When Media advocates Terrorism

Added: (Sun May 01 2005)

Pressbox (Press Release) - http://peacejournalism.com/

When Media advocates Terrorism

Kamala Sarup

It was good news for the Bush Administration when the Iranian
government closed the Al-Jazeera TV station. Since September 11,
Al-Jazeera had been giving one-sided reports and misleading the Arab
World. Anti-American sentiment is sky rocket there.

"We suspended its activity in Iran to investigate the network's role
in unrest in Ahvaz," Mohammad Khoshvaght of the culture and Islamic
guidance
ministry told state television. "We expect the network to respect
Iran's national integrity and security. If it is proved that
al-Jazeera committed a crime, it will
be prosecuted."

Al-Jazeera is popular among Iran's Arabs, who are the majority in
Khuzestan's capital Ahwaz but make up only 3% of the country's
population. Persians account for 51%. It was banned from reporting in
Iraq last year and has angered authorities in Saudi Arabia, Bahrain,
Jordan and Kuwait for its policy of airing opposition views and
criticisms.

However, in the Iraq war also, Al-Jazeera presented a picture that
showed only how Iraqis were being killed and wounded and not about the
actual fighting and how Iraq was losing the battles. That was meant
to please Muslims and not disturb them about Muslim losses. Thus,
some of the Muslims were surprised and shocked in the end to find that
Iraq was conquered. In that case, al-Jazeera was not very objective.

To harbor means to bring something or someone to safety. How can any
media do that with "terrorism", an abstraction meaning the sum of
terrorist acts over time? Media can slant the news to favor
terrorists, just as media can slant the news (facts and
interpretations of the facts) to discredit terrorists. Both are
biased (untruthful) reporting. Unbiased (truthful) reporting means
reporting the facts about terrorists and terrorism, not just selecting
those facts that fit the reporter's and editor's prejudices, while
ignoring the others.

Likewise, reporting faulty interpretations of the facts (illogical
cause-effect relationships) is harmful for the same reason. Most
media do that all the time, in part so that their readers and
advertisers will continue to read and finance them. Academicians who
write in professional journals are a little more truthful than the
media because they are under the scrutiny of their peers and not under
advertising pressure. Finally, it's hard for me to find a unbiased
book on the subject of terrorism or geo-politics-economics; that is,
all the facts and logical interpretations of them.

In summary, reporting favorable or unfavorable untruths about anything
is useful; it just confuses people and causes them to take erroneous
actions based on faulty information.

It's difficult for ordinary people to get at the truth through the
media, but most of us have no alternative. If we are ambitious, all
we can do is read a lot of media, books and journals and do the best
we can to get at the truth.

A press, or media in general, if it remains somewhat objective is the
only way the people can see what is happening in the society, good and
bad. The more objective press (media), the better, because what one
press fails to report, a competitor will.

The only justification I can think of for forbidding a particular
press to publish is when it loses it objectivity so much that its
articles are lies by any standard, or at least gross distortions from
the truth by any standard.

Even after Septem ber 11, the Bush administration announced a variety
of actions designed to restrict information from reaching the
public.An even stronger USA Patriot Act, a draft of which was obtained
last month by the Center For Public Integrity, could conceivably allow
for the wiretapping of news operations, according to a memo from the
American Society of Newspaper Editors.

So, Media can play an objective role in society and respect human
security. Press freedom does not mean allowing the media to promote
terrorism, violence and destruction. Media can be more responsible
toward the people and the principle of freedom.

The media has both a right and a duty to report fully on terrorism in
the interest of the public's right to know and to promote open,
informed debate about terrorism. It should not be one sided.
Journalists from around the world whose daily work exposes them to the
dangers of terrorism and violence. Measures are needed to protect
society against terrorism.

Much of Asia's media is either partisan or outright controlled by, for
example, the government, political party, -ies. Some examples: In
Thailand, the Army owns a national TV station; In Sri Lanka, the
largest English-language daily is government-controlled; In Indonesia,
the largest English-language newspaper is pro-government.

I think that the U.S., Australian, and some "conservative" British
media probably sometimes portray conflict as necessitating
intervention. In Europe, you see much less of that perspective.

To the extent that the media can bring conflicts to people's
attention, I think it can help peace.

(This article was published in Scoop, Kamala Sarup is editor of http://peacejournalism.com/ )