Cultural Constraints on Conflict Transformation : The Social Construction of Conflict as Represented in the News Media

This paper explores the contradiction between the U.S. social construction of conflict and the ways theory instructs that conflicts can and should be handled successfully. Putnam (2001) points out that the language often used to define and describe conflict is, in fact, one of opposition. Thus it is no surprise that when media report on conflict it is typically presented in adversarial, dualistic terms (see e.g. Cappella and Jamieson 1997; Tannen 1998). Sides are presented in a rights- or power-based fashion (cf. Ury, Brett, and Goldberg, 1998) that exposes each party's positions but obscures the underlying interests. This occurs largely because news formats dictate that each side be quoted supporting only its own views while denying the other's legitimate needs. This paper uses the critical analysis of media to empirically illustrate that while interest-based approaches to conflict management have consistently been found superior to rights- and power-based approaches on a variety of outcome measures, the cultural construction of conflict in the media undermines Americans' appreciation and understanding of the more productive strategies for conflict management