Reporting Terror

"I would prefer that we take religion out of the debate… There is a serious double standard on who is considered a terrorist"
- Baran Zeyno, Nixon Centre, USA

On June 21, 2001, Baker Atyani, a senior journalist from the Gulf, interviewed Osama bin Laden and his aides, Abu Hafas al-Masri and Ayman al-Zawahiri, in Afghanistan.

He said bin Laden nodded when his aides warned that "the coming weeks will hold important surprises that will target American and Israeli interests in the world."

Less than three months later, on September 11, 2001, al-Qaeda struck.
"I don't mind interviewing anyone if I get the chance. I am not going to promote him," Baker Atyani, now the Jordan-based Asian bureau chief for Alarabiya News Channel. "As long as I am presenting what he is saying, I don't think it is a problem. I think all my journalists would not miss a chance to interview Osama bin Laden."

After the conference observed a one-minute silence for journalists who had died doing their work, session chairman David Harrison, a senior correspondent with Britain's Sunday Telegraph newspaper, asked his panel if journalists should "talk to people who kill innocent civilians".

"No" said Zeyno Baran from the USA's Nixon Centre. "Why not? You get another viewpoint," said Mohamed A.R. Galadari, editor-in-chief of the UAE's Khaleej Times. "Who is this man targeting? I would like to interview him and ask him what his target is," Mr Atyani said.

"They want publicity," said the fourth panellist, Spain's Ambassador to Kazakhstan, Francisco Pascual de la Parte. "We need some kind of balance between an apology for terrorism and the right to give objective information to the public. This has not been found yet."

The session showed it was clear that the activities of al-Qaeda and other groups posed serious questions for the media. How should the issues of terrorism and politically motivated violence be reported? Should such groups be given the "oxygen of publicity"?

Zeyno Baran said it was clear that many people defined some current conflicts in unspecific terms and with religious connotations, such as "radical Islam". "I would prefer that we take religion out of the debate. What seems to be an evangelical foreign policy in the United States is damaging. There is a serious double standard on who is considered a terrorist.

"After 9/11, most people did not link it with radical Islam but more and more people are linking them because of phrases such as 'jihad'. Then people start looking at Islam and the media plays it up," she added.

Akram Khouzam, Moscow bureau chief for Qatar-based al-Jazeera television, said: "I believe we have to define first of all whether a journalist has a right to say whether bin Laden or others are terrorists. I understand why (US President George) Bush and others do because politicians use their own language of conflict.

"Neither in the UN or other organisations we have a clear definition of terrorists. It is very dangerous for the mass media when journalists take a position to say bin Laden is a terrorist or a fighter for Islamic values," he said.

A speaker from the floor said calling bin Laden a "non-terrorist" was dangerous. "This is an international threat for all countries and we have to realise that and be responsible about it."

Lack of a clear definition made it difficult to distinguish between a military opposition and an anti-terrorism opposition, such as in Chechnya. What is the difference between a terrorist group and a war of liberation?
Stephen Somerville, a veteran war correspondent for Reuters and a former director of the Reuters Foundation, said Reuters had a long-standing instruction to its journalists to use the words "terrorist" and "freedom fighters" only in quotes. "It is best to avoid emotive and emotional language," he said.