{"id":5340,"date":"2014-07-02T09:10:11","date_gmt":"2014-07-02T05:10:11","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/theanalyticon.com\/?p=5340"},"modified":"2014-08-02T09:10:58","modified_gmt":"2014-08-02T05:10:58","slug":"the-role-of-the-media-in-the-northern-ireland-conflict","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/theanalyticon.com\/en\/%d0%bd%d0%be%d0%b2%d0%be%d1%81%d1%82%d0%b8-en\/the-role-of-the-media-in-the-northern-ireland-conflict\/","title":{"rendered":"The role of the media in the Northern Ireland conflict"},"content":{"rendered":"

Gegham Baghdasaryan<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

Journalism and peacebuilding<\/strong><\/p>\n

I had an argument in Belfast with Brian Rowan, a journalist specialising in security issues, about the role of the media in long-running conflicts and, in particular, in the Northern Ireland conflict. During a conversation with the group of experts from Armenia, Azerbaijan and Nagorny Karabakh, Rowan had lamented the fact that the media in Northern Ireland did not have a peacebuilding mission. I ventured to disagree with this interpretation or rather with the notion of endowing \u2018the fourth estate\u2019 with the additional function of peacebuilding.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Recalling the traditional purpose of the media \u2013 to inform, educate and entertain \u2013 I insisted that, in conflict situations or prolonged and bloody disputes, the fundamental and perhaps only role of journalists is to conscientiously inform the public, so that people have access to objective and comprehensive information about the events taking place.<\/p>\n

During his 26-year career with the BBC, Denis Murray extensively covered the peace process in Northern Ireland. In 1997 he was awarded an OBE in recognition of his services to broadcast journalism. In a paper entitled \u2018Reporting on negotiation, shaping public opinion: the Northern Ireland experience\u2019, Murray writes:<\/p>\n

\u201cIt is my confirmed view that journalism \u2026 does not shape public opinion \u2026 Facts do that \u2013 and the role of the journalist is to report those facts. This may seem ludicrous now, but there was a body of opinion in Northern Ireland in the 1970s that firmly believed that \u2018there\u2019d be no trouble if you boys weren\u2019t putting it on TV\u2019. It was as though broadcasters and newspapers were doing the paramilitaries a favour by reporting bombings, shootings and so on. This sort of view reached its height with then-British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher\u2019s \u2018oxygen of publicity\u2019 remark, which showed a fundamental misunderstanding of what motivated and sustained paramilitaries and ultimately led to \u2018broadcasting restrictions\u2019, in other words, effective censorship.\u201d<\/em>[1]<\/p>\n

On the other hand, international expert in conflict analysis Clem McCartney points out that any argument about the communication of facts must define what \u2018the facts\u2019 are.[2] In his view:<\/p>\n

\u201cThe majority of news agencies don\u2019t reflect society as a whole, but provide a mirror image of the section of society which buys a particular newspaper or which they would like to attract. They reinforce existing settled opinions and limit opportunities of encountering other points of view. Thus \u2018feedback loops are reinforced\u2019. In addition to the issue of facts, the media must also ask questions about the reasons. In my opinion, it is easier for journalists to fulfil the expectation that they will cover the arguments comprehensively than that they will preserve neutrality.\u201d<\/em>[3]<\/p>\n

The role of journalists during conflicts is a controversial issue. Many inter-governmental institutions and international journalism organisations have repeatedly emphasised in their declarations the important role of the media in the constructive coverage of conflicts and the prevention of inter-ethnic hatred (Declaration of Principles on Tolerance, adopted by Resolution 5.61 of the General Conference of UNESCO of 16 November 1995;[4] Declaration of the UN General Assembly on a Culture of Peace).[5] Dusan Reljic devotes a separate chapter to this role, entitled \u2018Consensus (consociation) democracy and \u201cconstructive journalism\u201d\u2019. In it he writes:<\/p>\n

\u201c<\/em>In an ideal world, the media should at least attempt to orient its reporting style towards the creation of peace, instead of intensifying prejudices that in turn heighten conflict.Such ideal journalism is a critical part of the consensus democracy concept, and represents the proper role of the media in conflict prevention and resolution \u2026 Nevertheless, it is too simplistic to expect the media as an entity to feel collectively obliged to actively promote the peace and development of civil societies.\u201d<\/em>[6]<\/p>\n

Where does journalistic neutrality end?<\/p>\n

Discussions about the neutrality and impartiality of journalists are always relevant, but of varying significance, depending on the context of particular events. Veterans of the journalism profession believe that journalists and the media must always maintain impartiality. This approach places a huge burden of responsibility on the shoulders of journalists, obliging them to rise above their human and civic sympathies. It negates the fact that journalists are also people of flesh and blood and products of their own time and place.<\/p>\n

It seems to me that the theory about journalistic neutrality and impartiality may work in ordinary, everyday situations, where there is really no room for compromise, but not in extreme circumstances. According to Clem McCartney, the factor that should determine a journalist\u2019s decision is what they can do better than anyone else:<\/p>\n

\u201cIt is possible that publicising real-life stories is something which can only be done by journalists. For example, a lecturer is not in a position to apply their theoretical knowledge to a crisis situation and so it makes sense to involve journalists. It depends to a great extent on whether the journalist is the only person present at the scene. If someone else is there who can protect the individual being attacked or who can debate the issue at hand, then the journalist is free to decide whether or not to cover the story. However, if no one else is present, then there is a greater obligation for the journalist to get involved. Furthermore, there are situations where a journalist finds themselves alone against a large number of people and the only possible course of action is to try and record or film what is happening.\u201d<\/em>[7]<\/p>\n

Although Clem McCartney has a point, in my opinion, an even more important factor is public perception. How will the neutrality and \u2018civic inaction\u2019 of the journalist be perceived by public opinion? Depending on the situation, the journalist may consider it more important to fulfil their civic duty, without prejudice to their professionalism, because, even without them, the event is already receiving sufficient coverage and they would not, in essence, be able to change anything by simply duplicating something already placed on record by other media sources. However, many professionals believe that, by taking part in a civic action, a journalist no longer has the right to report the same event, because of the clear \u2018role conflict\u2019 or conflict of interests.<\/p>\n

This issue was also touched on by Denis Murray when he talked about his personal experience and neutrality:<\/p>\n

\u201cThe Omagh bombing in 1998<\/em>[8]<\/strong><\/em> is an instance where, if the reports by me and ITN Correspondent John Irvine were closely analysed, you would not find emotive language or personal opinions.<\/em> However, I would presume that not even the most casual viewer would have been in any doubt as to what we felt, entirely from our tone of voice. I am frequently asked how it was possible to remain \u2018neutral\u2019 or \u2018unbiased\u2019; to which the answer is always the same: staying politically neutral is not difficult. Ask anyone who\u2019s ever covered the D\u00e1il (Irish parliament), or Westminster (UK parliament) or wherever, and you\u2019ll find that we all have people in every party that we like or respect, or both; and people in every party whom we dislike or disrespect. I found it much more difficult to remain neutral after acts of violence, especially after it should have been obvious to the paramilitaries that armed force was pointless \u2026 The very idea of neutrality is, I firmly believe, essential to public-service broadcasting in these islands. Reporters telling the truth, analysing the facts as best they can, and the trust that is implicit between a particular news programme and viewer are indispensable.\u201d<\/em>[9]<\/p>\n

In relation to this, Clem McCartney points out that the BBC, about which Murray is speaking, plays an unusual role in the British media landscape:<\/p>\n

\u201cThe BBC Charter states that its broadcasting should be \u2018independent, impartial and honest\u2019. BBC employees do not actually talk about \u2018neutrality\u2019. Instead they use a different word: \u2018balance\u2019. In contrast, most media outlets have an editorial line which means that they are not striving for balance. One argument is that, in order to reflect a multiplicity of points of view, there must be diversity of media outlets. Denis Murray also demonstrates that the majority of journalists are party to the mass consensus and are therefore not impartial. To some extent, the issue is that journalists themselves are not aware of their bias, which is often reflected not in decisions relating to the selection of facts, but in a single word or tone (I am not referring here to the comment by Denis Murray about his tone of voice in Omagh).\u201d<\/em>[10]<\/p>\n

Evaluation and self-evaluation<\/p>\n

Denis Murray also sought to identify the unique features of his Northern Ireland experience:<\/p>\n

\u201cIf peace processes round the world have taught us anything, it is that they are all unique \u2013 there may be similarities, echoes and resonances between conflicts, but no single one is identical to any other. That is not to say that lessons cannot be learned from one situation to another.<\/em> For instance, the Northern Ireland peace process has several elements that might be regarded as universal prerequisites: a desire on all sides to reach agreement, or at least to end conflict; international involvement, in the form of arbitrators; a preparedness to keep going; and at least some kind of media scrutiny.\u201d<\/em>[11]<\/p>\n

But does everyone agree with this assertion about media scrutiny? The journalists are certainly in agreement. For example, Brian Rowan describes how very few people managed to talk with all sides of the conflict:<\/p>\n

\u201cIn 1994, when the republicans announced the ceasefire, they only invited two journalists. Many of these organisations were closed ones. But we didn\u2019t simply pass on their pronouncements \u2013 we checked them by various methods. Everyone wanted to use us and the politicians wanted to blow the results of the peace process out of all proportion, although it took them 18 months after Good Friday to form a government. Of course, we made mistakes too and had to issue apologies.\u201d<\/em>[12]<\/p>\n

How are the activities of the media viewed by the public? Kate Turner, Director of the organisation \u2018Healing Through Remembering\u2019, an initiative promoting reconciliation with the past, talks about the indifferent attitude of the media to peacebuilding as a whole and the activities of her organisation in particular. For instance, she says that the media is not interested in her organisation\u2019s reports. Turner also talks about the different approaches taken by the media to the same incident and makes an interesting observation: \u201cThe same material appears on the front page of one paper but on page 18 of another.\u201d[13] In her opinion, the media narrowed the scope for compromise: \u201cThe media shouldn\u2019t have been used as a tool in the negotiating process. Mitchell was against the public disclosure of documents.\u201d[14]<\/p>\n

Se\u00e1n Farren, a member of the SDLP and negotiator in the peace process, notes that in a democratic society the media is accessible to all. He believes that the Church and the media are two nationalist institutions that were against violence. \u201cThe national media supported us,\u201d he says. \u201cThe responsible media reported the peacebuilding activities of our party properly, but the real problem was the tabloids whose main objective is blood and sensation.\u201d[15]<\/p>\n

Dermot Ahern, former Minister for Foreign Affairs in the Republic of Ireland, argues that:<\/p>\n

\u201cJournalists treated the negotiating process with understanding. Admittedly, they wanted to squeeze more out of us, but at the same time they understood how important it was. The media worked well, with the exception of the tabloids. On the whole, the public was well informed.\u201d<\/em>[16]<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

Eamonn McCann, author of The British Press and Northern Ireland<\/em>, laments the fact that the majority of journalists rely heavily on \u2018official\u2019 sources and says it explains why their coverage of a particular story is sometimes so strikingly similar. He cites a former employee of the Mirror <\/em>newspaper:<\/p>\n

\u201cIn a situation like Northern Ireland our people would have to keep in close touch with the Army Press Office. It would be more or less part of their job to get to know the army press officer as well as possible and that in itself would affect their judgement a bit. Then one of their biggest preoccupations is not to be scooped by a competition. No-one on the Mirror would be sacked because he didn\u2019t come up with a carefully authenticated and researched piece, written from local hard work. You do get sacked if the rival has a sensation about the IRA.\u201d<\/em>[17]<\/p>\n

Denis Murray agrees to some extent with this position and yet emphasises the journalist\u2019s right and opportunity to make choices:<\/p>\n

\u201cI had a really good working relationship with Tony Blair\u2019s Communications Director, the reputed \u2018king of spin\u2019, Alastair Campbell \u2026 but one night he was briefing me \u2013 him in Downing Street, me on the mobile phone at Castle Buildings, Stormont, where the talks leading to the Good Friday Agreement took place. At one point, he said, \u2018It would also be helpful if you said\u2026\u2019. \u2018Hold it right there Alastair \u2013 if you tell me \u2018the government policy is\u2019, or \u2018the prime minister thinks\u2019, or \u2018his personal spokesman says\u2019, then I\u2019ll report that, but I am absolutely not here to help.\u2019 He laughed and said I was touchy, and I said \u2018Damn right, I\u2019m on a mobile phone in Northern Ireland!\u2019 \u2018OK\u2019, he said, \u2018the government view is\u2026\u2019. Now this is a harmless and mildly amusing anecdote, but it illustrates the point: I could report what Alastair said, but when required, would reach for the pinch of salt and analyse what he said in my own way.\u201d<\/em>[18]<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

Following meetings and conversations with journalists and people active in the social and political spheres in Belfast, Dublin and London, I came to the conclusion that the public was adequately informed about the peace process and that people had an understanding of the work of journalists.The well-known independent journalist Fionnuala O\u2019Connor also talked about this with us: \u201cJournalists were very rarely threatened. Only one journalist was killed during the conflict.\u201d[19] On the whole, the journalists\u2019 work was judged on merit during the peace process. It is significant that, after Good Friday, senior negotiator Senator George Mitchell wrote a letter to all the correspondents who had covered the course of the negotiations, thanking them for their contribution to the peace process simply by reporting the facts.<\/p>\n

This is worth noting \u2013 simply by reporting the facts<\/em>. For their part, the public encouraged a serious, responsible attitude to the negotiations \u2013 there was a call to reject anything that might have a negative influence on the talks. Denis Murray writes: \u201cI think the public has every right to be informed about talks as they progress, but in the interests of ending conflicts, those talks should not be held in completely open parliament-style forums.\u201d[20]<\/p>\n

British and Irish standards<\/p>\n

The Irish like to joke about how British newspapers boast of their high standards of journalism. According to the Irish, they encourage the British public to believe that their press is the best in the world, that it is the \u2018guardian of liberty\u2019. Yet, at the same time, as Eamonn McCann writes in his book The British Press and Northern Ireland<\/em>, while editors and higher executives whiled away the time in contemplation of their own ethical purity, the job went on of managing and mangling the news from Northern Ireland. McCann writes:<\/p>\n

\u201cMost British people have a distorted view of what is happening in Northern Ireland. This is because they believe what they read. There have been honourable exceptions. But examination of reports reveals a clear pattern of distortion. The news has systematically been presented, consciously or not, so as to justify the assumptions and prejudices of the British establishment and to serve the immediate political needs of British Governments.\u201d<\/em>[21]<\/p>\n

According to McCann, there was a clear tendency to blame the IRA immediately, without any kind of evidence, for every brutal outrage imaginable. The British press painted a picture of the IRA that was not based on any existing facts. This was due to the special relationship between the press and the army. McCann presents a series of examples, including the deaths of 17-month-old Angela Gallagher in Belfast and 14-year-old Annette McGavigan in Derry. Both wings of the IRA denied responsibility. The incident involving Angela Gallagher happened in a Catholic area and it is therefore logical to suspect (although no more than that) someone with republican sympathies, although additional facts were needed.<\/p>\n

However, as McCann writes:<\/p>\n

\u201c<\/em>Once \u2018the IRA\u2019 had been identified as the main enemy, all concern for fact melted marvellously away. The stories of IRA mass murders, IRA extortion and intimidation, IRA men training children to kill, etc. served to justify increasingly repressive measures to the British public. It was on this basis that the guardian, self-appointed keeper of the British liberal conscience, was able plausibly to support internment. It was as a result of such stories that politically the British Government could operate the policy.\u201d<\/em>[22]<\/p>\n

But was the Irish media, which sympathised with the Catholics, irreproachable? Did the Irish media respond adequately to the fundamental issues of the times? Denis Haughey, a member of the SDLP, peace process negotiator and colleague of John Hume, the party\u2019s former leader, recounts a curious incident:<\/p>\n

\u201cAt a critical point in the negotiating process, when John Hume had had a meeting with US President Bill Clinton, the Irish news devoted a couple of paragraphs on the inside pages to this hugely important meeting and used the front page for \u2018Bomb threat at Sinn F\u00e9in headquarters\u2019. And all there was to this story was that one of Gerry Adams\u2019 bodyguards, Cleeky Clarke, had seen a suspicious car nearby.\u201d[23]<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

Before and during Good Friday<\/p>\n

The 1960s were generally favourable in relation to the civil rights movement. Many media outlets sent correspondents to Belfast. In the Catholic areas, attitudes to reporters and photographers were good. The media supported Northern Ireland Prime Minister Terence O\u2019Neill, whom they characterised as a \u2018cautious crusader\u2019, and there was almost no crude distortion of events.According to McCann, at one point the Mirror <\/em>had 12 people in Derry. Few of them had any detailed knowledge of the real situation. Some of them wandered about the city, asking to be introduced to someone who had been a victim of discrimination or to an unemployed Catholic slum-dweller. McCann writes: \u201cDespite the generally benevolent coverage of the Civil Rights campaign at this stage, one could discern already the tendency to blame \u2018the IRA\u2019 for any violence which occurred. It was assumed for example that the IRA was responsible for the explosions preceding O\u2019Neill\u2019s resignation. But this was comparatively mild and tentative stuff.\u201d[24]<\/p>\n

Eamonn McCann maintains that:<\/p>\n

\u201c[T]he real, sustained and systematic distortion began when British soldiers came onto the streets, and by the middle of 1970, when the troops were in almost constant conflict with Catholic working-class neighbourhoods, most papers had in effect stopped carrying the news.<\/em> They were vehicles for propaganda. Some incidents were ignored. Others were invented. Half-truths were presented as hard fact. As far as the British press was concerned, the soldiers could do no wrong, but the other side, \u2018the rioters\u2019, received very different treatment.\u201d<\/em>[26]<\/p>\n

McCann seeks to be as objective as possible:<\/p>\n

\u201c<\/em>To say that the press distorted the situation beyond all recognition is not to say that those who came onto the streets to fight British soldiers behaved in a manner which liberal opinion would find admirable. Of course not \u2026 But the great majority of the British people, dependent on the press to tell them what is happening in the North of Ireland, are by now incapable of forming a judgement about it, so one-sided has the reporting been.\u201d<\/em>[27]<\/p>\n

In the wake of the emergence of the civil rights movement, the main focus of British government policy was on the \u2018democratisation\u2019 of Northern Ireland.<\/p>\n

McCann writes:<\/p>\n

\u201cThe increasing British investment in the Republic, the growing importance of the South of Ireland as a trading partner, made dangerously obsolete the traditional attitude of previous governments. For the first time in the history of Anglo-Irish relations, it suited the imperial power to balance between the Orange [Protestants] and the Green [Catholics]. This was automatically reflected in British policy towards the North. It was reflected too in the press. It offers an explanation of many pro-civil rights editorials, of the fact that the Catholic case received enormously more coverage than the Protestant case.\u201d<\/em>[28]<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

Denis Murray recounts a very interesting anecdote about the Good Friday talks and how the peace process was reported:<\/p>\n

\u201cAt Stormont, a media centre was eventually set up in a car park, cabins, portable loos and all. A decision had been taken to exclude the media from the talks, but not from the proximity of where they were taking place. Towards the end, it became rather ludicrous, with politicians emerging to talk to the cameras half an hour before bulletin time. One of the most regular of these serial \u2018spinners\u2019 was John Taylor, deputy leader of the Ulster Unionist Party, who memorably remarked that he wouldn\u2019t touch the deal on offer with a 40-foot bargepole. This led to endless fun for the hacks, with cries of \u2018how long is your bargepole today, John?\u2019 Another important element was the phone (obvious but vital). Very quickly, journalists attending the talks on a more or less permanent basis got the direct-line numbers of the various delegations, and they had our mobile numbers, which meant no party or government could control the flow of information. This modus operandi continued throughout the talks that led to agreement, and then afterwards in other talks aimed at implementation.<\/em><\/p>\n

The only exception to this was at the US Ambassador\u2019s residence during the Mitchell Review of autumn 1999. George Mitchell, having chaired the Good Friday process, was invited back to break the deadlock which had followed. His residence was in Regent\u2019s Park in London and was very well protected.<\/em> Here came the Ulster Unionists and the SDLP, at that time the main players in the political arena, and the media were practically left out on the street. One reporter who was there said it was the only time it was made clear that the media were not welcome and not tolerated.\u201d<\/em>[29]<\/p>\n

Murray again asks the question: should the media be kept at a distance, allowed nearby or involved?<\/p>\n

\u201cMuch as I\u2019m in favour of disclosure, talks in public are unlikely to work \u2013 who is going to negotiate in public? For instance, I once asked the post-apartheid ANC Deputy South African High Commissioner to London what they had done when even being seen to talk about something would have been political suicide. \u2018We went out in the bush\u2019, was the reply. Negotiators (one suspects it was the two chief negotiators) would simply vanish off somewhere, thrash out a deal and bring back a solution.\u201d<\/em>[30]<\/p>\n

The peacebuilding potential of different types of media<\/p>\n

In the early 1960s the Northern Ireland conflict received extensive coverage on television. At this complex stage in its development, the extremely difficult relationship between the loyalists and the republicans was in the news headlines virtually every day. The drawback of this sort of coverage was that it generally only reflected the government position. The predominance of the government perspective came to an end with coverage of the \u2018other\u2019 Northern Ireland, reflecting the republican point of view and broadcast by the BBC. From that time onwards, all the efforts of the Irish were concentrated on combating the periodic introduction of censorship and on asserting their civil rights. In this way, a challenge was mounted to the main political forces, and television became the battlefield where each section of the population defended its rights. In the 1970s, in light of an even greater escalation of the conflict, the coverage of events in Northern Ireland was more restrained and cautious. There were also several instances of direct political pressure being put on television stations. Censorship was even stricter in the Republic of Ireland.<\/p>\n

Nevertheless, reports on the lives of the peaceful population were widely broadcast, reflecting the full scope of the tragedy of the armed hostilities and their impact on the lives of ordinary people. For example, Peter Taylor, Paul Hamann and Arthur MacCaig presented contemporary \u2018views from within\u2019 on the conflict and the different sides. Over the next decade the topics of innocent people, political prisoners and peace in Northern Ireland came to the fore. A new form of television emerged in the shape of documentary films, which were widely broadcast in the late 1980s and early 1990s. In 1996 director Neil Jordan made a film called \u2018Michael Collins\u2019 about the 70th anniversary of the Anglo-Irish Agreement of 1921, which charted the whole history of the conflict during the 20th century. In the mid-1990s the central themes covered by the media were the temporary peace associated with the signing of the Downing Street Declaration and coverage of issues relating to peacebuilding, such as the disarmament of paramilitary organisations.<\/p>\n

Turning to the role of radio, Walt Kilroy (Institute for International Conflict Resolution and Reconstruction, Dublin City University) observes, \u201cRadio played a more constructive role because it wasn\u2019t subject to the temptation to show bloody scenes. In addition, radio provided more opportunities for calm and engaged discussion.\u201d[31] Clem McCartney adds, \u201cPoliticians are very interested in how they and their messages are covered by the media, and they want to hear what their opponents are saying. They can most easily do this by listening to the radio, but they also keep a close eye on TV.\u201d<\/p>\n

It is only recently that the role of new media has begun to be studied. The main distinguishing feature of social networks is the possibility to reach people who do not watch television, listen to the radio or read newspapers. According to Paul Nolan, Director of the Northern Ireland Peace Monitoring Report, republicans opposed to the Good Friday Agreement are particularly active on the internet. Moreover, they target young people specifically \u2013 people who did not see the turbulence and disorder. It is a simple calculation \u2013 the emphasis is on the ignorance and romantic leanings of the younger generation.<\/p>\n

In other words, the struggle has moved into the virtual sphere, into a range of internet forums and social networks, although the aim is to motivate people and take them beyond the confines of virtual debate. Jeffrey Donaldson, Member of Parliament and DUP member (formerly a member of the UUP at the time of the talks), suggests that social networks help to achieve agreement within society; they have a direct influence on people, but, if you are going to use them, you have to know what you are doing \u2013 otherwise, the same social networks can turn into minefields.<\/p>\n

Three-strand dialogue instead of two monologues<\/p>\n

Today, walls between Catholics and Protestants still stand in the streets of Belfast. However, this did not impede the dialogue because, having learnt from experience, the politicians did not begin by pulling down these real walls. Instead, they concentrated on the invisible barriers in people\u2019s heads and hearts, which were the source of the divisions. Besides, the politicians say that the local people are still against the walls being removed.<\/p>\n

\u201cIt\u2019s always better to talk than to fight,\u201d Lord John Alderdiceasserts in an article entitled \u2018Off the couch and round the conference table\u2019. In his opinion, in a situation where communities are in violent conflict, they have virtually no capacity to listen to the other side and they only hear the things that confirm their prejudices and enable them to protect themselves. Alderdice writes:<\/p>\n

\u201cIn the psychoanalytical world, we have no difficulty in giving value to talking and listening, but you will often hear people criticising parliaments as being \u2018just a talking shop\u2019, not fully appreciating that when the representatives of our communities in parliament are talking, they are in a very real sense exercising the alternative to violence. <\/em><\/p>\n

In stable, peaceful parts of the world, it is easy to forget why we have parliaments \u2013 places where representatives of the community talk (and also listen) to each other \u2013 and in violent communities, it is easy to dismiss talking in the face of the threat as an expression of weakness in contrast to decisive action. In Northern Ireland, we lived through 30 years during which political differences were expressed through violent actions rather than words; but while it is most obvious in those places where there are deep divisions, violence is in fact always an alternative to talking in any community. There are important questions about why such deep divisions exist in any community \u2026 What is beyond doubt is that when such divisions have led to serious, prolonged inter- and intra-communal violence, there is grave damage to the capacity to think, talk and engage in those group psychological relational processes we call politics. Politics is not so much the way that we agree across the gulf of our differences, but rather the way in which we can express our disagreements without killing each other.\u201d<\/em>[32]<\/p>\n

In my opinion, it is dialogue \u2013 universal and unconditional \u2013 that is the key to success in the Northern Ireland peace process. When there was no dialogue, there was a clash between the monologues of the conflicting sides. Real dialogue is impossible without the support of the media and I shall explain why.<\/p>\n

I would divide dialogue in Northern Ireland into three strands:<\/p>\n