I. Background of the problem
The media of mass communications today include traditional printed newspapers, magazines and journals, as well as the twentieth century’s core electronic resources, radio, television, and the internet. In wealthy nations the print media, television and the internet predominate, while in poorer states, often marked by low rates of literacy, the medium of choice for shaping and reinforcing public opinion is radio.

In utilitarian genocides, largely motivated by the desire to create, expand and preserve formal states and empires, the perpetrator calls directly on the professional armed forces of the state to facilitate the acquisition of wealth, eliminate a perceived threat, or spread terror. But in genocides motivated by the search for a perfect future inspired by a utopian ideology, the state demonizes the victim group and its members, excluding them from the universe of mutual human obligations. This process usually requires intensive, sustained propaganda to mobilize violence against the victims on a grand scale. Crimes against humanity, and especially genocide, require the spread of hate propaganda and disinformation throughout the general population to reinforce key motivating beliefs.

2. Most acute current questions regarding the role of the media
The media do not make ideologically-motivated genocide happen, but they facilitate and legitimate it. Real conflicts often exist in the history of human societies, particularly over territorial boundaries and scarce resources, but they rarely require the intensive, sustained, eliminationist propaganda of ideologically-motivated genocides. It is especially when ethno-nationalist, utopian and racist ideological goals become paramount that perpetrators work most intensively to persuade their subjects of the danger to their security and the need to eliminate whole groups of people portrayed as threatening their very survival. Propaganda and ideology are employed synergistically to create the panic-fear which allows ordinary people to believe that they are killing defensively to preserve traditional rights imperiled by threatening groups, domestic and foreign. The media’s role is to engender fear, hatred and violence, inciting and legitimating the destruction of cultures and groups of innocent human beings as the only possible solution to the threatened loss of life, rights and property. As Professor William Schabas reminds us, “Genocide is prepared with propaganda, a bombardment of lies and hatred directed against the targeted group, and aimed at preparing the ‘willing executioners’ for the atrocious tasks they will be asked to perform.” It is this open mass mobilization of the population by the media through public encouragement of the people to endorse and join in state-supported crimes against humanity and genocide that aids us in the prediction and early warning of ideologically-motivated genocide.

Recent history makes us aware that the effective use of the media in preventing genocide requires taking account of the stage which the genocidal situation has reached and devising a response-strategy appropriate to that stage. Poor, economically-developing societies struggling to move from authoritarian, arbitrary and undemocratic rule to establish the democratic foundations of civil society are particularly vulnerable to genocide. Such societies have no tradition of independent media, lack deeply rooted professional standards for journalism, and endure a violent media culture, which exhibits no sense of responsibility to society as a whole. Journalists in such societies are frequently manipulated and bribed by the dominant political faction (“envelope journalism”), are dependent on stereotyping and sensationalism for the themes of their news stories, and are oblivious to potential news stories that would diminish ethnic and political hatred. Good, highlytrained journalists with professional standards are frequently subjected to threats and, in the wake of assassinations and beatings, may surrender to manipulation and intimidation by the purveyors of fear.

3. Solutions and recommendations
1. Early stage interventions in conflict situations where mass killing has not begun include domestic and foreign monitoring of the media, training programs and codes of conduct to raise the skills and standards of local editors and journalists, and strengthening the local independent media. In such societies, local and foreign broadcasts of serial drama programs addressed to children and soap operas for adults emphasizing the benefits of inter-ethnic group cooperation, the real benefits of compromise and peaceful solutions to problems are useful methods of lessening conflict. Local, multi-ethnic production teams have proven to be especially effective and credible originators of such productions.

2. Medium stage interventions in societies just beginning to suffer genocidal massacres require swift and aggressive action. When government sanctioned threats and intimidation make it impossible for local journalists, domestic non-government organizations and ministers of the government to intervene effectively against the media promoters of ethnic, religious and racial hatred, as happened in Rwanda before the genocide of 1994, foreign governments and non-government organizations, regional associations of states, and international organizations like the United Nations or the European Union must place the disseminators of hate propaganda on notice that their threatening messages are being monitored, recorded and transcribed to enable the prosecution and punishment of culpable media owners, editors and journalists. Foreign broadcasters should mount accurate news in local languages to counter the disinformation and distortions of domestic information providers, supplementing whatever material domestic anti-hate broadcasters are able to beam to their listeners. Electronic jamming of hate transmitters should be initiated.

3. Late stage intervention, launched when genocide is underway, may require actually destroying the transmitters and printing presses of the hate mongers. Foreign broadcasters should supplement their news broadcasts with frequently repeated warnings that a genocide is underway, report credible threats designed to deter the perpetrators from further killing, provide accurate information to discourage potential victims from congregating in perpetrator-targeted locations like the churches which became killing-grounds in Rwanda, and appeal to ordinary citizens, urging them to conceal and protect members of the victim group. Future rewards should be promised for citizens who can document after the defeat of the genocidal regime- that they hid potential victims and refused to participate in the killing. Whenever feasible, routes to safety and practical suggestions for survival should be announced. Many of the solutions and recommendations proposed here have already been field tested in countries such as Afghanistan, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Burundi, Cambodia, Kosovo, Liberia, Macedonia and Sierra Leone by government and non-government organizations including the United Nations, the European Union, the OSCE, the BBC World Service, the BBC Trust, the British Department for International Development, the United States Agency for International Development Center for Democracy and Governance, the Internews Network, the Canadian Institute for Media, Policy and Civil Society, Search for Common Ground, the Hirondelle Foundation, the Open Media Research Institute, the Radio Partnership, the Center for War, Peace and the News Media and Lifeline Media. The landmark Media Case judgments of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda of 3 December 2003 criminalize in international law future media incitements to commit genocide, whether or not genocide results. Still needed is an international code of conduct which recognizes the dual use possibilities of television and AM, FM, and satellite radio transmitters and subjects countries already under international arms embargoes initiated by the United Nations Security Council, the OSCE, and the European Union to the same or even tighter export control policies as those for military equipment. The new Code of Conduct would prohibit exports of transmitters to countries:

1.Not respecting sanctions decreed by the UN Security Council.
2.Violating their human rights obligations, including the United Nations Genocide Convention, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the Universal Declaration on Human Rights.
3.Likely to use the equipment to provoke or prolong armed conflicts or aggravate existing tensions in the country of final destination.
4.Endangering regional peace, security and stability.
5.Threatening the national security of the states subscribing to the Code of Conduct and of territories whose security is a responsibility of member states, as well as that of friendly and allied countries.
6.Demonstrating disrespect for international law, alliances, and the need to contain terrorism.
7.Likely to divert the equipment within the buyer country or re-export it under undesirable conditions.