Choose truth, rather than a side

By Mia Doornaert

The Jakarta Post joins the commemoration of World Press Freedom Day on May 3 by looking at the media in areas of conflict and areas post-conflict. Two articles, one on page 4, the other on page 5 were distributed to the press by the advisory group on press freedom of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.

UNITED NATIONS: It's so easy to be balanced and sensible about other people's conflicts. We look at strife and conflict between ethnic or cultural or social groups far away and wonder why they don't just talk to each other and find a way to live peacefully together.

But it's a totally different story when the problems are our own. Tolerance and critical distance tend to give way to a much simpler approach: us (the good guys) against them (the bad guys).

This phenomenon can be seen everywhere. The same people who march for peace and tolerance elsewhere are often extremely intolerant when it comes to conflicts in their own part of the world. Outsiders who encourage them to be more tolerant are written off as busybodies, who either don't have the first idea about the local situation or have been brainwashed by the other side.

Journalists are not different in this from anyone else. Nothing is more difficult for them than to report on a conflict involving their own country, nation or group. National or cultural identification may often be a largely unconscious drive, it is nonetheless a powerful one.

Journalists therefore face a huge challenge when they try to maintain a critical distance about conflict at home, because they themselves are so much a part of one of the sides. Too many of them feel that their first duty is to their own side, rather than to the professional ethics.

Apart from this personal involvement, journalists are also under considerable emotional pressure from their readers or viewers. What may be good, balanced reporting elsewhere can quickly become betrayal if applied at home.

Most people do not enjoy having their staunch beliefs and prejudices undermined and they tend to see the media's purpose as rallying to the cause, cheering the home side on to victory, as in a sports game.

In the Balkans and elsewhere, many journalists who attempted to report events in a way that was fair on all the actors in the conflict have had to go in hiding, for fear of the wrath of their own compatriots.

But even under those demanding conditions, journalism is still about information, about getting the facts out. The reporter's job is to choose the truth, not a side, however painful it may be to open one's mind to the arguments and motives of the "enemy". Professional ethics cannot be pushed aside just because the going gets rough.

Truthful, balanced reporting doesn't mean that the media are not free to choose a side in their editorial line. To quote the well known basic rule: facts are sacred, comment is free.

But editorial comment needs to be based on facts. Propaganda and hate speech -- which, for example, contributed so much to the slaughter in Rwanda -- have nothing whatsoever to do with journalism or with the freedom of the press.

Journalists from outside the conflict area face different challenges. Simply having eyes and ears is not enough to be able to see and hear what is really going on. Unless they are aware of the history and culture of the region they are assigned to, even the best intentioned reporters can misread a situation and easily fall prey to propaganda.

As UNESCO Constitution quite rightly says, wars begin in the minds of people and therefore the search for peace also begins in their minds.

Men and women of good will who strive for peace need hard facts to work with. Only solid information can help them determine what the parties involved need to reach a settlement and end their conflict. Reporters who choose the truth instead of sides, not only put their ethics into practice; they also further the cause of peace.

This kind of journalism presupposes a great many things: Reporters who are firm followers of professional ethics and have the cultural background necessary to understand the events they are covering; media and press organizations willing to invest in more than a "three day fireman" whose only interest is in reporting bloodshed; and, of course, access to theaters of conflict.

Everywhere in the world, journalists from both inside and outside areas of conflict, are denied access, with a litany of excuses: they are inflaming the conflict, exaggerating the issues, favoring one side against the other, and so on. Perversely enough, quite often these charges are true. The presence of witnesses may well benefit parties in a conflict who were previously 'invisible', while it may hamper those who had been hoping to be able to oppress and kill with complete impunity.

So, the interest shown by journalists and the access accorded to them will bring about at least one major consequence: there will be a record. The stories of the victims of violence will not go untold.

Yet the mere presence of journalists cannot bring an end to conflict, nor should it be expected to do so. They cannot be held accountable for the way public opinion inside or outside the area of conflict reacts to what they report.

Contrary to a widespread belief, the media -- at least in democratic or relatively open societies -- do not control the minds of their readers or viewers.

Their job is to enlighten them. And nowhere is that job more important than when covering conflicts, because getting facts out helps to give the voice of reason a chance to rise above the sound and fury of prejudice and hatred.

The writer is the president of UNESCO's advisory group on press freedom and a correspondent of the Belgium publication De Standaard in France.