http://www.atimes.com/se-asia/CI20Ae01.html

September 20, 2001

atimes.com

DIRE STRAITS

Flawed coverage

By Anil Netto

PENANG - Soon after the full horror of the attacks in the United States had sunk in, I slumped into an armchair and tuned into coverage from American station's of the tragedy relayed by Malaysia's sole satellite transmission firm, Astro.

Reports were comprehensive, with frequent "breaking news" flashes interrupting the steady stream of news as the scale of the human tragedy unfolded. "America Under Attack" was the theme and indeed, looking at the huge pile of rubble and the pall of smoke hanging over Manhattan, it did look like ground zero in a surreal post-apocalypse world.

The sheer loss of life was mind numbing, enough to prompt most people into serious reflection about how fragile and fleeting human life is. It provoked outrage as to the callousness of the assailants in pulverizing major landmarks, knowing full well that innocent lives would be lost.

And yet, as I sat in front of the television, as the hours passed, a sense of uneasiness crept over me. The excellent coverage on the scale of the tragedy, the anguish of relatives and the shock among ordinary Americans soon gave way to blind patriotism, jingoistic sentiments and hawkish politicians.

Soon, the coverage of the tragedy started to be interspersed with comments by intelligence experts - the very experts who had failed to realize that such attacks were possible, the very experts who had failed to see that there was indeed a fire burning in West Asia that would inevitably have far-reaching repercussions.

The focus was rightly on how to battle terrorism - but there was hardly any discussion on what were the causes of such terrorist acts. CNN, for example, and I am sure a whole range of other Western media, failed to provide an adequate answer as to why anyone would have such a searing hatred for the United States. Nor did it even attempt to do that.

Osama Bin Laden was of course singled out as the prime suspect - even before any concrete evidence had been put forward. No doubt he is not the most savory character in the world, but audiences should have been entitled to some hard evidence to link him to the attacks. Of course, stations didn't dwell very long, if at all, on the CIA's funding of these Afghan groups - with the help of Pakistani intelligence - when they were fighting the Soviet invasion.

The war-mongering posturing among the top American leadership was hardly questioned. Instead, there were constant references to opinion polls, in which more than 70 percent favored retaliatory strikes. No doubt they were not asked if innocent lives should be sacrificed or even if "collateral damage" was acceptable.

Indeed, little time was given to dissenting views, at least during those hours I spent glued to CNN, hoping for some voices of restraint and a discussion of non-violent responses - ones that would respect international law.

Where there was a modicum of protest, it was given short shrift. Thus, the Iraqi foreign minister's criticism of US foreign policy, for instance, merited just over a minute over CNN.

Would it have been too much to expect them to provide coverage to eminent, though ostracized, US foreign policy critics such as Noam Chomsky and Edward Said at such a critical juncture? Critics such as these have linked the rise of terrorism to misguided US foreign policy in the Middle East, US backing for authoritarian governments there, and the crippling embargo on Iraq, all of which have bred frustration and resentment against the West. If the Independent newspaper in the UK could carry scathing commentaries from outstanding journalists such as Robert Fisk, would it have been too much for CNN to at least counterbalance the hawkish statements uttered by senior CIA officials - perhaps the very officials who had failed to see the terrorist attacks coming - who are now calling for lifting of checks on counter-terrorism activities?

There are a significant number of Americans - and others around the world - who, after the initial outrage at the carnage in New York and Washington had sunk in, are now realizing that the world could get sucked into a war against terrorism (against whom? where? for how long?) that could have far-reaching and violent repercussions. Online petitions are being circulated, mobilizing public support for more restraint and sanity in responding to the attacks.

Such voices have been given little coverage over the mainstream American media. Little is mentioned of the severe drought that many innocent Afghans - many of whom wouldn't have had a clue where the World Trade Center was - are facing or what impact America's New War (as CNN glibly puts it) would have on the region's refugee crisis, which had already reached critical levels well before the latest attacks.

The impression I get is that the American leadership is set on a war. But using conventional warfare to root out terrorism and without looking at the broader picture as to why there is this groundswell of hatred in the Middle East seems misguided. Couldn't these issues have been discussed more logically and rationally?

These are reports that a Canadian journalist, Paul D Boin, is creating what he calls a Real News Network to call attention to the deeper reasons for the conflicts in the world from which the terrorists have emerged. Boin says that many official agencies admit that globalization - which some in power see as the core of "our way of life and civilization" - is contributing to the gap in the world fueling this crisis. Boin writes in part:

"The US and Canadian governments' defense departments also quietly admit (more honestly then our politicians) that the present version of unjust corporate-led globalization is, and will continue to be, directly contributing to the escalation of terrorism. In a document titled Global Trends 2015, jointly researched and produced by the Central Intelligence Agency and the National Intelligence Council, the US intelligence community states that the benefits of globalization 'will not be universal. In contrast to the Industrial Revolution, the process of globalization is more compressed. Its evolution will be rocky, marked by chronic financial volatility and a widening economic divide ... regions, countries, and groups feeling left behind will face deepening economic stagnation, political instability and cultural alienation. They will foster political, ethnic, ideological, and religious extremism, along with the violence that often accompanies it'." (Central Intelligence Agency and National Intelligence Council 2001)

Perhaps it would be too much to expect CNN, which epitomizes and indeed glorifies corporate-led globalization, to carry such dissenting views.

More locally, I thought it was in questionable taste when Astro took out full-page ads in newspapers in Malaysia under banner headlines "America Under Attack - History as it happens" followed by the blurb "Over 3 million Malaysians caught it first on Astro. Stay tuned for the latest developments ..." It certainly looked like an effort to boost its subscriber base at a time when many were reeling with shock.

All said, the media seem to have distinguished themselves in the coverage and aftermath of the tragedy.