Radio Talk Shows Don't Have to Exacerbate Conflict

Radio Talk Shows Don't Have to Exacerbate Conflict

Radio talk shows are seen by many radio owners as cheap controversy stirrers - taking the US shock jocks as their models - which attract listeners and advertisers. Yet such shows often create conflict, or add to existing conflict, sometimes without the host even realising it - or realising too late. That is one thing in strong democratic states, but quite another in fragile or weak states. As a result some African governments have got jittery and discussed instituting bans (Ghana in the run up to recent elections). The international focus on the training of news and current affairs journalists has come at the expense of specialised training for radio talk show hosts, who are the new opinion formers in much of Africa and elsewhere. There is an important and legitimate role for such talk shows as questioners of power, and of the decisions which power takes, but taboo and/or dangerous subjects don't have to be treated in a way which exacerbates tensions. Such talk shows can als! o quieten and explain in ways which don't add fuel to the flames, and without compromising the profession's principles. It is this valuable potentially positive contribution to society which has been largely ignored or forgotten by radio trainers and training organisations, and by donors.

In general, radio talk shows feed on disagreement and conflict. The issue is the way in which conflicting points of view are treated. Radio presenters and producers who are hungry for listeners often seek guests of wildly opposing views to fight on air. These voices may attract an audience, but do such programmes achieve anything else? Do they inform their audiences? Feeding on conflict doesn't have to mean feeding conflict.

Radio talk shows have sprung up in many fragile states, emerging democracies and countries or regions in conflict, partly because they are inexpensive to produce. They seem to demand little more than a DJ with attitude, although, in fact, to do a good talk show takes considerable skill. And even among the more responsible broadcasters there is rarely a sense that a different set of skills are needed to run a good talk show than the classical journalistic ones of accuracy and impartiality. Many talk show hosts have been or are radio journalists - that is their background and their training - and they almost never receive extra training to help them in their new job. Yet radio talk shows are not like daily news journalism which pursues facts and balances statements against each other, seeking a clear record of events. Radio talk shows require a sensitivity that is often unnecessary for the classical journalist.

A great many talk shows tend to intensify the conflict under discussion, and rather than informing listeners they leave them angry or fearful, or with the sense that the conflict is irresolvable. They make destructive conflict seem the inevitable response to all disagreements. They destabilise communities. They tend to raise the decibel level of the public discourse on any subject they touch and this robs listeners of the ability to disagree honestly or to solve problems together. Listeners are left with the dangerous impression that their leaders or their compatriots are far more extreme in their views and more divided from each other than the majority really are.

In states where information is in short supply or where the radio is one of the only means of communication such programmes can powerfully strengthen an existing sense of division, or create one out of almost nothing. Most often this is done through ignorance or carelessness on the part of the talk show host.

In Britain in October 2005 a local DJ repeated a rumour on his radio talk show in Handsworth, Birmingham - a racially mixed area - that a girl had been raped in a local shop by several men. He had no proof and no facts, and he claimed later, "I said that I had heard that it happened. It has been a big talking point in the community for a little while. The people involved in the violence have their own agenda." [1]

The immediate result was a riot in which four people were stabbed, including a 23-year-old man who later died, while 35 others needed hospital treatment. A police officer was shot in the leg with a ball-bearing gun, one of 12 gunshot incidents, shops and their employees were attacked, cars set on fire and hundreds of police in riot gear were confronted with bricks and bottles.

This death and destruction might never have happened without the DJ's loose talk, or if he had treated the subject in a different way. Certainly the tensions and the rumours were already there, but his statement undoubtedly contributed to starting the riot and subsequent events.

Sometimes radio talk show hosts stir up hatred consistently, knowingly and skillfully. An example is the nationally syndicated radio talk show Savage Nation in the US; "Right now, even people sitting on the fence would like George Bush to drop a nuclear weapon on an Arab country...I think these [Arab] people need to be forcibly converted to Christianity...It's the only thing that can probably turn them into human beings." [2]

And everyone knows the example of Rwanda, where it wasn't news and current affairs which helped inspire and maintain the 1994 genocide, but a mix of music and up-beat, DJ-style 'discussion'. As the then Canadian ambassador, Lucie Edwards, later said: "The question of Radio Mille Collines' propaganda is a difficult one. There were so many genuinely silly things being said on the station, so many obvious lies, that it was hard to take it seriously...Nevertheless, everyone listened to it..." [3]

Is this what talk show presenters should be doing, inadvertently or not? Or should they be aiming to have a positive impact on listeners by contributing to a process which will eventually result in better understanding rather than in further or greater conflict?

Donor and media and training organisations spend enormous sums on news and current affairs journalist trainings around the world, but they largely ignore this most influential and most powerful radio format.

While it is true that there is little material on how to run a good talk show, there are a few good examples. In Sierra Leone, where a bitter 10-year civil war cost the lives of some 250,000 people, Talking Drum Studio reached 85 percent of the population in the early days of the peace with a talk show co-hosted by former senior combatants who were once bitter enemies. They discussed with listeners methods of reconciling with their neighbours and uniting this deeply fragmented society, and modeled this unity by working amicably together.

In the United States Brian Lehrer, talk show host on WNYC radio in New York, has been developing new, non-adversarial talk show techniques with Search for Common Ground for over ten years. Techniques which deliver interesting, exciting programmes and attract large audiences. After September 11, 2001, one Lehrer call-in show was limited to Arab-American and Muslim-American callers. One listener emailed: "This programme really humanised the conflict and somehow relieved the pressure to have a view that hatched on ideological lines."

Some talk show hosts seem to have a knack for positive discussion. Tim Modise on Radio Metro before the 1994 all-race elections in South Africa is an outstanding example. But given the enormous number of radio talk shows worldwide, many in places where they are the opinion leaders, we should not have to rely on the inherent skills and good sense of all those appointed as hosts.

Good talk shows require diversity, spontaneity and flexibility, so there are no absolute rules about how to discuss conflict in a constructive manner. It is, of course, a challenge to talk about conflict in a way which is interesting and informative, which offers positive alternatives, and which holds an audience. No one says that this is easy. But there are a few reliable techniques and some new skills which can help journalists and presenters to deal with conflict effectively and positively on air, to promote dignity on both sides of a contentious discussion, and to recognise and challenge stereotyping.

Firstly, radio talk show presenters and producers have to recognise that they cannot and are not expected to single-handedly resolve a conflict. But they can open up and widen the debate, and that is one of many essential steps in resolving a violent conflict. Talk shows are a part of the process. Successful talk shows can demonstrate that conflict is manageable, at least between protagonists on the programme.

At the simplest level, there are skills and personal characteristics which are essential for anyone doing a talk show. [4] Some of these abilities are almost innate or automatic, while others can be acquired through education, training, and experience. Individually these skills are not difficult, but putting them together with the stress of running a talk show - and many talk show hosts work alone, without the benefit of a producer or technician - makes them a challenge. To cope with the job, a talk show host who is dealing with conflict issues and who wants to have a positive impact should be able to:
 * seek clarification, to re-ask essential questions
 * focus a debate, to highlight a central issue
 * recognise and emphasise facts as opposed to opinions
 * encourage reflection
 * identify, synthesise and articulate public opinion
 * rephrase and reframe an issue, approaching it from another angle
 * direct discussion towards positive aspects instead of just highlighting the negatives
 * calm fierce emotions (including his/her own) especially through humour
 * mediate between opponents
 * identify positions and move antagonists towards discussing shared interests
 * enliven a serious debate, always remembering: the public is listening
 * listen patiently to find key information in complicated answers and facts

The list isn't exhaustive, of course, and a good understanding of conflict issues is also essential. Discussing conflict, as Johan Galtung observes, without an appreciation of the root causes, knowledge of the different kinds of conflict, or awareness of how it can end is like describing an illness without reporting on what causes it and without reporting on the medicines that can cure it. [5]

Francis Rolt Director, Radio Search for Common Ground (SFCG) http://www.comminit.com/redirect.cgi?r=http://www.sfcg.org http://www.comminit.com/redirect.cgi?r=http://www.radiopeaceafrica.org francis.rolt@sfcg.be

References:

1.	A rumour, outrage and then a riot. How tension in a Birmingham suburb erupted, Hugh Muir and Riazat Butt, The Guardian, October 24 2005.

2.	Michael Savage on the nationally syndicated Savage Nation, May 12, 2004, quoted in US talkshow rhetoric sounds Rwandan echo, by Philip Smucker, http://www.comminit.com/redirect.cgi?r=http://www.mediachannel.org/views/dissector/affalert202.shtml

3.	Hate Radio: Rwanda, Radio Netherlands website http://www.comminit.com/redirect.cgi?r=http://www.rnw.nl/realradio/dossiers/html/rwanda-h.html

4.	Listener email, April 4 2002, WNYC, Brooklyn, NY, United States.

5. 	The last few paragraphs are lifted almost verbatim from Radio Talkshows for Peace building - a guide, Ross Howard and Francis Rolt, SFCG, 2005. The entire guidebook can be downloaded from http://www.comminit.com/redirect.cgi?r=http://www.radiopeaceafrica.org

6.	For details on causes of conflict, forms of violence and ending conflict, see: Galtung, John. Conflict Transformation by Peaceful Means. 2000. Available at http://www.comminit.com/redirect.cgi?r=http://transcend.org



Please participate in a Pulse Poll related to this commentary - http://www.comminit.com/pulse.html