Is mute journalism the answer?

By Munyaradzi Makoni, South Africa

Journalists had a unique opportunity to discuss a relatively new concept in media mute journalism as part of promoting peace through their writing in the Writing for Peace Workshop taking place during Congress.

The workshop was conducted by Peter Kenny, Editor-in-Chief of Ecumenical News International (ENI), and ENI Managing Editor Stephen Brown. They noted that media practitioners and those who work with media could not conclusively agree that mute journalism was the correct way to do it. "There is no formula for writing for peace, but we can exchange views on how best we could do it," said Kenny.

Mute journalism has been coined to reflect when journalists and editors decide not to include names of tribes in their stories, as this might further incite retribution and more fighting. For instance, in the case of Kenya's post-election violence, a journalist would not write the name of Kikuyus, Luhyas or Luos killed in the violence, but would simply mention the number of people killed. "It could be useful when it becomes a means to curtail further conflict," said one participant who works with the church media. However, some participants felt that mute journalism would result in self censorship, which could further curtail freedom of speech.

In a lively discussion that included two extremes, for and against, there was general agreement that mute journalism remains an ideal that could be implemented with caution.
Participants in the workshop also had a rare opportunity to write their stories and have them edited while sitting next to the editors. "We want you to know what entails good stories for us and other agencies," said Brown.

BACK TO TOP

BACK TO RESOURCES PAGE