[Reader-list] U.S. Media Applaud Bombing of Iraqi TV

[Harsh Kapoor]

FAIR-L
Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting
Media analysis, critiques and activism

MEDIA ADVISORY:
U.S. Media Applaud Bombing of Iraqi TV

March 27, 2003

When Iraqi TV offices in Baghdad were hit by a U.S missile strike on March
25, the targeting of media was strongly criticized by press and human
rights groups.  The general secretary of the International Federation of
Journalists, Aidan White, suggested that "there should be a clear
international investigation into whether or not this bombing violates the
Geneva Conventions."  White told Reuters (3/26/03), "Once again, we see
military and political commanders from the democratic world targeting a
television network simply because they don't like the message it gives
out."

The Geneva Conventions forbid the targeting of civilian installations--
whether state-owned or not-- unless they are being used for military
purposes.  Amnesty International warned (3/26/03) that the attack may have
been a "war crime" and emphasized that bombing a television station
"simply because it is being used for the purposes of propaganda" is
illegal under international humanitarian law.  "The onus," said Amnesty,
is on "coalition forces" to prove "the military use of the TV station and,
if that is indeed the case, to show that the attack took into account the
risk to civilian lives."

Likewise, Human Rights Watch affirmed (3/26/03) that it would be illegal
to target Iraqi TV based on its propaganda value.  "Although stopping
enemy propaganda may serve to demoralize the Iraqi population and to
undermine the government's political support," said HRW, "neither purpose
offers the 'concrete and direct' military advantage necessary under
international law to make civilian broadcast facilities a legitimate
military target."

Some U.S. journalists, however, have not shown much concern about the
targeting of Iraqi journalists.  Prior to the bombing, some even seemed
anxious to know why the broadcast facilities hadn't been attacked yet.
Fox News Channel's John Gibson wondered (3/24/03): "Should we take Iraqi
TV off the air? Should we put one down the stove pipe there?" Fox's Bill
O'Reilly (3/24/03) agreed: "I think they should have taken out the
television, the Iraqi television.... Why haven't they taken out the Iraqi
television towers?"

MSNBC correspondent David Shuster offered: "A lot of questions about why
state-run television is allowed to continue broadcasting. After all, the
coalition forces know where those broadcast towers are located."  On CNBC,
Forrest Sawyer offered tactical alternatives to bombing (3/24/03): "There
are operatives in there. You could go in with sabotage, take out the
building, you could take out the tower."

On NBC Nightly News (3/24/03), Andrea Mitchell noted that "to the surprise
of many, the U.S. has not taken out Iraq's TV headquarters."  Mitchell's
report cautioned that "U.S. officials say the television headquarters is
in a civilian area.  Bombing it would further infuriate the Arab world,
and the U.S. would need the TV station to get out its message once
coalition forces reach Baghdad.  Still, allowing Iraqi TV to stay on the
air gives Saddam a strong tool to help keep his regime intact."  She did
not offer the Geneva Conventions as a reason to avoid bombing a media
outlet.

After the facility was struck, some reporters expressed satisfaction.
CNN's Aaron Brown (3/25/03) recalled that "a lot of people wondered why
Iraqi TV had been allowed to stay on the air, why the coalition allowed
Iraqi TV to stay on the air as long as it did."  CNN correspondent Nic
Robertson seemed to defend the attack, saying that bombing the TV station
"will take away a very important tool from the Iraqi leadership-- that of
showing their face, getting their message out to the Iraqi people, and
really telling them that they are still in control."  It's worth noting
that CNN, like other U.S. news outlets, provides all these functions for
the U.S. government.

New York Times reporter Michael Gordon appeared on CNN (3/25/03) to
endorse the attack: "And personally, I think the television, based on what
I've seen of Iraqi television, with Saddam Hussein presenting propaganda
to his people and showing off the Apache helicopter and claiming a farmer
shot it down and trying to persuade his own public that he was really in
charge, when we're trying to send the exact opposite message, I think, was
an appropriate target."

According to the New York Times (3/26/03), Fox's Gibson seemed to go so
far as to take credit for the bombing of Iraqi TV, suggesting that Fox's
"criticism about allowing Saddam Hussein to talk to his citizens and lie
to them has had an effect."  Fox reporter Major Garrett declared
(3/25/03), "It has been a persistent question here, why [Iraqi TV] remains
on the air."

Given such attitudes, perhaps it's not surprising that discussions of the
legality of attacking Iraqi TV have been rare in U.S. mainstream media.
Yet when the White House accused Iraq of violating the Geneva Conventions
by airing footage of American POWs, media were eager to engage the subject
of international law.  It's a shame U.S. media haven't held the U.S.
government to the same standards.


If you'd like to encourage media outlets to investigate this story,
contact information is available on FAIR's website:
http://www.fair.org/media-contact-list.html