Osama turns 50

by Bob Boynton

I can write Osama with confidence that anyone who happens by will know who I have in mind. That is quite remarkable for a man who was unknown before the 1998 attacks on the US embassies in Tanzania and Kenya. Now, only 9 years later, he is such a well known figure that I can assume that the first Osama that comes to mind will be bin Laden.

Bin Laden turned 50 and Aljazeera [English] and CNN/Reuters thought it important enough to remark on with a bit of biography. They gave us old photographs.

These are old pictures. No one has seen photographs of him in several years.

But they give us fresh quotes.

Mullah Hayatullah Khan, a Taliban spokesman, told Reuters: “He is alive. I am 100 per cent sure.” He said senior leaders were in touch with bin Laden.

The spokesman said special prayers were offered by Taliban fighters in camps in Afghanistan.

Khan said: “We prayed that Allah may give him 200 years to live. When we woke up today, we offered collective and long prayers for him.”

The CNN World report was taken from Reuters. Al Jazeera used the above quotation, which they attribute to Reuters.

This is the puzzle — the UN mandated International Security Assistance Force has 30,000 troops out looking for Taliban. They have a very hard time finding them.

Reuters has a reporter who found them. Aljazeera had a reporter who found a different group of Taliban a few days ago [Both sides of the line].

How can news organizations do what 30,000 troops cannot do?

Interpretation

This is both sides of the line a third time. When the ’sides’ want their story told they can find a way for reporters to get to them — a way that the ‘other side’ cannot follow. And reporters want to get the story. The more difficult it is to get the story the more it is prized.

So, two reporters made it through to two different Taliban headquarters.

And 30,000 troops cannot find an enemy that will ’stand up’ and fight ‘like a man.’

News reports

Aljazeera English

CNN World

Both sides of the line — unless it is too embarrassing

by Bob Boynton

This is a two-fer. It is about one of the elements it takes for both sides of the line to work. It is also about coverage by media organizations. The two are joined in a murderous event in Afghanistan.

The event: on March 5, 2007 a convoy of US troops in Afghanistan was attacked by a car bomb/suicide bomber as they moved along a highway in the Nangarhar province. The troops opened fire on people on the road killing at least 8 and wounding at least 34. There seems to be little dispute about this other than the US claiming that some of the people were part of the attack and the people shot at claiming that they were killed and wounded only because the soldiers panicked. They claimed they were innocent victims. That is very likely the case for the 80 year old man who was killed while seated in his car, for example.

The US military interpretation was:

“We regret the loss of life of the Afghan civilians, but coalition forces were attached by both a suicide bomb vehicle and small arms fire.

“Our forces returned fire in self-defence against numerous enemy positions,” said Lieutenant Colonel David Accetta, coalition forces spokesman.

“We don’t train or order our troops to fire on unarmed civilians and it’s uncertain at this time what caused the casualties. [Aljazeera English March 5, 2007]

We believe . . . but it’s uncertain . . .

This is a time when the work of photo-journalists, if any happened to be in the vicinity, might be very helpful in the investigation. Here is a photo that ‘escaped.’

For ‘both sides of the line’ to work both authorities must be willing to have photo-journalists working. The Taliban did not let journalists into Afghanistan for most of the period they were under attack. Milosevic tossed the ‘western’ journalists out of Yugoslavia as soon as the bombs started dropping. When Israeli prime minister Sharon wanted to launch a full scale attack on Palestine they tossed the journalists out. North Korea permits photo journalists only for ceremonial occasions .

Rest assured the US fully supports a free press — according to a military spokesman:

“We are completely committed to a free and independent press, and we hope that we can help encourage this tradition in places where new and free governments are taking root,” he said. [Aljazeera English March 10, 2007]

This commitment to a free and independent press did not extend to the photo-journalists on the spot, however. Their video and photographs were confiscated and destroyed by the US military. Too bad about assistance with the investigation of the incident.

The same military spokesman explained why the military had to confiscate and destroy the photo materials.

Petrenko said that photographs or video taken by “untrained people” might “capture visual details that are not as they originally were”.

Of course these were not “untrained people.” They were journalists employed by the Associated Press, and even photographic material of amateurs may be at least as helpful in documenting what happened as the memory of the participants.

When the evidence is too embarrassing and the embarrassed parties have the clout there will be no media on their side of the line.

Both sides of the line is not simply dependent on the news organizations. It also depends on the ’sides.’ When they impose censorship there is no ‘both.’

Two, only Aljazeera English reported the US justification for confiscating the photographic materials from the AP reporters. No one has explained how 2 reporters happened to be there, but they were on the spot.

Somehow Aljazeera ‘was there’ when Petrenko was explaining and BBC World and CNN World were not. News organizations have a very strong interest in freedom of the press. When it is compromised they are normally there shouting. But they were not in this case.

Interpretation:

‘Both sides of the line’ is on a ‘roll.’ This is the third blog/incident in rather rapid succession.

Sometimes it is too embarrassing to be an American.

News Reports:

Aljazeera English March 5, 2007

Aljazeera English March 10, 2007

This is 50

by Bob Boynton

This is it — number 50.

When I started I did not know how far it would go. It has gotten to 50. This is the 50th blog entry at Globalizing News.

It has been going for 15 weeks. That is an average of 3.3 entries per week. Since I was on holiday at Christmas that is pretty good production.

There have been 915 views. Views is a highly ambiguous indicator of attention, but that is 19 per entry. I think that is better than I expected.

I checked all the tags because they are all there somewhere. Enjoy!

If you stop by leave me a comment. I have not had many of those in this 15 weeks.

Both sides of the line — one more time

by Bob Boynton

Aljazeera English had a report from the Taliban side of the line, and BBC World had breaking news about a planned British movement of more soldiers into the contested province. It was both sides of the line by duet.

News organizations that aspire to a global audience — as do Aljazeera English, BBC World, and CNN World — feel constrained to present both sides of a conflict. After all, they want to maximize their audience. At least they do not want to run off audience by presenting only a onesided story.

The first burst of this story was February 22 — though I only did the writing on the 25th. The second burst is March the 6th. It is a second opportunity to see how both sides of the line plays out in this conflict. Since this seems to be a big push there may be more opportunities in the future.

This time all three of the news organizations had a story about the British moving troops into the Helmand province to take on the Taliban. CNN World had been missing the first time around.

There is a good deal more to the stories than I am going to report because I want to focus on the single theme — both sides of the line. So I will quote the stories as they do that.

Aljazeera English

At its peak, the offensive will involve more than 4,500 Nato troops and close to 1,000 Afghan security force personnel.

“This is the largest operation launched to date and it signifies the beginning of an offensive to bring security to Helmand,” said Ton van Loon, Isaf commander in the south.

 

Local Taliban leaders were defiant in response to the operation.

Qari Yousef Ahmadi, a Taliban spokesman in Helmand, told Al Jazeera: “We don’t care about this operation. What it means is Nato is going to bomb more innocent civilians.

“We have 10,000 fighters waiting to meet them. We will defend and fight and inshallah [God willing] we will win.”

The commander of the International Security Assistance Force was quoted as was a spokesman for the Taliban. Both are able to tell their side of the story.

BBC World had this statement from the commander of ISAF south

“This is the largest multinational combined ANSF [Afghan National Security Force] and Isaf [International Security Assistance Force] operation launched to date and it signifies the beginning of a planned offensive to bring security to northern Helmand,” the head of the alliance’s southern command, Dutch Major General Ton van Loon, had said earlier.

It would focus on “improving security in areas where Taleban extremists, narco-traffickers and other elements are trying to destabilise the government of Afghanistan”, his statement said.

BBC World did not have a comparable statement from the Taleban.

This is the CNN World version of both sides of the line

“This operation is targeting Taliban extremists, narco-traffickers and foreigner terrorists who have abused you, the Afghan people,” Maj. Gen. Toon Van Loon, NATO’s southern regional commander, said in a statement.

“Though Operation Achilles will initially focus on improving security conditions, its overarching purpose is to assist the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan improve its ability to begin reconstruction and economic development in the area.”

In a recent interview, Mullah Dadullah, the man in charge of day-to-day military operations for the Taliban, said his forces were poised for a new offensive against NATO-led coalition troops.

CNN World had the statement of the commander of ISAF and a “recent interview” with the Taleban in charge of day to day military operations. They do not say who did the interview; they do not claim it as their own but it may have been theirs.

Interpretation

Aljazeera English managed both sides of the line better than did the other two news organizations. CNN World managed an earlier interview with a Taliban spokesman. But BBC World had only the statement of the ISAF commander.

There is one more element in this and other comparable situations. Aljazeera English reported.

Separately on Tuesday, the Taliban said it had “arrested” a Briton working for an Italian newspaper.

The group said Danny Kell was a British military spy working for the Italian La Repubblica newspaper.

Apparently the Taliban does not trust all reporters — thinking some of them may be spies. You cannot report if they will not let you in.

The Taliban are hardly the first military organization to distrust reporters. Mr. Rumsfeld for example, was infamous for his view that the reporters were telling only the story of the other side of the line.

News Reports

Aljazeera English

BBC World

CNN World

The difference a background can make

by Bob Boynton

Palestinian leaders discuss unity — the headline of Aljazeera, in English.

The president and the prime minister sat down to iron out their difficulties. It had been a difficult period leading to Fatah and Hamas supporters shooting at each other.

Aljazeera, in Arabic, and Aljazeera, in English, both reported the beginning of a rapprochement. BBC World and CNN World ignored it — at least as of midnight CST.

It was not what they wrote that was striking — well, since I cannot read Arabic I do not know what Aljazeera, in Arabic, wrote. But the photos accompanying the stories were very different.

Aljazeera in Arabic

Aljazeera in English

First, a caveat — I enlarged the photo from Aljazeera in English to make it equal to the size of the photo from Aljazeera in Arabic. The original was about two-thirds this size, which makes a difference.

In both photos the president and the prime minister are posing for pictures. The one from Aljazeera, Arabic, is lifeless. The two are sitting — you might say relaxed, but lifeless seems a better characterization. Abbas is not even looking at the photographer so you see him turned away from you. They are separated; there is a gulf, a space reflecting the political gulf between them. And their feet are firmly planted. They are anchored in their separate spaces.

The photo used by Aljazeera, English, is as lively as the other is lifeless. They are standing with joined hands and faces in smiles — as though celebrating either a joke or progress in their negotiations.

The foregrounds are very different.

But the backgrounds are equally important in the photographs. The one is gray — a gray wall ‘decorated’ with a gray drapery and a limp flag. They are enveloped in an environment of no hope.

But the Aljazeera, in English, photo tells exactly the opposite story. It is a smiling Abbas and a smiling Arafat — as close as Abbas and Haniyeh. Arafat and Abbas are the iconic images of Hamas and Fatah. The bold, smiling pictures in the background reinforces the hopefulness of the agreements reached.

Interpretation

Photographs are carefully chosen to reinforce the story being told in words. In this case I know the words of one of the news reports but not the other. But reading the photographs is not difficult. They tell different stories. And the gray, lifeless background in one case and the smiling icons of Palestinian history in the other make them very different stories.

But look at the Aljazeera in Arabic story the next day.

The optimism is back!

News reports

Aljazeera in Arabic

Aljazeera in English

Both sides of the line

by Bob Boynton

News organizations that aspire to a global audience want to be on both sides of the line. The classic case is CNN reporting from Baghdad when the first Bush president was bombing. It made the reputation of the station. They had the only reporter in town, and he was broadcasting from his hotel room.

There are many other instances of this ‘both sides of the line’ approach to conflict. When NATO was attacking Yugoslavia CNN WorldView worked very hard to get to the ‘other side’ of the line. BBC World had a reporter in Kabul Afghanistan when NATO was after the Taliban. The two most dramatic images of that conflict were the reporter talking to the camera when a bomb exploded in his room. It was very impressive. The second image was the Taliban holding a press conference including female reporters. That was a clear sign of desperation.

A slightly different version of ‘both sides of the line’ happened February 23.

Aljazeera had a story from a reporter who had successfully ‘penetrated’ Taliban territory in Afghanistan. We can assume the Taliban wanted to tell the world what they were telling him.

Taliban ‘in control’ in Helmand was the claim of the Taliban.

James Bays spent two days with the Taliban in Helmand and found that the group is running schools and medical facilities, and is travelling armed and unchallenged by Nato-led forces.

They claimed they were in control of 99% of Helmand, a province in southwest Afghanistan. They demonstrated their contempt for the British forces who were their opposition by driving the reporter past the British compound.

The same day the ‘breaking news’ from BBC World was

More UK soldiers for Afghanistan

Where are the British troops going to be deployed in Afghanistan?

Britain has recently revamped its operations in Afghanistan to put most manpower into Helmand province in the south, where the fighting is at its most fierce.

Nato and British commanders have said for some time that more resources are needed if the Taleban are to be defeated.

They are headed to Helmand province “where the fighting is at its most fierce.”

The stories are not the same, but the photos are very similar. This is the Aljazeera photograph.

And this is the BBC World photograph

Interpretation

This is a different form of both sides of the line.

It would be nice to read a report from Helmand by BBC World. Is the fighting really at its most fierce when the Taliban drives by the British compound.

News Reports

Aljazeera English

BBC World

When the photos do not do the work

by Bob Boynton

There are times when the photographs do most of the work — see

But there are times when the work is in the headlines. Here is a photograph from Aljazeera English.

They met. They photo-oped. Negotiations must be going well. At least that is the implication of the smiles and handclasps. The headline is

“No progress at three-way talks”

Aljazeera reviewed all the statements, and made its assessment. The photo-op was just that. Perhaps a photo-op with the president of Palestine, the Prime Minister of Israel and the Secretary of State should be considered progress.

CNN World presented a photograph that is so similar that one might say the same photo. Either a single photographer was taking pictures very fast or the two photographers were standing side by side.

Same photo. A slightly more ‘friendly’ headline.

“Rice vows more Mideast talks but no date set”

“But no date set” tells the story. Announcing more mideast talks is ‘cheap talk.’

BBC World handled the non-story by ignoring it. There was no report about the conclusion of the talks at BBC — at least not at midnight central standard time.

Implications

Photo-ops have a well deserved reputation for not being news.

A photo-op is a bright smiling picture accompanied by a dark headline. This is surely one such.

News Reports

Aljazeera English

CNN World

Becoming a global person

by Bob Boynton

There was — what was his name? — the speaker of the US House of Representatives. He made it into the global news once a year when he stood behind the president who was giving his state of the union speech.

Well, there is a new speaker of the House and here she is flanking the vice president as the president is applauded.

Nancy Pelosi, member of the House from California, made her debut on the global stage in the role that Speakers are supposed to play.

But there was a flurry of activity, and suddenly speaker Pelosi was becoming a global person.

On February 16 she testified before a committee of the House warning that the president had no authority to attack Iran and congress would not allow that. BBC World picked up this story with the picture above.

Then there was the vote in the House on a nonbinding resolution disapproving of the president’s plan to ship 21,000 more troops to Iraq. And all of the news organizations wanted a piece of that action. Her photograph appeared on the websites of Aljazeera Arabic, Aljazeera English, BBC World and CNN World.

This is the CNN photo with her standing at the speaker podium in the House, but they all had photos of her for this occasion.

Interpretation

246 members of the House of Representatives voted for the resolution disapproving the president’s plan.

As long as the House approved the actions of the president they could safely be ignored as an unimportant body. But conflict breeds attention. When the House starts criticizing the actions of the president the news organizations look up — conflict is news.

You cannot take a picture of 246 voters. Especially when they vote as the House does — members wander in, insert a card, and wander out.

You need a person, and that person becomes a global person when it is the global news that is covering the action.

If this continues Speaker Pelosi may some day find herself in front of a bank of flags without the need to be identified.

News Reports

Aljazeera Arabic

Aljazeera English

BBC World

BBC World

CNN World

Slipped in and slipped out again

by Bob Boynton

Al-Zawahiri was back just in time for valentine day [February 14].

This time it was an audio tape so they had to use a photo they already had on hand. Apparently photos of al-Zawahiri are in short supply since this is the same photo they used only a few days earlier. See When Al-Zawahiri speaks.

Only Aljazeera — both the Arabic and the English versions — reported on this latest tape. BBC World and CNN World seem to have thought it not newsworthy.

His criticisms were leveled at:

Bush and his gambling with US troops that will fail.

The Democrats who were elected to bring an end to this, but seem to be unable to act.

US-allied governments in Iraq and Afghanistan were criticized as “traitors.”

Fatah was criticized for attempting to establish a secular state.

And he asked Lebanese muslims to reject a UN resolution that brought the war with Israel to a close.

Interpretation

He got everybody in sight.

The interesting point is that a man hiding out in a cave in the mountains of Pakistan or Afghanistan can command attention.

He may be important as the ‘voice’ of a movement notwithstanding his otherwise weak hand.

If that is the case then the news organizations face one of their standard conundrums. If you do not cover him he has no voice. If you believe this is newsworthy and cover his statement then you are giving him voice.

What is a good news organization to do?

News Report

Aljazeera [English]

Quashing communication

by Bob Boynton

As CNN phrased it — the military judge quashed the defense of lieutenant Watada. According to the judge he could not defend his refusal to go to Iraq on the basis that it is an illegal war nor could he defend his public statements against the war on the grounds of freedom of speech.

Now they have figured out how to quash communication about this episode of military might.

Military judge Lt. Col. John Head granted prosecutors’ request for a mistrial, which Watada’s lawyer opposed.

Head set a March 12 date for a new trial and dismissed the jurors.

Watada, 28, of Honolulu, Hawaii, had been expected to testify in his own defense Wednesday until Head and attorneys met in a closed meeting for much of the morning.

This also from CNN.

A mistrial is declared immediately before the defendant is to testify. The prosecution wanted a mistrial. The defense opposed a mistrial. That is a remarkable combination.

Interpretation

There was too much attention building. How do you stop it? Declare a mistrial. No dramatic testimony, and the media go away.

It is worth noting that while Aljazeera had this on their ‘world’ page BBC and CNN continued to report it as a local story.

News reports

Aljazeera [English]

BBC

CNN