Cll/97/CONF.705/5 Original: English

The European Institute for the Media

Violence and the Media

Background Document

UN/UNESCO European Seminar on Promoting

Independent and Pluralistic Media

Sofia, Bulgaria, 1 O-1 3 September 1997

To facilitate discussion at the European Seminar on Promoting independent and Pluralistic Media, the Paper “Violence and the Media” has been prepared by Dugan Reljic for the European Institute for the Media for the Conference. The author is responsible for the presentation of the facts contained in this report and for the opinions expressed therein which are not necessarily those of the United Nations nor of UNESCO.

By Dusan Reljic

The European institute for the Media

KAISTRASSE 13, D-40221 DUSSELDORF (GERMANY)

Telephone:(49 -211) 90 104-O; Telefax: (49-211) 90 104-56

CII-97KONF.70YCLD.3

Introduction

At least 456 journalists and media staff were killed world-wide in the

decade between 1986 and 1995 as a direct result of their profession,

according to evidence collected by the New York based non-governmental

Committee to Protect Journalists. Algeria, the former Yugoslavia, Colombia,

Tajikistan and the Philippines were the countries identified as presenting the

greatest risks for journalists. In 1995, a record 182 journalists were

imprisoned all over the world, Turkey headed the list with 51 journalists and

editors in jail. In 1995 alone, the Committee collected evidence on more than

700 cases of journalists who were physically attacked, imprisoned,

threatened or censored in retaliation for their work.

The figures for 1996 remain alarmingly high - at least 50 journalists

were killed last year. The International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) in

Brussels states that killings are just the tip of the iceberg of violence against

the media. In December 1996, while presenting the IFJ annual list of

journalists killed, the General Secretary of the organisation Aidan White

pointed out that journalists are also “routinely beaten up, harassed or

intimidated’. “There is a constant danger of serious assault for any reporter

who insists on confronting censorship, corruption and media manipulation”,

he said. Condemning governments who fail to investigate these murders,

White also warned that although many publishers are aware of the risks in

which their journalists perform their work, others ignore their responsibilities.

The IFJ called for an international code of practice among media

professionals to ensure that journalists reporting in situations of tensions and

violence are provided with life insurance, medical assistance, risk-awareness

training and social protection.

Evidently, journalists throughout the world belong to a profession

whose members are exposed to extreme perils if they challenge the powers

that be. At the same time, they are criticised for their part in aggravating

tensions, stirring up conflicts and inciting violence. There is a wide-spread

conviction that irresponsible or propagandist media communication plays a

crucial role in strengthening ethnic, national, religious and other extremism

that leads to conflicts. There is a saying, particularly popular among

journalists who worked in former Yugoslavia, a multi-ethnic state that was

destroyed by ethnic conflicts and civil war: “Everyperson shot by a bullet in a

battle has first been killed by words in the media wars”. However flattering

this statement may appear to journalists and media staff in general in terms

of emphasising their importance, it also makes the dubious assumption that

manipulation by the media is decisive in the political and socio-psychological

process that leads to mass violence. It is certainly true that in modern times

power elite rely on mass media to generate mass political mobilisation.

Nevertheless, the content alone of media communication can hardly be the

principal cause of violence, if there were no real sources of conflict and

disorder. A sober assessment would acknowledge that media communication

plays a central part in the spiral of hate and violence in situations of tension

and conflict. Whether or not this destructive element will discharge into civil

war and armed conflict depends on many other determinants. The

performance of political power elite could be probably described as the most

important factor in creating and solving conflicts.

In any case, the functioning of media in situations of tension, conflict,

and war is under increasing scrutiny both by the general public and the

journalists themselves. “At the end of the 20th century the ability to

manipulate, mobilise and maintain mass media support at both international

and domestic levels is a crucial element in the war-winning capacity of a

political community”- this is the verdict of British experts following an analysis

of the media handling as an integral part of the war strategies adopted by

combatants in the former Yugoslavia.’

On the other hand, there is also enough evidence of pressure against

media professionals, especially in times of conflict and tension, to justify this

judgement: “There is one undeniable conclusion buried in the depressing

accounts of attacks on the press compiled by the Committee to Protect

Journalists: name/y, that anyone can murder a journalist and get away with

it”.’

‘Gow, James and Tisley, James: The Strategic Imperative for Media Management. In: James Gow, Richard Paterson & AIison Preston (eds.): Bosnia bv Television, London, The British Film Institute, 1996, p.103 - 112.

20wen, John: Watch Your back. Media Studv Toumal (New York), ~01.19, no.4, Fall 1996, p.45.

3

This is the reality in spite of the fact that international law and most

national legal codes contain an abundant number of postulates granting the

freedom of expression in general, and in particular the protection of

journalists. It is also a fact that in many cases the media increase the

tensions and conflicts leading to violence despite the existence of many

international and national declarations, ethic codes and rule books on the

professional conduct of journalists, especially when reporting on violence,

ethnicity and race related subjects and similar sensitive issues.

There is an evident gap between the harsh facts of reality and the

ideals that have inspired the formulation of legal norms and professional ethic

codes related to journalism and media. Particularly in Central and Eastern

Europe, a region undergoing momentous political, social and economic

transformation, journalists often encounter violent reprisals from state security

forces, organised crime or political extremists. This can cause frustration and

even contempt for the perceived frailty of attempts to influence, with legal and

moral norms, the dangerous business of reporting on crime, conflict and

violence. Nevertheless, journalists can only benefit if they are thoroughly

acquainted with their rights and duties. It is an established fact - and

journalists are no exception to this - that interest for seemingly abstract legal

and other provisions usually increases when one is already in trouble. Yet

looking for trouble is what investigative journalism is about.

1. The Protection of Press Freedom

Numerous international conventions on human rights guarantee the

freedom of expression as one of the basic preconditions for democracy and

the rule of law.3 Obviously, national and international legal texts are tested

against the facts as soon as conflicts arise and violence looms.

3 This chapter draws on three main sources: - Naughton, Ann (ed.): The Article 19 Freedom of Exnression Manual. International and Comparative Law, Standards and Procedures, London, 1993. - Frederick, Howard: Communication, Peace, and International Law. In Roach, CoIIeen (ed.): Communication and Culture in War and Peace, Sage, London, 1993, p. 216-251. - Bemhardt, Rudolf: The role of public powers vis-ivis the activities of the media in situations of conflict and tension. In: Council of Europe: Pr 1 eedin situations of confhct and tension. Strasbourg, 29 November - 1 December 1993. Strasbourg, 1994.

There is a rising number of freedom of expression complaints to

international bodies such as the UN Human Rights Committee in Geneva or

the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. Journalists and media

organisations are frequently among the applicants requesting external

protective measures after having exhausted domestic remedies. International

legal and political guarantees for the rights of journalists are particularly

important in situations of violence and conflicts - in fact, they may be the only

ones available if the national legal system and public authorities disintegrate

during mass disturbances and civil wars.

l international Freedom of Expression Provisions

The famed Article 19 of the 1948 United Nations Universal

Declaration of Human Rights proclaims:

“Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this

right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek,

receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless

of frontiers. ”

Article 29 of the Declaration qualifies this to a certain extent:

2. In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only

to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of

securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others

and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and general

welfare in a democratic society.

3. These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the

purposes and principles of the United Nations.”

Similarly, the 1966 international Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

sets forth in its Article 19 the right to freedom of opinion, expression and

information for everyone “through any . . . media of his choice”. The limits of

this right are set out in a more precise form noting that restrictions, if

5

introduced, “shall on/y be such as are provided by law and necessary: a) for

respect of the rights or reputations of others,. b)for the protection of national

security or of public order, or of public health or morals.”

More than 120 states have ratified or acceded to the international

Covenant. Article 20 of this Charter states:

‘7. Any propaganda for war shall be prohibited by law.

2. Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes

incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.”

The dissemination of ideas based on racial, ethnic or other superiority

or hatred and the incitement to violence are also forbidden by other

instruments of international law such as the 1966 international Convention on

the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination.

At the same time, there have been attempts to suggest a possible

positive role for the media. For instance, UNESCO’s 1978 Mass Media

Declaration stipulates:

Mass media have an important contribution to make in the

strengthening of peace and international understanding and in countering

racialism, apartheid and incitement to war and in eliminating ignorance and

misunderstandings between peoples, making nationals of a country sensitive

to the needs and desires of others, and ensuring the respect of the rights and

dignity of all nations.. .

l European provisions

Special attention will be paid in this paper to provisions established by

the Council of Europe and elaborated by the European Court of Human

Rights. One reason is the particular importance of the Council of Europe for

newly established multi-party democracies in Central and Eastern Europe on

their way to further political, economic and other integration on the Continent.

The other is that the rulings of the European Court of Human Rights on the

implementation of the European Convention on Human Rights are binding for

member states. This supranational insurance is of special importance to

journalists and media in countries confronted with political and religious

extremism, organised crime and other forms of tensions, conflict and

violence.

The Council of Europe has adopted comprehensive provisions

safeguarding the freedom of expression, including the access to information,

protection of sources and related topics. These provisions have been further

elaborated in many legal rulings at the European Court of Human Rights

often involving journalists and the media.

In this context, most relevant are Article IO and Article 15 of the 1953

European Convention on Human Rights, the basic law of the Council of

Europe, which all member states are obliged to respect. Article IO of the

European Convention on Human Rights guarantees, in similar wording as in

the UN documents, in paragraph 1 the freedom of expression, but it adds in

paragraph 2:

“The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries wifh it duties and

responsibilities, must be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or

penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society,

in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the

prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health and morals, for the

protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of

information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and

impartiality of the judiciav’.

An international expert has, at the invitation of the Council of Europe,

critically examined the interpretation of Article 1O.4 He concluded that the fact

that restrictions on freedom of expression and information must be prescribed

by law and based on a legitimate aim has, in practice, had no decisive impact

in the case law of the European Court of Human Rights. According to him,

analysis of the case law makes it clear that the “necessity test” is ultimately

the “relevant and decisive criterion” for imposing restrictions. Thus, there is a

significant margin of appreciation at the disposal of the member states in the

implementation of Article 10. However, it is subject to supranational

4Voorhoof, Dirk. Critical uersuective on the scooe and interoretation of Article 10 of the Eurooean Convention on Human Rirhts, Strasbourg, Council of Europe Press, (Mass Media Files No.lO), 1995.

7

supervision by the European Court of Human Rights.

The vice-president of this Court has already pointed out the “crucial

problem”: how to draw a borderline between media freedom and the

permissible restrictions, especially in situations of conflict and tension?5 The

Judge noted that in his opinion “internal disturbances, riots, mass-strike,

organised crime, terrorist activities and other events may shake the public

order without amounting to civil war or other extreme emergency situations”.

As examples of such situations he cited the events in several states in 1968,

terrorism in Northern Ireland or the show-down between the President and

the Parliament in Russia in the summer of 1993. Censorship prior to

publication, in his view, is not permissible in such situations. The permissible

scope of other intervention into media freedom is, in his views, difficult to

circumscribe.

He went on to say that it is also extremely difficult, and may be even

impossible, to define the legal powers of state authorities in situations

described in Article 15 of the European Convention. This article permits

member states to take measures derogating from their obligations under the

Convention “in time of war or other public emergency threatening the life of

nation”. But he stressed that no action taken by state authorities, including

that taken in situations on conflict and tension, can be exempted from judicial

control by independent courts. A certain degree of control by other European

states and public opinion is offered through the obligations of states

introducing restrictions under Article 15 to notify the Secretary General of the

Council of Europe of the status of any emergency. He concluded by saying

that any measures taken in such exceptional situations which are not

designed to restore order, peace and democracy fall outside the proper

function of public authorities.

The Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe

(established 1975 as the Conference on Security and Co-operation in

Europe) has also adopted an extensive set of resolutions and other

documents closely paralleling Article 10 of the European Convention and

related formal expressions of the Council of Europe. Since the end of the

Cold War, member states of the OSCE have focused increasingly on joint

5Bemhardt, op.cit, p.13.

opposition to propaganda of national, ethnic, racial and religious hatred while

reiterating the “right of the media to collect, report and disseminate

information, news and opinion”. At the OSCE Lisbon Summit in December

1996, the German foreign minister Klaus Kinkel proposed the establishment

of an OSCE Ombudsman for the Media. His task would be to accept

individual complaints from journalists and present their cases to the

implicated national governments.

l Public Access to Information

Democratic governance, according to the text-book, should function in

a transparent fashion6 The vitality of a democratic system rests on the public

scrutiny of the state and its institutions. Newly established democracies can

only benefit from increasing the possibilities for the public, especially the

media, to obtain information. Transparency in the work of public authontles

contributes to the stabilisation, and not, as supporters of state secrecy would

have it, to the weakening of institutions. It increases the accountabillty of

political and administrative power elite - this being a central feature of

democratic rule.

Again, there is no scarcity of domestic and international regulations

ensuring the public’s right to know what the authorities are doing. For

instance, The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe in 1982

adopted a Recommendation and Declaration calling on member states to

grant the public “-the right to obtain on request, information he/d by the

public authorities other than legislative bodies and judicial authorities.. ,

subject only to such /imitations and restrictions as are necessary in a

democratic society for the protection of legitimate public... and private

interests’:

This document enumerates some of the areas that may be kept from

the public eye: national security, public safety, public order, the economic

6A useful reader on this topic has been published by the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs in Washington: The Public’s Ri&t to Know: Providing Access to Government Information. A report on an ND1 Conference on Promotig Government Transparency in Latvia, October 1994.

9

well-being of the country, the prevention of crime... The right to request

information from public authorities, according to the Recommendation, also

implies the obligation on the public authority to make their decision on one’s

inquiry known within a reasonable time, a statement of reasons for any

refusal, and a right to seek a review of any denial. The margin of appreciation

for the national public authorities is evidently quite flexible.

The public access to information is far from being uniformly regulated

in Europe. In France, until 1978, citizens or media were not deemed fit to

enjoy the right to free access to information from the administration. In that

year, a Freedom of Information Act was adopted, but was accompanied by a

long list of exceptions in Article 6 of the law. Britain’s 1911 Official Secrets

Act makes it a crime for a journalist to disclose information in a number of

broadly defined categories, but this has seldom prevented the media from

investigating and disclosing the most sensitive information even that

pertaining to national security. In the Netherlands, according to the Openness

in Government Act and ruling by the highest administrative court, there is an

obligation of transparency for the authorities. Portugal, a country whose

history in this century was marked by a long-lasting authoritarian rule that

ended in 1974, needed, according to some accounts, twenty years to

establish a set of laws that would finally guarantee public access to

government information. Hungary, also a late-starter in government

transparency, adopted in 1992 a combined data protection and freedom of

information act. Experts in this country point out that there are still problems

with the law’s implementation, mainly due to the perseverance of the

traditions of state secrecy. Similar observations are to be found throughout

the continent.

Many experts view Sweden’s protection of the freedom of the press

and freedom of information, both enshrined in the Constitution, as perhaps

the most advanced example for government transparency in Europe. The

starting point is that all information held by the government, both central and

local, is accessible to the public (including foreigners) unless there is a

specific law prohibiting the release of the specific document. It is not

necessary for a person asking for information in government files to prove

that he/she has a personal interest in them. Every Swedish authority has to

put computers at the disposal of visitors so that they can access the records

10

of their choice if they are electronically stored.

The Secrecy Act of 1980 lists possible exemptions connected to the

need to protect the privacy of the individual, the secrecy of criminal

proceedings, national security and foreign policy affairs. In a widely

discussed case in the late 1970s a journalist demanded access to the desk

calendar of Prime Minister Olaf Palme. A court upheld the decision of the

authorities to refuse this request because a disclosure would entail a danger

to an individual’s personal security.

If a claimant is refused access to information he/she is entitled to

appeal to the Court of Appeal for Administrative matters and later to the

Supreme Court for Administrative matters. Alternatively, he/she may appeal

to the Ombudsman, a person appointed by the Swedish Parliament, whose

task is to investigate and judge complaints levelled by individuals against the

state. The Ombudsman can prosecute an official, start disciplinary

proceedings, and criticise and suggest changes, or propose new regulations

to the authorities.

In Europe, even in states with a long tradition of respect for law and

the free press, clashes continually occur between what governments perceive

to be the state’s legitimate right to protect secrets and the public’s interest in

knowing what the state is doing. Government institutions are seldom

genuinely co-operative, especially when sensitive files held by intelligence

agencies, the military and other security organisations are requested. Official

obfuscation can often undermine legal freedoms. The actual scope of the

public’s right of access to information tends to be determined by the

individual country’s specific political routine, the national case law, and the

strength and determination of the media.

One encouraging sign is that supranational institutions are also

increasingly subject to public scrutiny in the form of the right of access to their

files. In 1995, the London Guardian won a case against the European Union

and obtained the right of access to certain information held by EU institutions.

11

l Protection of sources

In general, journalists cannot be compelled to disclose the source of

the information they publish. The protection of sources is considered

especially important in cases when violence is feared imminent. For instance,

at the level of the Council of Europe, the Committee of Ministers

recommended in May 1996 that “having regard to the importance of the

confidentiality of sources used by journalists in situations of conflict and

tension, member states shall ensure that this confidentiality is respected”. ’

The protection of sources is provided by national law and court

decisions in many countries and by international regulations. The right to

preserve confidential sources is intended in the first place to enhance the role

of the press as a controller of the public authorities, particularly when

disclosing government abuse. For example, The Supreme Court in Norway

ruled in 1992 that “the more imporCant the interest violated, the more

important it will be to protect the sources. . ../t must be assumed that a broad

protection of sources will lead to more revelations of hidden mafter that if the

protection is limited or not given at all.”

The protection of sources does not apply in matters that do not touch

public affairs at all, like advertising and other commercial subjects. Testimony

by journalists on information they have obtained about serious crime cases

are sometimes requested by state prosecutors. Courts have not always

granted permission to journalists to keep their sources confidential. Within the

British legal system, for instance, the “the threshold of necessity” when the

disclosure of sources becomes justified was defined by the “preponderating

importance” for the “the interests of justice”.

It appears that the Swedish Freedom of the Press Act has also set the

highest standards in respect to the confidentiality of media sources. This Act

prohibits inquiry into the identity of anonymous sources who provide

7Council of Europe. Committee of Ministers. Recommendation No.R(9614 of the Committee of Ministers to Member States on the Protection of loumalists in Situations of Conflict and Tension. (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 3 May 1996 at its 98th Session).

12

information published in the media. Media staff can be penalised if they

disclose the identity of their sources if they wish to remain anonymous. Public

authorities are prohibited from searching for a government employee who

has divulged information to the media.

In other European countries, state attorneys sometimes seem to

attach more importance to the need to fight crime, terrorism, and other forms

of serious threats to public order than to respecting the right of journalists to

protect their sources and have their offices and records protected from

inspection by the law enforcement authorities. In a recent development, the

German Union of Journalist (DJV) warned against the danger of abuse of the

law in such cases. The protest was triggered by a police search of the

premises of the Berlin daily junge welt and the homes of three of the

newspapers journalists in January 1997. They were suspected by the

Attorney General of participation in the publication of a leftist underground

journal mdikal with alleged terrorist ties. According to the director of junge

welt, the police seized 40 documents, 19 diskettes, a PC, tapes and some

posters. DJV representatives said that merely publishing in a radical

newspaper cannot justify the suspicion of involvement in terrorism and the

resulting grave breaches by the public authorities into the freedom rights of

journalists. The media trade union (IG Medien) even spoke of a deterioration

of the freedom of expression and information in Germany. The Union was

particularly worried because of the increasing number of investigations by

state attorneys against journalists in connection with information they

researched and by demands from the authorities that journalists should

testify in courts.

Problems persist also in some countries of Eastern and South Eastern

Europe. Charges of obstructing criminal proceedings have been recently

brought against Polish journalists for refusing to reveal their sources. In a

case made public in January 1997, a journalist of the country’s largest daily,

Gazeta Wyborcza, was charged with identifying a Polish secret service agent

in an article. In addition, he was charged for declining to state who his source

was for this report. The Polish Supreme Court ruled in 1995 that the criminal

code provision allowing a prosecutor to demand that journalists disclose their

sources overrules the media law provision on the journalist’s right to keep

their informants confidential.

13

l Standards for professional conduct of journalists in situations

of conflict and violence

As a rule, journalists, editors and media owners reject compulsory

codes of professional ethics, including special regulations for situations

breeding violence.* Based on ample evidence, their fear is that public

authorities would inevitably attempt to instrumentalise such codes to impose

their opinions. Errors and bias in media reporting can in their view best be

corrected, by other media in an atmosphere of competition and freedom from

state intervention. Among their dictums are: “Chose fhe froth, not a side” and:

‘Be sufficiently courageous fo sfafe clearly if you are not in a position to

provide reliable informafion”. Therefore, they demand that national

regulations and international conventions should primarily maximise the

freedom of access to information and the protection of sources and refrain

from any obligatory rules for the media.

Situations of violent conflict and war are permanent tests for the

expectations regarding the capability of self-regulation by the media and the

relevance of existing voluntary ethical codes for journalists. Some of the most

recent major trials were the coverage of the Gulf War and the Yugoslav

conflicts. Undoubtedly, few journalists and media organisation can claim to

have earned top marks if they compare their performance with, for instance,

the standards of professional conduct for journalists set by the International

Federation of Journalists:

“1. Respect for truth and for their right of the public to trufh is the first duty of

the journalist.

2. In pursuance of this duty, the journalist shall af all times defend the

principles of freedom in the honest collection and publicafion of news, and of

the right of fair comment and cnficism.

3. The journalist shall report only in accordance with facts of which he/she

8 See: Doomaert, Mia. The ethical consideration underpinning the media in situations of conflict and tension. In: Proceed&s of the Seminar on the media in situations of conflict and tension, Strasbourg, 29 November - 1 December 1993. Council of Europe, Strasbourg, 1994, p. 6-12.

14

knows fhe origin. The journalist shall not suppress essential information or

falsify documents.

4. The journalist shall use only fair methods to obfain news, photographs and

documents.

5. The journalist shall do the utmost to recfify any published information which

is found to be harmfully inaccurate.

6. The journalist shall observe professional secrecy regarding the source of

information obtained in confidence.

7. The journalist shall be aware of the danger of discrimination being

furthered by the media, and shall do the utmost fo avoid facilitating such

discrimination based on, among other things, race, sex, sexual orientation,

language, religion, political or other opinions, and national or social origins.

8. The journalist shall regard as grave professional offences the following:

- plagiarism;

- malicious misrepresentations;

- calumny, slander, libel, unfounded accusations;

- the acceptance of a bribe in any form in consideration of either

publication or suppression;

9. Journalists worthy of that name shall deem it their duty to observe faithfully

the principles sfated above. Within the general law of each country the

journalist shall recognise in professional matters the jurisdiction of colleagues

only, to the exclusion of every kind of interference by governmenfs or

others. A

The discrepancy between professional standards and the behaviour

of journalists tends to expand in situations of tensions and violence. When

reporting on a conflict involving one’s own ethnic group, it is extremely

improbable that one will stay neutral. Even if there are such attempts, the

chances are that such journalists will be labelled “unpatriotic” and “traitors”.

Eventually they will almost certainly be eliminated from their jobs by the ruling

71ntemational Federation of Journalists: Your duties as a journalist. In: DanPer: Toumahsts at &, Safety Manual, Brussels 1992.

15

powers.

Media analysts also noted the rise of a “partiality norm” as the

dominant feature of news reporting in “situations such as revolution, extreme

social and political confi’icf, under repressive regimes and in waP.‘O This

particular mode of journalism serves in times of crises as an important vehicle

for the governing elite to create political homogeneity and mass mobilisation.

Under a real or imagined threat of violence from the external “enemy” (the

“others” imperil “us”), significant parts of the mass audiences seem to

demand the abandonment of the otherwise routinely expected “impartiality

norm” in media reporting. Apparently they expect one-sided coverage of

conflicts to rectify their opinions and dispel their accumulated fears. A

substantial number of journalists prefers (or has no other choice because of

financial and other constraints) to adhere to the “partiality norm” which

favours whatever sells as “patriotism” (or “true followers of our religion”,

“defenders of law-and-order” and similar simplifications of usually highly

complex issues) over professional ethics. By conforming to this new

paradigm, many journalists serve as advocates of ethnic, national, religious

and other intolerance and thus incite with their words and images tensions,

conflict and violence.

Foreign journalists more often than not arrive at the sites of conflict

with preconceived notions of the situation. Some hunt for “scoops” regardless

of the facts, others nourish ambitions to earn praise and fame at home by

reporting in a manner that meets the domestic political climate and the

interests of their state. The conflicting sides engage in attempts to manipulate

or win over foreign reporters. Correspondents from abroad sometimes end up

being drawn into the emotionally charged situations typical of conflicts and

opting for one side. But most foreign media staff are genuinely interested in

collecting relevant information from all sides and presenting them fairly.

Without the professional reporting by many national and foreign journalists,

conflict resolution and an end to violence would be much more difficult. They

provide objective and reliable information on which the international

community and even the conflicting sides rely, certainly at least as much as

lo Turkovic, Hrvoje. Contro!&ng National Attitudes: War and Peace in Croatian TV News. In: James Gow, Richard Paterson & AI&on Preston (eds.): Bosnia bv Television, London, The British Film Institute, 1996, p. 72-81.

16

on diplomatic dispatches and intelligence briefs.

2. The safety of journalists and the reporting conditions in conflict zones

The 1949 Geneva conventions provide that journalists shall be

considered as civilians in areas of armed conflict and shall be protected as

such. Yet, as the International Federation of Journalists has cautioned its

members, “fhere are no precautions against snipers, sfray bullets, car bombs

and kidnappings” and ‘)ournalists are no exception”.” The figure, referred to

at the beginning of this paper, of almost five hundred journalists and media

staff killed world-wide in the decade 1986 - 1995 as a direct result of their

profession proves this judgement.

It is not only in situations of mass armed conflict when violence takes

its toll on journalists. Under certain circumstances, even normal European

cities can turn into risky zones for media staff. Here are some recent and

well-publicised cases:

on June 26, 1996 Veronica Guerin, an investigative reporter at the

Dublin Sunday Independenf, was murdered by two unidentified gunmen

belonging apparently to Irish organised crime gangs. Two years before, after

she started poking at drug dealers and other organised crime connections,

shots were fired at her home. Then, in 1995, after she probed further into

serious crime, a masked gunman broke into her home and shot her in the

thigh. Later in that year, an Irish businessman whom she sought to interview,

slammed her head into a car and threatened to kill her.

on May 24, 1996, the weekend home of Chiara Beria D’Argentine, the

deputy editor of the Italian weekly L’Espresso, was blown up by an explosive

device. The very same day, the magazine had carried her story about a

prominent judge who successfully fought the Mafia.

on March I, 1995, Vladislav Listyev, a well-known TV presenter in

Moscow, was shot and killed at the stairs to the entrance of his apartment. He

was the fourth journalist killed in the Russian capital in nine months. It was

“International Federation of Journalists: Your duties as a journalist. op.clt.. p 6

17

widely assumed that his assassination was connected to his cancellation of

profitable advertising contracts controlled by those involved in organised

crime. Western media recently suggested that Listyev’s murder was ordered

by individuals with very high political positions.

on Christmas Day 1996, two journalists of the independent radio

station ISV were attacked by two unidentified men in a Sarajevo street and

severely beaten. Elvir Bucalo, manager of ISV, and Armin Pozderac, radio

staff, were victims of a physical assault after their radio programme aired

accusations that Moslem authorities had barred the appearance of

“Grandfather Frost” (Santa Claus) at Christmas and New Year celebrations

for children. The journalists alleged the beating was carried out by activists

from the main Moslem nationalist party, the Party of Democratic Action

(SDA).

cameramen, reporters and other media staff were favourite targets of

police violence throughout the pro-democracy demonstrations in Belgrade in

the Winter of 1996/1997. National and international reporters suffered

serious injuries when special police repeatedly charged them, also destroying

their equipment and confiscating tapes. During attacks on demonstrators,

Serbian police singled out better known opposition journalists like Rade

Radovanovic and beat them. Serbian President Slobodan Milosevic’s wife

Mirjana Markovic, who is also his political ally and an influential figure in the

country’s political life accused the independent media of being controlled by

foreign forces. In an interview published in mid-February 1997, she said that

media critical of the government report in a vulgar, disrespectful and

destructive manner and that they spread lies. According to her, journalists

working in those media have lost both their individual and national honour.

during the anti-government demonstrations in Albania in January and

February 1997, journalists became prime targets for uniformed police and

plain clothes secret service members. According to evidence provided by the

IFJ, Roland Beqiraj of Koha Jone and Muharrem Meko of Zen’ Popullit (both

publications thought unfriendly by the government) were arrested and

released after many days in prison. A number of photographers and

cameramen were beaten by police officers and their films and video

cassettes taken away. Prec Zogaj, editor-in-chief of the daily paper Difa

lnfomacion and Former President of the Association of the Professional

18

Journalists of Albania, was beaten by secret police in front of his eight year

old son. There were no signs that the authorities were investigating any of

these incidents or taking precautions to prevent similar occurrences in the

future.

in Turkey, Ocak lsik Yurtcu, a former editor of the now-defunct daily

newspaper Czgiir Gijndem, is serving his third year of a prison sentence of

15 years and ten months. He was sent to jail for his coverage on the armed

conflict between the government and Kurdish separatist insurgents in the

south-east of the country. According to the CPJ, which launched a campaign

for the release of this journalist, Yurtcu was convicted on charges of

“separatist propaganda”, an accusation which, under the Turkish Anti-Terror

law, is used to imprison many Turkish journalists.

Freedom House, a US human rights institution, says that in 1995

alone, there were some 32 separate cases of murder, arrests, bannings,

attacks and other forms of violence against journalists in Turkey.

in Romania, in October 1996, a reporter, Tana Ardeleanu, and the

managing director, Sorin Rosca-Stanescu, of the independent daily paper

Ziua were jailed for 14 and 12 months respectively and stripped of their rights

to practise journalism while incarcerated. They were found guilty of libel after

reporting, among other things, that former President Ion lliescu had been an

agent of the Soviet secret service since his student days.

in Croatia, journalists who have written critically about the Croatian

government, were harassed, intimidated, investigated and charged under

criminal and civil codes. President Franjo Tudjman, in a key-note speech in

December 1996, accused “internal enemies”, “foreign mercenaries” and

“political dilettantes” in opposition parties, human rights groups and

independent media of trying to destabilise the country. Throughout 1996, the

authorities exerted strong and visible pressure on the media. Rijeka’s Novi

list, the country’s leading independent daily was fined $ 2,5 million for

allegedly importing printing equipment at the low customs rates reserved for

ethnic minority groups. Panorama, a Zagreb tabloid, was closed on May 1

because its premises did not satisfy, according to the police, regulations

concerning “technical and environmental grounds”. State security agents

questioned repeatedly editors of the weekly National over investigative

19

articles that appeared in the paper. The Croatian parliament amended the

Penal Code so that in future the public prosecutors can bring charges against

journalists who, in their opinion, commit libel against the President and other

public authorities. After a controversial court trial and only days before

Croatia’s bid to enter the Council of Europe, Viktor Ivaneic and Marinko eulic,

editors of the biweekly Feral Tribune in Split, charged with slandering

Tudjman, were acquitted by a state court. This decision is to be reviewed by

a higher court.

Whenever the perpetrators of such crimes, as in the described cases,

are not discovered and punished, this sends a clear message to the

individuals who order and organise such attacks. There is a saying that

assassination is the ultimate form of censorship. If governments fail to

investigate, prosecute and punish those responsible, this tells those involved

in organised crime and terrorists that they can continue to silence their critics

in the media in the most brutal way. An experienced analyst of the struggle of

Italian journalists against the Mafia concluded: “It is impossible to provide an

armed escort for every journalist. The only way to make reporfers safe is to

eliminate the Mafia threat. And that will happen only fhrough mobilised

citizens and a mobilised judiciary’:” Experts in this field say that serious and

persistent media coverage about criminal or terrorist activities is the most

effective way to mobilise public opinion. This will, in turn, exert pressure on

the judiciary and other public authorities to pursue official corruption,

organised crime and terrorism and stand up for the protection of journalists.

l Protection of the physical safety of journalists

Governments, the international community, media organisations,

journalists and professional associations are in the position to adopt

preventive measures to protect reporters and media staff. The following

pages contain a summary of basic principles concerning the protection of

journalists in situations of conflict and tension as adopted by Committee of

Ministers of the Council of Europe on 3 May 1996 accompanied by excerpts

Wurzi, Candida: Blood and Fear in Italy. Media Studv Journal (Kew York), ~01.19, no.4, Fall 1996, p. 128.

20

from “survival manuals” by major international professional associations.

A starting point for media organisations, journalists and professional

associations is to provide practical information and training to all journalists

who are going to conflict zones. Yet, it is still an exception that reporters are

trained beforehand for such tasks. For instance, the British Broadcasting

Corporation pays for its special correspondents to attend training seminars in

areas like battlefield first aid, off road driving, hostile environment or hostage

situation survival...High costs of such preparations are often quoted as a

limiting factor, but financial considerations should not outweigh efforts to save

lives. This is even more pertinent to adequate insurance cover for illness,

injury, repatriation and death.

Survival guides are a valuable tool for all journalists in conflict zones.

Usually, they are written by experienced colleagues with the assistance of

security specialists. They all do not fail to remind newcomers of some

essential truths, like that “no story is worth your life” or “avoid bias for one

side or the other - you are a professional, not a participant”. (InternatIonal

Federation of Journalists- IFJ). Concrete advice is usually also offered - for

instance about the appropriate equipment: “We recommend taking a flak

jacket with armour plates and flaps for neck, sides, and groin... The costs

range from $500 to $2000”. (Committee to Protect Journalists - CPJ).

Access to the lnternet is a practical way to learn about the latest

developments in conflict zones and the recommendations for specific regions

and countries issued by the International Committee of the Red Cross

(ICRC), IFJ, CPJ and similar organisations.‘3

When trouble comes, the first move is to activate some of the existing

“hotlines”. Should a journalist disappear, be captured, arrested or kidnapped,

it is advisable to immediately notify the local Red Cross and the ICRC in

Geneva.14 If a journalist disappears, the ICRC may conduct inquires with all

sides involved in the conflict. If a journalist is in prison, the ICRC staff can

attempt to visit her/him.

I3 See Http://ifj.org, Http://cpj.org, both with links to related sites.

14Telephone: +41 22 7346001 (ask for Journalist Hot Line).

21

Incidents involving journalists are sensitive for the international image

of the implicated authorities so that external pressure can show swift results.

In 1992, a group of non-governmental organisations established the

International Freedom of Expression exchange (IFEX) with the support of

UNESCO. Similar to the IFJ, this clearing house operates a hotline which

draws attention to cases of attacks on the physical safety of journalists and

their professional liberties. The IFJ also established a Safety Fund to provide

humanitarian aid for journalists and their families. The Fund assists

journalists who work in dangerous areas or in “hot spots” of social and

political tension. It provides aid to journalists prevented, either technically or

physically, from carrying out their work and who are threatened by, or suffer

from, official action for the practice of journalism. The Fund may reimburse

legal and medical expenses.

l Working conditions of journalists in conflict zones

The right of the public to be informed about events and the actions of

governments is of special importance in situations of tensions and conflict.

Under such circumstances journalists, according to the 1996

Recommendation by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, are

“fully entitled to the free exercise of human rights and fundamental freedoms

as guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights”.‘5 This also

includes the right of everyone to seek and receive information regardless of

borders, the liberty of movement and the right to leave any country and to

have one’s correspondence in every form respected.

This document calls on member states to respect the confidentiality of

sources used by journalists in situations of conflict and tension. Also, they

should not restrict the use of means of communication for the transmission of

news material.

Limitations of these rights are also envisaged. Interference with the

l5 Council of Europe. Committee of Ministers. Recommendation No.R/96)4 of the Committee of Ministers to Member States on the Protection of Toumalists in Situations of Conflict and Tension. (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 3 May 1996 at its 98th Session). Principle 4.

22

work of journalist in conflict zones must be “prescribed by law and formulated

in clear and precise terms” and also be in accordance with international law.

Essentially, the authors of the Recommendation have followed the rule on

limitations to the Freedom of Expression as contained in the Articles 10 and

15 of the European Convention on Human Rights (p.6 of this paper).

Member States are invited to refrain from taking any restrictive

measures against journalists such as withdrawal of accreditation or expulsion

“on account of the exercise of their professional activities or the content of

reports and information canied by their media”. Police and the military in

conflict zones should treat journalists as civilians and provide “necessary and

reasonable protection and assistance to journalist when they so request”, but

should not use the protection of journalists as a pretext for restricting their

rights.

.

The Recommendation urges member states to issue visas to

journalists without delay and to facilitate the customs formalities for

international transport of professional equipment. This document demands

that the work of journalists in conflict zones should not depend on

accreditation and that the refusal of accreditation must not affect the rights of

journalists. In other words, accreditation should be introduced only to facilitate

reporting in conflict zones.

Finally, the Recommendation asks for investigations by the member

states into all attacks on journalists and the bringing to justice those

responsible for such attacks “irrespective of whether these are planned,

encouraged or committed by persons belonging to terrorist or other

organisations, persons working for the government or other public authorities,

of persons acting in an individual capacity”.

23

l The uncomfortable equation

BBC journalist John Schofield was murdered in Croatia in August

1995 during the final days of the war in that country. With a group of

colleagues from the BBC, he was observing the burning of homes of Serb

civilians by the Croatian army. He was standing, in a proper flak jacket

outside their white, unmarked armoured vehicle when the BBC crew was hit

by automatic rifle fire. Schofield was killed, three other journalists wounded.

The BBC maintained that the attackers were Croatian soldiers and that it was

“unprovoked murder”. But it also had to admit that this unaccompanied news

team was reporting from close to the battlefield and in a zone prohibited to

the media by Croatian military authorities.16 Following this incident, there was

a strong diplomatic exchange between London and Zagreb. The internatlonal

media paid a lot of attention. However, there is little doubt that now, some 18

months later, even in Britain media audiences and many journalists

remember only faintly, if at all, the circumstances of this tragedy.

Every death of a journalist evokes again the question of whether “a

story” is worth more than a human life. “You are more important than the

story” -this is what the IFJ tells its members in the IFJ Survival Guide

American journalist Terry Anderson, who was held hostage in Lebanon for

seven years, now a CPJ board member, offers this piece of advice for

consideration: “Always, constant/y, every minute, weigh the benetifs against

the risks. And as soon as you come to the point where you feel

uncomforfable with that equation, get out, go, leave it. It’s not worth it. There

is no story worth getting killed for. What’s the point? Aside from the impact on

your personal life, you’re not going to tile the story, right?“.”

Solving this uncomfortable equation will remain the everlasting issue

for all journalists who are confronting violence.

END

“See: Owen, John. ibid.

I7 Former Yugoslavia. Europe Program. Committee to Protect Toumalists Website. Online. Intemet, 5 February 1996. Available Http:// www.digitalrag.com/cpj/safetynet/posts/592l.hnl.

24