ABC interviews Beslan terrorist

[CBL4]

Moscow is barring journalists from U.S. television channel ABC from working in Russia after the channel broadcast an interview with Chechen rebel leader Shamil Basayev, the Foreign Ministry said on Tuesday.
...
[Russian] Security services put a $10 million price on Basayev's head after the Beslan hostage siege when 330 people -- half of them children -- died, but have failed to catch the warlord.

Basayev has claimed responsibility for orchestrating the Beslan attack.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/08/02/russia.abc.reut/index.html

I have mixed feelings on this. I support the right of the media to report news but Basayev is one of the worst mass murderers alive. I certainly would have prefered them to help get him arrested rather than interview him. I guess an interview with him is a legitimate news story but part of my opinion would be based on the interview and how they presented this evil man. If they portrayed him accurately (e.g. evily), I am OK with it. If they did one of the infamous "we report but let you decide" than I would agree with the Russians that this

"was a clear case of helping to propagandize terrorism"

I could not find the video on ABC's web page. Without seeing the interview, I do not think I can comment properly.

CBL

 

[Tmy]

So you WANT news orgs to be bias?

 

[CFLarsen]

No.

Interview Basajev, Bin Laden, Karadzic. Let's hear what those scum have to say, let's see what scum they really are.

Will an interview with Basajev create more followers for him? Hard to say. What we have to do is learn how he thinks, so we can better fight him. But keeping him as a fanthom will only strengthen him.

If American - or World - media had any guts, they would boycott Russian affairs altogether. Either all press gets in, or no press gets in.

 

[CBL4]

Originally posted by Tmy
So you WANT news orgs to be bias?

I want them to be accurate. This man is responsible for masterminding numerous terrorist attacks. The most infamous of them resulted in the death of hundreds of children.

I want ABC to call him an evil, mass-murdering terrorist.
This is not bias, it is accuracy. In some misguided notion of not being biased, the AP (and other media) actually used the phrased "insurgents" for these kidnapping, mass-murdering terrorists. This is simply absurd.

Clearly the words "mass murderer" and "terrorist" are emotionally laden words. But this is due to the nature of the acts they describe not due to some bias. Rapists are not described as sexual partners. Mass murderers of children should not be called "insurgents."

What would you call Basajev?

ETA: By the way, I totally agree with his cause - a free Chechnya. However, justness in a cause never justifies the actions he has led.

CBL

 

[CBL4]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Will an interview with Basajev create more followers for him?

This is my biggest concern. Will an interview with this terrorist will lead to more death of innocent civilians? I do not really know.

I cringe whenever I hear that bin Laden is given air time. But I also cringe when he is censored in the US press. As I said, I have mixed feelings.

I can certainly understand why it would be a crime to act as a progandist for murderers. Is ABC doing this or are they reporting news?

CBL

 

[plindboe]

Terrorism and the media goes hand in hand. Without the reporting, the terrorists wouldn't get focus on their political issues, and they wouldn't be able to cause widespread fear. The purpose of this mass killing of children was this much needed attention, and apparently ABC wants to reward them for their work and tell them to keep up using these methods as they are obviously working quite well.

I can certainly understand the russians are pissed. But that's what free media is about, the reporters have the right to act like irresponsible bastards.

 

[Freakshow]

So you WANT news orgs to be bias?

Off topic a little, but...

The media already is biased. ALL of it. Because it is not possible for the human mind to operate in an unbiased manner. The brain just doesn't work that way.

What I want is for them to try their best to be unbiased (which some already do), and then give a disclaimer with each story indicating the reporter's personal point of view on the subject being reported. The disclaimer could start with something like "Although we always strive to be as objectve as possible, we realize that this is a goal that is not perfectly obtainable. In our interest to report the news fairly, it is our practice to report the reporter's views that are relevant to the content of the story. Blah blah blah."

It would make me feel MUCH more confident about reading the news. As it is now, I could not think much lower of the news media. On a scale of 1 to 10, they are a 2.

 

[geni]

What would you call Basajev?

I dunno how would you describe Putin?

 

[CFLarsen]

Terrorism and the media goes hand in hand. Without the reporting, the terrorists wouldn't get focus on their political issues, and they wouldn't be able to cause widespread fear. The purpose of this mass killing of children was this much needed attention, and apparently ABC wants to reward them for their work and tell them to keep up using these methods as they are obviously working quite well.

What is news? It's what happens that is of interest to the public. The second the free press starts deciding who gets air time based on their political views, we don't have a free press anymore.

Terrorists blowing up people is news. Knowing more about terrorists who blow up people is news.

Which do you think is the more frightening, an unknown terrorist (meaning you don't know how to spot him) or a known terrorist (whom you can spot)?

Know thy enemy, and know him well.

 

[Freakshow]

What is news? It's what happens that is of interest to the public. The second the free press starts deciding who gets air time based on their political views, we don't have a free press anymore.

Terrorists blowing up people is news. Knowing more about terrorists who blow up people is news.

Which do you think is the more frightening, an unknown terrorist (meaning you don't know how to spot him) or a known terrorist (whom you can spot)?

Know thy enemy, and know him well.

STARTS deciding?!?!

Here is an exercise...

Look at the covers of two major nationally distributed newspapers. Are the front pages identical? They aren't? They don't have the exact same stories on the front page?

Then how did they wind up with different stories on the front page? How was the decision made? Do you think politics ever plays a part in this decision making?

I'm not even claiming it is intentional and deliberate. (Which it may or may not be.) I'm only claiming that it happens.

 

[CFLarsen]

I said "political".

Read what I said.

 

[Freakshow]

I said "political".

Read what I said.

I did. And replied to it. I don't understand your clarification. The news media's politicial views shape their reporting of the news all the time. That's what I was saying. It's already happening.

Edited to add: Oh, you mean the SUBJECT'S views? Even so, it still applies. Views are all relative. Making the decision to do something based on the subjects political views is still made through the filter of the media's politicial views.

 

[CFLarsen]

I did. And replied to it. I don't understand your clarification. The news media's politicial views shape their reporting of the news all the time. That's what I was saying. It's already happening.

What I am talking about is how the media should not exclude people based on their political views.

E.g., a Republican paper should not exclude interviews with John Kerry.

 

[Freakshow]

What I am talking about is how the media should not exclude people based on their political views.

E.g., a Republican paper should not exclude interviews with John Kerry.

Check my edit and addition. I think the point still applies. This already happens all the time.

 

[zenith-nadir]

The bottom line of any news organization is to sell their product to make a profit. Without ratings and sales a news organization goes bust. Therefore most news organizations would interview a mass murderer/child molester/cruel dictator/terrorist because it is sensational... and sensationalism sells.

ABC does not care if Basayev killed 100s of kids, they only care if they can use the interview to sell their product. People often forget that news organizations are businesses.

Giving Basayev - who killed unarmed civilians, including women and children - an interview is sickening and shows what depths a news organization will go to to sell you it's product.

 

[CFLarsen]

The bottom line of any news organization is to sell their product to make a profit. Without ratings and sales a news organization goes bust. Therefore most news organizations would interview a mass murderer/child molester/cruel dictator/terrorist because it is sensational... and sensationalism sells.

ABC does not care if Basayev killed 100s of kids, they only care if they can use the interview to sell their product. People often forget that news organizations are businesses.

Giving Basayev - who killed unarmed civilians, including women and children - an interview is sickening and shows what depths a news organization will go to to sell you it's product.

It could easily be argued that Bush has also killed unarmed civilians, including women and children, by ordering troops to invade Iraq.

ABC can probably sell horrific news better than not-so-horrific news, but there is a limit: At some point, credibility is lost.

Just think of the Janet Cooke scandal - that reflected badly on the Washington Post. Dateline's "exposure" of burning GM trucks was a disaster. CNN's "Operation Tailwind" was a fake story. Jayson Blair almost destroyed New York Times.

News organizations sell news, but they have to sell credible news.

 

[CBL4]

Originally posted by geni
I dunno how would you describe Putin?

You don't know how you describe a man who killed 300 children! Interesting.

I would describe a Putin as murderous, elected, popular autocrat who is responsible for savagely killing thousands in Chechnya and gross restriction of civil rights in Russia.

However, most of the Russian armies action are aimed at soldiers/insurgents/terrorists not civilains. The actions are taken without regard to the welfare of civilians but generally are not aimed at them. Taking an elementary school hostage is a totally different story.

CBL

 

[zenith-nadir]

It could easily be argued that Bush has also killed unarmed civilians, including women and children, by ordering troops to invade Iraq.

It could also be easily debated that General Douglas MacArthur also had a hand in the deaths of unarmed civilians. But I would like to see one debate that General Douglas MacArthur = Shamil Basayev.

News organizations sell news, but they have to sell credible news.

What bothers me about this is if ABC had a moral fibre in their bodies they should have given the location of Basayev's whereabouts discretely to the Russians - our allies? - and not chosen to use an interview with Basayev to generate profit via their Nightline programme.

I guess if a Russian news agency ever interviews Bin Laden tough luck for America...

 

[CFLarsen]

What bothers me about this is if ABC had a moral fibre in their bodies they should have given the location of Basayev's whereabouts discretely to the Russians - our allies? - and not chosen to use an interview with Basayev to generate profit via their Nightline programme.

Should they? That's a very good question. Should news organisations rat out on those they interview? When do they become agents of a government?

If you think that ABC should have given away Basayev's whereabouts, do you similarly think that Bernstein and Woodward should have given away the identity of "Deep Throat" to Nixon?

I guess if a Russian news agency ever interviews Bin Laden tough luck for America...

Why? I don't subscribe to the theory that by lending terrorists airtime, you are also helping them. Quite contrary, the enemy you know is a hell of a lot less frightening than the enemy you don't know.

 

[Cleon]

I would describe a Putin as murderous, elected, popular autocrat who is responsible for savagely killing thousands in Chechnya and gross restriction of civil rights in Russia.

So does interviewing Putin make one an accomplice to these things?

I'm sorry, I'm not seeing what's wrong with this. Why shouldn't Basayev be interviewed? Because he's a Bad Man? News sources interview bad men--killers, murderers, rapists, etc.--all the time, with little objection. Hell, CNN even interviewed bin Laden ten or so years ago.

As for telling Russia where he is...It's not the press' job to take sides in a conflict, no matter how bad/evil/terrorist one side is. It's not their job to act as an agency for Mother Russia. They're there to get the story--which is exactly what they're doing.