[WCAR] Mary Robinson on the results of Durban

UNITED NATIONS
Press Release

IN RUSH FOR STORY, SOME JOURNALISTS MISS HISTORY, HUMAN
RIGHTS COMMISSIONER TELLS UNITED NATIONS MEDIA FORUM


6 December 2001

    Coverage of Durban Conference Discussed;
    Renewed Focus on Middle East Situation,
    Afghanistan, Terrorism also Reviewed
    by International Panel

    The danger that journalists in search of a story might sometimes
    miss history was raised today by Mary Robinson, United Nations High
    Commissioner for Human Rights, at a forum at UN Headquarters
    entitled, "News vs. Propaganda: The Gatekeeper's Dilemma". The
    forum, arranged by the United Nations Department of Public
    Information (DPI), also included Lakhdar Brahimi, Special
    Representative of the Secretary-General for Afghanistan, and a
    number of international television and newspaper representatives.

    Mrs. Robinson responded to criticism of the recent World Conference
    against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related
    Intolerance in Durban, South Africa, which she described as a
    well-intentioned, but ultimately flawed event.

    Leading a discussion on media coverage as it related to the United
    Nations agenda for human rights and its forward-looking role in
    promoting tolerance and respect for diversity, she said the Durban
    conference was seen as a powerful and empowering forum for many
    people, amongst them refugees, asylum-seekers and young people.
    Speaking by video link from Geneva, she said those were populations
    who previously felt that did not have a voice. Their stories were
    often overshadowed by the media's coverage of the Middle East issue
    that dominated the Conference.

    Mr. Brahimi, who spoke by video link from Paris, said that until 11
    September, the situation of Afghanistan, and the plight of the
    people there, suffered from an absence of interest from the media.
    He noted the extent to which things had changed. Last week, he
    said, there were 1,200 international correspondents covering the
    United Nations discussions in Bonn, Germany, on establishing an
    interim Government for Afghanistan.

    Also taking part in today's forum were Hafez Al Mirazi, Washington
    Bureau Chief of Al Jazeera; Steve Williams, Senior Editor of
    British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) World News; Karen Curry,
    Vice-President and New York Bureau Chief of Cable News Network
    (CNN); Mathatha Tsedu, Deputy Chief of News of the South African
    Broadcasting Corporation (SABC); Abdel Bari Atwan, Editor-in-Chief
    of Al Quds Al-Arabi; and Barbara Crossette of the New York Times.

    The forum was moderated by Shashi Tharoor, Interim Head of the
    United Nations Department of Public Information. He explained that
    the forum was being held in observance of Human Rights Day,
    traditionally 10 December. But the date had been changed this year,
    since 10 December, next Monday, was the day when the
    Secretary-General and United Nations would receive the Nobel Peace
    Prize in Oslo.

    Mr. Tharoor said there was no question that news executives had an
    impact on the coverage of world events. That moulded the opinions
    of audiences, whether they were in Cairo or Sydney or in a small
    village in Bangladesh.

    Mr. Tsedu said that as the host broadcaster, to the Durban
    conference his organization had now had a responsibility to
    familiarize itself with the issues that would be discussed at the
    Conference. That included looking at issues of racism and
    discrimination all over Africa, like slavery in Sudan.

    Mr. Williams, referring to the decision of the United States and
    Israel to walk out of the Conference because of a disagreement over
    the language in the proposed texts of the Conference, said the
    BBC's approach had been to simply tell the story of the Conference
    as it progressed.

    Ms. Curry said CNN made great efforts to cover the conference in
    its breadth. That breadth, however, included coverage of a very
    legitimate news story: the walkout of the United States and Israeli
    delegations and the issue of Zionism.

    Mr. Al-Mirazi, said he felt some of the Western media coverage was
    decidedly biased, matching the attitudes of their governments that
    the situation in the Middle East should not be discussed
    specifically in Durban.


    Opening Remarks

    SHASHI THAROOR, Interim Head of the United Nations Department of
    Public Information (DPI), moderator of the forum, welcomed guests
    and panellists. He said today's forum was being held in observance
    of Human Rights Day, traditionally 10 December. But the date had
    been changed this year, since on 10 December, next Monday, all eyes
    would be on Oslo, where the Secretary-General and United Nations
    would receive the Nobel Peace prize.

    He said today's forum, "News vs. Propaganda: The Gatekeeper's
    Dilemma" would focus on one of the most complex and perplexing
    issues facing the world today: the role and responsibility of the
    media in covering explosive issues of race and ethnic
    discrimination in their reporting of world events. There was no
    question that news executives had an impact on the coverage of
    world events. That moulded the opinions of audiences, whether they
    were in Cairo or Sydney or in a small village in Bangladesh. He
    said today's discussions would focus mostly on television news,
    since its influence was huge -- crossing national borders and
    posing the question whether international news coverage and
    reporting had additional responsibilities.

    For its part, he said, the United Nations had helped to articulate
    a body of human rights laws and standards that had influenced
    governments all over the world. It was the Organization's duty,
    therefore, to see that human rights norms and standards were
    applied equally and in accordance with the Universal Declaration of
    Human Rights.

    Some questions he would like the panellists to focus on during the
    discussions included, what are the responsibilities of the press
    concerning coverage of the most sensitive human rights issues such
    as race, identity and culture? What affected the decision-making
    process in the heat of the moment? Had news coverage following 11
    September exacerbated stereotypes that could linger long after
    events had passed into history?

    Before giving the floor to the United Nations High Commissioner for
    Human Rights, Mary Robinson, joining the discussion via
    videoconference from Geneva, Mr. Tharoor said that Western media
    had been critical of the World Conference against Racism, Racial,
    Xenophobia and Other Related Intolerance, held in Durban, South
    Africa, from 31 August to 9 September, arguing that it inflamed
    intolerance rather than inspiring new commitment to fighting such
    behavior. As Mrs. Robinson had served as the Conference's
    Secretary-General, Mr. Tharoor wondered about her opinion on the
    notion held by others that news coverage had distorted the
    perception of the Conference and had focused exclusively on the
    contentious Middle East issue.

    Mrs. ROBINSON, speaking from Geneva via videoconference, said that
    in some media the world conference was portrayed as a well
    intentioned, but ultimately flawed, conference. At the worst, it
    was seen as another forum that was a part of an ongoing plot to
    attack the West, and in particular, Israel. But Durban was seen by
    many as a powerful and empowering conference for refugees,
    asylum-seekers, and young people -- people who could not previously
    have been heard. In the rush to get the story, the media sometimes
    missed history. Many media, however, did give tremendous resources
    to cover the conference.

    MATHATHA TSEDU, Deputy Chief of News, South African Broadcasting
    Corporation (SABC), said the SABC had two responsibilities for
    Durban: it was the host broadcaster, and it was the broadcaster for
    all of Africa. As for its own national responsibilities, it was
    understood that South Africa came out of a very racist past. In
    preparing for the conference, many decisions had to be taken. They
    had to build up the issues that were going to a part of the
    conference, and that included sending reporters to the preparatory
    committee meetings in Geneva. It also looked at issues of racism
    and discrimination all over Africa, including ongoing issues like
    slavery in the Sudan. He said the SABC prepared 200 staff members
    to go to Durban, and preparation meant making them aware of the
    issues that would be addressed at the conference. It was understood
    that many issues would not get time in the spotlight, and the SABC
    tried to get these issues some attention.

    KAREN CURRY, of the Cable News Network (CNN), said that on certain
    occasions it was perhaps true that charges of bias could be leveled
    against the news media. That could have been particularly true of
    the Durban Conference. For CNN's part, planning had begun for
    coverage of the conference in the spring and taped segments
    highlighting viewpoints from all over the world had been prepared.
    The Network had made great efforts to cover the conference in its
    breadth. That breadth, however, included coverage of a very
    legitimate news story: the walkout of the United States and Israeli
    delegations and the issue of Zionism.

    STEVE WILLIAMS, Senior Editor of the British Broadcasting Company
    (BBC), said the job of the media was to tell it as it was, "warts
    and all". The BBC believed in fairness and that it was important to
    point out racism wherever it existed. The BBC's approach had been
    to simply tell the story of the conference as it progressed.
    Following its conclusion, the network had aired an hour-long report
    on various aspects of the issues that had been under consideration.
    He added that the BBC had indeed reported in full the hypocrisy and
    intolerance displayed by some of the participants in the
    conference. He believed that the BBC was generally quite strong at
    covering the "360-degree depth" and range of most stories, and in
    the case of the conference it had included taped discussions on
    race, sex and other forms of intolerance, as well as racism.

    HAFEZ AL-MIRAZI, Washington Bureau Chief of Al-Jazeera, said while
    it considered the Middle East story an integral part of the Durban
    Conference, it was not the only issue. The Western media was
    decidedly biased, matching the attitudes of their governments. The
    idea that the situation in the Middle East should not be discussed
    at all was the same as their government's attitude. Durban was the
    first item in Al-Jazeera during the Conference because the Middle
    East was part of it. It was very important for the news media not
    to decide on its own what should be broadcast, basing it on what
    was politically correct in Washington or London.

    ABDEL BARI ATWAN, Editor-in-Chief of Al Quds Al-Arabi, said he
    expected the conference to exert pressure on Israel, and on the
    Zionist movement. But there was a huge political and media gap
    between the first and third world. That gap allowed the Conference
    to be hijacked and other issues to be diverted from. The pressure
    exerted on the Conference, even by South Africa, which wanted a
    peaceful conclusion to the Conference, was a setback.

    BARBARA CROSSETTE, correspondent of The New York Times, said she
    was not in Durban or in the United States at the time. In Canada,
    the coverage on the CBC was focused mainly on Canadian issues. It
    was not just on the Middle East. If you watched the news in Canada,
    you would have thought the only issue was about indigenous issues.
    She took exception to the idea that non-governmental organizations
    (NGOs) all thought this Conference came out fine. Some Asian NGOs
    felt that the caste system, for example, was ignored, and it was
    not just the Middle East situation that was glossed over. The
    preparatory conferences were very hard to report in newspapers
    –- television could do it better by preparing documentaries
    in advance. The Beijing conference (on women) for example, was
    badly covered in many ways because there was not a lot of
    preparatory coverage.

    Responding to comments by the panellists, Mrs. ROBINSON said she
    agreed that preparation for coverage of the Conference had
    certainly been important. The Conference had sparked an
    extraordinarily important dialogue, but it had only been the
    beginning of global consideration of important and sensitive
    issues. It had been painful and difficult, but if one looked at the
    strong networks that had developed around some of the issues such
    as the Dalits, the overall value of the process could be seen. So
    while the issue of discrimination based on caste had not made it
    into the outcome document, the dialogue the issue had generated had
    been invaluable.

    She said language about Israel appeared in the final document of
    the Conference. Specific language about other countries and their
    problems had not been included. That may perhaps be due to the
    strength of feeling about the Middle East issue in Durban. And
    though there might have been NGOs that felt that other issues
    needed to be addressed, it was true that part of the negotiation
    process at conferences such as the one held in Durban was that a
    successful outcome required consensus.

    She asked members of today's panel about plans of their respective
    organizations to follow up the Conference, particularly in light of
    11 September. She said she had seen far more xenophobia and bias
    since the tragic events of that day, hearing direct accounts from
    the victims of discrimination. The agenda from Durban had become
    infinitely more urgent and serious, and that was perhaps not coming
    through in the media, particularly its willingness to examine the
    roots of racism, hatred and intolerance.

    Mr. AL-MIRAZI of Al-Jazeera said one grave situation following the
    events of 11 September had been that security measures in the
    United States had taken on the appearance of institutionalized
    discrimination. As an example, he was filling in at today's forum
    for Al-Jazeera's Chief Editor who had been unable to attend
    because, as an Arab male aged 18-45 and travelling on an Egyptian
    passport, he could not enter the United States for an additional
    period of 25 days for a background check.

    He said much work had to be done, particularly by the Western media
    to mitigate the perception that all Arabs and Muslims were evil. He
    noted that Al-Jazeera's annual talk show on human rights, airing
    this Saturday, which had usually been devoted to humanitarian
    issues in the Arab world, would this year unfortunately be based on
    human rights abuses in the United States, particularly those based
    on types of discrimination and xenophobia. It was important to
    note, he added, that the United States appeared to differentiate
    between human rights and civil rights.

    Ms. CURRY of CNN said that, before the Durban Conference, the
    United States was consumed with stories of racial profiling and
    race relations. It was an important story. Americans were realizing
    that America was a very diverse society, and it was dealing with
    all the challenges that came with that. On 11 September, many
    different kinds of people were affected by that. The media had
    tried to explore what it was like to live in other communities in
    America today -- what it was like to live as an Arab-American
    post-11 September.

    Ms. CROSSETTE said that almost 10 years ago The New York Times did
    a great story on Islam in America. Soon, the Muslim population
    would pass the Jewish minority in the country. Since 11 September,
    there had been very few violent acts. There had been discrimination
    and fear. It would be interesting to note how many Arab journalists
    had talked to American families and asked how they felt about the
    changing society, with the Arab population growing.

    Mr. ATWAN of Al Quds Al-Arabi said Muslims faced a lot of pressure
    in the Western world. They were told the Western world meant
    personal liberties and freedom. In Britain, there were emergency
    laws that, by and large, only affected Arabs and Muslims. If
    something was written, or hinted, that could be linked with
    terrorist organizations, you could be locked up without a trial. He
    said he received death threats because he expressed his point of
    view. One of them came from the United States, and it was delivered
    to his house. All Arabs were accused, and all were under scrutiny.
    When the IRA bombed London, the British Government did not ask the
    Irish to pledge their loyalty to the British Government. But Arabs
    in England were asked to do so.

    Mr. WILLIAMS of the BBC said he agreed with Mrs. Robinson that
    coming to grips with issues such as racism, hatred and racial
    discrimination was very painful. The only explanation for the
    tragic events of 11 September could be nothing but hatred. The
    BBC's ethnically diverse staff had provided the opportunity to
    discuss myriad sensitive issues. Employing an ethnically diverse
    staff was a sure way to move forward discussions of race. His
    network had been provided with the opportunity to discuss the
    events of 11 September with many people living in the Arab nations
    and around the world.

    Mr. TSEDU of the SABC said, as a black journalist in an environment
    that was probably still overwhelmingly white, the challenge was to
    ensure that the sorts of hang-ups that go along with growing up in
    a country where racism had been institutionalized could be
    overcome. Whites needed to be coaxed out of their own sense of
    superiority. The way to do that was to stop treating people like
    they were homogeneous stereotypes. That was particularly true of
    perceptions painted of people from the African continent. He added
    that, early in his career, people in the United States would ask
    him wonderingly if he had ever tasted ice cream or how he had
    arrived in that country, as if he had come by elephant.

    He said the general perception, based on news coverage, was that
    nothing else was happening in the third world but wars and famine.
    The world media had the responsibility to move out of the notion of
    "parachute journalism" -- jumping into "bloody" situations and
    "moving on when the blood dried up". It seemed as though only very
    critical and horrendous incidents made it into news coverage today.
    If the perception that every Muslim was Osama Bin Ladin was ever
    going to change, the world media must accept its responsibility to
    change its coverage not just of a single story, but of an entire
    region of the world.

    Mrs. Robinson spoke of the divide in perceptions between the first
    and third world, especially post-11 September. She said it was
    important to have diversity in the media workplace. A plan of
    action was necessary, coming out of the Durban Conference, but it
    was now even more necessary because of the 11 September events.
    This was the bleakest of times that she had known in human rights.
    And in bleak times, there was a need to go beyond dialogue, there
    needed to be a plan of action.