The press must focus on humanity in war coverage<\/p>\n
One week into the Iraq war and everyday, scores of people tune
\ninto the news for the latest developments. Amid the "information
\nbombardment" and allegations of unbalanced coverage, The Jakarta
\nPost's Ati Nurbaiti talked to Chairman of the Press Council
\nAtmakusumah Astraatmadja on the issue. Excerpts of the interview
\nfollow:<\/p>\n
Question: Which media do you prefer for coverage on the war?
\nHow do you view reports from mainstream American media for
\ninstance, compared to BBC or Al Jazeera television networks?<\/p>\n
Answer: I don't follow all the details that much, I think
\nthere's been quite enough information prior to the war. I'm just
\nastonished that in this day and age when people could conduct
\ndialog and debates, it (the war) happened anyway.<\/p>\n
I've been more intensely following the statements of leaders
\n-- made through CNN, Fox News, BBC, ABC and Deutsche Welle -- on
\nwhat has been at the back of their minds regarding the planning
\nof the war. In the United Kingdom-based Socialist Worker weekly,
\nthere are very critical articles which are not neutral, but
\noppose Tony Blair's Labor Party, and are antiviolence and
\nantiwar.<\/p>\n
I get what I'm looking for -- (as to) why the U.S. is so
\nintent on taking over Iraq and earlier, Afghanistan -- it's
\nrelated to the survival of Americans decades ahead, while we can
\nonly think of planning for tomorrow.<\/p>\n
I don't quite like (the arguments) but they have their own
\nreasons, not just to hit at suggested terrorists.<\/p>\n
Regarding the war coverage, I pay attention when it comes to
\ncivilian casualties.<\/p>\n
In times of war, the media often echoes the interests of its
\ngovernment. How do you view this "patriotic" tendency?<\/p>\n
It would be better to focus coverage on the aspect of
\nhumanity. Any media could take up a political stance, but if they
\nempathize with humanity, they wouldn't like the policies of
\nPresident Saddam Hussein nor, for that matter, those of the
\nTaliban.<\/p>\n
How would one remain objective?<\/p>\n
That depends in large part on the historical tradition of a
\nnation's press. The history of the American press is largely
\npatriotic, tending to see its government's policies as good;
\ncoverage after Sept. 11 was quite patriotic. The Japanese press
\nhas a tradition of being very negative toward its government
\nleaders and politicians.<\/p>\n
It's hard to expect a neutral press -- although Britain has a
\nfairly strong tradition of an independent press.<\/p>\n
What about the tradition of Middle Eastern press?<\/p>\n
There is no free press in the Middle East, not even in Egypt
\n-- I heard that journalists in the region last year demanded for
\nmore elbowroom. But Al Jazeera is considerably good and it's been
\ncriticized by some Middle Eastern countries.<\/p>\n
What about the press here in their coverage regarding the war
\nso far?<\/p>\n
The media needs to continually stress that this is not a war
\nabout religion; there is considerable support for the war from
\nMiddle Eastern countries -- if they're neutral, I consider them
\nsupportive of the war -- and rallies across the world have
\nincluded millions of people from many non-Muslim countries.<\/p>\n
So what kind of media would you advise people to follow?<\/p>\n
Those that try to be as neutral as possible and which pay a
\nlot of attention to humanitarian aspects.<\/p>\n
Observers say the only hope of stopping the war lies in
\nAmerican public opinion. But what if they're not getting such
\ncoverage as you described?<\/p>\n
We see that public support for President George W. Bush is on
\nthe rise, which seems ironic given the worldwide protests -- I
\ndon't know if this is a result of "patriotic" coverage
\nor whether Americans are not well-informed of international
\ndevelopments ... the protests in other countries reportedly did
\nnot get all that much coverage.<\/p>\n
Hasn't that "insular" attitude changed after Sept. 11?<\/p>\n
I fear their knowledge only expanded a little with information
\nabout the Muslim world ... Anyway, what's important for the press
\nis to stress humanity and so far, the war coverage by our press
\nhas not been bad. Even in so-called Islamic media, the tendency
\nhas largely been toward not portraying this war as a religious
\none. Iraqis have been fleeing to Indonesia for years, and
\nrefugees usually flee countries with oppressive policies.<\/p>\n
It is indeed difficult to be objective. How do you see our
\nformer coverage on East Timor, for instance?<\/p>\n
After the secession (the September 1999 referendum), coverage
\nhas become more factual, describing that what happened was the
\njoint fault of the military and the government -- compared to
\ncoverage during the New Order. We don't see, for instance,
\ncoverage which tends to be strongly "negative" about the ad-hoc
\nhuman rights tribunal on atrocities in East Timor.<\/p>\n
Likewise regarding Aceh -- coverage is comparatively
\nbetter.<\/p>\n
This shows that our press now has more empathy, which is the
\nbenefit of the freedom of expression and press freedom -- this
\nbrings awareness that (the media) does not always have to echo
\nthe views of those in power; even those who are powerless now
\nhave considerable space in the media (to express their views).<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/the-press-must-focus-on-humanity-in-war-coverage-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}