Overseas "human rights
abuses" have become part of a global "crime scene."
The crystal clear images of television can bring bloody, distant
atrocities into the living room and make them as riveting as a rape in
an American back alley. Colorful images can bring to life the human
face of suffering.
It now seems harder than ever to hide the "blood on the shovel."
Yet coverage of what advocates see as "human rights abuses" is deeply
selective. Suffering can be highlighted or filtered out by "gate
keeping" editors -- despite the many ways in which technology has
speeded and made more vivid coverage of overseas suffering,
Governments around the world, including the American, seek to
manipulate journalists, to restrict their information and movements, to
hide the "blood on the shovel."
Even when the United States is deeply involved, American journalists
may lack the physical access or the motivation to spotlight suffering,
especially when it results at least in part because of American
actions. For example, when civilians died in American bombing raids in
Afghanistan and Iraq.
To cover civilian casualties inflicted by Americans can seem
unpatriotic, assisting the enemy, insensitive to the deaths of American
soldiers, "off team." That can offend patriotic media consumers and
even cost advertising. American media may sometimes ignore what the
media of other countries consider newsworthy human rights issues.
Human rights reporting is most likely to receive wide play
if there is major violence, suffering, visual and statistical
documentation of large numbers of victims. The more distant the country
and the less direct the "American angle," the greater is the need for
widespread, graphic violence before a story can grab American media
attention.
The personal values and experience of journalists and editors can be as
important as standards of proof in shaping the emphasis given to
civilian casualties from American military action.
Some would insist on reporting civilian dead from American actions
precisely because the "human angle" is so classic to journalism, the
suffering so graphic, the plot line so entertaining and appealing to
human emotions. US reporters sometimes see greater news value in
relatively few American atrocities than in more frequent enemy abuses
since journalists frequently focus on the rare "man bites dog" story
rather than the the more every day "dog bites man story."
The "watchdog" tradition in American journalism also encourages
reporters to expose "hypocrisy" by reporting if Americans commit
atrocities or harm civilians despite official proclamatons of adhering
to the highest standards of humane warfare.
Still other American reporters and editors might view such casualties
as a painful, but normal part of war, too routine for major emphasis,
less frequent than in previous wars -- and a detour from coverage of
the "core" of the story: Americans fighting (and taking casualties)
overseas.
Civilian deaths in Afghanistan and Iraq seem relatively minor when
compared civilian casualties in WWII,
history's
most costly war. Of total war dead of 55.5 million, 27.3
million are estimated to be civilian.
One of the costliest American wars in terms of civilian deaths was The
Philippine-American War between the armed forces of the
United States and the Philippines from 1899 through 1913. An estimated
250,000 to 600,000 civilians died in this war. Many were victims of
American reprisals, often from disease and starvation resulting from
moving civilians into the controversial reconcentration
camps, the subject of much American newspaper debate.
Despite differences over what to cover and how, "overseas crime
coverage" can outrage international public opinion and bring sanctions
against governments seen as offenders. The long arm of modern media
coverage is a fact of life for many governments which need
international acceptance and financial aid.
TECHNOLOGY'S
PART
This was not always the case. The spiraling speedup
in communications technology has helped create rapidly spreading visual
images which break down national walls.
The technology stages can be broken into two:
A) The grand age of the foreign correspondent.
Telegraph cable, and later the newsreel provided first speed and then
visual imagery around foreign news coverage from the Victorian Age all
the way up to World War II.
B) The "high tech" age of television, radio, and the internet. This
"began" after World War II, intensified during the Cold War and evolved
into the present age of human rights coverage. Satellite transmitted
television and radio voice feeds have revolutionized this coverage.
Explore a more detailed Timeline.
The combination of exploding technology and the emotional imprint of
World War II are major foundations for modern human rights reporting.
Yet its foundations go back to the emergence of the foreign
correspondent beginning in the Crimean War of the 1850's-- right up
through the Balkan Wars of the 1870's, then the Spanish American War of
1898 and the Boer War of 1900.
Telegraph cable brought dispatches speedily home to mass circulation
newspapers competing with often graphic headlines for newly literate
readers in the world's growing cities.
The 19th Century foreign correspondent used cable to open Western
newspapers to coverage of what seemed to be violation of civilized
standards. By World War II, the movie newsreel joined in to make
distant lands gripping and visual.
The technology revolution intensified after World War II. The horrors
of that war and the holocaust intensified the "never again" sentiment
which sometimes made reporters and editors sensitive to issues
involving genocide or violation of the "laws of war."
The internet facilitates the international reporting, networking and
lobbying which sustains the human rights movement. This is all one
evolving "continuum" toward more rapid and graphic communications.
NO WIGGLE
ROOM
It is often said that in military operations things never go precisely
as planned. Hence a rule of combat is that "no plan survives first
contact with the enemy." It was traditionally accepted as normal that
doctrine and tactics would need modification when confronted with
changing combat conditions on the battlefield.
Today's intensive media scrutiny gives policy makers and military
leaders very little "wiggle room" for battlefield tactics or mistakes
which cost either civilian or military lives. "Mistakes" once taken as
a normal part of the uncertainties of war tend to get blown up as signs
of incompetence, negligence, or even crime.
As technology makes the world smaller, "abuses" seem harder to hide. It
becomes increasingly likely that current technology will allow someone
with an interest or commitment to spotlight what now is far less
remote, far more graphic.
Yet media exposure of human rights abuses is inherently selective:
A
PICTURE IS WORTH A THOUSAND WORDS
Human rights reporting is more likely to
flourish if there is a public, visual dimension which
can be caught and transmitted by TV cameras. This may be street
violence, corpses, starving persons, refugees fleeing across borders or
on ship, burning villages, or dying children. Visual images give
immediacy, human interest, movement, and a sense of credibility in
accordance with the maxims "one picture is worth a thousand words" and
"a picture never lies."
This phenomenon can have a major impact on formation of national
stereotypes. European television viewers have sometimes noted how
television images of the 1992 Los Angeles riots, together with video
cassette images of the earlier police beating of Rodney King, crowded
out other images of the United States overseas . For many the visual
image of America centered on racial violence.
Human rights reporting is more likely to thrive when governments allow
entrance to journalists and human rights investigators. Thus a country
which is relatively open may develop a more negative human rights media
image than a more repressive government which restricts reporters'
access and refuses to cooperate with organizations such as Amnesty
International. This tendency sometimes acts to protect the worst
offenders.
Exposure of human rights abuses is more likely when victims of violence
are either permitted or forced to leave. Concentration of refugees in
camps supervised by international bodies such as the United Nations
High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) provides relatively easy access
for journalists who need to interview and photograph victims of war and
repression - as in the case of Cambodian refugees in Thailand following
the 1978 Vietnamese invasion and Afghan refugees in Pakistan following
the 1979 Soviet invasion.
The development of post World War II international relief agencies to
house and protect such mass refugee movements tends to provide camp
"magnets" where packs of journalists can descend, interview refugees,
and dramatize a problem.
In the absence of easily visited outside camps, human rights reporting
is more easily conducted where language, culture, and travel conditions
allow reporters to enter a country, travel freely, interview residents
on scene and develop visual and compelling emotional portraits of
suffering and abuse.
The ability to turn an abstract accusation or abuse into colorful
feature writing involving graphic suffering, personality profiles and
anecdotal reporting and storytelling narrative can make the difference
between prominent coverage and "burying the story." One example is the San
Jose
Mercury News featurized coverage of poverty and human rights
abuses in the Philippines as the era of President Ferdinand Marcos gave
way to the "people power" of Corazon Aquino.
IMPORTANCE
OF
AN AMERICAN ANGLE
Human rights issues are most likely to be
defined as newsworthy where there is an "American angle," - where a
debate centers on what American policy should be, or where American
soldiers and civilians are involved or affected by events.
Human rights reporting is more likely to flourish where victims have
relatives or organized champions or lobbyists living in the United
States to bring their case before government and media. A distant,
abstract cause becomes more newsworthy if a compelling local
spokesperson can bring immediacy and human interest to a story.
The tradition that government activities are "news" makes coverage more
likely if such a person testifies before a US government agency. Local
spokespersons can give examples, anecdotes, and understandable "sound
bites" and quotations - all useful to counteract the frequently
distant, abstract nature of overseas human rights issues.
A story grows in stature where reporters and editors can relatively
quickly have access to credible academic or government experts, or
human rights organizations with respectable and credible records.
Credibility of an accusation which might otherwise seem anecdotal or
partisan is enhanced if an organization such as Amnesty International
has done a major inquiry and issued an official report. The
availability of such sources help news organizations to bolster their
credibility, portray a story as based on multiple sources, and draw
upon sustained research which a news organization would have neither
the finances nor the expertise to conduct.
"Private sector" lobbying groups such as Amnesty International, Africa
Watch, Americas Watch, Asia Watch, and Helsinki Watch have sought to
encourage international pressure against human rights abuses by
research, publications, grass roots organization and lobbying of
governments. They have often sought media coverage as one way of
influencing both public opinion and government action. All this has
helped make human rights a catchy and continuing issue. Politicians and
pressure groups of many persuasions can seize on to push their causes
both in public debate and in the halls of government.
In this environment reporters and editors are more likely to define
allegations and debates over human rights issues as news - especially
when politicians, entertainment celebrities, and others deemed
"newsworthy" join in what can be an emotional debate involving graphic
examples of human suffering.
Conflict, debate, and graphic examples of human suffering often
involving violence are natural stories for a "gatekeeper" of a news
organization to choose, especially if these human rights issues have
become the language of argument over American policies in political
debate both within and outside government.
"ON TEAM"
OR "OFF TEAM": WHICH WAY TO GO?
Another way of accounting for the growth
of international human rights reporting is to look at the qualities of
stories which "gatekeepers" are more likely to define as "news."
Such reporting is more likely to be published, prominently displayed,
promoted and rewarded when it reinforces the values, political goals,
and pocketbooks of readers, viewers, and publishers. It is most likely
to thrive if it reinforces existing prejudices, blackens unpopular
governments, and spotlights sympathetic victims with vivid and
emotional images. Reporters who do this successfully may win fame and
promotion, and may even be seen as heroic - especially if they take
risks to get out the story.
Human rights reporting may be seen as "on-team" when it tends to build
popular support for the country's foreign policy, especially during
time of war or near-war when abuses by an external enemy help unify the
country by rallying patriotic support.
American news reports on allegations of Spanish atrocities in Cuba,
German atrocities in Belgium, and Iraqi atrocities in Kuwait helped
mobilize public support for the Spanish-American War, World War I, and
American intervention against Saddam Hussein. At other times it may
simply express a national consensus or outrage over practices deemed
immoral or corrupt - such as burning of brides in India, or looting of
relief supplies in drought stricken Somalia.
By contrast "off-team" human rights reporting may undermine official
policy by spotlighting human rights abuses of an ally - or even by
American soldiers in time of war. Such reporting may still be
published, prominently displayed, promoted, and rewarded, but this is
less likely unless Americans are divided over official policy so that
there is a "market" for news which undermines the official position.
Human rights reporting which becomes "high profile" by being cited in a
national debate brings the reporting media stature, quotability, and
thus power. But, if it steps on the toes of intense emotions, important
policies, or powerful interests it may open the media to charges of
bias -- or even of endangering the lives of American soldiers. Some
examples are media coverage of US. pacification of the Philippines at
the turn of the century, the Vietnam War, and US. support for the
government of El Salvador against leftist guerrillas in the 1980's.
"Off-team" human rights reporting is less likely if it embarrasses a
widely popular national policy without strong internal opposition. In
this case the "bearer of bad news" is unlikely to be welcome. Both
editors and reporters of mainstream publications are less likely to
risk finances, popularity and credibility to report something which few
want to hear, especially if information is sketchy and difficult to
verify by sources widely accepted as credible.
This situation is likely to prevail in popular wars such as World War
II, the Gulf War, the Afghanistan War, the American occupation of Iraq
(at least in its early stages), or in the early phases of wars which
later become unpopular such as Vietnam.
Alternate media, or media appealing to less mainstream audiences, may
sometimes break such taboos. This sometimes causes a "ripple effect"
leading to mainstream coverage. Seymour Hersh broke the story of the My
Lai massacre in the Dispatch News Service, a marketing service for free
lance writers. Thirty- six papers agreed to purchase the story at $100.
each.
"ON
TEAM" IN AFGHANISTAN: FOCUS ON TALIBAN ABUSES
With Afghanistan, as with many other wars, American "on-team" media
focused on human rights abuses by the enemy. Whether balanced or
"hyped" out of context, such reporting serves to unify the public
behind the patriotic cause.
Thus the near saturation coverage in American media of Taliban
repression of women. Such reporting reaches out to the feminist impulse
so strong in American society.
Women, often less likely than men to endorse military solutions, may
find themselves far more comfortable with a war which targets a regime
clearly abusive to women. And easily obtainable visual footage of women
being beaten, shot, or confined humiliated at home has all the
emotional power to hold a mass audience.
Gripping images of abused women, rather than bombed civilians, became
the "blood on the shovel" for an "on-team" American media.
"ON
TEAM" IN AFGHANISTAN: PLAY DOWN BOMBING CIVILIANS
Much of the American media made a conscious or unconscious decision
that the death of Afghan civilians by American bombs should not in any
way compete with the deaths of thousands American civilians from the
destruction of the World Trade Center.
In major American media there was some coverage of civilian deaths from
American bombing. But mainstream American media carefully restrained
the ingrained journalistic tendency to go for the "blood on the
shovel," the graphic, that which stirs compassion.
American media coverage of the popular war in Afghanistan has stayed
almost completely "on-team." It has focused almost exclusively on
covering the mission to win, "cheer leading" the path to victory, the
hunt for bin Laden. There has been almost no serious in-depth media
coverage of anything with might embarrass the American government -- or
appear unpatriotic.
FAIR
(Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting) has summarized some
American media efforts to downplay civilian Afghan casualties.
The best known example is the formal policy of CNN contained in
a memo reported by Washington Post media reporter Howard Kurtz.
According to Kurtz, CNN Chair Walter Isaacson "has ordered his
staff to balance images of civilian devastation in Afghan cities with
reminders that the Taliban harbors murderous terrorists, saying it
'seems perverse to focus too much on the casualties or hardship in
Afghanistan.'"
The New York Times reported (11/1/01) that these policies
were already being implemented at CNN, with other networks
following a similar, though perhaps not as formalized, strategy.
"In the United States," the Times noted, "television images of
Afghan bombing victims are fleeting, cushioned between anchors or
American officials explaining that such sights are only one side of the
story." In other countries, however, "images of wounded Afghan children
curled in hospital beds or women rocking in despair over a baby's
corpse" are "more frequent and lingering."
When CNN correspondent Nic Robertson reported from the site of
a bombed medical facility in Kandahar, the Times noted, US
anchors "added disclaimers aimed at reassuring American viewers that
the network was not siding with the enemy." CNN International,
however, did not add any such disclaimers.
During its US broadcasts, CNN "quickly switched to the rubble
of the World Trade Center" after showing images of the damage in
Kandahar, and the anchor "reminded viewers of the deaths of as many as
5,000 people whose 'biggest crime was going to work and getting there
on time.'"
SPOTLIGHTING
THE
US BOMBING OF AFGHAN CIVILIANS
Personal values and experience can be as important as standards of
reporting proof in shaping the emphasis given to civilian casualties.
Some would see repeated reports of dozens, hundreds of dead as
demanding coverage. Others might view such casualties as a painful, but
normal part of war, too routine for major emphasis, less frequent than
in previous
wars.
The bottom line: media managers in America at the height of the Afghan
war (and later with Iraq) were aware too much such coverage could
appear unpatriotic, embarrass the American military, hurt ratings,
offend advertisers and be vulnerable to charges of aiding the enemy.
Only slowly did that change.
********
For the most part, up to July, 2002, only media critics on the American
political Left had explored in depth issues such as civilian casualties
of bombing in Afghanistan.
Their research was closely enter twined with an overall "off-team"
critique of the war. That, together with their ideological assumptions
about American society, could undermine their credibility with the
wider public. This was especially true for a vastly popular war where
outrage over terrorism was overwhelming and where American war
casualties were almost nonexistent.
Explore, for example, an exhaustive criticism of American media
coverage of US bombing of civilians by Prof. Marc Herold of the
University of New Hampshire. Herold's detailed tallies and supporting
photos may be downloaded in Excel database format from a University of
New Hampshire server.
For the details see Prof. Marc Herold's writings on the Cursor
website. Detailed, if controversial, documentation by Prof. Herold can
be downloaded from University of New Hampshire website.
Prof. Herold gives his analysis of the differences among civilian
casualty conclusions in an August 20, 2002 Cursor posting.
Seumas Milne writing in The
Guardian (UK) on December 20, 2001 noted:
Now, for the first time, a systematic independent
study has been carried out into civilian casualties in Afghanistan by
Marc Herold, a US economics professor at the University of New
Hampshire. Based on corroborated reports from aid agencies, the UN,
eyewitnesses, TV stations, newspapers and news agencies around the
world, Herold estimates that at least 3,767 civilians were killed by US
bombs between October 7 and December 10. That is an average of 62
innocent deaths a day - and an even higher figure than the 3,234 now
thought to have been killed in New York and Washington on September 11.
It was not until July of 2002 that The New York Times weighed
in systematically to deal with allegations that there might be serious
problems with American bombings of Afghan civilians.
This came at a later stage of the war, after American victory seemed
assured. US forces were mopping up bin Laden and Taliban forces at a
time it was harder to argue media scrutiny would help the enemy. The
article did not deal with the broader question of bombing of civilians
during the peak campaigns of the war.
But The Times article helped make the issue "mainstream."
The scale of the reported bombing errors of the last six months made
them harder to ignore, especially as an Afghan backlash began to
develop against the American military and threatened to injure
Washington's war on terrorism. With the passage of time it became safer
for American media to spotlight such issues with less danger of being
accused of aiding the enemy.
Dexter Filkins wrote in The Times published July
21,
2002:
"KABUL, Afghanistan - The American air campaign
in Afghanistan, based on a high-tech, out-of-harm's-way strategy, has
produced a pattern of mistakes that have killed hundreds of Afghan
civilians.
"On-site reviews of 11 locations where air strikes killed as many as
400 civilians suggest that American commanders have sometimes relied on
mistaken information from local Afghans. Also, the Americans'
preference for air strikes instead of riskier ground operations has cut
off a way of checking the accuracy of the intelligence.
"The reviews, over a six-month period, found that the Pentagon's use of
overwhelming force meant that even when truly military targets were
located, civilians were sometimes killed. The 11 sites visited
accounted for many of the principal places where Afghans and human
rights groups claim that civilians have been killed."
"Pentagon officials say their strategy has evolved in recent months
away from air strikes to the use of ground forces to hunt down
remaining fighters for the Taliban and Al Qaeda. Since then, air power
has been deployed in mostly a supporting role; still, the effects have
often been disastrous.
"The American attack this month on villages in Oruzgan Province, where
air strikes killed at least 54 civilians, has crystallized a sense of
anger here is undermining the good will the United States gained by
helping to dislodge the Taliban. That anger is threatening to frustrate
America's ability to hunt down Taliban and Qaeda forces that still
survive. "
******
The Herold studies are based on compilation of press
reports on American bombing raids from reporters of various
nationalities who covered the war. The aggregate figures add up, even
though many of these bombing incidents were reported to have killed
relatively few civilians.
By contrast, American bombings of civilians in the attacks in the last
six months, as described by The New York Times on July
21, 2002 appear sometimes to be more bloody incidents in
which larger numbers of civilians died in a smaller number of
individual attacks.
The Times reporting protected itself from US government or
military criticism by relying on more traditional reporting techniques,
emphasizing on the spot verification, rather than on aggregate tallying
of media bomb casualty reports. The Times approach combined
visits to villages by reporters with information from village visits by
on the scene aid representatives.
To further protect its credibility the article by Dexter Filkins
included the contributions and bylines of well seasoned, widely
respected correspondents John F. Burns and Carlotta Gall.
Herold's estimates of 3100 to 3600 bomb impact deaths can be debated as
to specifics and methodology.
Defenders of today's relatively well targeted high tech weapons tied
into satellite based information technology argue they reduce civilian
casualties, compared to Vietnam, Korea, and World War II.
But these raids can still kill civilians, especially when intelligence
is confused or military targets and civilian populations are close
together.
Carl Conetta,
of
the Project on Defense Alternatives, addressed in detail the
question of civilian bombing casualties in Afghanistan in his "Operation Enduring
Freedom: Why a Higher Rate of Civilian Bombing Casualties?,"
January 24, 2002.
Conetta concluded:
"The high likelihood that 1000-1300 civilians were
killed in the Operation Enduring Freedom (Afghanistan) bombing campaign
directly contradicts the notion that the campaign was "cleaner" than
other, recent ones. Instead, in terms of the rate of civilian deaths
per bomb or missile expended, there seems to have been a distinct
deterioration from the standard set in Operation Allied Force (1999,
Kosovo), in which fewer civilians were killed and more munitions used."
(See similar conclusions in an analysis
by Scott Peterson of The Christian Science Monitor, October 22,
2002 suggesting that the ratio of civilian casualties to American bombs
dropped has grown, despite the development of "smart bombs.")
Conetta came up with a lower civilian bombing death toll in Afghanistan
than did Prof. Herold. He estimated between 1000 and 1300 civilians
killed in the bombing campaign through January 1, 2002.
Conetta noted that his estimate "relies on a press review that is less
extensive than the Herold review, but that applies a more stringent
accounting criteria in order to correct for likely reporting bias."
He added:
"The estimate of civilian bombing casualties used in this report --
1000-1300 -- draws on media sources much as the Herold study does, but
it applies a stricter criteria to screen these sources and correct for
likely reporting errors and distortions. In deriving the 1000-1300
estimate only Western press sources were used for hard numbers --
principally wire services (Reuters, Associated Press, and Agence
France-Presse) and the British press (BBC News, the Independent, The
Times, and the Guardian). These sources seemed more attuned to the
issue of civilian casualties than were US newspapers, while also being
disinclined to accept on face value official Taliban reports or
accounts from the Pakistani press."
Prof. Herold has rejected the approach of counting only
"Western" reports as ethnocentric and unfairly discriminating against
media and journalists from the Third World.
On Conetta's findings he has written
in a study analyzing the variety of civilian casualty conclusions:
"The study compiled statistics from only Western
sources. Whereas this made it more palatable to the mainstream Western
media, it also necessarily involved a smaller universe than my own
dossier, and it indirectly further strengthened a pernicious view in
the United States that truth can only come through a Euro-American
lens."
IRAQ: TWO
DIFFERENT MEDIA, TWO DIFFERENT WARS
Looking ahead to a war against Saddam
Hussein, a group of British peace activists established a website to track
civilian bombing deaths in Iraq, using a method similar to Herold's.
The team monitored a wide range of sources to produce a daily and
cumulative toll. This continuously updated site was designed to
function as "alternate media" available worldwide.
CLICK ICON FOR DETAILS
See Iraqi Combatant and
Noncombatant Fatalities in the 2003 Conflict
for more conservative estimate;
See Off
Target: The Conduct of the War and Civilian Casualties in Iraq dealing,
for
Human Rights Watch analysis of American efforts to limit civilian
casualties, as well as deaths from cluster bombs (overall
conclusions)
********
In late May, 2003, civilian casualties in Iraq were still
being tallied. A May 22 article in The
Christian Science Monitor put the deaths at five to ten
thousand and noted, "Such a range would make the Iraq war the deadliest
campaign for noncombatants that US forces have fought since Vietnam."
According to Reuben Brigety, a researcher for Human Rights Watch,
quoted in the article, "The biggest contrast between Afghanistan (where
an estimated 1,800 civilians died during the US-led campaign there in
2001) and Iraq is that Afghanistan was predominantly an air war and
this was a ground/air battle."
"Air wars are not flawless, but if you have precision weapons you can
do a lot to make them more accurate," he was quoted as saying. "The
same is not yet true of ground combat. It is clear the ground battle
took a toll; ground war is nasty."
Carl Conetta,
of
the Project on Defense Alternatives, addressed Iraq war fatalities
in a study entitled, "The
Wages
of War: Iraqi Combatant and Noncombatant Fatalities in the 2003
Conflict," October 20, 2003. Click here
for a .pdf version.
It concluded that between 10,800 and 15,100 Iraqis were killed in the
war. Of these, between 3,200 and 4,300 were noncombatants -- that is:
civilians who did not take up arms. Conetta's estimates of civilian
deaths are considerably below those of the website Iraq Bodycount,
based on Prof. Herold's methodology.
**********
Once again, as with Afghanistan, just how deadly this war appears is
largely in the eye of the beholder.
For Americans and others critical of the war, the American invasion and
occupation of Iraq can seem an exercise in "unilateral" brutality. For
those who are pro war -- and to many of those who remember the death of
millions of civilians in Twentieth Century wars -- this latest war may
seem almost extraordinarily humane.
For most Americans there was no way of knowing the civilian toll in
Iraq. In general American media coverage of the Iraq war played down
civilian deaths -- reflecting a patriotic "on team" news judgment. US
television systematically screened out footage of civilian suffering,
whether on the street or in Iraq's hospitals -- presumably to avoid
charges of undermining the war effort. By contrast "off team" media in
Europe or anti-American media in the Middle East such as Al-Jazeera
played up the graphic images of wounded and dead civilians.
Americans "glued" to their TV's would see a "safe," almost humane war,
with almost no images of civilian deaths and very few American losses.
Viewers in Europe and the Middle East were more likely to see a
destructive "blitzkrieg."
Two different media, two different wars.
COMPARING
"SLANTS" IN AFGHANISTAN
It is no accident that the British newspaper The Guardian
sympathetically covered the Herold study on civilian bombing
deaths in Afghanistan.
Beyond The Guardian's liberal orientation, British
media have tended to reflect their own government's focus: how to play
a reconstruction peacekeeping role in post war Afghanistan. From a
British point of view the more brutal the destruction, the deeper the
grudges, and the harder the reconstruction ahead.
This came through consistently for weeks on
the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) in the form of an often
leading emphasis on the suffering of civilians and on international
efforts to prevent the possible massacre of prisoners of war.
By contrast, during the war itself American media paid much less
attention to issues concerning possible massacres of Taliban prisoners.
Finally, in August, 2002 a Newsweek investigation by Babak
Dehghanpisheh, John Barry and Roy Gutman raised the issue in a major
way. (Gutman
won a Pulitzer prize for uncovering Serbian massacres in Bosnia in 1992)
Newsweek's account suggested one faction of the
anti-Taliban Afghan Northern Alliance had buried in mass graves bodies
of Taliban prisoners it systematically suffocated in unventilated cargo
containers ("Death by Container").
An American human rights group, Physicians
for
Human Rights, protested that the US government had
failed to take action because the prisoners were killed by one of its
"proxy" allies in the Afghanistan war.
MASTERING
PR: THE HUMAN RIGHTS LOBBY COMES OF AGE
With this growing focus on human rights,
an increasing number of human rights lobbying and information groups
such as Amnesty International learned how to conduct themselves in a
manner thought "newsworthy." Human rights issues assumed a higher news
profile as these groups issued annual reports, special releases and
organized a variety of activities designed to influence government
action and public attitudes.
The more attention such domestic activities received, the more likely
were editors and foreign correspondents to spotlight allegations and
issues with reporting from abroad. Domestic news coverage of
Congressional hearings and debates dealing with human rights and of
reports by the Office of Human Rights Reporting established in the
State Department by President Carter and continued by later presidents
continued to raise the new profile of overseas human rights issues.
Concern over overseas human rights issues tended to remain an important
source of news coverage even as the events which spawned these
developments receded into the past. This was especially true of acts of
repression caught visually by television cameras and transmitted by
satellite, such as China's repression of student demonstrators at
Peking's Tiananmen Square in 1989.
Once a visual impression was left through millions of TV sets, the
newsworthiness of such an overseas human rights issue seemed firmly
established among editors and viewers and also among the politicians
and pundits who would argue about what the United States should do. The
internationalization of TV news through satellite transmission and the
growth of networks like CNN meant that human rights issues
which at one time might seem distant and abstract were now visual,
immediate, and emotionally explosive. Technology such as the telephone
transmitted FAX, and the videocassette allowed dissidents to
communicate human rights accusations as well as video recordings of
police or army repression.
Growing awareness of human rights issues in the United States itself
has tended to spill into coverage overseas. The civil rights movement
of the 1960's, the increasingly diverse ethnic composition of US
population, increased sensitivity to problems of minority rights, and
the issue of equal rights for women has forced both editors and
reporters to spotlight such issues at home, thus reinforcing the
concept both in the media world and among the public that coverage of
these areas is important news.
With improved communication between home office and the field reporters
can more easily follow the guidance of their editors to shape and meet
the tastes of the American public. By spotlighting issues which echo at
home they are more likely to advance their own careers by having their
dispatches prominently displayed.
With near instantaneous television coverage and improved communications
high profile international human rights violations can quickly become
the subject of domestic political debates both in Congress and in the
media, thus increasing the incentive for editors to quickly direct
their reporters overseas to further cover human rights issues as
something likely to gain attention at home.
The tendency to increasingly cover foreign crises and long-term
overseas issues by dispatching home-based reporters on quick overseas
"parachute" missions means journalists are more likely to view overseas
issues through the lens of American domestic debates. It is natural
that editors sensitized to domestic issues such as child abuse and
exploitation of women should define as "news" parallel issues overseas.
LEGACY OF THE HOLOCAUST: LAW
AND LOBBIES
American overseas human rights reporting
has grown rapidly since the 1970's. But it's roots are deeper. There
has been a major shift in political, cultural, and legal consciousness,
receiving perhaps its biggest boost from the legacy of Nazi genocide
during World War II. Since 1945 and the establishment of the United
Nations, the issue of human rights has become an international fixture
as the subject of international legal conventions and as an area of
litigation and debate in organizations such as the World Court, the
UN's Security Council, and a host of regional organizations, as well as
in the US Congress.
The widespread acceptance of some form of universal human rights as
part of the international legal and ideological language since 1945 has
meant that countries of virtually all ideologies and economic systems
have used human rights arguments to justify sometimes controversial
policies ranging from economic development to military invasions of
their neighbors.
The loftiest idealist, the most literal legalist, and the most cynical
propagandist can all embrace the umbrella of human rights to justify
their actions in international forums, in domestic political debates,
and to an inquiring media. In the years since 1970 virtually no foreign
policy issue or any major election could be discussed or fought out in
the absence of some discussion of human rights. Even today, a story is
more likely to "catch" fire if the testimony of eyewitnesses, survivors
and photos evokes the "archetype"
image of Nazi atrocities.
AN
ACID TEST: SOME KIND OF NAZI THING
American newspaper reports, including
vivid television coverage of the shooting of children by snipers in
Sarajevo, helped interject the issue into the American presidential
election. Newsday's account of August 2, 1992 by
Europe Correspondent Roy Gutman cast Serbian atrocities in the imagery
of the holocaust and created a "fire storm" of reaction as other
newspapers and broadcast media honed in on the question of whether the
Nazi experience was repeating itself.
Newsday's allegations of The Nazi imagery
stuck even though other dispatches made it less vivid and emotional.
Unlike previous accounts of Serbian atrocities, and unlike many which
followed in the next few days, the Newsday account explicitly and
emotionally evoked "archetypal" memories of Nazi extermination camps
with this lead:
"The Serb conquerors of northern Bosnia have established two
concentration camps in which more than a thousand civilians have been
executed or starved and thousands more are being held until the die,
according to two recently released prisoners interviewed by New
York Newsday.
Challenger Bill Clinton was quick to stake out the "hawk"
position, calling for possible American air strikes on Serb positions
and criticizing President Bush for being too passive in the Yugoslav
crisis. Involvement of the issue in the presidential race built a
strong "American angle," guaranteeing even more intensive media
coverage of atrocities in Yugoslavia. The Bush Administration response
of pushing for action in the UN. still further raised the visibility of
the Yugoslav crisis as "news."
The Newsday overseas story continued to echo as a
Washington story when a former camp prisoner quoted in the story was
invited to testify before a Senate committee. Alija Lujinovic, a 50
year old Muslim testified August 12 behind closed doors before the
Senate Armed Services Committee. He described in chilling detail seven
weeks of captivity in a Serb run camp in which by late June just 150 of
the 1500 people originally in the camp were left alive. In his
testimony, followed by a news conference, he described day after day of
throat slittings in a vivid first hand account that could not help but
get wide attention. As often happens in human rights reporting, a
distant overseas story had become the subject of an American government
proceeding - thereby virtually guaranteeing it would be defined as
"news."
THE
1970'S: WATERGATE AS WATERSHED
While the seeds of American journalism's
growing interest in human rights reporting go back to World War II and
the holocaust, the vast expansion of such reporting can be traced to
the 1970's. Several trends in the American media and in the nature of
the domestic and international political environment reinforced this
reporting.
Since the Vietnam War, but most especially since the Watergate scandal
of the early 1970's, that aspect of the American journalism tradition
which stresses the mission of investigating and exposing abuses of
power. Widespread public skepticism toward government and other
established institutions has encouraged editors and reporters to adopt
a "watchdog" posture to find a profitable and receptive audience.
Public skepticism frequently extends to the media in a backlash against
what are sometimes seen to be its excesses. Still, it is only natural
that widespread public acceptance of media's role as a domestic
"watchdog" should lead to an extension of that mission to overseas
coverage. Editors and reporters who have accepted the notion of acting
as "watchdogs" at home will have an easier time defining as "news fit
for coverage" human rights abuses overseas.3)
HUMAN
RIGHTS IN THE LANGUAGE OF AMERICAN POLITICS
Since the administration of President
Jimmy Carter raised strengthening of human rights overseas into a
central objective of American foreign policy, human rights issues have
frequently become primary debating points in American politics for both
defending and criticizing the administration in power, first under
President Carter and later under Presidents Reagan and Bush.
Even before the Carter presidency, Congressional legislation aimed at
what was seen as the blindness toward human rights of President Nixon's
imperial presidency began to attach human rights requirements on issues
such as the granting of foreign aid and trade concessions to both
communist and noncommunist countries. Those disillusioned with American
backing of an authoritarian South Vietnamese government during the
Vietnam War were especially likely to raise human rights objections to
US backing of other repressive anticommunist governments, thus making
arguments over human rights a frequent test of what post Vietnam policy
should be.
President Carter's critics attacked him for downplaying communist human
rights abuses as his administration prodded friends of America such as
Chile toward human rights improvements. Reagan's critics could
similarly criticize him for attacking communist abuses while looking
the other way from human rights violations by an anticommunist
government in El Salvador and by anticommunist Contra rebels in
Nicaragua.
The tendency for internal political debates to be argued around human
rights issues made it more likely that reporting on such issues from
overseas would be welcomed as "news" both by media editors and media
consumers. Indeed Congressional critics of American Cold War policies
could cite in debate media reports detailing human rights abuses by US.
allies while hard-line Cold Warriors could cite and read into the
Congressional Record reporting on communist human rights abuses.
A COLD
WAR ENDS: WHAT KIND OF LITMUS?
With the end of the Cold War human rights
reporting entered a new stage. The virtual end of that ideological
struggle forced the United States to redefine its interests, its world
view, and its concept of where human rights issues fit. Gone was a
simpler world in which anti-Communists argued the defense of human
rights required containment of Soviet totalitarianism while critics of
American policy condemned American policy for too often supporting
repressive regimes simply because they were allies against the Soviet
Union.
The collapse of communism in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe
quickly demonstrated how human rights reporting could stimulate
controversy around these issues. Human rights journalism could become
intimately enmeshed in both international and domestic US politics.
The decline of communism opened the way for bitter ethnic-religious
battles within nations like the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia - battles
which brought civil war between Azerbaijani and Armenian; Serbs and
Croats, Christians and Muslims. Moves to enlarge and "cleanse" these
new states by terrorizing and expelling ethnic and religious minorities
grabbed international headlines as individual provinces sought to get
greater autonomy or break away from larger formerly communist nations.
In the summer of 1992 Red Cross and UN sources could use American
reporters to publicize charges of atrocities against Croatian and
Muslim civilians in Serb run camps in hopes such coverage would
pressure both sides in the civil war to admit Red Cross officials in
camps to deter violations and cut into a cycle of atrocities. By
getting the story out to both American and European reporters, Red
Cross officials could hope to win support of Western governments to
press both sides for Red Cross entry at the camps.
As the Cold War confrontation disappeared, attention shifted to other
threats of violence: civil war, violent ethnic conflict, and famine.
Cold War related human rights issues almost always had an "American
angle." But in the post Cold War period violent abuses might break out
in unfamiliar areas with few Americans present and where American
interests seem uncertain. American media coverage could be expected to
influence public attitudes on human rights related issues such as these:
1) Should the United States unilaterally or in
cooperation with other nations patrol the world to prevent brutal human
rights abuses? How large a US military should be maintained and where
and under what conditions should American lives be expended in combat?
In the absence of a Soviet threat should the US continue as "world
policeman?"
2) Should friends of the United States be required to pass some sort of
human rights "litmus test" that is more stringent in the post Cold War
era? Without the simplifying guide that "enemies of our enemies are our
friends," how should such tests be devised and enforced? Is it possible
to be consistent? In the absence of an overwhelming Soviet threat and a
correspondingly great need for allies, how should the US choose its
friends?
3) Did the end of the Cold War open the way for a United Nations
collective security system involving international sanctions and even
joint military action to restrain massive human rights abuses? The end
of the Cold War resurrected hopes the UN. Security Council could be
more effective in this area less impaired by the veto often exercised
in the past by the Soviet Union.
4) In a world where human rights abuses may be frequent and widespread
and where American resources are limited, on what grounds should
decisions to intervene be made? Human rights violations during Iraq's
1990 invasion of Kuwait combined with threats to world oil supply were
a reason for the US led military intervention. But where strategic
interests are less clear, how far should the US and other nations go to
intervene in defense of human rights?
HUMAN
RIGHTS REPORTERS: YOUR AWARD IS YOUR REWARD
One measure of growing American overseas
human rights journalism is the increased frequency with which this work
receives prestigious awards. Since 1970 the Pulitzer and the Overseas
Press Club (OPC) Awards have increasingly recognized entries dealing
with human rights related topics such as torture, political prisoners,
ethnic killings, and the plight of refugees from war and political
persecution. They have also increasingly spotlighted conditions which
are sometimes seen as violations of economic and social human rights:
such as hunger and the abuse of women and children.
The OPC has even created two new competitive categories which spotlight
human rights issues: the Madelaine Dane Ross award for reporting
showing great concern for humanitarian issues, established in 1973 and
a special award for the category of human rights created in 1989.
BEFORE
THERE WERE AWARDS
A survey of Pulitzer prizes The Pulitzer Prizes awarded since the
establishment of that competition in 1917 amply demonstrates the much
greater premium placed on human rights coverage since 1970.5) Early
awards
for international reporting most frequently went to war coverage
or daily correspondence on political developments - rather than to
focused efforts to spotlight political or economic abuses. Awards
granted for international reporting placed almost no emphasis on human
rights issues until 1957 when Russell Jones of United Press received
the
honor for front-line eyewitness reports of "the ruthless Soviet
repression of the Hungarian people" after the Hungarian Revolution of
1956. Even when the Pulitzer competition recognized coverage of topics
which by today's standards would be ripe for human rights emphasis, the
focus was clearly more general with no apparent mission to act as an
international "watchdog."
Indeed one reward went to an entry which modern historians have cited
as an abject failure to address human rights issues: the 1932
correspondence award to Walter Duranty of the New York
Times for a series of dispatches on the practical
operation of the Five Year Plan in Russia. A number of writers have
argued Duranty, privately aware of the brutalities of Stalin's
policies, openly discussed these with American diplomats at the time,
yet systematically tailored his reporting in the Times so
that no reader would be aware of Stalin's widespread human rights
abuses.4)
During the 1930's and 1940's, at the height of repression
by Hitler and Stalin, Pulitzer awards for international reporting
emphasized war coverage or political coverage which may have cited some
of the brutalities of the period - but did not take up the goal of
alerting the world to the systematic abuses these regimes sought to
cover up.6)
By today's standards Pulitzer Awards showed little human
rights focus even as the Cold War broke and peaked. So it was that
Edmund Stevens of The Christian Science
Monitor took the 1950 international reporting award for three years
of reporting from Moscow entitled, "This is Russia - Uncensored;
Harrison E. Salisbury of the New York Times took the 1955 award
for a series of articles "Russia Reviewed" and Jim G. Lucas of
Scripps-Howard Newspapers took the award in 1954 for human interest
reporting of the Korean War. The "exposee," "watchdog," mission, if
present, was generally downplayed.7)
FEEDING THE WATCHDOG MORE REWARDS
By the 1970's all this had changed.
Authors granted awards had more frequently chronicled or exposed the
abuses of war, racism, and poverty. Topics and approach more frequently
seemed inseparable from issues of human rights. In 1970 the Pulitzer in
international reporting went to Seymour M. Hersh, of Dispatch News
Service for his exclusive exposure of a US. military massacre of
Vietnamese civilians in the hamlet of My Lai.
In 1971 it went to Jimmie Lee Hoagland of The Washington
Post for his coverage of the struggle against the
apartheid system of racial separation in South Africa. More recent
examples include the 1985 award to Josh Friedman and Dennis Bell of Newsday
for their series on the plight of the hungry in Africa; the
1986 award to Lewis M. Simons, Pete Carey, and Katherine Ellison of the
San Jose Mercury News for their 1985 series
documenting massive undercover transfers of wealth abroad by
Philippines President Ferdinand Marcos; and the 1990 award to Nicholas
D. Kristoff and Sheryl WuDunn of The New York Times
for reporting on suppression of the student move for democracy at
Tiananmen Square.
The annual awards of the Overseas Press Club (OPC) are an even more
graphic example of growing emphasis on human rights coverage in the
last two decades.
Some examples: the 1977 Madeline Dane Ross Award for the foreign
correspondent showing a concern for the human condition to June Goodwin
of The Christian Science Monitor for her reporting on racial
change in southern Africa; the 1979 first of its kind award for best
editorial series disclosing human rights abuses to Paul Heath Hoeffel
and Juan Montalvo for their story "Missing or Dead in Argentina" in The
New
York Times Magazine ; the 1981 award for disclosure of human
rights abuses to Betty De Ramus of the Detroit Free Press for
her series "Hungry People," focusing on "the right to eat" both in the
US. and in Third World Countries such as Ethiopia; the 1985 Madeline
Dane Ross Award to the foreign correspondent showing a concern for the
human condition to photographer Stan Grossfeld and reporter Colin
Nickerson of the Boston Globe for pictures and
reporting on the tragedy of Ethiopian famine; and the 1986 Madeline
Dane Ross Award to Kristin Helmore of The Christian Science Monitor
for a series "The Neglected Resource: Women in the Developing
World."
December 14, 2005
