television and conflict resolution.

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.