Abstract
The news coverage plays a crucial role in conflict situations, influencing the decisions and perceptions of opposing sides. Their impact can either escalate tensions or promote resolution, depending on how the conflict is reported and framed.News coverage of conflicts often centers around violence, offering detailed accounts of clashes and tragedies. While these stories grab attention, they can also fuel tensions by overshadowing peaceful solutions and creating the impression that violence is unavoidable. Scholars have long debated how the news media can help to achieve de-escalation during the conflict rather than exacerbate it. Johan Galtung (1998) introduced the concept of “Peace Journalism,” encouraging journalists to highlight paths to conflict resolution rather than focusing solely on violence and polarization.
Recent conflicts, including the war in Ukraine, the crisis in Palestine, the Tigray conflict in Ethiopia, the military coup in Myanmar, riots in Bangladesh, the Taliban’s return to power in Afghanistan, and ongoing violence in Gaza, have reignited discussions on the media’s role in shaping conflict narratives. Critics argue that traditional reporting often exacerbates tensions by presenting biased accounts, spreading misinformation, and sensationalizing violence. Galtung describes this as the “low road” of journalism, which prioritizes war-focused coverage, elite viewpoints, and simplistic “us vs. them” narratives while overlooking underlying causes and potential paths to peace.
This thesis examines these critiques through the lens of the Pakistan-India conflict over Kashmir by using a mixed-methods approach, it combines an analysis of newspaper content with interviews conducted with journalists from India and Pakistan. These interviews, which included defense correspondents and war reporters from prominent media outlets, explored the reasons behind the media’s emphasis on war-related stories. Journalists spoke candidly about the impact of state narratives, political pressures, media ownership, and cultural biases on their reporting. They also reflected on the ethical challenges of covering such a polarizing topic while navigating professional responsibilities and societal expectations.
This study focuses on how the removal of Article 370 from the Indian Constitution in 2019 influenced media portrayals of the Kashmir conflict, specifically examining trends in peace and war journalism. Journalists shared personal accounts of working in an environment shaped by tight surveillance, increased censorship, and ideological polarization. These insights highlight how broader systemic factors, and individual decisions contribute to the narratives presented to the public.
The analysis of news patterns in the two conflicting societies reveals that coverage was heavily shaped by government agendas and predominantly negative, often sidelining peaceful alternatives. This pattern closely aligns with Galtung’s observations, illustrating how conflict reporting often intensifies hostility by framing issues in binary terms and overlooking the perspectives of those most affected. The journalist’s interview revealed the significant influence of the government and security agencies over both information flow and news publication.
| Date of Award | 30 Jul 2025 |
|---|---|
| Original language | English |
| Supervisor | Daghan Irak (Main Supervisor) |