Peace journalism

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. Jake Lynch and Annabel McGoldrick show examples from Britain, Ireland, Georgia, and Iraq, where war journalism dominated coverage despite key influential media interests against war.[11]

Peace journalist Jake Lynch covering protests against joint US-Australia military exercises in Australia.

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 uses as "best practice":

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;
6. Careful analysis to ensure that research subjects are adequately representative of the general population, that is not overly atypical when compared to the average population.

While it is arguable whether these experimental science safe guards 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), and is therefore distinct from Scientific Objectivity.

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]

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.[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 team The 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.

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.”[65] 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."[66]

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)."[67]

Pakistan s the best example of PJ 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.[68]

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”.[69] 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.[70] 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.[71] 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”.[72]

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.[73]

The Feedback Loop of cause and effect in the media could then support the creation and continuation of peaceful process-structures .[74] 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”.[5] 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.[75]

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.[82]

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".[83]

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”.[69]

In doing so peace journalism aims to de-naturalise 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”.[84]

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.[85] 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”.[86]

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.[87] 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.[88] 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.[89] 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[90] to support the sustainability of institutional reform[91] and in promoting 'peace with justice' and respect for human rights.[92]

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 meaning and to take advantage of this meaning to promote their violence.[93] 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.[94]

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”.[95] 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”.[96]

The notion of human needs driving violence and being significantly effected by violence (borrowed from Conflict Analysis and Peace Research)[97] and insight into the stratified nature of reality (borrowed from Critical Realism),[98] 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 landlord 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.[98]

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.[71] 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),[99] 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.[100] 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".[101]

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."[102] Structure is a key concern in peace journalism, along with the influence of structure on content pluralism in news.[103] 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.[104]

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.[105]

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”.[106] Likewise Devereux (2003) notes that media audiences “may have different expectations of media genres”[107] and Turnbull (2002) argues that in media research a serious problem is just to limit and define audiences and therefore relevant media practices.[108] 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.”[109] 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.”[110] 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”,[111] 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.

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.[112] 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.[113] 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".[114] 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”.[115] The Israeli–Palestinian conflict has also been the focus of research by Yifat Mor and colleagues, who examined how social media (namely Facebook) can be a tool to promote dialogue between both parties.[116]

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”.[117] General media audiences as a group are conceptualised within the Feedback Loop of cause and effect.[118]

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.[119] 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.[120] 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.[121]

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.[122] "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'".[123]

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”.[124]

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”.[125] 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".[126] He argues that grassroots approaches are generally the more fragile since their participants are often concerned with day to day issues of survival.[127] 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"[128] 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.[129] 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".[130] 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".[131]