For the Morally Superior ( or conveniently so anyway) of Assam Net:

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/10/28/1035683358581.html


Whatever happened to those good old freedom fighters?
October 29 2002


The media have rewritten the rules on the coverage of so-called 
terrorism, writes Gwynne Dyer.

  Rule one: When covering terrorist attacks, do not discuss the 
political context of the attacks or the terrorists' motives and 
strategy. Two generations of comic books and cartoons have accustomed 
the general audience to villains who are evil just for the sake of 
being evil - so, calling the terrorists "evildoers" will suffice as 
an explanation for most people.

  Rule two: All terrorist actions are part of the same problem. Thus 
you may treat this month's Bali bombing, the sniper attacks in 
Washington, and the hostage-taking in a Moscow theatre as all related 
to each other in some (unspecified) way, and write scare-mongering 
think-pieces about "The October Crisis".

  Rule three: All terrorists are Islamic fanatics. On some occasions, 
as when Basque terrorists blow somebody up, it will be necessary to 
relax this rule slightly, but at the very least any terrorists with 
Muslim names should be treated as Islamist fanatics.

  No journalism school in the world teaches these rules, and they 
didn't exist two years ago. Yet most of the Western media now know 
them by heart.

Consider, for example, the terrorist seizure of the theatre in Moscow 
last week that ended with the death of about 50 Chechen 
hostage-takers and more than 100 hostages. Two years ago, the media 
coverage of these events, even in Russia itself, would have given us 
a lot of background on why some Chechens have turned to such savage 
methods. Didn't see much of that last week, did we?

  Nothing about the long guerrilla struggle that Chechens waged 
against Russian imperial conquest 150 years ago. Nothing about the 
fact that Stalin deported the entire Chechen nation to Central Asia 
(where about half of them died) during World War II. Nothing about 
the fact that Chechnya declared independence peacefully in 1991 and 
that both the Chechen-Russian wars, in 1994 and 1999, began with a 
Russian attack. In fact, nothing to suggest that this conflict has 
specific local roots, or a history that goes back past last week.

  Instead, the terrorists were presented as pure evil, as free of 
logical motivation as the Penguin or the Joker in the Batman movies. 
Hardly anybody mentioned the fact that more than 4000 Russian 
soldiers and at least 12,000 Chechen "terrorists" (anybody resisting 
Russian occupation) have been killed since President Vladimir Putin 
sent the army back in to the Chechen republic in 1999.

  The Chechen men and women who seized the theatre have Muslim names, 
so they must be part of the worldwide network of Islamist fanatics 
who are driven by blind hatred to commit senseless massacres (or so 
it says in the script here).

  If you like being treated like an idiot child by your leaders and 
your media, you are living at the right time. The number of people 
hurt in terrorist attacks is far lower than in the '50s and '60s, 
when national liberation wars in countries from Algeria to Vietnam 
took a huge toll of civilian lives. It's not even as high as in the 
'70s and '80s, when a new wave of "international" terrorists bombed 
aircraft and even attacked the Olympics. But the world's leading 
media see the world through American eyes, so the attacks on the 
United States on September 11, 2001, have utterly distorted people's 
perceptions of the dangers of terrorism.

  In fact, the way terrorism is now being covered closely resembles 
domestic TV coverage of violent crime in the US, which has gone up 
600 per cent in the past 15 years while the actual crime rate fell by 
10 to 15 per cent (depending on the crime). It has enabled the 
Russian Government to smear the entire liberation struggle of the 
Chechens as terrorism, and Israel to do the same to the Palestinians. 
But the truth is that most of the struggles we (retrospectively) see 
as justified involved a good deal of terrorism at the time.

  The controversy that is now starting up about the tactics the 
Russian authorities used in freeing the Moscow hostages is just the 
media barking up the wrong tree as usual. The real question is 
whether Russia should be occupying Chechnya. But, in the present 
media environment, we will not hear much about that. So just to check 
out your sympathies, here is a list of conflicts in which the 
eventual victors made extensive use of terror (high-tech or low-tech):

*RAF Bomber Command's campaign against German cities.

*US nuclear weapons on Japanese cities.

*The Zionist campaign to drive the British out of Palestine, 1946-48.

*Algeria's independence struggle against France.

*The Mau Mau rebellion against British rule in Kenya.

*Vietnam's independence war against French and US forces.

*Zimbabwe's liberation war against white minority rule.

  If you approved of more than two, you are obviously a terrorist 
sympathiser. Turn yourself in to the nearest police station.

Gwynne Dyer is a London-based journalist, author and film maker.

_______________________________________________
assam mailing list
assam@assamnet.org
http://assamnet.org/mailman/listinfo/assam_assamnet.org

Reply via email to