We must stop bolstering the beheaders

Guardian ^ | 09/28/04 | David Aaronovitch

[Pikamax]

We must stop bolstering the beheaders

David Aaronovitch Tuesday September 28, 2004

The Guardian

If it is the objective of terrorists to drive people mad, then the Jordanian serial killer who kidnapped Kenneth Bigley and his two US colleagues, is doing a fantastic job on us. The media and large sections of public opinion currently seem to be intent on rewarding him for his extraordinary brutality. He calls, we lean towards him. He makes impossible demands and we indulge in recriminations about whether they can be fulfilled. Why, fellow Britons, do you think that Zarqawi slit the throats of two American civilians so quickly, but has hung on for so long before murdering our Liverpudlian? Sentiment? A liking for the Beatles? So we would do exactly what we have been doing. And somehow he knows we have been doing it. The father of Daniel Pearl, who was one of the first westerners to be killed on camera (long before the invasion of Iraq), has called these murders "exhibition killings". They are committed so that the pleas of the doomed, the statements of the killers and the murders themselves can be shown and transmitted. If there were no internet, no television stations beaming pictures, no newspaper photos of men in hoods, then the chances are greater that no one would be beheaded.

Instead, I am told, we have British journalists among others, monitoring the executional websites round the clock so that they can be the first with the news and the pictures. The severing of heads is then much demanded on the internet, the images of Zarqawi and his demands are given full play on stations like al-Jazeera, truncated versions appearing on British TV stations, and still images on newspaper front pages. If there is such a thing as the oxygen of publicity, then we are giving it, to this and other butchers by the tank-full.

I think we should stop. If we don't exercise some self-censorship then the escalating kidnapping and killing of journalists will make our jobs impossible in any case. We will trade the ability to print the pictures of the men in masks for the ability to report from anywhere where such people may be operating. My proposal is that we should not broadcast images, appeals and statements that clearly vindicate the Nazi-like criminality of men like Zarqawi. Just the bald facts of the case and nothing more. We must stop being naive accomplices to exhibition killings.

And organisations and individuals who want to help should reconsider the notion of sending appeals through "mediators". Who are these mediators and what are they mediating? A slightly smaller eternal Caliphate? The orderly withdrawal of the Jews from the area of Old Palestine? When one campaigner in Blackburn told the Guardian that, "Mr Straw is not doing enough by simply stating that we do not negotiate with terrorists," what was he asking for? The circumstances in which the British government negotiated with the IRA (it is often forgotten) was when that organisation indicated that it wanted to end the "armed struggle". That's the only negotiation that's possible.

Suppose, for a moment, that we in Britain faced a fascist insurgency, which kidnapped a few Jews and black people. Should we negotiate for their lives by releasing Neo-Nazi bombers and racist murderers? Or would we calculate how many more Jews and black people would, as a result, wind up in cellars with knives to their throats?

It is, I know, different for the families of kidnapped victims, whose most obvious responsibility is to their relatives. Even so, and even at a terrible time like this, they should think about the consequences for others. It may be that Paul Bigley has calculated that the more severe he is about Tony Blair, the more likely he is to see his brother alive. I don't know. But if so he ought to be aware that his criticisms of the prime minister for being inactive, and of the Americans for sabotaging any release, are not just unfair but dangerous. Had Dr Germ left jail, Zarqawi would have demanded that all the other women prisoners be released, prisoners denied by the Iraqi authorities but estimated (on what basis, I don't know) in the hundreds by the pro-insurgent Association of Muslim Scholars.

And what would Blair have said to the kidnappers in the fax that Bigley wanted him to send? Dear Beheaders, spare our man where you have murdered so many others. He deserves to be killed less?" It is Zarqawi who holds Kenneth Bigley, Zarqawi who - leaning always to the side of death - has the power, Zarqawi who - unwanted by the Iraqi people - may deliver "the kiss of death" to his hostage.

We may not know their names yet, these victims of the future, but if we give in - if we fool ourselves into thinking there is a negotiation to be had - then other people's brothers will surely die.

Stand by for Panorama lite

In the old days of the much-feared John Birt, memos used to leak out of the BBC with a prostatic frequency. When, however, that People's Tribune Greg Dyke took over, and told staff that if they didn't like the BBC they could push off, the constant dribbling ceased. Either because they did now like the BBC, or because they didn't want to push off. This week, however, it seems that the normal flow has been restored.

I think I can guess who let my colleagues have a copy of the "Creative Brief" commissioned by the boss of current affairs, on the subject of the venerable Panorama programme, and its possible Charter-Renewing move back to BBC1 prime time. Which is just about anybody on the programme, because the brief is a bit of a shocker.

The existing programme (now shown late on Sunday evening) is described as being "too distant, too demanding, too difficult and too didactic". To go into a new, reduced, 30-minute prime-time slot, it should not lecture viewers, but instead "enable people to feel or experience the truth, not just to learn it". And Fiona Bruce and Jeremy Paxman could share big-name interviews, presumably on a soft-cop/hard-cop basis.

Naturally, given the instant row that has broken out at a sensitive time, the BBC is spinning the line that this was just "one of a number of creative briefs". So maybe it could show us the others; including the one calling for Panorama to be more authoritative and timely.

We have seen this so many times. What begins as a brief to rejuvenate TV current affairs by bringing a more accessible style to complex questions, ends up by simply asking different, stupider questions. Instead of serious stuff done in a compelling way, you get light rubbish told in an overheated way. How are you going to get people to "feel" the Oslo accords, or the situation in Palestine? Send them out to be shot at by the Israeli army?

"More stories talked about and memorable," says the brief. If you were a young researcher or producer, how would you interpret this imperative? An assessment of the real situation in Iraq prior to elections? Or (as ITV's This Week did) a big-money interview with Faria Alam on Sleeping with Sven? Turkey to join the EU, or has Michael Jackson been bad with small boys?

My God, isn't there enough undemanding stuff on the telly as it is? If BBC1 can't show complex programmes in prime time, then give the money to someone who can.

[talleyman]

We must stop being naive accomplices to exhibition killings.

About time. Would be a bit more convincing if the author wasn't worried so much about the practice spreading to journalists...

[Even Keel]

The problem is that there are thousands of MSM outlets that only see the revenue generated by drama/pain/death. If it doesn't shock us it must not be news, and therefore will not generate advertising revenue.

Sadly it is all about the almighty Dollar in the end. MSM could care less about averting terrorism or taking the limelight away from said terrorist. Quite the opposite actually.