Session 2: Media, Memory and Confession
Session 2: Media, Memory and Confession
Chair: Michael Innes
The Terrorists’ Best Ally: Media Coverage of Terror
Raphael Cohen-Almagor
Institute for Policy Studies, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, USA
During the past forty years there have been many instances in which media coverage of terrorist events was problematic and irresponsible, evoking public criticism and antagonizing the authorities. This essay aims to shed light on a number of irresponsible actions of some organs of the media in crisis situations, and to develop a set of guidelines for responsible media coverage of terrorism.
Through close scrutiny of case studies from democracies that were struggling with terror, including the USA, the UK, Israel, Canada and Germany, it is argued that important lessons should be observed: the media should be accountable for the consequences of their coverage; they should never jeopardize human life. The media should cooperate with the government when human lives are at stake in order to bring a peaceful end to the terrorist episode. Furthermore, the media should not glorify acts of terror; they should refrain from sensational and panicky headlines, from inflammatory catchwords, from dangerous speculations, and from needless repletion of photos from bloody scenes, compromising quality of reporting and replacing it with quantity. It is further argued that terrorism should be explicitly condemned for its brutality and violent, indiscriminate nature; that the media should not pay for covering terrorist incidents, and should not take upon themselves to mediate between the terrorists and the government. Special qualifications are required before one assumes such a responsibility upon oneself. Journalists are there to cover the event, not to become part of it. In addition, it is argued that the media should refrain from making dangerous speculations about the terrorists’ plans, government response, hostages’ messages and other concerns. Speculations might hinder crisis management. Media professionals are required to have background information about the terrorists they are required to cover. They should prepare homework prior coverage. Moreover, the media should not broadcast live terrorist incidents. This is not to say that the media should not cover such incidents. Rather, there should be a delay of a few minutes during which an experienced editor inspects the coverage and authorizes what should be on air and what should not. During terrorist episodes the media should not interview terrorists while the incident is still in motion. Lines of communications between the authorities and the terrorists should be left open. The media should not impede the negotiations process nor cooperate with terrorists who stage events; the media are required to show sensitivity to the victims and to their loved ones. This critical guideline should be observed during terrorist incidents and, no less importantly, also after their conclusion. Finally, the area in which the terrorist incident takes place should not be open for anybody who testifies that he or she is a journalist. Only senior and experienced reporters should be allowed in.
Media, Memory, and the Meaning of a Violent Past in Ghana
Jo Ellen Fair* and Audrey Gadzekpo**
* Journalism and Mass Communications, and Director, Global Studies Program, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, USA and ** Media Studies, University of Ghana at Legon
After authoritarian rule, national debates about the course of the political transition, the meaning of the past, and the state’s responsibility to remedy past violence and injustice all are played out in media, which not only disseminate information, but shape the parameters of the national post-authoritarian discussion. The vicissitudes of access to media, including the political economy of media control and the variable interest and ability of citizens to engage the press and command the airwaves, permit certain persons and groups to frame conversations about the authoritarian period. The risk these inequities pose is an unbalanced national understanding or consensus about the facts and the meaning of the violent past.
In 2002, civil society organizations and Ghana’s newly constituted National Reconciliation Commission (NRC) charged Ghanaian news organizations understaffed, under-resourced, and politically in the thrall of government with nothing less than the promotion of national unity. The NRC was to hold hearings to investigate human rights abuses occurring during 35 years of military and civilian rule. The media were expected — were told by the government and civil society organizations — to focus their coverage on aspects of the hearings that these organizations, all well-meaning, no doubt, defined as crucial to achieving their goals of unity, peace, stability, and national reconciliation.
In June of that year, six months prior to the convening of the hearings, the authors participated in a series of workshops the purpose of which was to assist journalists in thinking abstractly about national reconciliation and concretely about how to handle their charge. Secondarily, these workshops were intended to foster a degree of understanding among government, the NRC, civil society, and news organizations about their different needs and how they might interact. We draw this paper from our experiences in these workshops, as well as in-depth interviews conducted with journalists, NRC members, and government officials at the hearings’ beginning (January 2003), middle (June 2003, January 2004), and end (July 2004). The paper examines the pressures felt by journalists and the constraints put on them to cover the reconciliation hearings and to portray past violence in ways consistent with the interests of government, civil society groups, NRC commissioners, and owners of the media outlets for which they work. It also explores how Ghanaian journalists have tried to balance what they see as their historic mission in representing Ghana ‘s history of human rights abuses with and against these institutional interests.
Politics, Violence, and Expression: The Role of Memory and Identity in Guatemala’s War – Torn Past
Patricia Seminetta
George Washington University, Washington, USA
The purpose of this study was to examine the connection between collective memory and the perpetuating culture of violence in Guatemala . For the past five centuries divisions have existed between the various segments of society including: the urban and rural areas, rich and poor, men and women, educated and illiterate, propertied and landless, and the Ladino minority and the Maya majority. This, coupled with the acts that occurred during the gruesome civil war, has left Guatemala in a state where society is defined by the included and the excluded, leading to commonplace violence and a constant power struggle.
The Guatemalan people are in a situation where they struggle to reconcile the past with the present. This has resulted in the past remaining undecided and unknown. For many Guatemalans, art has been the vehicle in which they have expressed their struggle to search for a unified identity. In Washington Quarterly’s, “Memory Without History: Who Owns Guatemala’s Past,” Patrick Smith asks, “what does it mean, after so many years of war and tragedy to be Guatemalan?” This question encompasses a theme repeatedly revisited throughout Guatemalan history, leaving the people, particularly the Maya Indians, with a convoluted national identity and an unclear path for the future.
Entries (RSS)