Terrorists Have Their Way on TV

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: "Robert C. Atkinson" <rca53 () columbia edu>
Date: September 15, 2004 7:17:27 PM EDT
To: David Farber <dave () farber net>
Subject: Terrorists Have Their Way on TV
Reply-To: rca53 () columbia edu

 For IP?  The summary was provided by the Benton Foundation.  For 
convenience, the full text of the article follows.  It would be 
interesting to hear IPers' reaction to the suggested "new ethic" and 
the four specific policies for broadcasters. 


 TERRORISTS HAVE THEIR WAY ON TV
 [Commentary]  The “if it bleeds, it leads” mentality of television 
news is failing us. TV's hunger for shocking pictures is distorting 
Americans' view of the war in Iraq, and its excessive use of terrorist 
video is spreading propaganda of an even more damaging sort. TV outlets 
run the risk of becoming mindless, amoral communications tools by which 
terrorists advertise their brutality, enlarge their reputations and 
belittle those who would protect us. The Pew Charitable Trusts' 2004 
report on the state of the U.S. media found a troubling trend: News 
outlets “disseminate” news from other sources rather than collect it 
themselves, and the end video product often becomes repetitive, chaotic 
and incoherent “raw news.” Ultimately, news decisions are surrendered 
to those who would manipulate it for their own ends. TV may need to 
explore a new ethic — with some stern written-down policies including: 
1) A refusal to air video or other propaganda from terrorist Web sites 
or other anonymous terrorist sources, except in the rare circumstances 
that such information warns viewers of an imminent, credible threat. 2) 
A prohibition against using images that aren't shot by network or other 
legitimate photographers. That means not using video shot by terrorists 
or insurgents, because these images are suspect, often staged for 
propaganda. 3) A new practice of prominently labeling all non-network, 
freelance or bystander video — akin to the photo credit in print 
journalism — so audiences can judge the source of each image. 4) A 
commitment to require the same sharp scrutiny and relentless challenges 
to terrorists and insurgents that journalists traditionally give our 
own government and military officials.
 [SOURCE: USAToday, AUTHOR: Alcestis “Cooky” Oberg, a member of USA 
TODAY's board of contributors]
 http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20040915/oplede07.art.htm


 USAToday article:


Terrorists have their way on TV
Network news' mentality of ‘if it bleeds, it leads' fails us. Lives are 
at stake.

 By Alcestis “Cooky” Oberg

When I was in broadcast news, I was dismayed at how often the “if it 
bleeds, it leads” mentality let sensational, gruesome pictures dictate 
the story of the day, often without explanation, purpose or reason. Yet 
our largest and most influential TV networks and cable news channels 
have been doing just this sort of sensationalistic journalism in their 
coverage of Iraq and the war on terrorism. In the extreme, they even 
use the footage terrorists provide of their victims.

For instance, on Sept. 7 and 8, networks used home video from the 
terrorists who massacred hundreds of schoolchildren in Beslan, Russia. 
A week earlier, kidnappers in Iraq slaughtered 12 Nepalese hostages, 
possibly for nothing more than shocking images it would produce on 
video. It's as though the terrorists themselves have begun to compete 
for ratings.

In our post-9/11 world, all journalists — but especially broadcasters — 
need to rethink what they're doing.

Television certainly needs to show the cruel face of war — whether in 
Iraq or the war on terrorism — for the sake of truth and accuracy. But 
TV's hunger for shocking pictures is distorting Americans' view of this 
war, and its excessive use of terrorist video is spreading propaganda 
of an even more damaging sort. TV outlets run the risk of becoming 
mindless, amoral communications tools by which terrorists advertise 
their brutality, enlarge their reputations and belittle those who would 
protect us.

The Tyndall Report, which tracks nightly news broadcasts, found that 
60% of the time given to top news stories during one week in June was 
devoted to car bombings, a hostage beheading and other 
terrorist-related activities. Sometimes, it is more.

There were car bombs in Baghdad and attacks on foreigners in Saudi 
Arabia. The terrorists even provided “raw” video — such as the 
beheading of U.S. hostage Paul Johnson — that dominated those 
broadcasts. In the meantime, the networks underreported the vital but 
less-visual elements of nation-building in Iraq during that period: 
organizing a police force, setting up an economy, stabilizing a 
currency and planning elections.

Networks defend such practices as bringing the public the “news” — and 
24-hour cable channels especially pride themselves on presenting 
“breaking news” footage.

 However, the Pew Charitable Trusts' 2004 report on the state of the 
U.S. media found a troubling trend: News outlets “disseminate” news 
from other sources rather than collect it themselves, and the end video 
product often becomes repetitive, chaotic and incoherent “raw news.” 
Ultimately, news decisions are surrendered to those who would 
manipulate it for their own ends.

This has resulted in non-stop images of hostages, street fighting and 
gun-waving insurgents. With virtually each new kidnapping or slaughter, 
a video emerges and is dutifully aired. The source of the footage 
frequently is not identified.

 The most dangerous television practice, though, is the 
“personalization” of news reports. Putting a face on every gory story 
has turned some terrorists into celebrities, on par with world leaders. 
Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the 9/11 mastermind, told interrogators that he 
was “inspired” by the “instant notoriety” garnered by the planners of 
the 1993 World Trade Center attacks. He said he wanted to cast himself 
as a “superterrorist” in this new “theater” of destruction. In essence, 
television gave him enormous motivation to commit a bigger, more 
terrible act.

Currently, U.S. TV outlets leave the decision to air terrorist video to 
the judgment of producers, managers and senior network executives. 
Perhaps it's time for a change.

 TV may need to explore a new ethic — with some stern written-down 
policies — to stop our nightly news from becoming a terrorist 
infomercial of death and to prevent future media manipulation by these 
barbaric people. Post-9/11 broadcast standards could include:

•A refusal to air video or other propaganda from terrorist Web sites or 
other anonymous terrorist sources, except in the rare circumstances 
that such information warns viewers of an imminent, credible threat.

•A prohibition against using images that aren't shot by network or 
other legitimate photographers. That means not using video shot by 
terrorists or insurgents, because these images are suspect, often 
staged for propaganda.

 •A new practice of prominently labeling all non-network, freelance or 
bystander video — akin to the photo credit in print journalism — so 
audiences can judge the source of each image.

 •A commitment to require the same sharp scrutiny and relentless 
challenges to terrorists and insurgents that journalists traditionally 
give our own government and military officials.

The Pew report found that three-quarters of all American adults 
distrust the media. They should. The world requires tougher standards 
of journalism to alleviate this “terrorist theater.”

 Arguments over the “if it bleeds, it leads” credo are as old as 
television. But in today's world, the practice crosses a terrible new 
line, encouraging publicity-seeking fanatics to commit heinous acts.

 When and if this contributes to the next 9/11-type attack on the USA, 
the time for constructive, post-9/11 journalistic reform will have 
passed. The blood on the hands of terrorists will have transferred onto 
the lenses and notebooks of American television journalists.

Alcestis “Cooky” Oberg lives in Houston and is a member of USA TODAY's 
board of contributors.

 

-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as interesting-people () lists elistx com
To manage your subscription, go to
 http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/