Communication in the service of Justice and Truth

Some months after the Rwandan genocide, during a visit to the country, I had the opportunity to ask some church leaders why it took so much time for the churches to react to what was happening in Rwanda. Their candid answer was, "It was not in the media". In the ’60s one of the most popular and repeated slogans of the ecumenical movement was "the world provides the agenda". This affirmation was seen as a challenge to the churches. It said that they should be more concerned and open to what was happening in the society, and ready to be involved.

Nowadays it seems that the new catchphrase is: "The media set the agenda". Taking into account the enormous concentration of media ownership at present, it begs many questions such as: who decides what the news and its content are to be? What is the role of interpretation and the interests at stake in defining a news item? The presence of Zapatistas in Mexico City produced diverse opinions. Many liked the "folklore" surrounding the event, but were afraid of the political consequences of an increasing popularity of Subcomandante Marcos. In an article written in the "Financial Times" the journalist inserts the opinion of a person who affirms: "I used to really like Marcos, but now I cannot stand him", said Claudia Gonzalez, a Mexico City resident." And it adds: "The criticism differs markedly from their admirers…" As we know, Mexico City has no less than 20 million inhabitants, but the rejection of the Zapatista is based on the comment of one "Mexico City resident". This way of providing the supposed two sides of the coin is very common. It should not be forgotten that we base our interpretations of the facts, and decide on our future actions and prejudices towards other peoples and cultures on the information we receive. Media, in many senses, are a mirror of our society, our culture and our interests.

Paul Valery, a French poet, used to say: ‘Politics is the art of preventing people taking part in affairs which properly concern them.’ Nowadays world problems are so complex and the negotiations to tackle them are so incomprehensible that generally people feel themselves incapable of even understanding them. Peace talks usually end with the development of more sophisticated weapons in greater numbers. Large companies increasingly determine the state of the world’s economy. The lives of millions of people hang in the balance, depending on the rise and fall of market prices, and on the negotiation of huge foreign debts. Similarly, science depends more and more on handling matters of war and health as if they were profitable businesses. In many places one can hear the weary litany: "All right. We have talked about that and had no success with it. Let’s get on with something else." The truth is that if the prophets keep quiet, a lot of people will be much happier. So people say: "Let’s leave well enough alone, and keep the peace. Why upset ourselves with matters that only cause conflict and harm?" In that case we should ask ourselves if we are really contributing to peace and justice, or we are simply submitting to a structure that we feel is impossible to change.

The Jordanian writer Abdelraham Munif wrote: "The ancient fable told in Kalila wa Dimna about the wolf and the lambs is worth repeating. The wolf needs to eat the lambs, but he also has to find reasons to justify doing so. The wolf lays down a rule saying that the lamb that drinks from the top of the spring spoils the water for the wolf. As a result, the wolf is obliged to devour the lamb. The reasons are always there, and all we have to do is believe in them, consent to them, and obey them.’

The global extend of such manipulation of communication is present among us although we are surely not so concerned about it as long as it benefits us. But we began to pay a very high price when we renounced our ethical responsibility; and our instinct for preservation is certainly capable of playing a dirty trick on us.

All communication whose final objective is power and control is in itself dehumanised and dehumanising. It acts in a totalitarian way and cannot endure the slightest criticism. It believes itself to be omnipotent but at the same time feels very weak because it cannot tolerate opposition. There is no ethical justification in ignoring the human dimension of any conflict. Trying to deceive people’s conscience by preventing them from seeing the cruel death of thousands and thousands of innocent people is a lie, which aims to use them and underrate them as human beings. However we should not to forget that allowing ourselves to be seduced by the siren’s song that prevents us from hearing the cries of those in anguish is also a deadly blow to our human dignity.

WACC is at the moment on the threshold of its third world congress on the theme "Communication: from confrontation to reconciliation". We are convinced that communication in the service of reconciliation is communication in the service of truth and justice. Truth and justice not as abstract values but tools to destroy the prejudices that denigrate the human condition, to restore the human faces of so many, like in Iraq, whose dignity has been denied.

This meeting should help us to stress the need to work for true communication, free of manipulation and censorship, whether private or state, secular or religious. And that the same time to encourage secular and religious journalists and the media to work responsibly for communication that expresses an ethic of justice and promotes life, respect for human beings and their culture, and the development of true community.

A special edition of WACC’s Media Development will be dedicated to the workshop "News Embargo in Iraq", held in New York, April 4-6 which was supported by WACC and NARA WACC