The world reacts
By Alvin Shuster Posted Sat, Dec 1 2001
The media reacted as one. The September 11 attacks in Manhattan and Washington dominated every front page, every newscast on radio and television, every web page, on every continent, in every major city. Rarely in the history of journalism has there been such unanimity in coverage, and with reason.
Yes, there were some early mistakes on just what happened, but that was expected given the enormity of it all. And yes, there were some harsh and sometimes outrageous political “insights'' in the publications embracing that kind of slanted reporting. But, yes, for the most part, there was that torrent of expressions of sympathy for the victims and of denunciations of the terrorists.
Many countries reporting on those events, of course, have experienced terrorism, within their own cities, arising from a range of ethnic, religious, political, and cultural conflicts. To see it happen in the United States, live on television, was as shocking in nations accustomed to horror as it was in nations that were not.
These were the major impressions derived from a survey by the staff of IPI Global Journalist, a sampling of world coverage of the attacks themselves as well as the aftermath and the American response.
Newspapers used their biggest type for headlines, unleashed the flair of headline writers, and reached for the phrases on front pages that would best reflect the tragedy.
“America Goes To War.” “Terror in America.” “War on the World.” “Attack Against America.” “War on America.” “Armageddon.” “World on the Brink.” “Apocalypse Now.” “Chronology of the Attacks.” “Doomsday America.” “The Day that Changed the World.”
The stories worldwide included tales of the human drama, with quotes from witnesses, rescue workers, officials, portraits of victims, profiles of Osama bin Laden, background pieces on Islam along with opinion and analyses that ranged from warm support of the United States to bitter attacks on its foreign policy.
Few of the papers base foreign correspondents in the United States and, by necessity; their reliance on wire services for news and photos was expected. Television in many capitals cancelled their regular programs and turned to CNN, the BBC, or other networks, for live coverage.
To supplement the main coverage, some newspapers sought to bring home to their readers and viewers what the attacks might mean to their own citizens. In Chile, for example, the newspaper, Diario El Mercurio, published a piece that focused on the thoughtfulness of Americans and Chileans living in the United States with the headline: “The horror of the Chileans in the U.S.A.” It noted that the Chilean residents “in New York and in Washington were witnesses to the anguish and also of solidarity; hundreds of people concurred to the welfare establishments to donate blood for the wounded.”
In the Middle East, newspapers at times also turned the focus on their own, with one newspaper noting that Lebanese and Yemeni, among others from the region, were killed in the World Trade Center and aboard the hijacked planes. This was coupled with worry that those of Middle East descent who live in the United States would become targets for revenge.
The Arabic-language Al Hayat newspaper, based in London, wrote that “Muslims and Arabs in America prepare for black days.'' But, at the same time, columnists for the paper criticized what was called the “timid” denunciation of the terrorism by some Arab officials, and one writer berated those who “glorify suicide operations.”
In general, the Arab media, with some exceptions, provided a detailed view of the attacks, expressed concern over the fate of the Arab-Americans and Muslims, and raised questions whether military action alone would bring an end to terrorism.
The condemnation of terrorism, however, was often coupled with criticism in the Arab media of the American role in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and its support of Israel. One writer in Al Hayat argued that the United States would not be able to eliminate terrorism without changing its policies in the Middle East. Other Arab papers were more strident, to put it mildly.
In Germany, magazines published special sections, revising their usual publication dates to rush to the newsstands. To underscore the tragedy, one of Germany's leading national dailies, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, published a photograph on its frontpage for only the fourth time in its 50-year-old history.
Later, the press there began to focus on the “German connection,” the reports that some of the terrorists used Germany as an operating base. Der Spiegel, the newsmagazine, went all out in investigating the terrorists themselves and their backgrounds.
In Belgrade, after early extensive coverage, the media quickly turned to recollections of the American-led bombing campaign in the Balkans in 1999, with some Serbs quoted as saying that Americans “now know how we felt when they bombed us.”
In Britain, the day after the attacks, this from The Guardian:
“Always, it seemed, it was what we could not see that was so frightening. No blood, no screams. The Greeks, in their tragedies, wisely kept the worst moments off stage, out of the scene…We were watching death on an unbelievable scale, but we saw no one die.”
France's Le Figaro stressed that all should realize that the fight was against terrorism and not against Islam, a theme repeated in many newspapers, both in editorials and in official quotes.
In Italy, Corriere Della Serra's first reaction was to stress that such terrorism involved the whole of the Western World, and, it said, “We are all Americans.'' The main column in La Republica: “The West has been hit at its heart.''
Britain's Daily Telegraph had a similar message to those living outside of the United States, the country in the midst of it all. “What we saw in America yesterday was an attack on the freedom and order and peace that are essential to all of us, no less of an attack because it took place thousands of miles away.”
In the Far East, India and Pakistan media took the opportunity to highlight the tensions that have so long existed between those two nations while at the same time dealing with the American tragedy. Indian editorials, for example, urged the United States to recognize that in seeking the aid of Pakistan in the fight against The Taliban, Washington was aligning itself with a nation responsible for aiding terrorism in disputed Kashmir.
Editorials in Pakistan struck back at India for its “bellicosity and propaganda blitz.” But pro-government newspapers there bemoaned past relations with Washington, arguing that, until the United States “ needed'' Pakistan it had been high-handed and punitive toward that country. “The big question for Pakistan has to be whether we can trust the U.S.,” said an opinion article in the newspaper, Dawn. “Unfortunately, going on the historical record, the answer has to be in the negative.''
The Pakistan Observer, however, took the view that the decision to cooperate with the United States was “unavoidable'' and that it would have been an “outright blunder” to back the Taliban under the circumstances.
In Tehran, the Iran News worried about the suffering the Afghan people would now experience, just “as they did during the Soviet invasion.''
“Amid the horror and devastation and the death toll of the New York tragedy,'' the News said, “It is difficult to assuage the cries of vengeance. Yet the leaders of the world must sooner rather than later end the plight of millions of innocent Afghan refugees.”
After the first days of coverage of the attacks in Manhattan and Washington, the story declined in prominence but then, the American and British response, the bombing of Afghanistan and the search for bin Laden, attracted new attention. In general, most European papers supported the strikes. Le Temps of Switzerland urged swift military action, noting that if success does not come quickly “the risk increases of the Muslim world seeing bin Laden as a hero and a martyr.”
In Moscow, Izvestia reacted to the bombing by reporting that Russia would provide humanitarian aid to Afghanistan together with European and American partners. And a front-page article said the air strikes seem to be more against those in Kabul who shelter bin Laden rather than against the terrorist himself.
But the British press has been particularly active in covering the attacks because they are a joint Anglo-American operation. Opinion articles in all the major papers bordered on the effusive because of the close relationship with the United States.
“It is not a coincidence that this alliance works so smoothly in a crisis,” said the Daily Telegraph. “It is based on more than the shared intelligence which is so vital to military success: it depends upon a shared culture, a common language and a common belief in the active defense of freedom.”
As the days of the operation went on, opinions were flowing easily but facts were often scarce. There are no Western reporters in Kabul and this lack of first-hand information is a definite handicap in providing readers and viewers with an objective sense of just what is occurring. The result is a heavy reliance on Al Jazeera, the Arabic television station based in Qatar, the only foreign television network with a bureau operating in Kabul.
“The only certainty,” said the Daily Mail, “is that there will be difficult days, weeks and even months ahead.”
Difficult days quickly developed in what was soon called the public relations war as reflected in the way media in the Arab world commenced to play the story.
American officials sought to counter such criticism with a series of unusual appearances on Arabic television stations. Their statements justifying the bombing in Afghanistan and insisting they pursued balance in their Middle East policies often got prominent attention if not support.
The media in the region continued to feature funerals of Palestinians killed in fights with Israel as well as images of wounded Afghan civilians.
Elsewhere, of course, the press has been more supportive of the American response. The media may well have reacted as one in September, but, clearly, no longer.