Posted on 04/06/2002 8:26:04 PM PST by ATOMIC_PUNK
‘It’s a Lose-Lose Situation For Everyone’
The Freedom Forum’s Margaret Engel analyzes Israeli media curbs—and how America’s war on terror is making inroads on U.S. press freedom as well
April 5 — How will Israel’s decision to expel reporters from occupied West Bank towns affect coverage of the Middle East conflict? Media groups around the world are outraged over the Israeli move, with the New York-based Committee to Protect Journalists describing it as “unacceptable.” In Brussels, the International Federation of Journalists warned that “censorship will not bring peace, but only lead to more ignorance and fear.”
AS CRITICISM MOUNTED, so did the number of reports about Israeli action against the media. On Monday, troops shot at BBC reporter Orla Guerin and at the armored car of NBC News correspondent Dana Lewis, the two journalists reported. On Tuesday, the Israeli Government Press Office revoked the credentials of two Abu Dhabi TV journalists and threatened legal action against CNN and NBC for broadcasting from Ramallah. Today, Israeli soldiers fired rubber bullets and stun grenades at a journalists’ convoy waiting near Yasir Arafat’s compound for a meeting between the Palestinian leader and the U.S. special envoy Anthony Zinni. NBC’s Lewis was arrested and held briefly later in the morning. “It’s an outrage,” says Margaret Engel, managing editor of the Freedom Forum’s Newseum in Arlington, Va. “It only makes it worse if the press isn’t there.”
Engel spoke to NEWSWEEK’s Arlene Getz about the Israeli measures—and how America’s war on terror is making inroads on U.S. press freedom as well. Excerpts:
NEWSWEEK: What is the impact of the media restrictions on coverage out of Israel? Margaret Engel: There’s a dreadful impact. The news flow is instantly restricted. It’s a lose-lose situation for everyone.
What should reporters do about these restrictions?
They should try to get around them, as they always try to get around any restrictions that keep reporters from the news.
Are they managing to do that?
No, I don’t think they’re succeeding. When you have these “closed military areas,” which is the new phraseology for any territory that the military decides it wants to be off-limits, it does hurt news coverage. Reporters are enterprising and they’re always going to work very hard to get the story, but the truth of the matter is that when there are these geographic restrictions, of course it makes elements of the story disappear
What aren’t we seeing or reading about?
You can start to see it in the reports—that [coverage] is all being conducted by the telephone, which is never optimal, and that the datelines are starting to show up further and further from the action. [Reporters are making] a diligent and serious effort to communicate a very controversial and sensitive situation to the world community. Without physical access, [they’re] relying too heavily on sources who have axes to grind. Without the independent view and the independent voice that reporters can provide, you’re really making a bad situation worse.
Are reporters doing enough to show where their coverage has been curtailed by the restrictions?
That part really never shows up in most reporters’ writing, because we don’t show how the sausage is produced. No matter what kind of roadblocks or restrictions that reporters have had to climb in order to get a story, it rarely shows up in copy, so it’s not unusual that it’s not showing up here. It takes up space, it’s uncomfortable and annoying, but you just sort of disregard it and go on. The news is all important, not how you got it.
Israeli troops fired on several reporters, including the BBC’s Orla Guerin and NBC’s Dana Lewis, earlier this week. Lewis was also arrested and held briefly on Friday.
It’s an outrage. [The Israelis] are only going to learn this when they realize how necessary the press is. It only makes it worse if the press isn’t there.
It’s not just the Israelis imposing these kinds of restrictions. On a more subtle level, the U.S. military has also restricted access to reporters covering the war in Afghanistan.
[It’s] not subtle, not subtle at all. Ever since the gulf war, nothing’s been subtle about [U.S.] military restrictions. We had a Washington Post reporter who was threatened by American troops in Afghanistan, threatened with losing his life if he took another step. [There’s] a whole huge shift, [which is] totally ironic at a time when the news media is even more important to an understanding of what’s happening. The military is becoming much bolder about cutting off access.
Unlike in many other countries with far harsher histories of restricting the media, both the U.S. and Israeli military have restricted where journalists can go, but not how critically they write. Is this freedom just a veneer?
It’s hollow. [Journalists] can theorize and write all they want, but a good reporter’s not just going to sit down and contemporaneously expound on items that they haven’t been there for.
What clues should readers look for to tell them whether a journalist has managed to circumvent any restrictions?
Eyewitness accounts. If you see too many examples of “officials said,” then you know that the reporter was possibly kept from the area. [Or if there’s] no physical description of the landscape. No color and detail, just all sort of official pronouncements.
Do you see a trend by the U.S. military to putting further curbs on the media? Yes, absolutely. It’s gotten much worse ever since the gulf war, because there does not seem to be any presumption that the press has a right to be there. Somehow that has been forgotten. Our Bill of Rights has been forgotten.
Are these restrictions affecting coverage inside the United States, too? There are all sorts of new idiotic and unwarranted press restrictions happening here in this country, but I don’t think it’s affecting the journalists’ ability to write critically
What sorts of restrictions?They’ve added hurdles for many of the reporters covering the Pentagon and some of those reporting on the State Department. [Government] agencies that once had communications with the press fairly directly are now funneling it all through one department only. So instead of having a multitude of sources, agencies are telling reporters, “I can’t comment, that all now has to come from the White House,” or “that all has to come from the Defense Department.” Instead of actually having government units being responsive to reporters, they’re just kicking it up.
Do you think it’s likely to get worse?Yes, I do—until there is some groundswell of public opinion that says we don’t want to a fettered press. Whenever there’s a military action, these things get worse. It’ll self-correct when the military emergency is over, but in the meantime a lot of incidents have been presented in a very half-baked way to the public.
What about the argument that certain information should be restricted when a country is in a state of war? This is such an old argument. It’s been shown time and time again it’s almost never national security [involved], it’s almost never the troop ship sailing. This doesn’t rise to that level. It’s all strategy and politics.
WAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHH WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
In Ramallah, on the trail for possible peace with Gen Zinni:
A convoy of armored press vehicles arrives, the IDF warned NO PRESS.
Do they ever listen?
Gee, They gripe and moan when one of their darlings gets dinged and when military authorities act to keep sillyvillians out of the area they gripe too.
How will Israel’s decision to expel reporters from occupied West Bank towns affect coverage of the Middle East conflict? Media groups around the world are outraged over the Israeli move, with the New York-based Committee to Protect Journalists describing it as “unacceptable.”
If it's unacceptable maybe they should go out there a mix it up with those IDF boys. I'm sure they could give them a whipping -hahaha. The best quote though is: "It’s an outrage. [The Israelis] are only going to learn this when they realize how necessary the press is. It only makes it worse if the press isn’t there." HAHAHA
Rather, the suicide journalist.
"This race is tighter than a bullfrog's clymer!"
Arafat and bin Laden have easier access to the airwaves than George Bush. CNN would cut away from a State of the Union speech to present Arafat spewing his propaganda. The media knows full well the value of propaganda in war...they have no excuse for their behavior.
Do you see a trend by the U.S. military to putting further curbs on the media?
Yes, absolutely. It’s gotten much worse ever since the gulf war, because there does not seem to be any presumption that the press has a right to be there. Somehow that has been forgotten. Our Bill of Rights has been forgotten.
While the press is free to write any odd bird droppings that plop onto their heads, they have no right to be anywhere. Nobody is obliged to give them open access to any damn place or thing that they desire.
Point of view journalism at its worst. Ten years from now they won't be talking about how many Jews or Palis died, but about themselves. They're the story, damn it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.