This article opens by considering an apparent paradox. Many professional journalists, working on many media in many countries, consider themselves' objective'. They do not, at least, set out to skew their coverage of important issues in favour of one side or the other. And yet much of their coverage of conflicts shows a discernible dominant pattern of War Journalism-biased in favour of war. This is not because of a lack of objectivity, the article suggests, but a surfeit. The set of conventions many editors and reporters regard as defining'objective'journalism arose in response to economic and political conditions which rewarded news that could commend itself as unobjectionable to the maximum number of potential customers.

Three of the most important conventions privilege official sources; a dualistic construction of stories and event, over process. Each of these, when applied to the representation of conflicts, leads readers and audiences–or leaves them–to over-value violent, reactive responses and under-value non-violent, developmental responses.