News Organizations are not Conflict Resolvers
Reviewed by Stuart H. Loory Posted Thu, Oct 19 2006
In the halls of journalistic academe these days, a key topic for research and discussion is the news business’s role in resolving conflict. The researchers are asking such questions as whether or not news organizations have such a role and, if so, how effective are they in fulfilling it?
There was a time when the answer to those questions would have been a resounding “no.” That stemmed from the idea that the only reasonable role of the news business was to gather information and publish it. Most of the news was in the open. A president spoke, a legislature debated and passed laws, a jury rendered a verdict, a judge handed up a verdict, a team won a game and so forth. All of that was grist for the journalist.
But the work of the news business did not stop only there. It has long been the acknowledged duty of news organizations to shine light into dark places, to expose corruption and other wrong doing, to weigh arguments for or against on an issue and deliver its own verdict on right versus wrong.
However none of that meant that the news business was to take a role in actually fashioning a solution to a conflict. It could not settle a war, deliver a verdict that a jury might not agree on or otherwise insinuate itself into a dispute between others to work out a solution.
As a so-called “fourth branch of government,” (to use a term borrowed from American political theory) the new business functions as a check or balance on the executive, legislative and judicial branches. The check is intended to make sure that the branches act legally and report when it does not. The balance is intended to provide accurate and truthful information when they obfuscate or lie.
All of this explains the role of the news business in a democratic society. In this context, journalists represent the public and not the power structure.
In more controlled societies the function of the news business (if it can be called that under such conditions) is to represent what the ruling structure considers the best interests of society. So it is not intended as a truthful presenter of news and information, and it is certainly not intended to do investigative reporting of what authorities might be doing to hurt the rights of individuals or to keep themselves in power without accountability.
The conventional wisdom among the researchers is that news organizations desire a role in resolving conflicts.
Is that really so? Journalism is no longer a business in which the informed provide news and information to the uninformed. Changes in technology, economics and consumer habits have given it previously unfathomed capabilities. One of the more intriguing changes is the growth of “citizen journalism” – the use of the World Wide Web – to allow any professional or amateur to report news, explain it or express an opinion.
One role citizen journalists undertake with relish is either to create conflict or try to settle it. Through them, the new media become not just vehicles for the spread of news and information but also bona fide participants in public affairs.
So if maintstream news organizations are content to report on the aftermath of 9/11 and how the war on terrorism has been handled by the Bush Administration, the citizen journalists or bloggers begin asking questions that are unanswered in the mainstream articles or often not deemed to be worthy of answers because of poor interpretation of facts.
The news business has grown so visible and controversial in recent years that it is hard not to over emphasize its importance. News organizations certainly do have powers that must be noted. They certainly can compel change by writing about scandalous or corrupt conditions in some parts of society. They can make or break a public figure by detailing abnormal behavior. They can expose overspending and bring about reform. But when it comes to mediating a dispute, conducting a negotiation or arbitrating disagreement, the news business is not fit for the job. It is doing its job well when it lays out all the facts, giving the public something to judge by and giving those involved in the dispute something on which to base a conclusion.
Needless to say, peaceful dispute settlement is the goal all reasonable people want to achieve and whatever the news business can do to further that is to be applauded but that is a long way from saying that the news business should take on responsibility for settling differences that plague society.
Stuart H. Loory
Stuart H. Loory, an international journalist, is Lee Hills Chair in Free-Press Studies at the Missouri School of Journalism and editor of Global Journalist. Loory worked for TBS/CNN from October 1980 to March 1997 as CNN vice president and Washington managing editor, Moscow correspondent, and executive producer, among other positions. Before joining TBS/CNN, Loory spent 28 years in the newspaper business. Among his positions were Moscow bureau chief for the New York Herald Tribune and White House correspondent for the Los Angeles Times during the last years of Lyndon Johnson and the first two of Richard Nixon. He was a member of the Nixon enemies list. He was later managing editor of the Chicago Sun Times where he supervised several award-winning investigative reporting series.