Panel 1: "Auf dem Weg zum globalen Bildermarkt". Terror- und Kriegsberichte zwischen Zensur und Manipulation
Diana MoukalledI never felt the power of picture as it was illustrated most vividly on 911. Later, I observed the ability of the picture to also deceive and to isolate events from their real circumstances. That was illustrated in the coverage of the war on Afghanistan. And while millions of dollars were spent amid fierce competition among the media to cover the war, there was little well to ponder whether what was being transmitted reflected the truth that the entire world was anxious to learn.
On October 7, I was in the Pakistani city of Peshawar where journalists from all over the world stood behind their cameras, satellite phones, and computers, waiting to transmit the first reactions to the start of the American strikes against Kabul. During that time, the coverage inside Afghanistan was granted exclusively to Al-Jazeera network.
At that night, a group of journalists rushed to the streets of the city expecting to see demonstrations protesting the war. But the movement in the streets of Peshawar was hardly changed. A group of Pakistani and Afghans gathered in a street café sipping tea. They were watching an Indian film when the journalists burst inside and told them that the American war planes had started bombing Afghanistan. They seemed confused, not as much about the news itself as about the abrupt intrusion by the press. One cameraman asked them to change the station to which they were tuned and turn into a news channel that was broadcasting the raids. The journalists then started to take pictures of them as they were following news. Those who were gathering at the café took to the streets carrying pictures of Bin Laden. They were actually doing what the journalists asked them to do. They cheered Bin Laden laughing and chanting "death to America". The photographers achieved their 'scoop' and rushed to their ultra sophisticated machines to satellite images of the "rage" that swept the streets of Pakistan due to the American bombing. As soon as the journalists left, the group of the Pakistanis and Afghans went back to continue watching the Indian film, while the media exercised itself in analyzing the fallouts of the reactions of the Pakistani street and the possibility of the collapse of Prevez Musharraf regime in face of the angry Muslims.
I had visited Afghanistan in year 2000 when the Taliban regime was still thriving. In the same trip I visited also Pakistan and its religious schools, Madrasas, from where the leaders of Taliban and Al-Qaeda had graduated. Last October, with the beginning of the war, I spent 35 days during which I maintained daily contact with journalists from different news organizations and different countries. I thus had the opportunity to examine how Western reporters perceived the event and dealt with it and compare it with Arab media. Journalists from all over the world, including myself, were still deeply affected by the images of death and destruction that we saw live on Sep.11.
Along with the feelings of shock and horror, preconceptions dominated much of the debate. "Arabs and Muslims are a group of terrorists". That was a ready answer. For many, it was an easy way out, rather than a proper investigation about the roots of the crisis. "Arabs and Muslims are terrorists". An easy answer, but what followed was disastrous for us. Such preconceived labels dominated the views of many journalists as they covered the events. While generalizing is wrong, one cannot deny the simplistic and misleading coverage of many media reports.
Most Arab news coverage was dominated by the attitudes of the Arab governments. These governments were allied with the United States and concerned, if one may say, about any possible American reaction following 911. Arab journalists were swayed by a concealed feeling of the need for self defense against accusations that stained Arabs and Muslims since 911. There was unofficial commitment among Arab media to view Usama Bin Laden as a terrorist. Yet, there were attempts to mitigate other givens especially illustrated by the sympathy of wide segments of the Arab streets towards Taliban, Al Qaeda, Islamic hardliners in Pakistan and Islamic worlds in general. Many news organizations had to endure the impact they have had. The Arab media focused on the political developments and on the agony of the Afghan refugees. They almost ignored the practices of Al Qaeda and Taliban. Rarely did the Arab media address issues of women and human rights under the Taliban rule.
On the other hand, though Western journalists belonged to a more liberated and democratic environment than their Arab counterparts, many of them were chained to certain agendas and predetermined attitudes. An Italian journalist told me that her editor instructed her to minimize her coverage of the question of the Afghan refugees, and to focus instead on Taliban. According to this journalist, her editor did not want to divert the public sympathy towards Afghanistan. Another European presenter, that I have met in Pakistan, had a ready prescription on how to end Islamic extremism. He said in one of our discussions that the Americans should bomb all males who live under Taliban, as well as Muslim Pakistani males. Only women and children should be saved. Perhaps the Sep. 11 brought to the surface his already maintained prejudices. It was clear that the war in Afghanistan made him more comfortable with his views instead of driving him to seek backgrounds to understand what happened.
Journalists did face many obstacles in covering the war on Afghanistan; lack of security, confusion, inhospitable terrain and bad weather added to the political instability which made the objective presentation of news and analysis a difficult task. A few journalists can say that they truly covered the war in Afghanistan, even after the fall of Taliban and the Alliance forces controlled Kabul. The restrictions that the Taliban imposed and later the forces of the Alliance represented a true obstacle in knowing what really happened. The fall of Kabul was accompanied by a state of confusion among the media, which was illustrated by the killing of a number of journalists as they were trying to cross the borders.
Al-Jazeera correspondents were evicted, while the American war planes intentionally bombed their station in Kabul. No ethical questions were raised as if that was a normal thing. CNN recovered its standing with the influence of the Alliance forces and the Western media regained what Al-Jazeera had monopolized for weeks. At that time, Arab journalists suffered from the reputation of Al Qaeda and Bin Laden. They were unwelcome, and some were harassed. Very few Arab journalists managed to enter Afghanistan at that time, they thus focused on their status as victims of discrimination.
In the meantime, events on the field were unfolding rapidly and the course of those events was confusing. Mazar-el-Sharif fell and later did Kabul. Many irregularities took place…who recalls them?? The battle of Ganji fortress remains a mystery. The hundreds of Taliban and Al Qaeda prisoners who were killed in the so called uprising didn't raise much attention among the media. We all remember the vague images of a battle, and bodies that littered the earth. One Afghan kicking a dead body while another extracts a golden tooth from another dead corpse. We saw tens of prisoners long haired bearded. They were in a terrible state with their hands tied. The cameras went around, while an American reporter moved in front of a camera practicing the role of a military interrogator, asking one prisoner who was trying to cover his face: why do you cover you face?? Are you an Arab?? That journalist illustrated the McCarthyism that dominated the American media coverage since 911.
To this day, we don't truly know what happened in Mazar-e-Sherif and in the Ganji fortress. We don't know why all those people were killed? What happened to the war prisoners both in Afghanistan and in Guantanamo Bay? To date, we don't know what took place in Tora Bora. To date, we don't know what happened in Kandahar wedding that was bombed by the Americans early this summer causing number of deaths. Arab media treated the dead and the prisoners of Ganji fortress as victims. Few Western journalists asked tough questions about the morality of what happened. It is a war against evil, according to President Bush`s division of the world, and many of the media, especially the American, adopted that explanation and portrayed the prisoners as so. Thos who were killed at Ganji were not all victims or all villains…In fact, we never found out. At a minimum, media have a responsibility to fully investigate war crimes and the civilian death toll of the military operation against Afghanistan. During the past year's coverage that issue was not seriously addressed.
One exception to this reluctance was the August 26 Newsweek story, "the Death Convoy of Afghanistan". In it, Newsweek documented war crimes committed by the U.S's Afghan poxy troops causing the suffocation to death of many hundreds of prisoners in sealed container trucks under the orders of Afghan forces with close ties to the U.S. That article investigates into one of the dirty little secrets of the Afghan war.
I believe that what we did in Afghanistan, as journalists, was professionally poor and misleading. And if things continue the way they are, I wonder how the war that Washington is preparing against Iraq will be covered.
After my return to Beirut, I learned that my seniors have received many complaints, and was even subjected to some pressure from some religious groups over our channel's coverage of the war and what they called "a negative reporting" of Taliban and Al Qaeda. It is no secret that there is an irrational sympathy with Al Qaeda and Bin Laden in the Arab and Muslim street. That sympathy is mainly driven by Anti-American policy attitudes.
Observing how the Arab media performed, it was clear that Al Jazeera network acted as a forum for Usama Bin Laden and Taliban attracting considerable audience. That prompted other competing networks, who did not share the views of Al Jazeera, to pay large sums of money to buy and broadcast one of Bin Laden videos that used to appear mysteriously. Arab media remains hostage to the formula that tries to accommodate the tyranny of Arab regimes and the public mood … On the other hand, the formula is no less complicated in the West. The media voices that cheered the war in Afghanistan and transformed the Arabs and Muslims into groups of terrorists seemed no less dangerous.
I have visited the U.S last April in order to examine the changes that followed 911. I was often confronted with explanations that linked Sep. 11 attacks with devilish intentions and never go beyond. Many of the U.S media reinforced such conviction. It was hard to convince most of whom I have met that understanding the roots of the problem and knowing the backgrounds of the terrorist attacks on Sep.11 does not mean justifying it.
In return for the criticism that was and still waged against the Arab media for using such terms as martyrs instead of suiciders, and its transmission of hostile views of Israel and the U.S, I found the situation in the U.S representing the contrast of the equation; connecting terror with Muslims, Palestinians, and Arabs in general, and supporting the war efforts of the American Administration, plus reinforcing a nationalistic spirit that tilted toward racism, instead of maintaining democratic principles. When I tried to visit the offices of Fox News in New York to ask how the net work justified the way its journalists dealt with the events following the 911, the media official told me that he found no use to waste the time of his producers and journalists with us.
The biggest failure of the media following 911 is, the inability to provide the public with a clear image and a balanced background to the events. Many of the media avoided asking tough questions. Consequently, an environment of conflicting interpretations prevailed of a war in which media coverage was confused with propaganda campaigns.
Antonia Rados
Unsere Welt ist erschreckend gewaltsam. Die Anschläge am 11.September, haben es uns allen gezeigt, egal, wo man sich befand. Sie waren, könnte man behaupten, das erste globale Horrorerlebnis, bei dem Millionen und aber Millionen via Satelliten sehen konnten, wie tausende Menschen ums Leben kamen. Niemand konnte sich der Macht dieser Bilder entziehen, aber nicht jeder sah dieselben Bilder.
Vor kurzem erzählte mir eine algerische Fotografin, wie sie diesen "9/11" - wie die Amerikaner inzwischen den Tag der Anschläge nennen, erlebt hatte. Sie befand sich in einem Dorf in der Wüste, im Süden Algeriens. Es gab nur ein Fernsehgerät beim Bürgermeister, aber die gesamte Bevölkerung kam herbei und starrte auf den Apparat. Alle glaubten, es wäre das Ende der Welt, sagte die Fotografin.
Diese Einschätzung hätte genauso von einem Bewohner New Yorks kommen können. Aber plötzlich sei einer daher gekommen, der behauptete, es sei alles in Hollywood fabriziert worden. Man sollte hinzufügen, dass in Algerien seit 1989 rund 100 000 Menschen bei einem blutigen Bürgerkrieg ums Leben gekommen sind, so dass ein jeder eigentlich wissen sollte, was islamischer Terror sein kann.
Ähnliche Verschwörungsthesen habe ich übrigens auch in Pakistan gehört, wo sogar Universitätsprofessoren keinen Zweifel daran hegten, dass der israelische Geheimdienst hinter den Anschlägen stecke.
Einer, der beim Fernsehen arbeitet, wäre auf diese Idee nie gekommen, egal ob er für das private oder öffentlich–rechtliche TV arbeitet, weil er genau weiss, wie schwierig und technisch unsicher sogar live-Übertragungen eines Fußballspiels sind, geschweige denn so dramatische Ereignisse wie die im September 2001!
Aber trotzdem wurde auch ein Buch zum Besteller, in dem behauptet wird, auf das Pentagon wäre gar kein Flugzeug gefallen, sondern alles sei eine Art Mega-Manipulation des Weißen Hauses, um über diesen Umweg die Erdölvorräte in Zentralasien unter Kontrolle zu bekommen. Das Buch hat kein Pakistani oder Saudi geschrieben, sondern einer aus dem Reich der Rationalität, Frankreich.
Wir leben also nicht nur in einer gefährlichen Welt, sondern auch auf einem schizophrenen Planeten. Anders hat es der Chefredakteur der liberalen israelischen Zeitung Ha'aretz betreffend der Berichterstattung im Nahen Osten ausgedrückt. Er sagte, es sei unmöglich mit modernen technischen Mittel über religiöse Konflikte zu berichten, "ohne den inhärenten Widerspruch zu berücksichtigen".
Die Frage, die sich Fernsehvertretern in aller Welt aber stellt, denn Al Jazeera besitzt keine schlechtere Technik als CNN, lautet: wie sollen wir mit diesem "inhärenten Widerspruch" umgehen? Oder anders gesagt, ist es nicht auch vor allem eine Frage, wie eine Gesellschaft das Phänomen Gewalt sieht? Die Darstellung der "Gewalt" war schon vor dem 11. September der wunde Punkt der Medien.
Unsere europäischen und amerikanischen Anstalten haben sich den Vorwurf gefallen lassen müssen, Krieg und Gewalt als Spektakel dazustellen, aber man kann diesen Vorwurf auch arabischen Sender nicht ersparen. Arafats Fernsehsender ruft unverhohlen zur Gewalt auf und einige Trailer beim bekannten Sender Al Jazeera würden bei keinem unserer TV-Kritiker Gnade finden.
Der Philosoph Karl Popper hat geschrieben, dass es die wichtigste Funktion einer Zivilisation sei, Gewalt zu reduzieren. Es war in einem Artikel über das Fernsehen.
Jan Repa
Since at least the American Civil War, journalists have possessed the means to present to the wider public a direct image of warfare. Photographs of the killing fields of Antietam and Spottsylvania could be viewed in the drawing rooms of Boston and Philadelphia a few days after the events they recorded, dispelling the notion of handsome young men in elegant uniforms, waving pistols and crying, "Follow me boys!" Since then, journalists and generals have been locked in an ambiguous embrace. Sometimes, journalists have "served the cause" - reinforcing images of heroism and success. Sometimes they have tried, in varying degrees, to witness and interpret the truth, as they have felt it to be.
The BBC has traditionally taken a lofty approach to its vocation. Take the word "terrorist". No, say the editors, we don't use the term. "Terrorism" is just about acceptable, if civilians have been deliberately targeted and there is no doubt as to the facts of the case. Better to explain what actually happened - and leave it to listeners and viewers to draw their own conclusions. So much for the theory. What about the practice? We in the BBC World Service, facing, as we do, a world audience, have to be particularly careful in this regard. Our colleagues, a few miles down the road in domestic broadcasting, bandish the term far more freely.
Anyone seeing footage of the collapsing World Trade Centre towers, a year ago, might have been allowed to let their heart rule their head - at least for a while. It came as a shock, a few days later, when panellists on a BBC "Questiontime" programme found themselves facing a wave of anti-American sentiment from sections of the studio audience. Since then, according to senior BBC editors, the need for "a more objective look" was accepted. Should editors and journalists follow public opinion, or lead it? Well, in most cases, they end up somewhere in between.
Subsequent coverage of the fighting in Afghanistan provided some telling lessons. The first - was the enormous pressure exerted by the need for "continuous news" and competition with rival stations. Correspondents - barely able to stand from exhaustion - had to go on filing, on time and on cue. "Have you got the footage?" - was the No 1 question. The term "militainment" - a conflation of "military" and "entertainment" - has been coined to denote a reality manufactured for the TV screens.
From the start, the Pentagon tried to impose tight control over the flow of information. Special forces, like the British SAS, expect to operate in complete secrecy. There was no hiding the anger and discomfort of one group, suddenly caught in the lenses of hand-held cameras - images almost immediately relayed down the video-phone. Claimed successes could be verified or contradicted more easily than in previous conflicts.
Temptation comes in many guises. One, arguably, is to elevate the journalist into a hero - parodied by the mock-headline, "BBC Correspondent Liberates Kabul". But let's not kid ourselves. Journalists are not soldiers. Many, in practice, found themselves forced to live on the military base at Bagram, where they relied on military hospitality, military facilities and unverifiable military information radioed down from the mountains. Relations grew ever more tense and untrusting - even on the few occasions that journalists could accompany troops. The relationship between freedom and necessity is a traditional staple of moral philosophy. Issues are rarely clear-cut; and life would be unstimulating if they were. In the end, intelligence, competence and integrity have their place in journalism as in other professions.
A. Trevor Thrall
War, Terrorism, and the News: The Struggle for Control
As daunting as the technical, financial, and logistical challenges of the War on Terror are, the true challenge for the Bush Administration is creating an atmosphere of public willingness to fund, develop, and deploy the counter-terrorism measures being discussed today, including the very real prospect of conducting another war against Iraq.
Without public support today, President Bush will not be able to build the Homeland Security Department he seeks and he will not be able to execute the National Homeland Security Strategy he has issued. Just as importantly, without public support he will find himself far fewer options for dealing with Iraq and other potential threats to American interests. And, of course, if President Bush does rally the necessary support for the deployment of American troops into new conflicts, he must ensure that he retains that support throughout the conflict in the face of whatever casualties and other costs are incurred.
This talk makes the central argument that since Vietnam the American presidential response to the challenge of public opinion has been to make media strategy a central element of military strategy. Presidents, government officials, and military leaders all believe that the news media, especially in time of war, have a powerful impact on public opinion and that news coverage, especially coverage that focuses on American casualties and the horrible toll of war, can turn the public against wars and against presidents. This fear drives presidents to attempt to control news coverage.
The thrust of these strategies has been to dominate the news through a combination of controlling journalists' access to the battlefield and other key locations while using carefully prepared briefings, video footage, and other materials to influence what is written and broadcast for the public. At the same time, however, the fear of negative news coverage and the belief in the power of public opinion has also led to real shifts in military strategy and doctrine in the US. Since Vietnam it is hard to find anyone in American policymaking circles who believes that the US can or should attempt to conduct a conflict without a clearly justified mission, which has no defined exit strategy, or simply looks like it might cause too many casualties.
Even as presidents seek to control the news, however, journalists and news organizations seek to evade control in their efforts to report meaningful news. The daily "struggle for control" that occurs between government and press continues and intensifies during times of national tension and conflict. In addition, governmental efforts to control the news are limited by many obstacles including the use of new communication technologies that allow news to be gathered at a distance and reported instantaneously, by the geography of a conflict, and even by the enemy's use of their own media strategies, just to name a few.
The outcome of this struggle – what news will be seen, heard, and read by the public and with what consequences – could not be more central to the healthy functioning of a democratic society. This talk thus concludes by using the struggle for control as a lens through which to examine three key aspects of the War on Terror in the US: the creation of homeland security policy and the new Homeland Security Department, the prosecution of the War on Terror inside US borders, and the potential for waging war outside US borders.