As the Internet increasingly becomes a news provider, its websites also become courts with self-appointed judge and jury delivering verdicts with a vengeance. The recent resignation of CNN boss Eason Jordan because of remarks made at the World Economic Forum in Davos last month is an example. What he said is not new. It has been said many times before by individual journalists and groups; it has also been challenged by some and scorned by others. Fairness allows all opinions to be published on the Internet or wherever and fairness also means they can be challenged.
Now, what exactly did Jordan say? During a discussion concerning journalists killed during the Iraq War, Jordan said he knew of 12 who had not only been killed by US troops but targeted by them as well. Immediately asked to explain so inflammatory a statement, he backpedaled and said that he did not believe that the journalists had really been targeted. In his resignation letter to CNN, he said, “I never meant to imply US forces acted with ill intent when US forces accidentally killed journalists, and I apologize to anyone who thought I said or believed otherwise.”
The controversy still rages and the web debate is heating up. Jordan’s remark in Davos, however, was not his first. In November he said to the British newspaper, The Guardian, “The reality is that at least 10 journalists have been killed by the US military, and according to reports I believe to be true, journalists have been arrested and tortured by US forces.”
The Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) cites 36 cases in which journalists were killed in Iraq. Some of them caused outrage in the Arab world. Al-Jazeera correspondent Tarek Ayoub was killed just outside the station’s Baghdad bureau. Al-Jazeera reported that it had provided the Pentagon with the coordinates of its offices weeks before the incident. Other cases include: Firing on the Palestine Hotel which was known as a place where journalists stayed, the shooting and killing of an Al-Arabiya correspondent and cameraman at a checkpoint and the killing of an Al-Arabiya cameraman outside Abu Ghraib prison. In these cases, the common element is that the military knew that the individuals were journalists with official IDs to verify their status. The killings might not have been intentional but they reflect a careless and somewhat ruthless policy. In the Palestine Hotel case, US commanders knew journalists were inside the hotel but failed to inform their troops. In the case of the cameraman next to Abu Ghraib prison, reports state that he had obtained permission from US forces to film in the area but obviously that did not save his life. The CPJ said that though the killings were not intentional, “The conduct of US troops has exacerbated the tenuous security situation for journalists in Iraq.”
The CPJ also knows of incidents during and after the war when journalists were harassed and mistreated. The most famous was the Reuters’ journalists detained for 72 hours near Fallujah by US troops. Reuters filed a complaint of “alleged mistreatment in detention.”
Arab News correspondent Essam Al-Ghalib also spoke of mistreatment by American forces, how he was detained despite being cleared by the US military and how he was virtually reprimanded for not being embedded. He also mentions stories of other journalist he met who were physically abused by US forces.
Cases of harassment, abuse, mistreatment and censorship of journalists certainly indicate other culprits, such as Iraqi officials, insurgents and unknown terrorist groups. They all point to attempts to bury the truth by whatever means. The main message is that journalists must behave and play it safe, i.e. be grateful to work as embedded members of any force that would protect them.
The questions that arise from the Davos incident are: What really did happen? Were Jordan’s comments true or false? In any case, shouldn’t there be an investigation? After all, as The Washington Times article pointed out, Jordan’s comments exacerbated anti-American feelings that are already strong in the region. And The Wall Street Journal said, “The worst that can be said about his performance is that he made an indefensible remark from which he ineptly tried to climb down at first prompting…Jordan seems to have ‘resigned,’ if in fact he wasn’t forced out, for what hardly looks like a hanging offense.”
Nonetheless, we must ask what makes Jordan’s comments different from those by other journalists such as Norman Solomon. He wrote, “Commanders of occupying troops often see journalists as impediments to effective military activities. In the case of US forces in Iraq, it’s no secret that the Pentagon has adopted some of the Israeli military’s occupation techniques.”
Why, one wonders, should such remarks lead to the resignation of a professional who has been in the news business for 23 years? If freedom of the press still exists, he should have been asked to support his claims or at least to make the videotape of his remarks available to the public. Or was it simply American patriotic fervor which led him to retract his allegations and if so, where is this leading the media?
In the Arab world we certainly cannot say that freedom of the press is complete; censorship is common and journalists are also harassed. The question that comes to mind is: Does the American media have to behave in the same way? If so, it is high time that we welcomed it into our midst.
