This
presentation analyses the relationship between television and conflict
resolution. The article will start by defining the terms television, conflict
and conflict resolution. The role of television in building democracy and
nation building will be looked at. The paper will go on to look at the role of
television in conflict resolution and the various means it uses to uphold peace
and nation building. Here we look at the various theories that television
programming subscribe to for nation building and also the different means it
uses for peace. Theories like the agenda setting theory, the public sphere and
other theories that try to explain the role of television in society will be
looked at. The presentation will further look at the setbacks facing television
in trying to resolve conflicts like commercialisation and the possible
solutions to these setbacks.
Television
and conflict resolution is an issue that has been ignored by many scholars, as
Wolfsfeld (2004) notes, much has been written about the role of television in
conflict and wars but very little about their roles in peace. Perhaps let us
define the terms we are going to be dealing with. According to Mille (1989) television
is a Greek word comprised of two syllables tele meaning distance and vision
meaning sight. However the television we want to talk about can be viewed in
Spencer (2005) sense who describes it as the medium for transmitting and
receiving moving images that can be monochrome. Conflict can be defined as a
disagreement through which the parties involved perceive a threat to their
needs. Wolfsfeld (2004) tends to agree with this definition as he says conflict
occurs between two or more people who disagree on an issue that threatens their
respective goals, values and needs. Wolfsfeld further says that the idea that
conflict is war only needs to be demystified as conflict involves a wide
phenomena starting from the household. Thus conflict is when personal or public
interests are potentially at odds.
After
defining television and conflict comes the role of television in conflict
resolution. Conflict resolution is described by Bourdieu (1998) as ‘any process
or collection of processes established to resolve disputes without trial or
violence and can be through negotiation, conciliation, mediation, conciliation,
conference, arbitration, consensus building..’ the media and television to be
specific offers all these, they can be mediators or a public sphere. Said
(1993) reiterates that conflict resolution is conceptualized as the methods and
processes involved in facilitating a peaceful ending of some social conflict.
Television can play many roles in conflict resolution including setting news
agendas that uphold peace as they are a pushing force in society, facilitate
public debates and emphasize less on conflict.
Television
and its role in conflict resolution.
The
news media can play a central role in the promotion of peace, they can
emphasize the benefits of peace, they can raise the legitimacy of groups
working for peace and can even transform images of the enemy. The
television like any other media should follow McQuail’s development theory and
avoid conflicts. The television is a powerful force and people look for it on
opinion since people believe in what they see due to the realism provided by
television. Television solve conflict by broadcasting views on what conflicts
might lead to for example Hollywood is popular for broadcasting war movies were
they put a horrible picture on the effects of war. Thus people will most likely
conform to good behaviour.
Wolfsfeld
(2000) gives four types of impact the television can have on conflict
resolution when it covers peace processes. Fist the media define the political
atmosphere in which the process takes place. People are most likely to support
peace processes when the general mood appears to be upbeat and optimistic. When
the media are reporting about a resolving a conflict after a civil war they usually
show the leaders shaking hands like Zimbabwe Broadcasting Corporation did in
1989 at the peace accord they always emphasised president Mugabe and president
Nkomo shaking hands. This gives the people the idea that the atmosphere is now
good and hence downplay all the areas where people are fighting. The way in
which television report on the peace are of course directly related to the external
events.
Secondly
Wolfsfeld gives that the television influence the nature and type of debate
about a peace progress. The television has become a central arena for political
debate in the world. It is the television who decides who gets to speak and
what is considered an appropriate form of argument. Wolfsfeld (2004) says, ‘…just
as legal debates held in courts room have a prescribed language and demeanour,
so do arguments carried out on television..’ an example lies with the public
political debate between the then ruling party’s representative ZANU PF and
their counterparts MDC in 2007 or better still in America the debates carried
out by presidential candidates before elections, the public expect a certain
type of language from the television.
Wolfsfeld
(2004) give the third role of television in conflict resolution as that the
television and the media often have an impact on the antagonist’s strategy and
behaviour. Many antagonists attribute importance to the news like Hitler
depended on the media for information. Thus conflicting groups often find
themselves adapting their plans and actions in accordance with the television’s
need so it is up to the television to forward a need for conflict to resolve.
When violence breaks out the leaders usually come under enormous pressure to do
something and the television is an
important agent for creating this urgency and as such events are short lived
but can lead to policy shifts which Wolfsfeld terms the ‘CNN effect’.
The
television also play a major role in conflict resolution through what Wolfsfeld
postulates that they raise and lower the public standing and legitimacy of
antagonists and their positions also. The television achieves this by modifying
the image of the enemy and this will mobilise the public for peace as it does
for war. Television usually portray the enemy as human and with needs also and
try to give them a human face for example on Mai Chisamba show where social
conflicts are discussed men and women are all taken into account and their needs taken into account. This is
mostly accomplished through television’s balanced reporting.
Perhaps
another important aspect of conflict resolution as suggested by Fiske (1999) is
television’s narrative form. Drama is narrative, and so is news, documentaries,
soaps, sport, quiz shows and other television genres. These impose a narrative
structure upon their subject matter and this narrative structure like the olden
day drama, novel, newspapers and later on radio are presented in terms of
character, conflict and conflict resolution where usually those that cause
disorder are punished. These ideologies of an end with a resolution are meant
as argued by Althuser to iron out differences and contradictions between its
subjects’ real and imaginary social relations. It constructs a ‘consensus’
around the point of view of the bourgeoisie and excludes the consciousness of
class conflict. Conflict of interest can only be expressed through
contradiction, speaking against, so the repression of conflicts in the real is
a reactionary ideological practise for it mobilises a consensus around the
status quo and thus militates against conflict and contradiction. In lay man’s
term we can say that conflict is resolved in television programmes and the
villains are punished and this makes people fear to the consequences of the
justice systems enforced by its instruments in form of state apparatus like the
police and the military. That is why we see in war time movies of Hollywood
America’s military always win.
Bakhtin
(1981) argues that society consists of a structured system of different,
unequal and often conflicting groups. The narrative structure of television
entails conflict resolution. The A-Team as Fiske (199) says ‘…enacts
masculinity/maturity and its conflict accommodation with social
responsibilities.’ In such an explanation the struggle between hero and villain
is metaphorical transformation of that between the forces of order and those of
disorder, good and evil or culture and nature which ends with resolution.
Ideological work of television begins by a comparison of the opening and
closing states of equilibrium and secondly it identifies what constitutes a
force of disruption and a force of stability with the force of disruption being
punished and people develop a sense of anger at the villain such that they fear
to be villains because they fear alienation.
Another
instrument used by television is its mythologies. Raymond Williams (1997) argue
that ‘television mythologies often attempt to resolve social contradictions.’
He further gives the example of the cop show where Slarsky and Hutch deals with
the fundamental American contradictions between the need for conformity and the
individual initiative between working in a corporate hierarchy and being an
individual. They do police work and wear flashy clothes and have lots of good
times. The bottom line is they that show that it is possible to fit into
society and not loose one’s individuality. The series thus mythically resolves
contradictions between the work and the pleasure ethic, between duty and
enjoyment. Television mythology resolves conflict to enable individuals to
adjust.
Two
new phenomena hit the television and conflict resolution. These are peace
journalism and public journalism. Schaeffert (1992:61) defines peace journalism
as that which ‘…advocate the belief that journalists should use the power of
the media to help resolve conflict rather than report it from a distance. Peace journalism is still at its foundation
level as it is a recent phenomenon and has many hindrances. Wolfsfeld notes
that ‘Much has been written about the role of news media in conflict and war,
but very little about their role in peace…thus the television is turning war
correspondents into peace correspondents.’ However a more vibrant television
reporting is the public journalism which Raboy (1992) likes to call the civic
journalism.
According to Schaeffert (1992) public
journalism seek to explore those issues affecting a community long enough to
make the community understand a conflict and get involved in solving it. Rosen
(1994) says that ‘Civic journalism is about a realistic option to the role of
television news in conflict resolution. It seems to me that public journalism
is about putting a new lens on our camera’ Civic journalism has evolved over
the past six years to enhance democratic principles. Burton (1987:7) argues
that In deep rooted conflicts, problems continuously emerge at the community so
their resolution must come from the members of the community.’ According to Burton
(1987:7) ‘Conflict resolution means getting to the roots of the problem and
resolving them in ways that will further the long term goal of all concerned’
thus public journalism or civic journalism is about getting to the roots of the
conflict an dealing with it not just reporting. Civic journalism starts at
community stations, national stations and even global stations like BBC and
CNN. Each will service its public and thus the community station will resolve
conflict at community level and the national television at national level and
global television in its own community of the globe. For example Press T.V. has
a program called the real deal that deals with global conflicts and provides
solutions to political leaders and Zimbabwe Broadcasting Television has
‘Current Affairs’ a program that tries to provide solutions to political,
economic and social problems in Zimbabwe.
Public
journalism is supported by the communicative ethics posed by Harbermas. Harbermas
says that ‘…universalization guides individuals to narrow conflicts down to
justice issues and leave aside issues of differences in their conception of the
good.’ He further stares that to find a valid answer television journalists
must ask what is equally good to all not what is equally good to an individual
or group. Apel (1990:30) says that
‘communication ethics stands for an ethic of planetarium responsibility’
meaning that the ethics advocates that television journalists work towards responsibility. The ethics work together with the public sphere
theory. Harbermas posits that the public sphere is a realm in which individuals
gather to participate in open discussion equally. As such television is the
modern public sphere, an institution of mediation between the private interest
and the public interest. Harbermas (1993) also says that television journalists
follow five principles. First he says
they have a commitment of values of justice. These kind of journalism see the
people no longer as economic to audience. Secondly they view the audience as
equals. Audience are seen as citizens not consumers, they also reduce sense of
irresolvable conflict. Thirdly they evolved from observer to participants. A
good example is those that set up the media representation at the Geneva
conference. He also says that these journalists demand justifications and
finally they accept responsibility.
Thus
this type of journalism is more about participation and responsibility. A
reporter Martin Bell in Jensen (1996) was quoted saying,
…in place of dispassionate practices
of the past I now believe in what I call
journalism of attachment. By this I mean a journalist who cares as
well as knows, that is aware of its responsibilities, and I will stand
neutrally between good and evil, right or wrong, victim and oppressor
Thus
its not about taking sides as Spencer (2005) argues that the idea of moving
from zero sum emphasis clearly means avoiding the construction of winners and losers… there remains a problem
about supporting the underdog since an evident bias may impact negatively on
the stronger party and reinforce a siege mentality.
Theories
of media also suggest that television plays an important role in creating
peace. Television plays an important role in conflict resolution in countries
that are still developing and are democratic. The media of a country are
usually guided by the type of model governing that country. Studies in
McQuail’s theory of development suggest that television in developing countries
play a developmental role and that includes resolving conflict. Thus when there
is conflict the television in developing countries subscribe to this theory and
give little coverage if at all to conflicts there by reducing their impact. In
such situations television’s role is to censor all possibly national
threatening news or programmes like in Zimbabwe the case of the Gukurahundi or
In China the case of Tiananmen square where hundreds of students were murdered.
The television usually censors potentially alarm and despondence raising
products.
The
agenda setting theory also assumes that the media contribute to conflict
resolution. Jensen (1996) argues that the agenda setting theory suggest that
not only do television report news; they also create news by deciding what to
report. He further argues that
The media will influence the audiences’ view of the world; therefore have
enormous importance to conflict resolution
because they are the primary… and frequently only… source of
information regarding conflicts.
This
statement merely suggests that if a situation does not make the news it simply
does not exist for most people. When peaceful options such as negotiation and
other collaborative problem solving techniques are not covered or their success
are not reported, they become invincible and are not likely to be considered or
even understood as possible options in the management of a conflict. Thus
television takes the role of broadcasting peace conferences. For example
france24 broadcasted the Geneva conference live as it was happening showing
that if the television sets the agenda of peace leading to people really
considering the idea of resolution.
Mediation
metaphors also portray the role of television in conflict resolution. The
television can be mirror which represent society.
The
television can also be a filter or gatekeeper. This is when the media sift
information to avoid conflict and promote peace. The media may avoid
controversial issues willingly especially if it is a public television. An
example is the D-Notice system in Britain which denies the media to reveal some
national secrets for safety. The television can also be a signpost directing
people and showing them the way. The role of television is directed towards
building peace thus its directions will point away at conflict. For example in
Zimbabwe there has been directions by the television from cholera to the extent
that a short film was made to enlighten people on the possibility of cholera.
The
television In relation to the metaphors as it can also act as a barrier, when
they directly manipulate television products. There is interception by a third
party and manipulation of information hence television is loaded with numerous
intentions and one of them is to avoid social revolts by praising the status
quo, hence jingles on ZBC TV are not innocent. The television can also be a
public forum. It is the platform for audience to deliberate on real issues of conflict.
For example the famous Zimbabwean debate platform ‘Melting Pot’s
Television
however has faced many setbacks in its role for conflict resolution especially
due to the importance of conflict as news. One of the definitions of news is
conflict to the extent that Hitler even said that, ‘wake me up when there is
bad news, real news is bad news.’ Conflict is more interesting to the reporter
as much as the viewer. Popular quotes for journalists says, ‘real news is bad
news’. Conflict has become one of the dominant force in determining
newsworthiness. Journalists are so posed with conflict such that one has just
to rush to where there is a conflict and make the headlines. Such stations
broadcast stories that involve much conflict and an example is Press T.V. Thus
conflict is unavoidable behind the lens. According to Wolfsfeld (2004) many
problems are rooted in the problematic relationship between news and peace. It
is easier to promote conflict than peace. The media have an obsessive interest
in threats, violence and conflict. For example
Al Jazeera is popular for conducting interviews with controversial
figures like the late Osama Bin Laden who sparked hate speech.
French
sociologist Pierre Bourdieu (1987:7) says that “T.V. news sees the world as ‘a
series of apparently absurd events that all end up looking the same, endless
parades...sequences of events that having appeared with no explanation will
disappear with no solution.” Instead of using real solutions the television is
rather commercialising conflict because their sponsors benefit in the whole
cycle of conflict. Wolfsfeld gives the example of the 2001 bombing on
Afghanistan where Joice McIntyre of CNN enthused about the munitions and
aircraft used in the bombing in what seemed a teleshopping mode as a price tag
was attached to the screen with each aircraft and described as extremely
accurate. Thus such visuals add to conflict as the aircrafts are used for
assault.
Television
thus should take a more responsible role in society as they are one of the most
if not the only profession that can challenge irresponsible governments the
world over. The television should rather embrace McQuail’s developmental theory
where they play a key role in building nations and operate democratically and
free from political and commercial influence in order to fulfil their role as
the later day public sphere as Habermas puts it, responsible for the discussion
of current controversial issues and finding the solutions. The television
should also take into account the four ways it plays in conflict resolution.
In
conclusion we can say that the television can be a destructive as well as a
building element in society. It can aid conflict or resolve conflict. It is
however ironic that the only force that can curtail conflict is enhancing it
due to the increased definition of news as conflict thus television is rather
promoting conflict rather than solving conflict. This area should be revisited
for television to play a responsible role in society. Television should be an
arena where conflicts are resolved and peace is built, as a public sphere where
democratic resolution and consensus are reached diplomatically.