What do you think of when you consider how conflict and social issues are presented in the media? It could be "media bias", "neutral point of view", "objective journalism", or a host of many other words or phrases may come to mind.
What we are experimenting with, here on the "No Adversary" network, is how to present issues and conflicts without judging positions, without creating conflicts where they don't actually exist, and without evaluating the persons or parties presented in our media representations.
The Conflict in a Story
Journalists are often obligated to find a conflict, and report on that conflict. It is said that every "good story" should have conflict at its heart, at least, within traditional main-stream media ideals. In order to accomodate these conflicts for what is considered to be suitable presentation, some editing must be done, however.
What happens when the conflict is complicated? Simplify. What happens when the conflict is somewhat unclear as a whole? Emphasize parts that are clear. What if there are many sides to the debate? Reduce parties in a conflict as much as possible (ideally, to two, as ti is easier to visualize a "balance" of opinion between two sides). What if there's no time to explore common ground? Show only where they differ (sometimes common ground can be considered less interesting).
Could this main-stream model for reducing conflicts into caricatures create conflicts where they don't exist, or make conflicts seem worse than they really are? That is one question we are exploring.
Observation, not Evaluation
No Adversary's experimental model also borrows from Nonviolent Communications Skills (NVC), which emphasizes observing, as an alternative to evaluation.
For example:
"In the summer of 1990, all eyes were on the small town of Oka for a showdown between native people, Quebec police and eventually the Canadian army. The violent clash was triggered by something as simple as a golf course and as complicated as native burial traditions. The Oka Crisis drew worldwide attention, catapulting native land rights into the spotlight." -- CBC Archives (http://archives.cbc.ca/politics/civil_unrest/topics/99/) [bold emphasis ours]
Note the bolded text: the CBC in this article has evaluated the situation within their coverage: golf courses are "simple", native traditions are "complicated". Already, one could observe that this is favouring the argument of one side over the other, and also implying that these two sides are the only two perspectives in this conflict.
Also of note, this evaluatory language has no real "owner"; it appears to be presented as a known fact, or at the very least as the opinion of the CBC itself. Who thinks a "golf course" is a simple issue? Is this an editorial in disguise? We know we cannot as individuals avoid having an evaluatory opinion, but from a collective media voice (in this case, the CBC), can a truely observational opinion be presented instead?
Direct, Participatory Democracy
One of the great developments of the Internet age is a process of democratizing media via blogs, and independant media. With blogs, main-stream media source has had to create their own blogs, to catch up with this popular craze.
There is an evident issue in the expansion of blogs and independant media: most everyone who writes a blog on social issues and conflicts has learned how to write news by reading mainstream media.
The Enemy, or the Adversary, or ...?
In the academic study of peace, the term "enemy imaging" is used to describe how one party "images" (or, creates a character out of) the "enemy". Often this imaging occurs in political, peace, and social justice writing by directly using evaluative and judgemental language about another party or parties. Common "enemies" in this language are government, politicians, spokespersons, corporations, left/right wing, military, unions, and so on.
Often these judgements are made using sweeping or generalizing statements based on sound bites, perceived values, or (guilt by) associations, to name a few methods. The No Adversary experiemental model assumes to not engage in this style of discussion, as it often disengages those who may empathize or otherwise identify with "the enemy/adversary", and often serves only to affirm existing opinions rather than engage with the perceived adversary or directly with issues being explored.
The most appropriate example of this would be the perspective of our network as peacemakers, or peace activists, and how we must view (for example) the military. If having enemies (via enemy imaging) is a necessary component in a Culture of War, and we are not to have enemies to transform to a Culture of Peace, then the elements of soceities that perpetuate the conditions for a Culture of War themselves cannot be seen as enemies to a Culture of Peace, it would be hypocritical. The perceived adversary must be viewed perhaps as those who do not understand us, and/or those we ourselves do not understand.
Draft Model of Non-Adversarial Media Representation
The following ruleset is evolving constantly, and is open to suggestions and feedback:
- Source materials should be openly available: full text or audio of an interview or talk. "Sound bites" should be avoided, as these must be selected through a process of evaluation -- these should only be used with the approval of those being quoted to ensure the context of what is being said is clear.
- Each viewpoint expressed does not necessitate an "opposing" opinion also quoted for "balance". "Balance" in media often refers to only two sides, rather than the myriad of opinions that are likely available. This can create false conflicts or conflcts that sound worse than they really are.
- While is it not possible to explore all opinions/perspectives of an issue, when a limited number of perspectives are explored it should be made clear somehow that a myriad of opinions exist, and that they are all of great value.
- Media-generated written materials must be clear in their viewpoint: objective (observing), or evaluative (editorial, first-person perspective, "I" ownership). Written materials that engage in evaluative language should strive to take ownership over its own evaluative languge, to be transparent in its biases.
- All creative elements of non-adversarial media should keep in mind the aspects of a Culture of Peace, as outlined in UNESCO's Manifesto 2000. This would include works written specifically on behalf of No Adversary.
- Source materials may (and likely will) break the above rules. As a Non-Adversarial Network, we cannot evaluate our sources, even if they are adversarial. This is less of a "media filter" and more of a means of accessing more direct information in the spirit of direct participatory democracy.
- Online materials should always include opportunities for discussion via message forums/commenting.
