Reporting Conflict

Over the past decade the Media Peace Centre has run workshops for journalists in South Africa and abroad on covering conflict more constructively. The Mediation Project for Journalists (MPJ) draws from the training and teachings of various conflict resolution practitioners, including those at Harvard University's Conflict Management Group (CMG). Here are several of the CMG frameworks and models used in our workshops:

A Framework for Analysis

Interests

• Define the interests of the parties (needs, fears, hopes, goals/objectives
• How are they dealing with their interests?
• Are they focusing only on demands and positions?
• Do they see interests as opposed/in conflict?
• Do they act as though it's an adversarial, zero-sum game?
• Do they see any common interests?

• What options are under discussion, if any?
• Are the parties likely to develop options on their own?
• Are there options that might satisfy the parties' interests?

• What will the parties do to attain their goals if there is no negotiated or mediated settlement (if there is no agreed settlement)?
• What people or organisations might be able to affect the alternatives of the parties?

• Are there applicable standards (locally or further afield) that bear on this case?
• How do the parties measure fairness in this case?
• Do they perceive each other as legitimate?
• Do they feel fairly treated?
• Is it a contest of wills? Threats? How are they using/discussing criteria?

• Are the parties able to communicate with each other?
• Has there been significant miscommunication?
• How have they communicated? Through what channels?
• How do they perceive each other? Is there significant misperception?
• Are there cultural differences that might account for communication problems?

• How are the parties currently dealing with each other? Coercion? Understanding? Acceptance as people?
• How does the history of the parties affect how they currently deal with each other?
• What are the perceived power relationships?

• Who are the relevant decision makers or opinion leaders?
• Do they, or anyone else, have the authority to make commitments on behalf of others?
• To what degree might they be able to commit?
• How durable might that commitment be?

Consider:

• Who might care about the outcome?
• Who might care about the process?
• Who might be affected by either?
• Who might want to be perceived as having been involved?
• To whom are the people involved accountable?
• Whose authorisation might be necessary?
• Whose support is critical?
• Who might be able to sabotage the process?
• Who might prevent the implementation of an agreement?
• Are the parties worried about the short term or the long term?
• Are there concerns about violence, safety, reputation, precedent, services, jobs, intangibles?
• Listen to the solutions they propose and ask, "Why do you favour that?"
• As you probe for interests underlying bargaining positions, make it clear that you are not asking parties to announce concessions.
• Ask actors to describe their 'pie in the sky' ideal outcomes and their worst nightmares. Derive their interests from these scenarios.
• Speculate about things they might be interested in, worried about or afraid of. Ask them to correct your perceptions and add to them.

(copyright Conflict Management Group, 1993)

CONTENTS    HOME