Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rsdy20
Download by: [152.106.99.20] Date: 16 September 2015, At: 01:53
Social DynamicsA journal of African studies
ISSN: 0253-3952 (Print) 1940-7874 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rsdy20
Coverage of Marikana: war and conflict and thecase for Peace Journalism
Ylva Rodny-Gumede
To cite this article: Ylva Rodny-Gumede (2015) Coverage of Marikana: war andconflict and the case for Peace Journalism, Social Dynamics, 41:2, 359-374, DOI:10.1080/02533952.2015.1060681
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02533952.2015.1060681
Published online: 20 Aug 2015.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 5
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Coverage of Marikana: war and conflict and the case for PeaceJournalism
Ylva Rodny-Gumede*
Department of Journalism, Film and Television, University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg,South Africa
Different narratives around the Marikana massacre of August 16, 2012 haveemerged in the South African news media with regard to what actually hap-pened, what the underlying causes of the strikes were, and who is to blame.Criticism has been levelled against the mainstream news media with regard toembedded journalism, sensationalised coverage and polarisation of views andstakeholders. For this article, an analysis of news articles on Marikana publishedin the mainstream South African news media has been conducted. This analysisconfirms many of the findings of earlier research and I argue that the form ofreporting evident in these findings conforms to what has been labelled “warjournalism.” I argue that the coverage of Marikana could have been improved byadopting “Peace Journalism” as a model for reporting.
Keywords: Marikana; South Africa; war journalism; Peace Journalism;embedded journalism; sensationalism; polarisation
Introduction
The shooting and killing of 34 miners (with a subsequent death toll ofapproximately 44 people and many more injured) at the Lonmin mining company’sMarikana mine in South Africa on August 16, 2012 has gone down in history as theworst act of violence displayed by the South African police force (SAPS) post-apartheid. Different narratives around what actually happened on the day, why ithappened, and who is to blame emerged out of the media coverage of the massacrein the first week following the massacre.
Studies show that mainstream news media in the days leading up to the massacreand the week after the massacre displayed a bias towards official explanations ofwhat happened and who is to blame, neglecting to factor in alternative views,including those of the protesting miners themselves (Alexander et al. 2012; Duncan2012, 2013; Marinovich 2012). Furthermore, criticism has been levelled against thenews media for sensationalising coverage and for polarising the views of stake-holders, particularly with regard to the two main mining unions – the Association ofMineworkers and Construction Union (AMCU) and the National Union ofMineworkers (NUM).
In this article, I argue that this reporting conforms to what has been labelled“war reporting” and make a case for the adoption of Peace Journalism as a modelfor reporting on violence and violent protests in South Africa, as well as a
*Email: [email protected]
© 2015 Taylor & Francis
Social Dynamics, 2015Vol. 41, No. 2, 359–374, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02533952.2015.1060681
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
152.
106.
99.2
0] a
t 01:
53 1
6 Se
ptem
ber
2015
framework for the analysis of the same – an approach that, if adopted, might haveopened up different news coverage of Marikana that would have provided the SouthAfrican public with a more-nuanced and less-biased view of what actually happenedand what the underlying causes for the protests were.
In the light of broader debates around the role of the news media in South Africaand critique levelled against them and with regard to media content, journalisticpractices, ethics and professionalism, there is a case to be made for assessing theways in which journalism is conducted and the ways in which news content isshaped, particularly regarding coverage of conflict and violence. Friedman (2011)argues that the media tends to neglect to report on the underlying causes andmotivations that drive protests in South Africa – in particular service deliveryprotests – and how they relate to a broader disillusionment with the socio-economicdispensation in the country. The news media thus creates a sense that protests areunwarranted, unorganised and made up of angry mobs out to create havoc. This cri-tique has also been echoed with regard to the role the media may have played in the2008 xenophobic attacks in South Africa, where migrant communities were pittedagainst local communities with the result of exacerbating violence and human rightsabuses (see Shindondola, quoted in Hyde-Clarke 2011, 42). This research points tothe presence of a war frame in the reporting of conflict in the South African newsmedia. Recent debates around the proposed Media Appeals Tribunal have furtherraised questions about the nature of media content, as well as journalistic practices.Hyde-Clarke (2011) therefore argues that a closer inspection of practices in news-gathering and production may be justified, as well as investigation into media dis-courses and frames used through the adoption of Peace Journalism. She argues thatif commercial mainstream media rely predominantly on stereotypical discourseswithin conflict or polarised news frames, Peace Journalism offers a theoreticalframework for assessing the above.
The article is partially based on a content analysis of articles on Marikanapublished in the mainstream news media during the period August 12–23, 2012; thedays leading up to the massacre, the immediate aftermath of the massacre, and thedays leading up to the establishment of the Farlam Commission of Inquiry.1 Theresearch also draws on previous scholarly research conducted on the media coverageof Marikana during this period (see Alexander et al. 2012; Duncan 2012, 2013) andconfirms some of the findings (see Duncan 2012, 2013). The content analysis sug-gests that the South African news media reporting conforms to what has beenlabelled “war journalism” with overemphasis on conflict and violence, and fraughtwith problems of sensationalism, lack of contextual information and overreliance onofficial sources at the peril of voices on the ground (see Lynch 2008; Lynch andGaltung 2010). Thus, the reporting by the mainstream news media of the Marikanamassacre has created a rather limited narrative around what happened, why ithappened and who is to blame.
Current perspectives on the coverage of Marikana
In an interview with the Daily Maverick, media scholar Jane Duncan (see de Waal2012a) states:
What is emerging in the public domain is a hierarchy of views about what actuallyhappened on that day. The one version of events – which seems to be the version
360 Y. Rodny-Gumede
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
152.
106.
99.2
0] a
t 01:
53 1
6 Se
ptem
ber
2015
borne out by television and most journalist accounts, particularly the Sunday papers –effectively points to the striking workers having precipitated the fatal shooting byeffectively firing on the police first.
The second, less-common version of events emerged out of the alternative media’scoverage of the massacre, which shows that the shooting and killing of the protest-ing miners were largely unprovoked (see Alexander et al. 2012; de Waal 2012a,2012b; Duncan 2012, 2013; Marinovich 2012). These accounts were slow to bepicked up by the mainstream news media – if picked up at all – in the weekfollowing the massacre.
Duncan (see de Waal 2012a) uses the concept of embedded journalism to depicthow journalists aligned themselves with the South African Police (SAPS) who also,together with government officials and officials from the mining industry, becamethe dominant sources used in news coverage of the massacre. The notion of embed-ded journalism was coined during the Gulf wars in 1991 and 2003 when journalistswere assigned to military units, the so-called “pools,” and given restricted access tosources and the frontlines of battle, with the result that media audiences were givena very limited and sanitised version of the American invasion, largely reproducingthe official American standpoint(s).
Furthermore, Duncan’s (2012, 2013) analysis of the news coverage of Marikanashows that the miners made up only 3% of the total percentage of news sourcesused, with official sources such as government and representatives of the miningcompanies coming out on top. Duncan’s (2013) findings suggest that miners’ voiceswere annihilated2 from the media coverage through under-representation or non-representation. This allowed dominant narratives to be constructed that did little tocounter the official claims that the police acted in self-defence, favouring the officialaccount of the massacre (Duncan 2013). She also shows how these dominantnarratives
constructed the miners as irrational and as being prone to making unreasonable claimsthat damaged the economy. They were also seen as predisposed to violence and super-stitious beliefs, strongly suggesting a latent trope of the miners as primitive and evensub-human. (Duncan 2013)
These narratives cut across the news media (Duncan 2013). However, as stated ear-lier, there were exceptions emanating from alternative media such as the DailyMaverick, including the weekly mainstream newspaper the Mail & Guardian, thatplaced “the miners’ actions in a more appropriate context, but this was a subsidiarytheme to the dominant narrative” (Duncan 2013).
Additional perspectives on the media coverage of Marikana
Building on Duncan’s (2013) study and the conclusions drawn about the narrativesused to frame news media coverage, my own research has looked at articles onMarikana published in the mainstream South African news media. Through thisanalysis, I discern the news practices shaping the media coverage throughjuxtaposing war journalism with Peace Journalism.
The following major South African newspapers were sampled: Beeld, BusinessDay, Citizen, City Press, Daily Sun, Mail & Guardian, New Age, Sowetan, Rapport,The Times, The Star (including Business Report), Financial Mail, Sunday Indepen-dent and Sunday Times. In total, 162 articles from August 12, 2012, when protesters
Social Dynamics 361
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
152.
106.
99.2
0] a
t 01:
53 1
6 Se
ptem
ber
2015
first started gathering on the koppies around the Lonmin mine, to August 23, 2012,the date of the appointment of the Marikana Commission of Inquiry, were analysed.
A reading of the news articles shows that the emphasis of the media coverageduring the days immediately before the massacre on August 16, 2012, when minersfirst started gathering on the koppies near the Lonmin Marikana mine and the weekfollowing the massacre, is clearly on the violence displayed by the protesters whichwas fuelled by witchcraft and muti. On August 14, 2012, The Times ran with“Knobkerries, sangoma as Lonmin workers vow to stay on hill.” On August 17,2012, the Sowetan ran with the headline: “Muti to blame for Marikana” and pro-ceeded to articulate this throughout the introduction as well as in the body of thestory. These kinds of headlines and narratives in the bodies of the stories wererepeated over and over in the newspapers analysed throughout the first week follow-ing the massacre. Out of the 162 articles analysed, 112 mention “muti,” “sangomas,”“traditional herbs and medicines” interchangeably in conjunction with “protests,”“violence,” “wildcat,” “miners,” “unions” and “AMCU/NUM” in both headlines andthe bodies of texts. The recurrent narrative of the supposed presence of muti andwitchcraft also plays in to stereotypes of African people as irrational and backwards,ideas essentialised and cemented by the apartheid regime and its aberrations insouthern Africa.
Looking only at the headlines that reached readers of the mainstream newsmedia during this period, it is clear that these have added to a real sensationalistslant of the news coverage; out of the 162 articles analysed, 104 mention the keywords identified above. Given the impact of headlines and how – if read in isolationfrom the rest of the news article and contextualisation of the issues at hand – theycreate a very limited and sometimes skewed picture of events.
There is also a clear focus on violence perpetrated by the miners and little is saidabout the brutality displayed by the SAPS and the so-called killing koppie or thesecond kill site, where many miners were killed out of camera range of the journal-ists who were based behind the police lines (see Marinovich 2012). Out of the arti-cles analysed, 151 articles mention violence in connection with the protestingminers, while a mere 46 of these mention violence in connection with the SAPS.
There is also a clear sense from the news coverage that, as a result of broken-down negotiations with unions, the police dealt decisively with the violent protests.On August 16, 2012, the New Age stated: “Marikana riots: Police use force to curbviolence” with the Sowetan stating “Police boss says 34 miners killed in self-defence.” The next day the headline of the Sowetan read: “Police fire on Marikanaminers, several dead” with the explanation that “Police officers said talks with lead-ers of the radical AMCU had broken down, leaving no option but to disperse themby force.” The word “radical” is often used when referring to AMCU, with TheSunday Independent leading with “SACP calls for arrest of AMCU leaders,”referring to AMCU as “the militant trade union AMCU.”
Furthermore, “rivalry” and “rift” are words that come up in conjunction with thetwo mining unions, and out of 98 stories that mention the unions; these words comeup in conjunction with worsening, deepening and escalating rivalry, rifts and vio-lence. There is also a sense that the NUM is considered less “radical” by the newsmedia, accusing AMCU of deepening the crisis and also being the main force insti-gating violence in the mining community. The word “dissent” is also used in con-junction with the protests, and is a word commonly used to describe oppositionpolitics. AMCU is put in opposition to NUM as a government ally or affiliate.
362 Y. Rodny-Gumede
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
152.
106.
99.2
0] a
t 01:
53 1
6 Se
ptem
ber
2015
On August 17, the Mail & Guardian stated that “AMCU blames NUM politics forLonmin massacre” and on August 20, the Financial Mail ran a story on the twounions blaming each other for the violence and subsequent massacre with theheading: “AMCU NUM blame game continues.”
On August 19, 2012, the City Press ran with a story on a miner killed as hejoined the strike, under the headline: “Untimely death of a reluctant striker.” Eventhough it uses family members of the dead miner as sources, this story clearly putsthe emphasis on the intimidation used by the unions for miners to join the strike.The paper quotes the wife and a cousin of the dead miner as saying: “He didn’treally want to join his colleagues,” and continue, “in the end, he decided to gobecause, although he was not a rock drill operator, he had been intimidated, likemany others, into joining the strike.” The article gives the impression that intimida-tion by the unions is the norm, without actually providing any facts backing thisstatement up.
Even though the article quoted above does quote female sources, this is anexception. Of the articles analysed, only 13 use female sources, established throughgender signifiers such as “wife of” or “she.” The lack of female sources as well asthe absence of sources dealing with the families of the striking miners in this firstperiod creates a sense that miners are operating in a vacuum where their concernsand demands have nothing or little to do with real needs on the ground such as feed-ing families, or accessing education and health services.
As confirmed by Duncan (2013), the economy is also a topic that receives agreater proportion of the coverage of Marikana. In particular, narratives about thedamage done to the mining industry and the risk of losing foreign investments comethrough in the news coverage. Here, the emphasis is on the weakening rand. OnAugust 18, 2012, Business Day ran with the “Mining strikes to blame for fallingrand,” and on August 19 Business Report stated: “Labour unrest weakens the rand.”Even in this coverage there is a clear presence of a conflict frame through the wordsused and the idea that someone is to blame for the weakening rand. Out of 52 arti-cles talking about the damage to the economy, 43 blame the miners, protesters,strikes and unions.
All in all, the news coverage shows a bias towards the sensational, with a clearemphasis on conflict and violence throughout. Little attention is paid to theunderlying causes of the discontent in the mining industry. The idea that the miners’walk-out and gathering on the koppie outside the Lonmin mine could have been apeaceful protest was never considered; instead the protests are labelled “wildcat,”“violent” and “frenzied” from the start. There is thus a clear presence of a conflict“frame,” emphasising violence and conflict between and on behalf of the protestingminers.
Framing is a way of giving some overall interpretation to isolated items of fact,and refers to the way in which news content is typically shaped and contextualisedby journalists within some familiar frame of reference and according to some latentstructure of meaning. Framing is also related to the effect of framing on the public,in which the audience is thought to adopt the frames of reference offered by journal-ists and to see the world in a similar way. Framing includes the use of certain words,phrases, contextual references and the giving of examples as typical. It also includesthe selection of certain pictures or film and choices of sources (McQuail 2000, 557).The conflict frame is particularly dominant in reporting of war and violence and inwhat has been labelled “war journalism.”
Social Dynamics 363
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
152.
106.
99.2
0] a
t 01:
53 1
6 Se
ptem
ber
2015
War journalism
Studies have established that there is an overwhelming emphasis on war and conflictin the news media. Less attention is paid to peace and peaceful solutions to violence(Bratic and Schirch 2007; Carruthers 2011; Galtung and Ruge 1965; Lynch 2008;Lynch and Galtung 2010). Much has been said of the news media’s explicit role ininstigating war, hatred and violence. This was most horrifically exemplified in thecase of the Rwandan genocide and the direct incitement to violence propagated byradio station Radio Mille Colline (see Hoskins and O’Loughlin 2010, 89–103).
However, the role of the news media is often more subtle than taking on an out-right propaganda role and for seeking out conflict and emphasising “bad news.” Warand conflict sells newspapers and journalists are often quick to go for stories thatwill make the headlines (Carruthers 2011, 5). Criticism has therefore been directedtowards the ways in which journalists and war correspondents cover conflicts withan emphasis on violence, suffering, sensationalisation of coverage, polarisation ofthe views of main stakeholders and oversimplification of the underlying causes forconflict, with the result that reality is distorted and ethics and professional standardsforsaken. War correspondents tend to be parachuted into conflicts with little priorknowledge of the conflict or the stakeholders and without the back-up of an editorialteam and the time to reflect upon issues of the practices and ethics of journalism(Carruthers 2011; Lynch and Galtung 2010). As such, reporting of war and conflictbecomes as litmus test for journalism practices and ethics more broadly (Zelizer andAllan 2002).
According to Galtung (1986), war journalism has a value bias towards violenceand violent groups. This usually leads audiences to overvalue violent responses toconflict and ignore non-violent alternatives. This is understood to be the result ofwell-documented news reporting conventions and frames – conventions that focusonly on physical effects of conflict, ignoring psychological impacts. It is also biasedtowards reporting only the differences between parties, rather than similarities, previ-ous agreements and progress on common issues and values elite interests over otherstakeholder interests. War journalism focuses on the here and now, ignoring causesand outcomes, and assumes that one side’s needs can only be met by the other side’scompromise or defeat.
War journalism and the role of war correspondents is steeped in a somewhatromantic lore, but actually beset by problems of allegiance, responsibility, truth andbalance (Zelizer and Allan 2002). These are problems that also arise in the dailygrind of journalism. However, when they do, they do not come with the lack ofresolvability and editorial control that a war or conflict situation presents (Zelizerand Allan 2002). The role of the journalist is to get the job done, cover the conflictand to make sense of events to audiences often far removed from the issues on theground, both geographically and perceptually. In a war or conflict zone, access tosources and information is often scarce and journalists tend to band together to feedoff each others’ networks; pack journalism and ideas of embedded journalism istherefore never far behind.
Covering a war or conflict situation is therefore fraught with difficulties and thereare compelling reasons why coverage is shaped in certain ways. In defence of theSouth African journalists covering Marikana, Duncan (see Moodie 2012) argues thatthe Marikana standoff between miners and police was indeed a difficult situation toreport on with packs of journalists and television crews on site jostling for space
364 Y. Rodny-Gumede
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
152.
106.
99.2
0] a
t 01:
53 1
6 Se
ptem
ber
2015
and sources to interview. Duncan also argues that it is difficult to report on the min-ing industry with few journalists having the insight needed into the complexities oflabour relations in South Africa to provide the context of the conflict between themining industry and the mining unions. Duncan further argues that the fact that thedistance of Lonmin Marikana mine from the main centres of media production inSouth Africa played a role in how the conflict and subsequent massacre were cov-ered. The journalists sent to cover the event had little background information orfirst-hand insight of the situation on the ground (see Moodie 2012). Furthermore,women were not allowed on the koppie where the miners had gathered and wherethe mining unions had set up their headquarters, which also meant that femalereporters were cut out and female sources were scarce (see Moodie 2012).
This situation resonates with many other conflict situations and provides the con-text for the way in which war and conflict reporting is shaped. The main criticismsagainst the South African news media coverage with regard to Marikana in theimmediate aftermath of the massacre can be summarised as an overemphasis on con-flict and violence in the news coverage, lack of context in the reporting of the con-flict, disregard for the underlying causes of the conflict, sensationalisation of mediacontent, polarisation of differing views and an overreliance on official sources. Theproblems journalists faced when covering the strikes and the subsequent massacrewere therefore not dissimilar to what many journalists face when reporting on a waror conflict situation in any other context. The question is: What could have beendone differently, and are there alternative ways of reporting war, conflict andviolence?
Peace Journalism
As previously stated, much attention has been paid to the role of the news media ininstigating, maintaining and even exacerbating violence through their news cover-age. Less attention has been paid to the media’s role in preventing, mediating andameliorating conflict. In terms of war reporting, the mainstream media have longdisplayed a militarist bias, “a reflexive predisposition to favour military force overnon-violent methods of conflict resolution” (Roach, quoted in Carruthers 2011, 26).In essence, the news media gives peace less of a chance than war and conflict(Carruthers 2011; Lynch and Galtung 2010).
Peace Journalism stands as a response to this and challenges the lack of attentionto conflict resolution, the contexts and underlying causes of conflict, alternativenews sources, and a use of language that does not over-emphasise conflict frames.The term “Peace Journalism”3 was first coined by media scholar Johan Galtung inthe 1970s (see Cottle 2006). Peace Journalism, as opposed to war journalism, is aform of journalism that frames stories in a way that encourages analysis of conflicts,their root causes and non-violent responses during periods of conflict or war, andduring periods of peace and absence of open conflict (Lynch and McGoldrick2005, 5). Seaga Shaw, Lynch, and Hackett (2011) argues that Peace Journalismstands as a challenge to hegemonic discourse within media and communicationstudies that have for long framed coverage of conflict as binaries of us and them,war and peace, good and bad.
On a practical level, Peace Journalism is when journalists select what stories toreport and how to report them in ways that “create opportunities for society at largeto consider and value non-violent responses to conflict” (Lynch and McGoldrick
Social Dynamics 365
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
152.
106.
99.2
0] a
t 01:
53 1
6 Se
ptem
ber
2015
2005, 5). Thus, Peace Journalism addresses issues around journalistic practices inrelation to story selection, presentation and sources, with the aim of facilitating non-violent responses to conflict. Peace Journalism aims to ventilate peace initiativesfrom whatever quarter and to explain the underlying causes of conflict and avoidpolarisation of the parties involved (Dente Ross 2007, 80). As such, it tries to tran-scend reified practices in order to alter journalistic practices – and the subsequentlymediated public discourse – to a more inclusive range of people, ideas and visions(Dente Ross 2007, 80).
Lynch and Galtung (2010, 13) outline the ways in which Peace Journalismdiffers from war journalism. They argue that war journalism puts the focus on thevisible effects of violence, embraces an “us vs. them” mentality, is reactive andmakes conflict and war opaque and secret. On the other hand, Peace Journalismfocuses on the invisible effects of war and violence, makes conflict transparent, andis proactive and truth orientated rather than propaganda orientated (13). Where thefocus is on violence and a final victor/victory in war journalism, Peace Journalisminvolves a conflict-orientated analysis of the underlying causes of the conflict andseeks solutions (13). Peace Journalism gives a voice to all parties and a voice to thevoiceless; as such it is a form of journalism that is people orientated rather than eliteorientated (52) In this way, Peace Journalism works against existing journalisticpractices of relying exclusively on official sources and offers a way for journalismto provide a more- nuanced style of reporting. Lynch and Galtung (52) also empha-sise that war journalism and Peace Journalism are two different ways of reportingthe same events, in the sense that they are both descriptive of reality. The differenceis that Peace Journalism tries to take in more reality.
Peace Journalism and the reporting of Marikana
The main criticism against war journalism, also raised with regard to the coverageof Marikana, is the lack of context provided by the news media. The underlyingcauses of the mining strikes were never properly explored. Journalists, as in manyother conflict situations, were parachuted in to cover a situation they little under-stood and on which they had very little background information and research to basetheir coverage and analysis on. News coverage of war and conflicts rarely charts tra-jectories or provide historical explanations for the underlying causes of a conflict,and journalists seldom have time to prepare and research the situation before beinggiven an assignment (Lynch and Galtung 2010; Ottosen and Nohrstedt 2011).
Duncan (see Moodie 2012) argues that a major challenge to the reporting ofMarikana was that journalists were operating far from their newsrooms and in aregion with few other media outlets present, media organisations that could haveprovided essential background information and local knowledge. Duncan points outthat the only newspaper presents in Rustenburg, the location of the Lonmin mine, isa weekly community paper; hence, it would have been difficult to get the help ofcolleagues to research the issues on the ground. This would have been made easierif a major news media outlet with better resources and insight into the platinumindustry was present (see Moodie 2012).
One of the main injunctions made against changing media content and seekingout alternative ways of reporting news, including Peace Journalism, is the lack ofresources to do so at a time when media houses are facing financial constraints anddownscaling staff. Ensuring a commitment to Peace Journalism and other alternative
366 Y. Rodny-Gumede
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
152.
106.
99.2
0] a
t 01:
53 1
6 Se
ptem
ber
2015
forms of reporting requires commitment from media owners, editors and journalists,and reporters need to be given proper time for research and the resources to do so(Hackett 2007; Hanitzsch 2004; Lyon 2007; McMahon and Chow-White 2011). Thisis further complicated by the deployment of journalists to places and assignmentslittle known and geographically remote.
Hackett (2011) addresses these issues by emphasising Peace Journalism’s poten-tial for engaging with the alternative media. He argues that alternative media canform part of counter-hegemonic spheres that can constitute “challenger-paradigms”for how we frame the role of the news media in a democracy. The alternative mediahas the ability to bypass the dominant media and in so doing to change the legaland political-economic contexts within which the media operate (Hackett 2007,2011). This also provides a way around the critique proffered by Dente Ross, Carter,and Thomas (2009, 35) that Peace Journalism fails to consider the structuralconstraints facing journalism, especially the mainstream media, due to commercial-isation and economic pressures.
With regard to Marikana, while the mainstream South African news media allseemed to report on the massacre in very much the same way, there were alternativeaccounts of events mainly emanating from the alternative media such as the DailyMaverick. Duncan (see Moodie 2012) argues that September 8, 2012 marks a slightchange in the coverage of the Marikana story by the mainstream media, as thisrepresents the date on which well-known journalist and photographer, GregMarinovich, published the first alternative view of events in an article for the DailyMaverick (see Marinovich 2012). However, this date falls outside the samples drawnfor this article.4
Marinovich (personal communication, February 12, 2014) argues that researchand a prior understanding of the situation “was key” to the coverage by the DailyMaverick, including the research done by researchers such as Alexander et al.(2012). This, he says, was also coupled with “an understanding of just how rampantpolice brutality and impunity was.” This prior understanding is linked to the rolethat the alternative media found for themselves pre-1994, during the days ofapartheid. Media scholar Lesley Cowling argues that:
The first thing is that Greg [Marinovich] and many of the Daily Maverick journalistswere trained during the days of apartheid, their mission was to tell the story of margin-alised communities, and the only way to do this was to be in the heart of thesecommunities. (Personal communication, February 17, 2014)
Furthermore, Marinovich (personal communication, February 12, 2014) also arguesthat a proper scrutiny of the official narrative should have been part of the researchthat journalists should have undertaken. For example, he says “the official count ofthe people killed should have raised alarms for journalists who could haveuncovered what became known as the second killing site much earlier.” This is aconclusion that should have been drawn even by those journalists “who were not atthe scene but saw the TV footage and stills.”
Regarding the news footage, most journalists pooled together with the SAPS andas such depicted a very limited perspective of the events, particularly on the day ofthe massacre, where news footage initially seemed to conclude the view of theSAPS that they merely acted in self-defence (Alexander et al. 2012; Duncan 2012,2013). This has reinforced the idea of embedded journalism and conforms to theway in which much war reporting is conducted. While war journalism has thrived
Social Dynamics 367
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
152.
106.
99.2
0] a
t 01:
53 1
6 Se
ptem
ber
2015
from the way in which conflict has been portrayed and visualised, Peace Journalisminstead makes the call for photography to visualise peace and peace processes ratherthan just violence (Allan 2011). Hence, Peace Journalism takes note of the way inwhich conflict has been portrayed through visuals alongside the written word orother narratives to provide a contextual narrative that goes beyond simple polarisa-tions and emphasis on conflict. Not only were alternative visuals important as to geta different view of what happened at Marikana, visuals showing talks, negotiationsand peaceful resistance of the unionised miners would have been equally important;a point stressed by Peace Journalism with regard to coverage of war and conflictmore broadly.
Context and background information – particularly when it comes to “breakingstories” where journalists have very little time to research and prepare – mainlycome from sources that are readily available and attuned to the news and productioncycle of media outlets. The criticism levelled against war reporting, which alsoresonates with the coverage of Marikana, is that there has been an over-reliance onofficial sources (Duncan 2013). Sources of information are the lifeblood of journal-ists. They provide the essential basic information for news stories across mediaindustries and platforms (Rudin and Ibbotson 2002, 32). There is a routinisation ofjournalistic practices that talks directly to sources. Routine practices structurejournalists’ relationships with their sources, their audiences, their implementation, aswell as interpretation of objectivity and impartiality (Tuchman, quoted in Harrison2006, 141).
As part of their routine practices, journalists build up a network of trusted sourcesand a network of often-quoted sources. In particular, official sources and journaliststend to be highly attuned to the bureaucratic organisation of government (Schudson2003, 150). Studies indicate that journalism on a day-to-day basis is tied to theinteraction between journalists, government officials and bureaucracy (Schudson2002, 255). Hence, there is a bias towards official sources in journalism (Lynch2008, 63). Most journalists have a close relationship with sources from governmentand the police, as these are both institutions carrying stories readily available andgeared to the news values that form the backbone of journalism and journalisticpractices (Schudson 2002, 251).
A common criticism regarding news media sources is that not all sources areequal. The news media are widely considered ideological tools serving the interestsof the powerful elite and their vested interests (Herman and Chomsky 1988). Jour-nalistic products are not “neutral” in the sense that they are devoid of meaning.Human communication and language are always situated within an historical, politi-cal, economic and social context. McNair (1998, 5–7) argues that no journalistic textis free from value statements of one kind or another in the form of the assumptions,beliefs and attitudes of the author, which often become clear in the selection of newstories, what is considered newsworthy, and in the sources used for particular newsstories. The choice of sources in the production process, in terms of who gets to bequoted and who not, thus becomes an exercise of power (Harrison 2006, 141). Inthis regard, there is agreement among media scholars that official sources often havethe upper hand (see Schudson 2003, 150). This was also confirmed by Galtung andRuge (1965) in their widely quoted study The Structure of Foreign News. Duncan’s(2012, 2013) research clearly shows this to be the case in the coverage of Marikana.
A further problem in this regard is that government officials and their spokespeo-ple and advisors are themselves para-journalists, seeking to gain favourable coverage
368 Y. Rodny-Gumede
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
152.
106.
99.2
0] a
t 01:
53 1
6 Se
ptem
ber
2015
from the news media (Schudson 2002, 251). With regards to the SAPS, GregMarinovich argues:
Essentially, the main problem was an innate sense that police and Government peoplespeaking to us about the massacre had decent intentions. This is always a mistake, Ibelieve, as journalists we have to be sceptical, especially of those in power.(Marinovich, personal communication, February 12, 2014)
Studies have shown that, particularly in foreign coverage, journalists prefer to usegovernment officials as sources, rather than other kinds of experts (see Schudson2002, 260). These biases become particularly acute when journalists are operating inthe field or reporting on a conflict situation (Lynch 2008).
This is where Peace Journalism becomes a call for going beyond solely relyingon official sources and urges journalists to rather be looking at alternative, less-quoted sources (Lynch 2008, 39). Peace Journalism therefore makes a call to use the“the voiceless” as sources and make sure that people directly involved in or affectedby a conflict situation are heard. Cowling states that:
It is curious how few reporters actually crossed to the protesters themselves or went into the living areas of the protesters and their families. The journalists stood on the fieldsurrounding the Lonmin mine watching the protesters rather than actually speaking tothem. This shows how dislocated reporters are from what is happening on the groundin communities in South Africa; they only cover communities when there is violence.(Personal communication, February 17, 2014)
This also concerns women’s voices, which were decidedly neglected in the coverageof Marikana. However, this is not unique to either the coverage of Marikana or tothe way that the South African news or media in general chose their sources (seeRodny-Gumede 2012a). Women are neglected in the news media in general andwomen are not valued as news; there is media “logic” that favours male voices overfemale voices as a reflection of gender inequities in society in general. The newsmedia reflects society’s power structure, rather than its composition (Brune, quotedin Soderberg Jacobson 2010), and there is a particular lack of women’s narrativeswith regard to war journalism (Brock-Utne 2011; Tivona 2011). In particular, lan-guage reinforces gender stereotypes and war journalism is framed through languagethat reinforces gender stereotypes and a male-dominated worldview (Brock-Utne2011). Peace Journalism has the potential to rectify this by including women’svoices and by exploring narratives of compassion through women’s voices; as such,moving away from a conflict frame to foster more gender- and conflict-sensitivereporting (Soderberg Jacobson 2010; Tivona 2011).
Furthermore, the fact that non-official sources are being overlooked creates afalse impression that the conflict is not contested from within the communities ofthe warring factions (Lynch 2008, 21–22). What the news media did not include intheir reporting – and in many ways trumped up instead – was the fact that the differ-ences between AMCU and NUM were fairly minimal (see Alexander et al. 2012).Contestation always exists and might even constitute the first “stirrings of change” ifproperly dissected and reflected by the media (Lynch 2008, 21); as seen earlier, thisalso pertains to news footage (Allan 2011). To illustrate this, Lynch (2008, 24) givesthe example of the role of the media in the Israeli–Palestinian peace talks during theyears of the so-called Oslo process (1993–2000), where the Israeli media createdwhat he calls a false sense that peace was around the corner by not interviewingordinary and mostly poor Palestinians who continued to live under Israeli
Social Dynamics 369
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
152.
106.
99.2
0] a
t 01:
53 1
6 Se
ptem
ber
2015
occupation. The so-called Mitchell Commission, later appointed to investigate whathad gone wrong, quoted this fact as the main contributory factor to the subsequentIntifada (Lynch 2008, 24).
As in the case of Marikana, this boils down to access to sources on the other sideof the conflict and an ability to listen to various stakeholders. Once again, officialsources won out over ordinary people who could have talked of lived experiencesand who could have provided a different perspective on the protests, includingmuch-needed context explaining the underlying causes for the strikes. Lederach(1997, 94, quoted in Lynch 2008, 21) states that there is no conflict where therehave not been people who have had visions of peace, often emanating from theirown experiences of pain. However, ordinary people are often neglected as sourcesin journalistic texts (Lederach, quoted in Lynch 2008, 21). This occurs because theydo not represent official power, whether on the side of an official government or aspart of a militia (in a conflict zone), or because they are perceived as being toobiased or too personally affected to be neutral. In the case of Marikana, journalistsfound it difficult to get access to the protesting miners. However, this was not thecase with the surrounding community and the sprawling town of Marikana estab-lished around the Lonmin mine, which could have provided the news media withmuch-needed information on the underlying causes of the protests, and an under-standing of the issues fuelling the discontent among the miners.
It is, of course, more difficult to verify the authenticity of ordinary, non-officialsources (Lynch 2008, 98). Good practice in most contexts requires that journalistsverify both their sources and the information they provide by seeking out counterar-guments. If these counterarguments cannot be found from more traditional sources,then journalists need to seek out alternative sources (Lynch 2008, 205–206). Not tobe hostage to just one source – particularly those of governments that controlsources of information – is listed as one of the 10 commandments of Peace Journal-ism (Tehranian 2002), and is also widely considered good journalistic practice.Tehranian also lists the importance of giving a voice to the oppressed and to peace-makers, in order to represent and empower them. Once again, the alternative media,grassroots media and community media could play a crucial role in this regard(Hackett 2011; Keeble 2010, 55). With regard to Peace Journalism and sources,Rodny-Gumede (2012b) argues that social media platforms and online sources couldconstitute a departure from the paradigm of sole reliance on more traditional andofficial sources, unless they are part of an official arrangement.
All in all, war journalism tends to emphasise conflict over peace and negotiation,and seemingly feeds off war and violence; once again bad news sells and needs war-ring factions to do so. Conflict has long been – and continues to be – one of themost prominent news frames in the news media (see Galtung 2000; Galtung andRuge 1965; Lynch and Galtung 2010; Lynch and McGoldrick 2005). By its verynature and discourse, war journalism focuses on conflict, and needs at least two par-ties on which to pin ensuing violence and strife. Studies also suggest that new newsframes have emerged with regard to how stories of violence and conflict wereframed after the 9/11 attacks in the United States in 2001 (Zelizer and Allan 2002).What emerges is a renewed emphasis on conflict and what has been labelled the“terrorist attack frame,” where conflict and foul play is assumed, rather than assessedand thoroughly researched (Zelizer and Allan 2002). Instead, Peace Journalism, asLynch and Galtung (2010) emphasise, offers an additional angle to reportingconflict: the peace and conflict resolution angle or frame.
370 Y. Rodny-Gumede
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
152.
106.
99.2
0] a
t 01:
53 1
6 Se
ptem
ber
2015
Concluding remarks
This article has articulated the idea of Peace Journalism not only as a challengerparadigm to war journalism, but as a framework or tool for reporting on protests andviolence in South Africa. Looking at the coverage of Marikana, it is fair to say thatthe South African mainstream news media has created a rather limited, if not distortedview of what happened at Marikana. Proportionally, the coverage focused more onthe violence of the strikes than fundamental problems underlining labour relations inSouth Africa. The news media lacked a proper understanding of discontent in the min-ing community with regard to low wages, poor working and living conditions thatmake up the underlying causes of the protests. By and large, journalistic principles offairness, balance, truth and ethics were neglected in the reporting of Marikana in thelead up to, and the immediate aftermath, of the massacre. The news media lent itselfas a loudspeaker for powerful interests in the South African politics and social-economic nexus, trumping up conflict and polarisations within this community furtherexacerbating rifts between the various stakeholders. A Peace Journalism approachcould have allowed South African journalists to “take in more reality” and to give avoice to ordinary people and the voiceless. This approach could also have mitigatedagainst sensationalism and polarisation in the news coverage, embedded journalism,over-reliance on government, police and mining sources with a vested interest incurbing very legitimate discontent among the protesting miners.
However, Peace Journalism is not without its critics. The word “peace”’ in itselfcreates the impression that Peace Journalism’s only focus is on peace and conflictresolution, and reporting only the “good news” and that it amounts to “sunshine jour-nalism.” More substantial criticism, however, has focused on Peace Journalism asbeing too broad in its conceptualisations and scope, and for being too philosophical,too normative and “utopian” (Hackett 2007, 2011), and for drawing on an underlyingepistemology of naïve realism based on assumptions of causal and linear media effects(Hanitzsch 2004, 483). Kempf (2003, 2007) also points out that Peace Journalism isunlikely to succeed unless there is a serious drive to train journalists and alter institu-tional norms. With fewer resources dedicated to research and training in newsroomsaround the world, Peace Journalism is probably more likely to be a challenger ethosrather than practice. The South African news media should however be commendedfor the coverage that has followed in the wake of the Farlam Commission and therelease of the final report of the Commission in 2015, coverage that has been charac-terised by a broader range of sources and view points as well as critical analysis.
This said, if through Peace Journalism we hope to realise: a journalism thatencourages conflict analysis during periods of conflict and war as well as periods ofpeace and absence of open conflict as set out by Lynch and McGoldrick (2005, 5); aform of journalism that takes in more reality (Lynch and Galtung 2010, 52), onewhich takes account of a multitude of sources and avoids polarisation (Dente Ross2007, 80; Tehranian 2002, 241); and a journalism that goes beyond solely relyingon official sources (Lynch 2008, 39) – then Peace Journalism could have facilitateda different coverage of Marikana. Ultimately, Peace Journalism, under whatevername we choose to use it, provides journalists with an opportunity to reassess theways in which journalism is conducted, by providing new insights into debatesaround professionalism, ethics and the improvement of journalism, not only withregard to coverage of war and conflict, but also during the absence of war and con-flict as well as during “outbreaks of peace.”5
Social Dynamics 371
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
152.
106.
99.2
0] a
t 01:
53 1
6 Se
ptem
ber
2015
AcknowledgementsThe author would like to thank the anonymous referees of Social Dynamics for their helpfulcomments and suggestions.
Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.
Notes1. “The Marikana Commission of Inquiry was appointed by the President of the Republic
of South Africa, Mr Jacob Zuma, in terms of secti’on 84(2)(f) of the Constitution of theRepublic of South Africa of 1996, on August 23, 2012. Its mandate arising from theTerms of Reference promulgated on September 12, 2012 is to investigate matters of pub-lic, national and international concern arising out of the tragic incidents at the LonminMine in Marikana in the North West Province, which took place on about Saturday 11August to Thursday 16 August, 2012 and led to the deaths of approximately 44 people,with more than 70 persons being injured, and approximately 250 people being arrested”(see Marikana Commission 2012).
2. Duncan (2013) uses George Gerbner’s term “symbolic annihilation” with regard to theabsence of miners’ voices in the media.
3. Lynch and Galtung’s (2010) dichotomy of “high road” journalism vs. “low road” journal-ism in lieu of Peace Journalism and war journalism, respectively, might provide analternative label. For this article, however Peace Journalism has been used throughout.
4. Interesting to note is Marinovich’s comment (personal communication, February 12,2014): “I was sure that once we at Daily Maverick published, that there would be an out-pouring of other pieces that editors had been holding back, waiting for someone to pub-lish first … but no, it was not.” In the months after the massacre and as the narrativespresented through the news media supposedly became more refined, a quick reading ofarticles as well as headlines in the news media seems to show that narratives of witch-craft and muti continued even as the Marikana Commission’s inquiry got under way.
5. With a nod to Justin Pearce, a fine journalist and author who so beautifully captured thestory of Angola in his book “An Outbreak of Peace: Angola’s Situation of Confusion”(Pearce 2005); a beautiful piece of journalism talking to war and peace through the eyesof the human spirit that both creates and conquers it.
Notes on contributorYlva Rodny-Gumede is a senior lecturer and Head of the Department of Journalism, Filmand Television at the University of Johannesburg. She is also a senior research associate atthe Stanhope Centre for International Communications Policy Research at the London Schoolof Economics. She has written extensively on coverage of war and violence and articulationsof alternative journalism, including Peace Journalism. She is herself a former journalist withexperience as a war reporter.
ReferencesAlexander, P., T. Lekgowa, B. Mmope, L. Sinwell, and B. Xezwi. 2012. Marikana: A View
from the Mountain and a Case to Answer. Johannesburg: Jacana.Allan, S. 2011. “Documenting War, Visualising Peace: Towards Peace Photography.” In
Expanding Peace Journalism: Comparative and Critical Approaches, edited by I. SeagaShaw, J. Lynch, and R. A. Hackett, 147–167. Sydney: Sydney University Press.
Bratic, V., and L. Schirch. 2007. “Why and When to Use the Media for Conflict Preventionand Peace Building.” Global Partnership for the Prevention of Armed Conflict. Issuepaper 6: 1–30.
372 Y. Rodny-Gumede
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
152.
106.
99.2
0] a
t 01:
53 1
6 Se
ptem
ber
2015
Brock-Utne, B. 2011. “International Security and Language: Expanding the Peace JournalismFramework.” In Expanding Peace Journalism: Comparative and Critical Approaches,edited by I. Seaga Shaw, J. Lynch, and R. A. Hackett, 70–95. Sydney: Sydney UniversityPress.
Carruthers, S. 2011. The Media at War. 2nd ed. New York: Palgrave McMillan.Cottle, S. 2006. Mediatized Conflict: Developments in Media and Conflict Studies.
Maidenhead: Open University Press.Dente Ross, S. 2007. “Peace Journalism: Constructive Model in a Global Community.”
GMJ: Mediterranean Edition 2 (2). http://globalmedia.emu.edu.tr/fall2007/issues/9.%20Ross.pdf.
Dente Ross, S., D. L. Carter, and R. Thomas. 2009. “Reporting US/Mexico Border in Timesof Peace.” Media Development 56 (1): 35–39.
Duncan, J. 2012. “Marikana and the Problem of Pack Journalism.” SABC News Online,October 7. http://www.sabc.co.za/news/a/00f7e0804cfe58899b00bf76c8dbd3db/Marikana-and-the-problem-of-pack-journalism-20121007.
Duncan, J. 2013. “South African Journalism and the Marikana Massacre: A Case Study of anEditorial Failure.” The Political Economy of the Media 1 (2): 65–88. http://www.polecom.org/index.php/polecom/article/view/22/198.
Friedman, S. 2011. “Whose Freedom? South Africa’s Press, Middle-class Bias and the Threatof Control.” Ecquid Novi: African Journalism Studies 32 (2): 106–121.
Galtung, J. 1986. “On the Role of the Media in Worldwide Security and Peace.” In Peaceand Communication, edited by T. Varis, 249–266. San Jose: Universidad para La Paz.
Galtung, J. 2000. “The Task of Peace Journalism.” Ethical Perspectives 7 (2&3):unpaginated.
Galtung, J., and M. Ruge. 1965. “The Structure of Foreign News.” In Media Sociology,edited by J. Tunstall, 259–298. London: Constable.
Hackett, R. 2007. “Is Peace Journalism Possible?” In Peace Journalism: The State of the Art,edited by D. Shinar and W. Kempf, 75–94. Berlin: Verlag Irena Regener.
Hackett, R. 2011. “New Vistas for Peace Journalism: Alternative Media and CommunicationRights.” In Expanding Peace Journalism: Comparative and Critical Approaches, editedby I. Seaga Shaw, J. Lynch, and R. A. Hackett, 35–69. Sydney: Sydney University Press.
Hanitzsch, T. 2004. “Journalists as a Peacekeeping Force? Peace Journalism and MassCommunication Theory.” Journalism Studies 5 (4): 483–495.
Harrison, J. 2006. News. London: Routledge.Herman, E., and N. Chomsky. 1988. Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of Mass
Media. New York: Pantheon.Hoskins, A., and B. O’Loughlin. 2010. War and Media: The Emergence of Diffused War.
Cambridge: Polity.Hyde-Clarke, N. 2011. “Political Posturing and the Need for Peace Journalism in South
Africa: The case of Julius Malema.” Communicatio 37 (1): 41–55.Keeble, R. 2010. “Peace Journalism as Political Practice: A New, Radical Look at the
Theory.” In Peace Journalism, War and Conflict Resolution, edited by R. L. Keeble, J.Tulloch, and F. Zollmann, 49–67. New York: Peter Lang.
Kempf, W. 2003. “Constructive Conflict Coverage – A Social-psychological Research andDevelopment Program.” Conflict and Communication Online 2 (2). http://deposit.ddb.de/ep/netpub/04/91/97/974979104/_data_dync/2003_2/pdf_2003_2/kempf_engl.pdf.
Kempf, W. 2007. “Peace Journalism: A Tightrope Walk between Advocacy Journalism andConstructive Conflict Coverage.” Conflict and Communication Online 6 (2). http://www.cco.regener-online.de/2007_2/pdf/kempf.pdf.
Lynch, J. 2008. Debates in Peace Journalism. Sydney: Sydney University Press.Lynch, J., and J. Galtung. 2010. Reporting Conflict: New Directions in Peace Journalism. St
Lucia: University of Queensland Press.Lynch, J., and A. McGoldrick. 2005. Peace Journalism. Gloucestershire, UK: Hawthorn
Press.Lyon, D. 2007. “Good Journalism or Peace Journalism?” Conflict and Communication Online
6 (2): 1–10.Marikana Commission. 2012. “About the Commission.” Marikana Commission of Inquiry.
http://http://www.marikanacomm.org.za/.
Social Dynamics 373
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
152.
106.
99.2
0] a
t 01:
53 1
6 Se
ptem
ber
2015
Marinovich, G. 2012. “The Murder Fields of Marikana. The Cold Murder Fields of Mari-kana.” Daily Maverick, August 30. http://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2012-08-30-the-murder-fields-of-marikana-the-cold-murder-fields-of-marikana.
McMahon, R., and P. Chow-White. 2011. “News Media Encoding of Racial Reconciliation:Developing a Peace Journalism Model for the Analysis of ‘Cold’ Conflict.” Media,Culture, and Society 33 (7): 989–1007.
McNair, B. 1998. The Sociology of Journalism. London: Arnold.McQuail, D. 2000. McQuail’s Mass Communication Theory. 4th ed. London: Sage.Moodie, G. 2012. “Where were the Miners’ Voices at Marikana?” Wits Journalism. http://
www.journalism.co.za/blog/where-were-the-miners-voices-at-marikana/.Ottosen, R., and S. Nohrstedt. 2011. “Peace Journalism – Critical Discourse Case Study:
Media and the Plan for Swedish and Norwegian Defence Cooperation.” In ExpandingPeace Journalism: Comparative and Critical Approaches, edited by I. Seaga Shaw, J.Lynch, and R. Hackett, 217–238. Sydney: Sydney University Press.
Pearce, J. 2005. An Outbreak of Peace: Angola’s Situation of “Confusion”. David PhilipPublishers.
Rodny-Gumede, Y. 2012a. “Race, Class and Gender and the Transformation of the SouthAfrican News Media.” Journal of Gender and Religion in Africa 18: 157–176.
Rodny-Gumede, Y. 2012b. “Peace Journalism and the Usage of Online Sources.”Communicare 31: 57–74.
Rudin, R., and T. Ibbotson. 2002. An Introduction to Journalism: Essential Techniques andBackground Knowledge. Oxford: Focal Press.
Schudson, M. 2002. “The News Media as Political Institutions.” Annual Review of PoliticalScience 5: 249–269.
Schudson, M. 2003. The Sociology of News. London: W.W. Norton & Company.Seaga Shaw, I., J. Lynch, and R. Hackett, eds. 2011. Expanding Peace Journalism:
Comparative and Critical Approaches. Sydney: Sydney University Press.Soderberg Jacobson, A. 2010. “When Peace Journalism and Feminist Theory Join Forces: A
Swedish Case Study.” In Peace Journalism, War and Conflict Resolution, edited by R. L.Keeble, J. Tulloch, and F. Zollmann, 105–119. New York: Peter Lang.
Tehranian, M. 2002. “Peace Journalism: Negotiating Global Media Ethics.” The HarvardInternational Journal of Press/Politics 7 (2): 58–83.
Tivona, E. 2011. “Globalisation of Compassion: Women’s Narratives as Models for PeaceJournalism.” In Expanding Peace Journalism: Comparative and Critical Approaches,edited by I. Seaga Shaw, J. Lynch, and R. A. Hackett, 317–334. Sydney: SydneyUniversity Press.
de Waal, M. 2012a. “Marikana: The Matter of Embedded Journalism.” Daily Maverick,August 24. http://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2012-08-24-marikana-the-matter-of-embedded-journalism.
de Waal, M. 2012b. “Marikana: What Really Happened? We May Never Know.” DailyMaverick, August 23. http://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2012-08-23-marikana-what-really-happened-we-may-never-know.
Zelizer, B., and S. Allan. 2002. Journalism after September 11. Oxford: Routledge.
374 Y. Rodny-Gumede
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
152.
106.
99.2
0] a
t 01:
53 1
6 Se
ptem
ber
2015
