Choose truth, rather than a side

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.