Over the past few weeks, the framing of the collapse of Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria by the Turkish and European media has served as an example for evaluating the media coverage of war and conflict through the principles of peace journalism.
Before diving into the evaluation, however, it is essential to revisit the core tenets of peace journalism.
Peace journalism advocates for understanding conflicts holistically, addressing not only their outcomes but also their root causes, while promoting peaceful resolutions. It avoids sensationalist narratives of victory or defeat, instead focusing on the broader impacts of conflict on all parties involved.
However, a review of the headlines and content in both Turkish and European media reveals a predominantly conflict-driven, triumphalist, and polarised tone that starkly contrasts the principles of the inclusive, solution-oriented peace journalism. Such coverage risks intensifying societal polarisation and escalating tensions.
Also read: Why It Is Not All Despair for Syrians
Triumph over peace: The Turkish media’s framing
Several Turkish newspapers framed the collapse of Assad’s regime as a “victory,” employing celebratory language.
For instance, Türkiye Gazetesi’s headline, ’Prostration of gratitude in the Umayyad Mosque!’, foregrounded the religious and sectarian dimensions of the conflict. Such expressions may deepen sectarian divisions in a post-conflict society.
If this were peace journalism, it would prioritise analysing the humanitarian toll of the conflict and exploring pathways for building peace among the warring parties. Instead of celebratory rhetoric, it would discuss how to prevent further divisions and foster reconciliation.
Furthermore, newspapers like Sabah Gazetesi suggested that the regime’s fall would lead to the immediate return of Syrian refugees, with headlines such as ’Assad’s oppression has ended, it’s time to return’.
Such claims not only oversimplify the complex realities of post-conflict reconstruction but also exacerbate societal pressures on refugees. Peace journalism would address the challenges of repatriation, such as safety, infrastructure, and rights, avoiding superficial optimism.
A narrow lens on Opposition
The coverage also showed uncritical support for opposition groups, celebrating their success without examining potential radical elements. Labels such as “dictator” and “oppressor” were frequently used to describe the Assad regime. While these terms may highlight the regime’s crimes, reducing a complex political history to such binary language fosters a demonising narrative.
For example, Aydınlık Gazetesi, with the headline ’What are you celebrating with the U.S. and Israel?’, criticised the celebration of the regime’s collapse. While it draws attention to the international dimension of the conflict, this framing risks further polarisation.
Peace journalism emphasises empathy and amplifies the voices of all sides, including marginalised groups. However, in Turkish media, voices of regime supporters and war victims were largely absent, as was a deeper exploration of post-conflict reconstruction, reconciliation, and human rights issues.
Also read: The Collapse of the Syrian Regime Is Welcome, but the Replacement Is Equally Bad
European media: Similar patterns, limited depth
The European media’s coverage similarly mirrored traditional conflict journalism, characterised by polarised narratives. Headlines often described opposition groups as “rebels” or “freedom fighters,” while Assad’s regime was labeled “tyrannical”.
For instance, Corriere della Sera ran the headline, ’Rebels march into Damascus’, while Daily Express described the event as ’Rejoicing in Syria’.
Such language conveys a biased perspective and neglects the long-term humanitarian and political challenges that lie ahead.
The coverage also tended to frame the collapse in binary terms of “freedom” versus “oppression.” For example, The Guardian likened the fall of Damascus to the ‘Fall of the Berlin Wall’, while Financial Times referred to opposition advances as a “lightning offensive”.
This focus on military achievements overshadows the complexities of rebuilding and reconciliation in post-conflict Syria.
Moreover, outlets like Spiegel highlighted opposition appeals to refugees with messages on social media such as “A free Syria awaits you”.
Peace journalism, in contrast, would question the realism of such calls by addressing critical issues such as the destruction caused by war and the difficulties of reintegration for returning refugees.
Key omissions and missed opportunities
In both Turkish and European media, critical issues such as the reconstruction of Syria, mechanisms for reconciliation, and the future political order received scant attention. Reports often omitted the root causes of the conflict – ranging from the regime’s repressive policies to external interventions and sectarian tensions – and failed to discuss viable solutions.
Additionally, the voices of vulnerable groups – civilians, minorities, women, and children – were notably absent.
Peace journalism seeks to amplify such voices and provide a balanced narrative that avoids triumphalist or antagonistic rhetoric. The prevalent headlines – such as ’The tyrant fled’, ’The dictator is overthrown’, and ’Damascus is free’ – aimed to evoke strong emotions but did little to foster understanding or dialogue.
Recommendations for a peace journalism approach
From the perspective of peace journalism, the media coverage of the Assad regime’s collapse could improve if the following principles are adopted:
- Neutral and inclusive language: Avoid polarising or stigmatising terms. Instead, present a balanced view.
- Focus on reconciliation: Highlight post-conflict peacebuilding efforts and potential paths to reconciliation.
- Analyse root causes: Go beyond the immediate results to explore the historical and socio-political causes of the conflict.
- Amplify marginalised voices: Give space to civilians, refugees, and other affected groups to share their perspectives.
- Examine long-term challenges: Address issues such as reconstruction, refugee returns, and political rebuilding.
If these principles are adopted, it would not only enhance the quality of reporting but also contribute to societal peace by encouraging readers to think critically about conflicts and their resolutions.
Ultimately, it would help build a better-informed public, fostering dialogue and reducing polarisation.
Dr. Yasemin Giritli İnceoğlu is a Visiting Professor, Media and Communications Department, LSE