A/HRC/28/66 sometimes protection, including by following up on individual cases. The findings of civil society organizations can also assume an early warning function, notably in volatile situations. 73. Moreover, in the face of violent aggression, civil society plays a major role in overcoming a culture of silence wherever this exists. It is important for individuals and groups targeted by incitement to religious hatred and violent attacks to experience solidarity support and that others speak out on their behalf. Overcoming silence is likewise needed to challenge the claims of perpetrators of hatred to act in the name of a “silent majority”. Speaking out against such violence, and the broader political or religious dimensions involved with these problems, can be dangerous. Therefore, local civil society organizations may need international networks to defend them in situations where they are threatened.28 74. Different faith-based and secular civil society organizations work together and have created common platforms. Beyond the pragmatic advantages of joining forces, such cooperation also demonstrates that a commitment to human rights can create and strengthen solidarity across all religious, cultural and philosophical divides. This is an important message in itself. The Special Rapporteur has come across impressive examples in this regard, for example, initiatives taken by Christian civil society organizations in support of atheists or Buddhists under threat and public statements made by Bahá’í representatives against the persecution of Shia Muslims. Such acts of solidarity have a highly symbolic value. 4. Contributions by the media 75. While the media, including the Internet, are frequently used to stoke intergroup hostilities by spreading false, biased or partisan information and hateful messages that incite violence, they can also be harnessed to foster cross-boundary communication and promote policies of tolerance, reconciliation and cooperation. In short, the media are a part of the problem, but they must certainly be part of the solution. 76. Hostile media campaigns can have disastrous effects on people’s mindset and in the long run can undermine people’s common sense, creating a climate of confusion and collective hysteria. The most important antidote to hostile media campaigns targeting religious minorities or other groups is the diligent research of facts. 77. Fact-finding may also include a public analysis of collective historical traumas. Meaningful communication across boundaries requires the possibility that people can agree — or at least partially agree — on important facts concerning intricate historic legacies. It is no coincidence that reconciliation commissions usually also have the aspiration of “truth” in their titles (typically being called “truth and reconciliation commissions”), because only on the basis of agreeing on at least some elementary historic facts can communities tackle traumatic historic legacies that otherwise would have the potential of tearing societies apart. The “ghosts of the past” can only be put to rest by public debates based on a careful research of facts. Here again, public discourse facilitated by a rich landscape of independent and critical media has an important function. 78. The media play an indispensable role in bringing about a culture of public discourse. Where such a culture remains underdeveloped or even non-existent, prejudiced messages against groups that face systematic discrimination usually find fertile ground, because hostile rumours remain unchecked by factual evidence, and fearful narratives can hardly be exposed to public scrutiny or counter-narratives. Positively speaking, a developed culture of 28 18 See www.ohchr.org/EN/issues/SRHRDefenders/.