IT is a known fact that violent conflicts make news and it is even worse when it involves groups already touted as violent. So even when there is no fighting in Sudan, two families quarrelling is still reported as ‘war’. In Dagomba land, when a supposed innocent person steals, it is blamed on the mouse, because the mouse has earned the unenviable reputation of stealing. In Ghana, the north seem to have been the unfortunate mouse, so when two youth groups mess up at the club, it is reported as “violence in the north.” The news media has been blamed for this stereotyping of the north as in such unpalatable manner, even though violent conflicts are rife in several other parts of the country. But the response that the operators usually put up is “we are reporting the news.” The questions that arise then are: when does reporting the news become detrimental to peace and are there times that the news should be swept under the carpet? It is true that conflicts make news, but it should also be noted that violent conflict is an unwanted human phenomenon, which humans, if they had the power, would ensure it was extinguished forever. So the underlying understanding here is that, even though conflicts make news, they are actually bad news and should not excite reporters. Violent conflict brings misery, loss of lives, destruction of property and trauma. It strains relationships, threatens the binding fabric of society and dismantles families built over several years. Violent conflicts also retard progress and make nonsense of both human and natural resources or capital. If journalists accept that violent conflicts are unwanted, then they must equally ponder over how to report on conflicts in a way such that their reports or articles do not end up rather aggravating the conflict, particularly transforming it into overt conflicts. This is the simple reason why peace-building practitioners have been blaming the media for violent conflicts in the north, because they have realised that reports on events in the north usually tend to exacerbate the already tensed situations and in no way serves the interest of society. Many reports about events in Yendi, Bimbilla, Bawku and Bunkpurugu/Yunyoo have their facts exaggerated, sometimes to the extent of the inclusion of mere fabrications. Some of the reports have tended to favour sides in the conflict and use words that portray some ethnic groups in a derogatory manner. A lot of the reports have also created panic and caused people to leave their homes with weapons prepared to attack others in anticipation of major conflicts. In some cases, the panic has discouraged travellers from visiting the north, working in the area or even contemplating investing. Worst of all, it has prevented northerners outside the north from advancing in their endeavours due to these negative perceptions that hangs over their image. So, you see, there are economic, social and political costs of media reports on conflicts in the north. Implying, the media must do things differently if they really want to promote peace and not war. What then is this reporting format or genre that the journalists in Ghana must strive to follow? At a recent peace-building workshop for media personnel, two veteran journalists and development practitioners with the Rural Media Network (RUMNET), Mr Abdullah Kassim and Mr Imoro Alhassan described this desired and well-intentioned form of journalism as “conflict-sensitive journalism”. Conflict-sensitive journalism, Mr Kassim explains: “injects context, an appreciation for root causes and a new capacity to seek and analyze possible solutions.” According to him, this type of reporting is preferable to the otherwise daily repetition of violent incidents as news, which does not help in transformation. Mr Kassim argues that just as medical, environment and business reporters go beyond the news to analyse causes, trends and remedies, so should journalists reporting on conflicts seek deeper understanding into conflicts, their dynamics and possible solutions. “Journalism which repeats simplistic or stereotyped claims about violence, without seeking deeper explanations, will mislead citizens into believing violence is the only recourse in all conflicts,” he stresses. For his part, Mr Alhassan insists that in adhering to conflict-sensitive reporting, journalists must aim to bring about healing and restoration of relationships that have been destroyed by protracted conflicts. He says in cases where reporting the facts could be harmful, the journalists should use his gumption to judge which option to take and if necessary avoid the reportage. “If the journalist insists on reporting the news, he or she must remain fair, balanced and accurate and also avoid stating the facts that may incite more violence, such as disclosing the identities of victims,” Mr Imoro further explained. Another peace-building expert, who is also the National Network Co-ordinator of the Ghana Network for Peace-building (GHANEP), Mr Justin Bayor, explains that the basic idea in conflict-sensitive journalism is that “the report must not cause any harm.” Instead, the report, he said “should stress on ways of resolution, the common agreeing points between the factions and also hit on the plight of the ordinary people who are mostly the victims.” Mr Bayor again remarked that the media does positive peace-building only when it tackles the attitudinal and behavioural aspects of conflicts, prior to their escalation. “If conflict reports can seek to build cultural bridges and break down structural barriers that seem to foster conflict, then journalists can be seen to be promoting peace,” he added. Closely-related to conflict-sensitive journalism is peace journalism, which according to experts, consciously adopts an agenda for peace, believing it to be the only genuine alternative to an agenda for war. In Conflict & Peace Courses (1998), peace journalism “maps the pre-violence conflict, identifying many parties and more causes, invariably opening up unexpected paths towards dialogue and peacemaking. “It humanises all parties to the conflict and often influence between their agendas and real effects, building an alternative framework for understand the process of change.” Directly opposed to peace journalism is what Johan Galtung describes as ‘war journalism’. It focuses on violence, propaganda, elite actors and victory, emphasising the violent aspect while ignoring the causes or outcomes. So, do Ghanaian reporters, especially my northern colleagues, want to be ‘war journalists’ or ‘peace journalists’ The decision is theirs, but whichever they choose, they must remain mindful of the larger interest of society’s wellbeing and progress. By Salifu Nurudeen/Daily Graphic/Ghana