conflict is geographic, religious, ethnic, racial, or class-based in its origin, derives from economic concerns (including trade or maldistribution of wealth), or is initiated through disputes concerning scarcity of natural resources (such as water and energy resources), food, trade, or environmental concerns. (e) Media-Related Responsibilities-Respecting the first amendment of the Constitution of the United States and the requirement for free and independent media, the Secretary shall(1) seek assistance in the design and implementation of nonviolent policies from media professionals; (2) study the role of the media in the escalation and de-escalation of conflict at domestic and international levels and make findings public; and (3) make recommendations to professional media organizations in order to provide opportunities to increase media awareness of peace-building initiatives. (f) Educational Responsibilities-The Secretary shall-

76/92
(1) develop a peace education curriculum, which shall include studies of(A) the civil rights movement in the United States and throughout the world, with special emphasis on how individual endeavor and involvement have contributed to advancements in peace and justice; and (B) peace agreements and circumstances in which peaceful intervention has worked to stop conflict; (2) in cooperation with the Secretary of Education(A) commission the development of such curricula and make such curricula available to local school districts to enable the utilization of peace education objectives at all elementary and secondary schools in the United States; and (B) offer incentives in the form of grants and training to encourage the development of State peace curricula and assist schools in applying for such curricula; (3) work with educators to equip students to become skilled in achieving peace through reflection, and facilitate instruction in the ways of peaceful conflict resolution; (4) maintain a site on the Internet for the purposes of soliciting and receiving ideas for the development of peace from the wealth of political, social and cultural diversity; (5) proactively engage the critical thinking capabilities of grade school, high school, and college students and teachers through the Internet and other media and issue periodic reports concerning submissions; (6) create and establish a Peace Academy, which shall(A) be modeled after the military service academies; (B) provide a 4-year course of instruction in peace education, after which graduates will be required to serve 5 years in public service in programs dedicated to domestic or international nonviolent conflict resolution; and (7) provide grants for peace studies departments in colleges and universities throughout the United States. SEC. 103. PRINCIPAL OFFICERS.

(a) Under Secretary of Peace and Nonviolence-There shall be in the Department an Under Secretary of Peace and Nonviolence, who shall be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. During the absence or disability of the Secretary, or in the event of a vacancy in the office of the Secretary, the Under Secretary shall act as Secretary. The Secretary shall designate the order in which other officials of the Department shall act for and perform the functions of the Secretary during the absence or disability of both the Secretary and Under Secretary or in the event of vacancies in both of those offices.
(b) Additional Positions(1) There shall be in the Department(A) an Assistant Secretary for Peace Education and Training; (B) an Assistant Secretary for Domestic Peace Activities; (C) an Assistant Secretary for International Peace Activities; (D) an Assistant Secretary for Technology for Peace; (E) an Assistant Secretary for Arms Control and Disarmament; (F) an Assistant Secretary for Peaceful Coexistence and Nonviolent Conflict Resolution; (G) an Assistant Secretary for Human and Economic Rights; and (H) a General Counsel.

77/92
(2) Each of the Assistant Secretaries and the General Counsel shall be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. (3) There shall be in the Department an Inspector General, who shall be appointed in accordance with the provisions in the Inspector General Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C. App.). (4) There shall be in the Department four additional officers who shall be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. The officers appointed under this paragraph shall perform such functions as the Secretary shall prescribe, including(A) congressional relations functions; (B) public information functions, including providing, through the use of the latest technologies, useful information about peace and the work of the Department; (C) management and budget functions; and (D) planning, evaluation, and policy development functions, including development of policies to promote the efficient and coordinated administration of the Department and its programs and encourage improvements in conflict resolution and violence prevention. (5) In any case in which the President submits the name of an individual to the Senate for confirmation as an officer of the Department under this subsection, the President shall state the particular functions of the Department such individual will exercise upon taking office. (c) Authority of Secretary-Each officer described in this section shall report directly to the Secretary and shall, in addition to any functions vested in or required to be delegated to such officer, perform such additional functions as the Secretary may prescribe. SEC. 104. OFFICE OF PEACE EDUCATION AND TRAINING. (a) In General-There shall be in the Department an Office of Peace Education and Training, the head of which shall be the Assistant Secretary for Peace Education and Training. The Assistant Secretary for Peace Education and Training shall carry out those functions of the Department relating to the creation, encouragement, and impact of peace education and training at the elementary, secondary, university, and postgraduate levels, including the development of a Peace Academy. (b) Peace Curriculum-The Assistant Secretary of Peace Education and Training, in cooperation with the Secretary of Education, shall develop a peace curriculum and supporting materials for distribution to departments of education in each State and territory of the United States. The peace curriculum shall include the building of communicative peace skills, nonviolent conflict resolution skills, and other objectives to increase the knowledge of peace processes. (c) Grants-The Assistant Secretary of Peace Education and Training shall(1) provide peace education grants to colleges and universities for the creation and expansion of peace studies departments; and (2) create a Community Peace Block Grant program under which grants shall be provided to not-for-profit community and nongovernmental organizations for the purposes of developing creative, innovative neighborhood programs for nonviolent conflict resolution and local peacebuilding initiatives. SEC. 105. OFFICE OF DOMESTIC PEACE ACTIVITIES. (a) In General-There shall be in the Department an Office of Domestic Peace Activities, the head of which shall be the Assistant Secretary for Domestic Peace Activities. The Assistant Secretary for Domestic Peace Activities shall carry out those functions in the Department affecting domestic peace activities, including the development of policies that increase awareness about intervention and counseling on domestic violence and conflict. (b) Responsibilities-The Assistant Secretary for Domestic Peace Activities shall(1) develop policy alternatives for the treatment of drug and alcohol abuse;

78/92
(2) develop new policies and build on existing programs responsive to the prevention of crime, including the development of community policing strategies and peaceful settlement skills among police and other public safety officers; and (3) develop community-based strategies for celebrating diversity and promoting tolerance. SEC. 106. OFFICE OF INTERNATIONAL PEACE ACTIVITIES. (a) In General-There shall be in the Department an Office of International Peace Activities, the head of which shall be the Assistant Secretary for International Peace Activities. The Assistant Secretary for International Peace Activities shall carry out those functions in the Department affecting international peace activities and shall be a member of the National Security Council. (b) Responsibilities-The Assistant Secretary for International Peace Activities shall(1) provide for the training and deployment of all Peace Academy graduates and other nonmilitary conflict prevention and peacemaking personnel; (2) sponsor country and regional conflict prevention and dispute resolution initiatives in countries experiencing social, political, or economic strife; (3) advocate the creation of a multinational nonviolent peace force; (4) provide training for the administration of postconflict reconstruction and demobilization in war-torn societies; and (5) provide for the exchanges between individuals of the United States and other nations who are endeavoring to develop domestic and international peace-based initiatives. SEC. 107. OFFICE OF TECHNOLOGY FOR PEACE. (a) In General-There shall be in the Department an Office of Technology for Peace, the head of which shall be the Assistant Secretary of Technology for Peace. The Assistant Secretary of Technology for Peace shall carry out those functions in the Department affecting the awareness, study, and impact of developing new technologies on the creation and maintenance of domestic and international peace. (b) Grants-The Assistant Secretary of Technology for Peace shall provide grants for the research and development of technologies in transportation, communications, and energy that(1) are nonviolent in their application; and (2) encourage the conservation and sustainability of natural resources in order to prevent future conflicts regarding scarce resources. SEC. 108. OFFICE OF ARMS CONTROL AND DISARMAMENT. (a) In General-There shall be in the Department an Office of Arms Control and Disarmament, the head of which shall be the Assistant Secretary of Arms Control and Disarmament. The Assistant Secretary of Arms Control and Disarmament shall carry out those functions in the Department affecting arms control programs and arms limitation agreements. (b) Responsibilities-The Assistant Secretary of Arms Control and Disarmament shall(1) advise the Secretary on all interagency discussions and all international negotiations regarding the reduction and elimination of weapons of mass destruction throughout the world, including the dismantling of such weapons and the safe and secure storage of materials related thereto; (2) assist nations, international agencies and nongovernmental organizations in assessing the locations of the buildup of nuclear arms; (3) develop nonviolent strategies to deter the testing or use of offensive or defensive

79/92
nuclear weapons, whether based on land, air, sea, or in outer space; (4) serve as a depository for copies of all contracts, agreements, and treaties that deal with the reduction and elimination of nuclear weapons or the protection of outer space from militarization; and (5) provide technical support and legal assistance for the implementation of such agreements. SEC. 109. OFFICE OF PEACEFUL COEXISTENCE AND NONVIOLENT CONFLICT RESOLUTION. (a) In General-There shall be in the Department an Office of Peaceful Coexistence and Nonviolent Conflict Resolution, the head of which shall be the Assistant Secretary for Peaceful Coexistence and Nonviolent Conflict Resolution. The Assistant Secretary for Peaceful Coexistence and Nonviolent Conflict Resolution shall carry out those functions in the Department affecting research and analysis relating to creating, initiating, and modeling approaches to peaceful coexistence and nonviolent conflict resolution. (b) Responsibilities-The Assistant Secretary for Peaceful Coexistence and Nonviolent Conflict Resolution shall(1) study the impact of war, especially on the physical and mental condition of children (using the ten-point agenda in the United Nations Childrens Fund report, State of the World's Children 1996, as a guide), which shall include the study of the effect of war on the environment and public health; (2) publish a monthly journal of the activities of the Department and encourage scholarly participation; (3) gather information on effective community peacebuilding activities and disseminate such information to local governments and nongovernmental organizations in the United States and abroad; (4) research the effect of violence in the media and make such reports available to the Congress annually; and (5) sponsor conferences throughout the United States to create awareness of the work of the Department. SEC. 110. OFFICE OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND ECONOMIC RIGHTS. (a) In General-There shall be in the Department an Office of Human Rights and Economic Rights, the head of which shall be the Assistant Secretary for Human Rights and Economic Rights. The Assistant Secretary for Human Rights and Economic Rights shall carry out those functions in the Department supporting the principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights passed by the General Assembly of the United Nations on December 10, 1948. (b) Responsibilities-The Assistant Secretary for Human Rights and Economic Rights shall(1) assist the Secretary, in cooperation with the Secretary of State, in furthering the incorporation of principles of human rights, as enunciated in the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 217A (III) of December 10, 1948, into all agreements between the United States and other nations to help reduce the causes of violence; (2) gather information on and document human rights abuses, both domestically and internationally, and recommend to the Secretary nonviolent responses to correct abuses; (3) make such findings available to other agencies in order to facilitate nonviolent conflict resolution; (4) provide trained observers to work with nongovernmental organizations for purposes of creating a climate that is conducive to the respect for human rights;

80/92
(5) conduct economic analyses of the scarcity of human and natural resources as a source of conflict and make recommendations to the Secretary for nonviolent prevention of such scarcity, nonviolent intervention in case of such scarcity, and the development of programs of assistance for people experiencing such scarcity, whether due to armed conflict, maldistribution of resources, or natural causes; (6) assist the Secretary, in cooperation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of the Treasury, in developing strategies regarding the sustainability and the management of the distribution of funds from international agencies, the conditions regarding the receipt of such funds, and the impact of those conditions on the peace and stability of the recipient nations; and (7) assist the Secretary, in cooperation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Labor, in developing strategies to promote full compliance with domestic and international labor rights law. SEC. 111. INTERGOVERNMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL ON PEACE AND NONVIOLENCE. (a) In General-There shall be in the Department an advisory committee to be known as the Intergovernmental Advisory Council on Peace and Nonviolence (hereinafter in this Act referred to as the `Council'). The Council shall provide assistance and make recommendations to the Secretary and the President concerning intergovernmental policies relating to peace and nonviolent conflict resolution. (b) Responsibilities-The Council shall(1) provide a forum for representatives of Federal, State, and local governments to discuss peace issues; (2) promote better intergovernmental relations; and (3) submit, biennially or more frequently if determined necessary by the Council, a report to the Secretary, the President, and the Congress reviewing the impact of Federal peace activities on State and local governments. SEC. 112. CONSULTATION REQUIRED. (a) Consultation in Cases of Conflict(1) In any case in which a conflict between the United States and any other government or entity is imminent or occurring, the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of State shall consult with the Secretary concerning nonviolent means of conflict resolution. (2) In any case in which such a conflict is ongoing or recently concluded, the Secretary shall conduct independent studies of diplomatic initiatives undertaken by the United States and other parties to the conflict. (3) In any case in which such a conflict has recently concluded, the Secretary shall assess the effectiveness of those initiatives in ending the conflict. (4) The Secretary shall establish a formal process of consultation in a timely manner with the Secretary of the Department of State and the Secretary of the Department of Defense(A) prior to the initiation of any armed conflict between the United States and any other nation; and (B) for any matter involving the use of Department of Defense personnel within the United States. (b) Consultation in Drafting Treaties and Agreements-The executive branch shall consult with the Secretary in drafting treaties and peace agreements.

SEC. 113. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

81/92
There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this Act for a fiscal year beginning after the date of the enactment of this Act an amount equal to at least 2 percent of the total amount appropriated for that fiscal year for the Department of Defense. TITLE II--ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS AND TRANSFERS OF AGENCY FUNCTIONS SEC. 201. STAFF. The Secretary may appoint and fix the compensation of such employees as may be necessary to carry out the functions of the Secretary and the Department. Except as otherwise provided by law, such employees shall be appointed in accordance with the civil service laws and their compensation fixed in accordance with title 5 of the United States Code. SEC. 202. TRANSFERS. There are hereby transferred to the Department the functions, assets, and personnel of(1) the Peace Corps; (2) the United States Institute of Peace; (3) the Office of the Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security Affairs of the Department of State; (4) the Gang Resistance Education and Training Program of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms; and (5) the SafeFutures program of the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention of the Department of Justice. SEC. 203. CONFORMING AMENDMENTS. Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall prepare and submit to Congress proposed legislation containing any necessary and appropriate technical and conforming amendments to the laws of the United States to reflect and carry out the provisions of this Act. TITLE III--FEDERAL INTERAGENCY COMMITTEE ON PEACE AND NONVIOLENCE SEC. 301. FEDERAL INTERAGENCY COMMITTEE ON PEACE AND NONVIOLENCE. There is established a Federal Interagency Committee on Peace and Nonviolence (hereinafter in this Act referred to as the `Committee'). The Committee shall(1) assist the Secretary in providing a mechanism to assure that the procedures and actions of the Department and other Federal agencies are fully coordinated; and (2) study and make recommendations for assuring effective coordination of Federal programs, policies, and administrative practices affecting peace. TITLE IV--ESTABLISHMENT OF PEACE DAY SEC. 401. PEACE DAY.

All citizens should be encouraged to observe and celebrate the blessings of peace and endeavor to create peace on a Peace Day. Such day shall include discussions of the professional activities and the achievements in the lives of peacemakers. END.

82/92 Appendix B Non-violent Communication in Practice: An exchange on the DOP listserve Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2006 16:33:39 -0500 From: "Marianne Perez" <mariannehperez@gmail.com> Subject: How to ensure DOP independence? Hello fellow peace workers, How are you? I am writing to you in the hope that you will be able to offer some good counter-arguments for a recurring point that my friends and colleagues have been making about a future DOP: What is to say that the DOP will in fact perpetuate the vision and mission of a culture of peace that we presently have for it? How can we ensure its integrity despite shifting political tides? Just because there is an Environmental Protection Agency, it has not prevented the current Congress from passing the Orwellian Clean Skies Act or drilling in the Alaskan Wildlife Refuge. Similarly, having a Department of Education has not ensured scholarships or even satisfactory education for many Americans. What would be the point of creating another ineffective layer of bureaucracy? As my thesis advisor put it: I think the biggest danger with a DoP idea is that it will be subsumed by collective governmental responsibility. What if a president wants to go to war - will s/he be happy to have a cabinet member arguing against it? Something will have to give. Either there has to be some way to ring-fence a DoP from this, in particular guaranteeing its funding, insulating the process of making appointments from political influence, etc, or it has to go along with what the president wants. Do you have any good arguments to respond to this? I am looking for cocktail conversation counter-points, as well as academic arguments or articles that I can incorporate into my thesis. Thank you, Marianne Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2006 20:48:10 -0000 From: "istoba" <istoba@gmail.com> Subject: Re: How to ensure DOP independence? Hi Marianne, Thanks for the post.

83/92 I have received a similar response from people who may be interested, but are skeptical. It's interesting to see and hear the first things out of people's minds usually have to do with distrust, fear and frustration, about whether anything good is really possible and whether anything good will be made bad, and I think this type of thinking is not unreasonable or unexpected given the collective perception of the state of the world right now. When I receive this response, in a strange way it sparks a little hope, because I can see the humanity behind the person giving it to me. They want good things but they're very worried things won't work out the way they want them, or to the benefit of all humans. And again, we really haven't seen much happen externally in the world to validate that such idealism for civilization will bring about actual change in our personal lives. I have an almost automatic reply that comes to mind about stating how the Civil Rights and Women's rights movements came to fruition, but lately I've identified that there's not a lot alive in me when stating that. I think it's because, for as perfect as it is that equality among race and sex is for the most part now a reality, equality among humans still doesn't appear to be. When I say to someone, Look at the Civil Rights movement. Isn't the world a better place for that. They invariably agree, but our agreement doesn't seem to change the energy behind the conversation or spark anything that's alive in us. I feel the reason why is that, though we recognize the necessity and value and greatness of equality, we still don't feel personally equal. Generally, we don't feel that we have the power or persuasion of a President, or a congressman, who we expect has the power to make something like a DOP possible. I was thinking about this the other day while I was reflecting on my past visits to congressional offices, and how often times my conversations with their aides was also a bit lifeless. I could be in their office speaking with them about something so great, but inside feel that neither of us was connecting with the real experience of what peace is. It was more theoretical than realistic in the moment, and that's the reaction I would get. I consider it possible that that's the very reason the reality we want isn't already here via the institutions that are already in place. We want to feel alive and reveal the life in us, but it is as I believe Marianne Williamson put it, we fear our greatness. I fear showing what's alive in me in an environment I feel might reject it. And so I go in as a professional, and speak to them professionally, and they in return, and there's nothing alive. Little changes. Sometimes I feel like and wish I could just start crying, so that life and emotion would shine through (and sometimes it does), because I fear not connecting with the life and the beautiful being that every person is, that the congressman, and woman, and aide is. And that's what I want. I don't want my conversation with my elected representative to be a business transaction; more than anything I want that relationship to be alive, because I

84/92 have entrusted them with organizing society, and writing laws, and using my money for helping the world. The same for my relationship with complete strangers. I think my small example could be a reflection of the greater reality. Perhaps the political leaders' fear of showing anything alive in them, revealing their greatness, keeps the life force from moving. And I don't blame them, because I know how hard it can be. So lately I'll respond to people with a story like that, or something very personal that I'm afraid of revealing but I nonetheless feel alive about, and that changes the energy. Then a connection is made, and then it's like the doubt that gave rise to their initial response is dispelled, and it's a moot point. It's as though their question was just a call for connection and example, and not a question about what it at first seemed to be. Whether a department of peace brings about the change in the world, through our awakening, or whether that change is brought about absent a department of peace, what we're really looking for is that feeling of being alive. I don't think there's really an effective talking point or answer to a question like that (What's to stop a Department of Peace from being made ineffective?). Try to make it extremely personal, because this is what the other person is feeling a doubt of... that a department of peace will cause any change in their life, and in our civilization. If they can experience it on a small scale, then they can believe it on a larger scale. So basically, I try to make my conversation a model of what would be going on in the department of peace. A mini-department if you will. If I can't imagine that, then I have no real idea or experience of what a department of peace is anyway. And when we get a million mini-departments of peace (or maybe just the 100th monkey effect), then I think we'll see them coalesce into THE Department of Peace.

Cheers, Paul

85/92 Works cited

Albracht, Matthew. Personal interview with Marianne Perez. February 22, 2006. Anderson, Craig A. and Leonard Berkowitz, Edward Donnerstein, L. Rowell Huesmann, James D. Johnson, Daniel Linz, Niel Malamuth and Ellen Wartella. The Influence of Media Violence on Youth. Psychological Science in the Public Interest. December 2003. Vol. 4, No. 3: pp. 81- 110. Academic Search Primer. EBSCOHost. Georgetown U. Lib. November 13, 2005: http://www.library.georgetown.edu/librarylink/subdata.htm Anderson, Craig A. and Nicholas L. Carnagey and Janie Eubanks. Exposure to Violent Media: The Effects of Songs with Violent Lyrics on Aggressive Thoughts and Feelings. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2003. Vol. 84, No. 5: pp. 960-971. Academic Search Primer. EBSCOHost. Georgetown U. Lib. November 13, 2005: http://www.library.georgetown.edu/librarylink/subdata.htm Arevalo, Jorge. Woody Guthrie Biography. December 27, 2005: www.woodyguthrie.org Associated Press (AP). Roadside Blasts Kill U.S. GI, 11 Iraqis. In The New York Times, February 18, 2006. February 18, 2006: http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-Iraq.html Axelrod, Matt. Personal email to Marianne Perez. March 21, 2006. Barnett, Michael N. and Martha Finnemore. The Politics, Power and Pathologies of International Organizations. International Organization, Autumn 1999. Volume 53, Issue 4, pp. 699-732. Bill to Establish a U.S. Department of Peace and Non-Violence. 109th Congress, 1st Session, September 14, 2005. November 25, 2005: http://www.thepeacealliance.org/read_bill.htm Boot, Max. A War for Oil? Not this Time. The New York Times. February 13, 2003. February 17, 2006: http://select.nytimes.com/search/restricted/article?res=F20E17FF3C5E0C708DD DAB0894DB404482 Bumiller, Elisabeth. A Nation Challenged: Flow of Information; The New Slogan in Washington: Start Watching What You Say. The New York Times. October 7, 2001. February 17, 2006: http://select.nytimes.com/search/restricted/article?res=F40B14F939580C748CDD A90994D9404482

86/92 Chopra Center Website. January 17, 2006: http://www.chopra.com/locationsPage.asp?ContentID=366 DATA (Debt AIDS Trade Africa). January 12, 2006: www.data.org Deflander, Johan. Personal interview with Marianne Perez. Kigali, Rwanda: February 3, 2005. Drake, Bruce. NPR News Code of Ethics and Practices. NPR website, February 25, 2004. May 16, 2006: http://www.npr.org/about/ethics/ Eisenhower, Dwight D. Farewell Address to the Nation. January 17, 1961. Military Industrial Complex Speech, February 11, 2006: http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~hst306/documents/indust.html Erlanger, Steven. U.S. Quietly Chides German For His Dissension on Iraq. The New York Times. August 17, 2002. February 18, 2006: http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=FA0D13F63E590C748DDDA108 94DA404482 Felson, Richard B. Mass Media Effects on Violent Behavior. Annual Review of Sociology, 1996. Vol. 22: pp. 103128. Academic Search Primer. EBSCOHost. Georgetown U. Lib. November 18, 2005 http://www.library.georgetown.edu/librarylink/subdata.htm Fischer, Dietrich. Introduction to Peace Studies. Course given at the European University Center for Peace Studies, Stadtschlaining, Austria. October 3, 2004. Freire, Paulo. Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Continuum, c1993. Galtung, Johan. Conflict Transformation by Peaceful Means. Course given at the European University Center for Peace Studies, Stadtschlaining, Austria. October 7-12, 2004. Galtung, Johan. Personal email to Marianne Perez. January 10, 2006. Galtung, Johan. Personal email to Marianne Perez. February 19, 2006a. Galtung, Johan. Rauhantutkimus. Helsinki: Weilin & Gs, 1969. Galtung, Johan. Transcend and Transform: An Introduction to Conflict Work. London: Pluto Press, 2004a. Gladwell, Malcolm. The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make a Big Difference. New York: Back Bay Books / Little, Brown and Company, 2002.

87/92 Global Media Monitoring Project (GMMP) and Margaret Gallagher. Who Makes the News? WACC, London, UK. February 16, 2006: http://www.globalmediamonitoring.org/who_makes_the_news/report_2005 Gordon, Michael R. Aftereffects: The Military; Between War and Peace. The New York Times, May 2, 2003. February 18, 2006: http://select.nytimes.com/search/restricted/article?res=FB0C13F83C580C718CD DAC0894DB404482 Harris, Ian and Mary Lee Morrison. Peace Education, 2nd Edition. Jefferson, NC: MacFarland & Co, 2003. Hecklers Interrupt Rumsfeld Speech. Associated Press, May 4, 2006. May 15, 2006: http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/05/04/rumsfeld.ap/index.html Hinchey, Maurice. Hinchey Introduces Sweeping Reform Bill To Restore Integrity To America's Media System. Press release, July 14, 2005. February 13, 2006: http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/ny22_hinchey/morenews/071405mediabill.h tml Hoge, Warren. Threasts and Responses: Indictment; Blair Says Iraqis Could Launch Chemical Warheads in Minutes. The New York Times. September 25, 2002. February 18, 2006: http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F10716FD385D0C768EDDA008 94DA404482 Howard, Ross. Conflict Sensitive Journalism Handbook. Vancouver: Institute for Media, Policy and Civil Society, April 2004. January 17, 2005: http://www.impacs.org/actions/files/MediaPrograms/Handbook%20conflict%20se nsitive%20eng%20220404%20final%20version.pdf Huesmann, L. Rowell and Jessica Moise-Titus, Cheryl-Lynn Podolski and Leonard D. Eron. Longitudinal Relations Between Childrens Exposure to TV Violence and Their Aggressive and Violent Behavior in Young Adulthood: 1977-1992. Developmental Psychology, 2003. Vol. 39, No. 2: pp. 201-221. Academic Search Primer. EBSCOHost. Georgetown U. Lib. November 1, 2005: http://www.library.georgetown.edu/librarylink/subdata.htm Huntemann, Nina. Corporate Interference: The Commercialization and Concentration of Radio post the 1996 Telecommunications Act in Journal of Communication Inquiry 23:4 (October 1999): pp. 390-407. Academic Search Primer. EBSCOHost. Georgetown U. Lib. January 3, 2006: http://www.library.georgetown.edu/librarylink/subdata.htm International Peoples Initiative for Departments of Peace. Information Document compiled by Corina Simon, PATRIR, Cluj-Napoca, Romania, December 9, 2005.

88/92 Janofsky, Michael. Backing Bush All the Way, Up to but Not Into Iraq. The New York Times. August 3, 2002. February 18, 2006: http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F30C14FA3E5F0C708CDDA108 94DA404482 Jehl, Douglas. The Reach of War: Intelligence; Qaeda-Iraq Link U.S. Cited is Tied to Coercion Claim. The New York Times, December 9, 2005. February 18, 2006: http://select.nytimes.com/search/restricted/article?res=F10617FF3A550C7A8CD DAB0994DD404482 Johansen, Jorgen. Non-Violence. Course given at the European University Center for Peace Studies, Stadtschlaining, Austria. October 18-22, 2004. Jowett, G.S. and V. ODonnell. Propaganda and Persuasion. London: Sage, 1992; in Lynch, Jake and Annabel McGoldrick. Peace Journalism. Gloucestershire: Hawthorn Press, 2005. Kaldor, Mary. Regime change without war. Redpepper Archive, April 2003. May 16, 2006: http://www.redpepper.org.uk/intarch/x-iraqkaldor.html Kay, Alan. When Americans Favor the Use of Force. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, Vol. 12, No. 2, Summer 2000, pp. 182-190; in Lynch, Jake and Annabel McGoldrick. Peace Journalism. Gloucestershire: Hawthorn Press, 2005. Kempf, Wilhelm. Experimenting with de-escalation oriented coverage of post-war conflicts, paper presented to 3rd International Conference on Communication and Mass Media, Athens Institute for Education and Research, Athens, Greece. May 23-25, 2005. Kramer, Gudrun and Wilfried Graf. The Art of Conflict Transformation. Course given at the European University Center for Peace Studies, Stadtschlaining, Austria. March 29-31, 2005. Kriegel, Blandine. La violence la television. Ministre de la Culture et de la Communication. Paris, France, 2002. November 26, 2004: http://lesrapports.ladocumentationfrancaise.fr/BRP/024000584/0000.pdf Kuderer, Patty. Personal telephone interview with Marianne Perez. February 3, 2006. Lakoff, George. Dont Think of an Elephant! Know Your Values and Frame the Debate. White River Junction, Vermont: Chelsea Green Publishing, 2004. Lakoff, George. Simple Framing. Rockridge Institute, Berkeley, California. September 2, 2005: http://www.rockridgeinstitute.org/projects/strategic/simple_framing Leaving the Nation at Risk: 33 Unfulfilled Promises From the Department of Homeland Security. U.S. House Committee on Homeland Security Democratic Staff, U.S.

89/92 House of Representatives, 2005. February 19, 2006: http://hscdemocrats.house.gov/NR/rdonlyres/1C607310-3228-4CCC-B13A04A808A4C19B/0/HomelandSecurityDemocratsRevealUnfulfilledPromises.pdf Lee, Seow Ting and Crispin C. Maslog. War or Peace Journalism? Asian Newspaper Coverage of Conflicts. Journal of Communications, June 2005. pp. 311-329. Academic Search Primer. EBSCOHost. Georgetown U. Lib. October 13, 2005: http://www.library.georgetown.edu/librarylink/subdata.htm Lewis, Anthony. The Roots of Abu Ghraib; A President Beyond the Law. The New York Times, May 7, 2004. February 18, 2006: http://select.nytimes.com/search/restricted/article?res=F5071FFB3D580C748CD DAC0894DC404482 Lewis, Justin. Biased Broadcasting Corporation in The Guardian, July 4, 2003. January 25, 2006: http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,991214,00.html Lynch, Jake and Annabel McGoldrick. Peace Journalism. Gloucestershire: Hawthorn Press, 2005. Lynch, Jake. Personal telephone conversation with Marianne Perez. January 6, 2006. Mainstream Media Project. January 10, 2006: http://www.mainstream-media.net/ Maver, Dot. Personal interview with Marianne Perez. November 21, 2005. New York, NY. McChesney, Robert W. and Robert A. Hackett. Beyond Wiggle Room: American Corporate Medias Democratic Deficit, Its Global Implications, and Prospects for Reform in Democratizing Global Media: One World, Many Struggles. Ed. Robert A. Hackett and Yuezhi Zhao. Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2005. Media Research Information Center (MRIC). November 6, 2004: http://www.corporations.org/media/ Miller, Judith and Michael R. Gordon. Threats and Responses: Baghdads Arsenal; White House Lists Iraq Steps to Build Banned Weapons. The New York Times, September 13, 2002. February 15, 2005: http://select.nytimes.com/search/restricted/article?res=FA0811F63B550C708DD DA00894DA404482 Museum of Broadcast Communications (MBC). January 14, 2006: http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/F/htmlF/fairnessdoct/fairnessdoct.htm Newsome, Melba. Movies with a Message. Time Magazine, Time Bonus Section January 2006 Inside Business. New York, December 19, 2005.

90/92 Office of Management and Budget, Executive Office of the President, Department of Defense, Budget 2005. December 26, 2005: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2005/defense.html On the Media. National Public Radio. Broadcast on WNYC, January 8, 2006. Orr, Jackie. The Militarization of Inner Space. Critical Sociology, Volume 30, Issue 2. Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, the Netherlands, 2004, pp. 451-481. Academic Search Primer. EBSCOHost. Georgetown U. Lib. December 23, 2005: http://www.library.georgetown.edu/librarylink/subdata.htm Orwell, George. Nineteen Eighty-Four, A Novel. London: Secker and Warburg, 1949. Peace Alliance Website. Campaign Overview: January 17, 2006: http://www.dopcampaign.org/campaign_oview.htm Real Solutions: January 17, 2006: http://www.thepeacealliance.org/background/real_solutions.htm Peleg, Samuel and Eitan Alimi. Constructing political discourse in the Israeli print news media an experimental design, Conflict and Communication Online, Vol 4 No 2, 2005. Perez, Marianne. The Diplomacy of French Film. Term paper submitted to Prof. Cynthia Schneider in a course on The Arts and Diplomacy. Georgetown University, Washington, DC, December 2001. Risen, James. Iraq Said to Have Tried to Reach Last-Minute Deal to Avert War. The New York Times, page 1. November 06, 2003. Rock the Vote. December 28, 2005: www.rockthevote.com Ross, Susan. Constructing Conflict: A Focused Review and New Directions Regarding the Role of the Media in War. Faculty Paper. E.R. Murrow School of Communication, Washington State University, Pullman, WA. June 2005. Rossi, Vicky. Vicky Rossi Interviews Diana Basterfield & Eirwen Harbottle: Ministries for Peace. December 4, 2005: http://www.transnational.org/forum/meet/2005/Rossi-Int_PeaceMinistry.html Rothschild, Matthew. Rumsfeld Spies on Quakers and Grannies. The Progressive, December 16, 2005: http://progressive.org/mag_mc121605 Said, Edward. Covering Islam: How the Media and the Experts Determine How We See the Rest of the World. New York: Pantheon Books, 1981.

91/92 Sanger, David E. Threats and Responses: The White House; U.S. Disputes Iraqi Denial That It Has Weapons Banned by U.N. The New York Times, November 14, 2002. February 18, 2006: http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F60C16FD3D540C778DDDA809 94DA404482 Save The Internet.com. The Threat is Real. May 29, 2006: http://www.savetheinternet.com/=threat Sengupta, Somini. The Reach of War: The Occupation; For Iraqi Girls, Changing Land Narrows Lives. The New York Times, June 27, 2004. February 18, 2006: http://select.nytimes.com/search/restricted/article?res=F10F16FB3C5C0C748ED DAF0894DC404482 Shanker, Thom and David E. Sanger. A Nation Challenged: The Military; U.S. Envisions Blueprint on Iraq Including Big Invasion Next Year. The New York Times. April 28, 2002. February 17, 2005: http://select.nytimes.com/search/restricted/article?res=F00C10FD355A0C7B8ED DAD0894DA404482 Simon, Corina. PATRIR / International Peoples Initiative for Departments of Peace. Personal email to Marianne Perez. February 16, 2006. Skinner, Richard L. Major Management Challenges Facing the Department of Homeland Security. Department of Homeland Security, Office of the Inspector General, December 2005. February 19, 2006: http://www.dhs.gov/interweb/assetlibrary/OIG_06-14_Dec05.pdf Sommers, Mark. Mainstream Media Project. Personal telephone interview with Marianne Perez. August 29, 2005. Tehranian, Majid. Peace Journalism: Negotiating Global Media Ethics. The Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics 7, 2002, pp. 58-83. Telecommunications Act of 1996. United States Government, Federal Communications Commission. Signed by President Bill Clinton on February 8, 1996. February 13, 2006: http://www.fcc.gov/Reports/tcom1996.pdf The Reach of War; A Hedged Apology From Blair on Iraq. The New York Times (NYT) Foreign Desk. October 14, 2004. February 18, 2006: http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F10612F6345F0C778DDDA9099 4DC404482 Traub, James. The Statesman. New York Times Magazine. September 18, 2005. Tyler, Patrick E. A New Power in the Streets. The New York Times (NYT) Foreign Desk. February 17, 2003. May 15, 2006:

92/92 http://select.nytimes.com/search/restricted/article?res=F60811FD355E0C748DD DAB0894DB404482 Van Natta, Jr., Don and Douglas Jehl. A Nation at War: Intelligence Reports; Syria Harbors Iraqis and Grants Transit to Hezbollah, U.S. Asserts. The New York Times, April 15, 2003. February 18, 2006: http://select.nytimes.com/search/restricted/article?res=F0081FFC3A5F0C768DD DAD0894DB404482 Walter, Natasha. No One Knows What We Are Going Through. The Guardian UK, May 8, 2006. May 10, 2006: http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,1769776,00.html Wikipedia. United States Department of Homeland Security. May 29, 2006: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Department_of_homeland_security West, Debra. Communities; Song of Anti-War Protesters Rises in County. The New York Times, Westchester Weekly Desk. February 16, 2003. February 18, 2006: http://select.nytimes.com/search/restricted/article?res=F50B12F73B5E0C758DD DAB0894DB404482 Who Owns the Media? Free Press. February 15, 2006: http://www.freepress.net/content/ownership Wisler, Andria. Peace Education. Course given at the European University Center for Peace Studies, Stadtschlaining, Austria. March 14-18, 2005. Wolfsfeld, Gadi. Media and the Path to Peace. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2004. Wood, Wendy and Frank Y. Wong and J. Gregory Chachere. Effects of Media Violence on Viewers Aggression in Unconstrained Social Interaction. Psychological Bulletin 1991. Vol. 109, No. 3: pp. 371-393. Academic Search Primer. EBSCOHost. Georgetown U. Lib. November 13, 2005: http://www.library.georgetown.edu/librarylink/subdata.htm Worth, Robert F. After the War: The Manhunt; Senior Aide to Hussein is in Custody, The U.S. Says. The New York Times, August 22, 2003. February 18, 2006: http://select.nytimes.com/search/restricted/article?res=F30C13F83D5D0C718ED DA10894DB404482