| |
|
 |
|
|
|
| |
Download |
|
| |
000000 |
|
| 1. |
UNITED
STATES : Between
the pull of patriotism and self-censorship |
|
| 2. |
Some
600 'released' foreign prisoners still in Bangladeshi jails
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
Interview
: present situation in Chittagong Hill Tacks and Human Rights
(Bangla) |
|
| 5. |
International
Religious Freedom Report, October'2001: Country - Bangladesh
|
|
| 6. |
International
Religious Freedom Report 2003 |
|
| |
|
|
| |
000000 |
|
UNITED
STATES : Between
the pull of patriotism and self-censorship
The US media in torment after 11 September
|
|
| |
| 000 |
|
Investigation:
Alexandre Levy and Francois Bugingo
New York September 26 / October 2 2001 |
|
| 0000 |
|
| Observers
cast doubt on the objectivity of the American press |
|
| 00 |
|
| 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 11September.
|
|
| 000 |
|
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.
|
|
| 0000 |
|
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 Œsecondary¹.
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.
|
|
| 0000 |
|
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.
|
|
| 000 |
|
| The
first suspect: Internet |
|
| 0000 |
|
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.
|
|
| 0000 |
|
| 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. |
|
| 000 |
|
In
the same vein, a number of US leaders have started attacking
encryption. This procedure allows internet-users to enjoy confidentiality
when exchanging information on the Internet with the use of
encryption software. the best known being PGP (Pretty Good Privacy),
which can be freely downloaded from a number of sites. Already
last March the head of the FBI Louis Freeh said he was convinced
that terrorist networks were using encryption. On 13 September
the Republican
senator Judd Gregg called in a speech to Congress for a worldwide
ban on encryption software unless public authorities had been
given the means to decode the messages. ³One could fear
that the authorities could take advantage of the emotion of
the moment to achieve their objective: banning encryption²
one American proponent of PGP told RSF. Other privacy protection
militants such as John Gilmore of the American organisation
Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) called for creation of
more sites which would offer encryption software on open sale.
|
|
| 0000 |
|
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).
|
|
| 000 |
|
| Television:
From spontaneity to patriotic rigour |
|
| 000 |
|
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
|
|
| 000 |
|
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.
|
|
| 000 |
|
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.
|
|
| 000 |
|
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 ttacked 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.
|
|
| 00000 |
|
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
|
|
| 000 |
|
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 ropagandist 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
|
|
| 000 |
|
| Missing
images: censorship or ³question of taste² |
|
| 000 |
|
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.
|
|
| 000 |
|
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
|
|
| 0000 |
|
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.
|
|
| 00000 |
|
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.
|
|
| 00000 |
|
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
|
|
| 00000 |
|
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
|
|
| 0000 |
|
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.
|
|
| 00 |
|
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
|
|
| 0000 |
|
| Arrests
and calls to order |
|
| 00000 |
|
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.
|
|
| 00000 |
|
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.
|
|
| 0000 |
|
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
|
|
| 00000 |
|
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.
|
|
| 0000 |
|
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
|
|
| 0000 |
|
| America
should not speak with the same voice as its enemies |
|
| 00000 |
|
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.
|
|
| 00000 |
|
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.
|
|
| 000 |
|
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.`
|
|
| 00000 |
|
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.
|
|
| 000 |
|
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.
|
|
| 000 |
|
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.
|
|
| 000 |
|
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
|
|
| 0000 |
|
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.
|
|
| 0000 |
|
| Conclusion:
Is the First Amendment in danger? |
|
| 0000 |
|
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.
|
|
| 0000 |
|
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
|
|
| 00000 |
|
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.
|
|
| 0000 |
|
| Following
this investigation in Paris and New York, Reporters Sans Frontières
nevertheless considers that a number of points of concern remain: |
|
| 000 |
|
-
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.
|
|
| 0000 |
|
-
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.
|
|
| 000 |
|
-
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.
|
|
| 000000 |
|
-
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.
|
|
| 0000000 |
|
-
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.
|
|
| 0000 |
|
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)
|
|
| 000 |
|
Vincent
Brossel
Asia - Pacific Desk
Reporters Sans Frontières
www.rsf.org
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| Home
| Contacts
| Search | |
|
| 000000 |
|
Photo
: Abir Abdullah/ Drik
|
|
| 000000 |
|
|
|
