European critics fault U.S. coverage of terrorist aftermath

By freedomforum.org staff

10.12.01

Printer-friendly page

The Paris-based Reporters sans Frontieres has taken a hard look at the U.S. news media handling of the aftermath of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and offers its judgment in the headline "Observers cast doubt on the objectivity of the American press."

Quoting foreign and American media representatives, the thrust of much of the RSF report is summed up in the words of Eric Leser, correspondent for the respected French daily Le Monde, who is quoted as saying that "the US television networks have matchless resources and they used them right away."

But some of those quoted saw a change in coverage, as Leser puts it: "I think the turning point was George W. Bush's speech to Congress on Sept. 20. Since then the media has taken on a strongly patriotic tone and news has lost out to propaganda."

RSF contends that French journalists say 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." RSF added that "many foreign correspondents who spoke to RSF in New York said the same thing."

RSF also says that "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 'war effort.' "

Voices in the United States have been raised warning the public about a decline in freedom of expression and opinion, as guaranteed by the First Amendment, in exchange for tightening security, RSF notes. It quotes Strobe Talbott, deputy secretary of state in the Clinton administration, as saying, "We 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."

The report's "first suspect" or first victim was the Internet, in that soon after the terrorist acts and their presumed use of computer technology, "FBI agents turned up at the headquarters of the main internet providers (Hotmail, AOL, Earthlink, etc.) to obtain information on possible e-mail exchanges between the terrorists."

RSF claims that the Internet providers "fully collaborated with the American secret services."

As to the terrorist acts themselves, RSF quotes the reaction of several foreign journalists, such as Stéphanie Tremblay, French program coordinator for Radio Canada, as saying, "I reacted first as an adopted New Yorker rather than as a journalist." Marc Greenought, radio producer for English programs on the Canadian Broadcasting Corp., told RSF, "I am Canadian, but during these past days I have never felt so deeply American."

However, the attitude about television coverage soon changed, according to RSF, when "the fate of the victims was relegated to second position and the networks devoted their airtime to hailing the country's 'new heroes': 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 attacked it."

"America's new war" and "At war with terror" (CNN) or "America fights back or counter-attacks" (CBS) were the watchwords, according to RSF, "always accompanied by the ubiquitous stars and stripes."

"Broadcasts became all beating the drum and flags flying in the wind. It was no longer news," said Richard Hetu, a journalist with the Canadian daily La Presse.

"Journalists and media executives questioned by RSF, either strongly denied having produced propaganda or on the other hand, acknowledged and justified their decision," the report states.

"The footage of the attack against the World Trade Center has no equivalent in the history of conflict," said Paul Klebnikov, journalist with Forbes magazine.

"The first days there could have been a collapse in morale of Americans," Klebnikov said. "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 mean an absence of values. The media, overall, did excellent work. Television in particular was a triumph," Klebnikov is quoted as saying.

The report cites what it refers to as "flagrant examples of corporate censorship," including already publicized apologies or firings of newspaper columnists and the Bill Maher incident, noting that "it was the fierce reactions of the newspapers readers that were decisive in the decision to sack the journalists," rather than "any apparent pressure on the part of the authorities."

In its concluding section, the report asks whether the First Amendment is in danger, noting that constitutional lawyer Floyd Abrams has said America often debates issues like patriotism and free speech in times of crisis.

"This opinion is apparently shared by several U.S. organizations for defense of press freedom, who believe it is too soon to become alarmed by the events that have been outlined in this report," according to RSF.

Related

News media, administration struggle over press freedom, national security
Analysis 'Patriotism and transparency are kissing cousins,' says free-press advocate; restraint, are close relatives too, government insists.  10.12.01

Sept. 11 attacks renew interest in international news
Things are 'different now,' Washington Post's Bob Woodward tells Inter American Press Association.  10.19.01