Post 11th September scenario — what should be the
role of media?
From Maliha R. Ilias
Washington DC
Oct 22 - 28, 2001
All of us now know, after Sept. 11th, what it is to
thirst for news. What it is to wait for the morning paper and read
everything in every magazine or internet site or email so that we can
get more informed. What it is to have the crackle of the radio in the
background as news pieces pour in. What it is to forget about all the TV
dramas and movie shows and music programs and skip right to the news
networks. And in all this, two news agencies have figured in as the gods
of information, reeling in viewers from every cranny of the globe. CNN
and BBC have gone from being watched by the educated, influential
business exec types to being the ultimate source of information for
every type, shape and form of person in the world.
This is not to say that the British Broadcasting
Corporation and the Cable News Network were not well watched before
Sept. 11th. Especially CNN gained a lot of audience during the Gulf War.
But Sept. 11th has brought these two news giants into everyone’s lives
as never before. Everyone switches to these two channels, visits their
web sites and depends on their news anchors, reporters and staff to
learn about the rapidly changing face of the world. Every morning means
something new has happened and CNN and BBC are the first to tell you the
whats, the whos, the wheres, the hows and the whys. We, as citizens of
the world and less as consumers of the news, have grown dependent on
these two news channels to show us the world. We now open CNN and BBC as
we once used to open the curtains of our bedrooms in the morning.
News personnel from these two stations have taken
over celebrity status during the last few weeks. Everyone knows Paula
Zahn, Tim Mintier, Nic Robertson, Christian Amanpour and many others, as
we once knew sportsmen, musicians and actors. Although the attention
both CNN and BBC have received recently is heady, it brings with it
enormous responsibility. When the world hangs on everything you say, you
have to be careful what you say and how you say it. The stories that
they cover and how they cover them have the power to literally shape
world opinion. One controversial footage or one controversial story can
cause disruption or ease it in the lives of many people. The
questionable footage of Palestinians celebrating in the streets coupled
with the word "Islamic terrorists" used by every reporter
within hours of the attacks in New York and Washington had dire outcomes
for people all over the world. A huge backlash erupted against Muslims
and prejudice against Islam and Muslims crept into the hearts of many a
liberated nation. Then, tactfully done stories and programs on Islamic
beliefs that condemn violence rather than condone it brought relief to
many Muslims in the world. People began to study Islam and befriend
Muslims around them to dampen the backlash and encourage understanding
and friendship. At the same time, investigative reports like the widely
watched "Beneath the Veil" caused uproar among Muslims and
Non-Muslims alike. People gaped in horror and disbelief. Non-Muslims
didn’t know what to make of the Taliban and the religion that was
their main motivation. Muslims, on the other hand, tried desperately to
tell the world that Islam as a religion was very different to the
culture practiced by many Muslim countries. Within days, news channels
had opened a Pandora box of feelings and attitudes experienced by the
whole world. As people watched, horror, anger, resentment, openness,
understanding, disgust, shame, confusion and many other emotions flitted
to the surface and sat brooding on the shoulders of the world. That’s
the kind of control the media has on us today.
Then the war began. The one-sided war as an angry
nation took revenge on an easy target. A strange war as the attacked
watched and didn’t know what was going to land on them, bombs or
relief packages of food. America bombed the Taliban and simultaneously
endeavored to feed the Afghanis. As targeted cruise missiles hit the
places the American government thought needed to be hit, boxes of food
landed in certain areas of the country containing a day’s supply of
non-meat food products and leaflets proclaiming "This food is a
gift from the United States of America."
In America, the average American woke up on Sunday to
see the words "America strikes back" highlighted under CNN
reporters. Besides these three words, nothing appeared on the screen or
out of the news anchor’s mouth to tell people exactly what had been
hit, who had been killed and how did they know if they were bombing the
right places. All that average Americans got from the news media and
then eventually from the President’s address to the nation was that
Osama bin Laden and the Taliban were being sought out and targeted, the
Taliban’s "air defense system" was being crippled, their
"key defenses" were being shut down and all military
operations were being carried out by the U.S. with military help from
the British and a lot of support from the international coalition. While
the details of the actual events and operations were not delved into and
the President even refused to share information with Congress, the news
channels were more interested in covering the relief effort. Americans
knew more about what kind of food was in the relief packages than they
knew about the number of civilians who were at risk in Afghanistan.
Americans were called on to pray for the Afghani civilians, especially
women and children and just recently the President has called on the
children of America to establish an American Fund for the Afghan
Children.
Although the war on foreign ground is not being
openly discussed with the general public in America, they have however
been given another war to deal with. The war on the home front, which
translates to more terrorist attacks on Americans in the future and
which has left the already horrified nation panic-stricken. Headlines in
major newspapers say things like "Red Alert" (New York Post
10/12/01) and "Terrorist Attacks Imminent" (Washington Post
10/12/01). As if the threat of biochemical terrorism was not enough to
make Americans hysterical, the new threat of more terrorist attacks like
the ones on Sept. 11th have left many paranoid and shaken. "People
are scared to go to their mailboxes," says Oprah Winfrey, a
prominent American talk show host, in the wake of the many cases of
anthrax infection erupting across America. Gas masks are flying off the
shelves and fire fighters are bringing home their protective gear for
their families. Furthermore, new and more complicated threats are also
surfacing for example the threat of computer terrorism where officials
fear that computer viruses might be used by terrorists to disrupt life
in America.
On top of all this, in President Bush’s first press
conference since the beginning of the American military operation in
Afghanistan, Bush urged Americans that if they "see something
suspicious, abnormal, something that looks threatening" to
"report it to local law enforcement." Thank goodness he also
remembered to "urge" "Americans not to use this is an
excuse to pick on somebody that doesn’t look like you or doesn’t
share your religion." Otherwise, the way that the media has managed
to exacerbate mass paranoia among people of this country, I wouldn’t
be surprised if the FBI were called in because someone had seen a
bearded man brush his teeth on his porch.
Now lets change gears and backtrack to Sunday Oct.
7th, when the military operation against Afghanistan began. Out of the
blue came this new TV station which aired a tape of Osama bin Laden
urging the Muslim world to react, respond and retaliate. Most people
watched this tape on CNN on the day America began its attacks and
wondered what on earth was the Arabic writing all over the screen. Enter
Al-Jazeera, the new player in this game of information mongering.
Suddenly, "The West tunes in to Al-Jazeera"(Dobbs. Washington
Post. 10/9/01). Everyone was interested in this new 24-hour satellite
news station that was more well known, despite its young age, than its
host country, Qatar. It was amusing to read how, in its short life, this
all-Arabic news station that operated from within a country of 600,000
"with little tradition of press freedom" has managed to
"irritate just about everybody from the U.S. State Department to
Muslim fundamentalists to Saudi Arabia and the conservative Arab
sheikdoms of the Gulf" (Dobbs. Washington Post. 10/9/01).
At this moment of crisis when the world thirsts for
every piece of news, Al-Jazeera is the only channel with any
journalistic links to al-Qaeda and inside Afghanistan. Thus, Al-Jazeera
is gaining the kind of importance acquired by CNN during the Gulf war.
But Al-Jazeera’s coverage of bin Laden and Afghanistan during wartime
has not only brought it to the attention of the world’s news consumers
but also to the attention of the American officials. Secretary Powell
lost no time in expressing his concern to the emir of Qatar that by
airing messages of bin Laden and al-Qaeda, the network might be doing
bin Laden’s job for him by spreading his propaganda message. Later,
American officials openly urged American news networks to exercise
caution in airing bin Laden’s messages which were at best propaganda
and at worst direct signals to al-Qaeda members to put more terrorist
attacks into action. When the Committee to Protect Journalists rushed to
defend Al-Jazeera, an American official commented, "We want to see
balanced and responsible coverage" (Dobbs. Washington Post.
10/9/01).
My question is what is responsible coverage? Surely
airing footage of celebrating Palestinians hours after the horrible
attacks on America is far from "responsible coverage." Does
"balanced and responsible coverage" include pointing fingers
at "Islamic fundamentalism" within hours of the attack and
before the collection of evidence ? Don’t programs like "Beneath
the Veil", that disgust and confuse Non-Muslims about the treatment
of women in Islam, qualify as propaganda ? Does focusing on one aspect
of the war and not the other mean "balanced coverage?" Is
involving audiences in their own safety at the expense of telling them
about others who are equally innocent civilians and already in harm’s
way, "balanced coverage?" Does exacerbating public fear and
increasing public paranoia by covering even the tiniest threats equate
to "responsible coverage?" If we do not argue with the way
news has been given to us for so long, then should we be so quick to
shun any news item ?
Isn’t journalism a pursuit of the true story from
all possible perspectives with no biases? Then how is Al-Jazeera any
different from any other network. "So what if he (Tayseer Allouni,
the Syrian who is the only reporter in Kabul right now) has a
beard?" argues Yosri Fouda,Al-Jazeer’ London bureau chief and a
former BBC reporter. "It’s like Christian Amanpour (CNN’s chief
international reporter) putting on a head scarf when she goes to Iran as
a mark of respect to Islam" (Dobbs. Washington Post. 10/9/01).
"Bin Laden talks to us for the same reason that Colin Powell talks
to us or Shimon Peres talks to us. He wants to get his message across to
the Arab world" (Dobbs. Washington Post. 10/9/01).
I think that Fouda’s words are profound in the
context of journalistic virtue and freedom. Reporting is not about
taking sides or about highlighting some things at the expense of others.
Journalism is all about covering the black, the white and the gray
because all three colors exist in the world. As Chris Carter’s once
hit TV show "The X-Files" proclaimed, "The Truth if Out
There." I believe that everyone has the right to go find it.
|
