Transcript
PETER KOVICH: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. And good afternoon to our distinguished panel. On behalf of the State Department's Foreign Press Center, I'm very pleased to introduce this event, this discussion on Foreign Correspondents' Perspectives: Covering the War against Terror from the U.S. We are co-sponsoring this with, respectively, the Joan Shorenstein Center at Harvard University, represented by Mr. Kalb, and the Brookings Institution of Washington, D.C., represented by Mr. Stephen Hess.
The panelists are going to start off with a discussion, and then later on in the program open it up to a wider discussion with you all in the audience. When that happens, I would like to ask you to wait for a mike when you're recognized by the two moderators, and then introduce yourself by name and organization before entering into the discussion.
With that said, I welcome our panelists, and I hand it over to you. Thank you.
STEPHEN HESS: Thank you, Peter.
Welcome to the Brookings/Harvard Forum, which is a weekly discussion series from Washington on the news media and issues related to news that are growing out of the present anti-terrorism campaign.
I'm Stephen Hess, as Peter said, I'm the co-host, along with my co-host, Marvin Kalb of the Washington Office of the Shorenstein Center where he is the executive director.
This is the fourth of our series. We started with a program on the lessons of past wars with Peter Arnett, Ted Koppel, Daniel Schorr, Stanley Karnow, and Barry Zorthian. Then we went to the other side of the podium, and having talked to these distinguished journalists, talked to some people who were presidential press secretaries, a program on presidential press secretaries in times of crisis. And then took another cut at public opinion, and how Americans are viewing the press since September 11th.
We're very happy to have our fourth program here at the Foreign Press Center. We thank Peter Kovich, the director of Foreign Press Centers; Jeff Brown, the director of this press center for inviting us here. We're very pleased that they tell us that this will be distributed worldwide by satellite broadcasting to the American Embassy TV Network.
And we're looking at a different angle, which is probably more obscure to most of us. These are ladies and gentlemen who work below the radar screen. They're not as well known, perhaps, as other journalists. They report from abroad, and they're not very well studied by scholars, but we want their perspective as well in this mix. And so we've asked four very experienced journalists to start this discussion. We then have a lot of foreign journalists in the audience, I see, who will have an opportunity to comment as well.
And now you're going to see how I can mangle four languages at once. You each have equal time to correct me, but let's start with Andrei Sitov, and he is the bureau chief of ITAR-TASS, that stands for Information Telegraph Agency of Russia, which succeeded TASS, which of course was the Telegraph Agency of the Soviet Union. He reported from New York for five years, and since January of 1997 has been in his present position in Washington.
Then we have Hafez Al-Mirazi, who has been in Washington since 1985, and has reported for the various organizations — Cairo Radio, the Voice of America, the Arab Network of America, the Arab News Network for the BBC World Service in Arabic, and since last year he has been the bureau chief of Al Jazeera.
Next we have Jose Carreno, getting close, he's been here since 1984. For many years he was the Washington correspondent for Norte Mex, the Mexican news agency, and since 1990 has been the Washington correspondent for El Universal, which is one of the leading daily newspapers in Mexico.
And Yasemin Congar—she is the Washington bureau chief for the Turkish newspaper Milliyet, and has been since January 1995. She also is the Washington correspondent for the Cable News Network, CNN Turk. And among her many assignments, she covered the Gulf War, writing from Baghdad, Amman, Jerusalem, and Northern Iraq.
So, that's our distinguished and experienced panel. Marvin, why don't you start the questioning.
MARVIN KALB: Okay. I'm very delighted to be able to add my welcome to Steve's and delighted that we could all get together and be here at the Foreign Press Center. I never knew before that the U.S. Embassy had its own network. Who is the anchor? I mean, this is quite interesting, it may break the budget.
What I would like to do is to ask each of you, and start with you, Andrei, for a sentence or two—please no more than that—just give us a sense of your relationship to the government. In other words, your government, do you get your weekly paycheck from the Russian government, and do you feel that you have, therefore, an obligation to convey essentially a Russian government point of view?
And I'm going to ask that same question of all of you.
ANDREI SITOV: Basically, the answer is, yes, ITAR-TASS is still funded by the government, especially in its international operations. And as for the obligation of covering the government, the longer I live the less I like the governments, whether my own or other people's. So I try to be reasonably skeptical about the motives of any government in the world.
MR. KALB: Thank you very much.
Jose?
JOSE CARRENO: None whatsoever.
MR. KALB: None whatsoever meaning no connection to the government.
MR. CARRENO: No connections at all. Perhaps to explain that a bit more, El Universal is one of the most represented newspapers of the media that has been reinventing itself after the fall of the PRI. I think that it has been healthy.
MR. KALB: Yasemin? Milliyet is a very major newspaper in Turkey.
YASEMIN CONGAR: Yes, the newspaper and also the TV I work for have no connection to the government at all. And I must say that being a foreign correspondent makes it even easier to stay more independent. I have worked in the Ankara office of the diplomatic correspondents, and you're covering the Turkish foreign ministry on a daily basis, and then their influence or their spin, you know, can get to you more than now it can when I'm so far away.
MR. KALB: Hafez?
HAFEZ AL-MIRAZI: I used to get the check directly from the U.S. government when I worked with the Voice of America before. But, after I moved to the BBC, and now at Al Jazeera, Al Jazeera is modeled after the BBC example, it is a public corporation. It receives grants from the government, it doesn't have the control of the government. It has its own independent board of directors. So, indirectly it is from the government, but it's a big "in" in the middle, as in the case of the BBC.
MR. KALB: But, to be clear, all of the money functioning of Al Jazeera does come from the Qatar government?
MR. AL-MIRAZI: And advertising, it is both.
MR. KALB: And advertising as well.
Now, to help us understand the way in which a foreign correspondent would end up covering this war, which is out there in Afghanistan at the moment, what is the central issue for you? Is it the covering of the war in much the same way as, say, that a New York Times or a CBS reporter would do it, or do you have, for example, Yasemin, a Turkish angle that you are obliged to cover almost on a daily basis?
MS. CONGAR: I would say both. I mean, it's such a major story that you have to cover the big picture: whatever, you know, New York Times, or CNN is covering on a day-to-day basis; you know, questions like, I don't know, is there going to be an international peace force, for example, or is there going to be a second front, let's say, in Iraq. These are major questions which we all deal with.
Then, of course, there is a Turkish angle, especially for the newspaper, less for the TV. For the newspaper, they like the stories where they can see themselves in more and more. For example, if it is anything to do with Iraq, then it's a more important story than, say, Americans being killed in Afghanistan today. So there is always the national angle. But, I mean, this is one of the stories covering which is more international, if you will, for us. I mean, in other stories, on a day-to-day basis in Washington covering Washington, almost every story I write has a Turkish angle to it, almost every story. But since September 11th, I find myself writing more and more about international events, and American concerns, even if it didn't have anything to do with Turkey or Turks.
MR. KALB: Andrei, the Russian government angle, I mean, for example, when President Putin was here, that was your focus, was it not, not the war?
MR. SITOV: Obviously. That was the biggest event of the year for us. And, as for the war itself, I would say we are a news agency. We have to cover hard news. That's what we do. And we do cover everything, including the sources that Yasemin just mentioned. We do try to find Russian angles in all those stories. And I personally also always pay attention to a sort of a lesson. Even if a story doesn't really have a direct bearing on Russia, or Russia's role in international politics, I also look for, if you wish, a moral lesson for Russia. If single standards or double standards are employed, or maybe a better example the controversy of whether we call the opposition terrorists or not.
MR. KALB: What do you call them?
MR. SITOV: In Russia, all Chechens who fight the Russian government and who have arms in their hands are automatically labeled terrorists.
MR. KALB: What about the Taliban?
MR. SITOV: And the Taliban, we try to refrain from that, although it's even linguistically sometimes difficult.
MR. KALB: You will, on the Taliban, not call them terrorists, but the Chechen opposition you do?
MR. SITOV: No. We call all of them terrorists. Of necessity, we do not have those restrictions. What I'm trying to say here is that I am trying to show in our reporting that it is not a given, it should not be taken for granted that whoever fights against you is a terrorist. And in that respect, I think the debate which was one of your panels discussed that, I think is a very healthy thing.
MR. HESS: Hafez, you don't have a Qatar angle, or do you, on every-day stories?
MR. AL-MIRAZI: No. It's an Arab angle, an Arab perspective that's the main perspective for Al Jazeera, and especially in this crisis and during this war. Al Jazeera had a unique position in which we had exclusive coverage from Kabul, the only camera and only TV team internationally to be in Kabul and to cover the war. At some points, people mixed the message with the messenger and wanted to shoot?they literally shot the messenger. Our office had been bombed in Kabul by U.S. jets almost during the hours of the Northern Alliance storming into Kabul.
MR. KALB: You believe that was done deliberately?
MR. AL-MIRAZI: Until now we haven't heard deliberately or not deliberately. We keep calling the Central Command every day, they ask us for the address, and then give us the apartment, which house exactly, as if the accurate targeting is really that accurate. Although what we heard today is terrible news about that would really give the justification, that could have happened indeliberately because today three American soldiers have been killed indeliberately, of course.
However, the emphasis for us in the Washington Office was to make the balance as much as possible, to give the American perspective, because we already have the other side of the story. And that really put a lot of pressure on us covering live coverage of most of the major news conferences, live Arabic interpretation.
MR. KALB: Do you run, for example, Secretary Rumsfeld's briefings every day?
MR. AL-MIRAZI: Most of the things, unless we have like a special program that we cannot interrupt, or we feel that the briefing doesn't have something important today, or just a routine one. But during the war, most of it we do that. Even, and sometimes I say that to U.S. networks, when most of the U.S. networks, except CNN, decided not to carry President Bush's speech from Atlanta, Georgia, about two weeks ago, Al Jazeera was covering that, and carrying it live with no taxpayer's money involved. Yet, we have been criticized.
MR. KALB: You have been criticized very strongly as being a strongly anti-American Arab voice.
MR. AL-MIRAZI: Yes.
MR. KALB: Would you argue with that?
MR. AL-MIRAZI: We have always been criticized as being anti-Saudi, anti-Egyptian, anti-anyone who would like to mix criticism aired in any media outlet to a government with the whole country doing a disservice to the news agency and newspaper. We hear the New York Times, the Washington Post, anti-Arabs or anti-Muslims, and all of that we should—I mean, the U.S. media has been accused of that, and the U.S. media should do the same against others. Al Jazeera puts views that people hold the views against the policies of the U.S. government as well as we invite U.S. government officials to talk and to give their side of the story.
MR. KALB: Okay.
MR. SITOV: If I can interject here, I think this whole notion that was basically introduced by President Bush of stating you are with us or you are against us is too black and white. You cannot do it like this. It's a Bolshevist notion that was used by Trotskyites, the Communists. And I think it was probably used from antiquity.
MR. KALB: Jose, I want to give you an opportunity to explain from a Mexican point of view how the coverage runs?
MR. CARRENO: Well, basically, I would say that I'm in a very favorable situation, because I'm virtually on the balcony in terms of the war. However, there is a Mexican angle in this whole thing, meaning the consequences of the war themselves, meaning, for instance, what is the impact of this war, this conflict, on the borders, U.S. borders with Mexico, basically, in terms of vigilance, in terms of trade, in terms of immigration, in terms of the people that are already here, illegal aliens, most of them are Mexicans, or at least a big part of them. And what is the effect on the U.S. economy? Mexico is a country that is extremely intertwined with the U.S. economy, so there is a very big impact for us there. So there is something that we have to cover.
MR. KALB: So, again, give me some sense in proportion here, would 50 percent of the coverage of this war relate to Mexico with a Mexican angle?
MR. CARRENO: No, I would not go that far. I think that we have people in Pakistan. We have an assignment in Pakistan, we have myself here. But, I think that it's a variation. There are times where the Mexican-related information has been more open or more displayed than others. But most of the time it has been the war itself, it is a very appealing issue.
MR. KALB: Appealing? It's a big story.
MR. CARRENO: It's a big story.
MR. KALB: Yasemin, how many people does Milliyet have covering the war in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Uzbekistan?
MS. CONGAR: In Afghanistan, we have I think three or four people who are actually working for a news agency that is also owned by the same company, so they are serving the newspaper and some other papers owned by the same company. And, for the TV also we have two and three people in Afghanistan. We have at any time at least two people in Pakistan. They, you know, come back.
MR. KALB: Is that routine or because of the war?
MS. CONGAR: Because of the war.
MR. KALB: What has been for you here in Washington the biggest story within the war coverage that you have covered?
MS. CONGAR: The biggest coverage within the war, it's a hard question because there have been so many major. I think with a Turkish angle, it's the second front. Even from the first day on, it's what's going to be the second target. Because this is the only thing Turkey is so much concerned about. So, it's not happened yet, it's just up in the air, it's just speculative, but I think it's the issue I wrote most about. I wouldn't say it's the most important one, but it's the issue I wrote most about.
MR. KALB: Hafez, for you, what has been the single largest theme in this war?
MR. AL-MIRAZI: I mean, if the war started September 11th, it should be October 7th with the military actions itself, and the airing of the bin Laden tape, at that time, that really—
MR. KALB: By the way, how did you work out that deal to get bin Laden exclusively?
MR. AL-MIRAZI: We had an office in Kabul, and that office had been under, or Kabul was under the control of Taliban, so it was very easy for anyone to deliver a tape to a news station in Kabul.
MR. KALB: So, it went from bin Laden to your office in Kabul?
MR. AL-MIRAZI: Of course, it's layers of people in the middle until they get it to you. And I always ask people, if it had been delivered to our Washington bureau, then you would have come and arrested me. But in Kabul, that's why you were bombing Kabul, because those people can deliver tapes like that to a TV station.
MR. KALB: What was the last one you had?
MR. AL-MIRAZI: The last one was, I believe, November 1st, in which we waited for a representative from the U.S. government with a statement from the White House to read in Arabic. Ambassador Christopher Ross, and he did a rebuttal live immediately after that tape was aired.
MR. KALB: Why nothing since then?
MR. AL-MIRAZI: Well, ask the Central Command.
MR. KALB: You think that's the reason?
MR. AL-MIRAZI: I mean, first of all, as I told you, in Kabul we lost our office in Kabul, and even our satellite over there. We relied on CNN for a while. But then, nobody knew where is bin Laden, or where is al Qaeda.
MR. KALB: Jose, what has been the biggest story that you've covered in this war?
MR. CARRENO: I think the beginning of the bombing itself, all the rest of the stories sort of pale next to it. The other side is that many of the consequences that I was talking about are still very much in the air. So there is not a definitive issue in terms of immigration or trade, it's very, very much still going on, a developing story.
MR. KALB: Is your reporting a front-page story every day?
MR. CARRENO: It has been for about two months and a half now.
MR. KALB: The same for Milliyet, I would imagine?
MS. CONGAR: It has been for at least 45 days after September 11th, and now it depends on the story.
MR. KALB: And for ITAR, is this the largest story, or do they have something bigger?
MR. SITOV: It is definitely one of the largest. It's not the largest. Obviously, the big story for us is the Russian angle in this story, the Russian participation, the Russian willingness to be partners, the Russian willingness to support the American advances to the Central Asian countries and to station troops there. And the Central Asian angle in general.
In recent days, the biggest story was probably the introduction of the Russian presence in Kabul. Again, although it's the emergency ministry's personnel rather than the military.
MR. HESS: Many years ago, it would have been very unusual or rare for you to talk on the international telephone to your office, it was expensive, cables were as well. Now, of course, with the technology, with your e-mail and others, tell us about your relationship to your home office, how is it different? Are they telling you what they want, are you arguing with them about the angle? Yasemin, what's going on between you and Istanbul?
MS. CONGAR: I would say the biggest difference, this doesn't have anything to do with the war necessarily, but the biggest difference is the Internet. Now that my editor in Istanbul reads New York Times before I do, or reads all kinds of Internet sites, web sites, and sees all these, I don't know, sometimes really weird stories which I have never heard of. Here you are sitting in Washington watching all the TVs and talking to all your sources and you don't hear that. And then they find this little story somewhere buried in there and say, you know, this is happening, are you aware? And it's what are you talking about? So I mean it's really so much more interactive.
In a way it's very advantageous, of course, and they are so much aware. But, sometimes there is such an imbalanced view that they get from what they get from just Internet, from certain web sites, and like, I don't know, the Drudge Report or something, and they think it is the fact. It just sounds perfect, and let's do something on it. And then it's really difficult for us to talk against it and to just try to prove that this is not the case, and so and so said this, so and so said this. And it's a livelier discussion.
MR. HESS: I see a lot of heads shaking, agree.
MR. CARRENO: CNN effect, again.
MR. HESS: It's the CNN effect.
MR. CARRENO: It is my managing editor and the international editor of the newspaper have CNN all the time on their TV sets. So they see CNN, they see something developing on CNN, and okay, it's what do you have on that. That is the fact. And they also have the New York Times, we also have all these stories. But, I'm all the time under pressure to try to come up with the stories that are either developing, or sometimes I have no access at all.
MR. SITOV: Absolutely the same, Yasemin mentioned a very important fact for us has been, based in Europe, is the time difference. We do not have any deadlines, being a news service, so the Moscow head office carries on during the night here while we are away. And it works out. I would say, again agreeing with what Jose has just said, we try to find some additional angles that are inaccessible to them in Moscow, and to probably show how this, again, influences Russia or reflects on Russia, or gets some additional importance for the Russian audience.
MR. AL-MIRAZI: When you have to decide on interrupting regular programming to carry a news conference, for example, live or something like that, there are decisions to be taken. Usually it should be taken by the home office, by the headquarters or the editor-in-chief. But, in this case, they would rely more on us in Washington to decide, yes, interrupt your program and carry that, or don't carry that, there's not much you should expect from that news conference. And that would put more burden on your judgment, that you decided from Washington to interrupt an important show over there, or a talk show, that may create some sensitivities with the host of the show, or someone that you decided. And then you sit and watch the news conference with your fingers crossed, hoping that something major has to be in it, because someone else will come and say, why did you decide to carry it. So more responsibility first.
And then, as I'm saying, the American angle. Sometimes even you take the risk of sounding like an American mouthpiece, just because you feel that there is someone already did the other side of the story. So you feel that for the balance for the whole station you need to do it this way, or to get a guest that just because you feel that that guest is giving the extreme balance. Although, in normal circumstances you wouldn't bring that guest to give the American story, you would get someone in the middle.
MR. HESS: Now, all of you are quite experienced in the United States, and that's why we asked you particularly. You've seen the country. You have some notion of the American character. Do you find it differs a great deal from how your editors and consumers see the American character, and are you working against that? Again, start with Andrei.
MR. SITOV: Sure. It's my personal feeling, everything I've said here actually is my personal feeling, there is this great myth that Americans and Russians are very much alike. And I do not agree with that at all. And the biggest difference that I see, and the biggest change that is happening in my country ever since the fall of the Soviet Union is this mental shift in the attitude of my countrymen towards something closer resembling the American model, and that is reliance on oneself, the secession of reliance on the paternalistic state. This is why actually it's much better to deal with a Republican administration than a Democratic one, because it's ideologically closer to that model. It's just an aside here. But, I do believe this is of unbelievable importance for the Russian people, to finally make people free in their own minds, in their own hearts. And that is why I resent so awfully political games with these processes.
MR. CARRENO: I would say that both the Mexican society and American society are two societies that are bent to ignore each other. So I do not claim that Mexicans understand even minimally what the American psyche is. We have had for too many years this image of—even if you want to say, an imperial American. And this is something that is an image that remains with us, and has been for some time yet. The country is starting to know the United States, in this case, but I do not think that the old images have disappeared at all.
MS. CONGAR: To respond to your question on a more current basis, I think this war and everything that's happened since September 11th has taught me, at least, that there is so much anti-American bias, and so much anti-American cynicism in Turkey. I mean, on paper Turkey is a NATO country, we're very good allies, there's so much cooperation in every field. And actually the country itself, the way of life itself, although it's very different economically from here, but the family, importance of family—on a day-to-day basis many things are very common I find between Turkish society and American society, many things are common. But, there are very strong, very intrinsic negative feelings about America and Americans in general. And at the time when sympathy for Americans should be at the highest, since September 11th, I have seen that there is so much questioning, so much cynicism, so much bias. And it's something I have to work against.
MR. AL-MIRAZI: For me I don't understand quite well the question about American values, what do you mean by that? Although, for example, I would make an effort in order to put President Bush's statement or characterization of the war as a crusade, and I would try to put that into the American perspective in saying that he's using the word it means an all out effort, it does not have anything to do with the historical crusades. And yet, I mean, you would also have to qualify that and say, for the balance, that unfortunately the American media would pick up a statement like, for example, for Arafat, when he would use the word jihad, and also do the same mistake that we do when Bush uses the word crusade for an Arab official or Arab leader to use the word jihad it doesn't have the same meaning, or political load that it would have with the audience. Jihad is the same exact translation of crusade. It's an all out effort, it doesn't have to have any violence in it, or a crusade or a fight between two religions, or anything.
These are the things that at times you feel that you would like to put it into context so people would not just snatch the word and play with it. But, in the meantime you find difficulty in explaining the American media in trying to caution people not to judge what the U.S. government sometimes does or does not do by what the media put out, that there is no media control.
However, the media itself is pro-establishment. The media does not question the government in foreign policy. Even the Congress does not question the government in the U.S. in foreign policy. That doesn't mean that the government wants the media to put that out, it just that it happened that both of them are taking the same position.
MR. KALB: I would probably argue that a lot of people in government don't think that they're getting a fair shake all the way around. But, that's a separate issue. I wanted to tighten Steve's question a bit on a focus having to do with journalism, and sort of as a preliminary just tell you the following story.
Research that we have done at the Shorenstein Center at the time that the U.S. moved into Panama in 1989, we had someone explore the American press version of the American movement in Panama, what the American press did, what the Mexican press did, what the Spanish press did, and what the German press did. And what we found, I must say much to my astonishment, was four different stories about what I took to be one story, which was the Americans moved force into Panama.
When you pick up the New York Times in the morning, or the Post, or you watch CNN, do you feel that you are getting just an American view of an event? If that is the case, how would you describe that, because apparently you would think that different from what it is that you're describing when you're talking about the same issue. What do you think, Yasemin?
MS. CONGAR: Again, yes and no. Of course it's an American view, especially with the example you have given. I think the New York Times and Washington Post are really good newspapers, so in a way they tell—even in this instance they still manage to be critical and to be distant, if you will, and to be objective in my own personal view. So it's not necessarily it's what the Bush administration is saying is given to me in that paper. So I don't feel that necessarily. But it is an American angle, of course, and being a Washington correspondent, I feel my job is to reflect that American angle, not necessarily to write from a Turkish angle. I mean, being a Turk, and having all the Turkish background, of course I bring it somehow into my columns or my stories even sometimes. But, usually I try to reflect, okay, the American media is saying this, American officials are saying that, and American commentators have been saying that. And I don't know, former Clinton administration officials are saying that. So my aim is usually to arrive at a balanced representation of what the American view is, not only the Bush administration, not only the Congress, and not only the media, but overall the opinion makers in Washington in general.
MR. KALB: And, Andrei, when you also look at the papers, watch television, one thing or another, does the vision created by the American press conform to your understanding of what's happening?
MR. SITOV: Again, I agree on the high degree of professionalism of the American press. At the same time, I do believe this is an American point of view. I stand for a variety of points of view, as many as possible, that's why the Soviet Union collapse was probably good, because there are 15 different points of view instead of one old one. And in terms of looking at the American press, I work at a news agency, and we cover news. At most what I do is something akin to Hafez has just told us, maybe just explain what an American means when he says something, if it needs such context.
Other than that, an interesting observation that occurred to me was that we do have hardcore ideological stereotypes, both in my country about America, and in America about my country. In Russia it is mostly the communist press that keeps saying that Americans are to be suspected in everything, Americans basically have evil intentions. Here, interestingly, it's more the liberal press, and I don't know why. Maybe it's because they're—
MR. KALB: What's the liberal press?
MR. SITOV: The Washington Post, for example. I would say the Washington Post is worse in that respect, in terms of sticking onto the old stereotypes than a conservative paper like the Wall Street Journal. And I think there are some reasons, both practical reasons in terms of the political situation here, but also the ideological reason that I referred to. Maybe it's just that the whole mindset of a certain group of people, of certain liberal idealists, if you wish, do-gooders, is slightly different from the pragmatic and conservative viewpoint.
MR. KALB: Jose, the American press presenting the story of this war daily, hourly, minute-to-minute basis, does it conform—I'm asking the same question, I admit—to your understanding of what is actually happening, or are you getting some—is something close to propaganda being put out in your view, or is it pretty much the truth about what's happening as you yourself see it?
MR. CARRENO: That is a hell of a question. The point here is, okay, the United States is part of the conflict, and for the first time ever has been the object of terrorist hate in its own land. So there is a very emotional side to it, no matter what country we're talking about. The American press presents the American view of things; I mean, if you want to see American propaganda, go to the briefings, and you will see what is real propaganda. No matter how truthful they are, there is a huge bias there. Of course there is some bias, I believe there is some bias, but I think there is a bias that we can get rid of, and get closer to what would be the truth, or a truth, if you want to put it that way.
I do believe also that the American press has done a very good job in this sense, at least. It has been the American press, the one that has made up a ruckus in terms of civil rights, that has been airing the proposals to use torture as a method of information, the one that has aired the problems of the inaccuracy of bombs in the bombing of Afghanistan. So I think that they have made a good job. Is there a built-in bias? Yes, there is a built-in bias, absolutely. You have to account for it, we have to realize that there is no way to avoid it. But, once you are aware that there is a bias, you can discount it, and work with what is left.
MR. KALB: Hafez, do you have a personal view? I mean, you are a professional, but you're also a person. And you come out of a certain background, you've worked in Cairo for the Voice of America, and now Al Jazeera. This is a war described as a war against terrorism, do you see that as a justifiable cause, something that you personally would support?
MR. AL-MIRAZI: It's a justifiable cause, of course, when you fight terrorists, it is justifiable, although the term terrorist is a political term, it's not a legal term. This is the problem, and it is not only for myself, if I would like to distance myself from the audience that I'm writing to, or working for. The mixing of political opponents or adversaries with terrorists is one of the problems in this war. If you are saying, I am after the perpetrators of September 11th, you would find only fanatics, or people who really deserve justice by saying no, you are wrong, 99 percent worldwide, not just in the Arab world, would tell you yes. But, if you say I am against terrorists, then you divide the world into two groups, the infidels and the believers, the terrorists and the non-terrorists, with us or against us. That's not the mentality that you should expect the people to rally behind a flag, or rally with you around it.
This is the main problem that what started as a just cause, as bringing justice for the victims of September 11th has started to gain more momentum and political agendas, and foreign agenda, and then when President Bush is asked, how about Iraq, he says, this is only phase one. How about Somalia? Phase one. Philippines? Phase one. What do you mean? Are you going to use September 11th to continue for your next four or eight years wars as phase two, phase three, and Hafez, or Marvin, or anyone here in this room would give the okay for it, just because of September 11th? This is a problem. But, if you are after the creators of September 11th, no one should say anything but yes, go and get them.
MR. KALB: Now, to be clear, do you put into that category the al Qaeda and the Taliban?
MR. AL-MIRAZI: Al Qaeda, if they did it, you should go after them. First, you have to distinguish between al Qaeda and Taliban. The president did the same at the beginning, he gave them one month to deliver al Qaeda people. If you have evidence against al Qaeda, I didn't see that evidence, I don't think that you saw that evidence that is beyond a doubt as if you were in a jury in a court of law.
MR. KALB: So in your mind you're not clear whether al Qaeda is responsible for the September 11th attacks?
MR. AL-MIRAZI: On the personal level I am sure that al Qaeda is taking credit of many other terrorist attacks before that one. But, if we're talking about September 11th, I am not sure if they did it or not. But they brag about many other things, in the Muslim world, in the Arab world, in other places in the world. So we're not going to say, are they terrorists or not. They are.
MR. HESS: Before we turn to our audience, because there are so many people out there who should make comments, or have questions, I want to ask just a final question, if you will, of a group of very experienced reporters, to say a little about being a foreign correspondent in the United States. What are your opportunities, what are your constraints, what's your access, what's your problems of filing or otherwise? How does this rate as a beat, what are the frustrations of working here, what are the pleasures?
Do you want to start, Andrei?
MR. SITOV: It's the talk of the world. It's the best beat. And I feel it is a personal and professional privilege to work here. As Marvin mentioned, I started my American work in New York, and coming to Washington was a very big cultural shock. Bureaucracies, as I learned, are the same the world over. The American bureaucracy is probably similar to the Soviet one. I did encounter some of that in terms of access. I did have people reluctant to talk to me, probably for no other reason than I was Russian. But, I also met some wonderful people, made some very good friends, and I should take this opportunity to really thank Peter and Jeff and all the people here in this office who do I think a wonderful job in helping us foreign journalists here.
Another last point that I wanted to make, I think after the events of September 11th, the government has started to realize the importance of talking to the international audience directly. And one of the changes that we are all seeing is that people from the State Department, people from the Treasury, people from the White House are coming regularly here, and talking to us. We appreciate that. We think it's very good for them, and it's certainly very good for us.
MR. CARRENO: To be in Washington is like to be a mosquito in a nudist camp. You know what to do, but not where to begin. There's such a wealth of information that you really can get lost trying to do it. There is so much information you're lacking eyes and hands to do everything, so you have to be very narrow. And in that sense I would say that I feel sometimes like if I were a reporter from a Texan newspaper dedicated to what basically is the Texas, or in this case Mexican, side of the story. So you have to narrow yourself, otherwise you get lost.
MS. CONGAR: I should add two things. First of all, of course, at least for the company I represent, we have a Washington office, we have a New York office, but we don't have offices all around the country. And this is such a big country to cover, and there are so many stories, it's really overwhelming at times. And it's not fair to America to have only Washington and New York correspondents, and no one in, let's say, San Francisco, for example, or Chicago.
On the part of your question about the access, I would say actually this is a very welcoming, if you will, capital for foreign journalists. I've been here for almost seven years now, and I've worked in other capitals, Western European capitals, and Middle Eastern capitals, and believe me, although I agree with Andrei that there is bureaucracy in this town, believe me, I have seen worse, including the Turkish capital itself. It's still easier to get by, still easier to have access to people. If you have a question they will try to answer it somehow. I mean, it may take time, but they will return your calls. I feel personally very welcome since the first day on.
MR. AL-MIRAZI: For me, as Jose mentioned, the problem is not the lack of information, but the flood of information, that you need to figure out what is really of substance that you need to put out in the report of three minutes, or an interview of three or four minutes. That's the first challenge.
The second one is that if you work for an Arab media, and you know that some of your colleagues in other capitals—that they might step over the line, and they might go to jail for whatever they say in criticizing the government that they are in. You feel privileged that you are in Washington. You can say whatever you want. Though, in the meantime you try not to take advantage of that, to feel yourself the responsibility that because you can say whatever you want, it does not mean that you would make that a scapegoat for yourself everything the U.S. government did. But in the meantime, to be responsible as a credible journalist.
MR. KALB: We're open to questions. Brief question, please give us your name and association.
Q: Al Millikan, Washington Independent Writers. Do you have a policy you have to abide by when it comes to describe a suicide bombing which results in significant destruction and death? Do you describe this in political, religious or criminal terms? Do you call this murder, an act of terrorism, an act of martyrdom? Does it matter where it's taking place as to how it may be defined or described?
MR. KALB: Okay, is that addressed to any one journalist?
MR. MILLIKAN: I'd be interested in everyone's—
MR. KALB: In everybody's opinion.
MR. MILLIKAN: I mean, even if it would take place, god forbid, in Washington in the near future.
MR. KALB: Okay. Thank you.
Andrei, you want to start?
MR. SITOV: We don't have a policy like that. Again, for me personally the biggest challenge here, the biggest criterion is that a single standard be applied to such cases everywhere. Terrorists are terrorists everywhere; that's what the Russians have been saying for years now.
MR. KALB: Yasemin?
MS. CONGAR: We don't have a policy either. And personally for me the definition of terrorism is very easy. I mean, whenever civilians are attacked for any purpose that is terrorism, so I don't really buy this difference between freedom fighters and terrorists. I mean, if it is against civilians first and foremost it's a terrorist attack.
MR. KALB: Jose?
MR. CARRENO: There is no policy about that; however, a terrorist is a terrorist wherever.
MR. KALB: Hafez.
MR. AL-MIRAZI: I try to avoid the whole term, as I believe Reuters do quotation marks in terrorist, because it's a controversial term. However, if we are talking about September 11th all the Arab media, for example, agreed this is a terrorist act. But there is a debate now because of what's going on between the Palestinians and the Israelis in the Arab media. And people say that for the Western media when Palestinians kill Israeli civilians they are terrorists, when Israelis kill Palestinian civilians they are called soldiers. So really the best way, if you cannot call an Israeli a terrorist who are killing civilians, Palestinian civilians, or innocent children, then you'd better not call the Palestinians terrorists, unless you can use the same term for both, or try to quote the other, saying, what the Americans call, what the Israelis call, and just attribute that, and stay from the controversial—
MR. KALB: Hafez, do you factor into that intent? In other words, does the action—was it intended to kill civilians, or was it an accident that civilians were killed? Does that factor into your definition?
MR. AL-MIRAZI: When you bomb cities like in the West Bank, I don't think what you expect to kill, even policemen, when people bombed the Pentagon, do we consider because they are military people are civilians, or military—or it is not a terrorist act? I think that when it happens under occupation, the struggle and the violence takes a different angle. That happened during the War of Independence in the American history, and with many other nations.
MR. KALB: Okay. Thanks very much.
You had a question.
Q: My name is Adu-Asare, I'm a reporter a web site publication on African news and events. I would like to know, on the side of the responses you receive form the readers, whether proximity to the war, as your countries are, of course except Mexico, does that matter in the responses in general? Because what I find is that, of course, there's the CNN affect in Africa, but what I find from the responses I receive is that the Africans take the war quite lightly. They lack the front part of it, seeing somebody being bombed or whatever. When it happened in Iraq, I went to Ghana and saw they were buying toys made of Saddam Hussein when he fired the bombs—the SCUD missiles that did not explode, that was fun for them. Is proximity part of—in the whole process of localization of the news?
MR. KALB: Interesting question. Jose, would you like to try that, you're the closest.
MR. CARRENO: He said closest proximity to the war. But, I do believe that there is a very ideological side of it. If you are anti-American, as it happens in many cases in many Latin American countries, some sectors in the population, you will find people that will proclaim themselves, we are all Osama bin Laden. That has happened the same in Brazil, in Mexico, and even in France at this point. But, that is an ideological view against the United States.
Now, the fact is also that we have had some people who died in the towers, and that has informed in a way the Mexican response to it. However, at the same time we have had a very long story of friction with the United States, and that this is another component of the answer. So there is not a clear answer. But, it is a very mixed bag of different things.
MR. KALB: Yasemin, Turkey, a member of NATO, a Muslim country, right smack in the middle.
MS. CONGAR: Yes, but proximity plays a role, a very big role. As I said, although the story in Afghanistan is a very major story in Turkey, if there is a war in Iraq again it's going to be a much bigger story. The closer it gets to home, the bigger the story gets, the more real the story gets for readers. It's interesting, because the story itself—a war in Iraq, of course, Turkey will be more involved, and there will be a Turkish angle and everything. So it will be more real, like the war in Kosovo, for example, in Bosnia, I feel that they were more real for the Turkish audience, they understood it more, and they were interested in it more, because there is some ethnic ties, and we have so many immigrants from those countries. So that really factors in.
As for Afghanistan for us, it's a very remote country. The language is totally different. The culture is to a certain extent different. Although, there is the same religion, we're a Muslim country, as well. Still, it's far out there. But, if it happens in our own region, in the Balkans or in the Gulf, then it's much more real.
MR. KALB: Yes, please. Wait for the microphone.
Q: My question is on Al Jazeera television, because they're doing this war, or before even the war started against terrorism in Afghanistan or on Osama bin Laden, he was sending his messages, what was called to be message of hatred against humanity through only the channel Al Jazeera. Now, my question is, don't you think that President Bush should put Al Jazeera also on the same line what he is putting terrorist groups, because of their involvement? Some people are calling that Al Jazeera was involved with Osama bin Laden directly.
MR. HESS: May I interrupt, for you and for other questioners, this is a program basically on the role of the press, as such, not on American policy, or what you think the president should do, or what you think should be decided?I mean, direct the question at the—
Q: I mean, how they covered this, the press, and how are they responsible for anything, and how they should have covered in the U.S. And my question is directed on their response as far as press coverage is concerned for them, war against terrorism, or war against Osama bin Laden, or al Qaeda.
MR. AL-MIRAZI: If I may respond, I think if the—
Q: Are you responsible for anything, or did you cover this war as a responsible media person, or media television?
MR. AL-MIRAZI: More responsible than your question.
MR. KALB: There is an underlying message here which has to do with some kind of division between your professional side and your personal bias, perhaps, and how you reconcile one with the other. Is that essentially what you were getting at?
Q: Yes.
MR. KALB: It seemed to me that that is one aspect at least that—
Q: (Off mike)—it would be good for him to explain the—
MR. KALB: But, if you were here earlier I think that Hafez did make an effort to separate both the professional response and the personal one. And I accepted that answer.
MR. AL-MIRAZI: I'm sorry, also, had you asked the question like explain to me that. But, if you are asking the American government to put Al Jazeera on the list of terrorist organizations, you should direct that question to the White House, and I think you will find—
Q: No, I'm not making that statement. This is from—not from me, but I await your response only.
MR. KALB: Thank you very much.
Q: But you have been ignoring everybody on this question. But that's not important.
MR. KALB: That's very much for the question.
I did see a hand in the back, yes.
Q: Yes, Thomas Gorguissian, Al-Wafd of Egypt. First of all, I want to thank all my colleagues and friends, because coming from different countries and different languages, at least four languages, they spoke English and they say something different in English from what we heard indeed everyday, although it's English. My question regarding Andrei and Hafez, in your work do you get the sense of the perception, or the assumption that you are an old enemy in the case of Andrei, and a new enemy in the case of Hafez? And I have a question, if you'll allow me a question to Marvin, in the six weeks or seven weeks or let's say after the 11th, there is a whole coverage or interest to understand the world, I assume that. Do you feel now that through your reading mainly in the New York Times, and Washington Post, and watching CNN, the real questions were asked, or still are we missing things to know about the rest of the world?
MR. KALB: Those are all very good questions. Why don't we start with the one directed at Andre and Hafez. You partly answered it earlier.
MR. SITOV: Right. Thomas, a good point. I don't feel that. Frankly, I don't feel that. What I feel on the part of the Americans is a sincere inability sometimes to see the world any other way than the American way. They seem to not understand how people have different viewpoints, it's so clear to them.
And another point I want to make, but it's not necessarily seeing you as the enemy, it's just that maybe if you are big and powerful you can disregard other people's opinions. We come back to the central issue of standards, and fairness, and judgment.
And another issue I think this question of yours touches on is the responsibility of journalists, because we know that here my impression is very many people believe what they hear on television, and what they read in the newspapers, and that puts a greater onus on us to try and report things straight.
MR. KALB: Hafez, the new enemy?
MR. AL-MIRAZI: The new enemy. Well, I believe it's a very valid question because until now I believe the application for a visit to the U.S. for an entity, you are still asked have you ever joined the Communist Party, and I believe the question should be now modified, an Islamist Party or something like that, because that's really perceived as the new enemy. The rhetoric from the administration is very clear, we are not against Arabs and Muslims.
However, during the last month at least with the new legislation, the U.S. Patriot Act, the talk about tribunals, the detainees, and also the limit on the visa, 25-days-requirement delay for Arab male, Arab Muslim males from age of 18 until 35, including the editor-in-chief of my station who was supposed to be tomorrow in New York for a conference sponsored by the U.N., and they had to replace him, because he found out when he applied to the American embassy that as Arab Muslim in the age of 18 to 35 he has to wait an additional 20 extra days for security reasons. All of that hopefully is just temporary, and because of what happened on September 11th, which would justify any temporary security measures. But we hope this is not the trend. It will be very difficult for the government to sponsor officially discriminatory policies and ask the people not to discriminate.
So far we are still in the mix. Everybody is worried about that. There is a feeling among the community, Americans, Muslim Americans, and also overseas that we might become the new enemy. But so far nobody knows whether it is just because of the war or it's going to last.
MR. KALB: Your question toward me, I'd like to be very brief. With respect to the media, with respect to coverage of this war, my own feeling is that the American press has done a quite responsible job, certainly at the very beginning, and it gets a bit more complex now, and therefore the coverage becomes a bit more problematic. But overall, I give them high marks.
There is, at the same time, a feeling among many American reporters that they have rediscovered the world, that foreign correspondents are again going to be very fashionable in the American press corps. I'm not sure that that is correct. I have a feeling at the moment, anyway, that American journalism is focusing on this war, which happens to be in a foreign country, but I don't think that they have yet persuaded themselves that they have to go back 20 years ago and get to the point where there really were foreign correspondents, and many American foreign bureaus all over the world. It could be that the absence of a foreign bureau in the last 10 years, for the most part, contributed to the ignorance of the American people about many of the things that have been happening over the last couple of months. There should have been more knowledge than there was.
MR. HESS: And this follows on the discussion we had last week, particularly if you notice Michael Gentler's column as the ombudsman in the Washington Post on Sunday, who played on this. In other words, the polling data shows that there's a great deal more interest, obviously, among the American people in the rest of the world at this moment. What is the durability of that interest? Will it go down as it did in the Gulf War immediately afterwards, or if the president can convince the nation that this is a protracted question would it continue? If there's the interest we can assume, since our press is a commercial enterprise, that it will respond in some way to that, although it's very expensive. But, at this moment it's still a very big question mark, and Marvin and I tend to be in the skeptical end.
MR. KALB: Bernard Kalb, I know him.
Q: I'd like to address a question to Hafez, please, if he would share with us what's it like, this journalistic journey you've made from the Voice of America to Al Jazeera. What's it like when you have to look at the same fact through two different lenses, one point of view at one time, one point of view that you currently have. I think that it's an interesting journey, and I would be interested to see what it feels like to shift vocabularies, perceptions, points of view, et cetera.
MR. AL-MIRAZI: It is not a journey, I started with the voice of the Arabs, Cairo Radio in 1980, then joined the Voice of America in late '83. What I found in the Voice of America is not different that much from what I am doing in Al Jazeera right now. And when I left the Voice of America for BBC, and then BBC for Al Jazeera, I was looking to enlarge or expand the margin of freedom of what I could say, or the news that I would see. When I left Cairo Radio, for example, I felt that I had some kind of censorship that even criticism against the U.S. government when the Egyptian-U.S. relations were really very close, Sadat and at that time I believe President Reagan.
And then when I came to the States to read the first newscast of the Voice of America, I was reading news criticizing Reagan and considering him a cowboy, and all of that stuff. Things that I couldn't read even in Cairo Radio. And that was a very nice experience for me to feel, although, you'll find at the end the spin—meanwhile, or by the way—Qaddafi is accused of murdering hundreds of people.
I was covering the same things. I don't see there is any shift. Maybe there is a perception about Voice of America to be like a propaganda, and putting the government point of view, and I have to admit that, no, Voice of America is not that. During the crisis, there will be some crackdown on the Voice of America language services, as happened also with the Pashtun service during this crisis, that they since the interview with Mullah Omar, there would be some crackdown on people not to interview certain people whatsoever. And then, when we have problems, myself, I had a problem with my editors, when they wanted to apply this kind of crackdown because I insisted on covering both sides of the story. That's what I did in the Voice of America. I interviewed Salmon Rushdie, I interviewed Sheik Omar, I interviewed many people who are controversial, including President George Bush before he became even Governor of Texas, that was in New Orleans in 1988 in the Republican Convention. Al Jazeera is doing the same.
However, the Voice of America, you're trying to do it as an international broadcasters, and this is the Voice of America. Al Jazeera, you feel that there is an Arab perspective in it. In the Voice of America, I would try to make the balance because the central newscast coming from the news room in the Voice of America has the American perspective already in it. So I feel with the Arab service, I need to put some Arabness to it. On the contrary, for Al Jazeera, do the opposite. The main newsroom is already giving the Arab perspective, so I try to give the American perspective to it. So the irony of that, when I was with the Voice of America, I would try to sound more Arab, and when I am with Al Jazeera, I'm trying to sound more American, just to keep the balance.
MR. KALB: Thank you. In the back, yes, please.
Q: I'm Patricia Paez for the Philippine Embassy. Earlier Mr. Hafez Al-Mirazi mentioned the Philippines in the same breath as Iraq and Somalia. I just wish to clarify, especially for those who know little or nothing at all about the Philippines, that our country does not harbor nor coddle terrorists. President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo was the first Asian leader to support the U.S.-led international coalition against terrorism in both words and deeds, specifically by providing the use of former U.S. military bases there, and other facilities, as transit staging, refueling, and logistic supply points for American air strikes.
Thank you.
MR. KALB: Thank you.
MR. AL-MIRAZI: Just to clarify, in the case of the Philippines, there is the talk now about the Muslim rebels in the Philippines, and in this case the U.S. government would be a partner with the Philippine government against those Muslim rebels.
MR. KALB: Okay. You had a question.
Q: Thank you, sir. My name is Ben Bangora (sp), the Washington correspondent for Kinae (sp) News. I was wondering how does this campaign against terrorism interpreted by different countries since the U.S. government has never given the proof as to what al Qaeda or bin Laden was, indeed, responsible for the bombing of September 11th, how does this play down in your own report?
MR. KALB: Do you want to start that, Andrei?
MR. SITOV: I was thinking of how it plays in my country, and then if it narrows down to my reporting, it probably doesn't narrow it or influence that in any way. The country—unfortunately, the country accepts the premise that whoever the government fights is a terrorist. So they are not looking for that sort of proof that you are mentioning. Of course, in historical perspective, it is very important to evaluate our past and things like—even the recent past, things like Kosovo, and what happened in Yugoslavia, and draw lessons from that. But I really don't know the answer.
MR. KALB: Jose?
MR. CARRENO: We have no answer to that in the sense that while it is clear that the American government hasn't presented openly its case against Al-Qaeda and bin Laden, the reality is also that bin Laden at least seems to self-incriminate himself after the fact in the statements to a number of media, including Al Jazeera. So, there's a reality, no matter how legal, there is a reality in the sense that there is a war being held now.
Having said that, there is a lot of people in Mexico, at least, that out of ideology is opposed to the war on the grounds of being anti-American, not so much on the grounds of anything else, but just for being anti-American. Other than that, I believe that most of the people have a very clear idea it's against terrorism, and what it is.
Now, the other side is that a lot of the people do not favor war itself against Afghanistan.
MR. KALB: Yasemin?
MS. CONGAR: That's an interesting question. Turkey being a NATO country was given some kind of proof in Brussels and the Turkish government accepted that as good proof, as proof enough. But the fact that the Bush administration did not make a public case against Osama bin Laden, and did not make any proof public I think has contributed to the cynicism which I referred before, to the cynicism of the audience and readers, and there are still very many people in Turkey. I know I get e-mails every day that they believe or maybe this attack was planned by CIA, how do we know. You know, it's just a made up case. They just wanted to bomb Afghanistan. So, I mean, there is really a very strong sense of cynicism and disbelief among the readers.
MR. KALB: Hafez, this is an easy one.
MR. AL-MIRAZI: Nothing to add more than what Yasemin said, yes.
MR. KALB: I think we should move on. There are other people.
Please.
Q: Emad Al-Hafaji (sp), Tunisia TV. Question for Hafez and the other colleagues. You said, being in D.C., in Washington, D.C., you feel that you can say whatever you want. After September 11th, and after labeling people terrorist or anti-terrorist, do you still feel that you can say whatever you want?
MR. AL-MIRAZI: It depends on what exactly I would like to say. Well, there is an unfortunate accident that happened with one of our colleagues at the office, and my colleague Mohammed Allami (sp) is a correspondent with Al Jazeera in the same bureau here in Washington. He was going to cover the Waco Summit, Russian-American summit, and he was detained or stopped for about two hours for an investigation by the Secret Service and state police, and all of that stuff, and it took us more than two hours actually to clear him in order to rush to the summit, just because of flying from Reagan National to Dulles, and then Dulles to Waco. The car rental agent found that he is using the office credit card, and the business card of the office has the name Al Jazeera on it. And the guy's name is Mohammed. And he is going to the summit. So that was enough for her to call the FBI and say that has Al Jazeera something related to Afghanistan? That's what she said, it's just Al Jazeera, the name of the company, on it. And, that really, of course, you feel that maybe things are not easy now for you as it used to be.
But I still believe, yes, I would say it, and I don't think that there is a problem. There are so many ways, of course, for the government to get to you, but I don't think this is the problem. I always tell them we are the good guys. Even if you hate Al Jazeera, people in Washington are those who deliver your message and put your point of view through.
I think, yes, in the community there is a sense of intimidation. I feel it during the call-in shows. I have—
MR. KALB: When you say "community" do you mean among journalists?
MR. AL-MIRAZI: No, I meant the Arabs in America. Like in our talk show?I have a Saturday talk show, and we open the phones for people, and I found out that in order to get a more critical U.S. point of view from the audience, we would discuss something controversial, and expect people to be very clear about it, military tribunals, detainees, or things like that. Sometimes we open the phones, only one 800 number to limit it for people in America to give them more of a chance, and we find that the kind of opinion that they express over the phone now is different from the way they used to express it before September 11th. They are more intimidated. And, you would get it from the overseas much more clear than it is in America.
MR. KALB: Andrei, you wanted to say something?
MR. SITOV: Yes. I wanted to give you a small example from my own experience here. For a while I was running a radio show for a Russian language radio station in New York, just news and commentary, and call in. People were calling in with all sorts of questions. One day I was asked whether I knew who started the terrible events in the Middle East, whether it was the Israelis or the Arabs who first started killing the other side. I said, I'm not an expert on that issue, and I don't know anything first hand. But I visited Egypt, I visited Israel. I have a good friend from TASS who works in Israel at this point, and who told me, as far as he knows, because I was interested in that question, told me that probably the first settlers, the Jewish settlers, actually did commit some murders in the Arab settlements.
My very next show was canceled for technical reasons. Nothing was ever said to me. I was never invited back. I did have some regrets, maybe not just a meeting, that experience, nobody forced me to do this. And the reason I'm telling you this now is that in these discussions that Marvin and Steve have before the press, I think we are forgetting an important aspect in the lives of many ordinary journalists, like myself, and that is just the monetary issues, the incomes. If I say something that will lead to me losing a part of my income, I will probably try and refrain from saying that. I'm not a celebrity, I need money to support my family, and I think this is a big issue for all of us. And I think this is the kind of censorship that works in any site under any conditions that we all need to take into account.
MR. KALB: Hang on just a second, did you mean whether journalists feel intimidated post-September 11th, and you were addressing that question, or did you mean people who were not journalists, which is what I think they're responding to? Has anybody on this panel felt intimidated by anyone, and let us know who that is? Who intimidated anybody?
MR. AL-MIRAZI: There are some kind of maybe what you call security issues. For example, a very big clear example, Al Jazeera was supposed to move to another new office, a new place in Rosslyn, where the Freedom Forum is. The building carried the Freedom Forum and the Newseum in it. We negotiated everything, and Freedom Forum would have been subleasing to us. And after September 11th, things have been delayed, and we were told, off the record by the agent, that it is not going to go through. Why? They said because they consider you a security risk for the rest of the neighbors. And I asked people in the board of Freedom Forum to ask, and they have confirmed to me that they say, yes, unfortunately, we cannot accept them, Al Jazeera, to be there because of the security for them. And I wondered that Freedom Forum has a Freedom Park, and the Freedom Park they put the names of journalists who died during their work. So, I told them, what you want us to do is to be killed in the National Press Building, and then you'll put our names later in this building. What kind of a hypocrisy is that?
MR. SITOV: Even that is not assured. They do not have any Soviet journalists in that memorial, and I know because I read the names.
MR. KALB: I don't think that any of this is in direct response to the question. I gather that you're telling me all of this to make your point, and that's fine. But you're not—has anyone intimidated you from saying anything, or reporting anything?
MR. AL-MIRAZI: No. By anyone, what do you mean? The Secret Service?
MR. KALB: I think the implication here is the government, if I'm right. Has anyone in the government, which I don't even see how that would happen, but has anyone done that?
MR. CARRENO: I think what they're talking about is not so much government pressure, but social pressure. And a society can be very censoring if they really are meant to. And the society can be, although it's not my personal experience.
MR. KALB: Has it been yours, Yasemin?
MS. CONGAR: I have never felt intimidated myself, personally, but in the Turkish corps, I have some colleagues who are Islamist, who practice Islam, and I know that whose wives are covered, whose daughters are covered, and I know that those colleagues have felt intimidated by the society. They are here as journalists, but their comfort has gone to a certain extent, if you know what I mean. So they feel the social pressure. But I have never heard anyone intimidated by the government.
MR. KALB: Steve?
MR. HESS: I think that pretty much brings our hour-and-a-half to a conclusion. I was fascinated by our panelists. We chose well, Marvin. I think they were wonderful.
MR. KALB: I think so.
MR. HESS: Let me just tell you about our next week, which will be on Wednesday, but we'll be back at Brookings, we'll be back at our usual time, from 9:30 to 11, and it's going to be a rather unusual program. We are going to have people who are national security policymakers in former administrations, that is people who have been Secretary of Defense, or CIA Directors, or so forth. And they will be asked by us and by the audience how the press entered into their equation, into their thinking, as they did their work. So, please come and join us next week.
I thank our panel very much.
MR. KALB: Thank you very much, all of you, really appreciate it.
(Applause.)