"Peace Media", "Conflict Resolving Media", "Conflict Sensitive Journalism", "Conflict Solution Journalism", "Reporting the World", "Constructive Conflict Coverage," and "Peacebuilding Media" redirect here.

Peace journalism has been developed from research that indicates that often news about conflict has a value bias toward violence. It also includes practical methods for correcting this bias by producing journalism in both the mainstream and alternative media, and working with journalists, media professionals, audiences, and organizations in conflict.

This concept was proposed by Johan Galtung^[2] Other terms for this broad definition of peace journalism include conflict solution journalism, conflict sensitive journalism,^[3] constructive conflict coverage, and reporting the world.^[4]

War journalism is journalism about conflict that has a value bias towards violence and violent groups. This usually leads audiences to overvalue violent responses to conflict and ignore non-violent alternatives. This is understood to be the result of well documented news reporting conventions. These conventions focus only on physical effects of conflict (for example ignoring psychological impacts) and elite positions (which may or may not represent the actual parties and their goals). It is also biased toward reporting only the differences between parties, (rather than similarities, previous agreements, and progress on common issues) the here and now (ignoring causes and outcomes), and zero sums (assuming that one side's needs can only be met by the other side's compromise or defeat).^[5]

Peace journalism aims to correct for these biases. Its operational definition is "to allow opportunities for society at large to consider and value non-violent responses to conflict".^[6] This involves picking up calls for, and articulations of, non-violence policies from whatever quarter, and allowing them into the public sphere.

Historical and conceptual roots[link]

Peace journalism follows a long history of news publication, originating in non-sectarian Christian peace movements and societies of the early 19th century, which published periodicals.^[7] Sectarian organizations also created publications focused on peace as part of their proselytizing in the 19th century, as did utopian communities of the period. From the 20th century, a prominent example of sectarian journalism focused on peace was Dorothy Day's Catholic Worker.^[8]

Besides being an element in the histories of pacifism and the social movement press, peace journalism is a set of journalism practices that emerged in the 1970s. Norwegian sociologist, peace researcher and practitioner Johan Galtung proposed the idea of peace journalism for journalists to follow to show how a value bias towards violence can be avoided when covering war and conflict.^[9] Christian organizations such as The World Council of Churches and The World Association for Christian Communication also practice peace journalism.

Peace journalism aims to shed light on structural and cultural causes of violence, as they impact upon the lives of people in a conflict arena as part of the explanation for violence. It aims to frame conflicts as consisting of many parties and pursuing many goals rather than a simple dichotomy. An explicit aim of peace journalism is to promote peace initiatives from whatever quarter and to allow the reader to distinguish between stated positions and real goals.

The need for peace journalism: how conventional conflict journalism works as war journalism[link]

Peace journalism came about through research arguing there's something wrong with typical conflict reporting. Research and practice in peace journalism outlines a number of reasons for the existence and dominance of war journalism in conflict news.

Limited role of commercial and political interests[link]

Firstly, the notion that media elites always act to preserve their favored status quo, and their own commercial and political interests, is given relatively little weight. Shared characteristics of the socio-economic class, which heavily influences the production of journalism, are important. For example, their shared ideological pressures, perceptions, attitudes, and values form the basis of a "dominant reading" of facts that are selected to appear in news. These can then act to fix and naturalize meaning and hide the actual creation of meaning.^[10]

However, even in the presence of powerful elite media interests against war, war journalism often dominates conflict discourse. Lynch and McGoldrick show examples from Britain, Ireland, Georgia, and Iraq, where war journalism dominated coverage despite key influential media interests against war.^[11]

Journalistic objectivity[link]

Therefore, not only political and economic, but also social and cultural factors have contributed to the dominance of war journalism in conflict reporting. With the growth of mass media, especially from the 19th century, news advertising became the most important source of media revenue.

Whole audiences needed to be engaged across communities and regions to maximize advertising revenue. This led to "Journalistic objectivity as an industry standard…a set of conventions allowing the news to be presented as all things to all people".^[12] And in modern journalism, especially with the emergence of 24 hour news cycles, speed is of the essence in responding to breaking stories. It is not possible for reporters to decide "from first principals" every time how they will report each and every story that presents itself.^[13] It follows that convention governs much of journalism.

The rise of journalistic objectivity was part of a larger movement within western academia to a more empirical "just report the facts” epistemology and research paradigm. By the 1890s it was focused on the ideal of “objectivity”.^[14] And although it came into fashion around the same period, Journalistic Objectivity must be distinguished from the Scientific Objectivity. For example the experimental sciences use:

1. Inter-laboratory replication;
2. Random assignment of subjects to conditions;
3. Efforts to ensure that human subjects and experimenters are ignorant of the expectations (hypotheses)of the research: to avoid the Observer-expectancy effect
4. The Subject-expectancy effect;
5. Anonymous peer review, a form of peer review, to promote open and systematic exploration of meaning without subjective, "political" bias.

While it is arguable whether these provide “true objectivity”, in the absence of these safeguards, journalism around conflict relies on three conventions to maintain its own form of "objectivity" ( also see journalistic objectivity), which therefore is distinct from the objectivity of empirical science.

Conventions of Journalistic Objectivity[link]

Firstly, to sell audiences to advertisers, reporting must appeal to as broad an audience as possible and therefore focuses on “facts” that are the least controversial. Conflict processes are often controversial, so coverage of them risks alienating potential consumers, who may be sensitive to the exposure of structural or cultural predisposing factors.^[15]

Secondly, a bias in favor of official sources means that, while it may appear uncontroversial, as there is only one official representative for the government on any given issue^[16] and since only the official government is usually allowed to wield legal, sanctioned force within its territory^[17] coverage will tend to privilege violent responses to conflict over non-violent, social-psychological, context-informed responses.^[18]

Journalists Annabel McGoldrick and Jake Lynch argue that non-critical reporting of official sources is often rewarded by those sources. Through "information transactions", these same official sources allow uncritical journalists privileged access to information in the future.^[19]

Thirdly and lastly, 'dualism' biasses journalistic objectivity towards violence: "A decision to tell a story in that [bipolar] way can slip past, unnoticed, without drawing attention to itself because of its close resemblance, in shape and structure, to so much of the story-telling we already take for granted".^[20]

Gatekeeping in war journalism[link]

These conventions also form “gates” by which “gatekeepers” in journalism include or exclude various aspects of reality in final publication.^[21]

In this way, proponents of peace journalism argue that in the media meaning occurs according to: “a set of rules and relations established before the reality or the experience under discussion actually occurred”.^[22] In war journalism the objectivity conventions serve this purpose, but are shadowy and unacknowledged.^[23] “Gatekeeping” is therefore likely to be secretive and haphazard. This means they distort, and also fix, meaning in conflict coverage and obfuscate the production of meaning^{[clarification needed]}.^[24]

A recent example demonstrates how peace journalism evaluative criteria might be applied to show how much conventional conflict reporting is biased in favor of violence and violent groups. The example is the coverage leading up to the September 2009 meeting between Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, and US President Barack Obama.

Reporting was highly reactive and focused on the visible effects of the conflict, such as announcements and public disagreements between official spokespeople that appeared to disrupt peace efforts.^[25]

Coverage was oriented to elites with little mention of non-official peace efforts by individuals and groups such as the Hand in Hand network of schools, the Israeli/Palestinian The Parents Circle Families Forum, Peace Now, Breaking the Silence, Physicians for Human Rights, Machsom Watch, and Checkpoint Watch, Hanan Ashrawi (non-violent activist for human rights, founder of the Palestinian Initiative for the Promotion of Global Dialogue and Democracy, and member of the Palestinian Legislative Council)^[26][27].

Also ignored were programmes that promote cultural exchange, for example (the Israeli-Palestinian Aussie Rules football teamThe Peace Team), see here for official 2011 team details) which played in the 2008 and 2011 AFL International Cups. Another is the current programme of Palestinian children's visits to the Old Yishuv Court Museum in the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem. Events demonstrating non-violent responses to the conflict were also ignored, a new example being the March 12, 2011, Conference on Civil Disobedience in the West Bank marking the centenary of International Women's Day.^[28] Projects working for peace among Arabs and Israelis lists further organizations working for peace in the region, whose activities are generally excluded from news on the Conflict.

Reporting leading up to the September 2009 meeting between Netanyahu, Abbas and Obama focused almost solely on highly divisive issues, such as Israeli illegal settlements in the West Bank and Jerusalem, and the diplomatic/official status of Jerusalem. Coverage was also oriented towards differences, with a focus on the here and now. Potential benefits in physical, economic, and social security of peaceful relations were ignored, and “progress” towards peace was portrayed as having to come with one or more parties compromising and surrendering their positions on key issues, which is of course a zero sum orientation.^[29] Coverage generally ignored the background or context of positions. Positions were presented as unchangeable on any peaceful settlement, rather than the public "face" of unmet needs that often drive violent conflicts. Because of distrust between parties these needs are often not honestly expressed publicly.^[30]

Thus a pattern of war journalism emerges, largely stemming from the objectivity conventions applied to conflict reporting. Peace journalism argues that this is likely to have important and consistent effects on the way audiences understand a conflict.

In war journalism, violence is typically presented as only its own cause, ignoring the possibility of structural or psychological causes. Since violence is assumed to have no cause or explanation (such as the deprived needs of parties), conventional conflict reporting may leave viewers to conclude that the only “natural” or reasonable response to violence is more violence.^[31] That “more violence—‘the only language they understand'—is an appropriate remedy”, and that non-violent responses are irrelevant or 'unrealistic'.^[15]

This focus on only physical violent behavior is an example of what leading Conflict Analyst and Peace Researcher, Johan Galtung identifies as a major flaw in responses to inter-communal conflict: the “Conservative Fallacy”.^[32]

This bias towards prioritizing violent actors with coverage is then expected by violent groups, through what is called a Feedback Loop.^[33] Parties to a conflict often try to use the media to advance their position, rather than being passive subjects, unaware of being observed, as assumed in sciences where humans are not the subjects. Journalist, and journalism Associate Professor, Jake Lynch notes that "it is not the influence of news on public opinion as such, but assumptions by parties to conflict about its likely or possible influence, that condition their behaviour".^[34]

In this way war journalism is an example of the role of power in representation and of the media trying to fix meaning, in this case about violence and its causes, for “it to become naturalized so that is the only meaning it can possibly carry…where you cannot see that anybody ever produced it."^[35]

Thus, war journalism is understood as reporting on conflict in a way which imposes an artificially confined closed space, and closed time, with causes and exits existing only in the conflict arena.^[36] Peace journalism can then be understood as journalism that avoids this outside imposition, which more objectively assesses the possibility of conflicts taking place in open space, and open time with any number of causes and exits.

War journalism's effect on audiences[link]

In 2008 Central American University Audiovisuals (AUCA)with the support of the World Association for Christian Communication produced the 59-minute documentary Colima to break the silence and open the way towards restoring people’s human dignity. Colima tells the story of a mother whose daughter was murdered and their search for truth. The documentary was screened in cinemas throughout El Salvador and has already been successful in facilitating the beginning of a judicial process of exhumation of the victims, their identification and the return of the bodies to their families. Colima is the first documentary of its genre ever produced in El Salvador.^[37]

The emotional effects of war journalism also make it more difficult for audiences to be aware of this biased presentation of conflict. War journalism takes advantage of the emotional “high” humans can get from fear through evolutionary psychological mechanisms.^[38] In a similar way, war journalism appeals to "lower order" needs for security and belonging.^[39] The pre-frontal cortex, governing working memory, rational attentive functioning, and complex thought is inhibited by activation of the brain’s fear centre, the limbic system.^[40]

Audiences are thus deprived of cognitive resources with which to recognize the role of fear in encouraging war journalism consumption. This cognitive deprivation also further fixes meaning and increases the role of “automatically activated attitudes” which according to cognitive psychology: "guide attention toward attitude-consistent information, provide a template with which to interpret ambiguous information, and…guide behaviour in a relatively spontaneous fashion".^[41] Therefore viewers are primed to pay more attention to future information, which is consistent with the automatically activated attitudes formed by war journalism. Research into the ever present framing^{[clarification needed]} in the media supports this conclusion: “Certainly people can recall their own facts, forge linkages not made explicitly in the text, or retrieve from memory a causal explanation or cure that is completely absent from the text. In essence, this is just what professors encourage their students to do habitually. But Zaller (1992), Kahneman and Tversky (1984), and Iyengar (1991), among others, suggest that on most matters of social or political interest, people are not generally so well-informed and cognitively active, and that framing therefore heavily influences their responses to communications”.^[42]

Research shows that war journalism can have negative emotional impacts on audience members. These include feelings of hopelessness and powerlessness, compounded by increased anxiety, mood disturbance, sadness and a sense of disconnection with physical and social environments. Research by Galtung and Ruge (1965) finds negativity bias in foreign news. This has also been confirmed more recently by Nohrstedt and Ottosen (2008).^[43] This can affect reactions towards the conflict itself, and an audience’s general psychological wellbeing, which biasses their view of the world as excessively chaotic and may cause serious anxiety and emotional difficulties, and a sense of disempowerment and disconnection.^[44] Vicarious trauma can increase these negative effects, where "even ‘normal’, intelligent, educated individuals can become highly suggestible towards violent acts in formerly unexpected contexts".^[45]

These negative emotional states may discourage audience members from criticism and challenge of the biassed information presented through war journalism. These public concerns may appear to be "someone else’s problem" and best left to "experts", who alone have the necessary knowledge, time, and emotional endurance. These negative emotional responses may also discourage creative engagement with the conflict and conflict parties. This is especially troubling considering the critical role of creativity in conflict resolution and peacebuilding.^[46]

War journalism and conflict parties[link]

Peace journalism analysis suggests that typical news on conflict, with its value bias towards violence and violent groups, has important effects on the parties to conflict. Firstly, peace journalism proponents argue that the bias in favour of publicity for violence and violent actors, "plays into" the interests of violent actors to intimidate and disrupt the peace process.^[47] This is an important example of the Feedback Loop effect: "it is not the influence of news on public opinion as such, but assumptions by parties to conflict about its likely or possible influence, that condition their behaviour".^[34] This bias also weakens and punishes, with less publicity, non-violent groups affected by a conflict, for their lack of violence. Nohrstedt and Ottosen (2002) note: "if traditional media themselves are unable to transmit alternative perspectives and voice the danger is that those […] that feel marginalised will turn to terror in order to make a difference in the media agenda".^[48]

The most visible actions of a group, of which one is not a member, are often considered representative of that group’s behaviour (an effect called the “availability heuristic”).^[49] Therefore war journalism's over-selection of violent, as opposed to non-violent, responses to conflict may actually foster a misperception of excessive threat between parties. This is then generally exaggerated by other inter-group social-cognitive biases within war journalism. These include biases towards: seeing an outgroup as more homogeneous (with less internal variety) than it really is, ignoring the variety of attitudes towards the conflict^[50]; seeing ambiguous situations, or negative group behavior, as playing out internal, and stable, group characteristics rather than external, and variable, circumstances,^[51] favourable ingroup/outgroup comparison to increase collective self esteem;^[52] and members of groups who perceive themselves to be under threat to be more pressured internally to conform with and reinforce dominant group norms^[53]; premature and immediate resistance to ideas on positive responses to violence offered by members of outgroups.^[54]

Indeed Dr. Louis Kriesberg, a sociologist at Syracuse University, and expert on conflict resolution points out that: "conventional thinking among partisans in a fight generally attributes destructive persistence in a conflict to the enemy's character, asserting that the enemy is aggressive by nature, has evil leaders, or adheres to a hostile ideology".^[55] And Professor of World Religions, Diplomacy and Conflict Resolution, Marc Gopin, agrees with the importance of psychological factors in escalating conflict: "being hated normally generates deep injury and corresponding anger in most recipients is what I call a "conflict dance" of action/reaction".^[56]

A peace journalism perspective also highlights another effect of typical conflict journalism on the groups engaged in a conflict: war journalism's common focus on the human drama and tragedy of violence. Hamber and Lewis (1997) note war journalism "often involves painting doomsday scenarios of victims who are irreparably damaged and for whom there appears to be no solution and no future".^[57] This creates an increased impediment for the victims of unreported crimes. And the positive experiences of those who have embarked upon a process of recovery is often ignored in war journalism.^[58] For example in Israel/Palestine, victims of suicide bombing, house demolition, land and house theft, are often portrayed as defenceless, disempowered victims with no prospect of healing or positive response to their predicament.^[59]

Effective non-violent bridge building between communities such as the Hand in Hand Arab/Jewish school network in Israel, are routinely ignored in war journalism coverage. Non-violent initiatives illustrate what can be possible through peaceful responses to conflict but this information is artificially "filtered out" through the coverage biases of war journalism.^[60] Parties are therefore presented with a biassed picture of the entire conflict, favouring violent responses to the conflict. Parties are led to believe that that violence is the only way their needs can be met, thereby reinforcing and escalating cycles of dangerous retaliation between groups. Peace journalism would also charge that this pattern of conventional conflict reporting submerges the emotional cost of violent conflict and therefore makes the psychological aspects of cycles of revenge subtle, and so more difficult to prevent.^[61]

All of this missed information could represent a crucial movement away from violence, as the only option for threatened groups towards peace. But only if they are not hidden by journalistic assumptions that they are irrelevant, and should not be reported. This is of special concern, given that the collective trauma suffered by a population, and the fear that this generates, can lead to a reduced capacity for decision making and action.^[62]

A practical remedial response[link]

In response to war journalism’s value bias in favour of violence, peace journalism promises two key benefits: for those concerned with objectivity in journalism, it aims to avoid and counteract the persistent bias of valuing violence and violent parties. Secondly, as all journalism must in some way appeal to the values of their audiences, for those who value the promotion of peace and social justice over violence, it provides a practical methodology.

The 'fixation of meaning'^{[clarification needed]} in war journalism is often hidden by the “scattered opposition facts” that often occur in its coverage. However these do not actually allow for “challenging a dominant frame” of pro-violence: 'Framing' researcher Entman recommends: "If educated to understand the difference between including scattered oppositional facts, and challenging a dominant frame, journalists might be better equipped to construct news that makes equally salient—equally accessible to the average, inattentive, and marginally informed audience—two or more interpretations of problems."^[63]

Applied Social Science replacing unacknowledged convention[link]

Hence, peace journalism is anchored in Conflict Analysis and Peace Research “to map out solid ground beneath our feet; to declare, in advance, that we intend to use it, to assign meanings and draw distinctions.”^[64] Decisions, on which of the almost infinite stories and facts to report, can be made openly and systematically. Lynch (2008) shows how these two disciplines are important anchors for conflict journalism in that they employ the academic rigor of the social sciences including: "openness about – and prepared to justify – starting assumptions for both observation and interpretation; and peer review. Built into social science, moreover, is an allowance for the participant-observer effect – as soon as you start to observe something, you cannot avoid changing it."^[65]

As such peace journalism considers the effect it has on audiences and parties with regard to it own “objectivity”. Lynch and Galtung (2010) elaborate on how this operates in conflict journalism: "'It is an important distinction in this context because journalism itself may be part of the extended pattern of conflictual relationships, in which parties and their shared relations find themselves embedded – if only by bringing an audience to the ringside. Tillett comments: 'In some situations, individuals (or groups) will ‘fight to the death’ (even when obviously losing all that they claim to be seeking) to avoid being seen to ‘back down’ or ‘lose face' ' (1999, p. 29). In a conflict, he continues, "the presence of an audience generally makes it more likely that the protagonists will want to be seen to win, and that they will be less prepared to resolve than to fight'. Schattschneider goes as far as to argue that spectators are 'an integral part of the situation for, as likely as not, the audience determines the outcome of the fight'(1960, p.2)."^[66]

More complete explanations for inter-group violence[link]

Conflict Analysis also provides guidance on mapping the hopes, needs, and fears of all parties to a conflict, including outwardly “impartial” third parties; and acknowledges the potential role of creativity, rather than assuming as war journalism does, that the positions of elites, power gradients and the struggle for power are the most important determinants of a conflict.^[67]

These can then be assessed empirically in the conflict, and its potential resolution, rather than being ignored from the outset by journalists, as often is the case in war journalism. Therefore the importance in peace journalism of being willing to consider conflict as “open in space and time, with causes and exits anywhere”.^[68] Lynch and Galtung (2010) present an important example of this in the case of North and South Korea, indicating that journalists should not ignore the grassroots people that endure this conflict, and that comparisons and input from the reunified Germany may be helpful, as could consideration and dialogue with East Asia.^[69] The aim here is not to impose definite “answers”. Conflict Analysis and Peace Research often elicit useful perspectives from those involved in the conflict. Empirical questions can then be put forward, and tested by investigative journalism.

These processes demonstrate that conflict is not static and intractable. These insights challenge the psychological tendencies of war journalism noted above to present negative outgroup behaviour as the result of stable group characteristics. Indeed the non-linear cycle of violence outlined by Elworthy and Rogers (2002), proposes that the key stage to prevent a cycle of revenge, is before the anger becomes bitterness.^[70] And peace journalism can allow for the consideration that “bitterness can be thought of as anger + memory[…]storing away trauma in a ‘trauma bank’ and, eventually, withdrawing it as ‘glory’ through further violence”.^[71]

Through reporting, which does not routinely ignore causes and non-linear cycles of violence, peace journalism can help expand the cognitive and emotional space for peace initiatives that contribute peacebuilding.^[72]

The Feedback Loop of cause and effect in the media could then support the creation and continuation of peaceful process-structures .^[73] This would involve demonstrating a pattern of coverage that leads present and potential peace actors to predict that their efforts will be reported by journalists to “create opportunities for society at large to consider and value non-violent responses to conflict”.^[6] This in turn could reduce negative inter-group social-psychological tendencies. This may be particularly important for projects such as the examples in Israel/Palestine of the 'Hand in Hand' network of schools, 'Peace Now', 'Breaking the Silence', 'Physicians for Human Rights', 'Machsom Watch' and 'Checkpoint Watch', which as mainly grassroots initiatives, are generally more fragile than mid level or upper level peace activities.^[74]

Examples of peace journalism[link]

As a pedagogical practice, peace journalism training often uses pairs of war journalism and peace journalism reports to illustrate how the same story can be reported in either style, and that there is the potential to produce peace journalism within the time and travel constraints of mainstream journalism.

For a peace journalism/war journalism pair on conflict in the Philippines see Peace Journalism in the Philippines. The transcripts of this report pair, along with an outline of a course in peace journalism can be viewed at A course in peace journalism.

For a pair of reports covering Israel/Palestine plus a link to practical tips for avoiding journalism that is biased towards violence and violent actors, see The Middle East—War Journalism and Peace Journalism The documentary News from the Holy Land also contains another pair of reports on the Israel/Palestine conflict.

The free Reporting the World publication contains pairs of peace journalism/war journalism news reports on Macedonia, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Iraq,and Indonesia.

The Cairo based Center for Intercultural Dialogue and Translation (CIDT) seeks to build bridges of understanding between the Arab and Western world through analysis of the news from these regions. To Be an Effective Advocate for Peace, Media Distortions Must Be Addressed analyses situations where conflict reporting has contributed to the actual worsening of conflict.

An example from the Hindustan Times, showing how peace journalism can also operate through awards and commendations publicising and supporting the work of non-violence and cooperative conflict resolution: Afghan, Palestinian win UN award in honour of Gandhi.

Peace journalism can also take the form of the public dissemination of research on the successful conditions for non-violent conflict resolution and negotiation such as: Unequal Partners Can't Negotiate by Paul Duffill, writing for New Matilda.

For an example in Australia see this report on the protests of the 2009 US and Australian military exercises, Talisman Sabre.

TED talk by Julia Bacha on the danger of news about conflict only covering violent actors, excluding non-violent programmes Julia Bacha: Pay attention to nonviolence.

Budrus documentary film, telling the true story of the successful non-violent struggle of the people of the village Bubrus in the West Bank of Palestine.

Arab revolutions and the power of nonviolent action by Stephen Zunes, writing for the National Catholic Reporter.

Anne Applebaum argues in this piece for the Washington Post that though it is tempting to lump all the recent revolutions in the Middle East and North Africa into a single “Arab revolution,” or "Arab Spring" the differences between them may turn out to be more important than their similarities: In the Arab world, it's 1848 - not 1989.

This report from Michelle Shephard Somalia’s Al Qaeda: A chance for Shabab to negotiate? is an example of a partial PJ piece, where some elements of PJ are present. The piece does not assume there are only two parties, and doesn't assume parties' goals exactly match reported positions, and explores contradictory goals within a single official party. It also reports on peaceful responses to conflict. This report however is generally closed in space and time: with little exploration of the reasons behind the conflict between waring groups (including considering the conduct of the weak national government), or whether parties other than Al Queda/Al Shabab have used violence, and assumes that causes and sources of solutions are restricted to within Somalia itself. The report also does not explore non-elite efforts at peace, even though Somalis rally against al-Qaeda allies suggests that there is local support for peace efforts.

Projects on peace journalism[link]

The feedback loop of cause and effect^[76] is a useful reference point here for conceptualising the various “entry points” for peace journalism in the wider phenomenology of news. Peace journalism has been applied in training and dialogue with journalists in a variety of settings.^[77] However peace journalism has also been applied in a number of other sectors.

These interventions are extremely varied and, in addition to the examples noted above, include international NGO work with local partners and networks in areas of conflict,^[78] the promotion of communication rights, participatory processes, community-based communication approaches for development, and social change and peacebuilding (for example see Current Projects-Communication for Social Change & World Association for Christian Communication programmes and further reading sections below); creation of new people centred peace media outlets^[79] and work with organisations who may themselves become sources for peace journalism.^[80] Government and inter-governmental approaches have also facilitated peace journalism in preventing media manipulation and promoting people centred media in post-conflict societies and through the United Nations.^[81] Likewise upper level editors and media organisation managers have participated in peace journalism workshops and seminars.^[82]

The Peace Journalism Research Project, at the Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies in Sydney provides further information on examples, research, and projects of peace journalism.

Debates and criticisms[link]

Peace journalism has aroused a number of debates and criticisms from scholars and journalists.

Activist news lacking objectivity[link]

Some opponents characterise peace journalism as "activist" new writing that, while being socially engaged to promote peace, is unlike mainstream objective, or balanced, news coverage that seeks to remain impartial or above the fray.^[83]

This raises the important question: how objective and impartial is peace journalism? From a peace journalism perspective the claim “we just report the facts” must include the facts of how and according to what principals these “facts” came to meet the reporter, and how the finished coverage came to meet the facts. The Press Institute of India’s conflict reporting guidelines point out: "Factual accuracy in a single story is no substitute for the total truth. A single story, which is factually accurate can nonetheless be misleading".^[84]

As such peace journalism is generally more objective, with its inclusion of implications for international law, positive developments in both elite peacemaking and capacity building, and non-elite perspectives and peacebuilding initiatives. This objectivity, unconstrained by Objectivity Conventions, highlights the truth-orientation of peace journalism: to “expose untruths on all sides”.^[68]

In doing so peace journalism aims to de-naturalise^{[clarification needed]} meaning by highlighting the creation of war journalism dominated meaning in conflict. Indeed Hall (1997) recommends that the unfixing of meaning: “is often a struggle to increase the diversity of things which subjects can be of the possibility of identities which people have not seen represented before[…]you have to intervene in exactly that powerful exchange between image and its psychic meaning[…]with which we invest images [and] expose and deconstruct the work of representation which the stereotype is doing”.^[85]

And many international negotiation experts and peace practitioners note the importance of non-violent confrontation and the equalisation of power, before effective negotiation and dialogue between parties can take place.^[86] Through reporting on grassroots and local voices for peace, the power of these voices is increased, as they become "reality checkers" for often contradictory statements from elite representatives involved in violence. Through this non-violent “ideational confrontation”, audiences and parties to conflict may be more able to negotiate their own meaning, outside of fixed elite narratives. Thus “mounting anomalies may expose contradictions, and herald a paradigm shift” as local pro-peace perspectives previously consigned to a zone of “deviance” become “legitimate controversy”.^[87]

For example, prior to the presidential election of 2009 in Afghanistan, the counter-insurgency approach, advocated by US commander General McCrystal, contained elements of relationship building to a degree that is unusual among military approaches in Afghanistan.^[88] In the lead up to the Presidential election in Afghanistan in mid 2009, an unusual example of this relationship-sensitive approach to counter-insurgency was applied by US troops in the Nawa district, of Helmand province. However, the overwhelming majority of attention that Nawa district received in 2009, the year that this new strategy was first applied, was on reports of violence there, principally in early-to-mid July, during intensified military operations. For example in 2009, seven out of ten articles in the 'Washington Post online', tagged under the key word “Nawa”, focussed almost exclusively on violence and US combat operations in the region, with similar ratios appearing in online coverage from the Guardian, the Independent, and the New York Times.^[89] In fact, relationship building has succeeded, in contrast to violent methods, in winning “hearts and minds” in Nawa, Afghanistan, but also on a larger scale in Iraq.^[90] The US military’s promotion of these methods as successful may of course be a less than “objective” evaluation. However the military’s promotion of relationship building as a legitimate tactic to attempt in addressing violence does contribute to the normative strength of non-violence responses to conflict. In acknowledging the importance of (at least being seen to) build cooperative relationships with local populations (over simply violently suppressing disagreement to military policy) the legitimacy of these non-violent responses to violence conflict is reinforced. And indeed researchers also note the importance of relationship building for 'vertical and horizontal integration' in peacebuilding^[91] to support the sustainability of institutional reform^[92] and in promoting 'peace with justice' and respect for human rights.^[93]

Peace journalism aims to retain the role of observer in reporting conflict, rather than functioning like war journalism, which intervenes in conflict to increase the influence of violent actors and violent actions. Peace journalism, by presenting “anomalous” local perspectives which contradict violence-exacerbating war journalism, may help to expose these violent group’s attempts to fix and naturalise^{[clarification needed]} meaning and to take advantage of this meaning to promote their violence.^[94] Indeed, exploration of new types of relationships between Afghan locals and the international community, contradicts assertions made at the time, with the support of war journalism, by insurgents and the US government, that the negative effects of foreign occupation could only be ended with their violent expulsion, or that 40,000 more combat troops were the most critical component for sustainable peace in Afghanistan.^[95]

Explaining violence is justifying it[link]

This criticism can be represented by neo-conservative proponent Richard Perle, that one must “decontextualise terror[…]any attempt to discuss the roots of terrorism is an attempt to justify it. It simply needs to be fought and destroyed”.^[96] While this may be a common response to journalism which advocates context, it is also an example of many of the social-cognitive inter-group biases noted above, and exemplifies what social psychologist Phillip Zimbardo (of the Stanford Prison Experiments) calls a Fundamental Attribution Error: “the tendency to explain observed behaviour by reference to dispositions, while ignoring or minimizing the impact of situational variables”.^[97]

The notion of human needs driving violence and being significantly effected by violence (borrowed from Conflict Analysis and Peace Research)^[98] and insight into the stratified nature of reality (borrowed from Critical Realism),^[99] highlights why an explanation of violence is not the same thing as a justification for it.

Critical Realism understands reality as existing in a number of levels or strata. Each strata deals with larger and more complex phenomena than that ones below it. These strata might begin from physical mechanisms at the most basic level, followed by chemical mechanisms, then biological, followed by psychological and finally social. Activity at each lower strata contributes to, but can never fully explain, the new mechanisms that develop in higher strata, in a process called “emergence” from the upper strata. For example, competing theories of sub-atomic structure (perhaps at the physical level) influence but cannot fully explain the outcome of the reaction 2Na+2HCl = 2NaCl + H2 (at the chemical level). Likewise the individual psychologies of a land lord and tenant cannot fully explain their relationship in the social strata, which is also influenced by other things that operate at the social stratum, including laws and culture.^[99]

Structural and cultural explanations for violence generally deal with the social strata: that is relationships between people and groups. An explanation of this violence is not the same as ignoring the role of individual choice and psychology: the violence that “emerges” at the social level is the result of a complex interaction of influences from lower strata (individual choices and psychology) and structures which exist primarily at the social strata (such as laws and culture). So to give cultural or structural explanations of violence is not the same as saying that these social influences override the role the individual choice (which is located in a lower stratum and therefore occurs under different conditions).

Take the case where an individual’s anger (brought on from previous trauma) becomes bitterness, which is followed by their own violent acts, following Elworthy and Rogers (2002) cycle of violence noted above.^[70] An individual has still made a choice to deprive the victim of their violence of their human needs (probably safety and security) even though their own human needs have also been violated earlier. The point is not that they must be seen as either a innocent victim or an evil perpetrator. The practical point is the prevention of violence, and the healing of all those whose needs have been violated.

This approach does not assume that the best solution for stopping individual violence necessarily exists at the level where an individual makes a choice to act violently (which happens at the psychological level). In some cases punishment or imprisonment may be necessary. However Conflict Analysis and Peace Research suggest that, given the failure of the psychological, medical and social sciences (including education) to eliminate the persistent rates of psychotic tendencies in human groups (psychologists estimate that on average 3 percent of any population have psychotic tendencies),^[100] a more promising approach may to look at what social, economic, cultural conditions and what inter-group relations enable individuals such as Hitler, Osama Bin Laden, Stalin and Pol Pot, to realise their desire for mass violence.

Conflict Analysis and Peace Research does not primarily focus on understanding the individual psychology of these individuals (at the psychological stratum), but on how these individuals may be prevented from taking up a position in society where they are able to direct inter-communal violence (at the social stratum).

Indeed in peace journalism the role of individual agency is given a lot of importance. For example journalists are encouraged, in peace journalism workshops, to work peace journalism into the existing media structures. And peace journalism urges journalists to investigate the possibility that, even in violent situations, there are always voices for peace, and to search these voices out, when reporting what the Objectivity Conventions might ignore from the outset.^[101] Likewise the role of individual choice is not ignored in Conflict Analysis and Peace Research, and leading scholar-practitioner, John Paul Lederach notes that: “I have not experienced any situation in conflict, no matter how protracted or severe, from Central America to the Philippines to the Horn of Africa, where there have not been people who had a vision for peace, emerging often from their own experience of pain. Far too often, however, these same people people are overlooked and disempowered either because they do not represent ‘official’ power, whether on the side of government [or] of the various militias, or because they are written off as biased and too personally affected by the conflict".^[102]

Structure versus agency in media change[link]

Hanitzsche (2007) argues that “the failures of corporate journalism cannot be overcome by an individualistic and voluntaristic conceptualization of news making. To have any impact on the ways news is being made, and the critical discussion thereof, the advocates of peace journalism must address the structural constraints of news production[…]a peaceful culture is the precondition of peace journalism."^[103] Structure is a key concern in peace journalism, along with with the influence of structure on content pluralism in news.^[104] And a number of projects that apply peace journalism (some of which are outlined above) demonstrate that peace journalism activism is not limited to journalists themselves. Indeed, conflict media content analyses are important educational resources for audiences, NGOs and journalists, to show how deficiencies in content can be used to campaign for more structural pluralism.^[105]

These varied approaches demonstrate that inroads have been, and are still being made, in peace journalism activism in the areas Hackett (2006) identifies as necessary to address challenges of structure and to "make peace journalism possible”: reforming journalism from within, and also creating alternative media organisations, and intervening in the broader fields in which journalism find itself.^[106]

Active versus passive audiences[link]

Hanitszche (2007) criticises peace journalism, noting that media users are often “fragmented and active audiences instead of a passive mass[…]leading to a selective use of supplied products”.^[107] Likewise Devereux (2003) notes that media audiences “may have different expectations of media genres”^[108] and Turnbull (2002) argues that in media research a serious problem is just to limit and define audiences and therefore relevant media practices.^[109] Indeed Hall (1997) notes that the meaning of media messages changes “as you move from one person to another, one group to another, one part of society to another.”^[110] And Lynch (2008) points out, drawing from Hall (1980) that “the meanings of media messages are made, at least partly, at the point of reception, in a process influenced chiefly by the socio-economic position of the reader or viewer.”^[111] As such Hall (1980) notes that in a negotiated or oppositional manner, meaning often: "contains a mixture of adaptive and oppositional elements: it acknowledges the legitimacy of the hegemonic definitions to make the grand significations (abstract), while, at a more restricted, situational (situated) level, it makes its own ground rules - it operates with exceptions to the rule. It accords the privileged position to the dominant definitions of events while reserving the right to make a more negotiated application to 'local conditions'".And indeed for many peace journalists it is the visibility of 'local conditions' that allows for oppositional and negotiated meaning. Lynch (2008)argues that “for audiences to produce oppositional or negotiated readings of media messages assumes they have enough directly relevant personal and social experience against which to measure them”,^[112] This is often not the case with international conflict. Indeed Hall’s(1980) own example of the negotiation of meaning is the case of an industrial factory worker, willing to challenge official justifications in the media for an Industrial Relations Bill limiting his or her right to strike.^[113]

Peace journalism analysis shows that the facts absent in audiences’ understanding of conflict, can closely mirror those neglected in war journalism. A notable example is Philo and colleagues’ research into media coverage of the Israel/Palestine conflict in the UK media.^[114] With mainstream media neglecting the Palestinian narrative that Palestinian refugees lost their land and homes when Israel was established, audiences exhibited consistent ignorance about the basic facts of the conflict (for example where the bulk of refugees came from) and tended to perceive Palestinians as “starting the violence” and therefore Israeli authorities as forced to “respond” violently to prevent or contain this action, which has no possible rationale and therefore no potential non-violent resolution.^[115] Indeed five years earlier, when reporting results of the study, Philo (2004) noted that: "This pattern of reporting clearly influenced how some viewers understood the conflict[…]The gaps in public knowledge closely parallel those in the news. The Palestinian perspective, that they have lost their land and are living under occupation, was effectively absent. It is perhaps not surprising that some viewers believed that they were simply being aggressive and trying to take land from the Israelis".^[116] This omission of the Palestinian perspective was so serious that Helen Boaden, Head of News at the BBC, concluded in an internal email: “we fail to give enough context and history to this highly charged story and that we neglect the Palestinian narrative[…]In our response, we’ve tried to come up with practical ways to remedy our weaknesses”.^[117]

This is an important illustration of the consistent effect of war journalism across general audiences: “the pattern of misunderstanding almost exactly matching[…]missing elements from the story habitually presented in the mainstream media”.^[118] General media audiences as a group are conceptualised within the Feedback Loop of cause and effect.^[119]

Different approaches in Conflict Analysis, Peace Research and Conflict Resolution[link]

Two peace practitioner scholars, John Paul Lederach and Johan Galtung present two quite different models for conflict resolution and peace building. Lederach (1995) presents an “Elictive Model” which is aims “primarily at discovery, creation, and solidification of models that emerge from the resources present in a particular setting and respond to needs in that context” and to not impose third party knowledge from trainer to participant.^[120] This approach, was applied in a dialogue in 2003 entitled “Reporting the[sic?] Iraq: what went right? What went wrong?”. Included were Heads of News from the BBC and CNN, the editor of the Guardian, and several senior reporters who had also been reporting the war from Iraq.^[121] Drawing on “the resources in the room” recommendations for the coverage of conflict included:

1. Do not report a ‘line’ from an official source without obtaining and citing independent evidence as to its reliability.
2. Acknowledge that the important job of testing arguments is best done if they are juxtaposed with, and weighed against, alternative, countervailing arguments.
3. All newsrooms genuinely interested in offering a service to the public must think long and hard about ‘conduit’ journalism and, in particular, whether their political correspondents are being used in this way.^[122]

Galtung’s TRANSCEND approach in contrast, focuses on the role a third party to “unstick” violent conflicts and stimulate creativity. This is done by probing deeply into the nature of parties’ goals, expanding the spectrum of acceptable solutions, and opening up cognitive space for fresh potentialities not conceived of by conflict parties.^[123] "In one-on-one conversation-style dialogues, the task is to stimulate creativity, develop new perspectives, and make the conflict parties 'ready for the table'".^[124]

Lynch (2008) recounts a notable example of this approach during a peace journalism forum of Middle Eastern journalists, in Amman, in 1999. Discussions often devolved into national groups blaming the journalists of the other countries for not confronting their governments’ lack of movement towards peace. Galtung himself challenged the participants to: “imagine a future Middle East they wanted to see, and start to think aloud, in cross-national groups, about how they might play a part in bringing it about”.^[125]

A Galtungian perspective, as a foundation for much of peace journalism, insists that “the journalist focus on root causes of conflict such as poverty or prior abuse, and not merely focus on events associated with violent political encounters”.^[126] Through this approach peace journalism could act to “disembed” seemingly immutable official positions from the greater context of a conflict by exploring background to a conflict, challenging propaganda, and making visible official and local initiatives for peaceful conflict resolution.

These two approaches differ not only in the "how" of Conflict Resolution but the "who". Lederach generally outlines a "middling out" approach where "the level with the greatest potential for establishing an infrastructure that can sustain the peacebuilding process over the long term appears to be the middle range".^[127] He argues that grassroots approaches are generally the more fragile since their participants are often concerned with day to day issues of survival.^[128] Upper level approaches assume a high level of integration between elites and grassroots: that peace agreements reached there "are relevant to and capable of practical implementation at the local level"^[129] Galtung on the other hand argues that upper level leaders often actually feel excluded from facilitated peace processes, with the modern focus on grassroots and civil society initiatives.^[130] The root of conflict is incompatible goals, pursued by parties which result in violent attitudes and behavior. It follows that "people are more able to discuss a root problem when they sense a solution somewhere. A glimmer of light at the end of a tunnel makes it considerably more easy[sic] to admit that we are in a tunnel".^[131] In Galtung's work, the most accessible way to influence these goals had been to work with those who officially defined them and led policy—the upper level leaders.

The importance of accurate and complete Conflict Analysis for a given conflict highlights how these two approaches can be complementary. Practical Conflict Analysis is often aimed at identifying the easiest "peace levers" to pull, within a conflict to "unstick" violent inter-group relations. This contrasts with intervening in a conflict with pre-set ideas of how a resolution will be found, and with which specific level or group to begin working.

Therefore Conflict Analysis may indicate which "entry points" offer the most promising chance to transform the relations between parties. And from this it will follow which approach, or combination of approaches, are likely to work from that entry point (whether it be at the grassroots, mid level or upper level or a combination). This integrative approach is summed up by peace practitioner and researcher Wendy Lambourne: "to rely on only one theoretical approach in peace practice risks being culturally blind".^[132]

Other names and similar approaches[link]

Sometimes also called conflict solution journalism, conflict sensitive journalism,^[3] and constructive conflict coverage. A similar approach is also found in preventive journalism, which extends the principles to social, economic, environmental or institutional problems. Peace journalism is one of several approaches and movements in journalism history, including advocacy journalism, development communication journalism, the new journalism, and public or civic journalism, which reject the universal or hegemonic claims to neutrality of professional journalism in the developed West.^[133]

Online resources[link]

"How to" guides and single documents[link]

• What is Peace Journalism? Part 1 - By Jake Lynch, Transcend Media Service.
• What is Peace Journalism? Part 2 - Reporting the World.
• 17 Tips: What A Peace Journalist Would Try To Do
• Peace Journalism Principals and Guidelines for Writers - Transcend Media Service.
• The No Nonsense Guide to Peace Journalism - The World Association for Christian Communication.
• Peace journalism for journalists.
• Reporting the World publication - Free book length resource from early UK peace journalism workshop with editors and journalists
• Using Conflict Analysis in Reporting
• Conflict Sensitive Journalism handbook
• Peace journalism and reporting of the conflict in Afghanistan
• The Peace Journalism Option: Conflict and Peace Forums Part 1 (1997)
• What are Journalists For? Conflict and Peace Forums Part 2 (1999)
• Introduction to Constructive Conflict Coverage – An eLearning Module - Peace Research Group at the University of Konstanz (Projektgruppe Friedensforschung Konstanz)
• Constructive conflict coverage - A social psychological approach - Wilhelm Kempf
• Editorial Policies Relevant to Covering Muslim Mindanao - The website on Muslim Mindanao for journalists and communicators, based at the Asian Institute of Journalism and Communication, Philippines.
• On Establishing Peace Journalism - By Mayumi Futumura, Peace Waves, which goes to schools and youth groups to engage in dialogue and make presentations to learn about their ideas of what is and what is not peace.
• Measuring Peace in the Media - The Institute for Economics and Peace and [www.mediatenor.com/ Media Tenor] jointly analyze global TV networks coverage of peace and violence issues comparing measures from the Global Peace Index against Media Tenor’s database of global media.

Toolkits, journals, and directories[link]

• Peace journalism at the Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies at the University of Sydney
• Conflict Resolving Media - toolkit by the Conflict Resolution Network, Australia
• Journalists Toolbox, Conflict Database, and Training program - by Pecojon (subscription required).
• Conflict and Communication Online - Free e-journal that has taken the lead in publishing refereed research papers by scholars using and debating peace journalism.
• Peace Journalism Resources - Park University, Missouri.
• Resource Guide for Media and Peacebuilding - Search for Common Ground.
• Media, Conflict and Society; Conflict Transformation and Peacebuilding:A Selected Bibliography - Catherine Morris.
• Peace Research Group at the University of Konstanz publications (English)
• Peace journalism on Facebook
• Mass Media & Muslim Mindanao (on right of page) - The Website on Muslim Mindanao for Journalists and Other Communicators, based at the Asian Institute of Journalism and Communication, Philippines.
• Peace Media - Large collection of media that promotes peace. Collaborative project with US Institute of Peace and Georgetown University's Conflict Resolution Program.
• Also see Projects working for peace among Arabs and Israelis which, by making peace efforts more accessable also works as a peace journalism resource.

Organisations[link]

Note: Many peace journalism organisations have both a domestic and international focus. For ease of organisation they are listed here according to their contact details or where their head office is based.

Organisation Directories[link]

• Institutions and non-governmental organizations active in conflict sensitive journalism.

International (no single head office)[link]

• Peace and Conflict Studies Ning Network - Incorporates Conflict-Resolving Media.
• peacejournalism.org (Account suspended)
• Transcend Media Service
• Media Peace - Examines the nature of contemporary war reporting in a range of locales, including Africa, the Balkans, the Middle East, and southern Asia. (Account suspended)

Asia/West-Pacific[link]

• Peace journalism at the Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies - University of Sydney.
• Sydney Peace Foundation - Awards the Sydney Peace Prize. A not-for-profit organisation promoting peace with justice through partnership between the media and business, public service, community and academic interests.
• Sydney Peace Blog - Diverse journalism, articles and opinion on the most effective ways to advance peace with justice encouraging the sharing ideas and critical analysis.
• The Website on Muslim Mindanao for Journalists and Other Communicators - Based at the Asian Institute of Journalism and Communication, Philippines.
• newmatilda.com - Australia based, often includes peace journalism is its coverage.
• femLINKPacific - Media Initiatives for Women.
• The Media Peace Awards
• Pecojon - International network of journalists, filmmakers and journalism teachers who focus on implementing and mainstreaming responsible and high quality reporting of conflict, crisis and war.
• Media for Peacebuilding - Building Peace Media literacy by providing a showcase of successful examples of how media can be used to build a sustainable, positive peace.
• Ten Thousand Things - Media supporting a culture of positive peace in Japan, the Asia-Pacific, and Everywhere.
• Hiroshima Peace Media Center - Bilingual English-Japanese archive on the world's first atomic bombing, and coverage of nuclear disarmament/proliferation, and other peace-related concerns.
• Australian Anti-Bases Campaign Coalition - Bite the Bullet campaign to cutting military spending in Australia. AABCC campaign for the removal of all nuclear war fighting and associated intelligence facilities and activities in Australia.
• Hungry Beast - Australia's ABC TV show combining journalism (including about international conflict), comedy and the reportage of weird. According to its website "it asks questions others don’t, covers stories others won’t and brings them to your screen in ways that only this unique team of broadcasters can do".

Europe[link]

• friedensnews.at - Peace journalism from Austria based in Vienna.
• International Media Support; Media and conflict
• World Council of Churches Living Letters - Ecumenical teams visiting a country to listen, learn, and share approaches and challenges in overcoming violence.
• Institute for War and Peace Reporting
• The Centre for Crisis Reporting
• International Crisis Group
• Xchange perspectives - Dedicated to connecting the world through community based media initiatives.
• Open Democracy; News on Conflict - News analysis, debates and blogs about the world and the way we govern ourselves.
• Open Security - An editorial project of Open Democracy.
• Gwynne Dyer - London based freelance journalist, columnist, broadcaster and lecturer on international affairs.
• John Pilger - London based journalist and filmmaker.
• Institute for War and Peace Reporting - Headquarters in London, and additional offices in Netherlands and the United States.

Latin America[link]

• Media, Peace and Conflict Studies at the University of Peace - Costa Rica.

Middle East and North Africa[link]

• Tolerancy International - Based in Erbil, the capital of Iraqi Kurdistan. Variety of peace journalism resources throughout the website. Promotes cooperation among men and women, institutions, countries, communities to disseminate a culture of "tolerancy".
• A Family in Baghdad diary blog
• The Palestine Monitor
• Machsom Watch
• B'Tselem - The Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories
• The Parents Circle Families Forum - Israel and Palestine.
• Middle East Children's Alliance
• Arab West Report
• Center for Arab West Understanding

North America[link]

• World Association for Christian Communication
• Democracy Now - The largest public media collaboration in the U.S.
• Mother Jones - Non-profit investigative journalism.
• Peace Journalism at Park University, Missouri
• Dart Centre for Journalism and Trauma
• Jewish Voice for Peace - The largest US-based grassroots organization dedicated to promoting full equality, democracy and self-determination for both Israelis and Palestinians.
• Media Education Foundation - Includes peace journalism content within documentaries and other educational resources to inspire critical reflection on the social, political, and cultural impact of American mass media (free and paid content).
• Peace Media - Large collection of media that promotes peace. Collaborative project with US Institute of Peace and the Conflict Resolution Program at Georgetown University.
• Peace Media: Conflict transformation through mass media - Resources on role of the media in conflict and peace by Dr. Vladimir Bratic, Assistant Professor of Media and Communications at Hollins University.
• Americans for Peace Now

See also[link]

• Objectivity (journalism)
• Peace and Conflict Studies
• Conflict Analysis
• Conflict Resolution
• Conflict Transformation
• Non-violence
• Alfred Hermann Fried - the first explicit peace journalist, Germany, Austria, Switzerland.

References[link]

Listen to this article (info/dl)

This audio file was created from a revision of the "Peace journalism" article dated 2010-03-12, and does not reflect subsequent edits to the article. (Audio help)

More spoken articles

Robert Koehler
Portrait of Alvina Roosen by Robert Koehler, c. 1900
Born	(1850-11-28)November 28, 1850 Hamburg, Germany
Died	April 23, 1917(1917-04-23) (aged 66)
Nationality	American
Field	Painting

Robert Koehler (November 28, 1850 - April 23, 1917) was a German-born painter and art teacher who spent most of his career in the United States of America.

Biography[link]

Koehler was born in Hamburg; his family spelled their name Köhler until they moved to Milwaukee, Wisconsin in 1854. There he attended the historic German-English Academy. He graduated from the academy in 1865, but continued his lessons with the school's drawing master, Henry Vianden, who had graduated from Munich's Royal Academy of Fine Arts. He apprenticed himself to a lithography firm.

In 1871, he went to New York City for eye surgery, and stayed to work as a lithographer. After studying drawing in the night classes of the National Academy of Design,^[1] Koehler went to Munich to study fine art at the Royal Academy in 1873, studying with Karl von Piloty and Ludwig Thiersch. He returned to New York after two years because of depleted funds. In 1879, he was able to return to Munich with means furnished by George Ehret, of New York, whose attention had been drawn to the young artists's ambition and capabilities. On his second trip, he studied under Ludwig Löfftz and Franz Defregger. His friendships with William Merritt Chase and Frank Duveneck date from this time.

Koehler's work while in Munich won him silver and bronze awards from the Academy, and Bavaria's Cross of the Order of St. Michael. Koehler then set himself up as head of a private art school; pupils included Alfons Mucha.

He began to exhibit in the National Academy, New York, in 1877. In 1885 he took charge of a private school of art in that city. He organized the American department of the international art exhibition at Munich in 1883, and was appointed by the Bavarian authorities to act in the same capacity in the exhibition of 1888.

In 1892 Robert Koehler returned to New York City to work as a portrait artist. The following year he moved to Minneapolis, Minnesota, accepting an offer to be the director of the Minneapolis School of Fine Arts (now the Minneapolis College of Art and Design). Koehler was also involved with the establishment of Minneapolis' Museum of Fine Art, now the Minneapolis Institute of Arts. He was a pioneer of art instruction and appreciation in the region.

Koehler was president of the Minnesota State Art Commission from 1903 to 1910, member of the Artists' League of Minneapolis, honorary member of the Minnesota State Art Society, honorary member of the Alumni Association of the Minneapolis School of Art, member of the Society of Western Artists, and member of the Institute des Beaux Arts et des Lettres of Paris, France. He received bronze and silver medals at the Munich Academy, honorable mention at the Paris World's Fair, 1889, bronze medal at the International Art Exhibition at Buenos Aires in 1910, and the cross of the Order of Saint Michael of Bavaria in 1888.^[1]

Koehler continued working in Minneapolis, painting portraits and landscapes, teaching painting, and arranging exhibitions. He retired as director in 1914. He died suddenly in Minneapolis from a heart attack at age 66.

Works[link]

Rainy Evening on Hennepin Avenue c. 1902. The oil on canvas original is at the Minneapolis Institute of Arts

• “Holy-day Occupation” (1881, at the Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts)
• “Her Only Support” (1882)
• “The Socialist,” a German agitator delivering a harangue (1883,at the Deutsches Historisches Museum in Berlin)
• “The Strike,” a large composition (1886, at the Deutsches Historisches Museum in Berlin)
• “Portrait of Alvina Roosen” (c. 1900)
• “Rainy Evening on Hennepin Avenue” (c. 1902)
• “Study Head” (Minneapolis Institute of Arts)
• “Violet” (Minneapolis Athletic Club)
• “Portrait of Dean Wulling” (State University of Minnesota)
• “The Carpenter's Family”
• “The Family Bible”
• “Salve Luna”
• a portrait at the Public Library at Alexandria, Minnesota
• a portrait at the Memorial Library at Blue Earth, Minnesota

References[link]

•  "Koehler, Robert". Appletons' Cyclopædia of American Biography. 1892. 
• Harold L. Van Doren (1961). "Koehler, Robert". Dictionary of American Biography. V, Part 2. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons. pp. 484–485. 
• Colles Baxter Larkin (1999). "Koehler, Robert". American National Biography. 12. New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 857–858. 

External links[link]

Wikimedia Commons has media related to: Robert Koehler

• Robert Koehler's The Strike
• Works by or about Robert Koehler in libraries (WorldCat catalog)
• "Ask Art: Robert Koehler". http://www.askart.com/askart/k/robert_koehler/robert_koehler.aspx. Retrieved 17 April 2011. 

Richard Keble (fl. 1609–1660),^[1] was a supporter of the Parliamentarian cause during the English Civil War. He was a fellow of All Souls College, Oxford and a bencher of Gray's Inn. From 1648 until 1654 Keble, along with Bulstrode Whitelocke and John Lisle, was a Parliamentary appointee as Lord Commissioner of the Great Seal, they each having a salary of £1000 per annum.^[2] In 1660 at the restoration of the monarchy it was reported that, during the Interregnum, Keble had acted arbitrarily against Royalists; and he was excepted, along with twenty others, from the general pardon under the Indemnity and Oblivion Act, to suffer punishment such as penalties, and forfeitures, not extending to life.^[3][4][5][6]

Richard Keble was of an old family settled at Newton, Suffolk. He was admitted a member of Gray's Inn, 7 August 1609, called to the bar 14 July 1614, and became an ancient of the inn in 1632 and Lent Reader in 1639. He first appears in reported cases in Croke's 'Reports' in 1636. Parliament appointed him a judge in Wales in March 1647, and he became a serjeant-at-law in 1648.^[7] After the execution of Charles I he was appointed the junior of the three commissioners who had the custody of the Great Seal, a position he held until April 1654. An opponent calls him "an insolent, mercenary pettifogger," who without jury or evidence sent to the gallows any he suspected of royalism. In 1651 Kebel presided at the trials of Colonel John Lilburne, Christopher Love, and John Gibbons. A near contemporary and historian, Laurence Echard, in his History of England speaks of Keble as being then a man of "little practical experience".^[8] His salary was irregularly paid, and his petition for payment of what was owing, part of which amounted to one thousand guineas, was presented in 1655, and still disregarded in 1658.^[9] At the Restoration he was excepted out of the Indemnity and Oblivion Act. The date at his death, as of his birth, is unknown.^[10]

Notes[link]

References[link]

• Campbell, John. The lives of the Lord Chancellors and keepers of the great seal of England: from the earliest times till the reign of King George IV. Volume 3, Edition 3, J. Murray, 1845
• Courtenay, Thomas Peregrine. Memoirs of the life, works, and correspondence of Sir William Temple, bart, Volume 2, Longman, Rees, Orme, Brown, Green, & Longman, 1836

Attribution

•  This article incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain: "Keble, Richard". Dictionary of National Biography. London: Smith, Elder & Co. 1885–1900.  Cites:
  • Foss's Judges of England;
  • State Trials, iv. I269, v. 49, 268;
  • Gray's Inn Books;
  • Wood's Athenae, iv. 575;
  • Parl. Hist. iv. 70.
• Osborne Temple, Dorothy. Letters from Dorothy Osborne to Sir William Temple, 1652-54, BiblioBazaar, LLC, 2008, 0559215452, 9780559215452
• Whitlocke, Bulstrode & Spalding, Ruth (editor). The diary of Bulstrode Whitelocke 1605-1675, Volume 13 of Records of social and economic history, illustrated reprint, published for The British Academy by Oxford University Press, 1990. ISBN 0-19-726080-2, ISBN 978-0-19-726080-7

Robert Andrew "Bob" Kohler (17 May 1926 - 5 December 2007) was a gay rights pioneer. A native of Queens, New York, Kohler was a lifetime queer activist in New York City, who also fought for the rights of many other people and animals. He was at the Stonewall riots, and considered a father figure to many of the young trans people, such as Sylvia Rivera and Marsha P. Johnson, as well as to younger generations of activists.

Kohler served in the U. S. Navy in the South Pacific Theater during World War II, was the manager of the New York gay bathhouse, Club Baths, was among the first agents to represent non-famous Black artists, owner of the popular gay store The Loft on Christopher Street, and a lifelong activist.^{[1] [2]}

He died of lung cancer on December 5, 2007, at the age of 81, in the Charles Street (West Village) apartment that he had lived in for 45 years. ^[3]

Activism[link]

Though Kohler is best known for his role at the Stonewall riots and his early involvement with the Gay Liberation Front, he was active with many movements and groups, including the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE), the Black Panther Party, Act Up, Sex Panic, the Neutral Zone, the New York City AIDS Housing Network (NYCAHN), Irish Queers, Fed Up Queers, animal rights groups, and FIERCE!

Notes[link]

External links[link]

• IrishQueers.org
• Bob's Queers: Dedicated to the life, activism, and legacy of Bob Kohler

References[link]

• Carter, David (2004). Stonewall: The Riots That Sparked The Gay Revolution. St. Martin's Press, New York. ISBN 0-312-34269-1.
• Duberman, Martin (1993). Stonewall New York, Dutton, New York. ISBN 0-452-27206-8.
• Deitcher, David (1995). The Question of Equality: Lesbian and Gay Politics in America Since Stonewall. Charles Scribner's Sons, New York. ISBN 0-684-80030-6.
• Shepard, Hayduk and Benjamin, Ronald (2002). From ACT UP to the WTO: Urban Protest and Community Building in the Era of Globalization. Verso, London. ISBN 1-85984-356-5.
• Sycamore, Mattilda Bernstein (2008). That's Revolting: Queer Strategies for Resisting Assimilation. Soft Skull Press, Inc., New York City. ISBN 1-932360-56-5.

Johan Galtung
Johan Galtung in May 2011 at the 41st St. Gallen Symposium
Born	(1930-10-24) 24 October 1930 (age 81) Oslo, Norway
Fields	Sociology, Peace and conflict studies
Institutions	Columbia University, University of Oslo, Peace Research Institute Oslo (PRIO)
Alma mater	University of Oslo
Known for	Principal founder of peace and conflict studies
Notable awards	Alternative Nobel Prize (1987)

Johan Galtung (born 24 October 1930) is a Norwegian sociologist and the principal founder of the discipline of peace and conflict studies.^[1] He founded the Peace Research Institute Oslo in 1959, serving as its Director until 1970, and established the Journal of Peace Research in 1964. In 1969 he was appointed to the world's first chair in peace and conflict studies, at the University of Oslo. He resigned his professorship in 1977 and has since held professorships at several universities around the world. Galtung is a prolific researcher, having made contributions to many branches of sociology. He has published more than 1000 articles and over 100 books.^{[2][non-primary source needed]} He was awarded the Alternative Nobel Prize in 1987,^{[citation needed]} and has received many other accolades. He is currently a resident of France and the United States.^{[citation needed]}

Galtung is known for contributions to mathematics and sociology in the 1950s, political science in the 1960s, economics and history in the 1970s, macro history, anthropology and theology in the 1980s. He has developed several influential theories, such as the distinction between positive and negative peace, structural violence, theories on conflict and conflict resolution, the structural theory of imperialism, and the theory of the United States as simultaneously a republic and an empire.^[3]

Biography[link]

Galtung was born in Oslo. He earned the cand. real. (PhD)^[4] degree in mathematics at the University of Oslo in 1956, and a year later completed the mag. art. (PhD)^[5] degree in sociology at the same university^[3] . Galtung received the first of nine honorary doctorates in 1975.^{[citation needed]}

Galtung's father and paternal grandfather were both physicians. The Galtung name has its origins in Hordaland, where his paternal grandfather was born. Nevertheless, his mother, Helga Holmboe, was born in central Norway, in Trøndelag, while his father was born in Østfold, in the south. Galtung has been married twice, and has two children by his first wife Ingrid Eide, Harald Galtung and Andreas Galtung, and two by his second wife Fumiko Nishimura, Irene Galtung and Fredrik Galtung, the co-founder and chief executive of Tiri.^[6]

Upon receiving his mag.art. degree, Galtung moved to Columbia University, in New York City, where he taught for five semesters as an assistant professor in the Department of Sociology.^[7] In 1959, Galtung returned to Oslo, where he founded the Peace Research Institute Oslo (PRIO). He served as the institute's director until 1969, and saw the institute develop from a department within the Norwegian Institute of Social Research into an independent research institute with enabling funds from the Norwegian Ministry of Education.^[8]

In 1964, Galtung led PRIO to establish the first academic journal devoted to Peace Studies: the Journal of Peace Research.^[8] In the same year, he assisted in the founding of the International Peace Research Association.^[9]

In 1969 he left PRIO for a position as professor of peace and conflict research at the University of Oslo, a position he held until 1978.^[8] He then served as the director general of the International University Centre in Dubrovnik, also serving as the president of the World Future Studies Federation.^[10] He has also held visiting positions at other universities, including Santiago, Chile, the United Nations University in Geneva, and at Columbia, Princeton and the University of Hawaii.^[11] He has served at so many universities that he has "probably taught more students on more campuses around the world than any other contemporary sociologist."^[10] Galtung is currently teaching courses in the Human Science Department at Saybrook University.^[12]

He is a member of the Norwegian Academy of Science and Letters.^[13]

Mediation for peace[link]

Galtung experienced World War II in German-occupied Norway, and as a 12 year old saw his father arrested by the Nazis. By 1951 he was already a committed peace mediator, and elected to do 18 months of social service in place of his obligatory military service. After 12 months, Galtung insisted that the remainder of his social service be spent in activities relevant to peace, to which the Norwegian authorities responded by sending him to prison, where he served six months.^[7]

While Galtung's academic research is clearly intended to promote peace, he has shifted toward more concrete and constructive peace mediation as he has grown older. In 1993, he co-founded "Transcend - A Peace, Development and Environment Network,"^{[14][non-primary source needed]} an organization for conflict transformation by peaceful means. There are four traditional but unsatisfactory ways in which conflicts between two parties are handled:

1. A wins, B loses;
2. B wins, A loses;
3. the solution is postponed because neither A nor B feels ready to end the conflict;
4. a confused compromise is reached, which neither A nor B are happy with.

Galtung tries to break with these four unsatisfactory ways of handling a conflict by finding a "fifth way," where both A and B feel that they win. The method also insists that basic human needs – such as survival, physical well-being, liberty, and identity – be respected.^[15]

Galtung himself has employed the "Transcend" Method while serving as a negotiator in a number of international conflicts. He views his role as that of helping the parties clarify their objectives, and working to come up with solutions that meet the objectives of all parties. He presents them with concrete proposals that are intended to give both sides the sense that they are winners. The 1995 negotiations between Ecuador and Peru are an example of the apparent success of these methods: the two countries had fought three wars since 1941 over an uninhabited and resource-poor border region. Galtung proposed converting the area to a bi-national park, and both sides found this an acceptable solution.^[15]

Major ideas[link]

Galtung's theoretical work proposes that there are four ways in which conflict can emerge: conflicts within a person or between persons; conflicts between races, sexes, generations, or classes; conflicts between states; and conflicts between civilizations or multi-state regions, such as the Cold War.^[15]

He first conceptualized peacebuilding by calling for systems that would create sustainable peace. The peacebuilding structures needed to address the root causes of conflict and support local capacity for peace management and conflict resolution.^[16]

Galtung has held several significant positions in international research councils and has been an advisor to several international organisations. Since 2004 he has been a member of the Advisory Council of the Committee for a Democratic UN.

He has also written many empirical and theoretical articles, dealing most frequently with issues of peace and conflict research. His work is distinguished by his unique perspective as well as the importance he attributes to innovation and interdisciplinarity.

He is one of the authors of an influential account of news values which are the factors which determine what coverage is given to what stories in the news. Galtung also originated the concept of Peace Journalism, which is increasingly influential in communications and media studies.

Galtung is frequently referenced with regard to concepts with which he is strongly associated:

• Structural violence - widely defined as the systematic ways in which a regime prevents individuals from achieving their full potential. Institutionalized racism and sexism are examples of this.
• Negative vs. Positive Peace - introduced the concept that peace may be more than just the absence of overt violent conflict (negative peace), and will likely include a range of relationships up to a state where nations (or any groupings in conflict) might have collaborative and supportive relationships (positive peace).

He has also distinguished himself in public debates concerning, among other things, less-developed countries, defence issues, and the Norwegian EU-debate. In 1987 he was given the Right Livelihood Award. He developed the TRANSCEND Method described above. Economist and fellow peace researcher Kenneth Boulding has said of Galtung that his "output is so large and so varied that it is hard to believe that it comes from a human".^[17]

Galtung's theory of the U.S. as a republic/empire[link]

For Johan Galtung, the U.S. is simultaneously a republic and an empire, a distinction he believes is highly relevant. The U.S. is on the one hand loved for its republican qualities, and on the other loathed by its enemies abroad for its perceived military aggressions.

Among the former qualities are its work ethic and dynamism, productivity and creativity, the idea of freedom, or liberty, and a pioneering spirit.

On the other hand its military and political manipulation are censured for their aggressiveness, arrogance, violence, hypocrisy and self-righteousness, as well as the US public ignorance of other cultures and extreme materialism.^[18]

In 1973, Galtung criticised the “structural fascism” of the United States (and other Western countries) that make war to secure materials and markets, stating that: “Such an economic system is called capitalism, and when it’s spread in this way to other countries it’s called imperialism,” and has praised Fidel Castro for “break[ing] free of imperialism’s iron grip.” Galtung has stated that the United States is a “killer country” that is guilty of “neo-fascist state terrorism” and compared the United States to Nazi Germany for bombing Kosovo during the 1999 NATO bombing of Yugoslavia.”^{[19] [20]}

In an article published in 2004 in Galtung predicted that the US Empire will "decline and fall" by 2020." A complex hypothesis he has developed into a prognosis expanded on in his 2009 book titled The Fall of the US Empire - and Then What? Successors, Regionalization or Globalization? US Fascism or US Blossoming?^[21][22]

According to Galtung, the US Empire causes "unbearable suffering and resentment" because the "exploiters/ killers/ dominators/ alienators, and those who support the US Empire because of perceived benefits" are engaging in "unequal, non-sustainable, exchange patterns." However, Galtung added that the decline of the US Empire does not imply a fall and decline of the US republic and that the "relief from the burden of Empire control and maintenance...could lead to a blossoming of the US Republic." In the Article, Galtung lists fourteen 'contradictions' that, he believes, in the next fifteen years, in 2020, will cause the 'decline and fall' of the American empire.^[22]

Commenting further on these views on the radio and television program Democracy Now, he stated that he loved the American Republic and hated the American Empire. He added that many Americans had thanked him for this statement (on his lecture tours) because of the great difficulty they were having in trying to resolve the conflict between their love for their country and their displeasure with its foreign policy.^[23]

Predictions[link]

Since the fall of the Soviet Union, Galtung has made several predictions of when the USA will no longer be a functioning superpower, a stance that has attracted some controversy. After the beginning of the Iraq War, he revised his prediction of the "downfall of the US-Empire", seeing it as more imminent.^[24] He claims the U.S. will go through a phase as a fascist dictatorship on its path down, and that the Patriot Act is a symptom of this. He claims the election of George W. Bush cost the U.S. empire five years - although he admits that this estimate was set a bit arbitrarily. He now sets the date for the end of the American Empire at 2020, but not the American Republic. Like Great Britain, Russia and France, he says the American Republic will be better off without the Empire.

Galtung has made predictions which have failed to materialize. For example, City Journal claims that in 1953, Galtung predicted that the Soviet Union's economy would soon overtake the West.^[25]

Criticism[link]

During the course of his career, some of Galtung statements and views have drawn criticism. A 2007 article by Bruce Bawer published in City Journal magazine and a subsequent article in February 2009 by Barbara Kay in the National Post criticised some of Galtung's statements.

Both authors criticized Galtung's opinion that while Communist China was “repressive in a certain liberal sense,” Mao Zedong was “endlessly liberating when seen from many other perspectives that liberal theory has never understood” because China showed that “the whole theory about what an ‘open society’ is must be rewritten, probably also the theory of ‘democracy’—and it will take a long time before the West will be willing to view China as a master teacher in such subjects.” The authors also criticized Galtung's opposition to Hungarian resistance against the Soviet invasion in 1956 and his description in 1974 of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn and Andrei Sakharov as “persecuted elite personages”.^[26][27]

Both of the above articles alleged that he has suggested that the annihilation of Washington, D.C., would be a fair punishment for America’s arrogant view of itself as “a model for everyone else.” However, Galtung has called the September 11 attacks "criminal political violence".^[28]

Alleged Anti-Semitism[link]

Galtung was widely criticized by Norwegian media and academics and accused of lending his authority to anti-Semitic ideas following public remarks in 2011 and 2012 about the legitimacy of hypothesizing Mossad involvement in the 2011 Norway attacks and the merits of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.^[29][30][31] Expanding on his views in a Haaretz interview, Galtung stated regarding Auschwitz that "[it was] not unproblematic that Jews had key niches in a society humiliated by defeat at Versailles", since this "created anti-Semitism that could have been predicted."^[32] His remarks drew international criticism and accusations of antisemitism,^[33][34][35] which Galtung dismissed as "nonsense."^[36]

Selected works[link]

• Statistical hypothesis testing (1953, Department of Sociology, University of Oslo [in Norwegian])
• Gandhi's political ethics (1955) (with philosopher Arne Næss)
• Theory and Methods of Social Research (1967)
• Members of Two Worlds (1971)
• Peace, violence and imperialism (1974)
• Peace Research – Education – Action (1975)
• A Shaping Nightmare (1983)
• Europe in the Making (1989)
• Global Glasnost: Toward a New World Information and Communication Order? (1992) (With R. C. Vincent)
• Peace By Peaceful Means: Peace and Conflict, Development and Civilization (1996)
• Johan without land (2000) (Autobiography for which he won the Brage Prize)
• 50 Years: 100 Peace and Conflict Perspectives, (2008)
• Democracy - Peace - Development (2008) with Paul Scott
• 50 Years: 25 Intellectual Landscapes Explore(2008)
• Globalizing God: Religion, Spirituality and Peace (2008) with Graeme MacQueen

Selected awards and recognitions[link]

• Dr honoris causa, University of Tampere, 1975, peace studies
• Dr honoris causa, University of Cluj, 1976, future studies
• Dr honoris causa, Uppsala University, 1987, social sciences
• Dr honoris causa, Soka University, Tokyo, 1990, peace/buddhism
• Dr honoris causa, University of Osnabrück, 1995, peace studies
• Dr honoris causa, University of Torino, 1998, sociology of law
• Dr honoris causa, FernUniversität Hagen, 2000, philosophy
• Dr honoris causa, University of Alicante, 2002, sociology
• Dr honoris causa, Benemérita Universidad Autónoma de Puebla, 2006, law
• Honorary Professor, University of Alicante, Alicante, 1981
• Honorary Professor, Free University of Berlin, 1984–1993
• Honorary Professor, Sichuan University, Chengdu, 1986
• Honorary Professor, Witten/Herdecke University, Witten, 1993
• Distinguished Professor of Peace Studies, University of Hawaii, 1993-
• John Perkins University Distinguished Visiting Professor, 2005-
• Alternative Nobel Prize (Right Livelihood Award), 1987
• First recipient of the Humanist Prize of the Norwegian Humanist Association, 1988
• Jamnalal Bajaj International Award for Promoting Gandhian Values, 1993^[37]
• Brage Prize, 2000
• First Morton Deutsch Conflict Resolution Award, 2001
• Honorary Prize of the Norwegian Sociological Association, 2001
• Premio Hidalgo, Madrid, 2005
• Augsburg Golden Book of Peace, 2006
• Member of the Norwegian Academy of Science and Letters
• Honorary member of the Green Party, 2009
• Erik Bye Memorial Prize, 2011

References[link]

1. ^ John D. Brewer, Peace processes: a sociological approach, p. 7, Polity Press, 2010
2. ^ TRANSCEND biography on Johan Galtung
3. ^ ^{a b} "Johan Galtung", Norsk Biografisk Leksikon
4. ^ http://www.coe.int/T/d/Com/Dossiers/Events/2002-10-interkultureller-Dialog/CV_Galtung.asp
5. ^ http://www.coe.int/T/d/Com/Dossiers/Events/2002-10-interkultureller-Dialog/CV_Galtung.asp
6. ^ Genealogical data for Johan Galtung
7. ^ ^{a b} Life of Johan Galtung (in Danish)
8. ^ ^{a b c} PRIO biography for Johan Galtung
9. ^ History of the IPRA
10. ^ ^{a b} (E. Boulding 1982: 323)
11. ^ Dagens Nyheter 2003-01-15.
12. ^ Saybrook.edu
13. ^ "Gruppe 7: Samfunnsfag (herunder sosiologi, statsvitenskap og økonomi)" (in Norwegian). Norwegian Academy of Science and Letters. http://www.dnva.no/c26848/artikkel/vis.html?tid=27644. Retrieved 26 October 2009. 
14. ^ Transcend.org
15. ^ ^{a b c} The "fifth way"
16. ^ PEACEBUILDING & THE UNITED NATIONS Peacebuilding Support Office, United Nations
17. ^ (K. Boulding 1977: 75)
18. ^ Article by Dr Zeki Ergas "Out of Sync with the world: Some Thoughts on the Coming Decline and Fall of the American Empire".
19. ^ The Peace Racket by Bruce Bawer, City Journal, Summer 2007.
20. ^ http://www.nationalpost.com/story.html?id=1299901 Barbarians within the gate] by Barbara Kay, National Post, February 18, 2009.
21. ^ Prof. J. Galtung: 'US empire will fall by 2020' Russia Today, (posted on Youtube.
22. ^ ^{a b} On the Coming Decline and Fall of the US Empire by Johan Galtung, Transnational Foundation and Peace and Research (TFF), January 28, 2004.
23. ^ Galtung on Democracy Now
24. ^ Amerikas imperium går under innen 2020 Adressa September 23, 2004.
25. ^ Bawer, Bruce. 2007. "The Peace Racket". City Journal. Summer 2007..
26. ^ The Peace Racket by Bruce Bawer, City Journal, Summer 2007.
27. ^ Barbarians within the gate by Barbara Kay, National Post, February 18, 2009.
28. ^ "September 11 2001: Diagnosis, Prognosis, Therapy" by Johan Galtung
29. ^ Galtung leker med ilden (Galtung plays with fire) By John Faerseth in Dagbladet October 10, 2011
30. ^ Verdenskjent, norsk professor mener man må forske på jødemakt (World-famous, Norwegian professor says Jewish power must be scrutinized) By Hilda Nyfløt in Dagbladet April 25, 2012
31. ^ Fredsprofessor anklages for antisemittisme (Peace professor accused of anti-Semitism) By Maria Mikkelsen in VG Nett April 26, 2012
32. ^ Pioneer of global peace studies hints at link between Norway massacre and Mossad By Ofer Aderet April 30, 2012
33. ^ “Peace Studies” Founder and Anti-Semitism By Alana Goodman in Commentary Magazine May 5, 2012
34. ^ Antisemitismus von links: Galtungs Verirrungen (Left anti-Semitism: Galtung's Aberrations) By Eric Frey in Der Standard May 2, 2012
35. ^ Norsk fredsprofessor chokerer med jødehad (Norwegian peace professor shocks with Jew-hatred) By Bent Blüdnikow in Berlingske Tidende May 2, 2012
36. ^ Galtung: Dette er en av grunnene til at jeg forlot Norge (Galtung: This is one of the reasons I left Norway) By Maria Mikkelsen in VG Nett April 26, 2012
37. ^ "Jamnalal Bajaj Awards Archive". Jamnalal Bajaj Foundation. http://www.jamnalalbajajfoundation.org/awards/archives/2010. 

Sources[link]

• Bawer, Bruce. 2007. "The Peace Racket". City Journal. Summer 2007. Link.
• Boulding, Elise. 1982. "Review: Social Science--For What?: Festschrift for Johan Galtung." Contemporary Sociology. 11(3):323-324. JSTOR Stable URL
• Boulding, Kenneth E. 1977. "Twelve Friendly Quarrels with Johan Galtung." Journal of Peace Research. 14(1):75-86. JSTOR Stable URL

External links[link]

Wikimedia Commons has media related to: Johan Galtung

• TRANSCEND - A Peace, Development and Environment Network
• Galtung-Institute for Peace Theory and Peace Practice
• Peace Research Institute Oslo (PRIO)
• Biography on Right Livelihood Award