09 Jun Al Jazeera’s Coverage of Zarqawi’s Death
09.06.06
|
17 Comments
Al Jazeera has some of the most appalling coverage of the death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi that one could possibly imagine for a major news network. First, there is the lead story entitled “U.S., allies hail Zarqawi killing” which reports that family members of Zarqawi’s beheaded victims had “mixed reactions” to the news of his death. The article concludes with reports that “Al-Qaeda in Iraq, the organisation headed by al-Zarqawi, has vowed to fight on.” Then there is a top story from Zarqawi’s family praising his martydom and stating how “happy” they were at news of his death because “he’s a martyr and he’s now in heaven.” Al Jazeera then offers an obituary of Zarqawi that describes him as a “Jordanian-born fighter” who rose to “prominence as leader of the Islamist Tawhid and Jihad group in 2003.” It notes that his group “carried out some of the most deadly attacks in Iraq since the US-led invasion, including the January 2005 bombing of a crowd of police and Iraqi National Guard recruits in the southern city of Hilla that killed 125 people.” It further notes that since 2005 his “campaign” has expanded beyond the Iraqi borders. And finally there is a story of how elusive Zarqawi had been, with reports on how “US forces and their allies had come close to capturing al-Zarqawi several times since his campaign began in mid-2003.” But somehow he always escaped. Al Jazeera also unhelpfully provides links to transcripts from Zarqawi’s speech last week calling on Sunnis to “prepare to get rid of the infidel snakes and their poison” and an April video lashing out at the Iraqi government’s collaboration with “Western crusaders.”
Shame on Al Jazeera.
Roger,
Forgive me, but I’m not clear as to what you find disturbing. I watched CNN today for a little while and they reported virtually everything you note here from Al Jazeera. Do we proclaim ‘Shame on CNN?’ There seems to be nothing but reporting about al-Zarqawi: his life, death, family members’ reactions, reactions from those of his persuasion and others…. What do you suggest Al-Jazeera should have done? Not report such things? I found the information above useful as part of the greater project of attempting to understand the psychology of like-minded Islamist militants, of attempting to figure out the socio-psychological and political circumstances that help give birth to and nurture such individuals, etc. There’s nothing here that glorifies or apologizes for his behavior. Again, I may be missing something, but if so, please help me understand just what it is.
Patrick
al Jazeera’s Value as a News Agency
Roger Alford at Opinio Juris has drawn the short straw. He is the poor, woe betide soul to subject himself to al Jazeera’s coverage of the death of terrorist leader Abu Musab al Zarqawi. Just to see, I suppose, if…
I find myself in a similar position to Patrick – wondering whether I’d missed something in Roger’s post. In fact I had to reread the post to make sure that I hadn’t. There seems to be a disconnect between the first sentence pronouncing the appalling coverage and the rest of the post. There was nothing in the post that I hadn’t heard or seen in other reports. In fact the way in which Roger describes the reporting of the mixed reaction by family members of victimes appears a bit milder than the interview I heard on BBC radio this morning with the father of one of Zarqawi’s victims.
Perhaps there was something about the way Al-Jazeerah put these reports together that is disturbing.
To appreciate why I think Al Jazeera’s coverage of Zarqawi’s death was so appalling, you have to compare it to other news outlets. So look again at its coverage and ask a few questions. First, the photos. The photos are of Zarqawi alive sitting next to machine guns. There are no photos of Zarqawi dead, but almost every other news outlet included this graphic photo. Second, the links. Al Jazeera links to Zarqawi’s venomous speeches and videos. There are no links to the video of the bombing of his compound. Third, the omissions. There is no discussion that Zarqawi was betrayed from within his own organization. There is no discussion of worldwide reaction welcoming his death. It is only the United States and its allies on the one hand, and Zarqawi’s family rejoicing about his martyrdom on the other. Nor do they include a segment (like the BBC has) on Zarqawi’s enemies in the Arab world, including those in his hometown in Zarqa, where residents “wanted him dead.” Fourth, the choice of words. Literally thousands of other news outlets refer to Zarqawi as a terrorist or the leader of a terrorist network. Al Jazeera describes him as a “Jordanian-born fighter.”… Read more »
Perhaps my reaction to Al Jazeera is also prompted by my first memories of Zarqawi and his beheading of Nicholas Berg. It is important to remind ourselves just how evil Zarqawi was, and Al Jazeera clearly does nothing to help us remember this. They appear agnostic at best. Go back to May of 2004 and recall the images of the Berg beheading and remember how you felt about Zarqawi. Here is how Andrew Sullivan put it, “This is the really striking thing about the Zarqawi execution of Nick Berg. Al Qaeda never learns. Listening to the hooded coward shriek on that video and reading what he says can only remind us that these people are a) vile, b) as alien to true Islam as the KKK was to the Gospels, c) pathetic and d) dumb. They think they terrify us by this? The gang-murder of an unarmed, innocent civilian? And they think that it will add to the shame of Abu Ghraib, demoralize Americans still further, and prompt a withdrawal? In fact, of course, the Berg beheading does a grim but salutary service. In the midst of our own deserved self-criticism, we are suddenly reminded of the larger stakes, the… Read more »
Roger, Thanks for further clarification. Might it be that showing photos of him dead in this manner helps to glorify him as a ‘martyr’ of sorts? Today their website does in fact include a dead photo of him. And I did see a photo of the bombed ‘compound,’ but as it is reported that some civilians died there as well (including a child), there may be very good reasons for not seeing videos of his this. Al Jazeera does discuss the worldwide reaction under the heading, ‘The US and its allies have hailed the killing of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq, as a major victory in the fight against terror.’ It does mention the ‘betrayal:’ ‘Al-Maliki said the air strike was the result of intelligence reports provided to Iraqi security forces by residents in the area and US forces acted on the information.’ It may not have had the privileged access to information that allowed some news agencies to report more specific items in this regard. Keep in mind the US does not treat all news agencies equally, and its well known that, at times, some news sources have privileged access to information. Al-Jazeera is largely… Read more »
Roger, I just read your further clarification/elaboration and it does not pain me to say there’s much (meaning not all) I agree with. Still, the pathological hatred of Islamists did not arise in a vacuum (which does not mean we need capitulate to demands of Islamists), and so I think once we get beyond expressions of moral revulsion and disgust, of reassuring utterances as to the stupidity of any perceptions of ‘moral equivalence,’ we would do well to figure out what motivates those drawn to terrorist tactics, to giving in to pathological hatred, and so on (I sometimes wonder if this is not a red herring: who, after all, is making such claims. The fact is that it’s easier, if not more effective, to hold those accountable who in fact profess adherence to standards and principles, hence the attention; it does little good to express similar sorts of moral disapproval to those not upholding or expressing any sort of fidelity to such standards. This may lead to the impression that something on the order of ‘moral equivalence’ is at work, when in fact it is not). On ‘evil and stupidity: Here we part ways, as I think part of the… Read more »
Patrick writes, “For better and worse, the term ‘terrorist’ has been emptied of meaningful referent and moral approbation in the Middle East owing to its overuse and indiscriminate employment in popular and political discourse.”
I’m sorry Patrick but it is simply wrong and obscene to suggest that Zarqawi is not a terrorist or should not be labelled as such. There is a five minute video of a civilian telecommunications worker screaming as his head is cut off by four hooded terrorists. The severed head is then held up to the camera and placed on his body. How can anyone in any part of the world possibly not describe Zarqawi as a terrorist? There may be some outer boundary for that term, but he fits the very essence of the description. For a news outlet to not accurately describe his behavior as terrorism is appalling.
As I said above, ‘I’m not condoning the refusal to use the term.’ I was making a descriptive observation, not a normative claim. Something similar has happened with the word ‘socialism.’ No one is quite clear as to its meaning anymore (I happen to think that it can be definded in a meaningful way). I cannot find a better term than ‘terrorist’ to refer to the sorts of things Zarqawi practiced and encouraged, as several individuals do in their comments covered by Al Jazeera. I was not apologizing for Al-Jazeera here, but rather trying to account for why they don’t use the word. Will there be similar indignation when CNN, FOX News, or the New York Times does not refer to following actions as ‘terrorist?’: Israeli artillery shells have struck a group of Palestinian civilians at a beach in Bait Lahiya in northern Gaza, killing seven people, including three children, and wounding 36 others, Aljazeera reports. The artillery shells were fired on Friday by Israeli gunboats stationed just off the Mediterranean coast. The dead and the wounded Palestinians were having a picnic on the beach as it was the weekly holiday, Aljazeera’s correspondent Wael al-Dahduh said. The barrage scattered body… Read more »
My comment may be unuseful, but: I completely agree with Roger. Zarqawi was an animal. Perhaps that’s a mere moral assertion, but his behavior – both before the conflict when he had been jailed as a criminal – and after, demonstrate not the behavior of a man but of a beast.
Tom:
Such a characterization is inappropriate and unjust in comparative reference to creatures great and small in the non-human animal world. The kind of violence practiced by Zarqawi and other terrorists is not exhibited by ‘beasts’ in the animal kingdom: it is a uniquely ‘human’ sort of action.
Who is Patrick S. O’Donnell and why doesn’t he get his own blog?
Who is ‘guest?’ And why does he/she hide behind anonymity?
Wow.
And this is an international law blog.
Personally I’d like to see Patrick S. O’Donnell get his own blog. I’d like to read it.
Patrick:
The extent of my comparison earlier was between the absence of value placed on life by animals and that by Zarqawi &cohort. Inasmuch as animals do not make moral assessments in the animal kingdom neither did Zarqawi when it came to killing to meet his political goals. To this extent, in my opinion, he was roughly morally equivalent to an animal/beast.
Tom, I appreciate the explanation. It is true of course that animals do not exercise moral agency, and thus we have one of the properties often used to distinguish human from non-human animals. However, the fact that Zarqawi was a human agent and thus in theory capable of exercising such a capacity, suggests my comment as to the inappropriateness of the comparison remains cogent if not compelling. In other words, it is unfair to our beastly companions to be compared to Zarqawi when in effect they suffer from the comparison insofar as, by definition, they are constitutionally incapable of exercising moral agency (at least the kind of ‘rational’ moral agency at issue here; for there’s some evidence that animal behavior on occasion exhibits altruistic or ‘moral-like’ behavior) as you thereby conclude he was ‘roughly morally equivalent to an animal/beast.’ I would contend therefore, and rather, that such an assertion of ‘moral equivalence’ doesn’t make sense or falls flat, that it is essentially impotent in effect. It does nothing to account for or help illuminate the moral quality (or lack thereof) of Zarqawi’s political ethics (such as we can infer them from what we know up to now) and, to reiterate,… Read more »
Tom,
I should have first mentioned the fact that since animals are thought to be incapable of exercising rational moral agency, it makes no sense whatsoever to speak of ‘the absence of value placed on life by animals.’ The capacity to ‘place’ (intrinsic) value on life is a uniquely human one. To be sure, we may infer from animal behavior, as Buddhists do, that animals ‘value’ life in some sense, that they ‘cherish’ it, at least to the extent they typically behave in a way so as to avoid suffering and death. In other words, there’s something about the very nature of their existence that provides eloquent testimony to the value of life, even if these animals cannot self-consciously become ‘aware’ of that value in a reflexive and reflective sense. What is more, Zarqawi himself placed some value on life, although not in a way that most of us would find, to put it somewhat feebly, morally sufficient or ethically sound and consistent.