Coverage of Marikana: war and conflict and the case for Peace Journalism

Abstract

Different narratives around the Marikana massacre of August 16, 2012 have emerged in the South African news media with regard to what actually happened, what the underlying causes of the strikes were, and who is to blame. Criticism has been levelled against the mainstream news media with regard to embedded journalism, sensationalised coverage and polarisation of views and stakeholders. For this article, an analysis of news articles on Marikana published in the mainstream South African news media has been conducted. This analysis confirms many of the findings of earlier research and I argue that the form of reporting evident in these findings conforms to what has been labelled “war journalism.” I argue that the coverage of Marikana could have been improved by adopting “Peace Journalism” as a model for reporting.

Keywords:

• Marikana
• South Africa
• war journalism
• Peace Journalism
• embedded journalism
• sensationalism
• polarisation

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank the anonymous referees of Social Dynamics for their helpful comments and suggestions.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes

1. “The Marikana Commission of Inquiry was appointed by the President of the Republic of South Africa, Mr Jacob Zuma, in terms of secti'on 84(2)(f) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa of 1996, on August 23, 2012. Its mandate arising from the Terms of Reference promulgated on September 12, 2012 is to investigate matters of public, national and international concern arising out of the tragic incidents at the Lonmin Mine in Marikana in the North West Province, which took place on about Saturday 11 August to Thursday 16 August, 2012 and led to the deaths of approximately 44 people, with more than 70 persons being injured, and approximately 250 people being arrested” (see Marikana Commission 2012).

2. Duncan (2013) uses George Gerbner’s term “symbolic annihilation” with regard to the absence of miners’ voices in the media.

3. Lynch and Galtung’s (2010) dichotomy of “high road” journalism vs. “low road” journalism in lieu of Peace Journalism and war journalism, respectively, might provide an alternative label. For this article, however Peace Journalism has been used throughout.

4. Interesting to note is Marinovich’s comment (personal communication, February 12, 2014): “I was sure that once we at Daily Maverick published, that there would be an outpouring of other pieces that editors had been holding back, waiting for someone to publish first … but no, it was not.” In the months after the massacre and as the narratives presented through the news media supposedly became more refined, a quick reading of articles as well as headlines in the news media seems to show that narratives of witchcraft and muti continued even as the Marikana Commission’s inquiry got under way.

5. With a nod to Justin Pearce, a fine journalist and author who so beautifully captured the story of Angola in his book “An Outbreak of Peace: Angola’s Situation of Confusion” (Pearce 2005); a beautiful piece of journalism talking to war and peace through the eyes of the human spirit that both creates and conquers it.