ICAR Student Opinion

With the growing optimism in the revival of multilateralism in the Obama administration, there arises an opportunity for the Conflict Resolution community to reach out to public audiences and make its presence known. The time is ripe for conflict theorists and practitioners to step into the relatively uncharted territory of mediatic conflict resolution, lending their voices in an effort to stimulate change and introduce an alternate orientation that challenges zero sum solutions, humanizes the parties to conflict, and exposes distortions on all sides. Essentially, there is a basic need for practitioners to position themselves, with their nuanced knowledge and field experience, between the dueling "talking heads" that currently dominate the “analysis” of conflict by employing vitriolic sound bites and abbreviated video clips as their weapons of choice. Broadcast media enjoys ever-increasing influence in the shaping of public perceptions and opinions, which in turn drives polls and political decisions. Despite their claims of objectivism, news anchors spin parallel spirals, striving to maximize and accelerate the contrast between the “Just Self ” and the “Unjust Other,” thereby camouflaging common ground. As the saying goes, “if it bleeds it leads.” This melodramatic contextualization gains power as it feeds mythic narratives within the scope of polarized audiences. Distorted representations of the parties' positions, generally remain uncontested and function to satisfy the public's demand for “real drama,” fuel the ratings race, and ramp up the competition over who wields the banner of “justice” and “righteousness.”

Conflict experts, including the ICAR community, should move from a passive position to become proactive agents of change – qualitatively by entering the public discourse through the myriad of public media options – quantitatively by assessing and analyzing the impact of the media on public perception. A significant opportunity was missed after 9/11, but the post-Bush era should not remain unexplored in terms of bringing Conflict Resolution into the public eye, the public ear, and possibly the public imagination. Consider the potential of an audience that aspires to formulate solutions and resolutions. This is an age of dynamic bottom-up conflict resolution. As John Burton emphasized decades ago, we must move "from institutions to persons as the units of analysis" (Burton 1959). The field can and should address the public directly and we should not wait to be invited into interviews. We should initiate and offer an orientation of resolution and transformation, inviting ourselves in front of cameras and microphones and forging a relationship with the media in order to insert a third voice into the sardonic split-screens of public discourse.