| May 2012 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||
| 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 |
| 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 |
| 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | ||
The Russian government has banned ABC:
Basayev interview: Russia bars ABC
MOSCOW, Russia (Reuters) -- Moscow is barring journalists from U.S. television channel ABC from working in Russia after the channel broadcast an interview with Chechen rebel leader Shamil Basayev, the Foreign Ministry said on Tuesday.
Accreditations for ABC's reporters would not be renewed and, in the meantime, they would be banned from talking to Russian officials, it said.
Free speech advocates have repeatedly criticized President Vladimir Putin's government for restricting the Russian press, but this appeared to be the first action against a major Western media organization.
"ABC is now unwelcome to contact any Russian state organizations or bodies," a Foreign Ministry statement said.
It said broadcasting the Basayev interview "was a clear case of helping to propagandize terrorism" and accreditations for ABC workers would "not be renewed."
This gives rise to all sorts of interesting discussions. Was ABC "helping to propagandize terrorism"? Of course. MSM does that all the time. They refuse to call terrorists and beheaders by their true names, instead calling them "insurgents" and "militants". From Daniel Pipes:
...today's broadcasts strive toward impartiality. For instance, a memo distributed to Canadian Broadcast Corporation staff cautions against using the words "terrorist" and "terrorism," because these "can leave journalists taking sides in a conflict." The conceit that members of the press have no stake in the outcome of war is terribly wrong; just imagine how television talk shows would be after these same terrorists took over. (They did not flourish under the Taliban, to put it mildly.)
...when pressed about the appropriateness of broadcasting the enemy's view, producers assert they are doing a public service by exposing these. Is freedom of speech, they ask, not premised on the open marketplace of ideas? And does that not imply having faith that an informed citizenry will discern the sensible from the wrong-headed?
Yes and no. Freedom of speech means speaking one's mind, without fear of going to jail. It does not imply the privilege to address a television audience.
Further, while unfettered free political speech is critical to debate taxation rates, school curricula, abortion, or for whom to vote, it makes no sense to promulgate the enemy viewpoint when a country is at war. Even though the great majority of viewers, listeners, and readers will be repulsed by the views of extremists, no less surely will a small minority find these attractive and compelling. We saw, for example, how the prominent exposition of Osama bin Laden's ideas in 2001 inspired suicide bombers, including several of the London terrorists. If bin Laden and his ilk can convince just a tenth of 1% of Israeli Arabs, one thousand new suicide bombers have been formed.
Is this wise public policy?
The distinguished historian Conor Cruise O'Brien thinks not. When he served as the Irish minister of posts and telecommunications in 1976, he imposed a ban on interviews with Irish Republican Army terrorists and Sinn Fein members, arguing that it was necessary to prevent them from spreading their message. For the same reason, the Russian foreign ministry expressed its "strong indignation" after America's ABC television last week interviewed Chechen terrorist leader Shamil Basayev.
The ideal solution lies not in creating censors' bureaus to pass judgment on television content but for media executives to accept their responsibilities in time of war. On their own initiative, they should exclude the enemy's apologists and advocates. Lively debate does not require such people; patriots with sharply differing views can also make sparks fly.
Am I arguing against freedom of speech here? Here's the test to find out:
