|
Spanish reporters: government silenced
the truth about the attacks
Madrid, Spain, Mar. 18 (IPS) A group representing
reporters and editors at Spains state-run news agency, EFE, says
the agency knew about evidence pointing to involvement by Islamic terrorists
in the Mar. 11 train bombings in Madrid that very morning, but kept
it under wraps due to pressure from the government of Prime Minister
José María Aznar.
EFE knew, from the very morning of (last) Thursdays attacks
in Madrid, about the existence of a cell-phone configured in Arabic
and about the van found in Alcalá de Henares, and knew that one
of the dead was a terrorist, the committee of EFE employees said
in a press release.
But Reporting or broadcasting information pointing to involvement
by extremist Islamic terrorists that was obtained from primary sources
by our national news service writers was expressly prohibited,
the committee said Mar. 15.
The heads of the Madrid Press Association (APM) met Weds., Mar. 17 with
the committee of EFE employees, who are now demanding that the agencys
news director, Miguel Platón, resign.
The EFE writers accuse Platón of imposing a regime of manipulation
and censorship in this company over the last few days, to favor the
interests of the Popular Party (PP) with a view to the Mar. 14 elections.
They maintained that the governments manipulation of information
was aimed at ensuring a victory at the polls last Sunday,Mar. 14, by
the conservative PP, which ended up being trounced by the Spanish Socialist
Workers Party (PSOE).
A little over an hour after 10 explosions tore through three commuter
trains during the morning rush-hour last Thurs., Mar. 11, killing 200
and injuring 1,500, the government blamed the Basque separatist group
ETA, and was echoed by the Spanish media, political parties, trade unions
and social organizations.
Decades of terrorist attacks staged by ETA in demand of an independent
Basque homeland and two similar aborted attempts made it logical that
the group would be viewed as a likely suspect.
The on-line editions of Spains main newspapers carried headlines
that day with different versions of Massacre by ETA. The
first IPS report in Spanish was also titled ETA Votes with Bombs
and Dead Civilians, while the headline of the agencys first
article in English was ETA Main Suspect in Rail Blasts, More Than
170 Killed.
Not until the evening of Thurs., Mar. 11 did the government announce
that in the town of Alcalá de Henares, the starting-point of
several of the trains carrying explosives, police found a stolen van
carrying detonators and an audiotape of Koranic verses in Arabic.
Investigators also found a sports bag containing an unexploded bomb,
a detonator and a cell-phone configured in Arabic at one of the sites
of the explosions.
Shortly after the government reported the discovery of the van, a London-based
Arabic-language newspaper, Al-Quds Al-Arabi, reported that it had received
an e-mail in the name of a group with links to the al-Qaida Islamic
terrorist network claiming responsibility for the blasts.
Nevertheless, Aznar personally called the directors of El País,
Jesús Ceberio, in Madrid, and El Periódico, Antonio Franco,
in Barcelona, to tell them there was not the slightest doubt that ETA
was responsible.
It was then that I, under the conviction that the prime minister
of my country was incapable, in the exercise of his duty, to give me
assurances about something he was not completely sure about, decided
on the headline: ETAs M-11, Franco wrote in
an editorial that was posted on the Catalan newspapers website.
The prime minister gave his word to the heads of the media so
they would present the attacks as the work of the ETA terrorist group,
wrote El País in an editorial on Mar. 14, the day of the elections,
in which the PP, previously expected to win handily, was defeated by
Spains socialists.
The Association of Foreign Journalists, to which the IPS correspondent
in Madrid belongs, also complained that a dozen of its members had received
phone calls from the State Secretariat of Communication, explicitly
requesting that our reports state that ETA was the perpetrator of the
attacks.
The Association of Employees (APM) of the Madrid public TV station also
complained of outright manipulation, censorship,
falsification of news, and the concealing of
information.
In the future, we demand that ethical standards be respected,
so journalists are able to work freely and provide truthful information,
APM president Fernando González Urbaneja told IPS.
On the day of the attacks, Foreign Minister Ana Palacio sent instructions
to Spanish embassies around the world. According to El País,
her memo stated: You should use any opportunity to confirm ETAs
responsibility for these brutal attacks, hence helping to dissipate
any type of doubt that certain interested parties may want to promote.
The Interior Ministry has confirmed that ETA was responsible,
she added in the message, which she later said was aimed at providing
guidance to embassies at their request.
Even the United Nations Security Council issued a resolution on the
day of the attacks blaming ETA, on the insistence of Madrid, which said
it had irrefutable evidence of involvement by the Basque separatist
group.
The embarrassed Security Council is now preparing to annul the resolution.
Senior European officials also complained this week that their governments
felt misled by the Aznar administrations insistent blaming of
ETA.
EU Foreign Policy chief Javier Solana, a Spaniard, said in interviews
with Spanish television that it seemed certain that ETA was involved
because of the characteristics of the attack and the kind of explosive
that was used.
The government erroneously reported on the day of the blasts that the
explosive was Titadyne dynamite, which ETA used in earlier attacks after
stealing several tons of it in France.
It is clear that there was pressure, Enrique Bustamante,
international relations expert and member of PSOE prime-minister-elect
José Luis Rodríguez Zapateros advisory team, told
IPS.
This was the first time that the head of government called all
of the major media and that censorship and control of information was
applied in the official news agency (EFE).
When the SER radio station, the most popular in Spain, reported that
99 percent of the evidence found by the military intelligence
National Information Center pointed to extremist Islamic groups, the
phone immediately rang, and a denial came from the director
of the Center himself, said Bustamante.
While the government repeated ETA over and over again, like
a kind of mantra, the evidence that increasingly suggested Islamic involvement
continued to pile up.
Analysts say the publics anger at the way the government handled
the information arising from the investigation, as well as the fact
that Spaniards overwhelmingly opposed Spains support for the US-led
war on Iraq, led to the defeat of the PP.
Despite the fact that surveys indicated that over 80 percent of Spaniards
were opposed to the March 2003 invasion of Iraq, the Aznar administration
dispatched 1,300 Spanish troops to take part in the occupation.
The Madrid train bombings, apparently staged by one of the radical Islamic
groups that have threatened to take reprisals against the allies of
the George W. Bush administration in that war, reactivated the publics
memory of its opposition to the war.
While the Spanish media continued to echo the government line that ETA
was responsible, thousands of Spaniards took to the streets on Saturday,
Mar. 13 to repudiate the attacks and protest the governments manipulation
of the facts.
Outside PP offices in cities around Spain, demonstrators shouted We
Said NO to the War! and Your War, Our Corpses.
Bustamante pointed out that the spontaneous outpouring of anger and
grief was prompted by cell-phone, e-mail and Internet messages
that circulated widely throughout Spain.
The initial conviction that ETA was responsible might be compared to
what occurred after a car-bomb destroyed a US federal building in Oklahoma
City on Apr. 19, 1995.
A total of 169 people were killed in that terrorist attack, for which
no one claimed responsibility. Immediately after the blast, the media
reported that it was the work of Arab terrorists -- a version
that continued to be echoed for two days.
IPS, on the other hand, stated just hours after the explosion that certain
signs suggested involvement by far-right white supremacists.
Timothy McVeigh, who fit that description, was eventually found guilty
and put to death for the bomb attack.
It was a cultural question, journalist Jim Lobe told a fellow
IPS writer.
Americans dont see their young as capable of the kind of
violence that was visited on the federal building, but, through movies,
news coverage, and facile assumptions by so-called terrorism,
experts (many of whom are Islamaphobes), and an occasional off-the-record
official, the notion that it must have been Middle Eastern or more precisely
Arab in origin simply took hold.
We in the Washington bureau were 36 hours ahead of the rest of
the media in pointing to the [far-right] militias, said Lobe.
As a person from the US west with experience with Posse Comitatus
and other far-right groups in the court system, I was convinced that
some Americans were perfectly capable of such an outrage, and that the
target itself, a federal building, made perfect sense, he added.
With Pratap Chatterjee, our former colleague, quickly scoping
out sites on the web, we saw the chatter from far-right groups and realized
that Apr. 19 was an important anniversary. It was a matter of connecting
the dots, said Lobe.
Fear and favor on the PBS NewsHour
Mar. 18 Journalist Christian Parenti was invited
to talk about Iraq on the Mar. 2 broadcast of PBSs NewsHour with
Jim Lehrer. But Parentis criticism of the reconstruction contracts
granted to corporations like Halliburton and Bechtel apparently crossed
a line for the programs host. According to a report by Cynthia Cotts
in the Village Voice newspaper (3/17/04), Lehrer objected to comments
Parenti made in response to a question about whether bombings in Iraq
would make the American job harder on the ground in Iraq:
PARENTI: I would think so. I would think that we have to look at
some of the deeper causes as to why theres so much frustration.
Why are Iraqis so angry and willing to point the blame at the US after
this sort of bombing? A lot of it has to do with the failure of meaningful
reconstruction. There still is not adequate electricity. In many towns
like Ramadi there wasnt adequate water. Where is all the money thats
going to Halliburton and Bechtel to rebuild this country? Where is it
ending up? I think that is one of the most important fundamental causes
of instability, is the corruption around the contracting with these Bush-connected
firms in Iraq. Unless that is dealt with, there is going to be much more
instability for times to come in Iraq.
Two nights later (3/4/04), Lehrer made an unusual on-air announcement:
An editors note before we go, for those who were watching
two nights ago: A discussion about Iraq ended up not being as balanced
as is our standard practice. While unintentional, it was our mistake,
and we regret it.
According to the Voice report, producers for the show suggest that Parentis
mistake was referring to the Halliburton contracts. The Voice quoted NewsHour
senior producer Michael Mosettig saying: This was not reportage,
this was giving his opinion, and thats not why we brought him on.
Mossetigs deputy, Dan Sagalyn, told the Voice that Parentis
comments lacked balance.
The remarks seem to have gotten Parenti virtually blacklisted from the
show. I would have liked to have him on again... but because of
this it would be very hard, Sagalyn told Cotts. When you have
a loose-cannon experience with somebody, youre going to be wary,
Mossetig said. It would be understandable for the NewsHour to be concerned
with the accuracy of comments made by any guest; that would be responsible
journalism. But the show is not claiming Parenti said anything inaccurate.
Instead, the show seems to be saying that journalists shouldnt give
opinions on the show. Lehrer has declared that one of his principles of
journalism (1997 Catto Report on Journalism and Society) is to carefully
separate opinion and analysis from straight news stories and clearly label
them as such.
But thats not been a consistent policy. New York Times reporter
John Burns, for example, often shares opinions on the NewsHour while being
interviewed about his reportage. On the Nov. 17, 2003 broadcast, for example,
Burns suggested that he felt profoundly dispirited and disappointed
by the situation in Iraq six months after US troops pulled down Saddam
Husseins statue in Baghdad. Burns recommended a renewed commitment
to the occupation: Its going to take stout hearts on the part
of the people of the United States, and the government of the United States,
to see this through.
Those are certainly opinions, and the NewsHour audience is entitled to
hear them. What the NewsHour seems to be arguing is that it just didnt
care for Parentis opinions specifically, that official corruption
might be to blame for some of the problems the occupation is facing. Far
more important than regulating journalists who cross such arbitrary lines,
though, is challenging official sources who misstate the facts. The NewsHour,
unfortunately, does not always exhibit a keen interest in correcting misinformation
from Bush administration officials.
In September 2002 (9/20/02), Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld claimed
in an interview with Lehrer that Iraq threw the [UN] inspectors
out in 1998, and that in 1990 Iraq had plans for invading
Saudi Arabia, which they were ready to do. Both assertions are false,
and neither was challenged by Lehrer. Despite the fact that hundreds of
FAIR activists wrote to the NewsHour to point out Rumsfelds distortions
(see FAIR action alert, 9/20/02), Lehrer made no attempt to correct the
record.
Source: Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting
|