The basic argument is this. All other things being equal, the news media generally play a negative role in attempts to bring peace. At the same time, the exact part the press will take in a given peace process varies in conjunction with the political and media environments in which journalists operate. The news media are most likely to play a constructive role when there is a high level of support in favor of a peace process, when the number and intensity of crises are low, when there is a relatively high level of shared news organs and when journalists feel less need or desire to construct sensationalist news stories. It was also claimed that the role the news media play in any political process is best seen in terms of a cycle: Any changes in the political environment leads to changes in media performance that can lead to further changes in the political environment.

The validity of these arguments was demonstrated by examining three different peace processes. The most telling evidence about changing environments came from comparing the role the news media played in the Oslo process with what happened in Northern Ireland. There is good evidence that in the case of Oslo the Hebrew media made a difficult situation worse, while in Northern Ireland the press probably enhanced the prospects for peace. It's not that the journalists in Israel have any less desire for peace than their counterparts in Belfast.