| Laman Webantu KM2: 6154 File Size: 40.7 Kb * |
RSF Investigation: The US media in torment after 11 September By Scott Blakeman 17/10/2001 1:10 pm Wed |
|
Web : www.rsf.org The US media in torment after 11 September
New York September 26 / October 2 2001
Ten years after the Gulf War, a conflict the reality of which was
largely hidden from the media, the US administration has launched
a new series of military operations in reaction to the waves of
terrorist attacks that stroked the East coast of the United
States leaving nearly 6,000 dead. The daily New York Times noted,
³This surge of national pride sweeping the country after the
terrorist attacks on 11 September sparks the beginnings of new,
more difficult debate over balance among national security, free
speech and patriotism.² The influential American newspaper said
in an article on 28 September 2001 that the debate ³is being
played out on stages large and small², that press comments have
on several occasions provoked the fury of the authorities, along
with that of the American public, and have led to sanctions
including pulling of programmes, withdrawal of advertising in the
media and disavowal, even outright sacking of the journalists by
their employers. This comes on top of a long list of constraints
and more subtle pressure that American and foreign media,
including the Internet, have been subjected to since 11
September. Many journalists and foreign observers have already cast doubt on
the objectivity and independence of the American press,
particularly the TV channels, in this period of ³war effort². In
the same way, several voices have been raised within the United
States warning the public about a decline in freedom of
expression and opinion, freedoms guaranteed by the First
Amendment of the Constitution, in exchange for tightening
security. ³We are facing an enemy which is exploiting what it is
about our society that makes it strong and effective: freedom,
openness and freedom of movement. We have to be sure that we
remain an open society, in which individual freedoms are
respected,² said Strobe Talbott, former number two at the US
State Department in the Clinton Administration. But these voices,
drowned out in the climate of media coverage devoted to covering
the aftermath of the attacks, the preparations and continuing US
counter-attacks, remain in a minority. Even those who are
critical appear weakened by the emotion produced by this dramatic
terrorist act, the death of thousands of innocent people and the
suffering of their bereaved families. In the face of calls to national unity, US organisations
traditionally devoted to defending individual freedoms, have been
muted. They consider that it is still too soon, even
inappropriate, to be raising the alarm over events considered
largely ?secondary¹. ³The shock of 11 September seems to have
stifled the most militant of people, giving way to a de facto
tolerance towards tougher than usual stances on the part of the
military and the judiciary,² said journalist Sylvie Kauffman,
former correspondent of the French daily Le Monde in New York, on
17 September 2001. In fact today, while countries throw
themselves into a fresh military operation, the vigilance of
organisations defending human rights and individual freedoms are
all the more needed. A number of regimes find the temptation too great to exploit the
genuine emotion produced by these attacks on the United States on
11 September to restrict freedom of the press and more generally
to silence domestic opposition under the cover of the struggle
against terrorism. In countries such as Pakistan, Israel,
Territories under Palestinian Authority or Liberia, Reporters
Sans Frontières (RSF) has recorded several incidents of press
freedom violations directly linked to the events in America.
While avoiding all linkage with these regimes, RSF also makes
public here a serious of episodes affecting press freedom in the
United States between 11 September and 7 October 20001, the date
of the American military counter-attack. Most of them have been
reported and commented on by the American press or by specialist
Internet sites. Are these incidents of censorship or
self-censorship? Are we witnessing a deliberate policy on the
part of the authorities or a choice made by the main media
themselves? What do American and foreign journalists working in
New York think? What about organisations that defend press
freedom? To try to answer these questions, two representatives of
RSF went to the United States and meet representatives of the
media, human rights organisations and US press specialists.
The first suspect: Internet The unprecedented scale of the attacks on New York and
Washington, and the presumed use by the terrorists of advanced
computer technology, prompted fears among internet users of a
tightening of web surveillance, as called for by the security
services. A number of sources report that a few hours after the
attacks on 12 September, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)
agents turned up at the headquarters of the main internet
providers (Hotmail, AOL, Earthlink, etc) to obtain information on
possible email exchanges between the terrorists. Technicians
working for these companies have said off the record to the
American online magazine Wired that FBI agents wanted to install
the electronic bugging system ³Carnivore² (recently renamed DCS
1000) on the main computer of internet access providers based in
the United States. ³From Tuesday evening FBI agents showed up at
our workplace wanting to set up their machines. They promised to
pick up the tab for all the costs of installation and use².
Another one working for Hotmail said that the FBI had asked for,
and obtained, from company executives all information on
accounts, whose names included the word Allah. All the major
Internet access providers appear to have followed Hotmail¹s
example and fully collaborated with the American secret services.
Once installed at an Internet access provider Carnivore can
record and save all information exchanged between users. Under
strong critical pressure from defenders of individual freedoms in
the United States, the system had never been used until now
except with the advance agreement of a judge. The ³Combating
terrorism Act² voted through after a half-hour debate in the
Senate on 13 September, barely two days after the attacks,
exempts the security services from judicial approval for the use
of Carnivore. To become law this act has still to be approved by
a joint commission of members of the Senate and House of
Representatives. After the first attack on the World Trade Center in 1993 the FBI
found plans for hijacking 11 planes on the portable computer of
the person who carried out the attack. The FBI took ten months to
decode the files, the majority of which had been encrypted with
PGP software. Defenders of encryption say to this that
intelligence has already shown its weakness in this area in as
much as the terrorists appear to have already used methods that
avoid electronic surveillance. The creator of PGP, David
Zimmerman, who was nearly jailed in the United States during the
1980 for distributing his programme, has once again defended his
position in a recent interview in the magazine Futur(e)s.
³Whether it¹s congress, or in the courts or in the columns of
newspapers, the country has already debated this question over
the last decade. And together we have decided that society has
more to gain than to lose from effective encryption. It should
not be forgotten that encryption has saved lives in the entire
world. The system is used by human rights organisations worldwide
and especially under dictatorships². (Quoted by the on-line
magazine Transfert, 17 September 2001).
Television: From spontaneity to patriotic rigour
Filmed virtually live, the attack against the World Trade Center
was at the same time tragic and spectacular, as if meant for
television. ³One should not forget that the terrorist target,
Manhattan, is not only the financial heart but also the media
capital of the country², an American journalist pointed out.
Never has such an event been filmed and photographed live both by
cameras and surveillance, by amateurs and professionals. In the
first days access to the sites of the attacks was not controlled.
Numerous photographers and cameramen took advantage of this by
getting as close as possible to the points of impact. The United
States being cut off from the rest of the world with the
grounding of all flights, it was only American journalists and
foreign correspondents posted to New York who covered the story.
Not having necessarily experienced war or natural disasters, they
admitted to having had ³the shock of their lives² when they heard
about the terrorist attacks and went to the World Trade Centre.
Either originally from New York or having lived their for many
years, they said with a good deal of emotion, that they had
covered ³the most important story of their careers². They did not
hide their sympathy for Americans and in particular New Yorkers
in this difficult period. ³I reacted first as an adopted New
Yorker rather than as a journalist² said Stéphanie Tremblay
French programme co-ordinator for Radio Canada. ³The terrorists
had above all attacked my city and targeted my way of life.² ³I
never thought I would cover such an event in my whole life time.²
said Don Emmert, head of photo for Agence France-Presse. ³I am
Canadian,² said Marc Greenought, radio producer for English
programmes on the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC), ³but
during these past days I have never felt so deeply American.²
Everyone interviewed by RSF in New York said so: The American
television networks were the first to cover the story and they
were an excellent source of information in the first days. ³We
edited the first reports on the attack on the World Trade Center
with our eyes fixed on the television screen,² said Michel
Moutot, Agence France-Presse bureau chief in New York. ³The US
television networks have matchless resources and they used them
right away,² he continued. Eric Leser, correspondent for the
French daily Le Monde agreed. He told RSF how invaluable the live
coverage on American television was to his work. The
organisation Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR), generally
very critical of the major media in America, found that the
coverage in the first days was acceptable overall. ³We saw a new
type of spontaneous and sincere journalism² said one of its
organisers Steve Randell. But just a week later, the tone and content on the American
television networks changed. ³I think the turning point was
George W. Bush¹s speech to Congress on the 20 September 2001,
said Eric Leser. ³Since then the media has taken on a strongly
patriotic tone and news has lost out to propaganda.² French
journalists add that since then they have followed the television
networks much less and used the internet, where there are a
number of sites providing more critical news and different
angles. Many foreign correspondents who spoke to RSF in New York
said the same thing. The RSF representatives noted the change of tone and feeling on
the American networks that covered President Bush¹s 20 September
speech, in which he called for a ³war against terrorism.² The
fate of the victims was relegated to second position and the
networks devoted their airtime to hailing the country¹s ³new
heroes²: firefighters, police and military staff, politicians.
And above all reflecting an image of a united and defiant nation,
ready to wage war on those who have attacked it. ³America¹s new
war² and ³At war with terror² (CNN) or ³America fights back or
counter-attacks? (CBS) were the watchwords, henceforth always
accompanied by the ubiquitous stars and stripes. ³Broadcasts
became all beating the drum and flags flying in the wind. It was
no longer news,² said another foreign correspondent Richard Hetu,
a journalist with the Canadian daily La Presse. A French
journalist, a Balkans specialist, who covered the NATO
intervention in Serbia, agreed from New York that American
television had ³gone to war²: ³ Instead of news broadcasts,
Americans are watching advertising spots to the glory of their
country,² he said. In one example the 62 regional channels of the
Sinclair Broadcast group have been carrying an advertisement on
their web site: ³Our team supports the action of President Bush
and the leaders of our nation in putting an end to terrorism.²
continues the message, urging viewers who agree to send their
views to the site. Reflecting on the patriotic outbursts, Stéphanie Tremblay of
Radio Canada said she was ³not at all surprised by this aspect of
coverage on the US networks. ³I knew, however, that if I want to
hear a more critical report that gave more space to the news
itself, I would have to watch BBC or event TV 5,² she said.
Fellow journalist Chantal Lavigne, also acknowledged the American
media¹s desire to take part in the ³war effort² said, ³Most star
television presenters have said that they were Americans before
being journalists.² Journalists and media executives questioned by RSF, either
strongly denied having produced propaganda or on the other hand,
acknowledged and justified their decision. ³The footage of the
attack against the World Trade Center has no equivalent in the
history of conflict,² said Paul Khlebnikov, journalist with the
influential economic magazine Forbes. ³In the war of pictures the
terrorists have made a decisive point. That is why the war that
the United States is going to wage should not be just military
and economic but also psychological, therefore media-driven.
Killing Bin Laden will not be enough he will have to be cut down
symbolically. Mr Khlebnikov said he was not worried by the
bellicose and propagandist tone adopted by some of the US media.
He attributes it to a ³civic revival² shared by all Americans.
³The first days there could have been a collapse in morale of
Americans. Then as in times of war, there was a civic revival
which was picked up in the press. And if the media has sometimes
lacked objectivity it was not under official pressure.
Objectivity in journalism does not man an absence of values. The
media, overall, did excellent work. Television in particular was
a triumph,² he said. Paul Khlebnikov is not the only one in the
American press to take this position. Sandy Genelius, spokeswoman
for the American TV network CBS News is satisfied, she says in an
interview with RSF, with the comments she has read in the press
about the work of the channel. ³We haven¹t sunk into propaganda
like some², she says taking a swipe in passing at CBS¹s main
competitor Cable News Network International (CNN). The chairman
of CNN Chris Cramer has been self-congratulatory about the work
of his network from 18 September: ³CNN has never failed to live
up to the occasion (-) to supply balanced news. The 4,000 men and
women of CNN have not escaped the shock and the horror of what
has happened. However the coverage of the news that we gave the
public and other media is testament to professionalism and
integrity.² Missing images: censorship or ³question of taste²
Barely a week after the attacks, some European media chiefs,
particularly French, have questioned the impartiality of the
American TV networks, suspected of not showing ³all the images²,
mainly those of the victims of the attacks. Then there have been
criticisms of American authorities, accused of wanted to prevent
some shots from the scene being taken and put out by the media.
Robert Namias, head of information for the main private French
television channel TF1 has several times condemned ³filtering²
which he considers a form of ³censorship². ³I strongly regret the
censorship imposed on us by the United States, the journalist
told the French daily Le Figaro on 26 September 2001. ³The images
that the French media paid for were filtered, treated and
purified by the American authorities. How do you think we can do
our job when we are denied access to information and surrounded
by security forces? I did not want to show horrifying images but,
to do the job properly, there should be a minimum knowledge.² His
opinion is shared, in varying degrees, by other French television
bosses but not unanimously. ³The horror of the two planes
slamming into the towers. Wasn¹t that enough? asks Hervé Brusini,
head of national news on the public French channel France 3. His
colleague on France 2 Oliver Mazerolle, considers that he would
not have shown gory images but said the American channels balked
at showing this type of image ³for patriotic reasons². The French
journalists all join however in condemning increasing difficulty
in getting access to the World Trade Center site and the
unwillingness of the authorities to allow journalists to move
about freely within the security perimeter.
During their investigation in New York and Paris, the RSF
representatives tried to find out more about the lack of images
of the victims and the conditions of access to the World Trade
Center site. Jim Rutenberg and Felicity Barringer, media
specialists for the New York Times visited various television
studios from 11 September onwards and questioned those in charge
about their editorial choices. ³Terrible pictures started
arriving,² they said. ³There was blood, there were dismembered
bodies.² Despite the desire of some journalists to show these
images, the head of MSNBC Erik Sorenson took the decision not to
show them. ³I think there are all sorts of ways to show the
horror without descending into the gory,² he said Some networks,
like NBC, CBS, CNN and Fox News did however broadcast footage of
desperate people jumping from the blazing building. Only to
regret it afterwards. ³It was a bad decision, the pictures were
really too disturbing², confessed Bill Wheatley, vice-president
of NBC News. Those who decided not to show the film explained: ³
The question is are we just creating useless pain². Those, who
like CBS, showed them, justify themselves too: ³That¹s terrorism.
From one point of view you want to protect the viewer but in
another way you want to show just what the terrorists have really
done.² Michel Moutot of Agence France-Presse also remembers these deeply
disturbing photos. ³By their clothes one could easily recognise
people who jumped from the windows². However he considered them
to be ³acceptable². In fact, several photos of this scene, taken
by photographers from the major international agencies appeared
during the course of the week in the American and European press.
Editors who published the, like Glenn Guzzo of the daily Denver
Post, spoke of the virulent objections from readers. ³Haven¹t you
any feelings, any respect for the families who have lost their
loved-ones?² one reader asked indignantly.
At this stage is strongly appears that a number of distressing
photos were taken and used by the American media. It was they who
decided, according to their own conscience, whether to use them
or not. ³It doesn¹t look like the authorities were trying to
control these pictures, given that that they didn¹t even know how
to protect the president,² said one observer. ³The refusal to
show the horrifying pictures was an editorial decision by my
colleaguesm,²adds Paul Khlebnikov of Forbes. ³As citizens we had
to ask ourselves the question: should one show bits of bodies in
a period of mourning and national remembrance?² It was indeed an
³editorial choice² said Sandy Genelius of CBS News to RSF. ³We
had sensitive film, we had gory images, but each time we asked
ourselves: What more are we contributing to history by showing
them? So we decided not to show the pictures just for the
pleasure of demonstrating that we had them².
This sudden reticence of the part of the American media has
interested a number of foreign observers. In an analytical piece
headed ³The faceless dead of the World Trade Center,² the
journalist Michel Guerin, specialist in images at the French
daily Le Monde, stated the paradox: ³5,500 people died or
disappeared on the black day of 11 September...but practically no
image of the bodies has been shown on the television or published
in the press² (21 September 2001). ³A decency of variable shape,
says Dominique Wolton, head of research at the National Centre
for Scientific Research (CNRS) quoted by the French daily
Liberation (19 September 2001). ³This should be a big lesson in
decency to western media who don¹t hesitate to show massacres
when they happen in Rwanda...² he added. Others like the photo
historian Marc Ferro do not find it surprising. ³During wars you
never show your own dead, only those of your adversaries. The
Americans want to limit the images of the trauma they have
suffered, of defeat, the affront and the mortification.²
Sandy Genelius, spokeswoman for CBS News, to whom RSF put these
questions, once again staunchly defended herself against applying
double standards. ³It¹s not true that we used different
standards. We applied the same rules when we filmed in Rwanda as
at the World Trade Center.² An RSF representative also discussed this question with Tom
Golstein, emeritus professor at the prestigious Columbia School
of Journalism in south Manhattan. He considered that it was
simply a ³question of taste². This opinion seems to be shared by a significant majority of
American and even foreign journalists. Like Canadian journalist
Marc Greenought of CBC, they did not hide their astonishment,
even irritation at the criticism from the European media on the
absence of more distressing and gory images of the World Trade
Center victims and the restricted access to the site. ³I do not
understand,² he told RSF. ³As a journalist I had all the access I
needed, the suffering, the emotion. No need to go searching for
blood under the ruins for that.² Arrests and calls to order In the first days after the attacks of 11 September, the American
media certainly adopted a common position which was not to ³add
horror on horror² and to take part in the resurgence of patriotic
national feeling. In doing this, those in charge followed the
wishes of a large majority of the public which reacted strongly
to the first images shown after the attacks. Added to this were
very strict rules of access to the site of the disaster,
injunctions by the various authorities along with sanctions
against recalcitrant photographers. The perimeter of the World Trade Center was quickly secured and
surrounded by US security forces after the confusion of the first
few days. ³The New York police were generally co-operative with
the press and allowed comings and goings on the site. The arrival
on the scene of the National Guard put an end to this situation,²
remembered M. Moutot of AFP. Barriers appeared all around the
site, the security perimeter was extended by several streets to
the south and north of Manhattan. A complex system of
accreditation was then established Involving both police and the
military. According to the daily Los Angeles Times, from 19
September onwards the police started seizing the films of
photographers and tourists close to the site. Many photographers
had their access passes withdrawn for failing to respect the
orders of the authorities. The American press freedom
organisation The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press
(RCFP) said that at least four journalists were arrested and
accused of breaking the conditions of access to the World Trade
Center site. Among them was Ian Austin, photographer for the
Agency Aurora Quanta Productions, who was detained for three days
before being released without any charge. All journalists working
for the daily Dallas Daily News had their accreditation withdrawn
because of the arrest and ³bad conduct² of one of their
photographers. In an interview with RSF, Don Emmert, head of photo at AFP in New
York discussed the consequences of the restrictions and the calls
to order on the work of his agency. ³In photo terms, whole
segments of this drama have not been covered. The reason is
simple : they wouldn¹t let us work. We could not satisfy the
demands of our clients from abroad. For instance, we could not go
to the hospitals and we can no longer freely take pictures of the
World Trade Center after the disaster.²
³The office of the mayor asked us not to show firefighters
recovering the bodies of their colleagues.² continued Don Emmert,
who also spoke out against the current working conditions on the
site. ³It¹s like a police state, he said. They let us shoot in
organized pools only what the authorities want us to shoot. The
ones who move freely around are the Marine photographers and the
photographers from the Federal Emergency Agency. They supply
agencies with very pretty photographs Even if the American press
continues to carry photos of the ruins of the World Trade Centre,
all media, including the tabloids, have to accept pools, of shots
taken from a distance and showing only the wide angle of the
site. For some journalists working in New York the reply to the debate
on the absence of images of the victims of the World Trade Center
is very simple. ³I quite honestly doubt that that there is much
left to show,² suggests the French daily Le Monde¹s
correspondent. His view is shared by Richard Hetu of the Canadian
daily La Presse, who believes that the bodies literally
³disintegrated². The World Trade Center has become an enormous
crematorium,² he continued. ³As I wrote in one article, the dust
from the debris of the World Trade Center that we are breathing
still probably includes the ashes of the victims.²
Several other incidents, comparable to press freedom violations,
characterised the life of the media after the 11 September. They
were caused by interventions by the authorities critical of one
media or another, or by the owners of the media themselves who
saw it as a good moment to sanction a particular journalist for
³subversive² comments, and sometimes by both at once, without
being able to establish with that media what the real reason for
the sanction was. So when the television network ABC decided on
19 September to no longer broadcast images of the two planes
slamming into the World Trade Center towers, it was officially so
as not to ³banalise the dramatic event². Many observers suspect
however that it was the result of pressure from the authorities
and in particular because of a desire expressed by the owner of
Disney. The most flagrant examples of corporate censorship when media
bosses sanction a journalist for his or her opinions came from
the dailies The Texas City Sun and the Daily Courier in the state
of Oregon. On 23 September Les Daughty Jr, owner of the Texas
City Sun for 17 years writes an apology to his readers for an
article by one of his editors-in-chief Ron Gutting, who said in
an article critical of President Bush on the day after the
attacks, that he was ³flying around the country like a scared
child seeking refuge in his mother¹s bed after having a
nightmare². In an article on the front page of the newspaper
Daughty apologised to all the leaders of the country and
particularly to President George Bush for having published such
an article which could only provoke ³anger and disgust². Ron
Gutting was sacked from the newspaper, the main daily in the
state of Texas, home of the Bush family.
His colleague Dan Guthrie of the Daily Courier at Grant¹s Pass
met the same fate and for similar reasons. He wrote on the 15
September on a humorous page in the newspaper that George Bush
had ³skedaddled² in the face of the attacks, accusing him of
being ³an embarrassment² for ³hiding in a Nebraska hole² on the
day of the terrorist attacks. The newspaper¹s editor-in-chief
Dennis Mack wrote for his readers that to say that the head of
state was hiding at a time when America was trying to unite after
the bloody attacks was neither responsible nor appropriate. As a
result Dan Guthrie lost his job but for ³personal reasons²,
according to his employer.` In neither case was there any apparent pressure on the part of
the authorities. It was the fierce reactions of the newspapers¹
readers that were decisive in the decision to sack the
journalists. In another case, that was widely reported in the US
press star television presenter Bill Maher drew a strong reaction
from the White House. On his talk show ³Politically Incorrect² on
ABC, Bill Maher said on 17 September, ³We have been the cowards,
lobbing cruise missiles from 2,000 miles away. That¹s cowardly.
Staying in the airplane when it hits the building, say what you
want about it, It¹s not cowardly². These comments drew the rage
of many viewers and led to the immediate withdrawal of the
programme¹s two main sponsors Federal Express and Sears. A number
of television stations linked to the ABC network, mainly in New
York and Washington, pulled the Bill Maher programme, especially
after White House spokesman Ari Fleisher called his remarks
³unpatriotic². He added, ³It was a terrible thing to say and it¹s
unfortunate.² He went on, ³The reminder is to all Americans that
they need to watch what they say, watch what they do².
Journalists who heard his statement noted later that ³watch what
they say² did not appear in the text of this official record of
the conference. Another decision of the US administration that drew much
attention was the attempt by the authorities to block the
broadcasting at the end of September of an interview with the
spiritual leader of the Taliban Mullah Omar on the
Congress-financed Voice of America. The station that is broadcast
to 50 countries worldwide, to explain America to the world,
normally has reasonable editorial independence. Claude Porsella,
head of the VOA French service told RSF about the content of the
programme. ³One of my colleagues in the Pashto language service
had the scoop of his life: an interview with Mullah Omar. VOA
never intended to broadcast the entire interview, extracts of
which were included in some general reporting including comments
from the US Administration, analysis by an Islamic expert and the
position of the Northern Alliance. Mullah Omar said he was
convinced that Osama Bin Laden could not be behind the attacks.²
The State Department, which has a seat on the VOA board, called
on the other board members to ban the interview, scheduled for 28
September. ³VOA is not the voice of Mullah Omar and is not the
voice of the Taliban², said one American official. He said it
would be ³inappropriate² to spend the backers money to broadcast
comments of the head of the movement who was protecting the
terrorists behind the 11 September attacks.
³This decision caused huge dismay among VOA journalists,² said
Claude Porsella. The head of news protested and a petition was
signed by 150 journalists. Faced with this reaction and strong
interest in the press, VOA reversed its decision and decided to
go ahead with the broadcast on 25 September. So far there have
been no sanctions on the part of the US Administration. ³We won a
battle,² said Claude Porsella. ³But I doubt the story will end
there. Heads will probably roll,² he feared.
On this occasion the VOA journalists were able to win the
solidarity of their colleagues in the major US media,
particularly the written press. In the same way the influential
daily The Washington Post opened its columns to journalist from
VOA before taking a position in an editorial on 26 September.
This read: ³The episode revealed an impulse to squelch facts that
is never far beneath the surface in time of war or quasi-war, an
impulse that is hardly less noxious when it retreats promptly
under challenge. ³But the time for editors to resist the
censoring and self-censoring instinct is before it is acted upon,
not after. We hear frequently that the only way to beat the
terrorists is to hold on to this nation¹s freedoms. Those include
honoring Americans' right to hear commentary that bothers some
and to glimpse the thoughts of enemies.²
At the beginning of October, the American authorities once more
expressed their annoyance towards the media which allow a voice
to ³enemies of America². This time it was the Arabic Television
station Al-Jazeera, based in Qatar that drew the ire of Bush
Administration by broadcasts footage and interviews with Taliban
leaders or with Osama Bin Laden. The station is famous for its
1998 interview with the man they call ³the head of El Qaeda².
This interview was broadcast uncut, on several occasions, after
11 September. On ³ September the American ambassador in Qatar
officially intervened with the authorities in the country to
protest against this ³incendiary rhetoric² by the station, which
is accused of supplying ³biased² coverage of the events of 11
September as well as ³encouraging anti-American feelings² in the
Middle East. On 3 October following an interview with the US
Secretary of State Colin Powell in Washington, Sheikh Hamad bin
Khalifa el-Thani, Emir of Qatar, and main shareholder in the
station, said that US officials had asked him to use his
authority to influence the coverage. The Emir said he would not
interfere with the editorial policy of Al-Jazeera. The US
Administration again complained about the broadcast, the day
after the first US air strikes, the words of Osama Bin Laden
warning the United States that it would ³live in fear². A State
Department official told Reuters: ³Yes to freedom but we think
it's beyond the pale to provide an open platform for these sort
of violent ideas. We're concerned everywhere that Osama bin Laden
not to be able to use the media to spread his ideas². At the same
time President Bush would be willing to speak on the station.
Al-Jazeera, which has had a permanent studio in Kabul since 1998,
is one of the rare media still present in the Afghan capital and
at Kandahar. Known for the quality of its programmes, his
professionalism and independence, the "CNN of the Arab world² is
regularly criticized by Arab countries which fear the platform it
gives to opposition of all kinds. Conclusion: Is the First Amendment in danger?
US lawyer and expert on the American Constitution Floyd Abrams
says that America often debates issues like patriotism and free
speech n times of crisis. He considers that the First Amendment
is put to the test when the country is too. When the country felt
threatened, its existence challenged, the First Amendment and its
values were sometimes subordinated to other priorities.
This opinion is apparently shared by several US organisations for
defence of press freedom, who believe it is too soon to become
alarmed by the events that have been outlined in this report.
Lucy Daglish, head of the Reporters Committee for the Freedom of
the Press said she was not unduly concerned. She felt that the
media, like the rest of society had become hypersensitive, after
the attacks. Her organisation had noted the consequences of the
11 September attacks, but without taking up a position. In an
interview with head of the Committee To Protect Journalists (CPJ)
Ann Cooper and deputy head Joel Simon, the main US-based
worldwide press freedom organisation, said they consider that
much more serious violations of press freedom were going on in
other parts of the world. Ann Cooper said she thought the US
State Department¹s criticism of VOA demonstrated an almost
instinctive reflex by governments in times of conflict, not to
broadcast the words of their adversaries. In some countries this
had the force of law, she said. In Russia media which published
interviews with Chechen faced legal action. In Angola, police had
detained journalists who quoted a rebel commander. ³The crucial
difference is that VOA broadcast the interview, despite the
opposition of the State Department and has so far not suffered
any sanction.² But Ann Coooper stressed that it was the tolerance
of a free press that kept democracy alive. She did not feel that
the press was in danger in the United States. ³American
journalists don¹t need us to defend them. They have their media
and the entire profession to back them in case of danger.²
Tim Golstein of Columbia School of Journalism also shares this
view and is confident that the American media can defend its own
interests. ³patriotism, independence, freedom of speech: we
debate these questions practically every day whether in
newspapers or in university lecture halls. But it is far too soon
to draw conclusions from this debate.² Media who had so far done
an excellent job in covering the attacks should now try to do the
same for the rest: continue to do the same good job, but in time
of conflict. Following this investigation in Paris and New York, Reporters
Sans Frontières nevertheless considers that a number of points of
concern remain: - Several attempts by the US authorities aimed at regulating the
work of the media have been reported: Arrests of photographers
near the World Trade Center, the desire of the security forces to
filter images taken at the site, an attempt to ban an interview
with Mullah Omar on VOA and the pressure on the Qatar-based TV
station Al-Jazeera to stop broadcasting footage of Osama Bin
Laden. All these interventions, in whatever context, are
unacceptable. - Moves against confidentiality on the internet, along with a
certain number of measures within the ³anti-terrorist²
legislation that is currently being examined, constitute a real
threat to individual and collective freedoms.
- The symbiosis which appears to operate between the tone of the
main audio-visual industry and official US policy could
eventually militate against the watchdog role of the media in a
democracy. - The cases outlined of corporate censorship, such as the
sackings of the two journalists for comments considered
outrageous, could lead to self-censorship and an absence of
criticism in the press. - The setting up of ³pools² of photographers at the World Trade
Center site and the complexities of the accreditation system do
not bode well for a free and independent coverage of the actions
taken by the United States in reprisal for the terrorist attacks
of 11 September. At this difficult time for the United States, in these times of
emotion, even of legitimate anger, RSF has nevertheless been able
to verify the strength of the principles of the First Amendment
in this country. Among the numerous articles devoted to this
subject by the main daily newspapers, RSF has especially noted
the reaction of a reader of the New York Times to the debate
provoked by the words of Bill Maher. ³It is the television
stations that drop ³Politically Incorrect² and the advertisers
that boycott the show, who are the ones guilty of a lack of
patriotism, not its host Bill Maher. It would be chilling if one
of the first casualties of our war for freedom was our right to
debate all opinions vigorously, no matter how unpopular, here at
home. Whatever the nature of Mr Maher¹s misinterpreted remarks,
his rights and those of his guests to exercise freedom of speech
should not be silenced.² (Scott Blakeman, New York, 26 September, 2001) --
Vincent Brossel
|