The term war correspondent brings names like Winston Churchill to our mind. His narrative of Pashtun bravery in Kohat is a wonderful first hand expression of the feelings of a journalist knowing not only the war and the ‘belligerent other’ but also the traditions of the other. Churchill’s narrative is a cultural experience. He didn’t narrate the victory or loss, but rather the process. A small encounter from the enemy fort amid the heart of the people whose land was being usurped through force. But this didn’t hinder Churchill from understanding the people on the other side. He didn’t depict them as evil, nor as enemies, but rather the other side of the conflict.
This art is dead with embedded reporting. Journalism in conflict zones has become so biased towards one’s own side while against the other. This is not all. Forces operating within the conflict are not always alien. One fights one’s own house and at times has to report against people one owns and loves. This is the new war/conflict reporting. Conflicts within a state and the journalist being caught in the middle of two regimes of truth is the new war correspondent. Journalism as an international correspondent is seemingly on the decline after the rise of technology and international media partnerships. This has also receded due to the rise of social media which has forced the mainstream international media to cut back on its resources.
Unless we are able to develop an holistic view of conflict — our reporting will simply exacerbate things. Yet this is no easy task given how, today, regimes of truth operate from all sides of the conflict. And unlike Churchill’s times, the audience that includes the parties to conflict have their own versions of truth
This decline in international war reporting has given way to international conflicts where multiple forces within and without the conflict zone are at play. Storytelling of a different kind is needed to give a perspective. This perspective is becoming more and more complicated through the globalisation of human interaction and a new understanding of the world around us. Churchill’s narrative is a good basis to see what difference on the spot, not-embedded reporting makes. War or conflict reporting is not simply about an event that takes place between two, or more, warring parties. It is about understanding of the conflict without prejudice. It is no spot reporting. A journalist needs to understand the background as well as the present of a conflict to give the audience a balanced view of the processes of a problem. The human touch is also very important. Depersonalising human beings by numbering them is wrong. War, despite all its heinousness, is a human phenomenon. It will always remain part of the social organism like a disease. In case of the latter we never decide be content with narrating about what the disease is. We always look for causes and remedies. The journalistic remedy to conflict is giving the full picture, the whole spectrum of actions that brings in conflict to human societies. And this long road to understanding begins with the appreciation of humanness of war and conflict.
Unless we are able to develop a holistic view of conflicts our reporting will add to the problem rather than any solutions. This is not easy in our present day regimes of truth operating from all sides of the conflict. Unlike Churchill’s times the audience that includes the parties to conflict have their own versions of truth. They very strongly adhere to these partial truths and force the media and its professionals to echo these to the audience. The journalist is always caught in the crossfire, not knowing what to offer the audience. Their takeaway is different from what they are forced to present. Unwillingly, the journalists and their organisations become the messengers of half truths. Half truths are even more lethal that falsehood. Physical safety is more than often ensured at the cost of psychological wellbeing. This ethical dilemma is also intensified by corruption rising out of inclusion of corrupt elements on the one hand while the partisan elements entering into the narrative due to multiple reasons. The absence of clarity and the fear of loss of life and subsistence in case of clearing the confusion and finding truth also frustrate the professionals to the limit of giving in to falsehood and benefiting financially at the cost of their integrity.
War and conflict reporting are still the most important beats. Conflicts are rife and the whole world is watching. Unlike the olden days reporting conflicts is not easy. The nature of conflicts has changed and the very meaning of truth has become complicated in a world ruled by mediatised perceptions of reality. One of the prime responsibilities of the journalistic structures on a global scale is to understand the importance of this important global phenomenon and seek tools that could be useful in this age of conflicts.
The writer holds a PhD from the institute of KMW, University of Leipzig, Germany. He has had a long career as a working journalist and trainer. Currently, he is professor of Journalism at the University of Peshawar. He can be reached at [email protected]
Published in Daily Times, November 21st 2017.