Censorship in Pashto and Arabic
" Last month the V.O.A. obtained an interview with the Taliban's leader,
Mullah Muhammad Omar. Although such an interview is indisputably
newsworthy, the State Department asked the V.O.A. not to broadcast it. "
October 10, 2001
From The New York Times
EDITORIAL
S ince the end of the cold war, the Voice
of America's radio programs have
metamorphosed from government echo into
real journalism. The station, which
broadcasts in 53 languages worldwide, is for many people the only available
counter to their governments' propaganda. Surveys of men in Afghanistan
last year showed that 67 percent listened to the V.O.A. every day. The need
to maintain a credible alternative source of news for Muslims today makes
the administration's efforts to censor the V.O.A. all the more objectionable.
The V.O.A. today is an independent agency, but it is government-funded
and still susceptible to State Department and Congressional pressure. The
advent of war should be an occasion to strengthen its independence.
Last month the V.O.A. obtained an interview with the Taliban's leader,
Mullah Muhammad Omar. Although such an interview is indisputably
newsworthy, the State Department asked the V.O.A. not to broadcast it.
The station hesitated for several days and then included a few excerpts in a
larger report. Even this limited use of Mullah Omar's remarks has now
inspired calls in Congress to turn the V.O.A. back into a voice for American
policies. Others want to recreate Radio Free Afghanistan, which existed
during the Soviet occupation, as an ideological alternative to the V.O.A. A
second station broadcasting in Pashto and Dari would undoubtedly drain
reporters and resources from the V.O.A.
In addition, Secretary of State Colin Powell told the leader of Qatar last
week that he was concerned about the inflammatory rhetoric used by the
Qatar-based Arabic-language satellite television station Al Jazeera. The emir
of Qatar told reporters after the meeting that Mr. Powell had asked him to
rein in Al Jazeera. The station is the most important and independent
broadcaster of news in Arabic. Its journalism has aroused the ire of various
Arab governments, much to its credit.
Al Jazeera has angered some Americans by replaying, several times, a 1998
interview with Osama bin Laden. It is surely Mr. bin Laden's favored news
outlet, the one he chose to disseminate the video made after the Sept. 11
attacks. Al Jazeera is also the only station permitted to have a reporter inside
Taliban-controlled Afghanistan. All These broadcasts are legitimate and
valuable, and news organizations worldwide have repeatedly run Al Jazeera's
tapes and reported its scoops.
The more worrisome feature of Al Jazeera is that it often slants its news with
a vicious anti-Israel and anti-American bias. Islamic radicals dominate its talk
shows, and the station reported that Jews were told not to go to work in the
World Trade Center on Sept. 11 — promoting the rumor, widely believed
by Muslims, that Jews were behind the attack. Its biases mirror public
opinion in the Islamic world, but this deeply irresponsible reporting reinforces
the region's anti-American views.
The correct response to Al Jazeera, however, is not to ask Qatar to censor
it. The Islamic world has far too much censorship already. Instead,
Washington should shower Al Jazeera with offers of interviews with
American officials or respected Muslims who can counter the anti-American
propaganda. The station's Washington bureau chief has complained that
officials rarely agree to interviews, while the channel has broadcast interviews
with Foreign Minister Shimon Peres of Israel, Colin Powell and Tony Blair.
If Al Jazeera becomes so ideological that it is not interested in non-radical
views, then the West can start its own Arabic satellite channel.
nytimes.com
Copyright 2001 The New York Times Company | Privacy Information |
