The news media can play a central role in the promotion of peace. They can emphasize the benefits that peace can bring, they can raise the legitimacy of groups or leaders working for peace, and they can help transform images of the enemy. The media, however, can also serve as destructive agents in the process. They can emphasize the risks and dangers associated with compromise, raise the legitimacy of those opposed to concessions, and reinforce negative stereotypes of the enemy. This work will attempt to explain how, why, and when the media take on each of these roles.

Considering the obvious importance of the topic, there has been surprisingly little written about the role of the news media in the process of peace. Searching through the hundreds of studies on peace building and conflict resolution, it is difficult to find even a passing reference to the press. Not one major study has ever looked at the role of the news media in an ongoing peace process.

The lack of interest in the topic is even more glaring when one considers the tremendous amount written on media and conflict. There are countless articles and books about the role of the media in protests, terrorism, and war in both popular and scholarly publications. Why is there such a gap? Considering possible answers to this question provides some important insights about the general topic of media and peace. Many of the reasons why communication researchers are more likely to deal with conflict can also explain why journalists do the same.

The first reason that comes to mind is that the link between media and conflict is simply more obvious. Conflict and violence are the mainstays of the news industry, whereas stories about peace are few and far between. It is also clear that the media play a significant role in protests and terrorism because the need for publicity is a central component of these strategies. The role of the press in wartime is also very conspicuous, not only because of the enormous amount of coverage, but also because of concerns over secrecy and public morale.

Another reason might be that pundits and scholars simply find conflict more interesting and exciting than peace. The drama of terrorism and war is difficult to resist, and it is small wonder that so many people get swept up in the excitement. The enormous number of studies dealing with the role of the media in the Gulf War is a perfect example of this phenomenon. The high level of public interest in such topics provides an added incentive to write about this topic.

Some might also argue that dealing with the part the media play in conflicts is also less complicated than studying their role in a peace process. Protests, acts of terror, and even wars are often short-lived and the major events associated with these conflicts often take place in the open. A peace process on the other hand can go on for years and some of the most important developments take place behind closed doors. While this would be a perfectly suitable topic for historians, social scientists prefer more straightforward case studies.

Another reason for the gap might be the fact that most communication scholars are located in the United States. The U.S. has certainly experienced a good deal of political violence and war. But it has not been engaged in a major peace process since the end of Vietnam. The closest example would be the détente between the U.S. and the Soviet Union that led to the end of the Cold War, but here too the role of the press was mostly ignored. The President and the State Department have served as both mediators and facilitators for peace processes in other parts of the world, including the Middle East, Bosnia, and Northern Ireland. But given the parochial nature of most research in America, it is no surprise that the vast majority of studies deal with the role of the news media in conflicts concerning the U.S.

It is often said that it is much more difficult to build peace than to initiate conflict. The same can be said perhaps about communication research concerning peace and war. The goal of this work is to provide some ideas for narrowing the gap between the two fields of study.

Theory Building

There are two major arguments that serve as the theoretical foundations for this work. The first argument is: Due to an inherent contradiction between the nature of a peace process and news routines, the media often play a destructive role in attempts at peacemaking. A successful peace process requires patience, and the news media demand immediacy. Peace is most likely to develop within a calm environment and the media have an obsessive interest in threats and violence. Peace building is a complex process and the news media can only deal with simple events. Progress towards peace requires at least a minimal understanding of the needs of the other side, but the news media reinforce ethnocentrism and hostility towards adversaries.

The second major argument is that: The particular role the news media will play in a peace process is best understood by examining the nature of the political environment in which they operate. This proposition attempts to provide a key to understanding the varying role of the process. A peace process enjoying a good deal of political consensus will be covered very differently than a controversial one. A process plagued by a multitude of crises will invoke a different set of media routines than one that runs smoothly. The path of politics almost never runs straight nor level, and these twists, turns and pitfalls all have an impact on how the media perform. The next two sections of this chapter will expand on each of these arguments. The first will provide some basic principles about why the media play such a problematic role in a peace process. The discussion in the second section grapples with the more difficult question of how the press’s role changes over time and political circumstance.

Some Ground Rules

The model that will be developed below is confined to a specific set of political circumstances. It will attempt to explain the role the news media play in an ongoing peace process involving at least one relatively democratic country. While many of the points being made here can certainly be applied more generally, given the lack theoretical work in this area it is prudent to limit the scope of this initial attempt.

This work deals with those situations in which a government is engaging in an active attempt to resolve an existing conflict. Previous studies in this area have mostly dealt with attempts by peace movements or political parties to stop governments from engaging in war (Gamson and Wolfsfeld, 1993; Glasgow University Media Group, 1985; Gitlin, 1980; Hackett, 1991; Hallin, 1986; Ryan, 1991; Wolfsfeld, 1997). When governments are themselves attempting to promote peace it raises a very different set of theoretical questions concerning he role of the media.

The reason for confining the discussion to democratic states is that the norms and routines that apply to a free press are completely different than those that apply to media working in a dictatorship. This is admittedly a severe limitation because there are so many conflicts involving non-democratic countries. I would argue, however, that the role of the media in these conflicts is less interesting. When governments have complete control over the media, news is simply another form of propaganda and whenever the authorities decide to change policies the press becomes a passive - albeit important - tool for executing those policies. There is certainly no reason to believe that the press in non-democratic countries plays a more constructive role than in democratic countries. Dictators have a vested interest in exploiting hate and ethnocentrism in order to remain in power. The more intriguing questions concern the impact of a relatively autonomous media on a peace process. For it is in these cases that the media can have an independent influence on the process.

Looking at what happens in democratic countries is also important because these cases are usually characterized by a genuine contest between proponents and opponents of the process. As further detailed below, a good deal of the debate takes place within the confines of the media and this increases the centrality of their role. In non-democratic countries such contests, when they exist, are more likely to take place behind closed doors.

Four Types of Influence

The news media have four major types of impact on any peace process. First, they play a major role in defining the political atmosphere in which the process takes place. Second, they have an important influence on the nature of the debate about a peace process. The third type of influence is rooted in their ability to raise and lower the public legitimacy of antagonists who are involved in the process. Finally, the media can also have an influence on antagonists’ political strategy and behavior.

Perhaps the most obvious influence concerns the media’s impact on the political atmosphere surrounding the process. Many would argue that a peace process is most likely to succeed when it is carried out within an environment that is conducive to compromise and reconciliation. In many ways decisions about whether to go forward on such a path can be considered analogous to making a financial investment. While most people realize that any investment entails a certain amount of risk, the financial climate can have a critical influence on perceptions about the extent of the risk involved. People are much less likely to invest in the stock market when everyone is talking about a recession. A general mood of economic optimism, on the other hand, inevitably leads to increased investment. The same can be said about investing in peace: people are more likely to support a peace process when the general mood appears to be upbeat and optimistic.

News reports provide citizens with important clues about the political climate surrounding a peace process. Is the process moving forward or back? Does the overall level of hostility and violence appear to be rising or declining? Is the "other side" keeping its side of the agreements? Are those opposed to the process succeeding in their efforts to stop it? How much of the public supports what the government is trying to do? Is this process really going to work? The answers to such questions – which are often provided by ongoing news coverage – help determine whether the political atmosphere is conducive to peacemaking.

The ways in which the news media report on the peace process are, of course, directly related to external events. If negotiations have been halted and violence has broken out, the media can not be expected to provide upbeat news stories. A peace process however, is often long and complicated, and the direction it takes is often open to interpretation. Journalistic norms and routines which dictate the selection of sources and the construction of story lines can have a significant effect on which interpretation appears to make the most sense.

The press also has a major impact on a peace process by influencing the nature of the debate. The news media have become the central arena for political debate in western countries and those who hope to promote their ideas to the public have few alternative channels. It is the news media that determine who gets to speak and what is considered an appropriate form of argument. Just as legal debates held in a courtroom have a prescribed language and demeanor, so do arguments carried out on television, radio and in newspapers.

The fact that so many leaders, activists, and citizens monitor such public debates makes them much more significant. A democratic decision about whether or not to proceed with a particular peace process should be based on people being exposed to a wide and representative set of voices. The goal is to have the news media serve as a forum in which proponents and opponents are encouraged to express their views in an open and reasoned fashion. While such an ideal is rarely achieved in any political system, it is important to identify those structures and processes that exacerbate the problem.

The news media can also have an impact on a peace process by raising and lowering the legitimacy of antagonists. This is especially important concerning images of the enemy. It is extremely difficult to modify attitudes and perceptions of the other side that are based on years of hate and conflict. In times of conflict and war, the press is an important agent of vilification, a tool that allows leaders to mobilize public support for their policies. American press coverage of Saddam Hussein during the Gulf War was an excellent example of this phenomenon (Dorman and Livingston, 1994; Manheim, 1994; Wolfsfeld, 1997). Leaders pursuing a peace process usually have a different set of goals. They must lower the level of suspicion and hate in order to convince the public that there is a viable partner on the other side.

By modifying images of the enemy, the press can play just as important a role in mobilizing the public for peace as it does for war. In a relatively successful peace process such changes will come about naturally as the events themselves become more hopeful. Coverage of negotiations and breakthroughs gradually supersede scenes of violence. Nevertheless, editorial decisions can also have an important influence on this process. Assigning a reporter to spend time living on the "other side" would be a good example of such a decision. Such reporters would develop new sources and perspectives that could provide a somewhat less ethnocentric form of coverage.

The influence of the media on the legitimacy of antagonists can also be an important factor in the contest between proponents and opponents of a particular peace process. The success of any political policy depends, at least in part, on public attitudes towards the sponsors themselves. When antagonists are placed in a negative light, it makes it more difficult for them to mobilize supporters. The most obvious examples take place during election campaigns, but this struggle for legitimacy takes place all the time.

Finally, the news media can have a more immediate and direct influence on the antagonists’ political strategy and behavior. When violence breaks out, for example, Government leaders come under tremendous pressure to "do something" and the press is one of the most important agents in creating this sense of urgency. Such events are often accompanied by massive amounts of media attention and a dramatic increase in public anxiety. These political waves (Wolfsfeld, 1998) are often short-lived, but can lead to important policy shifts. On the international level this dynamic is referred to as the "CNN effect" (Livingston, 1997), which concerns the media’s power to set the political agenda and to push leaders into rash actions.

The news media can also affect the strategy and behavior of opponents to the peace process. The greatest impact will be felt among weaker challengers who must adapt themselves to media demands in order to achieve standing (Gamson and Wolfsfeld, 1993; Wolfsfeld, 1997). Groups who chose to ignore the media may be excluded from public debate.

The ways in which the press can have an effect on the course of negotiations should also be considered within this "strategy and behavior" category. Secrecy is an essential element in any negotiating process. The greater the level of media access to negotiations, the greater the likelihood of failure. Leaders and negotiators must constantly defend themselves against charges of "giving in" to the enemy. Leaks about concessions provide valuable ammunition to opposition forces in their attempts to discredit the government. Concessions, especially costly ones, are seen as failures. Both sides find themselves spending more time engaging in public posturing than in bridging the gaps that divide them.

These then are the four major ways in which the news media have an impact on a peace process. The discussion moves on to consider why this impact is a mostly negative one.

The Dangers of Professionalism

Many of the problems associated with the role of the media in a peace process are rooted in the professional norms and routines that dictate the production of news. The impact of these routines on democratic discourse has been a frequent topic in communication research. One finds that some of these problems are especially damaging to attempts at building peace. Examining the working assumptions of journalists makes the inherent contradiction between news and peace abundantly clear.

There are four major journalistic norms that are the most problematic in covering a peace process: immediacy, drama, simplicity, and ethnocentrism. These four preferences will serve as the focal point for a good part of the discussion. An outline of the argument can be found in table one, which shows how each of these norms dictates what is and is not considered news. Editors use these norms as evaluative criteria to decide what to cover and how much space and time to devote to a particular topic. The best story lines are novel, dramatic, simple to follow, and are always about "us".

These criteria influence how items are selected for the news, the tone of coverage and how antagonists adapt themselves to get into the news. It influences the selection process because journalists are trained to look for these types of stories and editors insure that only stories that meet at least some of these criteria will be allowed to appear. Journalists also follow these guidelines when they attempt to make what they have seen and heard into a more interesting and intelligible news story. Political actors also look at these criteria in their attempts to promote their messages to the media. It is this combination of effects that significantly increases the impact of these criteria.

The first problem is the news media’s focus on the immediate. The press sees politics as a series of daily events and the vast majority of their coverage looks at specific actions rather than long-term policies. This presents the public with an extremely narrow and simplistic view of what is happening and makes it difficult for leaders to promote long-term policies. A peace process is usually marked by long, difficult negotiations with occasional breakthroughs. Adopting a short-term perspective inevitably leads to a sense of impatience and frustration. The media’s emphasis on the here and now makes it difficult for governments to maintain public support for the process over a long period of time. Leaders will have little to provide journalists on a daily or even a weekly basis. While experienced policy makers realize that negotiations take time, journalists are not in the business of waiting.

Ironically, this problem is often exacerbated by the fact that such negotiations are considered a major news story. Reporters are often assigned to provide frequent coverage of such talks, which leads to unrealistic assumptions about what "should" be happening. Even if there is some progress, negotiators will normally attempt to keep it secret for the reasons discussed above. Continual reports about a lack of progress are more than likely to produce a sense of failure among the general public.

Many of the events that do take place during these periods are negative, and the press has no trouble gaining access to these developments. In fact, the amount of contact with journalists is a good indicator as to how the process is proceeding: the greater the level of contact the greater the problems. Low periods are often marked by each side publicly blaming the other and by attempts to use the media as a means of mobilizing domestic and international forces against the other. Negative events can also include protests and violence by opponents and this creates a hostile political environment. As discussed above, this short-term perspective can also pressure leaders into overreacting to such acts of violence which can set the peace process even further back.

The obsessive search for drama is probably the most damaging news criteria of all. This need for excitement can have a devastating impact on the course of a peace process. Every act of violence, every crisis, and every sign of conflict between the sides is considered news. Areas of calm and cooperation on the other hand, will be ignored because they are not considered interesting. Extremism is exciting, moderation is boring. Reports of imminent dangers are considered breaking news, but opportunities made possible by peace are not. Stories about internal discord are a mainstay of news, but points of internal agreement are taken for granted and not even worth mentioning. The one exception to this general pattern concerns major breakthroughs, which are considered news. Incremental progress, however, is much less likely to be considered newsworthy.

As suggested earlier, the emphasis on drama not only affects what will be covered but also how it will be covered. Reporters have a professional interest in making all confrontations appear dramatic and extreme. Drama is the quintessential element of any "good" news story. There are of course important differences among the news media concerning just how much dramatic license is acceptable. The more serious news organs will make a conscious attempt to present materials in a restrained manner. In many western countries however, the line between the entertainment and news media has become increasingly blurry (Delli Carpini & Williams, in press) This is indeed bad news for peace proponents.

The emphasis on strife and discord has a number of negative consequences for peace building. First, presenting conflict in dramatic terms serves to inflame the political atmosphere. Such presentations, especially when they are amplified and reinforced by different media, have the potential of becoming self-fulfilling prophesies. Headlines that focus on threats, accusations, and sensational confrontations generate anger on both sides and demands for some form of retaliation quickly follow. Minor glitches become major problems, disagreements are turned into crises. Enemies become more frightening, opponents more viscous. The inevitable result is that news media are more likely to escalate a conflict than to pacify it. This dynamic not only intensifies the level of conflict between the two main antagonists, it also raises the level of rancor in the internal debate over the process.

This coverage also leads to the conclusion that we live in a very frightening world. A world full of dangers and violence where no one is ever completely safe. Research in the area known as "cultivation theory" tells us that the more people are exposed to news, the more they see the world as violent (Griffin, 1996; McQuail & Windhaul, 1993). Notions of peace and reconciliation appear naïve against this backdrop. Concessions to the enemy look at best foolhardy and at worst, act of treachery.

The editorial selection process also leads to a pessimistic view of how a peace process is unfolding. News always deals with deviant events, but it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that these incidents provide information about what is "really going on". Knowing that thousands of planes land safely every day offers little reassurance to those viewing pictures of a plane crash. It is a rare person indeed who can avoid thinking about that plane when taking the next flight.

As noted, the demand for drama can also have a direct impact on antagonists’ behavior, especially on those in the opposition. Activists realize that they must pay the "dues of disorder" in order to be heard. A peaceful demonstration will obtain less coverage than a disorderly one and a disorderly protest will provide considerably less exposure than an act of terrorism. This does not mean that every movement will turn to violence; the vast majority of groups are ideologically opposed to such tactics. What is does mean, however, is that challengers will feel pressured to go somewhat beyond their limits in order to be heard.

Equally importantly, it means that radical voices will often get preference over temperate ones. Every single step in the news making process is designed to eliminate moderation in order to make the story more interesting. Reporters constantly search for "action", and when they find it their editors are more likely to place their stories in a prominent position. The rules of competition among journalists assure that whoever brings the most lively story wins. This need to create exciting news stories provides the worst possible atmosphere for reasoned dialogue and debate.

This is an especially harmful phenomenon in the debate over peace. Peace is unlikely to take root in a climate of internal shouting and vindictiveness. The decisions being made are profound and citizens need to believe that there is at least a minimum amount of consensus in support of process: "How can we have peace with the other side, if we can’t even have peace among ourselves"? Leaders must find a way to "set the stage" for concessions and compromises. The major "selling point" for a peace process is that it will allow people to have lives that are secure and calm. That message seems absurd if given in a climate filled with threats and violence.

The next problematic guideline is the media’s emphasis on simplicity. Simple story lines, especially when they are accompanied by good visuals, are the key to reaching a mass audience. The lack of space and time, especially in television news, means that journalists must construct stories that are short and uncomplicated. The news media are more likely to cover major personalities than institutions, to prefer good visuals over complex texts, and to deal with specific opinions rather than general ideologies.

This last inclination is especially problematic for it severely limits citizens’ ability to understand debates over the peace process. The standard routine for covering events is to ask leaders and citizens what they think about what happened. There is no room for dealing with political ideas that go beyond the specific incident. Ideology, however, is an important aspect of any major political conflict and to ignore these beliefs leads to trivialization.

This is especially problematic in media coverage of issues having to do with peace and war. The stakes are extremely high, and both the internal and external conflicts over the process are almost always rooted in deep ideological divisions. Political leaders and activists are continually frustrated by their inability to express these views in the media. Robbed of its ideological context, media coverage of the peace process turns the issue into a meaningless struggle for political advantage.

Journalists would defend this routine by arguing that most citizens already know about the different ideologies. Many researchers in the field of public opinion would dispute this point. Even if it were true, however, public debate would certainly be enhanced if journalists made a conscious attempt to place specific reactions and disputes within a broader ideological context.

The need for simplicity also lowers the level of public discourse in other ways. Most news reports attempt to reduce every conflict to just two sides (Gamson, 1992; Jamieson and Capella, 1998). When editors design debates to be held in either the electronic or print media, they almost inevitably invite two spokespeople to represent "the two camps". This routine serves to seriously narrow the range of voices that can be heard.

The need for simplicity also has a more direct impact on political debate. Leaders and activists learn to package their messages in ways that are easily integrated into news formats. Many also hire public relations professionals whose training and experience allow them to speak in the language of sound bites (Hallin, 1994; Manheim, 1998; Patterson, 1993) and to design events that can provide good visuals. Discussions held within the confines of the news media are rarely thought provoking.

This entire line of argument smacks of elitism. Journalists, after all, are giving the people what they want. What good is sophisticated news coverage if the mass public refuses to read or listen to it? It is surely better to water down the coverage in order to increase the number of people who can relate to it. There is a lot to be said for this criticism and it can also be applied to some of the other news criteria that have been discussed.

Nevertheless, the goal of research in this area is to point to some of the serious social and political costs associated with this approach to news. Pointing to these dangers could encourage journalists to consider creative ways of providing greater substance to their audience without losing money. It is also important to give moral support to the serious news media so that the public has more options. Finally, it is critical to debunk the notion that the news media provide an accurate representation of political reality. The more knowledge and awareness citizens have of these problems, the more they become critical consumers of news.

The final reason why the media makes peace more difficult is that they foster an ethnocentric view of the world. Every news medium operates from a certain political and cultural base that defines its language, beliefs, values, attitudes, and prejudices (Liebes & Curran, 1998; Shudson, 1996; Wolfsfeld, 1997). Many of these beliefs are simply taken for granted, there is no need to actually state them. The news media play a critical role in the reproduction of shared myths, symbols, and traditions, which increase loyalty to the state (Edelman, 1988). Even journalists who support the peace process will avoid writing stories that offend "local sensitivities". Self-censorship can be an extremely effective means of filtering out unpopular viewpoints.

Every local and national news story that is printed or broadcast is a story about what is or could happen to "us". When there is news about "others", it centers on how they affect us. This is especially true about adversaries. News editors assume, probably correctly, that the mass public has very little interest in learning about the life and society of foes. Enemies are only of interest as threats, and thus news stories about them focus almost exclusively on the level of danger they pose. As with the other rules of selection, this routine has a decidedly detrimental affect on the prospects for peace. A willingness to compromise is unlikely to take root when the public is constantly exposed to threatening, one-dimensional, images of the enemy.

Looking at all of these criteria, one can not escape the conclusion that it is far easier to promote war to the news media than peace. Leaders attempting to mobilize the public for a conflict will be able to exploit each of the news routines discussed above. Wars are easily covered as a series of dramatic events and most provide a seemingly endless supply of exciting visuals. The news media become central agents in amplifying the sense of national pride and superiority to the nation. Leaders are also in a much better position to exploit the tension in order to initiate formal controls on the media, such as censorship and limiting reporter access (Fialka, 1991; Knightley, 1975; Mathews, 1991; Raboy and Dagenis, 1992; find newer stuff on army and censorship).

All other things being equal then, there is an inherent contradiction between making news and making peace. But it would be a mistake to see this process in simplistic terms, for the world of politics is in a continual state of flux and with it, the role of the news media. The discussion turns to consider some of these variations.

Changes Over Time and Circumstance

The second major argument of this work is that the role the news media will play in a peace process is best understood by examining the nature of the political environment in which they operate. The political environment refers to the aggregate of private and public beliefs, discourse, and behaviors concerning political matters within a particular setting and time. It is a "macro" concept referring to the political "situation". What issues are people talking about? What are various leaders doing and how are people reacting to these activities? How are the news media covering political issues at that particular time and place? What is the distribution of opinion on a particular issue? What are the most common interpretive frames being employed to explain and evaluate what is happening in the political realm?

The impact of the political environment on the role of the news media was a topic developed in a previous book (Wolfsfeld, 1997). It was argued that the authorities’ ability to take control over the political environment was a key factor in explaining their ability to promote their messages to the news media. In other words, political control leads to media control. There are three major indicators which tell us how successful the authorities are in this pursuit: their ability to initiate and take control over political events, their ability to take control over the flow of information, and their ability to mobilize a large level of consensus around their policy.

A major reason for this relationship is that the construction of news is a mostly reactive process. Editors and reporters respond to stimuli that are provided by a multitude of sources and events and then attempt to provide their audience with a report about the state of their world. It is a process of social construction not only because of how these inputs are turned into news, but also because of what the sources are saying and doing. Major changes in the tone and content of news coverage reflect shifts in the political process. The greater the political success of the authorities the more likely they will achieve media success.

Consider for example the issue of political consensus. The greater the level of consensus surrounding a particular policy the more likely the news media are to play a supportive role in implementing it. Hallin (1986) makes a similar point in his work about the behavior of the American news media in the Vietnam War. Contrary to popular belief, U.S. news coverage of the early stages of the conflict was extremely supportive. This was in keeping with the almost universal agreement within the country about the need to stop the spread of communism in South East Asia. As the level of consensus declined, news reports and editorials began to focus on more negative aspects of the war. Thus, these changes in the political environment had a direct influence on the news media moving from a supportive role to a more independent and critical role.

The influence of political consensus on the role of the media can also be seen in the example of the Gulf War. In this case the level of consensus surrounding President Bush’s decision to take on Saddam Hussein was relatively low before the outbreak of war, but rose sharply after the American attack. The American news media both reflected and reinforced this change in mood (Wolfsfeld, 1997). While early news coverage and editorials focussed on the fierce debate in the United States, the coverage of the war itself can only be described as enthusiastic. The normally cynical journalists found themselves swept up in a wave of patriotism and it was difficult to find elite sources that were willing to publicly criticize the American intervention.

There’s every reason to believe that the same principle can be applied to the role of the news media in a peace process. The greater the level of disunity over the process the greater the likelihood that the news media will make the situation worst. As discussed, the fact the media serve as the central arena for such disputes makes them more likely to turn ugly. On the other hand, in peace processes or stages of a process that are marked by a high level of public support, journalists will become unabashed enthusiasts and story lines will become celebratory.

Some would argue that this whole dynamic proves that the news media play no role at all in these processes. They merely reflect the current mood in the country. In order to understand the full picture, however, one must consider both the ways in which the news media deal with politics as well as the state of the political environment. Attempting to explain the construction of news by only looking at specific inputs is the equivalent of explaining people’s behavior on the basis of their experience on any given day. Journalists’ professional norms and routines lead to a very unique view of the political world. In addition, the fact that political actors must constantly take the media into account and that so many citizens depend on the press’s version of what is happening tells us that the media play a significant role in politics. A useful rule to follow in these matters is to start by looking at a particular political context, attempt to understand how political actors and journalists interact within this situation, and then look at how such interactions influence the political process.

This point can be illustrated by considering another type of change in the political environment. Every peace process is marked by a certain number of breakdowns and crises. The greater the number and intensity of these crises the more likely the news media are to play a negative role in a peace process. The media’s need for drama and their lack of a long-term perspective lead them to exaggerate the intensity and significance of these incidents. Political leaders are pounded with huge headlines and fierce questioning. By heating up the political atmosphere, this type of coverage can become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Political leaders feel compelled to respond to this sense of crisis and the cycle begins again. This is a perfect example of what happens when leaders are not longer able to initiate or take control over events.

The role of the news media in a relatively calm peace process will be very different. The tone of the reporting will be generally low-key and many stories will be relegated to a less prominent position in the line up. Contrary to what has been alleged by their more ardent critics, the press rarely invents stories. If the peace process is not producing anything interesting, journalists will look somewhere else for drama. The more stable and trouble-free a peace process, the less likely the news media will play a destructive role.

There is an important lesson from all this for political leaders: nothing succeeds like success. Leaders who can mobilize a broad consensus for their policies and successfully manage to keep the peace process on a steady course with a minimum of setbacks have little to fear from the media. Taking control over the political environment is the key to achieving success in the press (Wolfsfeld, 1997). The news media however, are fair weather friends. When those same leaders slip and fall, when consensus breaks down, the media will amplify those failures into disasters. The more problematic the peace process, the more destructive role the media will play.

These are only two examples of how changes in the political environment can influence the role of the news media. The key to understanding such changes is to consider how each variation influences the contest between proponents and opponents of the peace process. Does it make it easier or more difficult to promote peace messages through the news media? Does the change increase the attractiveness of certain sources and reduce the importance of others? What seems to be the most newsworthy element in what is happening? How has the change in mood influenced the major story lines about the peace process? These are the types of questions that will enable researchers to better understand the changing role of the media in different stages of a peace process. They will also facilitate comparative research that looks at peace processes in different parts of the world

Notes

1. There are several studies that deal with such topics as the media as a tool for foreign policy and diplomacy (Cohen, 1987; Cohen 1986; Fromm et. al. 1992; Gilboa, 1998; Henderson, 1973; O'Heffernan, 1993, 1991, Serfaty, 1991), several that relate to the problems peace movements face in attempting to mobilize the news media (Glasgow University Media Group, 1985; Gitlin, 1980; Hackett, 1991; Ryan, 1991; Small, 1987), and a few articles that deal with the role of the news media in disarmament and international cooperation (Bruck, 1988, 1989; Dorman, Manoff, and Weeks, 1988; Gamson and Stuart, 1992).

2. For a review see Wolfsfeld (1997).

3. See for example Bennett and Paletz (1994); Gannett Foundation (1991); Greenberg & Gatz, 1992; Kellner, (1991); Mawalana & Schiller, 1991).

4. Useful examples include Asard and Bennett (1997), Bennett (1992), Bennett (1988), Capella & Jamieson (1977), Entman (1992), Kurtz (1998), Patterson (1993), and Sabato (1991).

5. These are clearly not the only criteria that determine whether or not a story is considered newsworthy. The political status of the actors, for example, is another important criteria. In this work we place an emphasis on those criteria which are the most likely to influence the role of the media in a peace process.

References

Adoni, H. and Mane S. (1984). Media and the social construction of reality: Toward an integration of theory and research. Communication Research, 11, 323-340.

Assard, E. & W. Bennett, (1997). Democracy and the Market of Ideas, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Bennett, W.L. (1992). White noise, The perils of mass mediated democracy", Communication Monographs 59, 401-406.

Bennett, W.L. (1990). Toward a theory of press-state relations in the United States. Journal of Communication, 40, 103-125.

Bennett, W.L. (1988). News: The politics of illusion. Second Edition, NY: Longman.

Bennett W.L. & D.L. Paletz (Eds.) (1994). Taken by storm: The media, pubic opinion, and U.S. foreign policy in the Gulf War. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Berger, P. & Luckmann T. (1966). The social construction of reality. Garden City, NJ: Doubleday.

Branhurst, K. G. and D. Mutz (1997). American Journalism and the Decline in Event-Centered Reporting, Journal of Communication, 47: 27-53.

Bruck, P.A. (1989). Strategies for peace, strategies for news research. Journal of communication, 39: 108-129.

Bruck, P.A. (Ed.) (1988). A proxy for knowledge: The news media as agents in arms control and verification. Ottawa: Carleton International Proceedings.

Cappella, J.N. & Jamieson, K.H. (1997). Spiral of Cyncism: The Press and the Public Good, New York: Oxford University Press.

Cohen, R. (1987). Theatre of power: The art of diplomatic signalling. London: Longman, 1987.

Cohen, Y. (1986). Media diplomacy: The foreign office in the mass communications age. London: F. Cass.

Cohen, A. & Wolfsfeld, G. (Eds.), Framing the Intifada: People and media. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex.

Davis, D.K. (1990). News and politics. In D.L. Swanson and D. Nimmo (Eds.), New directions in political communication. London: Sage.

Dorman, W. & Livingston, S. (1994). News and historical content: The establishment phase of the Persian Gulf policy debate. In W.L. Bennett & D.L. Paletz (Eds.), Taken by storm: The media, pubic opinion, and U.S. foreign policy in the Gulf War. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Dorman, W., Manoff, R.K., & Weeks, J. (1988). American press coverage of U.S.-Soviet relations, the Soviet Union, nuclear weapons, arms control, and national security: A bibliography. New York: Center for War Peace and the News Media.

Entman, R. (1989). Democracy without citizens. New York: Oxford University Press.

Entman, R. & Page, B. (1994). The news before the storm: The Iraq war debate and the limits to media independence. In W.L. Bennett & D.L. Paletz (Eds.). Taken By Storm: The Media, Pubic Opinion, and U.S. Foreign Policy in the Gulf War. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Fialka, J.J. (1991). Hotel warriors: Covering the gulf. Washington D.C.: The Woodrow Wilson Center Press

Fromm, J., Gart, M., Hughes, T.L., Rodman, P. & Tanzer, L. (1992). The media impact on foreign policy. In H. Smith (Ed.). The media and the Gulf War, Washington, D.C.: Seven Locks Press.

Gamson, W.A., Croteau, D., Hoynes, W., & Sasson, T. (1992). Media images and the social construction of reality, Annual Review of Sociology, 18, 373-93.

Gamson, W.A., & Lasch, K.E. (1983). The political culture of the social welfare policy. In S.E. Spiro & Y. Yuchtman-Yaar (Eds.), Evaluating the welfare state: Social and political perspectives. New York: Academic Press.

Gamson, W.A., & Stuart, D. (1992). Media discourse as a symbolic contest: The bomb in political cartoons. Sociological Forum, 7: 55-86.

Gamson, W. & Wolfsfeld, G. (1993). Movements and media as interacting systems. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 528, 114-125.

Gans, H.J. (1979). Deciding what's news: A study of CBS Evening News, NBC Nightly News, Newsweek and Time. NY: Pantheon Books.

Gannett Foundation (1991). The Media at war: The press and the Persian Gulf conflict. Columbia University, NY: Gannett Foundation Media Center.

Gitlin, T. (1980). The whole world is watching. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Glasgow University Media Group (1985). War and peace news. Philadelphia: Open University Press.

Greenberg, B.F. & W. Gatz (Eds.), Desert Storm and the Mass Media. Cresskill, N.J.: Hampton, Press.

Griffen, E., (1996). A first look at communication theory, N.Y.: McGraw Hill.

Hackett, R. (1991). News and dissent: The press and politics of peace in Canada, Norwood, N.J.: Ablex Publishing Co.

Henderson, G. (Ed.) (1973). Public diplomacy and political change: Four case studies, Okinawa, Peru, Czachosolvakia, Guinea. New York: Praeger.

Hallin, D.C. (1994). We keep America on Top of the World. London: Routledge.

Hallin, D. (1986). The uncensored war. N.Y.: Oxford University Press.

Jamieson, K.H. & J.N. Cappella (1998). The Role of the Press in the Health Care Debate 1993-1994, in D. Graber, D. McQuail, & Pippa Norris, The politics of news the news of politics. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press.

Just, M.J., Crigler, A.N., Alger, D.E., Cook, T.E., Kern, M., & West J. (1996). Crosstalk: Citizens, candidates, and the media in a presidential campaign, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Kellner, D. (1991). The Persian Gulf TV War, Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press.

Knightley, P. (1975). The first casualty. N.Y.: Harcourt Brace and Jovanovitch.

Kurtz , H. (1998). Spin Cycle: How the White House and the Media Manipulate the News, N.Y.: Touchtone.

Lederman, J. (1992). Battle lines: The American media and the intifada. N.Y.: Henry Holt and Company.

Liebes, T. & J. Curran (Eds.)(1998). Media, Ritual, and Identity, London: Routledge.

Livingston, S. (1997) "Clarifying the CNN Effect: An Examination of Media Effects According to the Type of Military Intervention", Research Paper R-18, Cambridge, Mass: The Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics, and Public Policy, Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University.

Manheim, J.B. (1998). The News Shapers: Strategic Communication as a Third Force in News Making, in D. Graber, D. McQuail, & Pippa Norris, The politics of news the news of politics. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press.

Manheim, J.B. (1994). Strategic Public Diplomacy and American Foreign Policy: The evolution of influences (N.Y.: Oxford University Press).

Manheim, J.B. (1994). Managing Kuwait's image during the Gulf conflict. In W.L. Bennett & D.L. Paletz (Eds.), Taken by storm: The media, pubic opinion, and U.S. foreign policy in the Gulf War. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

McQuail, Denis & Sven Windahl (1993): Communication models for the study of mass communication. London: Longman.

Mowlana, H., G. Gerbner, and H.I. Schiller, (1991). Triumph of the image: The media's war in the Persian Gulf -- A global perspective. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press.

Molotch, H., & Lester, M. (1974). News as purposive behavior: On the strategic use of routine events, accidents, and scandals, American Political Science Review, 39: 101-112.

O'Heffernan, P. (1993). Mass media and U.S. foreign policy: A mutual exploitation model of media influence in U.S. foreign policy, in R.J. Spitzer, Media and public policy. Westport, Connecticut: Praeger.

O'Heffernan, P. (1991). Mass media and American foreign policy. Norwich, N.J.: Ablex.

Paletz, D.L., & Entman, R.M. (1981). Media, power, politics. NY: The Free Press.

Patterson, T. (1993). Out of Order. New York: Alfred A Knopf.

Reese, S., Grant, A. & Danielian, L. (1994). The structure of news sources on television: A network analysis of "CBS News," "Nighline," "MacNeil/Lehrer," and "This Week with David Brinkley". Jounal of Communication, 44, 84-107.

Ryan, C., (1991). Prime time activism: Media strategies for grassroots organizing, Boston, Mass: South End Press.

Sabato, L.J. (1991). Feeding Frenzy: How Attack Journalism Has Transformed American Politics. New York: The Free Press.

Schudson, M. (1996). The Power of News. Cambridge, Mass.: Cambridge University Press.

Serfaty, S. (Ed.) (1991). The mass media and foreign policy. N.Y.: St. Martin's Press.

Shoemaker, P.J. & Reese, S.D. (1991). Mediating the message: Theories of influences on mass media content. N.Y: Longman.

Small, M. (1987). Influencing the decision-makers: The Vietnam experience. Journal of Peace Research, 24: 185-198.

Smith, H. (Ed.) (1992).The media and the Gulf War. Washington, D.C.: Seven Locks Press.

Strobel, W.P., (1997). Late breaking foreign policy: The news media's influence on peace operations. Washington, D.C.: The United States Institute of Peace.

Tami Steinmetz Center (1994). The Peace Index Project: Findings from June, 1994 to May, 1996, Tel Aviv: University of Tel Aviv [Hebrew].

Wolfsfeld, Gadi (1997a). Media and political conflict: News from the Middle East, Cambridge, U.K: Cambridge University Press.

Wolfsfeld, Gadi (1997b). Fair Weather Friends: The Varying Role of the News Media in the Arab-Israeli Peace Process, Political Communication, 1997, 14: 29-48.

Wolfsfeld, Gadi (1997c). Promoting Peace through the News Media: Some Initial Lessons from the Peace Process", Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics, 2: 52-70

Wolfsfeld, G. & Rabihiya, Y. (1988). Communication and control in times of crisis: Israeli censorship in the occupied territories, Canadian Journal of Communication, Special Issue, December, 96-101.