A CRITICAL INTERROGATION OF EYTAN GILBOA’S FRAMEWORK OF ANALYSIS FOR MEDIA AND ARMED CONFLICT REPORTING

Abstract

Based on the criticisms of the peace journalism theory, Eytan Gilboa developed a framework of analysis for media and conflict. In analyzing media engagement in the prevention as well as in the management of conflicts, Gilboa proposed the framework to improve the proposition of the peace journalism theory for the sake of ultimately reporting conflicts effectively. The focus of this research was, therefore, to interrogate Eytan Gilboa’s framework of analysis for media and conflict. After a critical interrogation of the framework by the researcher in line with relevant cases of conflicts in different parts of the world, it was found that Gilboa’s contribution is a more comprehensive framework for research and practice in media and conflict than the one stipulated by peace journalism theorists and other previous scholars and researchers in media and conflict such as Hally, 2017, Bill 2016 and Nang 2014. His is a multidimensional as well as multidisciplinary framework for research and practice of reporting conflict. He proposes “a three-dimensional framework for analyzing and practicing media when reporting conflict that combines and integrates the various components adopted from different yet relevant fields of science: international relations, conflict studies, communication and journalism. The framework specifically and systematically demonstrates how research and practice can be organized to explore positive and negative contributions of the media through the two types and four phases of conflict; two types and five levels of media; and the five media functions and dysfunctions.