Media vs terrorism

(Conclusion)

Global mapping of terrorism, according to Melinda, has drawn the Philippines along with three other countries in Southeast Asia as part of a front serving a terrorist network operating in four regional capitals Manila, Jakarta, Kuala Lumpur and Singapore. But locally, this front is not as visible as the terrorist scourge of the Abu Sayyaf (AS), a small band of Muslim militants who organized themselves in the early nineties and who have taken to kidnapping and hostage-taking for ransom in southern Mindanao. The group’s connection to the Al-Qaeda remains sketchy and their ideological claims are vague, but their activities have constituted a greater terror in the public mind.

Of all the armed groups confronting the Philippine government in recent years, the Abu Sayyaf has received the most press coverage, said Melinda. The access of journalists to AS camps resulted in their and foreign journalists’ being taken captive, but both journalists and captors enjoyed the AS’s media strategy of reaching out to the press for scoops and exclusives. Because of the constitutional guarantee for press freedom, few restrictions are imposed on journalistic coverage of the AS, said Melinda. Government does not attempt to censor or regulate the press through official mechanisms. Editorial policy and so-called news values drive the coverage, although government officials can exert influence over the industry.

In contrast coverage of the Moro Independent Liberation Front (MILF) during the military offensive did not generate sufficient background on the issues of war and the roots of insurgency despite the fact that the MILF constituted a more significant political reality, having sustained its rebellion far longer than the existence of the AS. Reporters generally reported the war from the military’s perspective, ignoring or marginalizing the perspective of the non-combatant Muslim communities in the area and leaving out of the news discussion of Muslim grievance and alienation."

There was a government "news blackout" policy, but it was, said Melinda, "an appeal to the editors and publishers to exercise restrain in the coverage and to treat military information with sensitivity, pointing out that media exposure serves as AS purposes; that certain information could compromise search and rescue operations, and that media could be used for disinformation."

In reality, the "news blackout" was taken as no more than a cautionary appeal for responsible reporting, reminding the press that groups like the AS actually use media as part of the array of weapons in fighting their war. It would seem that the media had managed to learn some lessons from their past encounters with the AS."

* * *

Saeed Daof, director general of the Center for the Promotion of Peace and Development of Mindanao, said at the closing plenary session of the UNESCO conference that the Philippine media played an important role towards the dissemination of information about his action recommendation to elevate socio-economic development of conflicted areas, education of the people towards a culture of peace, and intensification of attracting the active participation of foreign governments for Mindanao development. As emissary extraordinary to MILF Chair Hasim Salamat and concurrent chair of the MILF economic development committee, he feels proud about having established direct lines of communication between the President of the Philippines and the MILF chair after more than 20 years of hostilities without personal contacts as immediate focal points in the GRP-MILF peace talks."

Daof also pointed out that the media should avoid stereotyping and biased reporting against Muslims, as these are "not healthy to the promotion and cause of peace in Mindanao. Any individual, group or organization that perpetrates nefarious acts of terrorism and kidnapping against the peace-loving public should be stopped. A case in point is the Abu Sayyaf. These people have no ideology and simply are out to terrorize and victimize innocent people for money. This group started with just a few families. But unfortunately, the media made them big by glamorizing them with headline stories. I wish this did not happen because it relegated into the background more important issues concerning the Mindanao problems and their solutions."

Because of the terror that the attacks on the United States had inscribed in the minds and psyche of many governments, new legislation was enacted to enable them to take more effective measures to combat terrorism worldwide, said Toby Mendel at the UNESCO conference. "Government have taken advantage of the climate of fear, in certain cases verging on hysterics, to give themselves some powers which trench on human rights."

The most obvious blatants examples have to do with detention, removal and/or trial of suspected terrorists without due process.

More subtle, but no less important, said Mendel, is the impact of September 11 in terms of self-censorship. "This self-censorship has made it difficult openly and critically to discuss issues such as the root causes of terrorism and how best to address this problem."

* * *

International bodies and courts have made it clear that freedom of expression and information is one of the most important human rights. In fact three special international mechanisms on freedom of expression – the UN Special Repporteur on Freedom of Opinion and Expression – adopted a Joint Declaration on Nov. 20, 2001, stating "(We are) of the view that the events of 11 September 2001 and their aftermath highlights the importance of open public debate based on the free exchange of ideas, and should serve as a catalyst for states all over the world to bolster guarantees of expression."

In various countries around the world, such as the Belarus, Canada, India, The United Kingdom and the United States, new legislation has been introduced to address the threat of worldwide terrorism. These laws focus primarily on powers to detain and try suspected terrorists.

Mendel cited as an example of a measure restricting freedom of expression a provision in the USA Patriot Act allowing the US Secretary of State to declared persons seeking entry into the US to be "inadmissible" because they are deemed to have undertaken advocacy that undermines US anti-terrorism attacks. This, he said, may be used against practically anyone criticizing the US administration’s approach to combating terror.

The Act also prohibits libraries and bookstores from disclosing the fact that they have been subjected to an investigation.