Thesis sample

Analysis of Philippine Newspaper Coverage on Conflict Reporting: Basis for Journalistic Intervention Genelin Ruth Pamplona-James CHAPTER 1 THE PROBLEM AND ITS SETTING Background of the Study In today’s increasingly connected world there are thousands of resources available to obtain news and analysis about conflict and peace related issues. Within the field of conflict resolution there has also been a rapid growth in the field of peace journalism or peace media. The basic concept is that instead of media reporting passively on conflict related issues or doing a superficial analysis, or possibly serving as a tool to inflame and escalate conflict, media practitioners can play a critical role in getting at the roots of conflict, looking at underlying issues, reporting in peace initiatives, etc.(Craig, 2009). In the study of Lee and Maslog on “ Asian Regional Conflicts and the War in Iraq: A comparative Framing analysis”, the results show that the Asian newspapers used a war journalism frame in covering regional conflicts but deployed a peace journalism frame in covering the War on Iraq. Hard news stories were dominated by war journalism framing, while features and opinion pieces were dominated by peace journalism framing. Foreign-sourced stories from wire services contained more war journalism frames and fewer peace journalism frames than locally-produced stories written by the newspapers’ own correspondents. This is the gap that needs to be analyzed and studied. In the Philippines, ” ethnic conflicts”, particularly in Mindanao, don’t stand a chance of being reported thoroughly, sensitively and fairly by the mainstream media. Why? Because the mainstream media is, wittingly or not, a participant in the ethnic dispossession. (Henry , 2005) By depicting them as an aberration, by ridiculing them and, most important of all, by not lending them a voice, the mainstream media does not only strip these peoples of their identities – it sets them up for persecution and dispossession. The conflicts involving ethnic groups in Mindanao are almost always instigated by government forces or entities with ties to the State, such as multinational mining corporations and the like. The pattern has always been this: the company or the government targets an area for ” development,” sends in the military to quell any resistance by the natives, divides the ethnic group into factions for easier manipulation, the company or government has its way, the ethnic group continues to resist, the violence continues, with the military’s increasing ferocity matched only by the tribe’s determination to fight. This is true in Mindanao, from the time huge logging companies and multinational plantations encroached into Lumad and Moro territories to the time the Lumads in Southern Mindanao resisted the Mount Apo geothermal project and, more recently, the Moro people’s horrifying nightmare in Central Mindanao during the all-out war declared by Joseph Estrada.(Henry, 2005). Hence, a study of the content of newspaper coverage is designed to evaluate what these publications run too much and what they don’t.         In Mindanao, determining the salient themes and the extent of peace journalism manifesting in the news coverage of conflict is an urgent call for action. With this study it may create an active journalistic intervention, a story about war, conflict or violence that can be framed in an interpretive and constructive manner to foster peace and conflict resolution. (War or Peace Journalism? Asian Newspaper Coverage of Regional Conflicts, 2008) The researcher chose to study this problem as conflict oriented stories nowadays dominates front pages of both local and national dailies. The fact that the country is struggling to promote peace and progress for economic development, it is hope that in the process of the research, the gap between peace and war journalism approach will be established and the need for a journalistic intervention will be recognized in order to create a significant step to the realization that today’s media can contribute a big share in promoting peace journalism for the progress and development of Mindanao and even the Philippines as a whole. Moreover, the purpose of this study is to offer a quantitative contribution to a topic that has received mostly normative and anecdotal discussion. By operationalizing Galtung’s (1998) classification of war/peace journalism, this study will be able to measure the framing of Philippine newspapers’ reporting of national/regional conflicts. The findings can help mass media training institutions customize peace journalism programs, and build a case for institutions to offer courses in peace journalism to help develop a culture of peace. It is also hoped that this exploratory study will help generate hypotheses for future studies examining the framing effects of war/peace journalism on public opinion and government/foreign policies. Furthermore, This study will begin to fill the gap in available analysis of news coverage of Philippine Conflict reporting and add to the body of media framing literature and shed light on how Philippine media reports may have shaped how their respective audiences made sense of every Conflict report. Statement of the Problem This study aimed to identify the scope, treatment and approaches of Philippine print media on conflict reporting as basis for a proposal for a journalistic intervention. Specifically, this study aimed to answer the following questions: 1. What is the extent of scope of conflict stories from International, National and Regional news of Mindanao Times and Philippine Daily Inquirer (2009-2010) in terms of: a. Ethnicity/Tribal War b. Religion c. Political Conflict d. Social Conflict 2. What is the extent of treatment of conflict stories of Mindanao Times and Philippine Daily Inquirer (2009-2010) in terms of: a. Headline News b. General News c. Feature d. Commentary/Opinion e. Editorial 3. What is the extent of Peace & War Journalism Approach of conflict stories in all the pages of Mindanao Times (2009-2010) in terms of : A. Peace Journalism Approach 1. Peace-Oriented frame 2. Truth-Oriented frame 3. People-Oriented frame 4. Solution-Oriented frame B. War Journalism Approach 1. Violence-Oriented frame 2. Propaganda frame 3. Elite-Oriented frame 4. Victory-Oriented frame 4. What is the extent of Peace & War Journalism Approach of conflict stories in all the pages of Philippine Daily Inquirer (2009-2010) in terms of: A. Peace Journalism Approach 1. Peace-Oriented frame 2. Truth-Oriented frame 3. People-Oriented frame 4. Solution-Oriented frame B. War Journalism Approach 1. Violence-Oriented frame 2. Propaganda frame 3. Elite-Oriented frame 4. Victory-Oriented frame 5. Is there a significant difference between Peace and War Approach of conflict stories in all the pages of Mindanao Times (2009-2010)? 6. Is there a significant difference of Peace and War Approach of conflict stories in all the pages of Philippine Daily Inquirer (2009-2010)? Hypotheses The study has investigated the significant difference of peace and war journalism approaches of newspaper publications in the Philippines. The null hypotheses of the study are: 1. There is no significant difference between Peace and War Approach of conflict stories in all the pages of Mindanao Times (2009-2010)? 2. There is no significant difference of Peace and War Approach of conflict stories in all the pages of Philippine Daily Inquirer (2009-2010)? Significance of the Study This paper is deemed significant to the following: Government. This study is significant for the government in order to evaluate and formulate government/local or foreign policies that may contribute to the peace process and conflict resolution for peace building and advocacy in the conflict regions in the country through media. Print Industry. This study may be able to measure the themes on peace and war journalism of newspapers’ reporting of regional conflicts thereby improve or enhance the themes of newspaper coverage on conflict stories that may serve as conflict resolutions among organizations, policy makers and government officials. Mass Media Training Institutions. This study may customize peace journalism programs, and build a case for institutions to offer courses in peace journalism and to help develop a culture of peace among national or foreign contemporary journalist. Research Institutions. This study can offer a quantitative contribution to a topic that has received mostly normative and anecdotal discussion and for further study of the new trends in journalism. Public Opinion. This study may be beneficial for shaping public opinion on existing reality of peace or war reporting in conflict affected areas in the region thereby promoting a culture of advocating peace in conflict news reporting. Future Researchers. This exploratory study will help generate hypotheses for future studies examining the themes of peace and war journalism around the world and its effect towards the general public. Review of Related literature This section of the study presents reviews of different literature and related studies. These were gathered from various materials such as books and journals from the internet and other references. Purposely, the researchers believed all these materials are relevant to their study and greatly support their findings. Scope of Conflict Stories Ethnicity and Tribal War The argument that ethnic wars are actually wars of economics and politics and control, is gaining ground. Even with the end of cold war and presumable peace in the troubled areas of the world, a large number of small wars continue to fester in different parts of the world. Indeed, it may be argued that not only ethnic conflicts have not only increased in numbers but also in intensity in the post cold war period. Many unimportant ethnic wars are fought for political supremacy. Oftentimes they have in fact little to do with ethnicity they may be fought in the inflammatory guise of racial, religious and cultural distinction. Over the last decade communal tension sparked by (a)politicians who want to divide the voters votes between themselves by playing ‘ the game of caste and religion politics’ or (b) terrorists like Dawood Ibrahim, a Muslim gangster from Mumbai and now a fugitive allegedly based in Pakistan or Dubai, from where he is said to control various underworld activities. Ibrahim allegedly creates situations of tension in the financially sound cities of the India to reap monetary benefits from the resulting state of affairs. (Are ethnic wars ethnic. Retrieved August 22, 2010 from website: http://www. articleworld. org/index. php/Ethnic_war) An ethnic conflict or ethnic war is a war between ethnic groups often as a result of ethnic nationalism. They are of interest because of the apparent prevalence since the Cold War and because they frequently result in war crimes such as genocide. Academic explanations of ethnic conflict generally fall into one of three schools of thought: primordialist, instrumentalist or constructivist. Intellectual debate has also focused around the issue of whether ethnic conflict has become more prevalent since the end of the Cold War, and on devising ways of managing conflicts, through instruments such as consociationalism and federalisation. The causes of ethnic conflict are debated by political scientists and sociologists who generally fall into one of three schools of thought: primordialist, instrumentalist, and constructivist. More recent scholarship draws on all three schools in order to increase our understanding of ethnic conflict. (Ignatieff, 1998) An advice to journalist who writes about conflict stories on ethnicity and tribal war is that they should at least be able to know the causes of ethnic conflict in order to increase understanding and provide news stories with accuracy and care in order not to escalate further any conflict that may trigger other parties involved. Religious Conflict In virtually every heterogeneous society, religious difference serves as a source of potential conflict. Because individuals are often ignorant of other faiths, there is some potential tension but it does not necessarily mean conflict will result. Religion is not necessarily conflictual but, as with ethnicity or race, religion serves, as a way to distinguish one’s self and one’s group from the other. Often, the group with less power, be it political or economic, is more aware of the tension than the privileged. When the privileged group is a minority, they are often well aware of the latent conflict. With religion a latent source of conflict, a triggering event can cause the conflict to escalate. At this stage in a conflict, grievances, goals, and methods often change in such a way so as to make the conflict more difficult to resolve. The momentum of the conflict may give extremists the upper hand. In a crisis, group members may see extremists as those that can produce what appear to be gains, at least in the short-term. In such situations, group identities are even more firmly shaped in relation to the other group, thereby reinforcing the message of extremists that one’s religion is threatened by another faith that is diametrically opposed. Often, historic grievances are recast as being the responsibility of the current enemy. Because at this stage tactics often come detached from goals, radical interpretations are increasingly favored. Once martyrs have been sacrificed, it becomes increasingly difficult to compromise because their lives will seem to have been lost in vain. (Brahm, 2005) Often, the media does not identify the precise causes of some of the conflicts around the world. Clashes are frequently described as being ethnic in origin, even though religion may have been the main cause. The true causes of unrest are sometimes difficult to determine. Hence a responsible journalist should be able to understand that there are a mixture of political alliances, economic differences, ethnic feuds that is rooted on religious differences, hence the journalist needs critical analysis before reporting what is seen rather than what is beyond what they see. In the eyes of many, religion is inherently conflictual, but this is not necessarily so. Therefore, in part of the solution, journalist should heighten their awareness of the positive peace building and reconciliatory role they got in their hands, especially in conflict situations as this. Political Conflict Political conflicts are ones that remain unresolved for long periods of time and then become stuck at a high level of intensity and destructiveness. They typically involve many parties and concern an intricate set of historical, religious, cultural, political, and economic issues. These matters are central to human social existence and typically resist any attempts at resolution. In fact, parties often refuse to negotiate or compromise with respect to such issues. As a result, each side views the rigid position of the other as a threat to its very existence. They may develop a mutual fear of each other and a profound desire to inflict as much physical and psychological harm on each other as possible. This sense of threat and hostility often pervades the everyday lives of the parties involved and overrides their ability to recognize any shared concerns they might have. (Maiese, 2003) What is common to all political conflicts is that they involve interests or values that the disputants regard as critical to their survival. These underlying causes include parties’ moral values, identities, and fundamental human needs. Because conflicts grounded in these issues involve the basic molds for thought and action within given communities and culture, they are usually not resolvable by negotiation or compromise. This is because the problem in question is one that cannot be resolved in a win-win way. If one value system is followed, another is threatened. If one nation controls a piece of land, another does not. If one group is dominant, another is subordinate. (Maiese, 2003) To head off political conflict, journalists should be able to understand the factors that make some conflicts extremely difficult to resolve, also, journalist should recognize the vast numbers of people involved, the large number of complex issues to be resolved, and a previous history of violent confrontation so that their news about conflict will be framed towards conflict resolution rather than conflict escalation. Social Conflict In social-conflict theory, it is argued that individuals and groups within society have differing amounts of material and non-material resources and that the more powerful groups use their power in order to exploit groups with less power. The two methods by which this exploitation is done are through brute force and economics. Old-school social conflict theorists argue that money is the mechanism which creates social disorder. http://www. wordiq. com/definition/Social-conflict_theory, Social Conflict theory. Retrieved August 22, 2010) By definition, social is intentionally taking into account other selves, power is a capability to produce effects, and social power is an intentionally directed capability to produce effects through another person. Social conflict is then the confrontation of social powers. First, social conflict is exclusively an aspect of social power. Second, social conflict is not limited to hostile or antagonistic opposition; it is not wholly a clash of coercive powers as often is implied, but of any opposing social powers. 1 Thus, the conflict of intellectual powers may be manifested through debating, arguing, or disputing; of bargaining powers through haggling, negotiating, dickering, bartering, or exchanging; of authoritative powers through adjudicating, appealing, or documenting; of altruistic powers through accommodating, obliging, or benefitting. And third, the existence of violence does not presume an underlying social conflict. All social conflicts involve interests. A person’s interest is a vector of power; it is his attitude plus its strength towards producing effects. A social power is a social interest, that is, one oriented towards other selves. And social conflict is the opposition and balancing of such interests. (The Social Conflict, http://www. hawaii. edu/powerkills/TCH. CHAP27. HTM. Retrieved August 22, 20101) Knowing the state of social conflict is required of a journalist. A journalist needs to clarify the status of social conflict and they should have some analysis of the concept of violence to be able to report responsibly about the social conflict whether it is antagonism, tests of power, competition, incompatibility of interests, or mutual awareness of incompatibility etc. Treatment of Conflict Stories In the study of Lee and Maslog 2009 on “ Asian Regional Conflicts and the War in Iraq: A comparative Framing analysis”, the results show that the Asian newspapers used a war journalism frame in covering regional conflicts but deployed a peace journalism frame in covering the War on Iraq. Hard news stories were dominated by war journalism framing, while features and opinion pieces were dominated by peace journalism framing. Foreign-sourced stories from wire services contained more war journalism frames and fewer peace journalism frames than locally-produced stories written by the newspapers’ own correspondents. In the study of Lee and Maslog 2004 “ War or Peace Journalism: Asian Newspaper Coverage of Conflicts” the results showed that, longer stories (feature news) tend to exhibit more peace journalism indicators, and the shorter stories( general news) tend to be framed as war journalism. Their study proves that longer stories (feature news) allow journalists to take the time and effort to investigate an issue or event more fully and thoughtfully. Longer stories may allow journalists to move beyond mere reporting of facts into some analysis, and exploration of causes of and alternatives to conflict. Peace Journalism Approach The concept of peace journalism may have emerged more than three decades ago, but it has not gained wide acceptance among journalists nor attracted adequate attention from researchers. There is little, if any, empirical research on peace journalism, which is all the more relevant today in a world racked by strife and conflict. Few, if any, past studies have operationalized peace journalism. Thus, peace journalism made a leap from theory to practice without the benefit of research. ( Lee & Maslog, 2004) Galtung’s (1998) concept of peace journalism was developed further by TRANSCEND, a non-profit organization founded by Galtung himself to advance his ideas of peace. In the late 1990s, Galtung’s ideas were picked up by the U. K.-based Conflict and Peace Forums (CPF), which refined his model through dialogues with journalists, mainly in a series of annual conferences. Following these meetings, CPF published four booklets: The Peace Journalism Option (Lynch, 1998), What Are Journalists For? (Lynch, 1999), Using Conflict Analysis in Reporting (Lynch, 2000), and Reporting the World (2002). These publications are mainly how-to manuals based on anecdotes and case studies. Thus, the concept of peace journalism may have emerged more than three decades ago, but it has not gained wide acceptance among journalists nor attracted adequate attention from researchers. There is little, if any, empirical research on peace journalism, which is all the more relevant today in a world racked by strife and conflict. Few, if any, past studies have operationalized peace journalism. Thus, peace journalism made a leap from theory to practice without the benefit of research. This study, as an attempt to fill that gap, focuses on the news coverage of four Asian conflicts. Specifically, the researchers are interested in the coverage of the dispute between India and Pakistan over control of the Himalayan region of Kashmir; the Tamil Tigers or LTTE’s Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam) movement to establish an independent Tamil state in Sri Lanka; the civil wars in the Indonesian provinces of Aceh and Maluku; and the Muslim separatist movement in Southern Mindanao, the Philippines. While there exists a vast body of literature and scholarly research on war reporting, most of the literature on peace journalism or peace communication is normative or prescriptive, outlining the benefits of peace journalism and detailing how it can be. Galtung’s (1998) classification of war journalism and peace journalism is based on four broad practice and linguistic orientations: peace/conflict, truth, people, and solutions. In contrast, war journalism is oriented in war/violence, propaganda, elites, and victory. Apart from considering content, Galtung’s classification included the assessment of language for words that are demonizing, victimizing, or emotive. Galtung’s labeling of peace journalism as both peace- and conflict-oriented may appear paradoxical but in reality, peace-oriented journalists must first accept that a conflict exists, and explore conflict formations by identifying the parties, goals and issues. Such journalists understand the conflict’s historical and cultural roots, and by giving voice to all parties (not only two opposing sides), create empathy and understanding. Through careful, consistent and conscientious application of peace journalism practices in reports of the conflict, the peace journalist hopes to create a setting in which the causes of and possible solutions to the conflict become transparent and obvious. Other important peace journalism approaches prescribed by Galtung include taking a preventive advocacy stance, for example, writing editorials and columns urging reconciliation and focusing on common ground rather than on vengeance, retaliation, and differences, and emphasizing the invisible effects of violence (e. g., emotional trauma, and damage to social structure and culture). In contrast, the traditional war journalism approach plays up conflict as an arena where participants are grouped starkly into two opposing sides (“ them-vs.-us”) in a zero-sum game, and focuses on the visible effects of war (casualties, injuries, and damage to property). War journalism also is practiced in “ a closed space and a closed time” (a battlefield bounded by terrain and time constraints), and puts blame on the party that “ threw the first stone. ” Galtung’s (1998) classification of war journalism and peace journalism was expanded by McGoldrick and Lynch (2000) into 17 good practices of a peace journalist. The practices, which resemble advice for journalists before they begin reporting, included focusing on presentation of solutions, reporting on long-term effects, orientating the news on people and the grassroots, searching for common ground, reporting on all sides, and using precise, accurate language. Maslog (1990), in an application of peace journalistic principles, offers a manual based on the conflict in Mindanao in southern Philippines as a guiding example for reporters practicing peace journalism. In a series of explanatory pointers, Maslog provides a contextual and historical background to clarify the differences between Muslims and Christians and, more importantly, the common grounds that united them. Advice to journalists in this aspect included avoiding mention of issues that are culturally offensive like the pork-eating of Christians and the polygamous practice of Muslims. Another important principle is linguistic accuracy. Criminals, for instance, are criminals and not “ Muslim bandits. ” “ Rebels, ” according to Maslog, should be identified as dissidents of a particular political grouping, such as “ MNLF (Moro National Liberation Front) dissidents” and not simply “ Muslim rebels”. Wolfsfeld (1997), who examined the role of the news media in the Middle East, found that the media’s pursuit of drama accorded the extremists from both sides more than their due share of air time, while drowning the voices calling for peace and resolution. Wolfsfeld (1999), using a structural-cultural model, explained how the different roles played by news media in various political conflicts were shaped directly by competition among the antagonists to control the media. Carruthers (2000) suggested that the mass media, subjected to restrictions of state and military censorship, employed the same values, practices and priorities in reporting conflict as in covering other events. As a result, mass media in following the lead of the state, become willing accomplices in wartime propaganda, and may even play a significant role in instigating conflict. McGoldrick and Lynch (2000) described peace journalism as a “ broader, fairer and more accurate way of framing stories, drawing on the insights of conflict analysis and transformation. ” Iggers (1998) noted that journalistic objectivity is dead, but “ isn’t dead enough” because journalists continue to conjure it as the elusive Holy Grail. The idea of media playing a contributory role in society implies that journalists who just report the facts are acting irresponsibly. According to Iggers: “ Although few journalists still defend the idea of objectivity, it remains one of the greatest obstacles to their playing a more responsible and constructive role in public life”. In this sense, journalism should be about intervention, McGoldrick and Lynch (2000) argued. “ The choice is about the ethics of that intervention–therefore the question becomes ‘ what can I do with my intervention to enhance the prospects for peace?’ ” McGoldrick and Lynch believed that over time, peace journalism can “ help to broaden and deepen the literacy within society about non-violence and creativity in thinking about conflicts. Lynch (2000) believes that peace journalism offers creative solutions by mapping a conflict as consisting of many parties and many issues. It is based on the idea that “ complex, interlocking pattern of fears, inequities and resentments can only be overcome by seeking, devising, and implementing complex, interlocking solutions. ” At first glance, peace journalism runs counter to the time-honored journalistic principle of objectivity that sees the journalist as a neutral, uninvolved, unbiased mirror in which reality is reflected. Iggers (1998) theorized that by focusing on facts and overt events, objective reporting “ devalues ideas and fragments experience, thus making complex social phenomena more difficult to understand”. Iggers’ argument makes a moral case for advocacy journalism–the non-objective, self-conscious intervention of the journalist premised in the ideas of public journalism, development journalism, and peace journalism. Wolfsfeld (1997), who examined the role of the news media in the Middle East, found that the media’s pursuit of drama accorded the extremists from both sides more than their due share of air time, while drowning the voices calling for peace and resolution. Wolfsfeld (1999), using a structural-cultural model, explained how the different roles played by news media in various political conflicts were shaped directly by competition among the antagonists to control the media. Carruthers (2000) suggested that the mass media, subjected to restrictions of state and military censorship, employed the same values, practices and priorities in reporting conflict as in covering other events. As a result, mass media in following the lead of the state, become willing accomplices in wartime propaganda, and may even play a significant role in instigating conflict. Richards (2001), who studied conflict resolution language, observed that journalists, who rely on conflict to tell the news, apply a “ fighting frame” by focusing on positions without exploring what lies behind them. Gamson (1992) identified four frames used in the news framing of the Arab-Israeli conflict: strategic interests, feuding neighbors, Arab intransigence, and Israeli expansionism. By charting the development of the four frames in the Arab-Israeli conflict over nine periods, Gamson found “ feuding neighbors” to be the most consistent frame In this study, a news frame refers to an interpretive structure that sets specific events within a comprehensive context. Based on this definition, war journalism and peace journalism are two competing frames in the news coverage of a conflict. Peace journalism proponents believe that through active journalistic intervention, a story about war, conflict or violence can be framed in an interpretive and constructive manner to foster peace and conflict resolution. Of interest in this study is the extent of the actualization of war/peace journalism frames in the news coverage of four Asian regional conflicts. Leuven (2008), set out the baseline normative theoretical assumptions from the discipline of Peace and Conflict Studies, which underpin these distinctions. “ Violence is never wholly its own cause – Conflict is made up of structure, culture and process — the context, without which no explanation for a violent event is complete or, indeed, correct. Non-violent responses are always possible – There is always more than one way of responding to conflict. Many people, in many places, are devising, advocating and applying non-violent responses. More than two sides – There are always more than two parties to any conflict -some, whose involvement or interest is hidden, need putting on the map. Others, presented as a solid aggregate of view, may contain important internal divisions, and they need dis-aggregation. Every party has a stake – Parties to conflict should be seen as stakeholders, pursuing their own goals, needs and interests — some openly acknowledged, but almost invariably some hidden as well” Peace journalism, therefore, is likely to include material on the background of conflict, showing direct violence as an intelligible, if dysfunctional response to identifiable conditions in social reality. It is likely to highlight non-violence as an alternative response people make, or can make, to the same situation. It seeks and represents a multiplicity of dividing lines, as well as potential for common ground, among conflicting parties, and it interrogates stated agendas and self-presentations, providing clues and cues for readers and audiences to negotiate their own readings of propaganda. In the current news industry, newsworthiness means rare and unusual, controversial and/or provocative. In Peace Journalism, news worthy subject is an event, person, or natural phenomenon that would communicate the value of life, and illustrate an indescribable world of inner experience to share. The mission of Peace Journalism is to inspire people and help them deepen the understanding of the meaning of life. Journalists and leaders in media outlets themselves need to grasp the unlimited potential of life and deep respect for life, for they cannot convey what they cannot see (Futamura, 2008). Theoretically, peace journalism is supported by framing theory. There is no one standard definition of framing but broadly, news framing refers to the process of organizing a news story, thematically, stylistically and factually, to convey a specific story line. More recently, the concept of framing has been explicated as second-level agenda setting. McCombs, Shaw, and Weaver (1997) argued that the concepts of agenda-setting and framing represent a convergence, in that framing is an extension of agenda-setting. Object salience is transmitted in the first level of agenda setting process. In the second level, framing, viewed as indicator salience, illustrates how the media tell us how to think about something–a reprisal of Bernard Cohen’s famous statement that the media tell us what to think about. New research has quickly followed the expanded theoretical iscussions on framing as a second level of agenda setting. Framing is found to activate specific thoughts and ideas for news audiences, as seen in the vast body of framing effects research “ to frame is to select some aspects of a perceived reality and make them more salient in a communicating text, in such a way as to promote a particular problem definition, causal interpretation, moral evaluation, and/or treatment recommendation for the item described” . Tankard et al. (1991) described a media frame as “ the central organizing idea for news content that supplies a context and suggests what the issue is through the use of selection, emphasis, exclusion and elaboration” . Frames package key ideas, stock phrases, and stereotypical images to bolster a particular interpretation. Through repetition, placement and reinforcement, the texts and images that constitute the frame provide a dominant interpretation more readily perceivable, acceptable, and memorable than other interpretations (Entman, 1991). Galtung’s labeling of peace journalism as both peace- and conflict-oriented may appear paradoxical but in reality, peace-oriented journalists must first accept that a conflict exists, and explore conflict formations by identifying the parties, goals and issues. Such journalists understand the conflict’s historical and cultural roots, and by giving voice to all parties (not only two opposing sides), create empathy and understanding. Through careful, consistent and conscientious application of peace journalism practices in reports of the conflict, the peace journalist hopes to create a setting in which the causes of and possible solutions to the conflict become transparent and obvious. Other important peace journalism approaches prescribed by Galtung include taking a preventive advocacy stance, for example, writing editorials and columns urging reconciliation and focusing on common ground rather than on vengeance, retaliation, and differences, and emphasizing the invisible effects of violence (e. g., emotional trauma, and damage to social structure and culture). In contrast, the traditional war journalism approach plays up conflict as an arena where participants are grouped starkly into two opposing sides (“ them-vs.-us”) in a zerosum game, and focuses on the visible effects of war (casualties, injuries, and damage to property). War journalism also is practiced in “ a closed space and a closed time” (a battlefield bounded by terrain and time constraints), and puts blame on the party that “ threw the first stone. ” Galtung’s (1998) classification of war journalism and peace journalism was expanded by McGoldrick and Lynch (2000) into 17 good practices of a peace journalist. The practices, which resemble advice for journalists before they begin reporting, included focusing on presentation of solutions, reporting on long-term effects, orientating the news on people and the grassroots, searching for common ground, reporting on all sides, and using precise, accurate language. Even factual reporting by itself may be of little use, Iggers (1998) observed. By focusing on facts and overt events, objective reporting “ devalues ideas and fragments experience, thus making complex social phenomena more difficult to understand”. Iggers’ argument makes a moral case for advocacy journalism–the non-objective, self-conscious intervention of the journalist premised in the ideas of public journalism, development journalism, and peace journalism. Furthermore, factual reporting of war is a chimera; the ingredients of war or conflict–patriotism, national interest, anger, censorship and propaganda–often conspire to prevent objective, factual, evenhanded reporting (Carruthers, 2000). Peace journalism aims at focusing on the structural and cultural causes of violence, rather than a simple dichotomy. It explains the violence, frames conflict as involving many parties and pursues many goals. An explicit aim of peace journalism is to promote peace initiatives from whatever quarter, and to allow the reader to distinguish between statedpositions and real goals (Lynch, 2005) Galtung (1998) argues that media generally follow the ‘low road’ in reporting conflict-chasing wars. Galtung advocates an alternate route: the ‘high road’ of peace journalism that focuses on conflict transformation. Peace journalism tries to depolarize the conflict by showing the black and white of all sides, and to de-escalate by highlighting peace and conflict resolution as much as violence. Peace journalism seeks to minimize the rift between opposed parties by not repeating facts that demonize one side and set the stage for conflict, (Patel 2004). Galtung argues that “ Journalism not only legitimizes violence but it is violent in and of itself” (Forums, August 25 – 29, 1997). Galtung and Vincent (1992) criticize the criteria of news selection such as negativism, personalization and proximity to elite countries and elite persons. Galtung (1998) viewed the objective of peace journalism as to “ identify the conflict formation, the parties, their goals and the issues, and not fall into the trap of believing that the key actors are where the action (violence, war) is. ” Galtung (1998)wanted to practice peace journalism the way a physician diagnoses the cause of disease, for example, “ In medicine, no physician would make the mistake of seeing a swollen ankle as an ‘ ankle disease’, she/he would be on the watch for possible disturbances in the cardio-vascular system, and direct the attention to the heart”. Media usually promote an ethnocentric view of the world, which becomes especially blatant in times of crisis; therefore, (Bennett, 1990) media reports are biased with nationalistic and ideological tendencies. Ozgunes and Terzis (2000) quote a Turkish journalist saying, “ I am always thinking of our national interest and the interest of my newspaper when I am reporting Greek-Turkish affairs. At the end of the day I don’t want to criticize my government because my ‘ objective’ reporting might be used wrongly by the other side”. Regarding journalist objectivity in reporting conflict, Galtung (2000) comments “ I’d like to see objective journalists: by that I mean journalists who are able to cover all sides of the conflict” (Irvan, 2006). Two factors usually influence reporting the conflict: the relationship of the media with governments and military authorities during a conflict ( Philo and McLaughlin, 1995) and, secondly, the influence of journalistic routines and practices (Fawcett, 2000). Peace journalism and Development Journalism share similar characteristics–one saves society from devastations, the other saves it from miseries of poverty. Development journalism encourages Journalists to travel to remote areas, interact with the people, and report back. This type of journalism also looks at proposed government projects to improve conditions in the country, and analyzes whether or not they will be effective. Ultimately, the journalist may come up with proposed solutions and actions in the piece, suggesting ways in which they might be implemented. Often, this type of development journalism encourages a cooperative effort between citizens of the nation and the outside world (Smith, 2007). Development journalism is also used in a manner similar to that of investigative reporting. Viewed in this manner, the role a development journalist is to examine critically the existing development programs and projects of government, compare the planned project with its actual implementation, and report any observed shortcomings (Ogan, Christine L., 1980). Researchers found that development journalism could hardly gain a foothold among journalists in developing countries (Chaudhary, 2000). Thus it is, perhaps, more likely that the concept of peace journalism will experience the same fate as Development Journalism (Hanitzsch, 2004). War Journalism Approach According to Linececilie (2008), War journalism can undermine democracy and can even perpetuate war because it can act as a justification of violence. The way conflict and violence are presented and justified in the media – justified explicitly,  but more often implicitly through fear-mongering, double speak, euphemisms and taking sides – can have an effect on a war, on a violent situation and its outcome. War journalism therefore often favors the agenda of the ruling elites. But acts of war and violence carried out by governments also favor the media, because violence sells. There is a double-sided influence and dependence between journalism on the one hand, and politics and war on the other. Galtung’s (1998) classification about war journalism is practiced in “ a closed space and a closed time” (a battlefield bounded by terrain and time constraints), and puts blame on the party that “ threw the first stone. ” This classification of war journalism and peace journalism was expanded by McGoldrick and Lynch (2000) into 17 good practices of a peace journalist. The practices, which resemble advice for journalists before they begin reporting, included focusing on presentation of solutions, reporting on long-term effects, orientating the news on people and the grassroots, searching for common ground, reporting on all sides, and using precise, accurate language. Carruthers (2000) suggested that the mass media, subjected to restrictions of state and military censorship, employed the same values, practices and priorities in reporting conflict as in covering other events. As a result, mass media in following the lead of the state, become willing accomplices in wartime propaganda, and may even play a significant role in instigating conflict. The news coverage of conflict, or war reporting, is grounded in the notion of conflict as a news value. As a result, war reporting is often sensational, sexy, and a mere device to boost circulations and ratings (Allen & Seaton, 1999). According to Knightley (2000), war journalism is characterized by an identification with one or the home side of the conflict; military triumphantist language; an action-oriented focus; and a superficial narrative with little context, background or historical perspective. In recent years, some journalism scholars have suggested that journalists discard war reporting in favor of peace journalism to help promote a culture of peace. Norwegian scholar Johan Galtung first proposed peace journalism in the 1970s as a self-conscious, working concept for journalists covering wars and conflicts (McGoldrick & Lynch, 2000). Peace journalism is an advocacy, interpretative approach to reporting on war, conflict and violence (Galtung, 1998). The peace journalist concentrates on stories that highlight peace initiatives; tone down ethnic and religious differences; prevent further conflict; focus on the structure of society; and promote conflict resolution, reconstruction and reconciliation. Galtung (2002) observed that traditional war journalism is modeled after sports journalism, with a focus on winning as the only thing in a zero-sum game. In Galtung’s vision, peace journalism approximates health journalism. A good health reporter would describe a patient’s battle against cancer and yet inform readers about the cancer’s causes as well as the full range of possible cures and preventive measures. Pedelty’s (1995), in a study of war reporting of the civil war in El Salvador in the 1980s and early 1990s, showed how institutional influences shaped a war correspondent’s work. Pedelty reproduced verbatim two reports about the shooting down of a US military helicopter by El Salvadoran rebels. Both reports were written by the same correspondent, but one was for an American newspaper, and the other for a European paper. The U. S.-bound story was framed to validate the anger of U. S. officials and legitimize the predicted release of aid to fight the rebels while the Europe-bound report was framed as sympathy for the rebels. Van Ginneken (1998) observed that large news organizations have ritualized news values and constraints to the extent that war correspondents are not aware of how their stories are selected for coverage and framed. The indicators of war — patriotism, national interest, anger, censorship and propaganda often conspire to prevent objective reporting (Carruthers, 2000). Hanitzsch (2004) argues that war journalism covers several parties in the conflict arena, causes of the conflict and solutions are sought on the battleground, it has zero- sumoriented, one side wins and the other side loses and news coverage only begins with the visible violence and visible consequences, such as the dead, casualties and material damage (pp. 483-495). On the contrary, Hanitzsch (2004) says that “ Peace or Conflict Journalism explores the background of a conflict formation in order to make conflicts appear transparent to the audience”. Hanitzsch (2004) argues that peace journalism seeks causes and way out to the conflicts on all sides and gives voice to the views of all adversaries (p 88). “ Peace or Conflict Journalism exposes lies, cover-up attempts and culprits on all sides; it reveals the suffering of all conflict parties. Due to its orientation towards solutions, this mode of crisis journalism dedicates particular attention to peace initiatives and reports on post-war developments” (Hanitzsch 2004). News content and the framing of such content may also be dependent in part upon journalistic practices and norms relative to the country of origin (Dimitrova and Strömbäck). In the United States, conflict is regarded as news value, as proclaimed in halls of journalism schools around the country and on the pages of revered journalism texts. And even where there is no conflict inherent in the news event or issue, it is often introduced into the news narrative in the name of objectivity, another basic tenet of U. S. journalism. Chinese journalism, on the other hand, is by nature nonconflictual, reflecting only the opinions and stances of the government that controls it. Journalistic objectivity in this regard is attained only by strict adherence to the government’s basic line of policies and alignment with its political stances. South Korean journalism more closely resembles U. S. journalism in its preoccupation with conflict and objectivity, though some media outlets do not hesitate to identify with certain political ideologies. Traditionally anti-communist in nature of coverage, South Korean media also are grappling with ideological shifts among readers and exactly how to cater to these progressive-thinking consumers. Wolfsfeld (2004) claims that the “ default mode of operation for the press is to cover tension, conflict, and violence”. Shinar (2004), demonstrates in a comparative study that the media prefer to use war frames even while covering peace negotiations. Fawcett (2002) shows that the Irish media find conflict frames more attractive than conciliation frames Lee and Maslog (2005) reach this conclusion: “ Clearly, the coverage of the four Asian conflicts is dominated by war journalism”. War journalism’ is a mode of reporting which contains a hidden bias in favor of violence. It renders conflict opaque, obscuring the structural factors driving the cycle of violence and occluding the political steps necessary to interrupt and divert it, (Lynch and Mcgoldrick, 2005). Peace journalism, according to Galtung, is to make ‘ audible and visible’ the subjugated aspects of reality. Lynch and Mcgoldrick (2003) noted that peace journalism has been criticizing as ‘ agenda journalism’ or an attempt to ‘ get involved’ in our stories. They argue that the “ journalist’s gatekeeper role means any report has an agenda, (Lynch and Mcgoldrick, 2005). The non-objective, self-conscious journalistic intervention premised in the ideas of public journalism, development journalism and peace journalism. As a time of crisis, war has been a big news object of mass media. In general, it is likely that national news media are in tune with the national government regarding their policy stance on international events. Thus war has neat relationship with media and influence media’s performance during wars. This tends to be true for both independent and government-owned media outlets (McQuail 1994). Never is the umbilical cord between media and government more tightly connected than in times of crisis (Topoushian 2002). As Williams (2003) notes in regard to the 9/11 events, “ Journalists quickly abandoned all pretense of objectivity and became the uncritical mouthpiece of the US state. ” Similarly, Peer and Chestnut (1995) found that, in the debate leading up to the first Gulf Crisis in 1990 and 1991, both television and newspapers were supportive of the U. S. president’s actions, but television’s demand for narrative drama and storytelling resulted in less critical coverage than the newspapers. The Iraq War was one major military conflict that aroused biggest controversies in the international community since the World War II. As mentioned above, even before September 11, Iraq had been repeatedly tied to global terrorism originations. The international community and the UN tried to solve the Iraq problem while the US President Bush made effort of gaining support from international community, especially from the UN, for waging a war against Iraq. Countries like France, Germany, Russia and China strongly opposed and tried to prevent a unilateral war by the U. S. Without the United Nation’s consent, the U. S. launched the Iraq War on March 19th, 2003. The major battle of this war lasted for forty-nine days. Since the Iraq War was quite controversial politically around the globe, it is expected that variations in the coverage of the Iraq War would be found, and it is expected that media from countries opposing the Iraq War would have covered the news and framed the issues differently from the US media. Media in China would be such a case. War is a grand scale, organised use of armed forces between political collectives where at least one part is a nation state; War is a social situation in which at least two parties at the same time strive to get hold of the same set of limited resources (Baaz 2005). Incompetent journalism and partisan news management can generate misinformation which inflames xenophobia, ethnic hatred, class warfare and violent conflict in almost any fragile state (Collines, 1994). According to (Manoff, 2001) the regular journalistic activities are precisely the activities which professional conflict mediators conduct. Johannes Botes at George Mason University similarly describes the parallels between the roles of professional journalists and professional conflict resolvers, such as diplomats and truce facilitators. Journalists and mediators both remain independent of the parties to a conflict. They share similar positions, functions and even attitudes. In addition( Bauman and Siebert, 1990) put it, in observing reporting on South Africa’s Truce and Reconciliation process …“ journalists mediate conflict whether they intend to or not. ” In other words, as journalists, when we do our jobs well, we do more than we think. Global journalism ethics aims at developing a comprehensive set of principles and standards for the practice of journalism in an age of global news media. New forms of communication are reshaping the practice of a once parochial craft serving a local, regional or national public. Today, news media use communication technology to gather text, video and images from around the world, with unprecedented speed and varying degrees of editorial control. The same technology allows news media to disseminate this information to audiences scattered around the globe. (Howard, 2005) Religious newspapers and magazines have played a formative role in the development of many American denominations. This was especially true among the Christian churches that eventually joined together to form the Christian denomination. The United Church of Christ draws a deep appreciation for the importance of communications in our contemporary world from this source. Newspapers, magazines, radio, television, film, and other audiovisual productions supported by the United Church Board for Homeland Ministries (e. g., United Church Press), and the news and public relations efforts of the Office of Communications are building a legacy deeply rooted in the history of the Christian denomination.(Bailey, 2000) According to Russett (2009 ), peace may not be perpetual, as Kant suggested, but the existence of international trade, organizations and law inhibits democratic states from fighting with each other. In Russett’s ‘ Triangulated Peace’, three variables are recognized as promoting peace: consolidated democracy, advanced and interdependent economy and international organizations. Johan Galtung, the founder of peace studies, discusses in his theories of war and peace journalism (Galtung 1992) the following 12 points that concerns the values of what he calls war journalism 1: A focus on violence as its own cause-thus decontexualizing violence, not looking at the reasons, Dualism, always reduces to two parts, and hereof winners-losers which makes non-violent outcome ignored, Manicheanism; the two parts consists of the contradictions good-evil, Armageddon, violence is inevitable, Focus on individual, avoiding structural causes, Making confusion by only a focus on battlefield and visible effects, not on underlying forces Excluding and omitting the bereaved, thus never explaining why there are actions of revenge/violence spirals,   Failure to explore the causes of escalation and the impact of media coverage itself, Failure to explore the goals of outside interventionists, Failure to explore peace proposals, and offer images of peaceful outcomes, Confusing cease-fires and negotiations with actual peace, peace is defined as victory plus ceasefire Omitting reconciliation; and conflicts tend to re-emerge if wounds are not healed (Galtung 1992). The dominant convention of most journalists in most places, is to recount a narrative of events, and not processes, and what that means is you tend to get an account of the violent acts, of the clashes of the conflicts (Lynch, 2000). The UK’s Daily Mirror,  for example,  came out with very good peace journalism in the period leading up to the invasion of Iraq, of course it was an anti-war newspaper at the time.  There was a reasonable amount of peace journalism in publications such as The Financial Times, the Economist, the Spectator Magazine (Galtung, 1998).   The news coverage of conflict, or war reporting, is grounded in the notion of conflict as a news value. As a result, war reporting is often sensational, sexy, and a mere device to boost circulations and ratings (Toffler & Toffler, 1994; Hachten, 1999; Allen & Seaton, 1999). According to Knightley (2000), war journalism is characterized by an identification with one or the home side of the conflict; military triumphantist language; an action-oriented focus; and a superficial narrative with little context, background or historical perspective. In recent years, some journalism scholars have suggested that journalists discard war reporting in favor of peace journalism to help promote a culture of peace. Norwegian scholar Johan Galtung first proposed peace journalism in the 1970s as a self-conscious, working concept for journalists covering wars and conflicts (McGoldrick & Lynch, 2000). Peace journalism is an advocacy, interpretative approach to reporting on war, conflict and violence (Galtung, 1986, 1998). The peace journalist concentrates on stories that highlight peace initiatives; tone down ethnic and religious differences; prevent further conflict; focus on the structure of society; and promote conflict resolution, reconstruction and reconciliation. Hard news stories were dominated by war journalism framing, while features and opinion pieces were dominated by peace journalism framing. Foreign-sourced stories from wire services contained more war journalism frames and fewer peace journalism frames than locally-produced stories written by the newspapers’ own correspondents (Galtung, 1998). Theoretical and Conceptual Framework This study is supported by framing theory–specifically, peace journalism frame and war journalism frame. Galtung (1998) employed the term ” peace journalism” since the 1970s, developed two opposing modes of reporting wars, namely ” peace or conflict journalism” and ” war or violence journalism”. His classification of war journalism and peace journalism is based on four broad practice and linguistic orientations: peace/conflict, truth/propaganda, people/elites and solutions/differences. In contrast, war journalism is oriented in war/violence, propaganda, elites and victory (Lee et al, 2005). Peace journalism tries to condemn the conflict by showing the black and white of all sides, and to de-escalate by highlighting peace and conflict resolution as much as violence. Peace journalism seeks to minimize the rift between opposed parties by not repeating facts that demonize one side and set the stage for conflict, (Lynch and Mcgoldrick 2001; Patel 2004). War or Violence Journalism reports on the conflict arena, focuses on who gets the upper hand in the war. It has a zero-sum-oriented, coverage is mostly based on the visible violence and visible consequences, (Hanitzsch, 2004) Entman (1993) argues that Media frame building occurs as journalists ” select some aspects of a perceived reality and make them more salient in a communicating text, in such a way as to promote a particular problem definition, causal interpretation, moral evaluation, and/or treatment recommendation for the item described.”(pp. 51-58). This can be achieved in the media message by the ” presence or absence of certain keywords, stock phrases, stereotyped images, sources of information, and sentences that provide thematically reinforcing clusters of facts or judgments.” (Entman, 1993). Tankard et al. (1991) described a media frame as “ the central organizing idea for news content that supplies a context and suggests what the issue is through the use of selection, emphasis, exclusion and elaboration”. Frames package key ideas, stock phrases, and stereotypical images to bolster a particular interpretation. Through repetition, placement and reinforcement, the texts and images that constitute the frame provide a dominant interpretation more readily perceivable, acceptable, and memorable than other interpretations. (War or Peace Journalism? Asian Newspaper Coverage of Regional Conflicts, 2008) Based on this definition, war journalism and peace journalism are two competing frames in the news coverage of a conflict. Peace journalism proponents believe that through active journalistic intervention, a story about war, conflict or violence can be framed in an interpretive and constructive manner to foster peace and conflict resolution. Of interest in this study is the extent of the actualization of war/peace journalism frames in the news coverage of regional conflicts from two national papers in the Philippines: the Philippine Daily Inquires and the Mindanao Times. In this study, a news frame refers to an interpretive structure that sets specific events within a comprehensive context. Based on this definition, war journalism and peace journalism are two competing frames in the news coverage of a conflict. Peace journalism proponents believe that through active journalistic intervention, a story about war, conflict or violence can be framed in an interpretive and constructive manner to foster peace and conflict resolution. Of interest in this study is the extent of the actualization of war/peace journalism frames in the news coverage of selected Philippine Newspaper conflict stories. Definition of Terms The definitions below are premised on the importance of journalists understanding conflict and violence because what they report will contribute to the momentum toward war or toward peace. Peace Journalism (PJ). It is a professional strategy that aims at improving media representations, reality constructions and critical awareness, first developed in the 1970s by Norwegian political scientist Johan Galtung. In this study, Peace journalism is an approach to the news representation of conflicts which are: a) Peace-orientated; b) Truth-orientated; c) People-orientated and d) Solution-orientated. War Journalism (WJ). Knightley (2000), characterized it as an identification with one or the home side of the conflict; military triumphantist language; an action-oriented focus; and a superficial narrative with little context, background or historical perspective. In this study, it is the original schema by Johan Galtung (in Lynch and McGoldrick, 2005: 6), which is oriented: towards violence; towards propaganda; towards elites and towards victory. Ethnicity/Tribal war. An Ethnic War is a war carried on between two groups belonging to different ethnicities, or groups of people who identify with one another on the basis of a boundary that distinguishes them from other groups. This boundary may take any of a number of forms — racial, tribal, cultural, linguistic, or religious, — and may be more or less porous. (Are ethnic wars ethnic. Retrieved August 22, 2010 from website: http://www. articleworld. org/index. php/Ethnic_war). In this study, it means the news articles covering racial, tribal or cultural forms of conflict. Religious Conflict. In virtually every heterogeneous society, this means religious difference in a latent source of conflict, a triggering event that can cause the conflict to escalate and at this stage, tactics often come detached from goals and radical interpretations are increasingly favored. (Brahm, 2005). In this study, it is the news article covering conflict about beliefs, doctrines and religious affiliations. Political Conflict. In political terms, ” conflict” can refer to wars, revolutions or other struggles, which may involve the use of force as in the term armed conflict. Without proper social arrangement or resolution, conflicts in social settings can result in stress or tensions among stakeholders. When an interpersonal conflict does occur, its effect is often broader than two individuals involved, and can affect many associate individuals and relationships, in more or less adverse, and som