MEDIA REPORTING: ARMED CONFLICT AND VIOLENCE · Chair: Mr Mahbubul Alam 27 Editor, The Independent Bangladesh Glamorizing violence – What should be Media response: 27 Mr Swapan

PressInstituteofBangladesh

South Asian Senior Editors' Conference, 2007Dhaka, Bangladesh

MEDIA REPORTING:ARMED CONFLICT AND VIOLENCE

EditorsPhilippe StollSurinder Oberoi

PressInstituteofBangladesh

South Asian Senior Editors' Conference, 2007Dhaka, Bangladesh

MEDIA REPORTING:ARMED CONFLICT AND VIOLENCE

EditorsPhilippe StollSurinder Oberoi

28th - 29th October 2007

Seminar is dedicated to Late Mr Tahir Mirza, Editor Dawn, Pakistanwho was one of the speakers in the 2006-2007 Senior Editorsconference held at New Delhi

Designed & Printed at Multiplexus (India), New Delhi, India

3

Media Reporting: Armed Conflict & Violence

Content/ProgrammesPAGE

Foreword 7

International Humanitarian Law and Protection of Media 9professionals working in armed conflicts by Knut Dormann,Head of the Legal Division ICRC, Geneva

Inaugural Session 17

Chair: Dr. Shaikh Abdus Salam, Professor and Chairman, 17Department of Mass Communication and Journalism,University of Dhaka

Welcome Address: Mr Finn Ruda, Head of Mission, ICRC Bangladesh 17

Chief Guest’s address: Barrister Mainul Hosein, Hon’ble Advisor 20Ministry of Information

Address: Ms Mridula Bhattacharya, Director General, Press Institute of 23Bangladesh

SESSION ONE: The Media, violence and torture 27

Chair: Mr Mahbubul Alam 27Editor, The IndependentBangladesh

Glamorizing violence – What should be Media response: 27Mr Swapan DasguptaSenior Editor and columnistIndia

Impact of Media on society while reporting violence: 31Mr Ugyen PenjorDeputy Editor, KuenselBhutan

Impact of Society on media while reporting violence: 34Mr Murtaza RazviSenior Editor, Daily DawnPakistan

Torture reporting in the media – an outcome: 38Mr. Abdul Aziz DaneshEditor, Pajhwok Afghan NewsAfghanistan

4


Violence, torture and ill-treatment in films/TV, and its impact 41on a daily life:

Mr Philippe StollCommunication Coordinator, ICRC

Panel discussion followed by Question and Answer session 44

Session two: 53

Media and protection - What does the law says about it

Chair: Mr Bazlur Rahman, Editor, Sangbad 53

Price of truth – Media persons are dying to tell the truth: 53Mr Farid HossainBureau ChiefAssociated press (AP)Dhaka, Bangladesh

Violence against journalists is increasing with passing years: 55Mr Lankabaarage Anura Solomons,Deputy Editor, Foreign News andFeature Editor, Daily Divaina,Sri Lanka

Who kills journalist and why? What are the protection measures 57for them:

Mr Amitabh Roy ChowdhurySenior Editor, Press Trust of India,India

Freedom of Expression and dangerous assignments: 61Mr Dharmendra Jha,News Editor, Annapurna Post,Nepal

Civil Society view of Media persons and their protection: 64Dr. Mizanur Rahman ShelleyChairman, Centre for DevelopmentResearch, BangladeshEditor, Asian AffairsDhaka, Bangladesh

Panel discussion followed by Question & Answer 68

5


SESSION THREE: 76The Media and the law of armed conflict

Chair: Mr Mahfuz Anam, Editor, The Daily Star

Journalists engaged in dangerous professional missions in 78areas of armed conflicts – State response:

Mr Nurul Kabir,Editor, New ageBangladesh

Journalists engaged in dangerous professional missions in areas 80of armed conflicts – Employers’ response:

Mr Gopal GuragainManaging DirectorUjyalo FM and Satellite Channel,Kathmandu, Nepal

Journalists engaged in dangerous professional missions in areas 83of armed conflicts – Journalists response:

Mr Amit Barua,Foreign Editor,The Hindustan TimesIndia

Journalists in danger – a new law needed? 88Mr Surinder OberoiCommunication OfficerICRC

Civil Society view on media and the danger they face in 91conflict reporting:

Amb. Farooq SobhanPresident, Bangladesh EnterpriseInstitute, Bangladesh

Panel discussion Followed by Question & Answer 94

SESSION FOUR: War/Conflict time responsibility of media 106

Chair: Mr Iqbal Shoban Chawdhury, Editor, Bangladesh Observer 107

Civil Society view on media responsibility in conflict reporting: 107Dr Hafiz G.A SiddiqiVice ChancellorNorth South UniversityBangladesh

6


Competition and infrastructure leapfrogging - a bane or boon 111in conflict reporting:

Ms Pamela Philipose,Senior Associate Editor,Indian Express, India

Is self-regulation necessary for media in war without borders? 115Mr Kesara Abeywardena,News Editor, Daily MirrorSri Lanka

The relationship between media and the security forces 117during conflict:

Ms Faida FarukSenior JournalistMaldives

Do journalists continue to be impartial observers in present conflicts? 119Mr Reazuddin AhmedEditor, The News TodayBangladesh

Panel discussion followed by Question & Answer 126

Valedictory Session 131

Chair: Mr. Finn Ruda, Head of Mission, ICRC, Dhaka 131

Address: Dr. Shaikh Abdus Salam, Professor and Chairman, Department 131of Mass Communication and Journalism, University of Dhaka

Address: Ms Mridula Bhattacherya, Director General, Press Institute 132Of Bangladesh

Guest of Honour: Mr. Fida Kamal, Attorney General, Bangladesh 133Supreme Court, Ministry of Law Justice and Parliamentary Affairs

Address by Chief Guest: Dr. Ifterkher Ahmed Chowdhury, Hon’ble 134Advisor, Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Concluding address: Mr Vincent Nicod, Head of the Regional Delegation 137South Asia, ICRC

Editor’s Seminar

7

FOREWORD

History of Journalism in South Asia is old and treasured. With the passage of time,journalism has diversified multi fold. Media that came into existence to do thebasic job of disseminating information to the society is now playing a domineeringrole in the development of the social order amid new-fangled challenges.

In the 21st century, media has turned into the most important tool in spreadingthe knowledge to the masses about politics, education, development, reformsand about the role of stakeholders in difficult situations. Media now is the strongestand quickest source of information, bringing-in instant news into the drawingrooms, offices, streets and even to the mobile phones.

With this fast lane travelling of news, society harbours huge expectations fromthe media. However, with the infrastructure leapfrogging and advanced technology,the relationship between the viewer/reader and the journalist has been distortedto some extent. The viewer now wants instant results and expects media to playan executive as well as a policing role. Media groups grapple with conflictingpriorities of journalistic probity verses commercial interests in their day-to-dayfunctioning. The mushrooming of 24X7 news channels has further complicatedthe realm of media ethics.

Undoubtedly, owing to both external and internal factors, media is not living upto its expectations and has much diverted from its original purpose i.e. being thedisseminator of information. In addition, the competition within the print, thetelevision and the internet media has raised new array of problems that need tobe dealt with urgently.

Media persons covering conflict or violence at ground zero are worst affected bythe current problems engulfing media. The number of media causalities in presentscenario has been reported to be a much bigger number than the number duringWorld War II according to the worried media welfare agencies. In some conflict-ridden places, it has become difficult for the media persons to reach on the spotand cover the story. Here again the issue is what protection media gets so that itcan report back fearlessly and truthfully from such places.

In view of these new developments, the ICRC in association with partnersconducted the second senior editors conference in Dhaka, Bangladesh to look atthe issues of media protection, its obligations and the new challenges it’s facing.Senior editors from reputable print and electronic media groups from eight SouthAsian countries debated on the role of the media in reporting of the conflict andthe protection they require while reporting.

Editor’s Seminar

8

The proceedings of the two-day conference that had four sessions have beendocumented in this report so as to assess the views of the editors and thusenlighten readers including media persons about the issues discussed at theconference.

This document also aims to spread the knowledge of the challenges faced by themedia to the new generation in the media so that they can learn from theexperience of their seniors.

Those who are planning to go to the conflict areas for the coverage should knowwhat is the role and responsibilities of the media and what constrains are therein the field, and how to cope with them. Lastly, the report also deals with howimportant it is for the media persons to know about the Geneva conventions, theinternational humanitarian law, the human rights law, the customary law and themedia protection laws.

The panel discussion has been able to give some of the answers. If you need anyfurther information or books on the above-mentioned laws, feel free to contactICRC documentation centre in New Delhi or visit the website: www.icrc.org. It hasall the relevant documents.

Hopefully this work will trigger further intellectual debate and studies on theissue in focus thereby throwing up some practical measures to tackle better theproblems faced by the media when covering armed conflict.

Philippe Stoll / Surinder OberoiICRC, New Delhi

Note: The views expressed by the speakers are their own and are not necessarilythe views of the organisers of this workshop.

9


PREAMBLE

International Humanitarian Law and the Protectionof Media Professionals Working in Armed Conflicts*

By Knut Dörmann, Head of the Legal Division, ICRC Geneva

Journalists and crew members who cover armed conflict run risks. They are exposedto the dangers arising from military operations; they can become the victims ofbattlefield hostilities, such as bomb raids, direct enemy fire or stray bullets, mineexplosions.

Journalists and their accompanying team can also become victims of arbitraryacts of violence, such as murder, arrest, torture, disappearance, carried out bymembers of the armed or security forces or by non-state armed actors in thecountry where journalists are working.

Against this background, the present note looks at the provisions in internationalhumanitarian law (IHL) that protect media professionals and facilitate the exerciseof their professional activity. It aims to demonstrate that the harm suffered byjournalists and their teams could be significantly reduced if there were a greaterrespect for these laws and if they were more vigorously enforced.

Protection of journalists under existing law

The scope of IHL is to spare persons not or no longer taking a direct part inhostilities from undue harm resulting from an armed conflict. Therefore, theinstruments of IHL make no statements on the journalists’ freedom of action orspeech. They do not grant the right to enter a territory without the consent ofthe authority controlling it. They do however set the ground rules for theirlegal protection whenever they find themselves in a context of an armedconflict.

In IHL treaty law journalists are mentioned in two different ways. Firstly, the ThirdGeneva Convention (GC III) relative to the treatment of prisoners of war coverswar correspondents. Secondly, the 1977 Additional Protocol I to the GenevaConventions (AP I) deals specifically with journalists engaged in dangerousprofessional missions in areas of armed conflict. Both treaties apply to internationalarmed conflicts.

*This text was originally published on the ICRC website (www.icrc.org) on 01.12.2007

10


War correspondents are representatives of the media who, in case of aninternational armed conflict are accredited to and accompany the armed forceswithout being members thereof. This would be the situation of most embeddedjournalists.1 While being civilians, they are entitled to the status and treatment ofa prisoner of war in case of capture.2 Thus all the protections of the Third GenevaConvention as supplemented by Additional Protocol I and customary internationallaw apply to them.

Other journalists who cover armed conflicts enjoy the same rights and must abideby the same rules of conduct as civilians.3 The legal situation of war correspondentsand other journalists differs only once they find themselves held in the hands ofa party to a conflict.

Contrary to these rules applicable to international armed conflicts, journalists arenot specifically mentioned in any treaty applicable to non-international armedconflicts. However, in such situations they are considered to be civilians/personsnot or no longer taking a direct part in hostilities. All protections applicable tothese persons also apply to journalists and their crews.

Journalists facing the danger of combat operations

International armed conflicts

A journalist on a dangerous professional assignment in a combat zone is a civilian.He or she is entitled to all rights granted to civilians per se. AP I, Article 79,establishes this rule for international armed conflicts. Thus, journalists do not losetheir civilian status by entering an area of armed conflict on a professional mission,even if they are accompanying the armed forces or if they take advantage ofmilitary logistic support.

Journalists are protected in the same way as all other civilians, independent oftheir nationality, provided that they do not undertake any action which couldjeopardise their civilian status.

1 Because these journalists are often “inserted” in the military units and agree to a number ofground rules obliging them to remain with the unit to which they are attached and which ensuretheir protection, they tend to be equated with war correspondents within the meaning of the ThirdGeneva Convention.

2 An identity card as foreseen in GC III will be proof of this authorization, proof that the enemy candemand before deciding on his status. The war correspondent card plays a similar role to that of asoldier’s uniform: it creates a presumption. If there is any doubt about the status of a person whodemands prisoner of war status, that person remains under the protection of the 1949 Conventionpending the decision of a competent tribunal, according to the procedure laid down in the secondparagraph of Article 5 of the Third Convention.

3 Thus, if one replaces the term “civilian” in other provisions of IHL by the term “journalist and crewmembers” one gets a better idea of the protections IHL grants.

11


As civilians, journalists and their crew must under no circumstances be the objectof a direct attack. Parties to an armed conflict have the obligation to take allfeasible precautions to ensure that attacks are only directed at military objectives.Moreover, a deliberate attack causing the death or injury of a journalist wouldconstitute a war crime.4

War correspondents accredited by military authorities, as mentioned in GC III, areprotected in like manner to non-accredited journalists: they maintain their civilianstatus despite the special authorization received from military sources.5

While journalists and their crews do not lose their right to protection as a civilian,they (as any other non-combatant person) act at their own risk if they stay tooclose to a military unit or get too near to a military target. The unit or militarytarget could be the object of a lawful enemy attack, and ensuing death or injuryto the journalist or the crew would thus be considered a side-effect of that attack,that is, as so-called “collateral damage”. Such an attack is only unlawful, if theexpected civilian death or injury is excessive in relation to the military advantageanticipated from the attack (proportionality rule).6

However, even in this scenario the prohibition of any direct attack againstjournalists and their teams stands.

Journalists are not protected against deliberate attacks if and for as long as theytake a direct part in hostilities. A journalist’s usual activities are covered by theimmunity against direct attacks and do not constitute a direct participation in thehostilities. By accepting journalists as civilians, States agreed to let them do theirjob, i.e. take photographs, shoot films, record information, take notes and transmittheir information and materials to the public via the media. However, if journalistsoverstep their role and the limits of their professional mandate, they risk beingaccused of spying or of committing other hostile acts.

Non-International Armed Conflicts

While journalists are not specifically mentioned in any treaty applicable to non-international armed conflicts, they are considered to be civilians.7 The civilian

4 AP I and Art. 8(2)(b)(i) of the Rome-Statute of the International Criminal Court.

5 Likewise, journalists must be respected whether or not they are in possession of an identity cardfor journalists engaged in dangerous missions. The card attests to their capacity as journalists; itdoes not create a civilian status.

6 Art. 51(5)(b) AP I.

7 Jean-Marie Henckaerts and Louise Doswald-Beck, Customary International Humanitarian Law, VolumeI. Rules, Cambridge University Press, 2005, pp. 115-118

12


population and individual civilians may not be the object of attacks, unless andfor such time they take a direct part in hostilities.

Consequently, journalists and their teams benefit from the full protection grantedby law to civilians, in both international and non-international armed conflicts.

Journalists in the hands of a party to an armed conflict (whether by captureor arrest)

In international armed conflicts, the legal provisions applying to a journalist andhis or her crew in the hands of a party to an armed conflict depend on a numberof factors, including origin and nationality.

Local journalists arrested by their own authorities are subject to the law of theircountry. They may be deprived of their liberty if domestic legislation permits theirdetention. The authorities are bound by the guarantees and rules relative todetention laid down in their own legislation and in any international human rightsprovisions to which their State is party.

Otherwise journalists and their crews are protected by a range of IHL norms thatapply to civilians and that are contained in the Fourth Geneva Convention and inAP I, as well as in customary international law. In particular, they are entitled to animportant number of fundamental guarantees. For example the following acts areprohibited, at any time and in any place whatsoever:

• violence to the life, health, or physical or mental well-being of persons, inparticular:

(i) murder;

(ii) torture, whether physical or mental, cruel or inhuman treatment;

(iii) corporal punishment; and

(iv) mutilation;

• outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degradingtreatment;

• collective punishment;

• hostage taking.

13


Violations of most of these provisions constitute war crimes. The allegedcommission of these acts must be investigated and prosecuted in accordancewith relevant international and domestic law.

The armed or security forces of a State have the right, under specific conditions,to intern/detain people, including civilians, whom they find in an area of militaryoperations. If arrested, detained or interned for actions related to the armed conflict,civilian journalists and their crews must be informed promptly of the reasons whythese measures have been taken. Except in cases of arrest or detention for penaloffences, such persons must be released with the minimum delay possible and inany event as soon as the circumstances justifying the arrest, detention orinternment have ceased to exist.

If detained for penal offences, they are entitled to fair trial guarantees.

Journalists in enemy hands may be visited by representatives of the ICRC, whocheck on their conditions of internment. They have the right to communicatewith their relatives.

While the above rules are spelled out in detail for international armed conflicts,the law of non-international armed conflicts is again less explicit. Nonetheless, itprovides legal protection to all persons who do not take a direct part in thehostilities or have stopped to do so. It states that detainees must be treatedhumanely, without any adverse distinction. The same fundamental guaranteesapply to them as in the case of international armed conflicts. IHL does not, however,offer much recourse against unjustified or excessive detention. This gap is howeverfilled by human rights law. IHL does however foresee judicial guarantees in caseof trial.

The ICRC normally offers its services to all parties involved in a non-internationalarmed conflict.

Assessment

At first sight one could have the impression that IHL does not provide muchprotection for journalists and other media staff, given that IHL treaty law onlycontains two references to media personnel (war correspondents and journalistsin dangerous professional missions in areas of armed conflict).

However, if one reads these provisions in the context of other provisions of IHL,the protection under existing law is quite comprehensive, namely for journalistsin the hands of a party to an armed conflict, in particular if held in detention orif facing criminal proceedings.

14


With regard to the risks that media professionals run on the battlefield, existingrules provide a solid and realistic basis for protection, at least on paper. It is difficultto imagine that the State would be willing to grant much more extensive legalprotection or that it would indeed be able to effectively ensure more protectionin concrete battlefield situations.

The most serious deficiency presently is the lack of vigorous implementation ofexisting rules and the systematic investigation, prosecution and sanction ofviolations, rather than the lack of rules.

How could protection be improved?

Better implementation of the existing rules

As we have seen, the grounds for basic legal protection exist. As so often withrules of IHL, they are not sufficiently respected in practice. It should therefore bethe foremost objective to work for improved compliance with these rules. Thisrequires proper training and instructions for those who have to implement them,i.e. members of armed and security forces and of other armed groups. It alsorequires that those who violate the rules be held to account and, if found guiltyof crimes, be sanctioned. Everyone is accountable to the provisions of internationalhumanitarian law and all States have an obligation to ensure that these laws areknown, respected and enforced.

The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) is an impartial, neutraland independent organization whose exclusively humanitarian mission is toprotect the lives and dignity of victims of armed conflict and other situationsof violence and to provide them with assistance.

The ICRC also endeavours to prevent suffering by promoting andstrengthening humanitarian law and universal humanitarian principles.

Established in 1863, the ICRC is at the origin of the Geneva Conventions andthe International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement. It directs andcoordinates the international activities conducted by the Movement in armedconflicts and other situations of violence.

17


INAUGRAL SESSION

Welcome Address by Dr. Shaikh Abdus Salam, Prof. and Chairman, Dept. ofMass Communication and Journalism, University of Dhaka

The Dhaka University, Dept. of Mass Communication and Journalism, being anactive partner of ICRC in Bangladesh and as recently we have signed amemorandum of understanding with ICRC; we became one of the organizingpartners and as a follow up of that, today we are enjoying this fruitful and extremelyimportant gathering of the two-day International Conference in Dhaka.

ICRC is a great name and bears the emblem of image, definitely different frommany other organizations. ICRC flag indeed carries a symbol and meaning forserving humanity during disaster emergencies. Where there is crisis, where thereis distress and destruction, ICRC steps in immediately to redress the situation.

ICRC acts to mitigate the suffering definitely with dynamic and beyond doubtmanner and means. ICRC steps into the circumstances and situations to mitigatethe emergencies arising out of any kind of turmoil and turbulence. For all thesegood doings, we salute ICRC and thus, express our feelings and commitment tosupport ICRC.

I am sure that during this two day Conference, we would have series of discussions,debates, deliberations and discourses, and we would be able to renew our courageand confirm our commitments for building our nations free from all evils andmisdeeds.

Welcome Address by Mr. Finn Ruda, Head of Mission, ICRC, Bangladesh

ICRC is a private humanitarian organization with a mandate on the internationallaw through what you know as the 1949 Geneva Convention. It is an impartial andindependent, neutral humanitarian organization working for the victims of armedconflict and other situations of violence. ICRC is active, at the moment, in morethan 80 countries worldwide including the majority of the countries of this region.

We have been present on the battlefield for the last 150 years. We faced and wewitnessed war correspondents and newspapers multiplying the reporting of theconflicts and war. There was a time when nobody knew what was happening onthe battlefield, hardly anyone reported as battles used to take place miles andmiles away from populated areas and there were far less civilian casualties at thattime.

Today, the scene is different. Certainly we acknowledge that the global village isa reality. With the courtesy of the media and modern technology, the news or

18


events enter our homes and that is true, within minutes of the occurrence. The bigquestion in the competing media world is that are we presently maintaining therespect of profession of ethics, basic humanitarian values and responsibility? I amconvinced that over the next two days, our speakers will be debating on theseissues too, and there will be other questions that will be dealt with, as theConference progresses.

As planned, we have four themes that will be discussed. The first is the Media,Violence and Torture; the second is Media and Protection – what does the law sayabout it; the third is the Media and the Law of Armed Conflict and finally, theResponsibility of the Media while covering conflicts.

In all these four discussions, the central point for every journalist is the importanceto understand the law of armed conflict that has been signed by every countryand is known as the Geneva Convention or International Humanitarian Law (IHL).Humanitarian law is a special branch of law covering situations of armed conflicts,a law that seeks to mitigate the effects of war, first in limiting the choice of meansand methods of conducting military operation and secondly, to spare personswho do not or no longer are participating in the hostilities.

Today in the 21st century, when the fight against terrorism has brought newterminology, the question remains – Can humanitarian law still be considered ameaningful and legitimate answer? This again leads to other question – Canhumanitarian law help States settle their conflicts peacefully? In other words, canthe law prevent war? Another point in case here is if the conflict could beprevented, is it then the role of the law to concern itself with the war and itsconsequences? And on the other hand, are the laws of any value on the battlefieldor in the prison cell?

Coming from the ICRC, I would say yes, the law exists and the law is strong;however, it is human folly, the implementation is lacking behind. What is the roleof the media in this? The media can play an important role, but importantly, itmust first inform itself about the laws of war, humanitarian law and then,disseminate to the population, the masses by using the law. Some journalists tellus that IHL was always present in the situations covered, by not having enoughknowledge on the subject – they were not able to report properly and havemissed several important stories on the ground. The media has the power to shedpublic opinion because news is about events, news is about people. The mediatherefore has the ability to draw attention to injustice and suffering created byconflict and violence. The reporting on war casualty is not merely a matter ofhead count. Behind these figures, the media must help us find the stories ofhuman sufferings. Reporting about conflict is about giving dignity to the victims

19


of injustice as has amply been demonstrated by the enormous impact of themedia over the years.

Once the media and the general masses are aware of the Geneva Convention andother international treaties, they can protect the war or conflict-victims in oneform or the other. There are many journalism-students here today and so, I shouldthen reiterate what we all should do and not do. As a journalist, one has to havethe power to speak to the people in their own style and language. That powerhowever comes with responsibility – the responsibility to use that powerobjectively and not to harm individuals or groups or the society. We have to resistthe temptation of using power as the opinion makers in the society as much aswe have to resist attempts to strangle the truth or prevent access to information.

This can make reporting a difficult and a dangerous job, but understanding theethics of good journalism can help. I may not be wrong if I say that the father ofthe Red Cross who was awarded the first Nobel Peace Prize in 1901 was also firsta Reporter, when he wrote the book, ‘The Battle’; he transcripted what he witnessedin this war and came up with two solid suggestions – the ICRC and the IHL.

Allow me here shortly for a moment to reflect a little on the path of the ICRC inBangladesh. I personally was honoured when I was asked to reopen an ICRCmission in Bangladesh, a country where our path is so closely connected with thework of your country.

In December, 1971, the ICRC offered its services to the then Government ofBangladesh and sent a delegation to Dhaka. The ICRC delegates posted therewere particularly alarmed because there was every indication that the PakistanArmy would entrench itself in Dhaka on which the Indian forces were conveningand converging, that there would be fierce striking in what already at that timewas a densely populated city, and that a terrible revenge would be taken foratrocities of the past few months. The ICRC therefore proposed on the IHL thatthere should be two neutralized zones – one, the Holy Family Hospital and theother, Hotel Inter Continental, today’s Hotel Sheraton.

After negotiations, ICRC delegation took charge of these two neutralized zoneson the 9th of December 1971. More than a thousand wounded civilians, many ofthem, former senior government officials in terror of their lives, found temporaryrefuge in those two safety zones which were strictly respected by the fightingforces when Dhaka was captured. The ICRC in compliance with the law lifted theneutral status of the zones on the 19th December 1971, three days after the endof hostilities. So, now we are here – the same hotel, but different time. This hotelhas a historical significance for all of us; let us, with the past and the present, allowourselves to conduct this conference in this period of the neutral zone. This venture

20


has brought together the senior editors of the South Asian region and this is apositive signal for all the journalists of this region. I would therefore like to warmlythank our partners to this, the Dept. of Mass Media and Journalism, University ofDhaka and the Press Institute of Bangladesh. I also thank our presenters, panelists,moderators, senior editors and academics from the region, to have made time intheir busy schedules to travel to Dhaka in order to share their views with us onthis important subject.

It is an old saying that the first casualty of war is truth! Despite an increasingnumber of war correspondents and major media houses covering armed conflictsand violence today, this saying is still correct today as it was about 100 years ago.The proliferation of technological means to provide major coverage does notguarantee objectivity or balanced reporting. Access for journalists to sensitiveareas or to decision making circles is more and more difficult and the journalistspay a very heavy price to get to the source of information. I am sad to say thateven in 2007; some 100 journalists were killed to this task. How can then themedia ensure that the real story is told to the world and that it will remain thetruth that is recorded into history? At the risk of their lives or their physical integrity,journalists today are writing contemporary history as were those writing in thepast.

I wish you all an interesting debate. I trust that it will be a lively one. I will reiterateby saying that it needs to be a lively debate. Living in the same world, and breathingthe same air does not mean that we all agree, when discussing a given subject.

Let me conclude with the hope that the seminar will make the powerful mediaaware of the need to constantly remind our leaders, men and women of good willof the victims of the armed conflict, of untold violence, of the need to bring ahuman face to figures and numbers, of the need to provide vital informationabout the innocent people caught in world’s events and chaos, of the need toconsider a wider perspective in telling the world about what is really happeningin all the corners of this global village.

Inaugural Address by Barrister Mainul Hosein, Advisor Ministry ofInformation, Bangladesh

Today’s world affairs has brought together the senior editors of South Asia Regionand this is a positive signal for all journalists of the region, who will discuss anddebate issues this morning.

I warmly thank the three partners – the Press Institute of Bangladesh, the Universityof Dhaka and the ICRC – for bringing about such a convergence of so many senioreditors of this region. The participants are going to discuss and debate for two

21


days, the current issues and challenges that media face in covering the dangerousconflicts around the world, especially of this region. I also thank the panelists, civilsociety leaders and academics from the region to have come forward for sharingtheir views on this important occasion.

The key issue, no doubt is the role of journalists, but the questions that you willbe required to deal with are many including the international law, the desirableresponse from the parties involved in such conflicts.

We have rightly been expressing as regards the human aspects of innocent men,women and children who suffer extensively in situations of conflict. The termwhich has been used by some of you to explain journalism in violent conflictsituation, should be more appropriate in my view, if we call it humanity journalismand not human development journalism. I, on behalf of myself and on behalf ofthe Government of Bangladesh extend warm welcome to you all to this regionalgathering at which you will express your ideas freely and frankly leading toconcrete recommendations on how the media can contribute to the betterunderstanding of the humanitarian issues of the State while reporting on conflictsand violence within the region or anywhere else.

The political leaders of SAARC countries have agreed long ago that promotingfree flow of information across borders can have dynamic effect in strengtheningthe process of cooperation against hostilities and differences. It is important toanalyze dispassionately, how far such expressions of good intensions havematerialized into good deeds.

Earnest cooperation amongst the SAARC countries can make a world of differencein my judgment, to ensure rapid development and lasting peace among the peopleof these nations. It cannot be realistic to say, however much we demand and wish,that journalism can be risk-free in a condition of conflict situation – big or small.As some of you have pointed out earlier, you have to discourage violentconfrontation as a means of resolving political disputes by contending Statesor non-State players. No matter how much is said in Geneva Conventions orother international laws, no law will prove adequate to educate the protectionof journalists covering armed conflicts. The journalists are risking their livesand dying in huge numbers while armed conflicts go unabated around theworld.

As the most responsible institution, the government must learn to show restraintand follow international laws by allowing the international institutions to playtheir part before resorting to violent means. Only then, it will be easy for thegovernment of a country to contain violent elements within the country.

22


State violence has contributed to globalization of violence. In these days, nationalborders are no barrier or protection against spread of violence. If arrogance ofmilitary might of States can be kept in check, then, the UN’s collective power canbe best used for avoiding dangerous conflicts, you feel concerned about. Theeffectiveness of the UN is our best hope.

Military might of a super power has become helpless in imposing its way andinstead it has only succeeded in spreading violence globally. The political leadershave to learn fast how best to resolve political differences justly and peacefully.The purpose of press freedom is not merely the freedom of reporting but thefreedom to serve public interest and peace. Journalism has to be more reflectiveand far-sighted when reporting armed conflicts. The major the crisis, the greateris the need to reflect about the objectivity of journalism. In a violent conflict,reporting about death and destruction is not enough. Violation of human rightsof non-combatant innocent people must be brought to the fore. The parties tothe conflict must be made accountable for the legal redress of such human rightsviolation. It is most unfortunate and yet, it is the reality, that in modern warfare,fighters or soldiers are more careful about protecting themselves than saving thelives of the innocent people. Nobody will disagree that the journalists shouldhave a more legitimate claim to have full and safe access to reporting national orgroup armed conflicts.

As you all know, truth itself becomes the first casualty in such situations. Constantvigilance is required about the root-causes of violent conflicts or war; exposingthem impartially for peaceful solution without waiting for the situation to gobeyond the point of no return.

It is my earnest hope that this Conference shall inspire powerful media awareness,about the need to remind our leaders that violence must not be taken as an easyoption in dealing with human affairs. In my view, the world has become potentiallytoo dangerous, and in reality, too close, to regard any war or violent conflict asjust. There should be no just violence, only just peace.

It is the responsibility of all, not only of the journalists, to fight for the safety of thebrave journalists who cover armed conflicts so that peace and humanity can berescued from the badness of death and destruction. Because only the journalistscan show the highest form of impartiality and risk their lives, when so demanded,at a time when the humanity itself is in danger.

I thank the organizers for giving me the honour to address such an assembly ofeminent journalists, academics and civil society members. I expect bold directionsto come from your deliberations, not only for regional leaders, but also forinternational community as a whole.

23


As has been mentioned by Mr. Ruda, Head of the ICRC mission in Bangladesh, webelieve in global village. So, international situation is as important as our domesticsituation as far as violence goes.

The futility of armed conflicts against injustice has to be exposed and upheld tothe might of journalism. Law alone will not prove enough, as has been said already;we need a change of mindset of world leaders, and I hope, we will be able toachieve that.

Welcome Address Ms. Mridula Bhattacharya, DG, Press Institute of Bangladesh

In the present world, commercialization in media has diverted many of thenewspapers and electronic media to keep away from the main social issues, whilereporting in this competing time.

The Press Institute of Bangladesh tries hard to change and educate the mediapersons to focus on such issues along with many others.

Press Institute of Bangladesh (PIB) is a unique organization playing a lead role inimparting training to country’s evergreen community of journalists, to bring abouta qualitative improvement in media. PIB has undertaken an uphill task of impartingupdated training both theoretical and practical, to the journalists and media relatedpeople all over the country.

PIB has training programmes both long-term and short-term for journalists andmedia persons, along with arranging courses, workshops, dialogues, seminars, etc.on current issues and on a variety of subjects like reporting on women and children,flood and water management, HIV-AIDS, environment, gender and reproductivehealth, human rights and many others. The foundation courses for the journalistsare arranged by the PIB in Dhaka and in districts all over the country, on a regularbasis. PIB also conducts research work on different aspects of media, including itsinfluences and impact in the society, analysis of major contemporary issues andevents as depicted in the newspapers. A multi-media journal is published by PIB,to help develop the professional expertise of the journalists and to enrich theknowledge on limited topics along with publishing media related books andjournals.

PIB also conducts a 10-month long academic course, named ‘PG Diploma inJournalism’ for working journalists and interested persons, with necessarybackground. PIB has working relationship with CPU, CJA, International Institute forJournalism (IIJ), Asian Media, Information and Communication Centre (AMICRC),UNESCO, UNICEF, Asia Foundation, etc.

24


A couple of months ago, when ICRC came up to PIB with the proposal of holdingthis International Conference on Conflict Reporting, we were wondering why aninternational organization that is supposed to be looking after the medicalassistance is interested in the education of the media? Under directives from theMinistry of Information, this Institute is jointly organizing this two-day longConference with the ICRC and the Dept. of Mass Communication and Journalism,University of Dhaka.

It may be mentioned here that the ICRC is spreading the knowledge of the GenevaConvention of 1949 and the Protocols of 1977 across the globe; it is the guardianof it. Every country, including Bangladesh has signed this Convention and thus, itbecomes more pertinent for every citizen to know about the law. By visiting thewebsite anyone can find out that they have done excellent job in preparingcustomary law studies and research on IHL.

Today, when we see around, we see that violence is everywhere – violence of thestreet, violence of social exclusion, violence of radical extremism and the violenceof war. Whatever form violence takes, nobody is free of it; as most of us witness,most of the times, it makes breaking news in our media from all around the world.To make us witness the violence, somewhere somebody is reporting, taking therisk in the midst of demonstration or under fire in Iraq. Therefore, it was decidedthat the PIB, with the support of University of Dhaka, join in this programme witha view to promote awareness of the IHL.

I wish you all, an interesting two-day Conference and discussion and let me, onbehalf of our partners, thank the senior journalists from India, Pakistan, Nepal, SriLanka, Bhutan, Maldives, Afghanistan and Bangladesh for sparing their valuabletime in attending this Conference and sharing their knowledge and giving viewsat this august gathering.

I express my heartfelt thanks, on behalf of the organizers to the respected ChiefGuest of today’s Inaugural Session, Barrister Hosein, Hon. Advisor, Ministry ofInformation for sharing his precious time and for sharing his thoughts with themedia on such an important issue.

I firmly believe that the next two days will be lively and thought-provoking. I alsohope that this Conference will make the powerful media at home and abroadaware of the need to remind our leaders, and men and women - of the victimsof conflicts, of untold violence and the international law governing the same.

27


SESSION – 1

MEDIA, VIOLENCE AND TORTURE

Mr. Mahbubul Alam (Chairman and Moderator), Editor, The Independent,Bangladesh

Mr. Swapan Dasgupta, Senior Editor, India

Topic: Glamorizing violence – What should be Media response

I have been given rather the daunting subject of “glamorizing violence”, which isthe easy part and the more difficult part – What should the media response be?

I can make no claims to larger generalization and whatever I say would of coursebe coloured by my own experiences and particularly the experience of the mediain India.

To begin with there are two important factors of the media which are importantto stress right at the outset. The first is a very important trend which has juststarted, notably the increasing corporatization of the media; hitherto in the past,say about 20-25 years ago, the media was by and large, family-owned enterprises,of course, they remain in many cases like that. But the infusion of organizedequity capital into the media, the floatation of media stocks in the larger equitymarket, the induction of foreign institutional finance has made the media or mediaorganizations far more responsive or sensitive to what may be called, thecompulsions of their shareholders, in other words, ‘the need to deliver’, to haveimpressive financial results.

This is a very important backdrop in which the media in India can be seen becauseit is no longer a cottage industry. It is a multi-billion dollar industry which has anambition of making an impact, not only within the sub-continent but also perhapsoutside.

The second feature about the media is that in the context of a society wheredevelopment levels are uneven, where income levels are grossly uneven, in thepast, the basic entry condition for consumers into the media used to be literacy.The mass impact of TV particularly and I stress, maybe, there might be othermedia as well, but TV in particular has removed that entry barrier and so, mademedia, in a sense, accessible to every citizen. And, these days, TV sets are nolonger a rarity; Cable TV and other forms of Satellite TV have made their entry inalmost every remote corner of the country and so, it becomes a truly massconsumption item.

28


It is important to keep these two in view. The issue of glamourizing violence is notsomething which is unique in any way to South Asia. It is a phenomenon whichis almost global in character. I was reading a report which was published sometimesin the mid-90s that an American teenager, by the time he or she reaches 18 yearsof age, has probably witnessed something like 40,000 deaths on TV or cinema orboth. So, in terms of plethora of violence which an average individual is exposedto, whether in the form of cartoons – some of these cartoons, particularly that aremade in Japan, are terribly violent in nature. In the films – Bollywood always hadcertain violence-there is also a glorification of political violence, a covertglorification of terrorism and also, not so covert glorification of those who fightterrorism, taking the law into their own hands. This is not a dirty Harry, theencounter-deaths are something which are very widespread in India and theglorification of those policemen who somehow decide that they can take the‘rough and ready’ method – these forms of glorifications are very much there.Even things like reality issues, the subliminal violence which is there, the ‘crimeshows’ which became extremely popular, far from showing good things, they arebeing done. Maybe, there is a caveat put at the end of the show saying ‘crimedoes not pay’, but everything else about the shows, more or less would indicatethat it is certainly a glamourous business, and gives a lot of ideas to people. So,this is the larger context in which this is happening. On top of that, as journalists,as news reporters, we are confronted with the other new phenomena which startto emanate from the “War on Terrorism”, which is the so-called last testament ofthe suicide bombers, which are being played out endlessly on TV. Our friends inSri Lanka are more familiar with this for a longer time, but the rest of the worldis catching up to it. They have a tremendous impact, in terms of motivating peopleinto violence. These are motivational behaviours.

The Internet clips which are doing the rounds, showing gory execution arecompletely brutal in nature. A few of us may be repelled by these, but there aresome people who might take this as an active encouragement. In other words,the environment for glamorization of violence does exist and the main methodof dissemination of this glamorization happens to be the media, whether in theprocess of entertainment or otherwise. The role of the media in encountering thisenvironment is obviously very complex. There are many of us in the trade whofeel that the role of the media is basically that of a passive reporter. We are notsocial reformers; so, why should we bother? In our own hearts of heart, we knowthat there are certain things which are extremely disturbing, but what the hell, ifthat is what the market wants? Then, the market can have it. If the market wantspornography, let them have pornography; if they want perversion, let them haveperversion; if they want violence, so be it, as long as our ratings go up, as long asour circulation goes up, and as long as our profitability goes up. This is the verylaissez faire way of looking at the whole approach.

29


Theoretically, that is dishonesty because the media is not a receptacle foreverything that happens in the world. The media, by its very definition, involvesa process of selection. When we publish a newspaper, there are lot of things. Aman crossing the road is also news to somebody, but that is not reported. Wereport what we think is relevant. We report what we think has a certain largerbearing on the rest of the society. So, the process of selectivity is engrained intothe media. So, those who say that it is our duty to somehow do it may not becorrect.

They use the word censorship, but maybe you would like to call it selectivity. Evenselectivity involves a bit of sensation. We know what to publish and we knowwhat not to publish. We take an informed judgment, keeping in mind certainsocial values, keeping in mind certain larger questions. The issue is, to some extent,important about what the media’s role is because there is often a knee-jerkinterpretation of a lot of people to say that it is for the States, let the States getin, let the States become the true ombudsman of what is wholesome and whatis not wholesome in the media.

In India there has been a furore over a proposed regulation of the media whichenables the government to act as a filter for content. It is just a proposal and ithas naturally and very predictably been opposed by most of the mediaorganizations, for the very simple reason that the ostensible reason for governmentto try and intervene in content may be very wholesome and may be very desirable,but in practice, it is the thin end of the wedge. You allow the State, a role indetermining your content at one go, and it is not going to be stopped becausethe definition of what constitutes the social good as far as those who are thecustodian of the State are concerned, sometimes is at variance with what the restof the society believes in the public interest.

So, one of the things which has to be backed is – this is my personal view – underno circumstances, if in terms of resisting the cult of violence, under nocircumstances, should an institutional role be assigned to the State. So, the questionarises, should therefore, the media has any coherent response? Or should we justleave it to individual editors, to good citizens who happened to have drifted intothe media, to the good citizens to fight the bad citizens who have gone into themedia? Will there be a market competition between the forces of good? Somepeople will have things which take into account the values of society and otherswho will go and do anything, quite recklessly?

Ultimately, is the relationship of media with the consumers, which are the readers,viewers, etc. based on trust? Trust is the most important aspect of what constitutesthe media and what credibility in the media is. For example, media often coverslarge political events. We do not necessarily manage to interview; get the views

30


of every single individual involved in that process because sometimes, they donot want to come on record, but there are other reasons as well – sheer logisticalreasons. What do we do is we take what we consider representative views andhope that epitomizes, in a nutshell, what the larger trends are. That is a spherewhich is largely open to dishonesty.

TV can be a very dishonest medium, and it is so easy. It is child’s play to manipulatethe news both on the TV and on the print, you can write anything you like, giveit credibility, knowing very well that this is not really the case. But in doing so andin defining credibility, you are also violating the institution of trust, which existsbetween you and the media. If that trust breaks down, there are largerconsequences which also affect, in turn, the profitability and the worth of yourorganization. So, it is really the trust and there are certain social norms if there are.In the larger context, a certain abhorrence of violence exists in the world today,I think the people are sick and in a way, they are disgusted, they are frightenedof the type of violence that they see around. Glamorizing them and putting in theshred of humanity, which one of the earlier speakers alluded to, is a very importantone. A code of ethics is something which has often been spoken about in termsof the functioning – a self-imposed or voluntary code of ethics, but as we knowin reality, these things never really work. At a drop of a hat, people do violate it.It was a very interesting phase when the late Prime Minister of India, Rajiv Gandhiwas assassinated under rather violent conditions in Tamil Nadu.

Most of the media took the decision that the pictures of that blood splatteredbody, is not going to be printed. It was a wise decision. One or two publications,for their own reasons, violated it, there was a certain social stigma which wasattached to those people who actually published it. So, it is important at this time,when there is a greater degree of corporatization that we have a greater degreeof civil society interaction with the investors, with those who control the mediacorporation. In other words, certain leads can be taken from the type ofenvironmental activism which we have seen in terms of companies in havinggood business practices and the glamorizing of violence in my view, constitutesa bad business practice. To fight it really calls for a greater interaction of civilsociety with the media.

So, media perhaps have got to take really the civil society as one of its partnersin this and not see itself in terms of a grand isolation.

These were some stray ideas that I thought to put forward. It is a far larger issue;I thought I would just leave some ideas, float something and leave it to you toshoot them down. Thank you.

Mr. Mahbubul Alam: Thank you Mr. Dasgupta for your illuminating openingpresentation. It was very rewarding for all of us. You have given us an idea of the

31


industry in India today, the state of the industry itself, and how it is flourishing, theinduction of foreign equity funds and so on. So, we see rise of managerial authorityin Indian newspapers; editors do not appear to be as powerful as they used to be20-30 years ago. He has raised certain points about glamorizing violence - it wasinteresting and informative. I am sure, at the end of the presentations from ourcolleagues here, he may have to face a volley of questions because he hasprovoked a debate on ethical issues, the role of the newspapers, the media –I am referring to TV because you mentioned about TV specifically and otherelectronic media covering violence. So, whatever violence, that the cinema orTV may show, at the end, they have to send the message that terrorism doesnot pay, violence has to be stopped because the people committing violenceare taken into custody and prosecuted. It is not the same as in the westerncountries that you have referred to.

Mr. Ugyen Penjor, Deputy Editor, Kuensel, Bhutan

Topic: Impact of Media on society while reporting violence

I remember coming to this hotel in 2001 with editor of mine. That was few monthsafter I got the job as a Reporter in the newspaper. We checked into the hotel andI had to spend one night with putting on the light in the bathroom. It was my firsttrip. I did not knew then how to switch on the light with a card. Now, I am back,I am enjoying, and I know how to put on the lights!

When we first received the invitation to participate in this seminar, I thought thatI might not fit into the Senior Editors’ Conference because I am a Deputy Editorof my paper and I am in this position just for the last few years. Anyway, I wroteback saying that Bhutan is a very peaceful country and we do not have anyviolence in Bhutan. Mr. Surinder Oberoi, the organizer, in his reply suggested whynot then to speak about not having violence in Bhutan. So, I changed my decisionand thought it will be interesting to gel my views with other participating senioreditors and experienced journalists.

First, I would like to briefly give you the picture of media in Bhutan. I know especiallythe students of journalism would like to know the state of the media in Bhutan.Until recently –till last year – my paper was the only newspaper in Bhutan. TheKing thought that we should have more newspapers and the media should befree; so, there are two new newspapers both are weekly. Now, Kuensel is a bi-weekly newspaper and the other two newspapers are weekly newspapers. We donot have daily newspapers. I was surprised when someone said that we have 167daily newspapers in Bangladesh. It is really amazing. We have a national TV whichbroadcasts for a few hours in the morning and then, in the evening we telecastwhat we had in the morning.

32


I feel that there are only about 50 practicing journalists in Bhutan and out of that50% are just out of the college, graduates, who just came in for the job. So, whenI am here, I am trying to look out for some training for the journalists back inBhutan. I take this opportunity to meet the people from the University of Dhaka.

With this background, I base my talk on what violence means in Bhutan, how wecover it and what had our experience been in Bhutan. I was trying to preparesomething and I saw a lot of references on the Internet; there are hundreds ofpeople who have written on the topic: Impact of media on society. There arethousands of instances quoted everywhere and I do not want to repeat thosehere and just want to share with you the Bhutanese experience.

Today when we talk about violence, we are talking about sectarian violence,communal violence, political uprising, armed conflict, etc. Bhutan falls in a regionwhere these conflicts are a part of everyday life. Luckily or fortunately we arespared by these events. However, it is wrong to say that there is no violence at allin Bhutan.

Personally I feel that many parts of the world are extremely violent – Whether itis the suicide bombing in Sri Lanka or the communal riots in Gujarat; anger inYemen or the conflict in Iraq. Sometimes, from the amount of coverage given tothe Israel-Palestine conflict by the Western Media, I get an impression that peoplein that region have nothing other than fighting and killing each other. But a friendof mine whose father is the Ambassador in the Middle East has different thingsto say. He visited Israel and he said that it is a beautiful country, although, securityis tight, people are living a quite different life that it is different from what isquoted by the Media. So, I was quite surprised to hear this because my perceptionof that region was just war and killing. My preposition of that region was totallydistorted, thanks to the media. What is reported by the media definitely has animpact on the society.

If I shape my talk on that, I can only imagine, what kind of influence it might behaving on the people who are living in that region, who are affected by the long-drawn conflict. It actually contributes to perpetuating the problem. Reportingviolence and crime is a regular ingredient of news, as Mr. Dasgupta pointed out.It is the violent-kind of news that really gets the readers’ attention, rather than thecoverage of what benefits the entire village, etc. People would like to read aboutanybody killed somewhere or a suicide bombing somewhere, etc. As Mr. Dasguptapointed out, there is pressure for a newspaper to outshine and have largecirculation. I sometimes feel how the international media covers the blood andwar. I was watching Aljazeera Channel last night; I thought I will put some pointsso that I will add some international experience to my talk, when I was watchingthat, most of the news is about violence. I do not know whether it is because the

33


readers want to read or listen to violence or it is because that these are the newsthat really sells the paper or makes the TV Channel right into the reading level.That is the question and we should draw a line when it comes to reporting violence.

Bhutan is a land of people’s country and we hope to remain that way for all timesto come. But we do have a sporadic or bout of violence, homicide, murder ordomestic violence. We cover it as and when it comes. In my newspaper, we havesome experienced editors and our approach so far is that we try not to besensational – we try and be sensitive to the people who may have beenperpetrators and to the victims as well. We want the news interesting and at thesame time, not at the cost of somebody else. Sometimes, when we do that, we arechallenged by our readers that we do not give the full picture and all the gorydetails of how a murder or a rape took place. We often try to explain our reasonsor our stand. Most of the times, we do that.

To give you one particular example, there was this case where a man had rapedan 11-month old girl and that made headlines for Bhutanese newspapers. TheBhutanese society was shocked to the extreme. We had that story and we decidednot to go with the picture of the rapist. Our readers said that we should havereleased the picture to name and shame the rapist. But we did not because wethought that the man had a family and he had kids going to school. Just imaginewhat impact it would have left to his daughter who was going to school. Theother paper did run it with the picture of the man, etc. A few days later, there werelots of reports saying that many mothers had started escorting their daughters toschool. This is just an example of an impact.

Another policy that we follow in our newspaper is that we try to be sensitive towhat we do. We try and avoid anything that is too violent to look at. Many of ourreaders are still high school students and it would actually interest them, but wedecided that we will not do that.

Let me give you an interesting Bhutanese case. In 1999, Bhutan became the lastcountry to open up the cable TV and Internet. That was a part of our developmentalprocess, but three years later, I saw an article in The Guardian, the British-basednewspaper, whose headline was ‘Forcing it into Trouble – Bhutan crash lands intothe 21st Century’. The reporter has linked all the crime, violence and a little bit ofrobbery and murder, etc. into the cable TV in Bhutan. I did not agree with them,when I first read the article. But the time I saw my nephew, imitating a WWFwrestler and trying his skill on his sister, I thought that the report was really true.Without much violence happening within Bhutan, I think, violence in true senseis more present in the entertainment media that we have in Bhutan. When the TVwas launched, there were about 100 channels, people really do not know what tochoose; there was no regulation because it just was opened up. We were

34


bombarded with 100 channels. Today it is no exaggeration to say that violence inthe entertainment media had been a major contributor to the aggressive andviolent behaviour in real life. The rape incidents, armed robbery, murder, all startedafter cable TV came into Bhutan. Now, I agree with the report. An impact studywas immediately done after a lot of countries started writing about the impact ofTV in homes. After the study, the government banned the particular channel, TenSports, because in Ten Sports, we see the WWF programme; there are wrestlerswho show hell a lot of fight. It is a fake programme; they really do not fight butit is shown as if they fight. We have seen a lot of small boys imitating them andmost of them landing in hospitals. So, the government banned the channel andthe government also banned the FTV channel which they thought that it was nottoo good to see. So, it is no exaggeration to say that we saw, for the first time,school dropouts and other negative youths, indulging in crimes. Today we arebeginning to see crime associated with drug users all over the world. We seeshop-lifting, violence and drug abuse is becoming an emerging problem for Bhutan.

Like everywhere in the world, Buddhists also get into brawl every now and then;there have been few instances where even deaths have occurred. Given our society,such incidents are taken very seriously and felt by everyone – maybe, our coveragesometimes, stimulates fear or anxiety or magnifies; what I am presenting here is,how it stands in Bhutan, but we all know that change is the only permanent thingin this world.

As a media person in Bhutan, I feel that it is my responsibility to keep my countryas peaceful and this responsibility must continue to guide me when covering orreporting violence. Thank you.

Mr. Mahbubul Alam: Not many in Bangladesh know what is going on in Bhutanand we still have the perception that violence in Bhutan is nothing compared toother parts of the subcontinent and beyond. Sometimes we read about thefts orburglary or scuffle in Phyentsholing but not much in Punakha. There are manysuch peaceful places in Bhutan and I think, your newspapers will play a constructiverole in ensuring that violence is not spread because essentially the people ofBhutan – I find – are very peaceful.

Mr. Murtaza Razvi, Senior Editor, Daily Dawn, Pakistan

Topic: Impact of Society on Media while reporting violence

The topic of my discussion is ‘Impact of Society on media’ while reporting violence.Sensitivities prevailing in a society at a given point have a restrictive impact onprecision reporting of conflict or violence. The question is: Can the media remaintruly independent of, and insensitive to, public sentiment when such sentiment

35


either represents a sizable portion of the media’s audience or when there is publicconsensus on a conflict, say, involving another country?

Under the circumstances, you have to be damn brave to stick to the bookishmaxim of reporting ‘truth and nothing but the truth’. A more pragmatic resort tocredibility with the audience generally comes to the rescue of the most uprighteditor. Patriotism takes charge from here, and you are as much part of the streetfrenzy dictating the monolithic angle to your stories as the most rightist mediaorgan that you have known.

In Pakistan, as elsewhere in the region, we’ve all been part of this phenomenonoff and on, and not just for fear of drop in public ratings. Patriotism, real orperceived, and when linked to an ongoing crisis, comes ashore roaring like atsunami; it takes all in its killer sweep. You may, then, months or years later, risefrom the ashes and dare to tell the truth, like McNamara did about the VietnamWar. He did so in 1996 because the fear of public outcry was a calculated risk thenand not more than two decades before. Doing so while the war lasted would havesaved many lives but the ego that entrenched America in the Vietnam War wouldhave been sacrificed. Much to McNamara’s disappointment, America did not learna lesson from that bloody episode, and a re-enactment of a similar policy is inprogress in Iraq.

The West’s war-mongering over the Iranian nuclear issue is another such instancewhere society has a clear impact on how the media report the conflict in variouscountries. We live in a world where the bin Ladens and the Huntingtons havedrawn battle lines between civilizations, poisoning the minds of their respectiveaudiences and societies. The West’s desire for political supremacy, as compared toits preceding centuries’ battle cry of white supremacy is equally chilling andpolitically incorrect. Thus we have embedded journalists, both in the Muslim worldand in the West, who see and report facts through the prism of the fiction thatwill supposedly further their causes. Many in the Muslim world see America’s waron terror as a war on Muslims. Thus, to counter the West’s onslaught, bin Laden’sself-proclaimed deputies have set out to recruit squads of Jihadis across the Muslimworld - from Bosnia to Chechnya, from Afghanistan and Kashmir to Bali, youname it. If this is to continue over a period of time, entire societies will face therisk of being polarized beyond what we know and observe today.

The process in Pakistan is well underway. Here is a relatively free-for-all societysandwiched between a working democracy but a hostile India to the east, a volatile,largely tribal, and to many, occupied Afghanistan and an evangelist Islamic Iran tothe west. The battle lines in today’s Pakistan are many, and the fronts overlap –between the religious and the secular, between the democratic and the autocratic,between Islamist militants and a westernized political elite, between the haves

36


and the have-nots, between tribal authority and that of the State, between ethnicnationalists and the majority Punjabis, between the traditionally docile, shrine-visiting Muslims and the puritan Wahabis, between Sunnis and Shias.

Imagine the sensitivities involved and expectations of the media amidst thismultitude of conflicts and violence - in a society that’s going through transitionfrom the medieval to the modem, while grappling with media tools that belongin a very post--modern world. Yes, society does dictate to, and sets limits on whatthe Pakistani media can and cannot, as opposed to what they should or shouldnot, broadcast or publish. In recent months, this has become more apparent. Theproliferation of TV channels and FM radio stations has meant manifold more airtimefor religious programming under a liberal Musharraf regime than under the IslamistZia ul Haq back in the 1980s. Never before did we have religious preachers, fromthe conservative and the intolerant to the enlightened and the evangelist, gracingthe prime time TV screens during the holy Islamic months of Ramzan, RabiulAwwal and Muharram. Media coverage on other religious occasions now oftentranslates into several days of airtime instead of religious programming hoggingthe prime time on the actual day of a festival.

The handling of the Lal Masjid episode in July last, when a bunch of radical andheavily armed clerics were holed up inside an Islamabad mosque was anothersuch instance. The immense public interest in the unfolding, bloody drama forcedthe media to perpetually have running commentaries on the issue. While televisioncovered the entire week-long military operation live and blow by blow, frontpages of newspapers were flooded with ambivalent analyses, where no one wantedto take a clear stance as to assigning blame. It was a full-blown bloody insurgencyled by the radical clerics, but who would dare say that in so many words? Why?Because society wasn’t perhaps ready to hear the media passing a judgmentbecause that would challenge the people’s religious sensibilities.

Towards the end of the gory drama media organs were so overwhelmed by socialpressure, whether it was real or perceived, that they donned the mantle of anintermediary between the rebel clerics and the Government.

Anchormen and women were seen going beyond the call of their profession toappear as if they were siding with the criminals, offering propositions to theGovernment to accommodate requests for a safe passage for the militants holedup inside the mosque, despite the fact that the latter had torched public buildings,encroached on public land, terrorized the entire neighbourhood and even hijackedand got several innocent people killed in the process. Days after the militaryoperation concluded and the public sentiment eased, the same media were ableto debate the issue more logically and dispassionately.

37


Then came May 12, a day which is hard to forget in recent history. The May 12-violence on the streets of Karachi this year, in which dozens of political workersbelonging to opposition parties died as a result of the city administration givingthe ruling party goons a free hand, was another significant instance of society’simpact on media. The restoration of the Chief Justice of Pakistan suspended byGen. Musharraf was seen as a national cause espoused by millions nationwideand which the national media, almost entirely headquartered in Karachi, gavewholehearted coverage.

It continued doing so when the protesters and the Chief Justice came to Karachidespite the fact that the ruling MQM, known for its highhanded tactics vis-à-visthe media, had taken out a counter rally in the city the same day to condemn theChief Justice and his supporters, successfully thwarting his entry into the city. Inthe process, whereas people were killed in the streets, news channel offices werealso attacked by the ruling party sympathizers who saw the media operating outof their ‘territory’ as being hostile. But the media coverage of the Chief Justice’scause did not stop. The reason, the media had its credibility on the line with amuch larger national audience that did sympathize with the Chief Justice and notwith the Karachi-based MQM and its politics.

Lastly, media coverage leading to Benazir Bhutto’s return from self-imposed exileand the subsequent events surrounding it proved another important litmus testfor society’s impact on media. The entire debate in TV studios over Bhutto’s returnhad focused on the corruption cases against her, the amnesty offered by Musharrafin a clandestine power-sharing deal and the West’s backing of Musharraf and ofBhutto. On the morning of Bhutto’s plane touching down in Karachi and themassive public reception she was set to receive by hundreds of thousands of hersupporters who had come from across the country, the media made a swift U-turn. So much so,that the reporters’ and the analysts’ tone and tenor seemed toresonate the Bhutto supporters.

The overnight sea change was brought about as a result of public support seenon the occasion. The media had not even suspected that Bhutto would still haveso many followers after what embarrassingly seemed as their attempt in thepreceding weeks at ‘destroying’ her. Here was ‘a silent majority’, as it began to bedubbed, which reacted totally opposite to what the pundits had predicted. All talkof foul play on the part of Bhutto and Musharraf gave way to ready admirationfor a leader whom the media had long dismissed as assuming discredited in thepublic eye. The terrorist attacks on her convoy within hours of her arrival homewon her further sympathy with the media. By contrast, nobody remembered anymore the abortive attempt by Bhutto’s rival Nawaz Sharif to return to Pakistan, norhis swift, forced deportation to Saudi Arabia barely five weeks before, because thepeople too had not taken much notice of it.

38


The urban and the rural divide in Pakistan could explain the sharp difference seenbetween the extent to which media influences society and vice versa. The massmedia, that is, cable TV and FM stations largely remain a very urban phenomenon.They may at best influence the way urbanites feel and receive their information– read infotainment – but molding the perceptions of the huge numbers, whereone vote for one individual is concerned, remains the uncharted media territoryin the un-cabled, rural Pakistan. So, where numbers are concerned, it is society, fornow, that holds sway over the media in Pakistan.

Did someone say that the media influenced society, and it did so unconditionally?I don’t think so.

Mr. Abdul Aziz Danesh, Editor, Pajhwok Afghan News, Afghanistan

Topic: Torture reporting in the Media - An outcome

Ladies and gentlemen, I am sure; you know how we cover the violence inAfghanistan and in the lives of Afghans what is the outcome of this reporting. Letme give you some brief information on media development and situation inAfghanistan. On the positive side, the media had very fast growth in Afghanistan.Hundreds of papers are being published and tens of radio and TV stations havebeen established. Access to the Internet in cities has become affordable, andmobile technology, for the first time in the history of the country, has connectedtowns and villages to cities - almost to the entire outside world for that matter.The freedom of expression has been guaranteed by the constitution and thepeople have access to information about the performance of the Government ona scale that has no precedent in the history of the country.

On the negative side, both Government and private media suffer from low-language skills. This problem results from the poor state of education in the county.It will take many years and a lot of planning and resources to solve this problem.This also means journalists and the media in general are not able to properlyreport torture cases. But the questions are what torture is? Who commits thecrime? Who are the victims? What is the role of media in reporting torture andwhat are possible consequences of these reports?

Torture is difficult to define, but we do not need to do so for the purpose ofreporting mere allegations. We must be able to show that:

• Severe physical or mental pain or suffering has deliberately been inflicted orthat intentional exposure to significant mental or physical pain or sufferinghas occurred.

• The state authorities either inflicted this suffering personally, or knew or oughtto have known about it but did not try to prevent it.

39


How does torture happen? And who are the perpetrators? Anyone acting in officialcapacity including police, security forces, prison officers, military personnel,Government officials or civil servants, political heavyweights, ‘death squads’, medicalprofessionals, PRTs, NATO and ISAF, warlords and Taliban. Members of armed groupsand anyone else can become a victim of torture and at any location, includingduring transportation or inside a victim’s home, but especially any place whereinterrogation is likely to take place. Torture can happen in the early stages ofbeing held, particularly if being held incommunicado. The risk persists as long asan investigation lasts.

It is important to report about torture; the media plays a watchdog role inAfghanistan; however, reporting on torture must be done in a responsible manner.Despite its positive outcome, torture reporting in Afghanistan and other parts ofthe region may have negative effects as well. In Afghanistan, unfortunately, mediamostly highlights news stories about violence while playing down the developmentand reconstruction effort. One illustrative example is that Afghan reporters,especially in the south, fail to file any stories when there is no security incident.Additionally, file photos are used to support stories regarding violence, a practicethat often angers the Government.

Pajhwok Afghan News was the first media outlet to receive the videotape of thebeheading of the Afghan driver kidnapped along with an Italian journalist and hisinterpreter Ajmal Naqshbandi in March this year. The idea behind the video wasto pressure the Afghan Government and torture the captives. We did file a detailedstory on the issue but avoided releasing the photographs for obvious reasons.Interestingly, an Italian TV channel aired the videotape after Daniel Mastrogiacomowas freed.

We understand “what bleeds that leads.” But as media professionals, we need aparadigm shift. We must inform the public. What changes people’s lives - eitherpositively or negatively is important. If the media continues to report selectively,it would have a very negative outcome for the country, international communityand the media itself. Some bad results of this media approach may lead to thefollowing implications:

1) The relatively good opportunity that has been given to the media andpress freedom can be lost and we may return to the situation wherejournalists were in the not-so-distant past, or even worse than that.

2) Inaccurate reporting on torture can scare away international investors andlocal business-people. This will hugely affect the already weak economy ofthe country and deprive Afghans, particularly youth of job opportunities.The out - of - job youngsters will then likely join terrorists or get involved

40


in other activities such as drug smuggling and consumption, robberies andstreet crimes.

3) Prevent the Afghan Diaspora and refugees from returning to the country oftheir origin and taking part in the re-building of Afghanistan.

4) International aid agencies and civil society initiative will be undermined,with harmful results for Afghanistan’s reconstruction.

5) Violations of journalistic ethics in torture reporting and newsmen’s lack ofcapacity to report accurately on such issues, release of gory photos arebound to affect the psyche of children and women in particular. The practicecan encourage the culture of violence.

6) Reporting from a conflict zone must focus on the context. When in 1917Western media failed to give background information about what washappening in Russia, the Russian Revolution came as a big surprise. It wasthen easy to demonize revolutionaries, since the public lacked knowledgeabout the reasons for the revolution and popular aspirations. As of theSeptember 11 attacks, American citizens did not know why the attackstook place, because media coverage of international issues had beendecreasing dramatically in the years preceding the terrorist act. Alsowithout the correct context, images can mislead viewers, listeners andreaders.

7) Before writing on conflict situations, definitions are important to be made.As the Reuters news agency says, “One person’s terrorist is another person’sfreedom fighter”. Journalists should be aware that the versions given byparties to the conflict are shaped by propaganda and can provoke certainreactions from the audience. Big news organizations usually have styleguidelines on using the word “terrorist”.

Article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights says: “No one shall besubjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”Since its adoption in 1948, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights has servedboth as a source of international law and as an articulation of the aspirations ofhumanity. The Preamble to the Universal Declaration refers to it as a commonstandard of achievement for all peoples and all nations. To the end that everyindividual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind,shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights andfreedoms and by progressive measures - national and international, to securetheir universal and effective recognition and observance.

41


In light of lessons learned in Afghanistan, civil society and NGOs, both nationaland international, can make contributions in the following areas:

1) Raising public awareness and mobilizing opinion through campaigning.

2) Can be the best source of information both primary and secondary in somecases and this way the media can highlight the activities of NGOs and civilsociety and foster a public understanding of what they are, what theoutcomes of their work are, and effects of these organizations on the livesof the people.

3) Leveraging efforts of media organizations and sharing of resources/information.

4) Reaching out to the public and grass-roots organizations in the mosteffective way and thus building a strong coalition that can work togetherto protect human rights and help prevent cases of abuse and torture.

5) Play as a watchdog and observer and follow up on reports that the mediapublish about it.

6) Provide sufficient information on the “positive developments” occurring inthe country.

7) Promote and attract regional and international support to the cases oftorture and abuse where the locals cannot do it alone.

In short, torture reporting can be damaging if not handled properly. At the sametime, it can be very useful if managed professionally. Media and civil societytogether can play a major role in ensuring it and above all the key questions thatyou may ask is: “How this should be done?” The Answer is very simple: “Let’s worktogether by linking regional media and civil society with the Center in Afghanistan”,which could be one of the best platforms to keep an eye on human rights abusesincluding torture and ill-treatment.

Mr. Philippe Stoll: Please note that I am speaking in my own name and that mypresentation reflects my own views and not necessary those of the ICRC. I amreally very sorry for the admirers of Runa Laila; she unfortunately could not comethis morning due to a last minute change in her programme and you will have tolisten to me instead of…Sorry again, I definitely do not have the crystal voice ofhers and I promise I am not going to sing!

I have the great honour to take over this presentation with little preparation.When we were working with my colleagues on this conference, it came to our

42


mind that media is an important medium, but cinema and movies are importantones too. I do not need to give more details when I can summarise in one word:Bollywood.

This topic, Violence, torture and ill-treatment in films/TV and its impact on dailylife, came to our minds few months ago. We were on our way back from Varanasiwhere we had organised a Conference for teachers of Law Faculties from the Eastand North East of India. It was a three-day training programme in which we focusedon the implementation of IHL. The debate was lively and participants came to theconclusion that torture is illegal and also immoral. We were sitting – a little tired– at the airport and there were several TV screens. They were playing a movie; Ido not know the title, but something from the 80s, a Bollywood one. The nice guywas handsome, the bad guy was dressed in black and of course, there was abeautiful lady in-between.

At one point, the nice guy hangs the bad guy by the feet over a tree and pulls himdown over the fire. We were sitting there and we saw some members of thesecurity forces on duty at the airport laughing at the scene. I am sure, now youunderstand how the topic came to our mind.

I am unfortunately not at all a specialist of Bollywood or South Asian cinema, eventhough it is difficult to escape from it when you live in this region. I will have totake one example from Hollywood. I know it is very easy to point out at the USA,because this country represents the big power, “the target”, but during my oneyear in this region, I could witness that many people are watching US TV serialsand movies. As my colleague at the panel has mentioned it, we do live in a globalvillage and I guess that my point will be applicable also in this part of the world.

Violence and movies are old friends I would say. Since the invention ofcinemascope, violent acts and behaviours are part of the landscape. When it isabout representing wars and conflicts, the only limits of filmmakers is theirimagination. So what is new, you would ask me! For the last few years, the levelof this violence, its frequency, its representation has dramatically evolved.

One example: I would like to quote the statistics from an US Organization called“Prime Time Torture”, which has estimated that from 1996 to 2001, over a five yearperiod, American public was watching 102 torture scenes on television during theprime time, which is from 8pm – 10pm. The same organization has identified 624scenes of similar behaviour between 2002 and 2005, over a four year period!More so, according to this organization, the perpetrators are no longer the badguys like the drug-dealers, the serial killers. The people using these methods, mostof these are unlawful, are the good guys, the heroes.

43


The most striking example is the TV show called “24”. I do not know, if some of youare familiar with it. For those who do not know, I would just explain the conceptof this serial. It is a Cine Award, Golden Award and Emmy Award winning TV show,broadcast by Fox TV and is available worldwide. You can easily buy the DVD innumerous shops in South Asia. “24” is presented in real time which means thateach season lasts for 24 episodes of 1 hours. It depicts the life of Jack Bauer, whoworks for the US Government and is fighting threats on the American soil. He isoften in the field, working for a fictional counter-terrorism unit, and Jack Bauerand his men are engaged in trying to safeguard the nation from terrorist strikes.These terrorists are poised to set off nuclear bombs or bio-weapons, or by usingother methods aim to annihilate entire cities. According to the latest figures Icould find on Internet, during the season 6 of the serial, which were broadcast in2006, each of the 24 episodes gathered about 16 million viewers. I think now youcan understand the importance of this show.

According to “Prime Time Torture”, during season 6 of “24”, on 67 occasions, thisheroic counter-terror agent used methods that have been qualified as torture by“Prime Time Torture”. Most of the time, suspects held by Bauer are beaten,suffocated, electrocuted, drugged, assaulted with knives, or more exotically abused;almost without fail, these suspects divulge critical secrets.

I do not need to elaborate further on to make you understand the impact on theviewers. Not only it has an important impact on audience like housewives, kids oryouth, but try to imagine the impact on security forces who are big consumers ofthis kind of programmes.

For that I will refer to an article published by the “New Yorker” on February 19,2007 titled The politics of the man behind “24”, where the author, Jane Mayer quotesU.S. Army Brigadier General Patrick Finnegan, the dean of the United States MilitaryAcademy at West Point. He says that it had become increasingly hard to convincesome cadets that America had to respect the rule of law and human rights, evenwhen terrorists did not. One reason for the growing resistance, he suggested, wasmisperceptions spread by “24,” which was exceptionally popular with his students.

Tony Lagouranis, a former Army interrogator in the war in Iraq goes further andhas this to say about soldiers stationed in Iraq. “People watch the shows, and thenwalk into the interrogation booths and do the same things they’ve just seen.”

As I said I do not want to point out bad behaviour of one country or another. I justwant to share this small piece of information is so as to initiate the discussionon the theme of this session, taking into account the power of the worldcinema industry, be it Hollywood, Bollywood, or cinema from Hong Kong, Japan,Nigeria…

44


By the way, I forgot to tell you that if the serial demonstrates that torture worksquite well, it has no effect on the hero, Jack Bauer!!!!

Question and Answer session

Q. Mr. Ibrahim Khan, Dhaka: I would like to draw the attention of Mr. Razviof Pakistan and Mr. Danesh of Afghanistan, both of whom have talked about thereporting of violence and conflicts. I want to know – as these are very regularincidents and you are tired of reading histories about violence and armed conflictsin Pakistan and Afghanistan, what are the situations, what are you reporting tostop the incidents of violence and conflicts?

A. Mr. Abdul Aziz Danesh: We try a lot to stop violence by writing storiessuitable for maintaining peace. But, before 2001, in Afghanistan there was nomedia at all. Taliban had one radio station, which encouraged people to take toviolence. After 2001, now media came to the ground and we try to do somethingon that. But it is not in our power to stop violence. Media did not want to dosomething which would encourage violence. In Afghanistan, there is lot ofinternational people who want to destroy our country; there are Soviet people;Osama is there; there are a lot of people out there.

The second big issue is that our people are not educated. That is why, whensomething is done to the tourists, we will respect them and follow that. So, it isbetter to educate our people and say what is good for them and what is not.

Q. Mr. Amit Baruah: I have a question for Stoll. When he referred to the 24hour serial. Clearly an organization like the ICRC which has been doing a lot toeducate people that torture is wrong, that humanitarian law must be applied. Insuch a case when you are beaming at mass audiences such a message, the messageat least to me is that these kinds of things are okay, torture is okay. This is whathappens finally when you see it actually happening around you, you will probablyassume that there is nothing really wrong with it. My question is, does the ICRClook at organizations or big media groups like Fox News or TV and does it try totell them, this is not something which is in the interest of peace and security. Andthat there is a need to re-look at some of the things that you are showing topeople because this is not okay. Clearly there is an element of trying to ensurethat you are in a situation where all these things are part and parcel of daily life,which is what an organization like you, should try to do, that it is not okay. I wasstruck when you made the comment – do you approach non-governmental actorsor big corporates to try and tell them that the message that you sometimes beamout perhaps could be altered a little bit?

A. Mr. Philippe Stoll: We have a large spectrum of different activities inorder to prevent violation of international or national laws. We spent a big part of

45


our budget upto 75% in curing and trying to deal with the effect of violence, notonly torture. The important part is also about prevention. We have started for thelast ten years to work with Mass Communication Departments of differentuniversities in South Asia; Prof. Salam has mentioned that we have memorandumof understanding with Bangladesh University. I go the same way as my colleague,Mr. Danesh, saying that education is an important part of this. We are not fightingwith the same means, but we try to educate the people. We are startingprogrammes at the youngest age; there is a programme called ‘exploringhumanitarian law’ and we are trying to raise questions and drawing the attentionof school kids towards what is humanity, what is law, etc. Through differentways, we try to target. You can imagine when such an organization try to tellpeople in which direction they should go, the difficult one is touching the freedomof speech. So, by convincing and by organizing today’s event, we try to reach outto as many people as possible and I hope, we will work towards that; but thebattle is still on.

If I can just use this occasion to say this, like last year, we will publish a book aboutthe outcome of the speeches and about the conference; the articles of the speakerswill be printed in the book form and that will then be distributed around theworld. That is also a kind of an action that will raise awareness, not only inBangladesh or in India, but also elsewhere in the countries where we have ourpresence. This kind of conference will prove to be a milestone by bringing forththe South Asian perspective on the issue under discussion.

Q. Mr. M K Swathi Raja, Sri Lanka: It is a kind of a conundrum when itcomes to media – I do not know whether it is an inherent thing in the mediawhich makes it so. What I have noticed is that it is not the abundance of violencethat sensationalize violence. Actually sometimes, the absence of violence is there;it is the absence of violence that is sensationalized. India is having abundance ofviolence; violent incidents do not get so highlighted. I have seen in Sri Lanka forinstance, we have a civil war in the country for the last 30 years; there was aperiod of ceasefire for about two years, and thereafter, hostilities have againresumed. During the ceasefire, whenever one person gets killed somewhere, itbecomes the headline news. But after the ceasefire breaks down and when warresumes, maybe everyday there will be about 20-25 persons getting killed fromboth sides, but they get sucked away inside somewhere. I want to ask the panel,what is the observation regarding this?

A. Mr. Swapan Dasgupta: I guess, it is re-assuring, if one person gets killedand that becomes a headline, that shows the degree of sensitivity which is stillleft in the whole system. That is very heartening; the problem sometimes in aconflict is that human tragedy gets reduced to statistics. In Sri Lanka, you have

46


witnessed more than a fair share of that. The real issue is that there is violence inthe society; we cannot escape it. We did not create it. As media professionals,sometimes, we have to deal with it in a wholesome way. This is the thing – whatis the fair balance we strike? There is the conflicting pressure. Murtaza here pointedout the issue of patriotism which is involved; other forms of ideological pressuresdo come about. Popular mood sometimes can turn very ugly. If you are going toswim with the tide, you might have to sometimes end up condoning really uglythings which happen. So, it is never a very easy balance for the media – how muchof your basic humanity, sense of decency can you retain, while at the same time,taking part in a debate or a vibrant churning process in society? There is conflict,but here we are trying to differentiate between conflict and violence. You cannotreally hope for a situation where there is no conflict – I mean, ideological conflict,disagreements on policy, normal civil agitations, etc. are going to be part of life orpart of democracy. But how can we just say this? What is common, in the languageof the Ramayana, we call it Lakshman Rekha, which is a boundary that you createafter which something becomes illegitimate. May I know whether torture andwillful use of violence constitute one of them? That is really the issue at stake.

Q. Ms. Pamela Philipose : I have an observation and also a question. Theobservation is: A part of the problem is that the media sees it as an end and nota process. Therefore, in reporting violence, the violence remains, but not the impactof violence that has on people. Those connections are often lost in our reporting.That is also something that we should think about, the way we cover events.

The question that I have for Murtaza is that it is very interesting to note in yourpresentation wherein you talked about that the rise of religiosity in a situationwhere the media has a very liberal quest. We thought that more TV stations wasone way to deepen democracy or the process of democracy in Pakistan. But inyour presentation you have talked of the other aspect of it. What is finally yourassessment because Musharraff came with this liberalization of the media? In fact,many people said that it was to counter India because the Indian media’s influenceon Pakistani was also a concern. So, it would be interesting to know your take onthis.

A. Mr. Murtaza Razvi: First of all, I do not think Musharraff gave media theindependence; in fact, he failed to give. It came as a part of a process. Let us nottake it away from the Pakistan media organs. They have fought for to write thetruth, to project the truth inspite of all odds. They have done that during Zia ulHaq’s time; they have done that inside the country at great peril to themselves.With the whole world opening up, Musharraf or Nawaz Sharif or Benazir, whoeverit might have been, they would have been left with no choice but to have multipleopinions on TV, multiple opinions in the press. And that process is a part of a

47


historical process and the evolution of the media has now come in a big waybecause the people are getting the news from the BBC. There is an entity calledBBC-Pakistan which has FM radios in all the urban areas broadcasting Urdu newsevery hour. How are you going to stop that? Every hour, the Pakistani TV channelshave to compete. You cannot fight the truth any more. We are telling the truthabout Afghanistan as well. Some of the media in Pakistan is saying that ISI isinvolved in Afghanistan. Pakistan is part of the problem of what has happened inAfghanistan and so are other key players. So was America, when the US wantedPakistan to produce jehadis, Zia ul Haq did that. Now, the US want Pakistan to killjehadis, Musharraf is doing that. So, where is our own policy? Media really haswon that independence and these are moot points that are being debated freelyin Pakistan in the national media. You will be surprised to know that I find thePakistani press and the media, much more open to self-criticism than any otherSouth Asian press, with the possible exception of Sri Lanka perhaps.

About religiosity, yes, I was trying to get back to Stoll also, when he said thateducation is what we lack and also Danesh mentioned this fact. For the first timein the history of Pakistan, we have graduates in the Parliament, we have graduatesin the State assemblies, in what we call Provinces. For the first time, we have thelatest Parliament. They may or may not wear beards; look at Benazir; she is carryingrosary in her hands and she is covering her head and using a very religious Lexicon.Why? It is because she does not want to alienate the people. Religiosity is runningat an all time high in Pakistan and look at the level of education – the kind ofdebate that the parliament takes up, there is uproar over Danish cartoons aboutProphet Mohammad in a Danish newspaper and the Parliament takes it up andcondemns it; it takes a week discussing that. But the Parliament has no time todiscuss other compelling issues. The President issues Ordinances to even makelaws, bypassing the Parliament because the Parliament, for the first time, comprisesof at least graduate people. But religiosity has raised its head at a time, when thepublic sentiments were so much for it because of excruciating circumstances,international environment, etc. At that time, a lot of liberals joined those whoused religion to further their politics. And that is what is happening unfortunatelyat the moment in Pakistan.

Mr. Swapan Dasgupta: There is a small point to what he has just talked about –about events and processes. I just would like to disagree, being a slightly moreconservative in journalism. The point of the media is to communicate, to reach atarget audience and the target audience varies. You might be reaching out to avery educated audience; you might be reaching out to a larger community. I think,it is not the job of the media to talk down to people. By presuming that we havethe exclusive right of analysis of understanding the processes rather than give theraw material in the form of events to people and let them discern it. I would

48


rather prefer that to be the case rather than it being mediated to the subjectiveeyes. Of course, there is a part of that also which creeps in. It is an extraneous one.

Ms. Pamela Philipose: When I talked of processes, I am not really talking ofacademic kind of engagements with that. I am really talking about the fact thatwe do not report on the impact of violence which is also within the generalrequirements. We do not even look for it. We move on to the next big story andin the process, violence remains the dominant one.

Q. Mr. Moinul Islam, Bangladesh TV: I am asking on media reporting, armedconflict and violence – what are we seeing? Is it continuously in the media thatarmed conflict and violence will remain till the end? The government agenciesare capable of holding arms and other ammunitions, explosives, etc. But in ourSouth Asian region, the miscreants have RDX, C4, AK47. Who makes these andhow these are being intruding into our region? What is ICRC doing about thissmuggling or transportation of arms, ammunitions and other explosives?

Answer from the Panel: I will answer only the last part; there are some initiatives.At the international level, there are some initiatives to regulate these forms andthe other means of creating violence. You remember about the Ottawa Treaty, etc.Asia, as such, is not involved in the process of the small arm initiative. However,any means that can reduce violence in times of armed conflicts are more welcome.This is a small thought to your question. I do not know who wants to take the firstpart.

My colleague, Mr. Dasgupta put it very aptly – it is not for the media to set outto transform society because if every media organ start doing that, which someof us are already doing, it would be a more difficult thing to be in. Yes, it is the jobof the politicians to make sure that violence does not spread and it is the job ofthe State also to do that. If the media were to faithfully restrict itself to reportingand reporting only the facts and letting the people to decide for themselveswhich side of the ideological or otherwise, political divide that they want to fallout, that is the best state to be in. I agree with my colleague from India also thatthe impact of violence is there. That is the one loose end that media needs to getattention and we should be bringing in more stories about how the violenceaffects the lives of people. We are following the rating model, which is the westernmodel and there are long-standing conflicts in Palestine for instance where theimpact of violence is very shoddily reported, if reported at all – and it is alwaysmore and more violence that hogs the limelight.

Q. Ms. Savikunnana, University of Dhaka: My question is to Mr. Penjor ofBhutan. He told that his country has banned the Ten Sports and FTV. Do you thinkthat banning some TV channels can be the solution to restrict violence?

49


A. Mr. Ugyen Penjor: As I told in the presentation, when we first went forcable TV, there was not that much violence. At that time, Bhutan was celebratingthe 25th anniversary of the coronation of the King. As a part of that, we openedit up and it was not planned. Then there were about 100 channels; 10 Sports andother few channels were also banned based on a study which recommended theban on them. Now I do not agree that banning particular channels is a solution.In fact, I wrote a lot of applications to the media to bring back 10 Sports becauseI want to watch football and tennis both. There are so many other channels whichair violence and as we all said, movies show violence so, just banning 10 Sportsis not a solution. It was, maybe, just a reaction from the government based on thestudy.

Q. Mr. Sanshul Islam: I teach at the Stanford University, Bangladesh. Myquestion is to any of the ICRC representatives here. My question is why Bangladeshhas received so much attention lately from the ICRC side? Are you anticipatingconflict or violence here also? I would appreciate if you could answer this.

Mr. Finn Ruda: The question is pertinent. Even in the past, we have had it inBangladesh. What you have not seen over the years is a constant stream of ICRCdelegates and specialists visiting Bangladesh, working with your authority, workingwith the educational institutions. What you like to have it for yourselves and youdo so rightly, is that you are one of the countries in the world providing morepeace keeping forces around the globe. ICRC is where you are going. We werethere, before you arrived. We will be there, when you are there. We will also bethere, when your forces often come home. For this, we need a very intensive andvery close consultation and discussion. So, ICRC is developing a network globallywith government, with authorities, with civil societies and we call it – do notquote me on that – humanitarian diplomacy! This is a part of the reason foropening this, to establish the network. We really appreciate this. That is my shortremark.

Audience Question: My question is to Mr. Dasgupta. He said that we, as journalists,can communicate. But it has a social problem, economic problem and politicalproblem. Unfortunately all bad news is good news for a journalist and good newsalways do not get that preference and especially in our sub-continent. What doyou think and what should be a bottom-line for the journalist who is reportingviolence? If I am very objective, I should write what I have seen. I should ethicallybe honest in that story, whether it is in print or electronic media. But to stopviolence, not to expand or should not influence others where the journalists orthe reporters should have their bottom-line.

A. Mr. Swapan Dasgupta: It is a very good question. The first response tothat is that I sincerely believe that there is no such thing as objective journalism.

50


We are all subjective in one way or the other. We pretend. We have a degree ofsubjectivity, our own believes, systems, prejudices, call it whatever you want to.Our entire mental conditioning means that what seems objective to me mightseem subjective to you. The old adage about ‘one man’s terrorist being anotherman’s freedom fighter’, is there. There is always the thing about what constitutesan appropriate response.

Here, it is also, in many cases, the appropriate response is determined by ournational conditioning. I am being very honest. There is never going to be like that.It is highly unlikely in the foreseeable future that there is going to be a unitedSouth Asian perspective on what constitutes terrorism.

Murtaza made some very pertinent points. I could find certain force to that, interms of rational discourse. But that is the perception which he sees from theperspective of Pakistan. It he is sitting in New Delhi then he sees it in a slightlydifferent way. That is inevitable and unavoidable. At that level, there is unlikely tobe any global standard. Really are we committed to one basic point? Are wecommitted to the fact that we want a lessening of violence, whether it is Stateviolence or it is non-official violence, terrorist violence or whatever you call it? Ifyou are agreed on that basic conditioning or basic objective, then the way inwhich we approach this question is different. There is no prescription. There is noformula. There is no recipe. It cannot be. That is what I am saying. But if that basichumanitarian consideration is just kept in mind, it just allows us to be marginallymore sensitive to what should be our priority.

Mr. Ashraf Ali: You have said that reporting of armed conflict is very risky anddangerous. There is no doubt about it. My question is whether media houses giveincentives to the reporters who cover the incident and if the reporter dies in thebattlefield, what media organizations do about the reporters?

Panel: In fact, we have a session this afternoon. This is a very good suggestion;stay there and you will know everything about it in the next session. Tomorrowmorning also we have 2-3 good interventions on these, the State response,the employers’ response and the journalists’ response. So, you will have allthese.

Mr. Mahbubul Alam: Talking about this morning’s subjects - ‘Glamorizing violence,impact of media on society while reporting violence and the impact of society onmedia while reporting violence, torture reporting, etc.’ are all very interestingsubjects. Subjects which we discuss in our private conversations, subjects whichwe write about in newspapers, subjects that we try to bring in the TV talk-shows.So, these are very important subjects in the present context.

51


We have discussed about conflicts. There are various ways of conflict resolutions- internationally recognized ways, how violence can be contained, etc. There arevarious reasons as we have heard from the presenters. We have violence but weshould all try objectively. Mr. Dasgupta does not think that there is anything calledobjectivity. But as far as possible, by sacrificing our subjective judgment on anissue, we should try to be objective and report on facts that help people, that helpour readers, that help the society and that help the country to contain violence.I do not know whether it is possible to do away with violence altogether in theforeseeable future.

This discussion has been very lively although I did not find any heated debate orany fireworks which shows that our audience is very peaceful. I thank you for allthe patience that you have shown.

53


SESSION – 2

MEDIA AND PROTECTION – WHAT DOES THE LAW SAYABOUT IT

Mr. Mahfuz Anam (Chairman and Moderator) Editor, Daily Star NewspaperBangladesh

This session is titled ‘Media and Protection – what does the law say about it’. Orwhat do the laws say about it. There is more than one law that is there on this. So,it is a very provocative topic and a very interesting one. We can have the sessionin two ways – protecting the readers, the viewers and also protecting those whoprovide news, the journalists.

Mr. Farid Hossain, Bureau Chief Associate Press (AP), Dhaka, Bangladesh

Topic: Price of truth – Media persons are dying to tell the truth

Let me begin with a Bangla sentence – spoken in Bangla, meaning ‘always speakthe truth and never tell a lie’. I am quoting it from Agosto Lipi. Most of us haveforgotten that there is a book called ‘Agosto Lipi’. That is an ideal book that mostchildren in our times and also when the Chairman of the session was a school-going student, I guess, must have read the book. It was seeking to lay thefoundation that we should always be telling the truth.

For journalists also, telling the truth is a virtue. It is not only a virtue it is more thanthat. What journalists do is that when they are telling the truth, writing, or tellingobjectively, they are fulfilling the professional integrity and also telling the truthis their bread and butter. I say bread and butter because if we cease to tell thetruth or if we fail to tell the truth, nobody is going to read our newspapers andnobody is going to listen to us. That is very important.

Usually in societies, for telling the truth and for doing this sort of virtues, you arerewarded and you get trophies because you just simply demonstrated honesty.But there are societies including Bangladesh and also in many countries worldwide,journalists are dying or getting killed because they are just telling the truth. Thatis very unfortunate.

In Bangladesh at least 13 journalists have been killed in the past five years. Duringthat period, nearly 40 journalists have been jailed. If I break up the figure, fromMay 2006 to April 2007, four have been killed in Bangladesh and 158 werewounded. A total of 498 journalists suffered various types of harassment

54


including death-cases, filing of false cases against them by police or thoseupset by their reporting. Many were attacked during the political turmoil inOctober 2006.

The journalists who have died were great journalists and among them are SanzulurRahman, Manick Shah, Humayun Balu, who, by no means died for a cause andthey were there, because of their profession. I take this opportunity here today topay my tribute to those souls who died for a cause. 140 journalists were killed in2004 and 2005 and that made this period, the deadliest, since the war started inAlgeria over a decade ago. 47 journalists were killed alone in 2005; that is thelatest figure we have, more than three quarters of whom were murdered to silencetheir criticism or punish them for their work.

Journalists are losing their lives because they are doing their job and nothing else.What are the jobs that they are doing? It is to go to the war-field, conflict-zone orto any other place, where news is being created, and to cull out those informationand disseminate it for the readers or for listeners. They are doing it truthfullybecause of that they are being killed. If we look at Iraq or the conflict zones likeAfghanistan, Sri Lanka or any other place, maybe, there is an impression that thejournalists are being killed because they are falling in line of the crossfire. But ifwe analyze, as the international media journalists have analyzed, the facts speakdifferently. Three out of four journalists around the world have been singled outfor murder and the killers are rarely brought to justice. The figure is three out offour journalists around the world are singled out for murder. So, they aredeliberately being killed. Inaction of the government has led the warlords and thecriminals dictate news that citizens can see and hear. The governments have failedto protect the journalists; they are letting warlords; they are letting corrupt elementsand they are letting mafias to kill journalists; in some cases, even the government.I mean, the police are also killing the journalists. This is the situation worldwide.

What picture does this give? The journalists are not protected and they are riskingtheir lives on their own and are being killed. It is everywhere and more so, incountries where there are tyrants and there are unresponsive government. Onefeature that is common here is that those who murder journalists or those whoare doing these crimes, go unpunished. There is this impunity. In about 90% of thecrimes, which were analyzed in 2005, the murderers have gone unpunished. Despitethat the journalists worldwide including Bangladesh are doing their jobs.

Since it is the Conference of Senior Editors, I just wanted to mention one thing.While the journalists are doing their job and are becoming braver and braver, theyneed support from the editors too. You do not get great reporters if you do nothave great editors. Great reporters can not really show that they are great reporters,unless they have exceptional editors to protect them.

55


Here I want to conclude with an incident that had happened during the VietnamWar. The AP team in Vietnam was writing truthfully. They were telling the truthand the American Administration at that time under the President did not likethat. So, the administration was using other friendly newspapers to criticize theAP team and tried to say that they were actually not reporting correctly. Then theAP editor at that time went to the President himself and charged him saying that‘are you criticizing my boys who are there in Vietnam, Mr. President?’ So, the waythe editor put it to the President of the USA, he was puzzled and he becamenervous. He said, no, I am not doing that; your boys are doing a fine job.

So, if we have editors like that, the journalists and the reporters can better getprotection.

Mr. Lankabaarage Anura Solomons, Deputy Editor, Foreign News and FeatureEditor, Daily Divaina, Sri Lanka

Topic: Violence against journalists is increasing with passing years

I am going to speak through practical knowledge and experience gained as areporter. Those attached to the Security Services and Intelligence Services becomethe targets of such criminals, enemies and rivals. I have seen with my own eyes,such victims being killed on roads in daylight. Apart from that, the next groupfacing the danger of such crimes is the media profession.

The multimillion businesspersons in the Asian region are able to hire a contractorfor a small fee to stab journalists who criticize them. And at the same time, thepowers that are there in the Asian region where I live, can go and drag a journalistbelonging to a newspaper or TV who describes and exposes how the formerexploits the country. The people enjoying luxurious life with families and henchmen,sometimes with underground security dumping journalist into a van, taking himto a lonely place and smash him into pieces. The journalists of the day, irrespectiveof whether newspaper or TV, are subjected to more than one type of terrorism.First these comes from the private sector – what I mean by private sector dealingin narcotic, heroin, opium, etc. A menace spreading fast out of the world, brothelowners, businessmen seeking government contracts, etc. When the wrong-doings,misdeeds and other rackets are exposed, they come straight to journalists, whenhe pays no heed to the contract killers.

The next is the state of terrorism. When the politician is criticized by a journalist,the former gets wild and decides to get rid of the journalist. He entrusts the killingjob to his underground contractors. Thus the Sri Lankan journalists more oftenface threat from the underground. When the criminal alliance between politiciansand the underground gangs are exposed, the journalists get enormous threatsover the phone. The next threat comes from the Tiger terrorists. They burn

56


down newspapers publishing news unfavourable to them belonging to theirown race.

The violent history against the Sri Lankan journalists began from 1970. The UnitedFront led government that came to power in 1970, sealed and closed thosenewspapers that did not support them and used the state radio and newspapersfor their own purpose and suppressed the free media. The next United NationalParty’s Rightist government came to power in 1977, treated the state media asthe political heritage and moved further in that direction. The then Prime Ministerbecame the Executive President by amending the Constitution. He started imposingunofficial restrictions. Once he wanted to punish a newspaper publishing company,the paper where I work, did not obey him. He ordered state controlled institutionsto refrain from giving advertisements to that media establishment. When a privatebank was pressurized not to give the advertisement to my paper, the bank boldlyrefused and the owner of the bank was threatened.

Richard Zoysa was a journalist; he was a talented, prominent, brave Sri LankanYoungman. He was also an actor and a TV presenter. The government that cameto power in the year 1989 did not like Richard Zoysa and his way of journalism.There was a rebellion led by the Leftist Militant Organization called JVB, comprisingof youths against the government in 1988. The government suppressed theuprising by using army, police and also by arming and financing a killer contractorganization. In the counter operation, not only the JVB members, but also otheropponents were killed too. The dead bodies were seen burning on the roadsidealmost every morning. The faces of dead bodies were burnt first so that theycannot be identified. In this manner, about 40,000 people were killed. Those whodisliked the journalism adopted by Richard Zoysa kidnapped him on the 18th ofFebruary 1989. His body was found lying on a beach. The mark on the bodyshowed that he was killed after torturing. His mother had even identified thePolice Chief who abducted him, in that night. Richard Zoysa was not killed, as aJVB suspect; he was not a JVB-ian. He was a humanitarian campaigner. He wasmuch concerned about the youth massacre since 1988. The government suspectedhim that he would provide information to the other countries and generate publicopinion on that matter.

The President in power today who was the Member of the Parliament at that timetoo was appraising foreign countries regarding human rights violation in Sri Lanka.The President escaped because he was a Member of the Parliament; if not, he mayhave faced the same plight.

Daniel Pearl is a person known as a journalist to everybody present in this hall.When he went to Pakistan, few years back, some extremists kidnapped him and

57


killed him; he was beheaded, cut into pieces. Why was Daniel Pearl murdered?The accepted version is that it was because he was an American journalist ofJewish origin. However, according to Bernard-Henry Lévy, a leading Frenchphilosopher, Pearl was killed because he knew more about the nuclear powerin Pakistan and he knew more about the connections of the gorillas. Accordingto Lewis, the suspect who assassinated Pearl, Omar Sheik was the person whoserved Islamic extremists and served the Pakistan Intelligence Service as adouble agent.

I am calling upon you present here, to bring pressure on the states all over theworld to do their utmost to stop these barbaric crimes meted out to journalists.I also place before you the need to prevent misreporting carried on by certainpress organizations in regional countries including Sri Lanka. The ideas and theneeds of the people should not be repressed. When such repression and oppositionprolongs, it transforms into sharp nails and pierces your feet. Thank you verymuch.

Mr. Amitabh Roy Chowdhury, Senior Editor, Press Trust of India, India

Topic: Who kills journalist and why? What are the protection measures forthem?

The topic given to me is ‘who kills journalists and why, what are the protectionmeasures for them?’ The first part of the presentation has already been generallycovered – who kills journalists and why. Therefore, I will concentrate on theprotection measures.

There are different aspects on the kind of protection available for journalists. I willnot touch the legal aspects of it. The practical experiences of my colleagues andmyself are more relevant. There are a lot of experiences that we have had over thepast few years. Some measures, which a journalist who has been sent to a war-zone or to an insurgency-ridden area can adopt as protective measures to protecthim or herself.

I have a brief thing in writing. I will just read it out partly and elaborate certainpoints. The pursuit of news has become more dangerous today than ever before.The risks associated with the job have grown substantially with situations sodeveloping that fair and accurate coverage of events become more and moredifficult. The growth of terrorism and insurgency, especially in almost all parts ofAsia, has led the media to face all kinds of threats from all sides in gathering anddistributing news. During the coverage of a conventional war, one gets a perceptionfrom only one side of the conflict zone, like in the Kargil conflict, we were on theIndian side and my friends from Pakistan have been on the other.

58


It is impossible to cross over to the other side to balance a story in such cases.However, the practical scenario in the war zone tells you from which direction thebullet or the shell is coming from. So, you know the direction of the potentialthreat or danger and where the enemy is and how you should save yourselves. Inthe Kargil conflict, most of us did not even know how to tie a bandage properly.But we were just asked by the army men to lie down as soon as you hear awhistling sound coming from the top of the mountain on the other side. Thewhistling sound was the shell cutting through the wind and coming towards youand you just lie down. Then the shell explodes somewhere; you do not get up fortwo minutes until the dust settles and the splinters fly across.

You get up only after this. These are the bare minimum, which the good armymen taught to us in the war coverage. However, in an insurgency situation, thebattle-lines are totally unclear. There is always an element of surprise. You do noteven know who is a militant and who is a security person because the latter alsomany a times operate in plain clothes. There is another aspect of news coveragein these troubled areas.

Many a time, the terrorist outfits threaten scribes with dire consequences, to ensurethat their views get into print or are circulated through the newswires. Theycome to your offices, they place the gun on top of the table, give you a presshandout and ask you to push out the news. This has happened with us, in thePTI, during the early-80s, when Punjab was burning, in Kashmir and in theNorth East.

This is one part of the problem. When you put out the story under pressure, youalso inform the office headquarters that we have done this under pressure. Theheadquarters may kill that story and not use it. But for the consumption of theterrorists outfit back home, you have issued the story. However since you haveissued the story, the state machinery immediately wakes up and starts askingquestions as to how and why was the story or statement issued.

There have been several examples or instances earlier when there were majorbomb-blasts in Delhi. After that, the terrorist outfits used to call us up, call the PTIbecause we have a large national and international network, to get the maximummileage out of these blasts. They would say that I am so and so, representing suchand such organization and we take responsibility for this bomb blast. Youimmediately put out a story saying that this organization has claimed responsibility.But out of your story, the terrorist outfit also gets a lot of mileage.

As my colleagues were talking earlier, murder has become a major factor. It hasbecome the easiest and the most effective way of stopping troublesome reporting.

59


I have had friends, who have been shot dead, including one Mr. Parvaz Ahmedand I think, Mr. Surinder Oberoi who is now with ICRC was a colleague of ours inKashmir; he himself had been abducted while reporting in Kashmir. We have seenour friends being killed or shot dead at point blank range. There is no way you canescape that kind of a situation.

In such a scenario, the government, the military and the security agencies have arole to play; they cannot just stand in silence and issue statements condemningthe attack. I would just say that the UN has adopted a resolution 1738, urgingcountries to become more aware of the role of the journalists and the need topromote and ensure their safety in conflict situations. This resolution has broadlyoutlined the parameters to be followed by the government and the military. Thereis also the Geneva Convention which gives broad outline of the role thegovernment and the Military has to play.

Lots of figures have already been given. I have the recent study of the Brussels-based International News Safety Institute, which is a coalition of global newsmedia organizations and human rights groups. According to it, Iraq topped thelist of the countries where the number of media persons were killed. In the pastdecade, till 2005 as many as 138 media persons were killed in Iraq, the tally wasfollowed by Russia which had 88 scribes killed; Colombia had 72; Philippines had55; India stood 6th in the list with 45 killed, after Iran which had a tally of 54.However the Iranian tally was higher because out of the 54, 48 had been killed inan air crash when they were going to cover the war exercise in December 2005.In our region, according to this Institute, Pakistan had recorded 29 deaths,Bangladesh19, Sri Lanka 16 and Afghanistan 13. These figures, though old, areonly indicative of the volatility of this region. Overall, 147 of our colleagues havelost their lives in 2005; their number has grown to 167 in 2006. Now, what measurescan be taken to avoid the risks associated with news coverage and conflict zones?

As I had said earlier, these are borne out of the first hand experiences of thejournalists having covered such situations. I have listed out a few; maybe, theremay be more; some can be discounted also.

A) Always carry your credentials, Press Accreditation Cards or Identity Cards orSecurity Permits when you are working in such areas. Never representyourself as someone other than journalist. Do not hide your identity duringcoverage in such situations.

B) Never carry arms and avoid traveling with journalists carrying weapons.Though practice of armed personal guards has come into vogue in someparts of the world like Chechnya where European journalists, or the mediaorganizations have provided armed security guards to the journalists; it is

60


still a debatable issue as is being embedded. During the Kargil conflict, Iwant to mention, we were not embedded as the journalists were in Iraq.Though we had to get permission from the military authorities, we werefree to roam around anywhere in the war zone, of course not in theoperational areas. The only help we may have taken from the militaryauthorities, apart from permission, was transportation because there wasno other means of transportation. Of course, some of us had our ownvehicles, but those were not suited for doing the running around the highmountainous terrain.

C) In insurgency-ridden areas, avoid competitive pressures and work in agroup if possible, collaborate with your colleagues. Avoid the tendencyof getting the news first and rushing out alone in the dark to file thestory.

D) Do not do anything provocative. Generally be low profile. However, therecould be circumstances when showing your identity and becoming a littlehigh profile may help.

E) During exchange of fire, it is preferable to try to be behind the frontline ofthe security forces; hide behind the armoured vehicles or cars. But if theyare blown up, then of course, it can’t be helped!!

F) It is helpful to be able to communicate in the local language, particularlywhen operating in hostile areas. Journalists not knowing the local languageshould be with the colleagues or the interpreters who know the locallanguage. The journalists should at least be able to communicate in thelocal language and tell the local people that we are from the Press or thatwe are journalists.

G) Develop an emergency response system or a contingency plan before goinginto a conflict zone like Daniel Pearl case which came to light only after atime gap. Make sure that at least one person in your organization, preferablythe editor knows where you are going, whom you will meet, how will youget there and the estimated time of your return. This could ensure that ifyour return is delayed significantly, then the emergency button can bepressed by the editor.

H) In insurgency or terrorism hit areas, avoid using government military vehicles,as these are soft targets. I am distinguishing this from the war zones. I amtalking about avoiding the use of government vehicles in insurgency-hitareas; this is a little dangerous. It is safer to be on own your with yourvehicles prominently displaying the word ‘Press’. If you can consider using

61


military vehicles in war scenarios, where no other means of transportationis available, that may be all right. However, this could have a flip side too.You can get abducted or taken hostage like Mr. Surinder Oberoi. Beforearriving in a conflict zone, try to get the feel of the area. The work experiencein these areas and the overall political scenario, the local contact or localjournalists can be of immense help in this regard.

These are some of the suggestions borne out of our experiences. There can bedifferent scenarios and these suggestions may not work everywhere. But generallyspeaking, these suggestions/recommendations are borne out of the experiencesof journalists including myself. I am throwing all this open for a discussion.

Mr. Dharmendra Jha, News Editor, Annapurna Post, Nepal

Topic: Freedom of Expression and dangerous assignments

Nepal has a lot of problems from the last 12-13 years and still, we have problems,although Nepal Communist Party (Maoist) came to power.

Freedom of Expression is a fundamental human right that has been enshrined inthe Universal Declaration of Human Rights ratified by the United Nations in 1948.Countries adhering to its principles are morally under pressure to guarantee theFreedom of Expression of their citizens. But as the subscription is not legally binding,countries, especially illiberal democracies have gone on record violating theFreedom of Expression of their citizens.

One need not go too far to assess to which degree Freedom of Expression isbeing guaranteed throughout the world. To talk about our own region, except forIndia, which has a reasonably good track record of guaranteeing the Freedom ofExpression of their citizens, other South Asian countries like Pakistan, Bangladesh,Bhutan, Nepal and Sri Lanka have always been pushed into controversies whilebeing scrutinized for their commitment to uphold Freedom of Expression.

These nations have always had a number of deaths of journalists taking updangerous assignments despite the fact that their respective constitutionsguarantee Freedom of Expression.

The Nepalese media underwent a historical change with the introduction of thecommunication policy in 1992, two years after the restoration of democracy. Themedia industry, which was a government dominated sector, got a scent of freshair with the charting out of the policy.

Positive changes in the media sector came about even before 1992 after thedemocratic constitution guaranteed Freedom of Expression. Freedom of Expressionis guaranteed also in Interim Constitution of Nepal -2007. Provisions as such have

62


not been able to find place in the Constitution of many other countries, where thepress is still battling for its independent existence.

Apart from raising the issue of press freedom, we also must bear in mind thatfreedom and responsibilities go together. Though we have several regulatorybodies instituted by the government and the private journalist groups, none ofthem seem to be much concerned about whether the media players have beenliving up to their responsibilities. The regulatory bodies could also lobby for theprotection of press freedom during difficult times.

The role of the Press Council is confined to categorizing different newspapers.This apart, it has not been able to coordinate with other independent bodies tooversee the functioning of the press. The Council might have been hesitating tomonitor the press, as it is a government body. But it could invite private partiesto make its task easier.

The Federation of Nepalese Journalists (FNJ) also has been trying its best to ensurefree press in Nepal. FNJ is actively involved in protecting the rights and privilegesof Nepali journalists. FNJ, Nepal Press Institute, Freedom Forum, South Asian FreeMedia Association (SAFMA) Nepal Chapter, Nepal Press Union and Press Chautaricontinue to play crucial role to promote free press while protecting theconstitutional right of the Freedom of Expression. Recently, the Parliamentapproved Working Journalist Act, 2007 and Right to Information Act, 2007 thanksto their mounting pressure on democratic government.

Though we have nearly 1680 newspapers registered in the country, only 180 arebeing published on a regular basis. Likewise, we have FM radios. We have morethan 200 FM stations that are licensed, but 86 are in operation.

Those publishers who are sitting idle must be asked to either get down to work,or should not be allowed to idle around with the license. The content that appearsin newspapers is far from satisfactory. Newspapers, especially vernacular weekliesthat spread rumors, which tend to spark confusion and sensation in the societyhave not been noticed by the concerned regulatory bodies like the Press Counciland many other press bodies. It would be hard to protect the freedom of thepress, of its pivotal role, fourth-estate is totally forgotten. Hence the regulatorybody comprised of all journalist associations could work towards monitoring theperformance of the newspapers apart from joining hands to fight against possibleinfringement upon the press.

The other issue that has been sending ominous threats to press freedom is theconfusion regarding the absorption of journalists into the job market. So far,nobody has bothered to discuss the criteria that ought to be set to recognize

63


people as journalists. Even a tenth-grader seems to be going around with a presspass, attending big press conferences and asking absurd questions. One can wellimagine the quality of the reports to be filed by such ‘journalists’ who do notknow even the basic of journalism. People who are watching the media fromoutside have a feeling that the undergraduates disseminate immature information,as they are not capable enough of comprehending different social and politicalissues dominate the journalistic domain.

Thus if we are to ensure the glory of the Nepali press and work in a healthyenvironment, the concerned bodies – government and private – must work towardsforming a joint regulatory body to chart out different policies aimed at setting thecriteria for those aspiring to be journalists apart from working to safeguard thefreedom of the press.

To look at the situation of Freedom of Expression, we can measure the state ofthis fundamental right of the Freedom of expression after 1990 and 2000. Afterthe promulgation of the first democratic constitution of 1990, Freedom ofExpression was enshrined in the Constitution as historic Article, which wouldempower individual citizens and of course the press to speak freely.

Citizens did enjoy this right substantially. The relatively more democraticconstitution unlike in the Panchayat era encouraged people to open up newmedia outlets and the nation witnessed a spur in media activities with morenewspapers, TV and FM radio stations coming to the forefront.

The Freedom of Expression of the citizens, which remained almost unhindered forquite sometime faced a drawback in February 2001, when King Gyanendra imposedan emergency and suspended certain Articles in the Constitution including theFreedom of Expression of individual citizens.

The press was intimidated beyond the point of tolerance. Army personnel weredeployed in Newsrooms ‘to censure media content in most of the private mediaoutlets’ and the constitutional guarantee of Freedom of Expression was nothingbut an issue to be mocked at by both the national and international communities.

The media kept on struggling for their rights when finally the Supreme Courtissued orders that the media should be allowed to function without any hindrance.

Following the restoration of democracy through the Popular Movement-II in April2006, the media has enjoyed reasonably high level of freedom. But still the privatemedia houses have become targets of Maoist affiliated trade unions that went allout to stop the publication of newspapers and broadcasting of FM radio. Due totheir activities, Annapurna Post (the Nepali daily), the Himalayan Times (Englishdaily), Nepal Samacharpatra (Nepali daily), Kantipur (Nepali daily) and the

64


Katmandu Post (English daily), nation’s leading broadsheet papers were compelledto stop their publication for some days.

The problem was addressed through dialogue between the concerned partiesand since then problems have arisen in those media outlets. A recent assessmentof media freedom and Freedom of Expression in Nepal by some internationalagencies has reported that press freedom in Nepal has improved by 20 indexescompared to the previous year. Still the rights movements in the Terai triggeredby some dozen of armed groups clamped down the press freedom. This, however,did not last for long.

Recently, there was uproar in the legislative Parliament over the abduction ofjournalist Birendra Kumar Shah by the cadres of CRN (Maoist) in Kajaiya, Bara,about 200 km Far East of Katmandu. Although the government has formed aParliamentary panel to trace the whereabouts of Shah, nothing much has becomeknown so far.

In last three months, there are many journalists attacked by identified andunidentified groups. According to Mahendra Bista, General Secretary of FNJ, duringthe period, one journalist Prakash Thakuri from Far Western region was killed andin last three weeks Sanjay Santoshi Rat, Vice President of FNJ, Pappu Gurung,Nimesh Kamar, Bhim Prasad Gurung and many more were attacked by variousgroups. According to Bista, after April Movement of 2006, some 1400 incidents ofviolation of press freedom have been recorded.

Majority of such attacks and death threats were made by criminal groups. Thestate is not found responsible for those incidents but we are seeing that it hasfailed to ensure the protection of the press from such criminals. Interesting eventis that the criminal groups have been whitewashed with political colour.

Dr. Mizanur Rahman Shelly, Chairman for Development Research, Bangladesh,Editor Asian Affairs, Bangladesh

Topic: Civil Society view of Media persons and their protection

I was reminded of some things that happened; the first one, I will relate right nowand the second one, at the appropriate stage of my deliberation. The first one wasabout a senior person who was really civil and polite. I was a student of first year,B.A.(Bachelor of Arts) Honours in the University of Dhaka when I first met him andI started calling him Yusuf Bhai, the elder brother Yusuf. After three years, when hewas in second part M.A.(Master of Arts). He suddenly looked at me and asked whyyou call me Yusuf Bhai? I said that is how you are. My name is Kalim. I said, but forthe last three years, you did not object or you did not protest. He said that would

65


be impolite. Here, we have a very strong chairperson, who does not care whetherit is polite or not, he would stop you short, if you cross the ten-minute line!

This brings us to the question of civility. Is the civil society possible? That is whatI have been entrusted to speak on. What does the civil society think of the mediapersons? The civil society’s view of the media persons and the media persons’protection – I do not know why I was entrusted with this task because I do noteither belong to the civil society or to the world of media completely. But itseems, I trade on both toes. I have had a long association with the media in amarginal position and also having given up my status as a civil servant, the memberof what was once called the “Heaven-born service” of the sub-continent. I resigned22 years ago just ahead of my retirement. Perhaps that is the reason why I amconsidered as a part of the civil society.

Now, how does the civil society view the media and what is the linkage betweenthe civil society and the media? Can you really compare the two – the civil societyand the media? In those days, it differed from place to place, from society tosociety; they are not situation specific phenomenon. In a way, they are becausethe kind of civil society that you would tend to get in what is known as industrially,technologically or economically developed country may not be the same as whatwe obtain in a less stable situation or a developing situation as it is called, in thedeveloping media. So, there would be differences, but they are also universalbecause there is a close link between the two. There is inter-mingling, interlinkand interface and one is not different or separate from the other. In a way, the civilsociety contains the media and maybe, it stands at the very heart of the civilsociety. If eternal vigilance is the prize of liberty, it is media which makes thatvigilance possible and therefore, liberty is there, as far as it can. So, there is alwaysthis exchange or the flow between the two of life, shall we say, or of the energythat makes the society watch it. Although there are differences, one also can seethat there are many universals involved here. We all know what the civil societyis; it is not the government; it is not necessarily the NGOs, but the NGOscertainly have things to do in the civil society. As we have said, the media andthe civil society act and interact so that a society can grow as a probing one,as a thriving one, a society where there is freedom of expression, where thereis protection to those who speak the truth, whether they are in the media orelsewhere.

So, what are the civil society’s views likely to be, of the media persons? To mymind, the media persons are poets and I do not use the word ‘like’, not in a dreamyfashion. I borrow from my illustrious name-sake, B C Shelley who says that poetsare the unacknowledged legislators to the world. Poets are the unacknowledgedlegislators to the world, so are media persons. Because what they write andwhat they do is not just reported. What happens in reporting? It is also

66


analyzing and interpreting, what is the meaning of those happenings? As Imyself started my half-career, shall I tell that way, the university correspondentof a daily paper, The Observer, here, in the early-60s. We were told by a numberof mighty editors, that the task is to tell people about the events in their entirety,start by answering the questions, ‘what, when, where, how, etc.’ But that is notenough. Then, as I said, like the poets, what the writer writes moves minds,moves human beings to the very core and they are enthralled; they are inspired;they are encouraged to do new things; you have to set new standards; youhave to set new goals; you have to build a new society. That is what the mediapersons do or at least that is what it looks like from the perception of a memberof the civil society.

A media person is not only a poet. He is also a messenger. The messages he bringsforth are ones which makes life worth living because they also reflect the realityof life. Here comes the question of protection because here, we are all inhabitantsof a restless world. The world is no more what it used to be as a very famousadvertisement for a Scotch whisky sale in TV, in the West. Tradition is no morewhat it used to be. Even tradition changes and the world has changed before ourvery eyes. The cold war era has gone. The bipolar world is no more and insteadof two camps confronting each other, fighting one another with cold arms withbalance of terror, now we have many terrors spread all over the world! The worsthit are the common citizens and the worst among the worst are the media personswho go around, as we have seen from our distinguished speakers’ version, fromtheir presentations, they go from danger to danger; they confront unlined orundefined borders, unmarked frontiers that mark the life and time of societiesfraught with the threats of insurgency, fraught with the war that grip the entirehumanity with their restless behaviour.

So, these persons who are poets and messengers, who are the harbingers of ourhope, who bring future to our very doorsteps need to be protected. How do wedo that? We have from Mr. Amitabh Roy Chowdhury, a very wonderful descriptionof the details of what the media person should do – lie low when the missiles areflying high, try not to get on to a government vehicle in an insurgency-infestedareas. These are details. These are good for personal protection. But what do wedo to ensure that atmosphere where media persons can go freely doing abouttheir duties?

For that, you need to change the mindset. For that, like the creators, the authorsof the Geneva Convention did, we need powers that are properly motivated.‘Powers’ do not mean only those who are in control of a state, but people whocontrol government, people who may be called insurgents, who are today theterrorists, maybe, tomorrow they will turn into liberators, it does not matter. Butthey also are hard-wielding powers. Here, what can the journalist do? Should he

67


be equipped or armed with camera and pen and only that be the protectionagainst mighty forces? So, the mindsets of those who are controlling thegovernment need to be changed. For that, I would suggest and submit that therehas to be a worldwide movement.

I congratulate and thank the ICRC, the PIB and the Dhaka University all of whomhave combined together, in this venture to do exactly that. We have to change themind of the people. These messengers – the poets or the media persons – aredoing a job that has always helped save humanity; that is the real one that willcertainly save the humanity in future.

Therefore, one has to take note and act right now.

Mr. Mahfuz Anam: Moderators concluding remarks:

Just to provoke you into thinking, why are we talking about journalism? More andmore people are talking about media media’s role, media’s impact, the role ofjournalists, etc. In other words, we are on focus. We have to understand that. Thoseof us who are in the profession, those of you who are observing us or interestedin coming to us because the media deals with – what I would say – some of themost profound qualities of human life. We deal with freedom; we deal with diversity– diversity of views, diversity of cultures, diversity of religions, and all the diversitiesthat make civilization so worthy, so immensely rich. Journalism, directly or indirectlydeals with it. It deals with the right to differ. That is a very important concept. Inthat lies the soul of creativity. Now, you have freedom, you have diversity. Youhave the right to differ, if you like, on the ethical side. But on the practical side,journalism deals with accountability – accountability of the institution, of thegovernment, of big corporations and also individuals. It deals with ensuringtransparency of activity. So, you should take it in a group. You are talking abouta whole range of intellectual activity in which journalism lies at the heart.

And it is because it lies at the heart that so many people are talking about it. Allthese features that I have told you about, have existed for a long time. But in the21st century, our capacity, the journalism’s capacity, the media’s capacity to do allthe things as underlined, have increased many fold. So, not only are we involvedin some of the most fundamental features of what makes us human beings, weare able to do it far more effectively than ever before. Our power, if you like to callit, has increased enormously. With the increase of power, has come the questionof responsibility. Our capacity to do good to society has increased thousand-foldand so, has our capacity to damage. It is in that absolutely enormous, challenging,enriching beautiful dichotomy, we are placed today. That is the point in time,when you are asking these questions. Thank you.

68


Kindly introduce yourselves and then ask questions.

Q. Mr. Bazuler: Unfortunately, I am a lecturer in the Media and theCommunications Dept. of the Independent University of Bangladesh.

I am tempted to ask the veterans that journalists were supposed to be thevanguards or custodians of truth, impartiality and neutrality. How far the SouthAsian veterans engaged in the field of conflict zones, armed conflicts aremaintaining it, and how much news are we receiving from the world and conflictzones, and how much it is State-sponsored propaganda?

A. Mr. Amitabh Roy Chowdhury: To begin with, different situations havedifferent kinds of solutions; I can talk of my personal experience. It is not just ablack and white saying that this is government’s propaganda and this is others’.

I will give an example of Naga (Nagaland) situation that is going on. I have visitedtheir camps also on a guided tour. I have also covered extensively the talks whichare going on between the government and the Nagas. There have been situationsearlier - when they were in conflict mode, as I have already explained-when theywould come with guns and ask you to put out stories. On the other hand, thegovernment will ask you why you put it out. At times, funny things have happened.Our technicians in the PTI are also very innovative. They have used their mind totake it out this way – we have the teleprinters which circulates the news. Theyhave taken out a plug from one teleprinter and put it on to the other and explainingto the terrorists and saying, ‘look, I am typing this here and this is appearing onthe other teleprinter also, which means that it is going to Delhi and also all overthe world`, but actually, it was not being circulated throughout. We have donethat also to fool them.That has been one of the tactics which has been used.

Mr. Mahfuz Anam: His question was how much of war journalism is authentic?

Amitabh Roy Choudhary: Yes, I am coming to that. In this kind of a situation,when the two sides – I am not talking about war, I am talking about insurgency,which has progressed to a level – have grown to a level when they are holdingtalks. Particularly in the case of Nagas, there are some points which are genuine;there are others which are genuine from the point of view of the government.What I personally have been doing or a lot of people who have been covering thisis that we have taken a very balanced approach; we have not said that this iscorrect and this is not. What we have done for example, if they are saying, look,we want a greater Nagaland or we want some more autonomy. We have takenthe reaction from the government also and put the views of both sides inperspective.

69


In the Kargil war, it was not possible; and even it was not possible for us sittingin India to judge what is actually happening and what damage was caused on theother side. Though finally the Indian troops had captured all the mountain peakswhich were taken over by them earlier and it was a victory for the Indian troops,but I was just speaking to my friends in Pakistan; the journalists from that side ofthe border were not at all allowed to go to the war scene. That had been a majorgrievance, though they were taken on a guided tour for a day and after somebriefings, they were brought back. So, for them as well as for us, it was not possibleto give an overall objective picture. During the war situation, the national mediashould take care of it.

Mr. Mahfuz Anam: The patriotic drums beat very loudly!

Mr. Surinder Singh Oberoi: I was a working journalist earlier. Now, I am withICRC. I would like to add some comments of mine to what Mr. Amitabh has justmentioned; especially the question that you rephrased and asked - what are theresponsibilities of a war correspondent or journalist while reporting?

It is duty of the media persons to be responsible as his reporting has repercussionsin conflict area. Media person should use a tool of what I call it as an ‘IV fluid” –‘I’ means investigation and ‘V’ means verification. The more number of times youinvestigate or verify the information collected by you through officials, eyewitnesses, sources, the more reliable and credited story you file. It is an old sayingthat diplomats or official spokesperson sometimes deliberately whisper into theears of the media persons the information that they want to circulate and then,in the cocktail circles/parties in the evening, spread around the same informationquoting the newspaper. So, they are able to disseminate their information throughmedia. It is again the responsibility of the media persons to investigate, verify thestory and then report it. It is better to be second and right than to be first inreporting and wrong.

Mr. Shamushul Islam, Associate Prof. and Acting Chair of the Dept. ofJournalism and Media Studies, Istanbul University, Bangladesh: As Iunderstand, the theme of this session is ‘media and protection – what doesthe law say about it’. I was looking for a more specific presentation and somespecific recommendations in terms of legal reforms and legal aspects.Unfortunately, the deliberations were more or less about media’s normativerole and other statistics. We understand that all of us know about the statistics.Is it possible for us to sit together and specify the specific legal and policymeasures – case by case – individual case studies, and devise policies andpolicy measures to protect journalists in South Asia in general and Bangladeshin particular?

70


Mr. Mahfuz Anam: It is a valid observation. Collectively, we have failed you. Butwe have enriched you in other ways. But let us see, if our panelists respond tothat.

Answer from the Panel: I would add that Mr. Amitabh Roy in his presentation,mentioned the UN Resolution which had very specific suggestion or provisionincorporated. Probably that and the elaboration of what the Geneva Conventionmay do for protecting the journalists together, might build up answers to thatquestion and maybe, this Conference should be acting on that.

Mr. Mahfuz Anam: If I may add, the whole new worldwide trend towards enactingthe Right to Information Act, which empowers citizens to seek unhinderedinformation from the government and from other bodies. And also, it givesprotection to some extent, to the journalists; that also perhaps could be somethingthat we look into. But I think, as the Dean of the Journalism School, he has pointedout a very correct thing. Maybe, you can think of new legislations. But UN Resolutionand some of the existing legal frameworks do provide us with good guidelines todo something in Bangladesh.

Dr. Mohammad, Mass Communication & Journalism Dept., Dhaka University:Mr. Farid Hossain said about the price of truth. Truth is the main feature ofjournalism. Many journalists have died for telling the truth, but are there anyjournalists who have been tightened for telling lies, writing false statement orreport? It is rare that journalists criticize themselves. Why?

Mr. Farid Hossain: I do not really agree with the statement that journalists reallydo criticize themselves. We do criticize ourselves a lot. There have been lots oftalks about that; we do stand against the journalism that you mentioned. That ishow you look at it – at times, when things are going on like that, it should be donethat way.

Your answer to the second question, most of the killings or deaths are straightmurders. They can be tried under the normal law of the land. The unfortunate partof it is that in many countries including ours, those things are not done. That iswhy you have seen that in none of the cases, in which the journalists have diedor killed; the trials have ended or the punishment is given. So there are laws butdo we implement it?

Mr. Mahfuz Anam May I just add one more thing - I am not sure whether thequestion was addressed only to the journalists of this region or journalists all overthe world. If it is for the world, then there are several examples, for example, inGreat Britain, there is a news weekly or the weekly called ‘The Private Eye’ whichreports on the misdeeds of the journalists themselves. So, somebody should think

71


of initiating such a venture here, if one had the courage and the money to do that.That is one part.

The other part is that protecting journalists against attacks by the States or bypowerful persons may be okay, or they may as well be protected by having laws,written laws, more detailed laws than the law that operates. But what about thesituation of insurgency, and what about the war situation?

I remember a story and I could not tell it then. It was in 1962, when we wereparticipating in the anti-Ayub movement, the autocratic regime prevailed in theDhaka University. One day, we just took refuge inside the campus. At that time,the police did not venture to come to the campus, for whatever reason. But thenone of our senior students shouted at one of the bearers at the canteen; askinghim why didn’t he go out and see whether they are still shooting. The bearer said,“how can I go? The police are still firing”. Senior student told him that the bearerwas not a student. However, the bullets will not distinguish between students,non-students, journalists and non-journalists. Laws alone would not be of muchhelp there.

Answer from the Panel: If I may add here, yes, we criticize ourselves, but thequestion from the student of the university is very valid. In Bangladesh, we do lackauthentic media watchdog bodies – ‘authentic’ is the operating word here. Manypeople are watching the media, but they criticize it from their own angle. If youare hitting a vested interest, they will say that this journalism or this paper is bad,etc. But it is all arising from vested interest. But really authentic public interestbased media watchdog body would be quite appropriate to have in Bangladeshand it would add to the quality of journalism.

On the question of protection of journalists, if the normal law works. If a journalistis murdered and a common citizen being murdered, law is really no different. Itis just murder and if a murderer is apprehended, then obviously the law is upheld,but unfortunately in many countries including ours, the murderers are not alwaysapprehended. If it is in a political environment, then if you are on the rightside of politics, then not only that murder is punished, he is even protected.A democratic society which is actually established under law follows the law,respects law, then a well-functioning legal system is good enough to protectthe journalist because freedom of press is guaranteed in the Constitution,freedom of press is guaranteed by law. That guarantee plus my security as acitizen – if not sufficient – maybe, close to sufficient. We, the journalists, do notwant privileged laws, just meant for us. We just want to be able to do our job ina democratic environment where the Constitution guarantees the freedom of thepress.

72


Ms. Pamela Philipose, Indian Express, Delhi: Mr. Jha can perhaps tell us becauseNepal is a very good example of how legal empowerment and recognition ofjournalists in the 90s - when journalists and journalism was recognized and themedia had emerged as the pillar of society and democracy - there were certaincase laws; the judges have passed certain pronouncements. There was a case lawestablished on the protection of journalists. Then, after that, if I may continue alittle bit longer, as you went into the insurgency period, again there was a lot ofdisappearance of the journalists. Again the courts very often stood up andpronounced and after the King took over, there were moments when the courtsstood out for the protection of the journalists. So, it is very interesting to take noteof. Perhaps he should talk about that.

Mr. Dharmendra Jha: I am not prepared for that. But whatever I know, I will tryto answer. After 90s, till now, we have a lot of different situations. During 1990-2001, there existed one type of constitution and then after the King took over andafter 2006, especially we have three kinds of political scenarios in Nepal. In that,we have different kinds of problems; during these times, we cannot forget theimpact of Maoists. Now, they are in power, but yesterday, they were in the jungleand a lot of journalists were attacked by both the sides – Maoists and the State.Mainly after 2001 February incident, we have very difficult situation and in thattime, we can say that the King resigned. The King and his government attackedthe media; I have tried to mention in my paper also. There are some examples.Many media outlets were attacked by King and the Army. At that time, I wasworking for Himalaya Times, another vernacular daily. At that time, one ArmyMajor came and dictated me saying that this way I can write and this could bepublished and this could not be punished, etc. But we tried – not only me, butmany journalists tried - and they published whatever they got. But one incidentis very important concerning Kanthipur FM and the Sadharnatha FM. The technicalparts of FM were mooted by the King. The King’s army or the Information Ministrywas there and after this event, 2-3 months later, the court gave a verdict thatnobody or no rule should be a hindrance for FM and then, the FM came intoexistence. Thereafter, we have the Right to Information Act. Still we are havingproblems – we do not know when the elections are going to be held. So, thepolitical parties are in trouble. I think, they do not have actual power becausethey are not elected. They underwent difficulties. So, let us see what is goingto happen.

Mr. Gopal Guragain: Regarding judiciary’s intervention for media protection, wehave many cases in the judiciary. In 1992, Nepal adopted a new communicationpolicy under which the private organization can have access to the radio frequency.That was the policy, but the government denied the license, nearly 7 years later.Lastly the private organizations’ group went to the court and the court ordered

73


to provide license. The news was banned in the beginning. Again, the group,lawyers and the media persons went to the court and the judiciary orderedthe government not to stop news in private radio stations. That was the firstone.

During the insurgency and the King’s regime, there are many cases concerningmedia protection. For the protection of journalists, the Federation of NepaleseJournalist’s Association, Mr. Tara Dhar, who was the President at that time, gave astatement against the royal coup. That was the first public announcement, sayingthat it is the royal coup and it is against democracy. They were detained by themilitary or police. The court gave verdict that the government cannot detainjournalists because of those statements. There are many cases in the judiciary inNepal.

Mr. Mahfuz Anam: If the judiciary stands besides media, then it will be a verypowerful mix. In any society, where the judiciary has stood by the media, in thatcountry, freedom of media has expanded enormously. From those of us fromBangladesh who have not really followed the Nepal story, it has been a magnificentexample. Nepal media’s struggle against the monarchy and ultimately coming ofdemocracy has been an enormous struggle for freedom in which the journaliststhemselves have played an absolutely glorious role. All of us in Bangladesh havenot been fully aware of the tremendous role that media has played in thatevolution.

Q. Mr. Mahbabullah Usmani, Student, Mass Communication and Journalism,Dhaka University: Mr. Amitabh told us about the protection for journalists. Do youthink that an international law is needed for their protection?

Mr. Amitabh Roy Chowdhury: There are laws. I did not go into the details, thoughI had already mentioned. I wanted something to come out of our experiences inthe field. I am not carrying any document about what these parameters are, whichhave been laid down by the Resolution 1738. Anyway, we can pass it on later.ICRC can help us in doing that. But laws are to be implemented. There are lawsalready in existence, as the Chair has mentioned; laws are not of much help inthis kind of a situation. You have to face it on your own, when you are in thefield. In that situation, the alertness of your mind is the only weapon whichwill safeguard you.

Mr. Mahfuz Anam: You must be conscious of the limitations of the internationallaw because as of today, still sovereignty lies with the nation-states, and theinternational law is of limited applicability. If you are talking about war zonewhere hardly anybody respects any law and if it is an insurgency situationthen an insurgent is essentially straggling against the established State and

74


so, breaking the law is basically a part of the ethos. So, it is a very complexsituation and journalists need all the support and sympathy from any quarterpossible.

Q. Mr. Shafikur Islam, Lecturer: What type of security measures are taken forthose journalists who are killed or injured in the battlefield?

Answer: I know about AP, BBC and the international media. They send theirreporters to an organization called Centurion. It is a London based organization,run by some former military official. They do train journalists who are sent to warzones. They teach in two weeks almost everything in preliminary – how to dealwith the first aid, helping the colleagues, what you have to do when you arecovering a country where there are lots of mines and how you deal with thesituations like in Iraq. I can tell you about AP, all its journalists all over the worldare already trained by Centurion. They do it, on their own accord. Anyone who hasnot gone through this training is not sent to places like Iraq, Afghanistan or someother conflict zones.

Mr. Zakir Hussain: AP and other organizations do have that strength to sendpeople to Centurion but those who do not have that ability, they can visit CPDAwebsite. This site has very well written text as to how to cover a trouble zone,especially conflict zone.

Mr. Mahfuz Anam: That is very valuable information.

Mr. Finn Ruda: I was to just comment on what we have been discussing thisafternoon. This concerns the legal protection to the journalists, the law which isor which is not in place. IHL pertaining to international armed conflicts, the GenevaConvention and the Additional Protocols I and II contain certain of them. Mycolleagues here might tell me that I should be a little more affirmative. But Iwould say that they contain certain limited protection for journalists engaged indangerous missions.

I want to raise one point – one thing is international law and then there were alsosome comments on the ability of international law to regulate the way we function.ICRC conducted, over five years, a study, together with a number of States onwhat we call customary law norms of IHL. These are registration on state practices,whether or not a State has ratified or signed international treaty obligation. Andinterestingly, among the 600 rules that came out, reflecting international lawand protection issues, it said about journalists, and I quote here: ‘civilianjournalists engaged in professional missions in areas of armed conflicts mustbe respected and protected as long as they are not taking direct part in

75


hostility’. So, there are legal norms in international law and we can go into thedetails tomorrow.

But I would also like to caution because States today are discussing, whatconstitutes participation and active participation in hostilities. Merely thinkingabout it, writing about it, might in certain extreme cases, is part of thedeliberations.

77


SESSION - 3

THE MEDIA AND THE LAW OF ARMED CONFLICT

Mr. Bazlur Rahman (Chairman and Moderator), Editor, Sangbad, DhakaBangladesh

As you all know by now that the law of conflict of war is also known as internationalhumanitarian law. What is international humanitarian law? This is a state of lawwhich seeks, for humanitarian reasons, to limit the effects of armed conflict. Itparticularly protects persons who are not or are no longer participating in hostilitiesand restricts the means and methods of warfare. International humanitarian lawis also known as the law of war or law of the armed conflict. Internationalhumanitarian law is part of the international law which is the body of rulesgoverning the relations between States. It is contained in agreements betweenStates, Treaties and Conventions, in customary laws, which consist of State practiceconsidered by them as legally binding or in general principles.

International humanitarian law applies to armed conflicts. It does not regulatewhether a State may actually use force or start a war. This is governed by animportant but distinct part of international law set out in the United NationsCharter. We know that this does not stop States or conflicting parties from wagingwar or conflict, but it seeks to limit the ill effects of war or conflict, particularlynon-combatant people. Fortunately, we in Bangladesh do not have anyinternational war, inter-State war, involving Bangladesh, but we have seen certaininsurgencies. Some time back in the Chittagong Hill Tracts an insurgency continuedfor quite a few years, but fortunately that has been settled by a Peace Treatyknown as Chittagong Hill Tracts Peace Treaty signed by the Bangladesh governmentand the armed insurgents fighting for their rights. Now, we are faced with anotherkind of insurgency. These are Islamic fundamentalists. They do not believe in man-made laws or State’s sovereignty, people’ sovereignty. They try to change thesystem of government from this type of governance to a Shariat State where thelaws of Shariat will prevail and will supersede all other laws. The Government istrying to stop it, and with some success I must say. But our journalists areendangered by certain other things which do not come under the InternationalHumanitarian Law.

We are all more aware, more familiar with human law, human rights, but thisinternational humanitarian law is different from human rights, and this involvesparticularly people who are affected by armed conflict and those who are notdirectly involved in or participant in conflicts. I will only say that today, though the

78


scope of the discussion is very wide, we will mainly restrict ourselves to the typeof dangers journalists face in covering these armed conflicts and what is there inthese international humanitarian laws to protect journalists, to what extent andhow successfully.

Mr. Nurul Kabir, Editor, New Age, Bangladesh

Topic: Journalists engaged in dangerous professional missions in areas ofarmed conflicts – State response

I was telling my TV audience last night that every institution in our country at themoment is claiming that it has become free. Election Commission claims that it isfree; Anti-Corruption Branch says that it is free; Government says that it is free;Army is operating freely. Who is not free is our people! I mean, their fundamentalrights, constitutionally guaranteed rights have been taken away and that too inthe name of improving the democratic system, in the name of democratizing thesociety and the State. As far as I understand History and Politics that is a stupididea that you can improve on democracy with the fundamental rights of 140million people keeping suspended. So, when the State organs are free of theaccountability of the people, State always develops the tendency of being fascistbecause any democratic State is supposed to be subjugated under the generalwill of the people. When the people are not free, nothing is free. Only stupids canclaim that they are free with their people not free.

I would be very brief. I know that distinguished speakers are here. Perhaps I willfeel comfortable to receive questions and interact. I will just outline certain things.Our issue is how State responds to journalists or reporting, whatever you say, inareas engaged in armed conflicts. So, we have two-three issues here. One is conflict,reporting and State’s response. Well, State, to put it in one way, consists of politicallyorganized people. State, as a machine, is coercive. It thrives on its coercive forces,but at the same time, it cannot continue to exist without some kind of consentof the people. Consent is manufactured; good or bad. So, what kind of Stateresponds to what kind of conflicts depends on the nature of the conflict and thenature of journalism that is involved in reporting any conflict. If it is a Nation State,as I do believe and it has been empirically proved in many parts of the world, itexcludes the minority groups, ethnicity-wise. As the Hon. Chair of this sessionpointed out, when we organized as a Nation State, the Nation State of the Bengalis,the people living in Chittagong Hill Tracts, particularly belonging to smaller ethniccommunities, they were excluded. And excluded people have grievances, whichare being solved in many ways. The dominant group tried to address the grievancesmilitarily. Their response was a military one. So, conflict occurred. Now, how themainstream Press covered that? That depends on what particular newspaper orTV channel and what particular reporter is reporting. His or her mindset, how he

79


or she looks at it is important. If a journalist is a national chauvinist, it is onlynatural that he or she will be covering the conflicts from the point of the Bengaliinterest. If he does not believe in national chauvinism, he or she will have somesympathy reflected in the reporting or writings about that conflict. Theconsequence or response is directly proportionate to the attitude, to the angle,that one reporter or a newspaper takes in the editorial stand too.

In our case, mostly what happened was that the State intervened militarily. So,those who supported the idea were the blue-eyed boys of the Government of thetime. Those who did not subscribe to this idea became enemies. Now, how doesthe State do it in different ways? The first thing is, in the Nation States, you havenational security laws, and the first thing that the State does is giving bad namesto that which is not considered patriotic. Second thing, legally speaking, it tendsto implicate the reporters legally under the national security laws. That happensin Nation States like these. If the conflict is between religions, what we have seenin Gujarat in India, the State authorities of Gujarat have found those reporters andjournalists sympathetic to the victims of the pogrom as not patriotic. State alwaysloves to see embedded journalism. In Maldives, which is a male chauvinistic Stateby Constitution; the Constitution says some top-level posts like President, Speaker,or Prime Minister cannot be held by a woman. That is constitutionally obstructed.It is only natural that journalism that does not like this idea is bound to be legallyand constitutionally implicated in the entire State. They are not supposed to beappreciated by the State. In Sri Lanka, we have been witnessing for years. Themainlanders are Sinhalese. Whenever they talk about some genuine causes of theopponent group, they are either intimidated in different ways or are given badnames. Only the other day, Myanmar, in our neighbourhood, when State targetedthe monks, the Junta stopped the dissemination of the whole information system.

The point that I am trying to make is how State will respond depends on thenature of the State. If the nature of the conflict is between two Nations, is betweentwo ethnic groups, is between two religious groups - you have different kind ofresponses, mostly intimidating and coercive. But one thing is common that Statealways has dominant ideas on which it is based on as regards the consent of thepeople is concerned. When they cannot do it, the States fail to intimidate or failto stop objective journalism, or fail to stop the views sympathetic to the victims,eventually they coerce or harass. This is perhaps common everywhere.

I do not think I have much more to say about it because I do not think that therecan be some other angles that I have not covered. It will be interesting for me torespond to queries. So, I stop here by saying that the nature of the conflicts,nature of the State, nature of the reporting are inter-related. State has a coerciveapparatus. Primarily they want to pursue the journalists who act in the way they

80


act. If they do not, they first intimidate, harass, give bad names or even kill them.There are a lot of examples in our part of the world.

Mr. Bazlur Rahman: I will tell you a short story, my own personal experience. Oneof my reporters in Nagamatti was kidnapped by plain-clothes people in broaddaylight. His only fault was that he was a little sympathetic to the struggling Hillpeople. So, we moved to the highest authority in the State, including the Chief ofDefence Intelligence. He assured us that this man was not in their custody. Butafter two years, he was produced in a court on a stretcher. The plea was that heleft for India and while coming back, he was arrested from the border. The proofwas that he has a ten rupee Indian note in his pocket. So, years later, when oneof the Commanders in the Hill Tracts asked me, “Why the relationship betweencivil and military personnel is so strained in Bangladesh?”, I told him this story andasked him, “Do you expect that after this experience, any of my reporters willventure in reporting the truth?” I do not say sympathetically; even truth is notallowed if the State is chauvinistic as Mr. Kabir has said, or if the State is authoritarianand not accountable to the people. It is very easy to sway public opinion in thename of Nation, in the name of State, in the name of Religion. So, people really didnot know what was happening in the Hill Tracts.

Mr. Gopal Guragain, Managing Director of Ujyalo FM and Satellite Channel,Katmandu, Nepal

Topic: Journalists engaged in dangerous professional missions in areas ofconflicts - Employers’ response

I am not a professional manager. I am still a journalist. I would love to produceradio programmes, besides reporting. I have been given the topic of ‘Employers’response’. I will try my best not to disappoint you. Mainly I will share my experiencebased in Nepali Media, particularly in the new media of Nepal – we call it‘Independent Radio’. I have a question to you before speaking on the topic. Whypeople invest in media? In most of the developing countries, people invest inmedia because there is the prestige and there is privilege, there is profit and thereis power and also propaganda. The power factor seems quite strong in the newlydeveloped democratic countries, like Nepal and also in Bangladesh. I do not knowmore about Bangladesh, but it is so in Nepal. There is power in politics, contractsfor the business, and the power to influence the heart and minds of thebureaucracy as well as the people. Besides political parties; particularly theinsurgent groups run their media organization in Nepal for the propagandapurpose. I must say that the new political party, before April, 2006, was theinsurgent group – CT and Maoists – which runs five radio stations up to now.Most of the political powers always want to have their own media organizationfor propaganda.

81


What I am asking or why I am putting these points is because I want to enter intothe debate on the management part of the media organization which has torespond to the conflict reporting.

In Nepal, before April, 2006, there were nearly 14-15 people killed each day in thearmed conflict and more than 20-25 people were being wounded, and more than50 people were being displaced from their homeland, from the war place. It wasthe data as obtained before April, 2006, when there was no movement, and therewas armed conflict all over the country. When the conflict spread all over thecountry then the media owners, whatever may be their interest in investing, theyhad to respond to it in any way. In the beginning when the conflict had to beresponded to by the management, we realized and seen the crisis of confidenceat different levels, that is within the news team, production team, etc. There wascrisis between seniors and juniors and between pro-democrats and pro-leftists. Ifsomeone is close to the insurgent group or with the security forces and who arereporting on such bits, they may be suspected by the management or by theother groups. So, it created a crisis of confidence in the team and also in differentdepartments within the organization. The crisis of confidence is also seen in theBoard of Directors, shareholders because of differences of opinion and also becauseof their need to secure their investments. We have seen that type of syndrome inNepal.

So, another factor we have seen and observed is crisis of credibility. Credibility isthe heart of any media organization. Most of the media organizations start losingtheir credibility and their audience because they cannot respond properly to theissues or the events. There is also crisis of credibility among States. There is fearin the management always because they think that their licences will not berenewed or their stations will be closed. I am basically talking about Radio only.The management also loses risk taking capabilities, when the conflict spreads allover the country. There can be crisis between organizations, like the journalists’organization, the entrepreneurs’ organization. It can be some sort of crisis ofcredibility, and the crisis starts from that point. The situation becomes worse whenthere is a total failure of rule of law, and the democratic institutions are haltedfrom working. The risk bearing capacity of the management becomes worse. Theyhesitate to take risks against insurgent groups and the authoritarian State. Thereis the factor of losing any one of the things that is - prestige, power, profit,propaganda or privilege, etc. It is observed that the management is alwayssandwiched between insurgent groups and the State, between own teammembers, and between their Directors or the shareholders.

When the conflict spreads all over the country, we have seen that the marketresources are limited for the media. The first strike is to halt production and

82


transportation of product so that marketing becomes very slow. The investmentis stopped; basically, new investment is stopped. The on-going projects areobstructed. The government expenditure on social sector development is alsohalted and is shifted to be spent on security. So, it reduces the income sources ofthe media organizations which come basically from advertisement. It also getsreduced due to competition between media organizations – between radio andTV, between TV and print, between electronic and print media.

When the armed conflict is spread, the management always looks at theexpenditure and financial aspects of it. The expenditure increases due to securityreasons. Differences increase due to uncertain political future. Crisis of confidenceincreases due to lack of risk bearing capacity. Investors feel insecure in all forms.Then, the main sufferers are the journalists in Nepal, most of the time. In thosecases, in Nepal, what we have seen is that the journalists are the trouble-makerswithin the management. That was seen during the emergency period when Kingtook the power. First of all, the radio stations reduced their teams and firedjournalists first.

Coming to another point in regard to this crisis management, as far as radio isconcerned, let us see the whole environment. Radio is a new media in South Asia,particularly FM media is a new media in South Asia, and it is so in Nepal. We haveonly ten years of experience in having an independent, private radio. Nepal doesnot have much skill in regard to broadcast management, that is media marketing,particularly the broadcast marketing and content management. We have historyof the print for nearly 100 years, but radio is very new for Nepal, particularly theprivate and the independent broadcast is being exercised only from the last sevento eight years. So, content management is another area lacking in skill. Thetechnology is very frequently being changed in the radio. There are other factorswhich management has to deal with. There is always pressure. When a new radiostation was started in Nepal in 1998, that was Radio Sagarmata, the first communityradio in South Asia, the armed conflict started after two years. Then, that createdpressure – by the armed group and by the security forces. We have many incidentswhere the armed groups asked us to broadcast revolutionary songs on the radiostation, and the State asked us as to why we were violating the broadcasting law.The radio had to respond to that.

Another factor is the pressure from the audience. The audience always needsgood things to listen and quality content. There was another pressure factor whichwas the trade unions. Particularly these days, some of the trade unions are veryactive in closing down some of the print media as well as radio stations. Afterdemocratic movement of April, 2006, nearly half a dozen of the media organizationshave been closed for a day, two days, seven days and up to 15-20 days, due tothese unions. This is another pressure which the management has to handle.

83


We could say about the new Nepali media, that is FM radio, that there is noprotection from the State before the new interim Constitution was promulgated.Before that, any time, the government can come and close down the FM radiostation. That was the main threat. Another factor which management has torespond to is tax. The tax in respect of Nepali radio is so high. It is more than whatit is on tobacco and liquor companies. You have to pay four per cent royalty,whatever income you may have. Another factor is the renewal fees which arequite high.

These are the factors which the Nepali radio has seen and the Nepali broadcastmanagers or the employers have faced during the armed conflict. Even undersuch a harsh situation, the Nepali media are getting strong support and goingwell, in my opinion because of the support from professional groups to havegood content, the audience support for the quality content, and the support ofthe civil society for its freedom and freedom of expression, and the strong supportof judiciary when we went to the court. For example, our organization was closeddown first by the King. It was ordered to close down by the King because we weredoing the news thing all over the country and sending it through the satellite.Nearly 22 radio stations were broadcasting the news live from Kathmandu allover the State, including the remote areas. Then, the King’s government thoughtthat if they close the source, then all radio stations would not have news. Whenthere is no news, the radio will be useless. They did it. We went to the judiciary,and the judiciary has given a lot of courage to the management as well as thereporters when they were in crisis. Also, the Nepali media organizations and themedia people got support from the legitimate political parties and advocacyorganizations. So, we are doing well. Thank you.

Mr. Amit Barua, Foreign Editor, The Hindustan Times, India

Topic: Journalists engaged in dangerous professional missions in areas ofarmed conflicts – Journalists’ response

Before I move on to my brief presentation, I would just like to inform my friendsfrom Nepal that you might have had only ten years of experience as far as newson radio is concerned. In India we have none because the State has imposed verystrict controls on news broadcasting. So, this is something which we in fact mightlearn from your country as to how to go about the business of having news onradio which I think will be a major frontier for India as and when our governmentdecides to relax controls on radio.

Now, I will move on to the subject that is given to me. But before I come to theSouth Asian context, I just would like to make a few general points about conflictreporting and what one sees internationally in the region. I know Iraq and

84


Afghanistan were touched upon yesterday by some of my colleagues who spokefrom here. I think the work of journalists in conflict situations is becomingincreasingly difficult even as the means to report are becoming easier becausethe conflicts themselves are becoming more complicated and more difficult tounderstand. I think there are situations in which not enough is known before weactually go into the field and begin reporting. While there are in international warsituations, norms and rules, but if you look at a country as simply like Iraq, you seehuge ethnic, sectarian and religious divisions. So it is becoming more and moredifficult for a reporter who goes from outside and wants to report. Sticking withIraq, what do we see, reports from there? We see that according to the ‘Reporterswithout Borders’ about 65 journalists were killed last year in Iraq. Interestingly, ofthese 65 journalists killed, 63 are Iraqis. What does that show? That shows thatincreasingly Western media organizations have to depend on Iraqi stringers andIraqi locals to report the news. As we all know that those who carry the cameraare always at a greater risk than people like us who are from the print medium.

I would only like to point out or share a small quote of a woman, Maggie Okeenewho is the Editorial Director of Guardian Films. She has been quoted as sayingand I quote, “Usually we are only as good as our local fixers.” That is about Iraq.Now, this is the situation that the international media finds itself in. It is interestingto see that these are organizations with huge resources. They also, in Iraq, put inplace a new system of private contractors actually protecting journalists. So, weare in a situation in a sense that we in South Asia do not understand or do notcomprehend because these are hugely resource rich organizations. The way theyare reporting that conflict is very different from what we have previously seen. Itis arguable that are we getting the full picture from there, for instance, basicthings like electricity in Baghdad, is it better now than it was in 2003. I think allthese are issues for the Western media to debate and discuss.

I would now move on to the South Asian context. If you all permit me, I wouldshare some of my few experiences as a reporter who has reported from someconflict situations in India and has been posted in Sri Lanka and Pakistan. WhenI started visiting Jammu and Kashmir in December, 1989 as a young reporter, Iquickly understood in the next few months that I went there with the kinds ofpressure that you work under. And I am glad that there are some students ofjournalism here. It is a pretty simple logic. When I started going to Kashmir, whereyou stayed was important. For instance, when you landed in Srinagar, if you decidedto stay at the Centaur Hotel, you would be easily marked as a person who is livingunder the protection of the security forces because the Centaur Hotel at that timewas under the charge of the security forces. So, my Kashmiri journalist friendsimmediately told me that I should not stay there and they gave me an excellentadvice because in a sense by the very choice of where you stay, you would be

85


defining not may be for yourself but for others the kind of reports that you mightput out. I think credibility is clearly very important. So, in a sense, it was a kind ofinformal embedding, if you like. Because obviously your movements would berestricted by your very decision to stay, where you are living, how you are reportingand how these things are happening. In fact, I must share with you that whenthe first ICRC delegation went to Kashmir, I gave the same advice to the thenHead of the Delegation because all these things are very important in conflictsituations.

My larger point is that it is important for individuals to build up their credibility.In Kashmir, I went there between 1989 and 1995 for The Hindu and the Frontlinewhere I must have spent five or six months. I think in conflict situations, finally, forjournalists, it is your credibility which matters most. Your credibility is importantbecause it impinges on your security. These two are absolutely linked becausepeople see what you are writing. People know what you are writing. They areseeing on a daily basis the kinds of reports that you are putting out. In conflictsituations, it is pretty easy because you really have no protection if someone takesumbrage. I must say here that I was lucky that I was living in New Delhi andreporting and going to Srinagar and coming back, but for those people likeSurinder Oberoi who was living there actually, it was quite a different situation. Itwas a ball game because you were all the time targeted. That is one point that Iwanted to make about Jammu and Kashmir.

Then in 1995, I was posted to Sri Lanka. It is a different milieu. It is a completelydifferent kind of a conflict. It is a conflict which has taken thousands of lives andwe had two of our colleagues from Sri Lanka who spoke yesterday. But I wouldjust like to share with you a couple of incidents that happened there which showsthe kind of threat that you work under. In Sri Lanka, while I was there, there weretwo major attacks – one on the Central Bank of Sri Lanka in Colombo when theLTTE drove a truck full of explosives into the Central Bank building; the other wasan attack on the oil tanks, the only storage facility of oil in Sri Lanka. That happenedat about 12.30 at night. When we reached the spot, obviously, we wanted to talkto few people. There were thousands of people, who were fleeing at that time,and there were three or four other journalists who had gone at that night and weall wanted to get a complete picture from the eyewitnesses. Even as the oil tankerswere burning, we managed to go inside to see what was happening. In retrospect,I realize that was a major mistake because 15 minutes after we left the spot, a BBCCorrespondent was shot there. We were lucky that we had moved out because allthis while after the LTTE had used the RPGs to attack the oil tanks, they wereactually sitting inside the facilities and they not only shot the journalists, theykilled 17 Air Force personnel that day. These are the kinds of pressures that youoften work under. The BBC Correspondent came back with a flak jacket which he

86


could not really use in that kind of a situation. But that is the response of journalistorganizations usually.

In terms of providing resources, it may be fastidious to suggest that a flak jacketmight not be very useful while you are reporting from Colombo, but the fact ofthe matter is that in our South Asian context, resources are very limited. So, whetherwe are talking about internal conflicts or people being posted abroad, I think thekey as far as journalists are concerned that to do their job, they must have adequateresources, they must have adequate training and they must have, most important,support from their organizations. That is something which I found in Pakistan. Imust give credit to the organization that I worked previously for, while I wasposted in Pakistan for the kind of support that I got from them.

I would like to reveal a small story which I have written about also is that whileI was posted in Islamabad, one day, the Indian High Commissioner called me andthe Press Trust of India Correspondent. There were only two Indian journalistsbased in Pakistan, and there were only two Pakistani journalists based in India.That is the current situation as well. When he called us, we thought it was for achit-chat. But he went on to reveal that they had received some intelligenceinformation that a militant group might want to kidnap an Indian journalist. So, heput us on notice. He said that we must inform him as to where we were going andwhat we were doing. Given the fact that a senior functionary of the Governmentof India was alerting you, you have to take it seriously. He told me that I must keepin touch with our High Commission. He said that they would designate a particularofficer to which I said no. I am just trying to tell you that what I did there. I hadtwo or three choices. First, I informed my office that this was the kind of informationthat we had received and I also added a disclaimer that these bits of informationoften come. Finally, what happened was that I stayed there. I did take someprecautions like informing my wife who was with me about my whereabouts orbeing in touch occasionally with some of our officials. Essentially, the larger pointis that we had no protection. If for some reason, somebody had taken umbrageto something that you had written, you have actually no protection. You couldhave been whisked out of your house in Islamabad and you would have crossedthe border into Afghanistan and not much might have been known about you.The larger point I am making is that for a journalist to do their jobs, you must havepresence of mind in difficult situations. That is something which comes withexperience, with knowing the place where you are living in. So, these are thelarger kind of problems that you might face. Since I have had the privilege ofworking in both Sri Lanka and Pakistan, which were quite different situations, Ithink the only kind of generalization that you can make from this is as far asjournalists’ responses are concerned - I am going to be brief and end here - thatsupport from your organizations is critical. You must be in a position to pick up

87


the telephone or send an e-mail or talk to your editors and you have to getsupport from them. I told another colleague from a different organization thateither you can grapple with the situation that you are facing or you can grapplewith the organization. You cannot do both at the same time. That is really veryclear. So, as far as journalists’ response is concerned, what do we want? We wantto be in a position to be able to do our job well, to be able to report as freely andas fairly. I must say that in the three-and-a-half years that I spent in Pakistan, therewere some issues, but I reported without hindrance and without fear. There weretimes when there were some pressures from the State organizations because thenature of your visa can be changed. We had some limited exits and entries. So,there can be issues and there can be pressures. But by and large I must say thatI was able to report quite freely and including the times that India and Pakistanwere at war including the mini-war that we fought in Kargil in 1999. I happenedto report from there. Perhaps, the job became easier for me because officiallyPakistan was not at war; it was the Kashmiri guerrillas or insurgents who werefighting that war. But I was able to report first-hand what has happened there, thekind of situation that existed in Pakistan.

I always told myself that I had two jobs. One was to report from there and theother was to ensure that my successor would be able to come. So, you are alsoresponsible in a sense for the organization. You do things for the organization. Asa print journalist, other thing that I did was never speak to television because younever know what kind of stuff they might carry. So, essentially it was importantthat if you were thrown out for some reasons from there for reporting, it was fora story that you wrote for your own newspaper. You could be responsible for whatyou had written or what you had not written.

I am going to just make a couple of brief points and say that information is thekey that when you enter a situation, when you go to a foreign country or you aregoing into a conflict area. I think, journalists today have the tools at their disposalto be well informed about a particular place before you go in. I think informationis key; support from your organization is key; and thirdly, your logistics are veryimportant in conflict situations. If you are able to get your logistics right, whereyou are travelling, who you are meeting, who you should be meeting or who youshould be avoiding to meet, these are only things that you learn on the spotwhen you are there in a difficult situation. You can always draw upon the experienceof people who have been there. In Pakistan when I reported from there, I think itwas clear to me that without the support that I got from my Pakistani journalistfriends, I would not have been able to do my job. I think that is also very critical.You must be able to interact with people and understand the situation from theirperspective. I am going to end here and I would be happy to take any questionson larger issues as well from the audience. Thank you very much.

88


Mr. Surinder Oberoi, Communication Officer, ICRC, Delhi

Topic: Journalists in danger – a new law needed for their protection?

First of all, I will try to fit myself in the shoes of a scholar, a Vice-Chancellor, thatI am not. At the outset, let me confess, when I was a journalist working in Jammuand Kashmir and in other different areas, I did not know anything aboutinternational humanitarian law. Now, I repent – as I would had given bettertreatment to my stories when I was covering Kargil war or situation in Jammu andKashmir. I would have had given some different angles to my stories. That is whereI would suggest, especially to the journalist students, that it is very important foryou to know at least the broad parameters of the International Humanitarian Law.You do not have to become lawyers to know the same. We do not even have togo by the definitions of the law. But if we are aware of some sort of a law thatspeaks about a particular situation that you are witnessing it definitely will helpyou to built up the story you are working on. As a journalist, I covered severaldifferent situations for the last fifteen years before joining ICRC in 2003. Coupleof times, as a journalist, I was kidnapped by different stakeholders and once beatenup badly by police. But if you are credible, and you file your stories objectively, asseveral speakers mentioned in their presentations, chances are you will berespected by all the sides and there will be less dangers against you. So the firstlaw for a journalist present in the conflict area is to maintain credibility andneutrality.

Dear friends, as such, for a journalist, there is no obligation to be present at thespot. In other words I would say, there is yet to be any law where it speaks thata journalist must be present at a particular situation. It is a profession which ajournalist has choosen and his professional ethics demand that he should bepresent on the spot and that is why he is present there.

Presently, the journalists are facing lot of difficulties while reporting from the field.As mentioned yesterday by Mr. Amitabh and today, by Mr. Amit that how manyjournalists were killed while performing their professional duties in the last coupleof years. One of the international institutions dealing with the media issuesrecorded that in ten years, more than a thousand journalists and their associatesbelonging to 91 nations were killed across the globe. Imagine the difficulties thatthe media persons are facing while bringing in the news that you read everymorning in your newspapers or watch them on TV.

The media persons and media organizations are rethinking whether their fraternitycan have some laws that can protect and save them while reporting. Presently,there is limited protections available to the journalists. Media persons working on

89


dangerous assignments in some of the countries even do not have any protection.It totally dependes, where you are working or covering the story in which situation.You are at the mercy of the local laws and local authorities. As such, the generalglobal protection for the media person is still not there.

Next part of our presentation is that what does law speaks about the protectionof a media person in a conflict area. Is there any law that protects a journalist?

Special Rapporteur, UN Commission on Human Rights in January 2006 took theissue very seriously and they said, “Press Freedom is one of the pillars of ademocratic society. Consequently States have the primary responsibilities to ensureprotection and security of journalists and are responsible for ensuring that crimeagainst media professionals are brought to justice”

Here, UN commission on Human Rights very strongly asked the state governmentsto provide the security to the media persons. However, there was as such notmuch of the suggestion to have an international treaty or convention to safeguard media interests for which several media organisations are fighting today.

Some of the organisations like Emblem campaign for the media are asking for aspecific emblem for the working journalists to be recognised internationally sothat they like aid workers are recognised and are not attacked or killed as acollateral damage.

The World Press Freedom Committee in 1987 drafted a charter for a free pressasking for the freedom of the media in all circumstances. UNESCO passed aresolution condemning violence against journalists. In 1997. It called all memberStates to refine legislation to make it possible to prosecute and sentence thosewho instigate the assassination of persons exercising the right to freedom ofexpression.

The Universal declaration of Human Rights Article 19 meanwhile is one of thelaws in peacetime and wartime that allows media person to express his or heropinion without prejudice or fear. It says, “Everyone has the right to the freedomof opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions withoutinterference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through anymedia regardless of frontiers.”

Security Council Resolution 1738 passed in the year 2000 condemns attacks againstjournalists in Conflict situation and emphasised that journalists in a conflictsituation shall be considered as Civilians.

90


Additional Protocol 1 Article 79 considers journalists engaged in dangerousprofessional missions in areas of armed conflict shall be considered as “civilians,”It further says, “They shall be protected as such under the Conventions andthis Protocol provided they take no action adversely affecting their status ascivilians…”

However, mind you several of the countries including India, Pakistan, United States,China, Russia and several other important countries have not signed the additionalprotocols of Geneva conventions.

However, according to Geneva Convention III, article IV; “accredited warcorrespondents if captured during international armed conflicts are entitled toprisoners of war status. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actuallybeing members there of, such as…war correspondents”

The armed forces are obliged to issue ID card to the accompanying media personsas was mentioned yesterday by Mr Swapandas. Journalists are to be afforded allthe protection due to combatants. Their equipment can be seized but they arenot obliged to respond to the interrogation. The sick or wounded journalists areto receive medical treatment and if they are detained, they are to be treatedhumanely.

Therefore, media persons accompanying the troops must carry the identity cardissued by the concerned authorities. Here, war correspondents can even wear theuniform of the army but cannot carry a weapon even for your own protection. Ifa journalist carries a weapon, he can be a target of the opposite party.

In addition, let me make it clear that there is no obligation in international law forjournalists to report or monitor genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity. Itis a profession as such that media persons choose and thus become obliged tocover the stories in conflict area. Then they need to take care of some of theobligations which are: That they must not take active part in the hostilities, mustnot engage in espionage or spying, must ensure that they do not humiliate ordegrade any person, must ensure that they do not hold Prisoners of War to insultor public curiosity, must not incite violence against civilians in situation of armedconflict, must not incite genocide, war crimes or crimes against humanity.

War correspondents and other journalists covering the conflict may be requiredto disclose their confidential sources before international criminal tribunals incircumstances where the evidence sought is of direct and important value indetermining a core issue in the case, and that evidence cannot be reasonablyobtained elsewhere. Most of these are general obligations and one should strictly

91


follow the rule. For example in Rwanda case, seven of the journalists are facingwar crimes and are in jail.

These are some of the media laws that media person while covering conflict mustknow about. Now I leave the floor open so that we can debate and suggest as towhether we need a new law for media persons protection. Thank you.

Ambassador Farooq Sobhan, President, Bangladesh Enterprise Institute,Bangladesh

Topic: Civil Society view on media and the danger they face in conflictreporting

As we all know, the two pillars with which we are most familiar with as membersof civil society – one is the right to information. I think it is very heartening thatthis important pillar has today been adopted by civil society in Bangladesh quitevigorously and is being pursued vigorously. The second and of course much moreestablished pillar has been the freedom of the press and that too has been verymuch a matter of attention and priority as far as civil society is concerned. Asubject which I think does need to be adopted, in pretty much the same way thatthese other two pillars have been adopted, is the subject of the protection andupholding the rights of journalists because in a sense this right flows directlyfrom these other two pillars which I spoke about; more so, in recent years, wherethe journalists’ profession particularly in our part of the world has become quitehazardous or risky one. Of course, this is most notable in the case of the media’scoverage of armed conflicts, but in fact, as we all know, particularly in Bangladesh,this extends even beyond the coverage of armed conflicts. In our case and perhapswe can also argue this point that combating terrorism is a form of armed conflictand, therefore, falls within purview of our discussion of this subject today. Themedia that has been covering this subject in Bangladesh has been exposed toconsiderable danger and risk.

A further aspect of this, and this is true I suspect not only in Bangladesh but inother countries in our Region in particular, has been the manifestation of what Iwould only describe as acute politicization. It too has posed a major risk in presscoverage of political events and we have many examples of that here inBangladesh. What we do know is that the profession of journalism has todayexpanded into many areas because it is not simply the print media that we aretalking about, but television and radio. Both of which now play an important role,particularly we have seen on television the coverage of the current events in Iraqand Afghanistan and, of course, Palestine and Israel, which has been a major, if youlike, a theatre of conflict for many years now, almost going back to the creationof the State of Israel in 1948.

92


Closer to home, as we see, virtually all the countries of South Asia starting with myown Bangladesh, India, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Pakistan have today become areas wherethe role of the media is of great importance but where there are clearly dangersthat have manifested themselves. I do not know what is the exact figure of thenumber of journalists who have been victims in pursuing their profession in SouthAsia, but we do have a figure and I stand to be corrected that whereas the numberof journalists who were killed in covering armed conflicts in 2005 was 63. Lastyear, the figure was double and was 120. So, we are also seeing that the risks haveincreased enormously. Iraq of course is now cited as the most obvious exampleof this, but we know that covering conflicts in Africa and other parts of the worldhave proved to be equally hazardous.

I have been asked to speak today on what should be the role of civil society inaddressing this problem of the dangers faced by the media. First and foremost, Ithink it is important for civil society to recognize the fact that the media’s role ischanging and that the media does need further protection both legally and Ithink perhaps more important than legally because we have seen some of theinherent weaknesses in the application of laws, particularly in our part of theworld. But I would say much more important would be the voice of civil societyin speaking up in support of the media and the ability of the media to carry outits role without hindrance and with adequate protection.

I want to cite here a case with which I happened to be familiar with first handexperience. Many of you will recall that years back during the time of the AwamiLeague Government we had a major incident of flare up on the India-Bangladeshborder in the North East. There were several casualties and indeed overnight avery tense situation developed between India and Bangladesh arising out of thisincident. What was interesting was that the media coverage of this in India radicallydiffered with the media coverage of this event in Bangladesh. There were twovery conflicting versions of this one incident. It was only when the Times of Indiasent its then Foreign Editor, Mr. Varadharajan, to Bangladesh with the task of findingout what was actually happening on the ground and he made his way to theborder through Bangladesh, having first met and talked to a number of people onthe Bangladesh side including myself. I was one of those who urged him to visitthe border and see for himself what was the situation on the ground. I must sayat considerable risk because this as I explained was an extremely tense, and Iwould even call it a volatile situation, he made his way to the border and I wouldsay putting himself at considerable risk he reported back on what were the actualfacts of the case. It was his report that did make an important contribution ineasing the tension between India and Bangladesh at that time because what hereported was, as he saw it, the actual facts and getting this from an Indian reporter,who enjoyed a good reputation, it carried much more weight than perhaps voices

93


or reports from other sources. So, first hand reporting does have a major role toplay.

Of course, we need to end I will be brief in trying to, from my point of view,identify what I think are some of the most important, if you like, tasks in reportingin areas of conflict, but I think it is also important to understand what the dangersare. What we do know is that the reporters and the press have a very importantrole to play. Sometimes it is through their reports, as I have just mentioned thattensions can be eased and there can be a better understanding of what ishappening. Very frequently, it is reporters who can also provide indications of anoncoming conflict and thereby create if you like the possibility of resolving theseconflicts. They can also play an important role through their reports in promotingcertain confidence building measures. But perhaps most important of all is theimportance of credibility and accuracy in their reports. We know of course thatthere are many dangers also in reporting conflicts. Often journalists find themselvesworking in a situation where there are problems not simply of a political naturebut ethnic problems, religious problems, which make it that much more difficultfor them to provide an accurate coverage of events. When journalists from differentcommunities chose to trust only the sources of their own cultural and politicaltradition, and base their analysis and comments on these statements, they canclearly become victims of partiality. Often, journalists find themselves playingdubious role in highlighting the views of human rights by one side whilstdisregarding the voices of the other side. Accuracy, balance and context are criticalin every story as the media can be particularly influential in reporting of conflicts.Lower standards can lead to the media stoking the fires of the conflict. Now, ofcourse, what has become extremely important, as I am sure all of you are aware,is the role of the Internet. So, side by side, with television, the Internet plays animportant role, and many of you are, I am sure, not simply familiar with blogs butcontribute to them. That has become another important source of not simplyinformation, but commentary and opinion making.

What should be the role of civil society in mitigating these dangers? First andforemost is the need for civil society to stress the importance of protection ofjournalists. Equally important is the need for them to speak up in protection ofjournalists vis-à-vis any arbitrary acts which might be taken by the government ofthe day to infringe on their right to independent reporting. So, the media cannotand should not be considered as a legitimate target even though sometimes, andthis has been very much in evidence again in our part of the world, that frequentlyone or another group is very unhappy or resentful.

Journalists should be provided with protection. Well, certainly, legal protection isone of them. Earlier, we just heard about the importance of both the AdditionalProtocol 1 of the Geneva Conventions, and the need for us to ratify these Protocols

94


which will, we believe, provide some additional protection. Then there is also theissue of protection of the equipment of journalists. According to the 1977 Protocolsas well as in the Rome statute of the International Criminal Court “mediaequipment” should be considered as civilian objects and, therefore, should beafforded protection. We believe that in covering of armed conflicts, it is anobligation on the part of the combatants on both sides to provide whateverprotection is possible to the journalists. Of course, it is very important, we believe,that for the media to play a credible role that they should try and be as objectiveas possible in their reporting and should avoid intemperate language andsensationalizing their reports.

Now, just to conclude, I feel that in the same way, the civil society today is activelypursuing both these twin pillars which I referred to initially, namely, press freedomand the right to information. The civil society should be very active in promotingthe rights of the journalists insofar as protection is concerned, and equallyimportant to protect them from arbitrary or intimidating action on the part of notsimply the government, but political parties and other players in society. I believealso that in the same way that we now see a very vibrant civil society within SouthAsia come together on important issues such as human rights and the freedomof the press, the civil society in the region itself should speak up in support of therights of the journalists and to accord them the necessary protection to carry outtheir duties and responsibilities in covering armed conflicts. Thank you.

Mr. Bazlur Rahman: I now declare the floor open for questions/answers.

Q. Mr. Mohd. Shamsul Islam, Associate Professor and Chairperson ofDept. of Journalism and Media Studies, University of Bangladesh: First I wouldlike to take the opportunity to congratulate Ambassador Farooq Sobhan for hisvery thought provoking and insightful presentation. In fact, he has broadened thescope of our discussion by including two very important aspects, that is, mediareporting of terrorism and media reporting of political violence. My specificquestion to him is, “How media can play a positive role in combating low intensityconflict where the armed conflict is not there?” In fact, we are not witnessing herethat type of armed conflict in Bangladesh. Media definitely can play a very positiverole in combating political violence, in combating terrorism and in combating lowintensity conflict which we are witnessing. So, please enlighten us by giving yourpositive suggestions here.

Ambassador Farooq Sobhan: Well, in response to your question, clearly theseare issues which first and foremost need to be addressed within the country bythe government, by civil society and most important of all by the media itself. Aswe know, and I think the media can rightfully take credit for this, in Bangladesh,the media has played a very important role in highlighting the problems in respect

95


of acts of terrorism and the sources of these acts of terrorism. Also as we knowthe highlighting of the emergence of (Jamiat-ul-Mujahideen, Bangladesh) JMBand Bangla Bhai in Bangladesh was primarily thanks to the work of the media.Even though initially these reports that came out in the media were denied, themedia did continue to press ahead in its coverage and reporting and sometimesat great danger. We do know that many journalists did suffer as a result of this. So,it is very important that the government of the day, the political parties within thecountry, recognize this important role of the media. But equally important I thinkis that the voice of the civil society must be heard loud and clear in support ofwhat I would consider to be a credible role played by both print media as well asthe electronic media in the coverage of these events. We do know and there havebeen cases of violence and attack on journalists particularly in the districts intheir coverage of certain, what I can best describe as political crimes and variousactions taken by politicians outside the law. I think the media did make animportant contribution in exposing some of these through their reports. And theysuffered. I think it is equally important to recognize then that the civil society inall its manifestations did make its voice heard in support of protection of journalistsand people in this profession. This is a role which I would say should continue. Ithink civil society must impress upon the government of the day to afford thenecessary protection as well as support and that support also must becomplemented by civil society. I would also here like to stress the importance ofthose two pillars which I think are of fundamental importance and that civil societymust continue to play an important role in support of these two pillars, namely,the right to information and the freedom of press. I believe this should extend notsimply to the print media but also to the electronic media and we hope that inthe very near future the government will open up both radio and TV to theprivate sector and for government itself to back away from this role in trying tocontrol the media and in using Bangladesh television, BTV, as if you like, governmentcontrolled bodies. I think the independence of these bodies is going to be ofcritical importance.

Nadeem from the audience: I understand that Ambassador Farooq Sobhan, andwe know that from the civil society and also from the State, the media is showeredwith the praises that we are to have a very vibrant and courageous role in reportingconflicts and violence. When Surinder Oberoi was talking about the internationalcovenants or rules, we also know that even in our Constitution, the freedom ofmedia is there and our rulers, whenever they get time, they claim that we are freeand protection will be given. But I will refer certain cases to show how vulnerablewe are when the question of performing our duties comes. You, AmbassadorFarooq Sobhan, may remember, all of us here who are from Bangladesh knowthat, and I want to refer to our friends from other countries, particularly Amit, heis speaking how he acted in the conflict ridden areas. Bangladeshi media is not

96


particularly accustomed to reporting on conflict; mainly, as you have mentioned,political violence we have reported and we are used to it. How vulnerable are we?For example, in Mymensingh, when there was a bomb blast in a cinema hall, ajournalist who was then acting as stringer for Reuters and also he was a staff ofthe National News Agency, BSS, Mr. Inamul Haq Chowdhury, he was involved thathe was a party in the blast and how rigorously he had to face the consequencesas we know. When he was not producing himself before the law enforcing agencies,his wife was taken to the custody first and then he was compelled to surrenderbefore the law enforcing agencies and he had to undergo rigorous interrogation,even physical torture. Only recently, after five or six years, his name has beendropped from the charge sheet. Now the question is that, “Who is going to protectand give compensation to his five years of this exhaustion and the trial and theagony – mental and physical? Another example is that, you know, two journalistsof Channel 4 of BBC came here. Local stringers, as Amit was mentioning, that hehad to sometimes when he is reporting in a foreign country, to get support fromthe local reporters. Some of the local reporters here accompanied the Channel 4people just showing them around as a professional colleague and how badly theywere treated by the intelligence agencies, we all know. There were the chargesthat they were involved in espionage. So, the question is, when the State becomesmore and more a perpetrator, rather than giving the protection and involving themedia people in facing the charges like espionage or anti-State activities, then itis obviously the role of the media unilaterally to face the consequences. There, ofcourse, the civil society response is to make the issue more and more highlighted,and that will give more encouragement to the media to perform their duty. Thisis my observation. Thank you.

Mr. Ghulam Rehman, Dept. of Journalism and Mass Communication, Universityof Bangladesh: I have an opinion and on this opinion, I want to make a commentto elicit the reaction of Mr. Amit Barua. When we usually see reports on the smallconflicts, particularly small armed conflicts or the ethnic conflicts taking place ina country like Bangladesh or any other place of our neighbouring countries; thosereports that come out in another country, may be some problem with the hillpeople in Bangladesh or Chittagong Hill Tracts, and that report comes out in thenewspaper of India and these reports are not appreciated in Bangladesh. Thesame thing happens vice versa. So, my impression is, the responsibility of journalistsshould be such that it is not a biased report and there should be objectivejournalism. Many a time, it is the interest between two countries or two nations,and so the quiestion is whether objective journalism can stand beyond the borders,beyond the frontiers. That way, the responsibility lies on the journalists who coverthe inter-State or the international disputes and conflict/issues. May I ask Mr. Baruato comment on this issue and how the journalists can overcome the situationcovering the inter-State problems?

97


Mr. Amit Barua: I think you have raised a very important issue in the sense thatwhat is fact and what is truth. If you are looking at an issue from a Bangladeshiperspective or an Indian perspective, often, the facts differ and the truth looksdifferent. So I think here the responsibility of the individual correspondent or thewriter is immense. Do you get the other version? I mean, Ambassador Sobhan wasreferring to the fact that an Indian journalist came here and reported from here.I think it is key that we report from all sides of the story. I think it will be too muchto expect that an Indian journalist will give a completely Bangladeshi perspectiveor a Bangladeshi journalist will give a completely “Indian” perspective. But I thinkfor a report to be wholesome, both sides of the story need to be in the report. Ithink that is absolutely critical. Because if you give only one side of the story andoften there are situations, say, for instance, in Sri Lanka, I was sitting in Colomboand reporting what is happening in the Jaffna Peninsula a few hundred kilometresaway, and you might as well have been sitting in New Delhi and reporting on it.So, what do you do? If you cannot report it immediately, then you try to getversions of people which come in later. As far as India and Bangladesh areconcerned, we do have difficult issues between us, but I think the key thing is thatwhat kind of pains we take in reporting both sides of the story. For example, if wehave a flare up on the border or something has happened, you get the version ofthe Border Security Force, it is absolutely important that you get the version ofthe Bangladeshi Rifles as well or of the local people. To me what would be moreimportant is that can you talk to the ordinary people on either side because weknow that State agencies have an obvious interest in pedaling ‘A’ line or ‘B’ line.I think that we need to rise above these so-called patriotic or national issues andlook at questions from a humanitarian perspective and here I must share withyou something which I hope has stopped now. Many years ago, back in 1988, Icovered a situation in the little Rann of Kutch in Gujarat of all the places. Youknow, often, we have people who come in from Bangladesh into Indian Territoryand often they are picked up by the Border Guards here and they thrown onthe Pakistani side. This is a game which is played often by the Border SecurityForce and Pakistan Rangers. Unfortunately, these 50 people were thrown acrossby the Pakistani side finally and they walked in the little Rann of Kutch and 50of them died – first the young children died, then the women died. No Statewas prepared to take responsibility for these people. Finally, I happened to gowith the assistance of some people to report from there. But the fact is thathumanitarian issues, I think, compassion, if I can use that word, are often missingin our journalism. I think that is a function of the daily violence that all of ussee in South Asia. I deliberately did not raise the issue of political violence, butclearly it is a major question in our reporting in different South Asian countries.As we look around at South Asia, I do not think you can find a really conflict-ridden area in different places, in different States. I think in one sense,Bangladesh is perhaps fortunate that it does not have any major intra-State

98


conflicts in the sense right now, apart from what the Chairman had referred toearlier in his opening remarks.

Q. Maj. Gen. Munir Zaman, President, Bangladesh Institute of Peace andSecurity studies: I am addressing this question to Mr. Barua and, perhaps, anybodyelse from the Panel can also answer. In my understanding, it is perhaps theunderstanding of the conflict itself which is the best safeguard for a journalist.Some recent studies have indicated that many of the deaths and casualties of thejournalists in conflict areas have occurred for the lack of understanding of theconflict. Some of them have been naïve in entering into areas where they shouldnot have been. The example you cited about entering the Colombo scene is alsoperhaps bordering on naivety. Therefore, in many cases, there are instances wherejournalists are not well equipped to report the conflict they are reporting becausethe business of violence has become complex and it has become too deadly.Therefore, I think that we need to train our journalists before they go on toreporting conflicts and also to make a distinction between the wide ranges of theconflict that we can involve in. I see that your reporting concerns conflict in a verygeneral term, but I would reckon that reporting low intensity conflicts (LICs) andreporting total war are two different businesses altogether. Or even in the case ofreporting a total war, reporting from an armoured column and reporting from astatic defence is altogether a different business. It is important that journaliststhemselves have to understand the business of conflict better so that they canhave their own understanding and their own safeguards before they go on toreporting conflicts. The other comment I would like to make is that the newdimension of reporting from the new media of Internet is somewhat blurring thelines between mainstream reporting and non-mainstream reporting. If you wouldrecall the ‘Baghdad Blogger‘ during the Iraq War, it was perhaps his Blog whichwas giving the most authentic report of the war that was raging around Baghdad.So, how do you consider this to be a complementary role that they play with themainstream? Do you think that they are somewhat marginalizing WarCorrespondents in the field because this is a dimension that we will increasinglybe living with and we will have to understand how the dynamics of the Internet,the Blogs, the broadcasting, the web casting, together play in reporting war fromthe front and where it is happening. Although Ambassador Sobhan has left, butI would also like to make a comment that there is no universally accepted paradigmon the global war on terror. Therefore, reporting on terrorism cannot be lumpedtogether with reporting on armed conflict which is covered by Geneva Conventionsand international conventions.

Mr. Amit Barua: Well, I think, I will treat most of what you said as a comment, butyes, you are absolutely right that there is a major difference between reporting awar, a hot war, and reporting a low intensity conflict. I hope we do not see War

99


Correspondents as such because it is not a very pleasant duty. But one thing Iwould like to say is that we have seen over the years the reduction of Inter-Stateconflicts and we see more internal conflicts within States. Just to give you a smallfigure, since the end of the Cold War, we have added almost 30 countries to thelist of United Nations’ Sovereign Nations. I think that is a lot, you know, if we lookin terms of numbers. So, essentially, we are seeing a lot of internal conflicts, we areseeing an occupation in Iraq, we are seeing a conflict in Afghanistan, obviouslythese are very important. You are absolutely right that journalists often stray intoareas where they should not be going. But usually what happens is when you talkabout War Correspondents or when you talk about embedded correspondents aswe see in Iraq, who are actually going with armoured columns, I think they getonly a partial picture. So, as far as reporting the truth is concerned, or reportingwith integrity is concerned, I think the moment you travel with a particular force,what happens is that your reporting becomes limited. Then it is the job of themedia organization to not just go by what the embedded correspondent isreporting but taking other versions from hopefully other people in that countryor in the field and putting together a whole comprehensive story because that isI think what we lack in conflict situations. For instance, the kind of reporting thatshould come out of Iraq on, say the number of refugees that are outside Iraq’sborders today. You see very little of that kind of reporting because the Westernmedia obviously has a perspective and it is the occupied nation’s media which iscarrying most of the stories, and for them the story is one or two of their soldiersbeing killed as opposed to the general suffering of the ordinary Iraqis living inBaghdad and other parts of the country. I hope that is a sufficient response.

Q. Mr. Mufazir Rehman, Dept. of Journalism and Mass communication,University of Dhaka: My question is to two practical men we have from India, Mr.Amit Barua and the other one, Mr. Surinder Oberoi. Maybe, my question echaeswith the comments made by the experienced elderly man. My question is thatthe short term desire of the media is to inform about the facts, what is happeningin the society and in this context the conflict or violence. But in the long run, ifyou consider the long term considerations of the media, it is to keep the societysort of in order as the covering of this kind of issue, armed conflict and violencehave different effects. One is that it may glamourize the conflict itself. How tomake a balance covering the issue and to keep the society in order? That is aspecific question. The complementary question to Mr. Amit Barua is, did you receiveany parameter while you went for covering conflict areas in Kashmir, Kargil? Arethere any parameters in the journalism field to say where to start and where toend, and what to do in conflict areas?

A. Mr. Amit Barua: I will take the second question first. No, there were noparameters. But as I told you that there were some special situations which often

100


created issues, but we were able to report quite freely and I cannot talk about allsections of the Indian Press, which reported in a particularly difficult time fromJammu and Kashmir. But there were several people who reported without fear orfavour. There were obviously pressures from the State for us to report in a particularway. I think many of us resisted those pressures. So, as far as my organization wasconcerned, there were really no parameters laid down as far as reporting isconcerned. We reported pretty much what was happening on the ground in Jammuand Kashmir. Often we got into quite serious trouble on account of it from theauthorities because there were places they did not want us to go or there werepeople whom they did not want us to speak to. But I think overall, the Indian Pressdid a reasonably good job of reporting from Jammu and Kashmir and presentingthe people side of the story. Not just of the security forces or the militants, butwhat ordinary people were facing.

Your other question is about covering the issue and keeping society in order. Forinstance, what is happening in Nepal? The fact is that the Maoists were initially inParliament and then they became a guerilla force and then again they came back.I think, institutional memory of journalists, and that is where experience counts,should be able to put incidents in their right perspective, in the right context. Ithink this is a job all of us need to do, and this is without necessarily editorializingin our news columns. I am one of those who believe that most of us are subjectivecreatures. I do not think there is anybody who is objective, but at the same time,your very subjectivity breeds certain understanding. If you are biased in a particulardirection, you can take greater pains to ensure that the other side, the otherinside view is also reported properly and in perspective. So, as far as society isconcerned, I think, the key thing is that we draw lessons from the conflicts. We doanalysis of what is happening, what are the things that we have seen and we areable to write pieces later which are more analytical, which are more thoughtprovoking and which would perhaps provide an input into general civil societyand to the government to address key conflict issues that grip many of oursocieties.

Surinder Oberoi: I will just add a little to what Mr. Amit said. You are talkingabout forgotten conflicts or situations which are important. Here is where the roleof a teacher of a mass media communication, like you, becomes very importantto teach students as to how to maintain the objectivity of the stories and howthey have to follow up the stories so that humanitarian issues continue to remainin the newspapers. If you analyze the journalists who have won Pulitzer Awards,it is because of their hard work and continuing investigation into the forgottenstories that they brought on the front burner. In a conflict situation, there are twoparties fighting against each other. That is the biggest constraint for the mediaperson as to how to get the information from both the sides. That is what Mr. Amit

101


was mentioning about that you have to get the version of both the sides, may bethrough more than one journalist on a story. The challenge for the media personsin such situations is between the truth, the information he needs and the securityconcern of a particular party in a war or a conflict. This is where the media personshave to be very smart, develop their own network and of course be honest withtheir own reporting.

Mr. Nadim Qader, Freelance Journalist: We have talked about balancing of thenews and getting information from both sides, being accurate and objective, butI think there is also the other side which is the perceptions of the governmentsand institutions which also comes across when you are reporting. Most of my life,I have been reporting. I just want to mention one or two incidents because itcame up during the discussions. It was about the India-Bangladesh border conflict.When the first information, I was still working with AFP at that time, went out, Iwas luckily talking to the DG, Bangladesh Rifles (BDR) at that time about thesituation and he gave me the update and it was quoted. Then, we had aphotographer who went to the scene and he returned with pictures and definitelyother inputs that we updated. Our New Delhi Bureau was putting in what theIndian side was saying. But even then, this was not taken as accurate or objectivebecause it is a problem of perception of the government on that side because thecasualties were pretty high for the Indian Border Security Force (BSF). On theother side, the perception was why the news went out so fast. It should have beenbit slower, by the time the two governments had talked over. There is the problemof perception and that brings about a threat. When you speak about going to thespot and the Times of India Correspondent coming, fine, but for that moment, itjust did not seem that the government in New Delhi had any trust in the reportsthat were coming out from AFP with balances from both Delhi and Bangladesh;and Bangladesh had on-scene reports with visuals. What have you to say on that?I also want Mr. Nurul Kabir to comment on this issue because I am sure he hasbeen following that incident very closely.

Mr. Nurul Kabir: I agree with the observation that you had put forward. That isa problem. I tried to make it a point when I was addressing the audience that thenature of the State, the nature of the government whether is chauvinist or not, isa Nation State or not, is an authoritarian State or not, that is the problem of thegovernment. What is important is, in your case, if the AFP released the story, thenthe job of the journalist is done. That is one thing, as far as reporting is concerned.Whether a government will take into account the reporting seriously, that doesnot always necessarily depend on the objectivity of the report, rather than on aparticular government’s foreign policy towards the countries involved in a conflictwith. That is number one. Second, I would take this opportunity to address oneissue raised by Stanford University Professor. Some of us have already addressed

102


it. Terrorism and political violence and conflict, there are certain subtle issues inthat. For instance, the Palestinians are being called terrorists for last 40 years. It isvery important for journalism professors and journalism students and practicingjournalists to ponder over whether you can call them terrorists. We were calledterrorists in 1971, while we were fighting for our national independence. Thepeople fighting for the autonomy or separation in North Eastern India are calledterrorists by many establishments in India. It is important to see whether we cancall them terrorists or not, and these are very important issues. We have to seewhether it is terrorism of the strong and terrorism of the poor or the weak, whetherit is a reaction to terrorism. These are issues that are being debated across theworld today, and the journalism students and would be journalists should beaware of these things on one hand. Armed conflict, what do we mean by that?When students throw stones at police, is it not armed conflict? Is not a piece ofstone or brickbat an arm? At that moment, if the students had sten-guns, wouldthey not have fired? These are issues which are very important. What we callarmed conflicts, there are relative terms. Once again, as far as reporting isconcerned, all of us have said that giving the perspective of all the sides involvedin the conflict is the most important thing for us, the journalists. Whether agovernment or the conflicting parties involved, politically or otherwise, agree tothat or not is a different issue. Our responsibility is to feed the people with informedopinion.

Mr. Amit Barua: I would only agree with Mr. Kabir. What you did was absolutelythe right thing to do. Whether New Delhi or Dhaka thinks that your report isincorrect or correct, I think that is a matter for the State to deal with and tackle.The journalists’ job is to report what they see. How the State responds or how itdoes not respond or it wants to colour that report, I think, that is pretty much adifferent thing. I am in complete agreement with what he said. Often, let us alsobe very clear that we are not infallible. We are doing instant news. You are gettingsome information and you are reporting it; often, you can go wrong. This is oneversion that you got. Maybe, a few hours later, you report will be something else.Nobody should take this as the final truth, and you are always in a position torefine your stories to give more information as time goes ahead. As we know, inthese days of competition, being first is important. So, that is clearly a pressure,whether you are in a news agency or in a television channel, or in a newspaperor working for website. I think these are all pressures that journalists work under.Often, you may not get the whole truth. But the idea is, it is the intention. I thinkthe intention should be to report correctly. You may go wrong. We also must haveimportant corrective measures in place in our own media organizations that wecorrect stories if we get wrong. Or we say that what we got yesterday is differentfrom what we have got today and we update ourselves. I think that is quite criticalfor the credibility of all media organizations.

103


Q. Mr. Mohd. Faizul Haq, Department of Mass communication andJournalism, University of Dhaka: My question is, does the panel think thatcredibility and better understanding between inter-State journalists can reducerisk in conflict reporting, especially in border reporting? Anybody can answer,especially Mr. Amit Barua who is experienced.

Mr. Amit Barua: Well, I think that to expect that national perspectives will disappear,that would be hoping for too much. I think for all of us in South Asia, given thekinds of friendships and contacts and bonds that we develop, I think those aresometimes more important than formal contacts between organizations. I willgive you an example. When I was in Pakistan and reporting the Kargil War, I wasseeing from the Indian side all these reports in our Press that Pakistani soldiersare so well-equipped, they have the latest equipment, they have got all the snowequipment that was needed to be there, and the fact that they have been providedwith high altitude food which has high energy. Later, a few days after the conflictended, a leading Pakistani MP, he spoke in the Pakistani Senate, Etezaz Ahesan,who is a leading lawyer as well, and revealed which came as a shock to me thatactually they conducted post-mortems on the bodies of some Pakistani soldiersthat died in Kargil and they found after the post-mortem that grass had beenfound in their stomachs. That is what they were eating. This is what I am tellingyou about truth. The fact is that as journalists, we need to move beyond Stateparameters. I think, the approach should be to put people first. The sufferings ofordinary people for journalists should be the important thing. Of course, asjournalists, we have to report what our governments are saying, what our policeforce are saying, what our intelligence agencies are saying, but it is critical. I amhappy that I was able to report this fact also from Islamabad for an Indiannewspaper and it was carried quite prominently. The critical point that I am makingis that we need to move beyond looking at the State and the police forces as ourprimary sources of information and depend on individuals, members of civil society,for our information as well.

Journalist from the audience: I have just a comment on Mr. Amit Barua. You aresaying that media should go beyond the national parameters. Is it really happeningin truest sense of the term? It is not. We, the journalists, sitting in India and herein Bangladesh and also in Pakistan, we are acting. The media is affected when thequestion of national security or the State interest comes in, by what our foreignoffice or security intelligence people are saying. We are acting that way. For example,take the border issues. Here, in Bangladesh, we are saying that BSF people areshooting down our Bangladeshi people. Similarly, on the Indian side, they arewriting opposite. You are saying that from both the sides it should be corroborated.But are we really doing it? For example, take the question of the Padua incidentin Mymensingh that brought the two countries to the highest tension point. What

104


happened during those days? If the government, as Mr. Nurul Kabir has said, ischauvinistic, then their approach is different. But at that time, that was a differentgovernment. We know that within the government, there are forces which areacting beyond the knowledge of the government to create this type of a situation.Padua incident was like that. During that time, the photographs, those which werefed to the newspapers here which created tension, those are not taken by the realjournalists. Those were fed by the forces who wanted to create a situation. Weknow the Kargil situation. Nawaz Sharif was a victim of the situation because hedid not know that his own intelligence forces are creating this Kargil conflict andthe government was sitting like a lame duck, and it had to pay the price. So, thequestion is, we the journalists are talking that we should go beyond the parametersof the State, but still, then the question comes, sitting in Dhaka, I am to writeaccording to the Foreign Office version or the Intelligence people’s version. You,in India, may be one or two exceptions are there, but the mainstream journalists,they are going by the Nation State concept and that is where we have to take theself-introspection.

Mr. Nurul Kabir: I will take half a minute dealing with the question that thejournalism student has come up with and our Senior Editor, Iqbal ShobanChawdhury has said. We are talking about the same thing and perhaps we are ofthe same opinion. The challenge remains how to get over that. I mostly agree withMr. Amit Barua’s point. India is not one India; Bangladesh is not one Bangladesh.That is related to the concept of politics of identity. Bangladesh or any country forthat matter has not one single identity. Bangladeshi Government, of course, isBangladesh; Bangladeshi civil society is, of course, Bangladeshi civil society; peopleare Bangladeshis; of course, political parties are Bangladeshis, but they have theirconflicting interests as well. So, there is not one India or one Bangladesh or onecountry. What angle or whose purpose a particular news organization or a particularjournalist will serve depends on once again how one looks at it. What is his or theorganization’s attitude towards life, towards politics, etc.? And politics of identityis one of the most complex issues that the contemporary world, including theglobal intelligentsia is confronting with. One thing that I agree with him, in thiscomplex world, a journalist is not supposed to be an expert on all these crucialissues. If people remain our focal point, we can solve many problems. We can gobeyond State, Governmental interests, interest of the intelligence agencies ofdifferent countries, this and that. If people’s interest remains the main thing, wecan face many a challenge that we come across everyday.

Mr Bazlur Rehman: No war is just and no law is adequate to give protection tojournalists. So, we are working within these imperfect situations. We are trying toget as close to perfection as possible, but we must remember that we are imperfectpeople, imperfect nation, and our legal system is also imperfect. About this conflict

105


between BDR and BSF, I like to recall that some time back, we were in Delhi; wewere sharing the same platform of ICRC in Delhi. Then, Varadarajan of The Hinduwas narrating how the Indian Press was befooled by the security forces and byforeign office people to report in a particular way and I narrated how Bangladeshijournalists were befooled and hoodwinked to report in a particular way. But ittook days before the other point of view was printed in our respective newspapers.So, we should try to stick to truth and objectivity and not colour our reports in thename of patriotism which is another form of chauvinism. We must stick toobjectivity which is the first and last word in journalism.

107


SESSION – 4

WAR/CONFLICT TIME RESPONSIBILITY OF MEDIA

Mr. Iqbal Shoban Chawdhury (Chairman and Moderator), Editor of BangladeshObserver

Dr. Hafiz G.A. Siddiqi, Vice-Chancellor of North South University, Bangladesh

Topic: Civil Society view on media responsibility in conflict reporting

As a layman and as a member of the civil society. I do not have the ability todiscuss how the journalists report during armed conflicts in wars, but I will try togive my impression about the reporting in conflicts from outside war zones withinthe country. There are many situations, there are conflicting situations, there aredangerous situations where reporters have to work and do their job.

I have been asked to discuss the media responsibility in the context of conflictreporting with special reference to war situation. But I want to take liberty todeviate from reporting armed conflict like reporting from Iraq or AfghanistanWars. There are some conflicts which occur outside war zone, but these are notnecessarily less problematic as far as reporting is concerned. I want to focus theviews of the members of the civil society on the media reporting on conflictsoutside war zone.

In this world, modern media plays perhaps the most effective role in changingeconomic, social and cultural behaviour of a country. Thanks to electronicmedia, news travels globally instantly. The contents of the news and views ofthe journalists have tremendous impact on readers and viewers. Therefore,media has great responsibility whether reporting from the war zone or froma country that is going through various kinds of violence, for example, againstminority by the majority. Media has the responsibility to inform the publicnews of public interest. The news must be presented in its true perspective. Byimplication the analysis of the background of the events reported calls forinvestigative journalism.

The goal of professional journalism, as I understand, goes beyond simpledissemination of news. In addition to presenting news, views, commentary andarticles are published that often carry important messages for the governments,bureaucrats, corporate/business sectors and society as a whole. One responsibilityof the media is to present constructive criticism of the government policies anduseful recommendation for rectification. For example, how to promote or restore

108


democracy and institutionalize democratic practices in government decision-making. Why it is necessary to ensure fundamental and equal rights for thereligious and ethnic minority? maintain transparency in the governmentdecision-making, ensure gender equity, poverty eradication, healthcare services,education for all. In case of failure in law and order situation, how to improvethe law and order situation; environmental sustainability and several others; itis almost endless. But the journalists have to take up all of them when thetime comes.

The ultimate objective of journalism, however, is to contribute to nationaldevelopment, peace, harmony and prosperity. A civil society constitutes a purevoluntary organization whose members do not work exclusively for the interestof their family or they do not form part of the State machinery, but voluntarily tryto advance common societal interests through advocacy, social mobilization andother peaceful, non-violent ways. Some examples of common societal interestmay be, to influence public policy, promoting human rights, empowering citizensincluding women, promoting awareness against child abuse, etc. Globalizationhas increased the importance of the role of civil society. In Bangladesh, theemergence of civil society is relatively new. However, they have recently gainedvery high visibility through their advocacy programme.

Civil society’s view on media responsibility needs to be examined with referenceto the social role of journalism and the conditions under which the journalistsconduct their investigations and report on incidents and events. It is to be notedthat there is little agreement about what is the optimal relationship between themedia and the public it seeks to serve. However, there are similarities between theroles of civil societies and that of the media. In my view there is one big differencebetween them. Media runs for and with financial gains, but civil society is voluntary,its members do not get any personal financial benefits. Journalists generallyperform their jobs under various economic and political constraints. In the process,the journalists experience problems, sometimes, life threatening problems whiledigging out true information and publishing the stories. These problems areparticularly acute in the case of investigative journalism which serves the publicbest. But occasionally it runs the risk of embarrassing or inviting anger of thepowerful people and tends to generate conflicts between journalists pursuingwhat they see as their professional goals and the media owners and controllersof the vested interested groups.

Most of the goals the civil societies want to achieve coincide with the professionalgoals of journalists. For example, development goals like promoting democracy,eradicating corruption, women’s participation in mainstream political activities,exploitation of workers, pollution free environment, pure drinking water, health,

109


nutrition, education, opportunities for all, women empowerment, etc. Media’ssupport for promoting the goals of civil society and cooperation between themwill certainly create win-win situations. As in other countries, in Bangladesh also,quite frequently, media groups join civil society as its partner to implement acommon programme for creating social awareness on various issues, namely,environmental degradation, corruption, human trafficking, drug addictions, etc.Globalization has added a new dimension to the role of civil societies as well asthe media. Because of globalization, the operation of media companies and tradein media products takes place increasingly on international level. The traditionalconcept of State regulation is giving way to international pressure for ensuringpress freedom. In the same vein, the role of civil society is exerting changinginfluence on the media operation. The issue of programme production and trade,the international reach of satellite services and social meaning of the migrationof programme formats are matters of concern to the civil societies on thearguments of cultural subversion. Many civil societies argue that cross bordersatellite services have created opportunities to televise programme that subvertlocal culture. They mobilize social movement against such media products. Theoverall goal is to reduce tension.

The civil society is a part of the public in general. The difference perhaps is thatthe civil society includes mostly, relatively enlightened group of general public.Their expectations from the journalists are more or less the same as that of thegeneral public except that the former can assess the role and behaviour of thejournalists better. They can articulate their thinking about their right to know ina better way so that they influence the role of journalists to present the truthwithout inflaming the people’s passion. The case of conflict is not limited to waronly, like Iraq or Afghan War. It may be a case of religious and ethnic conflict. InSouth Asia, persecution of religious and ethnic minorities is quite common. Theunethical journalism or intentionally badly designed headlines can easily fan andinflame the passion of the aggrieved or the aggressors. On the other hand,responsible reporting can help mitigate social tension.

Reporting on underground crimes and large scale violence are not substantiallydifferent from reporting from war fields. It is the journalists who would be thejudge to decide what and how much information the public should be given ina specific circumstance. However, in such a case, one important ethical questionstands out. The right to know the truth of the civil society or the public at largeis ignored if only the censored news is published - self-censored or State-censored.Why all the details giving the true picture should not be reported or published?Neither self-censorship nor State-censorship is desirable on the ground of ethics.Another example would be reporting the cases of violence against minority andwomen. It is true that to stop minority oppression, the media must report the

110


happenings in its true perspective. But some times, unscrupulous, dramatizingof minority oppression with motivated headlines and stories does not lead tosocial harmony, rather it aggravates the conflicts that may be as devastatingas a war.

In Bangladesh, I am giving some examples of the partnership between civil societyand the media. The role of Centre for Policy Dialogue (CPD) for example has arepresentative of civil society to create awareness about democratic practices inthe election process at a national and local level with the help of news ChannelsI. It has been appreciated by the public. The Channel I and CPD jointly organizedtelevised programmes of advocacy and social mobilization programme. The goalwas to educate the general public and exchange views with them about how toidentify potentially honest law-makers, namely, the Members of Parliament anddiscard or reject corrupt politicians.

Another example would be the BBC televised “Shangla” in different districts inBangladesh which has educated many people in Bangladesh about democracy,political reforms, different dimensions of corruption. Such effective partnership ofcivil society and media is always welcome. Press freedom is a pre-requisite fordemocracy. But occasionally, the journalists face both external censorship andself-censorship. The public expect that presentation of information, editorials andstories must be supported by objective analysis, but objectivity has some problems.As I understand, most people believe that there is nothing called hundred percent objectivity. One cannot go beyond personal biases and prejudices. To theextent such biases and prejudices are built in the personal character, it will influencethe journalist’s reporting.

Lastly, we must reiterate the fact that the investigative journalism often inviteslife threatening danger. In Bangladesh, many journalists have been killedbecause they wanted to publish or actually published reports that went againstsome vested interest groups or individuals. This is a very unfortunate situation.Unless the journalists get assurance of protection from the State machinery,they will not be able to perform their duties without fear or favour. Therefore,we the members of the civil society want full protection for the journalists.Otherwise, we will not have free press without which sustainable democracy cannotbe achieved.

Before I withdraw, I want to point out one negative aspect. This is globally truethat occasionally, there are allegations that the journalists take money to reportin favour of or against some individuals or group of people. I hope in Bangladeshthis kind of thing or in South Asia, these kinds of things will be at its minimum.Thank you.

111


Ms. Pamela Philipose, Senior Associate Editor, Indian Express, India

Topic: Competition and infrastructure leapfrogging - A bane or boon inconflict reporting

I have been told to look at this question: War/conflict time responsibility of theMedia – that is our broad theme today. My theme is ‘Competition and infrastructureleapfrogging: a bane or boon in conflict reporting?’ Competition is a word that weare all familiar with, of course since news is, above all, about “new developments”in the world. Since “breaking news” on 24X7 TV has become the meta-narrative ofour lives, one of our major preoccupations is to be first with the news and comment.Competition is thus built into the very fabric of our profession.

When we talk of infrastructure leapfrogging, it is a difficult word. This is a newword that has been thrown at me and I am trying to make sense of that to you.Infrastructure leapfrogging, in contrast, is less understood. Leapfrogging suggestsa vaulting over the constraints of time and space, without going through theintermediary steps of an earlier era. Take the cell phone, for instance or Internet– both have helped us hugely in terms of being able to communicate in a veryshort time. In India cell phone use has exceeded that of landline use.

So what do we gain and what do we lose by competition and having access to“leapfrog technologies”? The benefits are immense and obvious. Reporting fromthe battlefield can be done almost in real time - as we have seen so dramaticallytime and again in the recent past. It has also improved, immeasurably, access tothe various theatres of conflict. Communal atrocities, forcible displacements ofwhole communities, ethnic conflagrations, which allowed those in power to exercisethe politics of repression with impunity, and which were earlier screened frompublic view are now being played before us on Prime Time TV. It has deepenedgeneral understanding of human rights violations, helped in the articulation ofoutrage and resistance to such indefensible attacks and often resulted in importantcorrective action through the delivery of justice.

We recognize, of course, the unique power that the modern media today has todefend the greater common good in times of great human trauma that is anintrinsic aspect of the scenario of conflicts/war. The question is whether they do,in fact, do this. There are two reasons why they do not. I would argue that theyhave not done it adequately and there are two reasons for it. One is the natureof media content in today’s world, both in war and peace. The other is the mannerthe media have come to be used and deployed in the world of real-politic.

Coming to the first aspect, a few social philosophers including eminent Frenchsociologist, the late Pierre Bourdieu, have attempted to understand the unique

112


nature of media content, especially television content. In a world of allegedlyshrinking attention spans, where media practitioners are ruled by the anxiety, thatis the anxiety of boredom, of boring people, like I am at the moment feeling veryanxious whether I am boring you with my discourse. So, boredom is a big fear thatMedia practitioners have today. There is a tendency to shut out anything serious,anything that requires detailed comment or investigation, and instead go withthe formula that “less is better”.

Current events, which also presumably include wars/conflicts, are then reduced toone small item in a whole list of stories that we hear. Among other things we hearabout Iraq, fashion shows and about something else, election, etc. It is one bigpackage that is thrown at us. This is interesting because as Pierre Bourdieu hastried to explain. He says that as a result, the sequence that you see from the warzone remains dehistorisized and dehistorisizing, fragmented and fragmentary. Thisof course is a world-wide trend. Over a period of the last decade or so, there hasbeen a very conclusive shift from serious journalism to purveying of informationas entertainment. When information becomes entertainment, it changes the natureof information.

Bourdieu tries to find the implications of such coverage disturbing. History isviewed as an absurd series of disasters and violent events which readers/viewerscan neither understand nor influence. People fed on such truncated, one-sidedcoverage of a war end up with xenophobic fears and a worldview that fostersfatalism and disengagement. He then goes on to provide an example of how therelentless competition for an ever-larger audience share almost brought about awar between Greece and Turkey in the late eighties. The way we look at war haschanged over the years. We have to understand how the Pentagon came to controlthe images of war; that is where the whole thing started. If Pentagon can do ittoday, many other government. can do it tomorrow.

From coverage of the Vietnam War to the Pentagon directed coverage on the Iraqwar, the US media has done the full circle. Many have pointed out to WalterCronkite, on the Vietnam War, who said at one point of time that it has becomea bloody stalemate. He said that President Johnson who was present at that time,‘he has lost the war for us’. When he articulated it over Prime Time TV meant thathe really put it in the public sphere and that changed the discourse. PresidentJohnson and others realized that this was happening and before long, they hadto think of pulling out of Vietnam.

But while the media perhaps did not learn the right lessons from Vietnam, thePentagon and the US government certainly did. Recently there was a conversationwith a lot of people including the Pentagon and the US Establishment. They tried

113


to understand the nature of media coverage. They stretched out and one Militaryspokesperson told that we have to keep the people with us, if we have to win thewar. The Assistant Secretary, Victoria Clarke is on record saying that the lessonfrom Vietnam the Pentagon learned was “never (to) let reporters do that again”,that means, gain free or independent access to the theatre of war. They did notwant independent reporting.

Many models were experimented with. During the First Gulf War in early 1991, thePentagon policy was clear: censorship. Military personnel cleared reporters’ copyand information otherwise delivered through the generals’ televised briefings. Butsome got away. Peter Arnett, for instance. Interestingly, that war saw new satellitetechnology bring the action on battlefield to viewers the world over for the firsttime in history in real time. The Iraqi government saw CNN as a useful conduit topresent its side of the story and allowed it to stay on in Iraq and “report frombehind the enemy lines”. As Arnett observed later, he faced a unique dilemma -of having to process “enemy information” before putting it across. “We’d have tocarefully explain and qualify everything we said. Pressure of the (US) governmentwas very strong at the time. The back story was that having a credible Americannews organization in an enemy capital would be harmful to the national wareffort. It got to the point where CNN actually considered closing down. That wasin the early-90s. But since then, a lot of things happened. In fact, in 2000, militarypersonnel from the psychological operations unit at Fort Bragg were working as“regular employees” for CNN. After 9/11, the control regime then worked towardsclosing the gap between the media and the military. This was of course justifiedby many people. Lot of people said that this is what we need to do, includingthose in the Media.

This convergence of military operations and media coverage, threw up the newmodel of “embedded journalism”, officially inaugurated in the Iraq War of 2003. Itwas very interesting. Reporters were allowed to cover the war from the very sceneof the fighting subject to two conditions - never to jeopardize troops or themission. The US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld called it “total immersion”strategy on the part of the US Establishment. At that time, war itself had becomehi-tech. There was no blood and as so many people said, the number of conflictof troops was much less than the civilian killings. So, it was very easy to controlthe images that were put out. ‘Smart’ bombs, computerized surveillance systemsand digital simulations and of course a strategy of aerial bombardment renderedthe war relatively “bloodless”. It looked good on domestic television screens andcaused no great alarm on the ground. The American media and the Americanpublic too, did not see anything terrible about Iraq, till very recently, when thebody counts of soldiers started rising and that is when, the alarm bell startingringing. Till then, it was a perfectly acceptable war on Prime Time. James Der

114


Derian termed it a “virtuous war” - virtual technologies are combined with theclaim that the war itself has a humanitarian motive.

As media practitioners, we need to understand the implications of this greatconvergence of power - the power to execute war and the power of expression.On the one hand, the media have the power to make ordinary people understandthe nature of the beast, the value of human life and counter misunderstandingsand mindsets that cause wars. On the other, there are enormous pressures placedon them to distort or ignore the truth and justify, even embody conflict and notjust in theatres of conflict like Iraq, but right here at home. Although war has notgot to be quite the same hi-tech, embedded effort in these parts, the media heretoo have played their role in whipping up tensions. We have heard about this inearlier sessions today and yesterday.

After the attack on the Indian Parliament in December 2001, we saw the amazing11-month eyeball-eyeball confrontation between two nuclear powers acrossthe India-Pakistan border. War did not break out, fortunately because of somepolitical maturity on both the sides, but no thanks to innumerable mediacommentators on both sides of the divide shrilly advocating direct action. Wehave had so many examples of that. If they had, in one moment, managed tocapture the instincts of the establishment, it would have led to a very seriouswar again. It is important to understand why we need to see these things inperspective.

I would like to end with a comment from Asma Jehangir – I know, she is not verypopular everywhere, but when the novelist, Amitav Ghosh interviewed her, thiswas just after Pokhran. Everyone was talking about the nuclear fallout. She said,in response to a question, is nuclear war between India and Pakistan possible?She replied, “Anything is possible because our polices are irrational. Our decisionmaking is ad hoc. We are surrounded by disinformation. We have a historicalenmity and we are fatalistic nations. Our decision making is done by few peopleon both sides.” We may not completely agree with what Asma says, and in factfortunately the threat of war between Pakistan and India has receded considerablyand more and more people now talk about peace. But what she said about adhoc policy making is an important point which we need to understand. And asMedia Practitioners, we have to report what we see and hear. But we should useour powers of expression and interpretation to make sense of the mess, sometimes;remember, it is not just plain reporting. There is also a comment that we do as themedia does. We have to provide clarity to the causes and effects of conflict andwhich demand a rational resolution at the highest level possible.

With that I end. I hope we can have a further discussion on this.

115


Mr. Kesara Abeywardena, News Editor, Daily Mirror, Sri Lanka

Topic: Is self-regulation necessary for media in war without borders?

The world at large is plagued by relentless war on terror today. This war is foughtboth at a macro as well as at a micro level. What I refer to as micro are the warsranging within countries where legitimate governments are engaged in fightingmovements that engage in using terror tactics to achieve their targets. The macrolevel I referred to is the larger war on terror mainly fought by the United Statesof America and its allies against a very illusive and unspecific enemy. What couldbe referred to as the war without borders that is being fought today is this largerwar on terror as defined by the US and its allies because wars against terrorismat the micro level had been there all the while. As, we, in Sri Lanka have experiencedduring the last three decades where successive governments have been fightingthe rootless terrorist organization, the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam or the LTTE.This war against terrorism at the micro level has also achieved a new dimensionat present because of the larger war on terror and the capability of terroristorganizations to function globally effectively using the modern telecommunicationand transport networks as well as forging a link between most of theseorganizations.

While speaking on the larger war on terror which is fought without borders, it hascreated a dichotomy between the West and the rest of the world. While onefaction is hell-bent on eradicating all forms of terrorism, the other faction questionsthe validity of such a stance and the means employed in doing it. The invasion ofIraq which succeeded the 9/11 attack has created a new type of stereotype in theWest that has led to the discrimination of the Muslims. This discrimination and theabandoned support of the global media networks, which are basically of the West,for the war on terror in its initial stages highlights the powerful ability of themedia in creating an ideology in the minds of the people. Fuelled by the sense ofpatriotism in fighting for the rights of the land of the free, the manipulation givento the righteousness on the war on terror at its initial stages has now resulted inthe people being felt duped by the media, especially in countries like the USwhere sentiments are changing. The public that once supported the war on terrorhas now come to realize the gravity of their mistake. The changing attitudes ofthe public, positive and then negative, were made possible by the media and thecoverage given to the so-called war on terror. However, enough damage has beendone in creating stereotype images in the minds of the people in the West. Theinfluential power of the media has probably never been more universally felt thannow.

It is in such a backdrop of events that one feels the need for self-regulation in themedia. But what is the self-regulation is the vital question that needs to be asked.

116


Is it a form of self-censorship? All media practitioners and all of us, we know, haveexperiences in this regard at various levels when placed in tight situations by thegovernments or the influential persons as well as media managements. However,the foremost role of the media as all of us know is to act as a watchdog and notmerely pay a lip service to policies adopted by those in power and bring into lifethe abuses and excesses committed by all.

The term self-regulation raises many questions as well. They are self-regulation forwhom and under what capacity? Any form of regulation is aimed at suppressingfacts and truth. As it is said, truth is the first victim of war, self-regulation of themedia in the backdrop of a war has always been called for after the media hashighlighted abuses and excesses relating to the war effort. Citing such informationas a threat to national security, the authorities often call for legislation andregulation of the media. The terrorist organizations on the other hand will use theterror tactics against the journalists as we have seen where many journalists havebeen killed.

Recently, the Director General of the Media Centre for National Security – this isa new outfit that has been established several months ago to disseminateinformation about what is happening in the conflict areas in the country becausemost of the journalists who are based in Colombo do not have access to thoseareas – one Mr. Lakshman Hulugal made a statement which created some ripplesin the media in Sri Lanka. He had said that all those who criticize the armed forcesand the defence establishment on whatever, may be human rights or any othergrounds, are traitors of the nation as they undermine and demoralize the troops.The backdrop of this statement is quite interesting because the statement wasmade after the media highlighted financial irregularities and dubious transactionsrelating to billions of rupees spent on the purchase of Russian MiG fighter jets tothe Sri Lankan Air Force with allegations aimed at the highest levels of thegovernment. The media is hounded by those in power and are called to exercisecaution when they there needs to be something suppressed. This happens mostoften when it comes to human rights abuses as well. Yet, the media as a sentinelof society has a responsibility to inform the public about the actions of thegovernment and the armed forces that are being deployed for the alleged safetyof the public.

There are always two sides to every story: what is being said and what is notbeing said. It is always what is not being said when said that creates an upheavaland questions what is being presented as the façade. The abuses committed bythe US soldiers at the Abu Gharib Prison were brought to light and the perpetratorspunished following the media highlighting the abuses and giving wide coverageto the story. If the media exercised a form of self-regulation, they would have

117


suppressed the story on the grounds that it would bring disrepute to the armedforces of those countries, thus preventing the culprits from being brought tobook.

Any form of regulation would invariably be abused by the powers that is tosuppress matters that would embarrass them and finally even totally unrelatedmatters to national security would be categorized as a threat to the nation andsuppressed. On the other hand, self-regulation would mean that the media isabdicating its role as the watchdog and the conscience of the people. In an erawhere democracy and human rights are hot topics debated and given widepublicity, the media’s role of disseminating information to the public has neverbeen more vitally important than the present. Therefore, why should the mediahold back from keeping the people/public informed about a war, wars that arebeing fought in their name? The people have right to know and it is the job of themedia to safeguard that right. Thank you.

Ms. Faida Farouk, Senior Journalist, Maldives

Topic: The relationship between Media and the security forces during conflict

We are happy that we do not have violence, but what we have experienced in thepast few years, since the introduction of political parties in the system is a conflictof another sort, political conflict. This is a very healthy sign but only up to thepoint that it does not involve any violence which leads me to my topic, “Therelationship between media and the security forces during conflict”, or morespecifically, “How do the police handle media personnel in urban disturbances?”

In a small Island State like Maldives, news has a unique way of travelling around.Some times, urban disturbances catch the media’s attention faster than newssuch as arson as a result media personnel arrive at the scene before the policeand place themselves strategically to cover these events right from the thick of it.By the time the police arrive, there is no way of identifying the media personnelor activists or perpetrators of peace. Such is invariably the case in most occurrences.In countries where human rights are not respected, the police would break upgatherings simply at their whim and fancy, but in our region much has changed.

The Maldives police established a media unit and since its inception thecommunication gap between the media and the police seemed to be narrowingday by day. Gone are the days when providing information about criminal caseswere considered taboo on secrecy grounds. The police hold regular pressconferences to brief the press on on-going cases or, in the case of serious incidents,the police immediately informs the media by means such as SMS. Yet, again,informing news of crime is not an easy affair even in the world’s most seasoned

118


democracies. For example, there was a recent case in Sydney, Australia, where ababy was found murdered and dumped in a garbage collection area. The policeline drawn was such that it was not possible for the media to take a photo of theshed the baby was found except from a helicopter. Whilst this information isdispatched with utmost transparency, it is at times used to discredit the policeforce. Nevertheless the police through the national radio and television wrote inQ&A sessions to inform the public as well as the press.

In a controlled situation, there can only be verbal lashes between the media andthe police, if any. However, if the media personnel are caught up covering a civildisturbance, there have been incidents where they have blended amongst thepeace breakers and as a result have been taken into custody and detaineduntil the police confirmed their identity. In the Capital Male, usually mostdemonstrations take place at one primary location named Mercury Light. Whena confrontation arises, several media personnel come in the way of harm. In arecent confrontation between some religious extremists and security forces inone of the Island, Himandu, the police advised the media to travel out of theIsland. Unfortunately, this incident left several servicemen injured includingone who was taken hostage and believed to be still in critical condition.Consequently, this particular incident did not receive due media attention.

Some countries assign special duty media staff to cover certain kinds of incidentssimilar to those who cover war zones. An interesting element that surfaced in theMaldives was the fact that the police invited the journalists to visit a jailsimultaneously while conducting special operations following a jail break earlierthis year. This was an encouraging sign to all human rights activists and was muchappreciated by the media.

As for how much access the police grant media to crime scenes depends on theseriousness of the situation. Recently, reporters who rushed to the scene of firstever bomb blast in our Capital in a place called Sutton Park, the police had tocordon off the reporters zone further away from the crime scene upon discoveringthat remnants from the bomb were in fact scattered to a larger area than theyoriginally believed. The police are reportedly working on a media policy. Maldivesis currently in transition to a more meaningful democracy with far reaching reformsincluding the drafting of a whole new Constitution which will incorporate majorinstitutional changes. Until such time a police law is drawn, I would like to stronglyrecommend that when the Regional Home Ministers convene their Conference atthe SAARC Ministerial level, countries of our region adopt a unified position onhow the police should act upon the media personnel in urban disturbances. Theeffectiveness of policy should not be undermined in the light of how the mediainfluences the public opinion. Thank you.

119


Mr. Iqbal Shoban Chawdhury: Thank you Ms. Faida. Coming from an IslandState, she has given us an insight about the role of the security forces, particularlythe police and the media persons. She has said that most of the times the policecome at a time when neither the perpetrators are there nor the media people arethere, the incident is over. It reminds us, particularly the traditional Indian film-making, where we see that police comes last when the incident is over, and theHero is rescuing the heroine from the incident. In our country, however, police isever vigilant. Before the incident occurs, they are there, and they baton chargeboth, including the media people who are covering the incident as an innocentduty bound people. Last of all, she has referred that Maldives is emerging fromthe threshold of a long Presidentship to a democratic transition. Let us all hopethat one day real democracy dawns on this Island and we particularly encourageour media people there because we know that some of the media people had togo for imprisonment for voicing the people’s aspiration for democracy and fightingagainst the long Presidentship. We believe in democratic transition not only inMaldives but would like democratic transition to be a real article of faith in all thecountries in the subcontinent.

Mr. Reazuddin Ahmed, Editor, The News Today, Bangladesh

Topic: Do Journalists continue to be impartial observers in present conflicts?

As my subject is, “Do journalists continue to be impartial observers in presentconflicts?” I want to start by saying that the ethical standards demand thatjournalists remain impartial in reporting any event. This is the ethical standard. Butwith the ethical standard, there are certain responsibilities also. There was a storysaying that one photographer was witnessing an assailant attempting to stab aperson. So, the photographer was positioning his camera in such a way that hecould get the closer view of the gruesome killing and he got the picture. He putit on an exhibition expecting that he would get a prize. The judges said that thephotograph was one of the best, but they could not give him the prize becausehe did not save the life of that man; he could have saved the man, instead oftaking the photograph. That is the underlying responsibility of a journalist inreporting conflicts. If only reporting is done about people being killed ordehumanizing the sufferings, my observation is that is not ethics withresponsibility.

There are three stages in conflict reporting. The origin of the conflict, how it starts- the media has a role to follow. If you look, back as to how the conflict wascreated in Iraq before the war started, it was the weapons of mass destructionplea that prompted the Pentagon and the US Administration to create a groundthat Iraq should be attacked; there should be a war. The western media and media

120


elsewhere followed the Pentagon’s stand, which was unfortunate. The westernmedia reported, including The New York Times and The Washington Post, theywere reporting that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, so SaddamHussein should be taken care of and Iraq should be attacked. Media could haveplayed a role at that time when the Chief Inspector/Weapons Inspector, Mr. HansBilks said that he did not find any weapons of mass destruction. The media didnot go along with him. I have mentioned it because the area of conflict or thecause of conflict was created on a false ground. So, the media there failed todefuse the tension; defuse the conflict before it turned into a war. When the warstarted, what happened? The other panel speakers have said that the reportswere not objective. It is very difficult to report objectively from a war field becauseeveryone knows that the first casualty in a war is truth. This is because of tworeasons – one the warring parties go for propaganda; the propaganda model thatwas set by Goebels in the Second World War to say that Hitler was winning theWar all over the world and finally he ended up committing suicide in a bunker;the propaganda did not help. In the modern Goebellian propaganda, it was theIraqi Information Minister, if you remember, during the War, the day Saddam Husseinwas fleeing, Baghdad was falling, his statue was being pulled down, and theInformation Minister was saying that they were winning the War. That was thegreatest joke. So, this is the propaganda strategy. The second reason why truth iscasualty is because the journalists or the reporters cannot reach the spot becauseof travel restrictions and safety grounds. In that event, the reporters depend onleaked information given by different agencies. Here, I think the most accurateinformation can be given by Red Cross in a position of conflict where Red Crosshas a mandate to have safe access to the places of occurrence. Thirdly, in a conflict,conflict resolution should be strived for. Media should help in conflict resolution.In these three stages, the media’s ethical standards should remain impartial in anyconflict, present or past because objectivity is the lifeline of journalism. The basicprinciple to be followed by the media practitioners is to report objectively. Butthese days, as part of Track-II diplomacy in the sideline, media should create opinionin favour of conflict resolution. The media thus should play an important role increating an opinion in defusing the tension between the countries locked in theconflict.

What I have stated is the role of media practitioners, but the practical aspect is alittle different from what the journalists should do ethically and morally. Journalistsin most cases, war or conflict, take nationalist position that undermines theindependence of the profession. Unfortunately, independence of the media hasbeen a major casualty since 9/11 war on terror. Objectivity and impartiality havegiven way to partisan and so-called patriotic journalism. Media is now-a-daysmore polarized than before and has been unfortunately toeing the establishment’sstand.

121


If we look at Iraq War, reports filed by the US and the British journalists embeddedwith their troops narrated only one side of the picture of war in Iraq andAfghanistan. The true sufferings of the people, destruction of the properties andreal situation in the war field was never stated either due to journalists taking anationalist position or their inability to reach the places of occurrences due tovarious restrictions including travel restrictions on safety grounds.

I had the opportunity to cover the initial days of the Gulf War conflict in 1991. Iwas in Dhahran where the Pentagon’s headquarters was situated. Journalists werethere, and we needed accreditation from the Pentagon. So, we approached them,they gave us a form to fill it up and they gave us five conditions that we could getthe accreditation if we accept the five conditions which included that we mustnot ask the number of troops in and around the area of conflict, we must not askabout the types of weapons being brought for the war; we must not ask for thepermission to go wherever we like. These were the conditions which were givento us and we had to accept those. That was the censorship, restrictions on themedia. During the Falklands War, if you remember, BBC had a difficult time toreport correctly the war situation when Argentina sank the warship of the UnitedKingdom in the Falklands War. During the War, the media faces restrictions. Butthen it is being overcome.

In South Asian situation, it is no different from what I have stated in case of Iraqand Afghanistan. The States in South Asia are confronting internal tensions, unrest,political hiccups, civil wars and fights for sovereignty and democracy. Right nowconflict has emerged as the biggest challenge in our region. Every South Asiancountry is dealing with the conflicts at some level, be it Tamil demand for a separatehomeland in Sri Lanka, separatist movement in North Eastern part of India, religiousextremism in some parts of Bangladesh and Pakistan, Maoist insurgency in Nepalor Taliban fear in Afghanistan. In this given scenario, the role of media remainsunder question.

Is the media playing an impartial role in these conflicts? One can genuinely askthis question. Close scrutiny will reveal that the media is divided and take partisanpositions either within or outside the respective country both in reporting theevents or making comments on the conflict. The question here is, “Should journalistscontinue to be impartial observers in the present conflicts?” Well, this is a difficultquestion to answer. Ethically, as I have stated above, journalists should be impartialobservers in any conflict and report objectively whatever happens. But these days,the question is raised, “Should journalists finish their responsibility only reportingthe events or should they play an advocacy role in ending the conflicts?” In myopinion, the journalists should report the events in a conflict objectively to upholdthe ethics of journalism but if the conflict or war is poised for an unjust cause, to

122


satisfy the whims of any vested group, then the journalists should take a positionto create public opinion to end the conflict.

The American journalists who took a nationalistic position initially in theVietnam War finally mounted pressure on the US establishment to end theWar as it was an unjust war. Same situation may arise in Iraq and Afghanistan.In South Asia, already journalists are raising loud voices for ending inter-Stateconflicts. Regarding Kashmir, journalists are pleading for to go ahead withpressing cooperative agenda in South Asia, pushing the core issues like theKashmir issue on the sidelines, which could not be resolved in 60 years. Thejournalists in South Asia should take up the position for peace and mount apressure for ending the conflicts.

As mentioned by the Chair, the South Asia Free Media Association or SAFMA, theapex body of the journalists in the region has been playing the role of peacemakersince its launching in the year 2000. While the members of SAFMA are reportingevents in the conflicts either in Kashmir, Sri Lanka, Afghanistan, and Nepal or inBangladesh and Pakistan, its members are also mobilizing public opinion in SouthAsia to end the conflicts between and among the SAARC members. It remainstrue that whole South Asia has been bleeding for the last six decades due torivalry between India and Pakistan. It is rightly said that South Asian cooperativeefforts have been hostage to India-Pakistan rivalry and conflicts. These twocountries have developed nuclear weapons that remain a danger to the wholeregion. South Asia has become the cockpit of tension due to nuclearisation of theregion by India and Pakistan. In this context, the journalists should play an impartialrole or should not take a nationalist position, especially the journalists of thenuclear power countries. Journalists in South Asia have been playing the role ofpressure builders to de-escalate tension in the region by pursuing Track-IIdiplomacy alongside the professional responsibility. The journalists in the region,editors in South Asia. I met in the past, suggested developing some sort ofinstitutional mechanism to force establishments and hawks in the region to listento voices of reason and take united stand against such forces. In this context, itmay be concluded that journalists should not remain only impartial observers inthe present conflicts, but should take a pro-active role to end conflicts. Thank youvery much.

Mr. Iqbal Shoban Chawdhury: Thank you, Mr. Reazuddin. He has given a newdimension to the role of the media personalities. He has said that some times themedia people continue to be the reporters; they should also try to be peacemakersand help in resolving the conflicts, particularly in South Asian Region. These days,new words are being coined like CBM (Confidence Building Measures), civil-militaryrelationship, conflict resolution, etc. Mr. Reazuddin Ahmed has added one more

123


word, that is, the media people should also try to be peacemakers. Last night I waslistening to one of the ICRC officials. He was saying that we should also try to bethe humanitarian diplomats, that is, when there is a conflict, there should behumanitarian diplomacy to save the victims from the consequences and the effectsof the conflict. While Mr. Reazuddin Ahmed was telling about the conditions putforward when they were asking for accreditation from Pentagon, it reminds me ofa story. A father was telling to his grown up son that well, now as you are grownup, you are free to move anywhere. Use your discretion where to go and wherenot to, but remember, if you are in trouble, you alone will be responsible, as afather, I am not going to take the responsibility. State is also behaving with us likethat. Whenever there is a problem, they say that media is free, but if the problemis there, then the State is not taking any responsibility or is not giving any protectionto the journalists. As one of my senior colleagues said, you have to know how toswim in a crocodile infested water and you have to learn how to live in a junglewhere the man-eater tigers are there.

Now, I open the discussion and question and answer session. The floor is open toyou.

Mr. Mohd. Shamahul Islam, Dept. of Journalism and Media Studies, StandfordUniversity, Bangladesh: My question is on self-regulation during peace time, notin war time. We know that there are different models of self-regulations, as far asmedia is concerned. There is a Press Council, there is Press Complaints Commissionand, in fact, in UK, there is Press Ombudsman as well. The Guardian has appointedan Ombudsman to give guidance for free and fair practices in the media industry.So, my specific question is, especially to the journalist leaders, how can we developthe mechanism of self-regulations. As we know, in Bangladesh, the Press Councilis government backed, and we do not expect fair play when government is involvedin such regulatory bodies. How can we develop different self-regulatory modelsand which would give us guidance not only in war time but in peace time also?

Answer from the Panel: I do not agree with you that the Press Council andComplaints Commission in UK and Ombudsman in any newspaper, not in UK only,there are Ombudsmen in Indian newspapers too.

Ethical judgment in treating news in the newspaper or publishing news in thenewspaper is that it should not hurt anybody, or encroach upon the privacy of anindividual. So, these institutions – you have mentioned – are the watchdogorganization to protect the privacy of the individuals, the rights of the individualsso that media cannot cross the limits. There is a saying that if you fail to imposemoral restrictions, legal restrictions will be imposed to discipline any field – be itmedia or society. For example, if the newspapers or the TV channels continue to

124


report irresponsibly, encroaching the rights of the individuals, encroaching theprivacy of the individuals, then probably there will be a demand for legalrestrictions, legal protection of the individual rights, which caused the Cr.P.C. 500which protects the rights of the persons.

So, Press Council is not a government organization. This is a quasi-judicial bodyheaded by a person, either a Supreme Court retired judge or a person qualifiedto be a Supreme Court judge is the Chairperson and members are drawn fromjournalists’ union, editors’ council, owners’ association, bar council, university grantscommission and Bangla Academy, etc. So, these nominations are independent ofgovernment nominations. The associations nominate. But unfortunately in ourcountry, all institutions have been politicized, so is the Press Council. It no more– I agree with you – enjoys the reputation of being a quasi-judicial, impartial body.But Press Council is not an organization that imposes censorship or restrictions inpublishing news. Freedom does not mean anything you wish to do, you can do.There was a case in UK. One gentleman was traveling in a bus. He was moving hishands here and there. Then, he hit the nose of a person. He filed a case and thejudges heard both the sides and ruled this way. This gentleman said I have notintentionally hit his nose; I had the freedom to move my limbs as I wish. I can doit. So, the judge ruled that your freedom ends where his nose begins. That was theresponse, which is exactly what the Press Council does.

Audience: My question is to Pamela of Indian Express. You put the issue in adifferent perspective; the issue has been discussed in the context of state, journalistand others. But you put the issue in the context of the audience. That is interesting,but that has not been discussed in the panel discussion. You have also outlinedthe issues with the theory of Pierre Bourdieu and it is fantastic. You mentionedtwo points – boredom and nature of information. As we understand, the audienceis becoming bored and there are serious issues; on the other hand, to raisecirculation and get the benefit of investment, you need to lighten the issue; thatis the challenge. Could you comment specifically what to do in that context?

It is in the context of this – you are bound by the investment maybe to lightenthe issue; on the other hand, issue itself deserves serious coverage and seriouslanguage, which may bore the audience. But your aim is not to make the audiencebored because then you will lose the circulation. What to do in that context –whether you should go easing the audience while reading the news in thenewspaper or you will just lighten in the light of the management instruction?What to do in that context?

Ms. Pamela Philipose: Clearly, every journalist and every media person has to doboth – hold the attention of the person you are addressing as well as expand on

125


his or her world view – the power of being informed. This is where, theprofessionalism comes in. I would appeal to young journalists-in-the-making thatit is very important to be professionals; have your professional talents, well tunedto the requirements of the day. That would also include creativity and the abilityto do it in powerful and new ways. As we notice, there is a lot of overlap of whatwe have to say even on this subject. The important thing really is to capture theimagination of the reader. You can do it in different ways. The very fact that youare producing information is an important social function that you are performingand here, I would like to quickly make the link between right to information asfreedom of expression – both are used synonymously but actually they are twosides of the same coin. In the sense that you could have the right to expression,but with no information is of no use to you. You can have information, but yourpower of expression is not good, then you cannot convey that information. So, asmedia personnel, our job is to bring the two together. It is a task. You are askedto do the job. I would say that you must take whatever you are doing seriouslyas young students, develop the ability to be able to communicate with influenceand with information.

Answer from the chair: It is a comment on what somebody said earlier thatviolence and conflict is a boring issue. This person should not be in the media, ifhe thinks so. Conflict and violence is a sensitive and vibrant issue in journalism.

Mr. Shamim Raza, Lecturer, Dept. of Mass Communication, Dhaka: I have aquestion to the journalist from India. It is regarding reporting the conflicts orviolence; it could be the low intensity violence. What the newspaper is trying todo or should do is to make a balance. Can I then read it like this that, you try tomake the owners happy on the one hand and on the other hand, you are cateringto the audience so that they are not unhappy with your report? The questionwould be like this – in such a situation, for example, when you are asked tomaintain the national interest such as Kashmir issue, the national interest at thesame time is elite interest, and on the other hand, there are peoples’ interest, likethe people in Kashmir or maybe others in the audience, who have their owninterest which may not be compatible with the national interest or the elite interest- as a journalist what is your suggestion in that case? Should you really care forwhat the elite or the government wants you to do? Or should you really care forthe minority segment of the people which have a conflicting interest and at thesame time, if you can kindly comment, what is the general trend in the Indianmedia?

Ms Pamela Philipose: Very often, it is the national interest that dominatesunfortunately. But like we have heard in the morning session, it is important thatthe national interest is tested against the public interest. It is important to bring

126


something that addresses the national interest, that is, in terms of reporting onthe voices from the ground as well. The best journalism really combines both. I amtalking of mainstream journalism. There could be sectional interest and sectionaljournalism which caters only to the public interest but I am talking as a mainstreamIndian journalist in which case you have to combine both very often because wedo not function in a vacuum. But it is important to test it against the publicinterest. Recently we had the case of disappearances in Kashmir. It had beenhappening over the last decades of the 90s. Really 90s particularly was bad butthen, we had the election in 2002 and after that, disappearances became moreaccountable. There was a government in place and therefore the impunity of anearlier era was not so much on display. The Indian Press in fact highlighted theissue and we had the parents of disappeared sons and daughters coming to thecapital and there was a fair amount of coverage. That also gave a hint of how civilsociety organizations need to break the barriers of silence as well and do it inways perhaps that do not threaten, but really make use of public spaces that areavailable to get their voices across and that is possible. Again, it demandsapplication of mind.

Q. Audience: If I play the role of an advocate, may I ask you, what competitioneventually means? Is it ideological state apparatus? What exactly the role you(media) played? Did you play the people’s interest or ‘nation state’ interest or‘regional peace and harmony’ and what eventually competition means in Indiancontext?

Ms. Pamela Philipose: Normally in a war situation, it is national interest thatcomes into play. Under that umbrella, it is difficult to speak out. Definitely theconstraints of the requirements of the day and very often, the Media – IndianMedia included – would represent the main voices of the establishment. Butcompetition, at the same time, very interestingly does break out in various ways.We have had, even within the constraints of war coverage, interesting storiescoming out, of treatment of prisoners, etc. It has happened and the point is that,the Indian Media, I know, is very often criticized for not being democratic enough,often voicing the establishment’s perspective. That is also true. That is becausethere is a lot at stake for many of the big actors, the big media houses, etc. So, theydo that and they represent that. There is that overarching promise of democracy.Even though it is not often achieved, there is that promise and you have the laws.So, it is important to have at least certain systems whereby you can use thesystem to get the information and the Indian Press, on occasions, has been ableto do that.

Mr. Shami Imam, Dept. of Mass Communication, Dhaka University: One canconclude that impartiality in journalism in the international conflict is nothing but

127


a myth, as you have said; nationalism or national interest and impartiality cometogether.

Ms. Pamela Philipose: There is a difference between a myth and a principle.The principle is there and it is an important principle that needs to be defendedand extended. So, I do not want to say like that about the great Indian Press.I believe that the Indian media has suffered from many constraints. So, I donot want to say that. It is very important that we make use of the laws that wehave to extend the depths of the freedom. That instinct is still there and peopleare constantly doing that. So, it is not a myth. When young people say that itis a myth, I feel sad about it because it is still be a myth. There shall be aprinciple and it should be something that you have to fight to get and onceyou get it as a principle, you defend and extend as much as you can, withinyour constraints.

Answer from other panelist: Just to add to what she said, it should not beconsidered as a myth. Any right is not to be gained, but it is to be asserted, andmedia is doing that part. Particularly when we were discussing about the media’srole in a nation-state concept. You said about Kargil, we said about our borderclashes and in Pakistan, they talk about Kashmir. Media is fighting to follow thenational perception on security issues, most of the times, the Media try to soundlike patriotic. But there are Media which are really trying to fight back which costsbecause if something is written at least in national perception, then there is a riskthat they will be initially misunderstood, not only by the government machineries,but also by the confused people that they are trying to take some stand. Forexample, in border clashes, if there is any media in Bangladesh which is sayingthat the media has made a mistake, then there is a risk that that particular mediawill be treated as pro-Indian. Similarly on Kashmir issue or Kargil issue, there areperceptions from the Indian side and the Pakistan side. In-between these twolines, there are media trying to be more and more assertive and more and moreindependent. What is to be done by the management part and the independentjournalism? There are incidents when a journalist has not reconciled with thepolicy of the management and they have left the organization. They could notjust surrender their conscience. There are cases, on many occasions, manyjournalists left their own organizations because they could not reconcile with thepolicy of the owners. There are these cases; I particularly believe that young peoplelike you would be more free in your mind and in your fight. We want that someday, you will bring a new dimension to the fight for a freedom of a journalist. Hereagain, I said that there is a myth – freedom of media or freedom of journalist.Freedom of media means the freedom and independence of the owners, but we,as professional journalist, want freedom of journalist because there, we may assertour own position.

128


Comment from the audience: If I may add something to that, circulations aredropping in most of the places because people want information to move intoentertainment; there will be more circulation. So, more than a crisis of the media,it is a crisis of the society and I do not think media in any country exists withina vacuum. It is just a reflection of the society as in many other cases. You can makea change in the society through the media but the media cannot all of a suddenimpose things on the society. If the public wants more of entertainment, then themedia is compelled to deliver that. At the end of the day, the media depends onpublic. As long as the public buys the newspaper, the newspapers exist. If thenewspapers are not bought, then what is the use? We can write and write, andread for ourselves. It is the same case with TV also. They may broadcast, if thereis no viewer, they would not get revenue. The challenge before the mediaorganizations is to strike a balance between these two.

Comment: With today’s infrastructure development and technologicaldevelopment, if I could understand you, you said that many newspapers are dyingbecause of laptops and Internet. At one stage, there was a threat to print mediawhen TV was developing. It was said at that time that the print media will disappearbut it was reverse. Then when Internet was there, particularly in the US and thewestern world, they were scared that the newspapers will die because people aregetting news sitting in their drawing rooms and with their laptops. But finally ithas been said that the print media is going to survive that is because of thecredibility of print media. Printed words have the lasting effect on the minds ofthe people. This is the biggest weapon in the hands of the print media. Whateveryou see in the visual screen, on TV, disappears in a moment and it has no lastingeffect in the thought process. Similarly if you enter the Internet, you enter thejungle of unedited and obscene news that cannot survive in a sensible society. Inthe print media, as an editor, we see that the news is accurate and it serves thepublic interest and it is not obscene. So, these are the things with which theeditors have to take care. Whatever you get in internet is an unedited news. Theymay be rumours, they may be unfounded information. They may be propaganda;there may be personal slandering. That is why, eventually, the credibility of theprint media will remain above ‘images’ like the TV and Internet Journalism. I agreewith you and I have definite information that internet affected circulation of WallStreet Journal in the US. I visited that office two years back and they said that theywere trimming the newspaper. They said that they were trimming the strength ofjournalists. Finally they discovered an alternative journalism, they brought out anewspaper called ‘Free Press’. Free Press does not mean freedom of Press, freePress means – they say – that they distribute the newspaper freely. About half amillion free press, newspapers published by Wall Street Journal group aredistributed free of cost in the US and that paper has become profitable becausethat attracted more advertisements than the Wall Street Journal itself. So, in the

129


competition of technological warfare like Internet, TV, print media is survivingbecause of its credibility, because the printed words have the lasting impact onthe humans. That is the strength of the print media.

Mr. Iqbal Shoban Chawdhury: I remember, last year when we were in a similartype of a conference, the former Chief Justice of India, Justice J S Verma said thatmost of the conflicts arise out of the mindset of people; that is the root of theconflicts; they are in the minds of the people. So, the people’s mind, whether theyare in the policy making or they are the perpetrators of conflicts, we must, fromthe media side, see that the mindset is changed. I believe that nowhere the conflictsreally brought any benefit to anyone. No violence led to any constructivedevelopment. From the media side, our role is to report objectively, reflecting onthe situation and at the same time, try to reduce the causes of tension, whichultimately leads to the mindset, which leads to conflicts or violence. With this, weconclude the two-day session.

131


VALEDICTORY SESSION

Mr. Finn Ruda (Chairman and Moderator), Head of the Mission of the ICRC,Bangladesh

Dr. Shaikh Abdus Salam, Prof. and Chairman, Dept. of Mass Communicationand Journalism, University of Dhaka

During the last two days, distinguished personalities, experts from various fields,luminous and eloquent speakers had the opportunity to debate about variety ofissues on the topics ‘Media Reporting, Armed Conflict and Violence’. 22 topicswere covered during these two days. Along with our very renowned journalist-friends from Dhaka, former civil servants, members from civil societies, academics,22 foreign editors from eight countries participated in this eventful and meaningfulevent in Dhaka.

We have heard about media which was covered by 4-5 main topics. Some panelistshere were telling that media is really powerful; media is for privilege; media is forprofit; media is for propaganda, etc. Through these functions, what media does isthat it reports and reflects the society before us. Media actually discusses manyevil things, but it again prompts us to go beyond many things with a vision andmission to have a nice and finer scenario. Thus, the media can play a role bothpositive and negative.

During these two days, we have heard from 17 panelists and they had addressedthe issues as how would the media face the situation during emergencies andduring the situation when the arms are triggered for creating turmoil andturbulence. How the media should deal with the conflict situations? We haveattempted here to find the difficult answers in difficult situations through thepractical experiences narrated here by the participants. In fact, the present situationis difficult for any organization – including media or even on the part of thegovernment or a country – however, we have to face these situations objectivelyand with responsibility.

We are delighted from the discussions of our panelists during the last two daysthat have taught us and given a chance to learn, the tricks of the trade – howjournalists should face the explosive and disastrous situations. They are indeedthe diplomats or ‘humanitarian diplomats‘. Journalists have their roles beyondthat. So, during disasters or during crisis or even during the normal times, we allunderstand that the journalists have their own role to play. The other agencies ofthe society have their own role and as a citizen of the society, as a member of thehumanity, we have our separate role during a crisis or during good time.

132


Thank you for trusting us as partners of ICRC in the extremely important event forthe journalists. We were extremely benefited.

Ms. Mridulla Bhattacharya, DG, Press Institute of Bangladesh

During the last two days, we had lively debate and panel discussion. The questionsthat were agitating the minds of the participants were answered by the experts.At the beginning of the conference, we expressed our hope that this Conferenceof the Senior Editors of the South Asian Region will make the powerful media athome and abroad aware of the need to remind the readers of forgetting theconflicts, their sufferings due to untold violence and the international lawgoverning the same. Many of us are aware that there is IHL which forms majorpart of public international law and comparative rules which in times of armedconflicts, seek to protect people who are not taking part in hostilities and torestrict the methods and means of warfare employed. More precisely, theinternational treaty or customary rules are specially intended to resolve mattersof humanitarian concern arising directly from armed conflicts.

In this conference, different sessions marked with liveliness and opinions, viewsand personal experiences of the participants made us more aware, clearer andmore precise about its essential rules and fundamental principles, ratification,accession, reservation and succession. It may be recalled here that the ICRC isspreading the knowledge of Geneva Convention of 1949 and the Protocols of1977 which marked a major advance in the development of humanitarian law.Today all the world States are parties to the Geneva Convention.

During the last two days’ deliberations, different sessions discussed on the media– violence and torture, media and protection – what does the law say about it,media and the law of armed conflicts, and War/conflict time responsibility of themedia. The broad topics were discussed, analyzed and debated from differentangles.

The speakers and audience tried their best to go deeper and deeper into thetopics. They expressed views on the safety and security of the journalists and theirprotection while they are in dangerous mission in areas of armed conflicts. Civilsociety views on media and many more made the audience and the media, alongwith people, be aware of real situations with remedies or protective measures.

The Bangladesh Press Institute feels proud and honoured to be the joint organizerof this august Conference. It also expresses its gratitude to the ICRC, Bangladeshfor making PIB partner of this timely and important conference of the journalistsin Dhaka.

133


We also thank the Dhaka University, Dept. of Mass Communication and Journalismfor their cooperation as partner of this conference.

I also extend my heartfelt thanks and express my gratitude to the senior editorsand journalists of the South Asian region and from Bangladesh for sparing theirvaluable time and attending this conference, thus making this a successfulconference, by sharing the knowledge, experiences and views during deliberationsover the last two days.

We hope that the outcome of this would help PIB in formulating or chalking outour training programme for our local journalists as a training unit and also as aresearch organization. It makes the media persons and others more equipped towork anywhere in the media world, in any challenging situation by using theirmighty pen!

Finally, I invite the participants of this programme to visit our Press Institute ofBangladesh, which is located in the heart of Dhaka at their convenient time. Thankyou all once again. Thank you.

Guest of Honour, Mr. Fida Kamal, Attorney-General of Bangladesh

I am sure you have had a very useful meeting of the minds on several criticalissues, which you have explored, debated and discussed. During the last two daysat this international conference, jointly organized by the ICRC, the Dept. of MassCommunication and Journalism, University of Dhaka and the PIB, ‘Media Reporting– Armed Conflict and Violence,’ inherently entails dangers for occupationaljournalists in the discharge of their duties, dying to tell the truth, disseminatinginformation so as to help the formation of informed public opinion and alsoproviding a judgment on events relating to armed conflicts and violence.

The media is also capable of causing considerable damage, when one is mindlesslywelding it all. Ideally the media is supposed to have a reasonable mind of its ownand operate according to professional codes of conduct. But its culture ofprofessional and financial instinct can drive the media, in practices of beingobsessed with violence and influence opinion in socially destabilizing ways. Underthe less than ideal conditions, media bias in accuracy and sensationalism cangenerate phobia and violent conflicts. In media, there is however another side tothis sword. It can be a simple instrument of conflict resolution, when it respondswell to its own professional influence and peace building.

It can present alternatives to conflicts. It can enable citizens to make informeddecisions, in their own best interest, which if freely exercised, is less likely to be aviolent process. Armed conflict and violence are avoidable man-made disasters.

134


Such manmade disasters can surely be resolved peacefully. Peace and security areso essential in the field of development and progress of all human activity. Violencebegets violence and must be avoided at all costs and armed conflicts sooner orlater must be resolved through dialogue, discussion and debate.

I am sure you have had a wonderful meeting of the minds, sharing experiencesduring the last two days, which you will usefully employ in your discharge ofduties.

Before I conclude I would like to thank Mr. Finn Ruda for kindly reminding me ofmy association with the ICRC, at a time when we emerged as an independentsovereign nation in the early 1972. But prior to that, I may also share with you afeeling of camaraderie with the journalists here because I also happened to be auniversity correspondent in the university days, with The Observer, which thenwas called ‘The Pakistan Times’. They were lovely memories of working as a JuniorJournalist, a Correspondent perhaps. And it is a pleasure to recall those early dayswhen I was much younger and hopefully, a little more enterprising.

Now, coming back to this international conference and this Valedictory Session, itis time to say farewell and it will be soon time for you to return to your professionalduties, work places and homes. You will take home, I hope, happy memories ofthis international conference, having met old acquaintances and perhaps madenew friends with whom you hopefully will have relationships, enduring relationsof lasting value.

Thank you very much for your patience and good luck to all the delegates visitingus. Take back very happy memories.

Dr. Iftirkher Ahmed Chowdhury, Advisor, Ministry of Foreign Affairs

I was afraid, I could be incoherent in the beginning because I had just been backfrom a long drive; and prior to that long drive, there was a long night, the previousnight. But the persuasive powers of the organizers Mr. Finn Ruda and Mr. ShobanChowdhury were such that I had to come. Thank you very much and thank youfor the opportunity.

Distinguished guests, Guest of Honor, Barrister Kamal, my good friends on thepodium, distinguished journalists, members of the media, ladies and gentlemen- It is truly a matter of enormous pleasure for me to be amongst you this lovelyevening. I also deem it an honour and privilege and beholden to the organizersfor inviting me; also thereby allowing me this opportunity to interact with somevery fine media minds belonging to our part of the world, South Asia, the Sub-Continent.

135


Today, our countries are linked together by the spirit of SAARC. You, the membersof the media, are the principal conduit or the connectivity of minds that we in ourpart of the world are aspiring to. I have no doubt that through your deliberationsin the last two days you would have reached conclusions that would facilitatethese noble goals and aspirations that we set for ourselves.

Let me now speak on the subject of the conference – ‘Media reporting - ArmedConflicts and Violence‘. The task of reporting under conflictual circumstances isinordinately difficult, especially because of all types of different demands that aremade on the media, but the fact remains that the media remains and must be,must for ever be, the bastion of reason. It is the venerable Fourth Estate. It is thevoice of conscience of the society, citizens’ count on a responsible media. It is justfor news you know that. It is for views, guidance and assurances as well. Themedia’s task is therefore, not always easy. It has been aptly said that journalism isa bit like history on the run, but unlike the historians, it cannot wait for futureinterpretation. It confronts, the media does daily analysis. Indeed, in these electronictimes, analysis and judgments are often instantaneous.

At all times and costs, the media must have the sense of responsibility as theprimary guiding principle. For that society and the State must also ensure theirfullest freedom. But again, as has been famously said, this freedom does not includethe right to shout fire in a crowded theatre.

In the ancient times, war correspondents reported conflicts from far flung battlefields. Julius Caesar wrote at length on wars and preceded it with chronical battles.But the details took months and even years to reach the reading public whichagain was very limited. Closer to our times, when Ted Coppler and Peter Jenningswere able to bring bloody battle scenes from the desert storms to our livingrooms, it was instant and the audience was vast. They helped shape minds,influence policies and create values - all this, immediately also.

There are three factors that contributed to the massive transformation thatreporting on violence and conflict has undergone today. First is democracy.Governments today are under constant pressure to justify blood, tears, toil andthe sweat of war. The media is courted upon to defend or denounce a conflict.The second factor is technological advances and competition. The advent ofsatellite communications and Internet has fundamentally altered reporting bothin style and in content. Vast amount of information must be shifted almost minuteto minute. The public wants to know what happened now and not yesterday, andnot even earlier today. The third is the scale factor. Conflict today engulfs not justuniformed fighters, as in the past, but also the civilians, often innocent womenand children – all this calls for greater awareness and immeasurably morededication than it required in the past.

136


As you have been told, I have spent almost a decade as this country’s permanentrepresentatives to the UN both in Geneva and in New York. In the course of thatlong stint, I had the privilege to be the Chairman of the UN’s InformationCommittee, with its Secretariat headed by Shashi Tharoor, whom some of youmay know and who too comes from our region.

We endeavoured to bring together a consensus of global values for journalism. Auniversal, even through information regime, a compact that will protect thejournalists, particularly in periods of conflict and I am sure, his or her right toaccess news and transmit it.

Mr. Finn Ruda made a mention of my role, a modest one, in crafting the conceptof responsibility.

It is the duty of every State, of every government to protect its own individuals.In case, the state or the government is unable to do so, then using the instrumentsof the UN, the responsibility to do so devolves on the international community.So, therein is the major role of the journalists in order to point out where thefailures in discharge of responsibilities have occurred. In South Asia, we often saythat we are proud of our intellectual resources. It is a matter of great satisfactionthat the journalistic profession of which you are a part in our countries has beenable to mind those resources and reach those products to our public.

That is why today within the structure of SAARC we are doing everything possibleto facilitate your work. The shared values of South Asia must be redeemed in whatyou say and write. The power that you wield with pen or laptop in hand must beused to advance the common interest of our society - to eradicate poverty, toempower women, to educate our children and to build a lasting culture of peaceand harmony among our nations.

In my own country, our government places a great value for the press. We havecalled the media our parliament. The vibrancy of our talk shows is already there.What mainly comes through in all these is the sense of balance and moderationthat is the essence of Bangladeshi ethos. At legislative levels, we are workingtowards the Freedom of Information Act. This will be yet another instrument thatwill add to the institution building that we are involved with in Bangladesh at thistime, to render our sense of pluralism sustainable for all times to come.

I hope our guests had a chance to taste of our traditional hospitality. We are in themidst of a beautiful season, the mild winter that Bangladesh is famous for. Doenjoy the rest of your stay here and savour also the calm and tranquility thatpervades our country and society at this time and which will hopefully be thecase for all times to come. Also, see for yourselves our efforts to create this new

137


Bangladesh where we all have undertaken to satisfy our hopes and aspirations.Thank you.

Mr. Vincent Nicod, Head of the Regional Delegation, ICRC, South Asia

First, I am very pleased to be in this place. This same hotel, at that time was theInter Continental Hotel, has a very symbolic value in the Bangladesh history, as itwas one of the neutralized zones in Dhaka, put under ICRC protection, during thestruggle for independence. As I was discussing with Mr. Mosud Manan, Director ofthe International Organizations at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, that was oneneutralised zone which was well respected by both the sides in the country. Toa certain extent, it is still a landmark in the ICRC Humanitarian Mission in theregion.

I have just arrived from New Delhi, where we just conducted a Moot CourtCompetition with teachers and students from six countries of the region. Lastyear, Bangladesh had won that competition and then went further to Japan andHong Kong to compete with teams from all over Asia where they fared very well.This year, India won just ahead of Sri Lanka and Bangladesh; Pakistan being numberfour, the other participants were Nepal and Iran.

The second event that we organized shows that IHL is very lively and is still apreoccupation in the region; Landmine and Cluster Ammunitions Workshop inCentral and South Asia. Six countries were represented again: Cambodia,Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Afghanistan, Nepal and India.

Back to Dhaka, I am very grateful to senior editors having accepted the jointinvitation by the PIB, the Dept. of Mass Communication and Journalism of DhakaUniversity and the ICRC, to share ideas, contribute thoughts and debate on thesorry state of the humanitarian affairs in the world today. As opinion makers, it isimportant that you let us know how you see the world under the humanitarianangle, under a perspective which can feed our reflection and help us find ways onhow best to assist and protect the victims, of what we call the manmade disastersand non-violence.

As members of humanitarian community, we must grasp a better understandingof the world situation and its impact on those who are left defenseless by thenew world order or marginalized by globalization, and you, as informationproviders, must help us a lot in this regard. The power of information comes withresponsibility. This is why, the ICRC is proud to have been associated with theproceedings of the conference by mobilizing your thoughts, experience andteachings as senior editors.

138


I can see that we have many students here. You will help both the humanitariancommunity and the future journalists in the country to understand the need forall of us to shape the public perspective with an informed and impartial opinionwhere Humanity will be the first priority in the reporting.

Your past two days of debate should not remain a unique experience. We shouldcapitalize on your invaluable thoughts to develop teachings based on the rolemodel that you are playing in your respective countries to put the human beingback in the middle of the world, whatever shape the world is taking in so manydifferent situations that you have been evoking in front of us, from the Himalayancountries of Nepal and Bhutan to the shores of the islands of Sri Lanka and theMaldives.

We are living in a world marked by armed violence, intolerance radicalism andconflict, but also marked, in this region,by democratic processes. In the middle ofthat, we have to keep Humanity in the forefront.

The outcome of this Conference will be the publication of a book, collecting theproceedings of these two days. I hope that this book will be widely distributed tomajor schools, Depts. of Mass Communication, Political Sciences, etc. of differentuniversities in South Asia, and maybe, further across the world.

As young students, junior journalists, we learn, reflect, debate and create an opinionbased on reflections expressed by the senior editors in the conference. We,therefore, are grateful for the high level of debates and the quality of discussions.These will feed the participants with solid elements to make them more aware ofthe happenings in the world today. In Delhi, my colleagues are currentlyexploring the idea of setting up of a resource centre for journalists incollaboration with the Press Institute of India. The idea is to offer South Asianjournalists, reporters or editors, a nodal place to gain knowledge aboutreporting armed conflict and situations of violence. The centre will not onlyteach or train, it would also be a reference centre where researchers wouldget instant information about IHL, the evaluation conflicts, ideas or storieslimited to armed violence and so on. It will possibly feed a reflection on whatalternatives do we have to violence to solve problems at political, economicor at socio-economic level.

If these ideas go in the right direction, we could apply the same recipe in acountry like Bangladesh where the vibrant media community is part of thecountry’s development.

I hope that journalists will give more space in their articles on reporting onhumanitarian topics such as suffering of the victims of the forgotten conflicts. Do

139


not let the major news companies of the world get the exclusive rights to decidewho are the good victims of events unfolding in the world, who deservesinternational attention and support and who are the ones who will simply remainanonymous figures in the world statistics.

You can help us give a face to all those in need of protection and assistance. Youcan do it in three different ways – first, the denunciation method. It is necessaryto denounce the violations of IHL, violations of Human Rights laws and any otherlaw for that matter, domestic or international, in order to counter the growingculture of impunity flourishing in many countries. Almost all the majordevelopments of IHL came after the media denounced abuses. Think for instanceabout the impact of the pictures taken in Abu Gharib.

In 1977, with the experience of military tactics used during the struggles whichled to the decolonization of major parts of Africa and Asia as well as other tacticsused during the Vietnam War - still fresh in mind, thanks to rich press coverage,the international community adopted two additional Protocols to the GenevaConvention. In this regard, the contribution of the media in the advancement ofIHL was important.

The second way to make things move is the mobilization method. It is necessaryto remind the world about the existence of forgotten conflicts, in order to gathersupport for the ICRC mandate of protection and assistance to the victims ofconflicts and for any other humanitarian organization involved in varioushumanitarian efforts for the victims of disaster.

The third is the persuasion method which is less known and less public then thetwo previous ones. It involves direct contacts between the humanitariancommunity and the authorities, trying to convince them on taking measures tosolve problems.

The media is again a special tool in this context. Reading the news, political leaderswill start inquiring about the behaviour of their troops involved in conflictsituations. Social activists, NGO workers, prominent personalities will producestatements about the need for all parties to violence to respect basic humanitarianrules. Military commanders will have to exert authority and responsibility overtheir troops, MPs and government circles will have to listen to the voice of thepeople, relayed by the media.

To persuade, to mobilize and to denounce – this is the role we want the mediato fulfill in honesty, based on solid and credible information.

Knowledge is power but information leads to knowledge. The power of the media

140


should therefore help us reasserting the power of the humanity, as a tool tochange it in the right direction.

I therefore thank you very much for your contribution to the debate, for yourpatience and for your active participation and I present my thanks to the organizersof this Conference; the Press Institute of Bangladesh and the Dept. of MassCommunication and Journalism of Dhaka University.

141


Profile of the Speakers for the Senior Editors’Conference (28-29 October 2007)

Mr. Swapan Dasgupta is a senior journalist, author, political commentator basedin Delhi. He is consulting Editor of the Pioneer, and writes regularly political columnfor Sunday Times of India, The Telegraph, The Pioneer, and New Indian Expressand Free press Journal and several other newspapers and periodicals includingWall Street Journal.

Swapan Dasgupta entered journalism in 1985, has worked in a senior capacity inTimes of India, Indian Express, and was managing Editor of the India Today formore than four years. He was a member of Indo UK Roundtable setup by theIndian Prime Minister from 1999 to 2004.

Mr. Ugyen Penjor is from Bhutan and is deputy editor of Kuensel newspaper,Bhutan’s national Newspaper. He covers political beat and social issues in hisnewspaper and is one of the youngest editors of the newspaper.

Mr Murtaza Razvi is from Pakistan and Magazine Editor of the Dawn Newspaper.Mr Murtaza is a veteran in Conflict and political reporting and one of the leadingvoices and credible journalist known for his bold writing on current politicalsituations in Pakistan and neighbouring countries. He has been working in Dawnfor quite sometime at different senor positions. His articles appear in severalIndian and Bangladesh newspapers. He started his carrier as a young reporterin Frontier Post and since then he is escalating upward on the ladder ofjournalism.

Mr. Abdul Aziz Danesh is from Afghanistan and is editor of a leading local newsagency, Pajhwok Afghan News. Several of the international media are presentlydependent on this news agency as they have a network of reporters spread acrossAfghanistan. Danish earlier was working with Kabul based “Institute of War andpeace Reporting” as an editor. He had a string with television reporting and didsome exclusive coverage for NBC TV.

He has co-authored a book on the state of journalism in Afghanistan. Mr. Danishis well versed with Dari, Pashto, Arabic and English and hence has access to allsides in war-torn Afghanistan

Mr. Philippe Stoll is the Communication coordinator of ICRC for India, Bangladesh,Bhutan and Maldives. He has worked for the ICRC in Sierra Leone (Africa) and inIsrael and in the Occupied Territories. He holds a master in journalism and workedas journalist back in his home country (Switzerland) for 6 years.

142


Mr. Farid Hossein is an ace reporter, famous for breaking several stories inBangladesh. He is the Bureau Chief of the Associated Press, Bangladesh and hisstories were published in nearly every important newspaper of the world. Inaddition, he is a part time fraternity teacher at the journalism school in Universityof Dhaka.

Mr. Lankabarange Anura Solomons is from Sri Lanka and Deputy Editor of DailyDivania newspaper. He is a specialist in feature writing and international politicsand has covered the conflict in the Island for the last 20 years.

Mr. Amitabh Roy Chowdhury is a senior editor from India and is working on asenior position with India’s largest news Agency, “Press Trust of India”. Mr. Amitabhhas an experience of over 25 years in covering conflict and day-to-day situationin India. He has covered Kargil War, Kashmir and Northeast and has widely travelledcovering stories on International political and social issues.

Mr. Dharmendra Jha is a senior journalist from Nepal and is Editor of AnnapurnaPost, a widely circulated newspaper in Nepal. Mr. Dharmendra has been writingon several issues related to the conflict that exists in the Himalayan kingdom. Hehas written extensively on Human Rights and welfare of the media community.

Dr Mizanur Rahman Shelley is a social scientist, educationist and litterateur DrMizanur Rahman Shelley is presently Chairman of the Centre of Development andResearch and Editor of Asian Affairs. He is former professor, turned bureaucrat,former minister and a pioneer in civil society movement who has been raisingissues related to daily life of common people. Equally, he has an eye on Internationalpolitics and much experienced in his analysis on the day-to-day situation acrossthe globe. He contributes regular columns in national media and has travelledextensively across the globe. He has received several awards including highestPolish Order of Merit in 1991.

Mr. Nurul Kabir is an editor of New Age, English daily from Bangladesh, termedby his admirers and friends as the “new voice of the new age of Bangladesh”. Heis a vocal and fearless journalist who keeps no bound in raising the issues relatedto the common person and their rights.

Mr. Gopal Guragain is the Managing Director of Ujayalo FM and Satellite radiochannel in Nepal. His radio journalism continues to remain one of the mostimportant methods of spreading the news in South Asia and has a reach to theremotest corner, where even the newspapers do not reach.

Mr. Gopal makes number of programmes for Radio Nepal. One of his famousprogrammes called ‘Haki Haki,’ which initiates development debate, was quite

143


famous amongst the listeners. He has been producing daily news digests forregional stations and has spread his network in nearly all the districts of Nepal.

Mr. Amit Baruah is Foreign Editor of the Hindustan Times, a leading Indiannewspaper published from New Delhi. He is one of the most experiencedjournalists who was always posted in conflict areas. He was earlier working for TheHindu newspaper and was their correspondent in Islamabad, Pakistan, Sri Lankaand then in Singapore.

Mr. Surinder Oberoi is presently working as Communication Officer for the ICRC,New Delhi. He has an experience of 15 years as a journalist working as thecorrespondent of Agance France Presse (AFP), India Today magazine and StarNews. He was a fellow at Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Chicago University andL. Henry Stimson Centre, Washington DC, a think tank dealing in conflict situations.As a journalist, he has covered Punjab and Kashmir extensively.

Ambassador Farooq Sobhan is President and the Chief Executive of BangladeshEnterprise Institute, an independent think tank, which does research, and advocacywork. Sobhan was a special envoy to the Prime Minister and former foreignsecretary to Bangladesh government. He has over the years served on number ofinternational panels and advisory committees and is presently a member of theInternational Advisory committee of the Asian Society in the Unite States.Sobhan is author of several books and writes regularly for newspapers andjournals.

Mr. Reazuddin Ahmed is editor of the News Today. He has worked in differentcapacities in different newspapers like Bangladesh Observer and also writescolumns for international newspapers, Financial Times, International. Herald Tribuneetc. He was former president of the South Asia Free Media Association, NationalPress Club Dhaka and member of several boards and management related to thefilms and media. He is also recipient of several awards.

Ms Pamela Philipose is from India and is one of the senior most editors of theIndian Express newspaper. She is famous for her critical and satirical columns inIndia. She has a wide experience and knowledge on political and social issues andhas written volumes on both the issues.

Mr. Kesera Abeywardena is from Sri Lanka and a senior news editor of renownedSri Lankan newspaper Daily Mirror. He has witnessed and written on violence inthe islands for the last 15 years.

Ms Faida Faruk is a senior journalist from Maldives who has worked for both themedia and the government. She writes regular columns for several newspapers in

144


Male and was working for ten years in Maldives Television Station. She has workedin several senior positions in the media department of the Presidential office inMaldives.

Dr Hafiz G A Siddiqui is Vice Chancellor of the North South University. Dr Siddiqueis a scholar par excellence and has 35 years of experience in research and teachingat Dhaka University, UK universities and US. He is in addition member of severaladvisories groups and author of several books.

International Committee of the Red Cross47, Sunder NagarNew Delhi - 110003India

International Committee of the Red Cross42/3, Block-H, Road #7,Banani, Dhaka-1212Bangladesh

www.icrc.org

Documents

MEDIA REPORTING: ARMED CONFLICT AND VIOLENCE · Chair: Mr Mahbubul Alam 27 Editor, The Independent Bangladesh Glamorizing violence – What should be Media response: 27 Mr Swapan