User:EgoCrush/Peace Journalism

= Peace Journalism =

Criticism
Debates surrounding peace journalism arise from concerns about ethics and how the field is structured. Ethical concerns pertain to the objectivity of peace journalism and how violence is portrayed while structural concerns focus on concepts of media structure, public reception, and different approaches to the field.

Objectivity
One criticism of peace journalism is that the field functions as a form of advocacy journalism and is therefore not reliable due to the personal bias of journalists that is injected into the work. The main goal of peace journalism is seen to go against the standard of good journalism, a journalistic practice that doesn't aim to persuade the audience one way or another, instead presenting the facts as they are in a neutral manner. This is done through three main principles: objectivity, neutrality, and detachment. Instead, the practices of peace journalism are understood to be more inline with that public relations. These critiques are reflected in the Press Institute of India's conflict reporting guidelines that states'': "Factual accuracy in a single story is no substitute for the total truth. A single story, which is factually accurate can nonetheless be misleading". '' Similar concerns surrounding objectivity are raised by Dr. Thomas Hanitzsch, particularly that there is an "overemphasis on individualism and voluntarism" within the field.

Audience
'' Hanitszche (2007) criticises peace journalism, noting that media users are often "fragmented and active audiences instead of a passive mass ... leading to a selective use of supplied products". ''

''Indeed Hall's(1980) own example of the negotiation of meaning is the case of an industrial factory worker, willing to challenge official justifications in the media for an Industrial Relations Bill limiting his or her right to strike. ''