Media at workBeating the war drums in Mindanao

Now, the ultimate irony: this was the one time we can be thankful that not everyone believes the media. While social networking sites were deluged by calls for an all-out war against the MILF, there were many who thought that there was something wrong with the way media were framing the story.

“Beyond irresponsible journalism, (it) borders on criminal incitement,” remarked lawyer Zainudin Malang, executive director of the Mindanao Human Rights Action Center (MinHRAC) in a Facebook post.

“It is called yellow journalism,” added Rommel Banlaoi, executive director of the Philippine Institute for Peace, Violence, and Terrorism Research (PIPVTR). “Sensationalist headlines to sell newspapers. Remember (that) the American-Spanish war of 1898 started as a war in media.”

To their credit (or discredit, depending on your point of view), many of those guilty of playing up to the war mongers may not necessarily have been doing it for the benefit of the ratings. They were not necessarily saying anything sensational; in fact they were merely saying something that probably sounded all-too popular. After all, gut instinct demands an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, and an all-out war for the so-called traitorous actions that resulted in the loss of 19 young lives.

The truth is it is easier to report about war than to report about conflict. Yes, there is a difference between the two kinds of reportage, as any decent and responsible reporter would or should tell you.

War coverage is the simplified coverage of violence, where the reporter is relegated to the role of the scorekeeper who lists the number of dead and wounded while keeping his hair in place for that all-too-necessary piece-on-cam. Conflict reporting has to do with understanding why two sides fight, and what it takes to make them talk and find common ground. For those who still wonder about this difference, here is an easy test: ask a reporter who covers war/conflict if he or she has read any of the peace agreements, or can discuss thoroughly the talking points or the points of contention, or the culture and history of the area. One type of reporter thrives on the results of misunderstandings; the other reporter works, quite simply, for more understanding. It is all too easy to fall into the first category.

“So many of our colleagues are irresponsibly fanning the flames of war and hatred without even stopping for a minute and looking at the situation,” said one senior journalist who asked not to be named. “I would really like to tell these people to be the first to jump into this type of war or volunteer their own fathers, uncles, sons, brothers to fight.”

It is incredibly difficult to be a conflict reporter, because it goes against many of the common, baser urges of human nature. To the public, war and guns and gear will always be sexy, as so many millions of dollars in Hollywood profits and so many Rambo sequels would prove to you.

Unfortunately, many of those who claim the right to shape the minds of viewers and listeners have only the vaguest clue as to the issues facing both parties on the negotiating table, or the realities of those who really put their boots on the ground. If more reporters and editors could experience the terror of a firefight, or shiver in the dark in no-man’s-land while waiting for the sunrise, or see the casualties of war close-up, then perhaps more journalists would understand and appreciate the differences that distinguish wars and conflicts from Hollywood posturing and video games.

Veteran journalist Ed Lingao is the multimedia director of the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism.

<<Previous Page