By Norman Solomon
The Committee to Protect Journalists released a bleak
report the other day. "Attacks on the Press in 2001"
is a thick document with details about media
suppression in much of the world. While American
readers may feel very fortunate, they have no good
reason to be smug.
Last year, the report says, 37 journalists were killed
because of their work. Many more were jailed or
physically attacked. In some countries the jeopardy is
primarily legal; elsewhere the main dangers are
assault and murder. But -- one way or another --
journalistic pursuit of truth can bring grim
consequences.
Worldwide, the picture is largely dismal. But also
inspiring. Despite serious and ever-present hazards in
numerous countries, a lot of journalists keep setting
aside fear to do their jobs with integrity.
Meanwhile, anyone who assumes that the USA is setting
a great example should reconsider. The Committee to
Protect Journalists points out that some ominous steps
began as last autumn got underway. "The U.S. State
Department contacted the Voice of America, a broadcast
organization funded by the federal government, and
expressed concern about the radio broadcast of an
exclusive interview with Taliban leader Mullah
Mohammed Omar." Later on, VOA head Robert Reilly
"distributed a memo barring interviews with officials
from 'nations that sponsor terrorism.'"
In early October, as the U.S. government geared up for
extensive bombing of Afghanistan, efforts increased to
pressure media outlets -- abroad and at home. Colin
Powell urged the Emir of Qatar to lean on the
Qatar-based Al-Jazeera satellite TV network. Days
later, Condoleezza Rice asked American TV networks to,
in effect, censor tapes of messages from Al Qaeda
leaders. As longtime White House reporter Helen Thomas
noted in a column: "To most people, a 'request' to the
television networks from the White House in wartime
carries with it the weight of a government command.
The major networks obviously saw it that way."
What was the global impact of such measures? The
Committee to Protect Journalists, a careful mainstream
group based in New York, has included this assessment
in its new report: "The actions taken by the Bush
administration seemed to embolden repressive
governments around the world to crack down on their
own domestic media. In Russia, a presidential adviser
said President Vladimir Putin planned to study U.S.
limitations on reporting about terrorists in order to
develop rules for Russian media."
Actually, Uncle Sam is quite a role model for how
avowedly democratic nations can serve rather explosive
notice on specific news outlets. The Pentagon
implemented a devastating Nov. 13 missile attack on
the Al-Jazeera bureau in Kabul. Months later, the
Committee to Protect Journalists seems skeptical of
the official explanations. "The U.S. military
described the building as a 'known' Al Qaeda facility
without providing any evidence," the report says.
"Despite the fact that the facility had housed the
Al-Jazeera office for nearly two years and had several
satellite dishes mounted on its roof, the U.S.
military claimed it had no indications the building
was used as Al-Jazeera's Kabul bureau."
That's one of many ways for governments to "dispatch"
news. The styles and methods vary considerably, but
effective media control is an ardent desire of
self-proclaimed democrats, steely autocrats and
religious fanatics alike.
A reading of "Attacks on the Press in 2001" should
disrupt complacency here in the United States.
Referring to a case that put a Houston-based
journalist behind bars for 168 days, the report
comments: "The United States jailed free-lance writer
Vanessa Leggett on contempt-of-court charges, joining
Cuba as the only other country in the Western
Hemisphere to imprison journalists for their work."
The slaying of independent-minded journalists is often
part of a far broader pattern. In Colombia, several
journalists died as a result of doing their jobs in
2001. During that year, in the same country, 129 trade
unionists were assassinated because they dared to
struggle for basic labor rights.
While a focus on the well-being of journalists is
appropriate, it shouldn't become such a fixation that
it crowds out the much larger panoramas of suffering.
At times, American journalists are preoccupied with
the outlooks of their colleagues to the point of
absurdity.
Consider this paragraph from a March 27 piece by
Washington Post media writer Howard Kurtz that
appeared on the Post's website: "Journalists are
growing weary and depressed by all the Middle East
violence -- suicide bombers in Jerusalem one day,
Israeli soldiers killing West Bank people the next --
and the sheer level of killing has blurred any
possible story line. Cease-fire attempts are routinely
violated within hours."
Eagerness for a tidy and comfortable "story line"
sometimes causes journalists to get carried away with
their own preferences for facile narrative plots.
Meanwhile, a sad and ironic counterpoint to the
courage of reporters in strife-torn regions overseas
is their habitual unwillingness to buck management
after they get back home.
Many reporters are brave about taking their chances in
war zones. But in newsrooms -- when it comes to
challenging the prevalent budget priorities, the
insidious creep of commercial values and the top
editors inclined to spin coverage in sync with
powerful interests along Pennsylvania Avenue and Wall
Street -- few American journalists have been willing
to put up much of a fight.
--Norman Solomon's latest book is "The Habits of
Highly Deceptive Media."
From FAIR's Media Beat
______________________
Terbitan : 30 Mac 2002
Ke atas
Home
