| The media occupies a position of immense influence as an actor that shapes public discourse,sways opinion,and impacts policy decisions.This study investigates the complex interplay between media and conflict within the context of the enduring Kashmir dispute between nuclear neighbours India and Pakistan.The decades-long contention over the region escalated with the pivotal event of Article 370’s repeal on August 5th,2019,altering the dynamics and intensifying the humanitarian crisis in Kashmir.This major development attracted extensive media coverage and analysis from Indian,Pakistani,and local Kashmiri news publications.To examine the dominant media narratives surrounding this seminal event,the study conducted an in-depth investigation of three leading English-language newspapers: The Hindu from India,The Dawn from Pakistan,and Greater Kashmir from Indian-administered Kashmir.A robust sample of 1,362 news articles published by these reputable outlets over a two-year period encompassing the pivotal event was systematically analysed using quantitative content analysis.The study was anchored in two key theoretical frameworks that enabled a layered investigation of media discourse: Johan Galtung’s Model of Peace/War Journalism and Jake Lynch and Annabel Mc Goldrick’s Two-Sided Conflict Model.Galtung’s framework categorizes journalism on a spectrum from war journalism that escalates tensions to peace journalism that aims to increase understanding and encourage non-violent solutions.The twosided model cautions against simplistic "us versus them" coverage that overlooks diverse conflict actors and complex root causes.Integrating these models allowed a nuanced analysis of how media coverage patterns align with conflict escalation or resolution.The content analysis revealed certain consistent themes across the three newspapers,with human rights,political affairs,security issues,and regional stability emerging as dominant topics.However,each source presented these themes through distinct frames aligned with nationalist interests.The Hindu exhibited the highest percentage of war journalism frames at 63.90%,emphasizing negative events like violence,terrorism,and rights violations.This proclivity towards war frames indicates a greater focus on the destructive aspects of the conflict.In contrast,The Dawn from Pakistan displayed a higher percentage of peace journalism frames at 34.71%,highlighting avenues for reconciliation and coexistence between the rivals.This suggests a greater willingness to explore diplomatic solutions.Interestingly,the local Kashmiri newspaper Greater Kashmir demonstrated the most balanced approach,with the lowest percentage of war frames(25.83%)and the highest percentage of peace frames(53.45%).This orientation likely reflects proximate experiences of how the conflict impacts local populations.Overall,the analysis revealed that war journalism approaches overwhelmingly dominated the media coverage across all three newspapers.Quantitative indicators confirmed The Hindu’s reliance on conflict frames,with 2,622 articles focused on war and containing war-related semantics compared to 2,477 peace-focused articles.The Dawn also exhibited a tilt towards war journalism despite its relative emphasis on peace frames.The study’s findings illuminate the influential role of media framing in shaping public perceptions and attitudes regarding the enduring Kashmir conflict.The analysis raises concerns about the lack of peace journalism and conflict-sensitive practices that provide nuance,context,and empathy.While complexity characterizes ground realities,media narratives frequently rely on binary tropes of good versus evil defined along nationalistic fault lines.However,balanced and ethical journalism committed to accurately and impartially informing public discourse has immense potential to build bridges between opposing sides.The media’s power to potentially escalate or de-escalate conflicts poses profound questions of responsibility.As an actor with unparalleled reach,the media must recognize that its duty is not only to report but also to promote understanding in navigating multifaceted conflicts.In contexts like Kashmir,embracing peace journalism principles can foster transformative impacts on conflict trajectories.Some tenets include prioritizing non-violent responses,investigating root causes,avoiding demonizing rhetoric,and presenting diverse perspectives.Structural constraints like ownership patterns,information warfare,and political parallelism do influence media behaviour.However,conscious efforts to build capacity and reform journalistic practices can counteract these limitations.The media,as a mirror of society and catalyst for change,is well positioned to highlight common human values that transcend dividing lines.While nationalist allegiances encourage insular framing,the media can also mobilize compassion through stories of suffering and resilience that render our shared humanity apparent.In conflict resolution,fostering empathy and dignity for all is indispensable.The media,by touching people’s hearts and minds,can cultivate these unifying sentiments and inspire actions for peace.In conclusion,this study’s analysis of media narratives in the enduring Kashmir conflict reveals tendencies that demand redress.Achieving peaceful transformation necessitates responsible journalism that resists oversimplification,provides nuance,and promotes empathy.The media must embrace its duty to not only report but also heal.As an influencer of government policy and public opinion,it bears immense power to escalate tensions or catalyse change.In contexts of protracted conflicts,the media must champion peace building;it can illuminate paths through darkness. |
PDF Full Text Request