Can Journalism be Truly Objective in War? The Case of Mosul

Roundtable  |  HELO with WFA, Nash, Ayad, Ali Kurdistani, Susan Hayward, Theo Dolan, Mike Otterman, Thanassis Cambanis, and You, Oct-Nov 2009. www.Helo-Magazine.com 

*****************************************************************

If you’re new to the details on Iraq, you might check out Reuters Alertnet or ReliefWeb to catch up. If you’re at a medium level, read the International Crisis Group’s new report on Mosul. We’re hitting the ground running.

*****************************************************************

Join the Roundtable Discussion! The interviewer discussed the subject with participants individually then assembled this discussion in logical sequence. If you would like to add your thoughts, please submit them to the editor or post them on the magazine blog.

All views are welcome. The top three submissions/postings will be added to the piece and kept in the archived version of the story. Selection for posting will depend on how well the point is made. [Continued below]

****************************************************************

A common Iraqi view of their country, an ancient minaret in old town Erbil / Hewler, Iraq, DJG.

War can shatter any cosmopolitan town, turning it into a thousand glittering shards of glass each reflecting a different color, shape, shine or luster. Imagine that you are a journalist aiming to capture an event reflected in that glass. Contemporary journalism simplifies the complexities of war by necessity. Western media journalists, for example, may report on the violence in Mosul, the reasons behind it and the key political competition linked to the US involvement.

The simplified picture of Mosul, arguably the most delicate fault-line in Iraq as US forces begin to withdraw, tends to be one of a town of Arab militancy, terrorism and tense Kurdish patriotism. Inevitably, so much is left out: Arabs and Kurds who live together and want peace, alternative parties, Assyrians, Yazidis, Shabak, mixed marriages, the role of love and loss, the role of faith and so much more.

Perhaps news media may misdiagnose a crisis such as the one in Mosul, portraying it as more intractable or simple then it really is because of this. On the other hand, to concentrate reportage on peace activities and people carrying on their daily life may contrastingly convince readers that the challenges are smaller, or less urgent than they really are.  

Can journalism ever present a truly objective picture in war, with Mosul as an example? If journalists and other seekers of truth simplify, or report only on the most urgent events, does that distort the picture of the event and the city? How can journalism get closer to the truth when it sometimes must be brief on a subject so complex?

Mike Otterman, Author of the forthcoming book, Erasing Iraq, journalist and a human rights consultant in New York, www.michaelotterman.com: Interesting questions to consider; they really strike at the heart of what's wrong with journalism today, and perhaps how to fix it. In my view, journalism cannot be purely objective in any area—education, healthcare, crime, education--so why should war be any different?

The fog of war exacerbates the inherent problems of objective journalism, i.e. presenting two "equally valid" viewpoints and splitting the difference between the two, as the actors involved push their own objectives to journalists. They, in turn, select strands from each based on their own ideology. Editors favoring bloodshed over human interest only distort the picture further. When it comes to understanding Mosul, the best place to start is with Iraqi voices.

Thanassis Cambanis, former Bureau Chief for the Boston Globe in Iraq, Author of a forthcoming book on Hezbollah, and Adjunct Professor of Journalism at Columbia University in New York, www.thanasiscambanis.com: If journalism can be objective anywhere, it can be objective in Mosul. The question’s a little bit off the point. I don’t think you mean can journalism be objective, I think you mean can journalism be constructive? Can the stories which reporters write about a place like Mosul at this moment and time generate useful intervention with Mosul or useful understanding of what’s happening there?

The answer to that might be yes, journalism isn’t objective. The reasons journalism can be constructive in Mosul is if it is seriously conceived, honestly conceived, if the reporter is truly questioning their own assumptions and trying to establish the context in which the story takes place. Those are some of the pre-requisites for serious journalism or serious conflict reporting.

If you’re covering a conflict that America’s involved in for an American audience, the fundamental bias is toward narratives which concern Americans. That’s the first and biggest problem if you’re trying to tell the truth with a capital T. One of your first obstacles is that your readers aren’t as interested in something that concerns Kurdish, Turkoman, and Arab political cooperation over let’s say reconstruction or the oil industry. And there’s another story out there about Al Qaeda in Iraq attacking American outposts in Mosul.

The second one, that’s the bias toward stories about the conflict. We care about Iraq cause it’s at war, we care about war in particular cause we’re fighting that war. As a journalist with humanitarian proclivities I always had to struggle to convince editors as well as readers of the importance of stories which didn’t play into that conflict story line: How’s the conflict going? Are we close to getting out?

They will care about Iraqi peacemaking if you can say Kurds and Arabs in Mosul are getting along so well that we can pull our troops out. That’s automatically of interest. If we can say such and such is happening between Kurds and Arabs in Mosul, they might say that it’s incremental. You might counter and say that a suicide bomb story is also incremental, the five hundred and sixty-third suicide bombing to hit in the last three years. But if it killed an American, you know that story wins. So that’s a big problem.

Nash, a reconstruction and peacebuilding professional, in Mosul: It is known that if the situation in Mosul eases, then the broader Iraq situation eases as well. If Mosul natives place their confidence in Americans, for example, then Iraq will follow suit. History and all Iraqis know that since the establishment of the Iraqi state most of the great Iraqi rulers, leaders and notable scientists were from Mosul.

During the [First Iraq War] in 1991 when much of the Iraqi Army was from Mosul, and the south and north of Iraq revolted, Mosul remained clean and orderly. One of my friends from Diwaniyah, when I was there, told me that they knew that any uprising would fail without the support of Mosul, such is the importance of the community here.

WFA, a reconstruction and development professional with a background in peacebuilding and medical affairs, in Baghdad: Most journalists in Iraq look for fame and excitement, therefore many reports evolve around violence in order to get to the truth. So one of the problems facing journalists in Iraq - and their attempts to report with objectivity - is the threat of murder and abduction by unidentified armed groups, especially in Mosul. That province is considered one of the most dangerous areas in Iraq.

Generally, the reports recorded about 235 journalists killed in Iraq since the US-led invasion on March 20th, 2003, according to the International Federation of Journalists. [There have also been] 87 kidnapping of journalists since the beginning of the conflict in Iraq, and in this context, the 15 are still being held hostage. It is unfortunate about all the assassinations that have targeted journalists. Still the killers of journalists wander as they please without being justly punished.

Long live these journalists once they are safely delivered from the hell that was Iraq. This country has been the deadliest in the world for professionals in the media sector.

Ayad, a consultant on post-war development in Erbil and Canada: [Despite the fact that violence can limit access,] a journalist reporting from a certain area needs to have good knowledge of that area’s culture, ethnic and sectarian structure, and problems. In a number of cases a reporter is sent let us say to Mosul. He is given a quick briefing of the area and the country. He would report on incidents which are present nearby or which he hears about through people he meets within very confined environments due to the security situations. The opinion of the people he meets is not necessarily the real thing and in most cases represents their own ethnic, religious or sectarian point of view.

It is therefore very important for proper journalism to be truthful, unbiased and objective for the reporter to have in depth knowledge of the area he is reporting from and to report on the bad while still touching on the overall picture. In Mosul ,as an example, there are violent incidents but people are living there, students are going to schools and colleges, government offices are operating. This clearly indicates that there is bad but there is also a lot of good there. Objective reporting in my opinion needs to touch on both.

Ali Kurdistani, Journalist and Consultant on Kurdish Affairs, in Suleymaniyah: Recently, when violence in Mosul increased, both the Arab and Kurds in that province accused each other of supporting explosions and violence. Most of the local press have been controlled by political parties or funded by them. Therefore each local press draws a picture of Iraq as they want to show it, so local journalists don't present a real picture of Iraq. And the international press working in Iraq only they present a small part of the big picture.

[When] all those international press agencies get to work here it costs them a lot of money and for sure they will prefer report on violence. When people worldwide see violence in Iraq on the daily media they think there is no life in this country. But in the meantime there is life. People go to work, school and even to the entertainment places. Like when I saw Kirkuk recently in the press, I thought it would be too dangerous to walk around but I went there a few times and was walking around and spoke to people and I saw normal life. I think only more objective, independent media can tell you real stories and present a real picture of a country in war.

HELO: If journalists are writing for the priority interests of their readership, whether it's ordinary Americans or an Iraqi political party, then doesn't that assume journalists know what those priority interests are? Maybe the story of the inter-faith dialogue or targeted minority group is one which helps to clarify or question the dominant story? On the otherhand, would those alternative stories matter as much if they are not associated with facts about or potential solutions to the violence or humanitarian concerns at hand?

Susan Hayward, Senior Program Officer in the Religion and Peacemaking Program at the US Institute of Peace in Washington, DC: With its mix of Kurd, Arab, Turkomen, Assyrian, Armenian, Sunni, Shia, Yazidi and Christian communities, the ethnic and religious diversity of Mosul creates as much opportunity for nurturing pluralism (engagement and respect for the rich multi-cultural and multi-religious demographics and history of Iraq) as a component of Iraqi nationalism as it does fodder for instability and conflict. 

In covering the events in Mosul, it is enticing for journalists to cover examples of the latter – the bombs hurled across identity-fault-lines, the attacks against religious minorities and moderates. These, perhaps, are the news stories that push sales. And certainly there is no arguing that it is important to cover these instances of violence, and to draw attention to the persecution of and attacks against civilians and minorities.  But these tragic stories are not the only ones of inter-religious relations in Mosul. 

There are every day stories of members of different faith communities coming together to bridge understanding and express remorse over shared losses. There are clergy from different faiths who work together to create stability and address the justice concerns of their communities through non-violent means. I have met those involved in these efforts, USIP works with some of them; I know they exist.  

But these stories often remain under the radar, leading many to believe that Enlightenment-inspired popular assumption, particularly in the West, that religion is most often a source of conflict and a driver of violence. The reality is that religious resources (leaders, values, identity, institutions, beliefs) interact with political violence in a diverse place like Mosul in a much more complex and varied manner, sometimes, even, serving as a driver of reconciliation. 

Theo Dolan, Program Officer for the Center for Media, Conflict and Peacebuilding at the US Institute of Peace in Washington, DC: The “if it bleeds, it leads” mentality for covering conflict sells stories and grabs viewers, but is dangerously limited. Without focusing such coverage in a conflict-sensitive manner or by balancing bloody images with correspondingly in-depth coverage on social issues (in Iraq this means coverage not related to security or politics), I think that does distort the overall picture in Mosul and elsewhere in Iraq.

I think that part of the solution, if there is one, lies in media plurality. The more credible sources that can be provided to help shape opinions, the better. The hope is that people have the time and inclination to consult a variety of media, and that these sources are in fact credible. It is all about creating the context for people to inform themselves as best they can.

Nash: If you mean the local print press, magazines and newspapers, I never trust them. In Iraq, there is no confidence in local media generally, and newspapers in particular. People in Iraq when they want to devalue or deride a certain bit of news they would say, that's “newspapers’ news,” i.e. we mean balderdash! People here do not read newspapers [despite the large number] of newspapers issued in Iraq. These will go to kitchens or used for cleaning shops’ front windows.

WFA: [There were significant changes] passed to the Iraqi press during the past five years. The most important was the lifting of restrictions imposed on it [during the period of Saddam Hussein]. But on the other hand, there are threats and challenges faced in the field. The New Testament “Al-Ahad Al-Jaded” lifted restrictions on the Iraqi press, but left the door open because it did not put controls or conditions for the practice of a professional journalist or the publication of newspapers, magazines or a television or radio stations. This caused chaos with massive media in Iraq in the publication of newspapers by people far removed from the profession of journalism, so [instead] it was a setback in the history of the professional Iraqi press.

In terms of the number of media over the past five years, Iraq ranked first in the Arab world. But in terms of professionalism and quality it was at the bottom. Anyone who has money can issue daily papers. Iraqi President Jalal Talabani said in a statement issued to mark the fifth anniversary of the war that the administration "launched the freedoms of political action and party and union, and opened the doors to the media [allowing the issue of] hundreds of free publications and founding of dozens of television channels and radio, [which all evolved from the single voice imposed by the dictator].

Mike: The [Iraqi, evidenced as credible] blogs [however] are the best way for outsiders to glimpse the complex realities Mosul residents face. Baghdad had Riverbend and Salam Pax, but in the case of Mosul, we must turn to Sunshine, A Star From Mosul and HNK (the latter who's book, IraqiGirl, was just published by Haymarket). Violence permeates these bloggers' lives—and in turn permeate their writing. For instance, Sunshine—then only 14 years old—referenced the violence in Mosul in her first post on 20 April 2005:

“Hi, I am a teenager from Mosul in Iraq. I am doing very good in school although we have difficulties like there is no electricity most of the day, some times, I can not reach school because of firing on my way or the bridge is closed. Many times terrors attacked the police station near my house, which is very scary and happen suddenly. Therefore, you can see I do not feel safe and some times, it is difficult to concentrate, but I did it, I succeeded with very high marks. When some times I feel hopeless, I say to my self: I can do it, I will not give up.”

Violence is still a part of Sunshine’s life. In August 2009, she noted:

“My dad's friend belongs to the Shabak's cast (the Shabak are Kurds but they are against Kurdistan's government, and they are Shiites Muslims) my dad called to see how he and his family doing after a horrifying explosion which was heard all over the city he said, "I buried today 41 bodies, and there are more under the wreckage," my dad became speechless, imagine loosing 41 person in one day, family members, relatives, friends, kids, women, old and young... it is unfair… in few minutes hundreds lost their houses, hundreds were killed, and hundreds are suffering from severe injuries, they may die, or live cretins or handicapped. Why? What was their guilt?” 

While she paints searing portraits of violence, Sunshine also discusses the other aspects of life in Mosul—like cooking, shopping, seeing friends, and things like finishing final exams at high school. Sunshine's narrative of daily life permits readers to see Iraqi society from street level--through the lens of those suffering the most.

Theo: New media is a good example of creating this context. While SMS, blogs and tweets present brief pieces of information, they also play an important role in providing layers to the story. Although new media can be used to foment conflict (use of SMS in election-related violence in Kenya), it can also be put to amazing use to promote peace (Oscar Morales’ Facebook campaign to protest against the FARC in Colombia).

Today it seems that traditional media and new media work together symbiotically (blogs reference news articles and news articles reference blogs) to create the overall context. So it is not necessarily a question of whether news and information is brief, rather how is it all contributing to the big picture?

Mike: Global Voices is something to see. Initially launched by a disgruntled CNN bureau chief. It’s a major throughfare for bloggers’ voices to be heard. The site presents brief snippets of posts from bloggers around the world reacting, commenting and interacting with events around them. Sites like Global Voices are the light at the end of the collapsing tunnel of corporate “fair and balanced” journalism.

Susan: In reading the major news coverage of religiously-colored violence in Iraq and elsewhere in the world, I often find a rather simplistic portrayal of religion and its relationship to political violence. It seems there is by and large greater attention to the negative impact of religion in international relations and internal conflict, and a dearth of attention to the positive and constructive role it has played in building peace. [1] This same observation was made by an imam in North America who said last year:

"When I speak, or other moderate Muslim scholars speak, we will not find any outlet for our words.  But if a grocer in Karachi goes out on the streets and calls for jihad [holy war] against America, he will find many media outlets there ready to cover his insanity."[2]

The danger in this is that media plays an incredible role in shaping the dynamics that propel conflict or peace in every conflict environment, and with regards to larger global dynamics. It is how information and the interpretation of that information reaches populations. It’s a major player in how attitudes towards other communities are formulated, which in turn influences policy and action. 

With respect to religious conflict, media impacts how we understand and respond to other religious communities, especially those with which we may not have direct contact.

Media must recognize the incredibly complex variance within religious traditions, and the fact that religious narratives compete in a conflict environment in a place like Mosul, where there are often religious narratives that promote war and incite violence and inter-communal division, and those that promote peace and reconciliation. 

If only one of those narratives is reported on, that narrative may dominate and consequently play an overly influential role in shaping national and international attitudes and behaviors. Those narratives, in other words, are given the megaphone by which they drown out the other narratives, which come to be presented as “marginal.”

HELO: How can we balance coverage of violence versus peace, dominant views over marginalized, without misrepresenting the subject as too violent or too placid, too simple or too complex? 

Thanassis: If anything we [journalists] over-represent good news because we’re in our own way, like peace activists, are sick and tired of dispiriting stories about people doing horrible things to each other.

If I’m in Mosul and everybody I meet is trying to kill somebody else, then I meet a guy who’s organizing an inter-faith dialogue session, even that inter-faith session represents one tenth of one percent of what’s really going on. I’ll probably write about it cause it’s a bright light in a morass of darkness. And people I know did that all the time.

If anything, it’s misleading. For example now in Iraqi national politics there were all these stories being written about [Prime Minister Nouri Al-] Malaki forging a national party which includes people from all parties. There’s also a whole raft of good news stories about how the sectarianism of the war is waning and nationalism is on the rise and on the mend. Of course, we all hope that’s true so we’re going to write these stories about it.

Then there are elections. If all the national parties do well, we’ll feel tremendously relieved. If they crash and burn and once again sectarian parties dominate the sects' voting patterns, we’re going to say, here we go again it’s just like in 2005 when everyone wrote stories about [former Prime Minister Ayad] Alawi’s party. [Everyone] thought he’s a sleazy tyrant but at least he’s got people from all sects in his group and he’s trying to lead an Iraqi party and not a Sunni or Shia party. And then nobody voted for his party and then we had all written these stories. They weren’t endorsements for the guy, but they were endorsements for hope.

Ayad: Mosul as the rest of Iraq rarely had ethnic, religious or sectarian problems some time back. This became evident after the fall of the regime in Iraq. Amazingly, this was magnified by many journalists reporting from Iraq. Examples include a reporter stating that he is reporting from Basra, "a city of Shiite majority", from Tikrit, "a Sunni town" or from Tilkaif "a Christian village." This sort of categorization never existed in the past but became a pattern in reporting which is not a healthy way of reporting.

Thanassis: If I spent a day with the [Kurdish military] Peshmerga and I try to write a story about what is happening in Mosul [broadly], then it may be wrong. This is what journalists tend to do, they try to write a story which is bigger than the one they have.

I always [reported] very self-consciously, my conflict [coverage] especially. I do know in war zones there’s not always a war going on. Violence is 1% of the time. But when the war is really on there are days and weeks and people are not leaving their house. That’s when you have to be very careful and vigilant and write what you know and make clear what you don’t know.

This isn’t Washington where you're quoting them [for the content of the story]. I’m not quoting, I’m describing things I saw. What I’m describing is driving in an APC [armored personnel carrier] into a base and watching shells come in and watching guys fire out, watching two guys who were Arabs get brought in and get tortured in front of me. And I’m looking at the things that they’re pulling out of this guy’s car. I’m not interviewing them, I’m watching it.

They have an agenda for sure, but I’m not writing about that agenda. This is where different brands of journalism lend themselves more easily to distortion.

Journalists may go write the big narrative of Mosul. The journalist asks the colonel, what are the relations between the Arabs and the Turkomen and Kurds. Blah, blah, he might know, but he probably doesn’t. At least, if you go to the governorate and ask the different factions they might. They might be completely out of touch, but at least they are participants.

If you try to write that kind of broad story [out of your reach], you are totally susceptible to manipulation or gross inaccuracies, you might not even be manipulated but just don’t get the story right.

Ali: According to my experience as journalist and consultant in Iraq, always following the situations and press, its very difficult to reach truth via media in the war zones especially in a place like Iraq. I am not saying the press lies, but I am saying the press does not draw the whole picture. It just draws one side or two sides of the whole picture. Here I am talking about both the local and international press working in Iraq. The problem here is that most of the local media are affiliated with the political, ethnic and sectarian factions which are biased in their media. Each media outlet is linked to factions and reports in the interest of their ideology and political agenda.

Theo: Journalists can strive to be as objective as possible in covering conflict, but in some respects they are a product of their environment. For example, Western journalists embedded with coalition forces in Iraq are naturally inclined to be supportive of the soldiers they spend all of their time with. In comparison, Iraqi journalists operate in a media sector that is dominated by political parties and ethno-sectarian groups.

The powerful patrons of these outlets often determine how news and information is presented, and since Iraq is one of the most dangerous places in the world for journalists to work, there are fewer media professionals who will take the risk in pursuit of all sides of the story.

Thanassis: I covered [peace activisits, Assyrians and other marginalized groups] them a whole lot less. I don’t want to react defensively, [but] it's a tough thing about portraying reality. If you were writing a book about Iraq and the Assyrians make up 4% of the population what percent of the book would they be? There’s not an easy answer to that.

If you’re writing about Iraq’s multiethnic and religious history and the amazing factor of co-existence that at times thrived in Iraq then the Assyrians would be a big part of that narrative, but if you’re writing about the civil war from 2003 to 2006 the Assyrians were victims and their narrative was largely one of dispossession. Kidnappings, being chased out of places where they had lived for a long time.

As a journalist, you write that story a few times. You touch on it again. Much of your coverage does that get. It might be unfair or it might be the right thing to do given the priorities of who’s doing the most to other people.

Leaving those people out leaves out an important part of the narrative. At a time when the whole of Iraq is riven between Sunni and Shia Arabs, if you stop writing about Kurds and Assyrians and Yazidis and Turkomen then it’s not only that you're overlooking those people but your leaving out an important part of the story line.

Because in the end when and if the society stabilizes, it’s going to be because all these stakeholders in addition to the Sunni and Shia Arab narrative are doing stuff, selling things to each other, governing each other, help each other out, not kidnapping or shooting each other which either wrinkles society. 

The other point I would make in this is that your Assyrian peace activist, for example, is going to say you’re never writing enough about us and our noble peace work, and that’s great. That’s what that person should be saying. But the journalist’s agenda and the one that I think we fail to tackle all of the time is we write about potential triggers of conflict, but also need to take time out to write about potential solutions to it.

END

 A common view of Iraq for contractors and the military, Baghdad, DJG.

********************************************************************************************************* 

How do We Know We Can Trust Crisis Journalism? The Case of Sudan

Roundtable Discussion  |  HELO, with Bill Berkeley, Suliman Giddo, Ahmed Badawi-Malik, Maria Frauenrath, Marschall Roscoe, and You, Aug-Sep 2009. 

www.Helo-Magazine.com 

****************************************************************

Join the Roundtable Discussion!The interviewer discussed the subject with participants individually then assembled this discussion in logical sequence. If you would like to add your thoughts, please submit them to the editor or post them on the magazine blog.

All views are welcome. The top three submissions/postings will be added to the piece and kept in the archived version of the story. Selection for posting will depend on how well the point is made. [Continued below]

****************************************************************

To uncover ‘truth’ in war, journalists, rights advocates, and war crimes investigators take on ferocious obstacles: Crossfire, roadside bombs, blocked roads, delayed flights, clogged phone lines, language barriers, deadlines, fear, confusion, and the potential biases of their sources. But the most formidable barriers journalists and other truth-seekers face in conflict are the political smoke screens and diversions put up by those who do not wish to be investigated. Nowhere is the challenge of cutting through the fog of war more ferocious than in central Africa.

When the International Criminal Court (ICC) issued an arrest warrant for Sudanese President Omar Al-Bashir for war crimes in the Darfur War this spring, his ministries and allies were quick to question the very premise of the allegations. By questioning the integrity of Western journalism and human rights research, Bashir and his supporters were able to generate enough doubt in the charges that the purpose of the ICC itself has been questioned by world leaders. Arab and African leaders have even agreed to shield him from arrest on his trips overseas.  

Highlighting doubt and painting the entire force of Western reporters, rights investigators, and aid worker witnesses as biased government agents, Bashir has not only been able to move on without needing to defend himself from war crimes charges in court. His administration has also been able to slow aid to Darfur War survivors by expelling thirteen leading humanitarian aid agencies it accuses of participating in counter-government activities associated with the charges.

The question in this roundtable is not necessarily whether the Sudanese government is right in casting doubt on the ICC charges and the integrity of Western journalism. It is to look into ourselves and reevaluate what it is about a story which convinces us of its truth if we are unable to see evidence with our own eyes.

To play "Bashir’s advocate," how do we know we can trust crisis journalism, particularly in the fog of war in central Africa? And how can reporters do better at documenting war crimes and turmoil in such a way that proves to the global readership that their story sources are not constructing a false story for political purposes? Consider the following Sudanese government response to the ICC indictment of Bashir and the corresponding thoughts from experts on Sudan and the media below.

*******

The Sudanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the voice of the Omar al Bashir Administration in a press release this spring: “The ICC indictment of H.E. President Omar Al-Bashir marks the apex of an unprecedented five-and-half year campaign of false propaganda and grotesque misinformation by Darfuri rebel groups and international activist groups about the conflict in Darfur.The campaign has included labeling the conflict falsely as a genocide – a description rejected by the UN Security Council in 2003 and international diplomats and aid workers here on the ground in Sudan; wildly inflating the number of those who have died in, or as result of, the conflict – and preceding the number with sensationalist adjectives like “murdered” and “killed” to denote a level of violence that is non-existent with the reality on the ground in Darfur; and portraying the situation in Darfur as a race war between “Arabs” and “Black Africans” – even though Harvard academic and ‘Sudan expert’  Alex de Waal, certainly no friend of the Sudanese government, has called these labels “unhelpful” and “inaccurate”.We also note with dismay that the activists have continued to portray Darfur as being in freefall, whereas the reality and general trend shows that humanitarian indicators there have been above the international definition of an ‘emergency’ since mid-2004; over 50 per cent of Darfur’s estimated 6.7 million population remains untouched by the conflict; and more than 400,000 internally displaced Darfuris have returned home voluntarily – notwithstanding fresh displacements this year due largely to tribal fighting. Moreover, over 90 per cent of Darfur today is secure, with rebel activity largely confined to small, if plentiful, pockets along the border with Chad in West Darfur, and to the south bordering Central African Republic.”

Gerstle: While researching this story and its companion piece, “Cutting Through the Fog of War in Khartoum,” which follows this story, I had the opportunity to discuss the challenge of reporting on war crimes; the relativity of the concept of “truth”; getting the story right when political forces cast serious doubt on the story’s premise; and about how and why aid workers were being expelled from Sudan. Here I include quotes from those discussions with Bill Berkeley, Suliman Giddo, Ahmed Badawi-Malik, Maria Frauenrath, and Marschall Roscoe. Here’s what they had to say.

Bill Berkeley, author of The Graves are Not Yet Full, Adjunct Professor of International Affairs at Columbia University, former editor for the New York Times, and contributor to The Atlantic: “In war more than anything else there’s a constant avalanche of propaganda coming from all sides and the language of war and the information battle is always one of the hardest parts of covering war. Too often in the case of Africa including Darfur, journalists focus overwhelmingly on the humanitarian dimensions of conflict and devote too little time and effort to understanding the politics of war and the history behind it. As a result war is too often portrayed, at least in the American media, as simply a humanitarian disaster with nothing but victims. Too little effort is made to identify who the perpetrators are and who the leaders are and to what extent they deserve responsibility for war. It’s the hardest part of the story to get and too often it’s overlooked as a result.”

Ahmed Badawi-Malik, consultant spokesman to Sudan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, former consultant on communications for leaders of opposition groups in South Sudan: “It's not that [President Bashir] doesn't trust the ICC. It's that the decision to prosecute is a political one, i.e based on the politically-manipulated testimony of refugees in eastern Chad. The [witness reports] are false; yes, such a thing does exist. Just take a look at the current shenanigans with General Karake, the Rwandan commander and No. 2 in UNAMID. He's facing genocide and other charges, but the USA and the UK want him to stay because they believe the claims made by Hutu refugees are based on 'politically tainted' evidence, Hutus trying to re-write the narrative.  Why on earth the international community (read USA in particular) can accept that this can happen in Rwanda, but somehow not in Sudan (refugees being directed by the rebels) is beyond me. The US is blinded by emotion. Period. Has the Bashir Administration’s a) allowing the African Union into Darfur; b) agreeing to increase AU numbers to 9000; c) signing an internationally-brokered peace agreement on Darfur (Abuja May 06); and d) allowing UN via UNAMID into Darfur made the slightest difference to how [Bashir's] viewed in the US?”

Berkeley: “A buzz word like genocide can obscure as much as it illuminates. In the case of Darfur, as much as I loathe and despise [those in the Sudanese government who may have committed war crimes], the rebels also share a significant responsibility for what’s going on and that just creates a cloudier, muddier, more complex picture than you get by calling it genocide.”

Maria Frauenrath, UN trainer on journalism and human right, former BBC bureau chief in the African Horn: “‘Truth’ is not a helpful term for journalists as there are different "truths" to different people depending on their perceptions, experiences, alliances...a big lesson from my Somalia experience, but also from Gaza and Sudan. And our desire to put everything neatly in boxes of clans, tribes, good and bad is rather harmful.”

Gerstle:  Long before I had the opportunity to travel to Sudan as a consultant on humanitarian aid, I was following the creation of the story of the Darfur War and of Southern Sudan. Originally, I had wanted to write on Sudan’s expulsion of aid workers, long before the 2009 mass expulsion, and how that limited the amount of data journalists and researchers could collect to represent what was really happening in the Darfur War. But then I began to see this quieting of frontline witnesses and limits to journalist access as a potential, mass-scale obstruction of justice. At the same time that the US was providing Sudan state security with support from the National Security Administration and Federal Bureau of Investigations to surveil terror suspects (See coverage of this story by the LA Times, 2008-9), foreign aid workers and visitors of all stripes working in the region were reporting to UN and this writer about having been surveilled and taken in for questioning by state security. By the time Sudan ultimately expelled the top thirteen international aid agencies from Darfur in retaliation for the ICC indictment against Bashir in 2009, the government had already expelled more than sixteen leaders in aid on claims that those individuals were  somehow contributing to the insurgency. Insiders in the aid industry have not found any of the accused to have been doing anything more counter-government than cooperating with foreign journalists ont he Darfur war crimes stories. But some of those individuals cooperated with stories investigating rebel groups, as well.

Suliman Giddo, Founder and Executive Director of the Darfur Peace and Development Organization, Lecturer on Conflict Resolution at George Mason University, and supporter of the movement to unite Darfur’s rebel groups under a single umbrella as a pre-requisite for a sustainable peace: “The reason that the government of Sudan has denied access to humanitarian workers to get support to the people in Darfur is that they want to conceal information. They don’t want to disclose the crimes that they have been committing for so long. If the aid workers report crimes and atrocities that means they’re not going to be there to help the people who are in need. At the same time, if the aid worker doesn’t say what he’s seeing, nobody can prepare to resolve it."

Berkeley: “War tends to bring out the worst in people as well as the best. If you take a look at the piece I did for the New York Times Magazine back in 1996 about how rebel groups exploit humanitarian relief and therefore enlist humanitarian organizations into perpetuating war, the whole scene of humanitarian aid becomes very complicated and journalists often miss those complications. Just as reporters rely heavily on military protection from combatants in war zones, they do get a lot of information from humanitarian relief organizations and most of the humanitarian workers I’ve dealt with over the years are great people, inspiring people, and thoughtful, serious people, and often good analysts of situations like war. But I’m always emphasizing: you want to get the information straight from the horse’s mouth. Go to the Africans themselves. Government officials are notoriously hard to interview in Sudan. [But] even if [political leaders] don’t give you substance, they reveal their motives. You’re able to test what they tell you against verifiable proof.”   

Gerstle: Today, after having expelled dozens of foreign aid workers, limited access to the fighting areas, and indirectly frightened locals from sharing information critical of the government to journalists, the Sudanese government largely owns the story of the Darfur War. And this mirrors the even longer story of how it has owned the story of the conflicts in southern Sudan. The Bashir administration’s aim is not to purify its image, but perhaps to be in the position to continually reject the premise of war crimes allegations against it and play the role of victim which the Arab world, China, and the some extent Russia will be sensitive to. This strategy does not necessarily mean that the Bashir administration has commited war crimes, but it does generate concern. That's why a trial run by a truly impartial third party is needed.

Giddo: “We were at a hearing in congress in June 2004 when the USAID mission director said that when she was in Sudan it took almost a month to get permission to go to Darfur. And once she got the permission it was only f0r 72 hours. Any higher senior person from all the Western countries whenever they get a chance to go they will take them straight from Khartoum straight to Fashir to Abshok camps because that’s a five star camp to the people of Darfur. That’s just to give the good image that the people are okay but actually no. If you [as an aid worker] don’t want to talk about politics, if you don’t want to talk about anything, you don’t want to document anything, you’re free to work. But at the same time how can you keep information even for management when you’re not allowed to write or take photos? If the government wants to cooperate, than why all these restrictions?”

Berkeley: “The key [to solidifying a story which contradicts the conventional wisdom in a country] is finding credible sources and then multi-sourcing stories. You test everything against as many different experts and witnesses as you can. You don’t just rely on one source. And you do find that, like relief workers in war, war is a passionate business among other things and often very bad things going on and good people wind up taking sides. It’s always a problem. I know in South Sudan, for example, there were concerns about an international organization which had become closely identified with the Sudan People’s Liberation Army. I was always warned to be weary of what they were telling me, the information they were giving me, because they were closely aligned with that group. And the way you do your best to resolve these inherent problems is by multi-sourcing and then running by what you’re learning from other journalists. You’re constantly evaluating your sources. To the extent possible, you want to get firsthand exposure to what’s going on. But the key to reporting is just to never stop digging and never stop trying to find new sources and better sources and always being careful and weary and mindful of the inherent conflicts of interest people wind up getting themselves into in a war zone. That is the paramount challenge of journalism, not just getting your facts straight but getting beneath the surface and getting beyond the propaganda and clarifying exactly what’s going on.”

Giddo: “Most of the Western organizations have been hijacked by Sudanese security members. There are so many agents working in the humanitarian organizations in Darfur. (This partly led to the expulsion of over 15 leading aid workers up to 2008 and then the expulsion of the leading 13 organizations in 2009, according to this writer's research.) I remember one example when a friend of mine called. He said, ‘I want to send containers of food to this area and every time I send them out they are sent back to me saying still the papers are not completed.’ That means somebody from the office is directing it the way they want to.”

Marschall Roscoe, Military Contractor and Media Tracker based in Central Asia:  “Journalists are only human. They have biases and make mistakes like everyone else, which means the only way to even approach the "truth" about a situation like Sudan's is to have as many people as possible reporting on it from as many perspectives as possible. Right now all the trends are in the opposite direction, and nobody knows what to do about that.”

Gerstle: After enduring the work I’ve done in Sudan so far, and my first glances at Chad, CAR, and other places, I’ve come to the conclusion that much journalism, particularly that on Central Africa suffers what public health statisticians call sampling and reporting bias. It is rapid research glued together with a dash of speculation, like a doctor pinpointing cancer. There is often clear evidence, but how, in what order, and when it is collected can lead to weaknesses in the ‘case’. If ‘truth’ seekers wish to truly take on a government, alleged war criminal, or a rebel force, they will need not simply to record testimony and link it together, but will need to build a case with a defense attorney’s eye. The longtime trend of editors and writers faced with the enormous obstacles of reporting on crisis in Sudan has led to confusion on the details, oversimplification to write past those un-clarified details, and assumptions about the subjects’ motivations. Stories based on the testimony of witnesses who are not necessarily reliable have complicated the pursuit of truth and provided those accused of war crimes with refuge in the clouds of un-clarified “facts”.  Many of my colleagues are out there in the bush trying to carve some chunk of “truth” out of desiccated soil. But by the time that story gets back to the home office, chopped up by someone considering how to broaden the audience, and then decapitated by the word-count police, perhaps what we are reading is a blurry, perhaps less accurate snapshot of the original story. Perhaps the global media faces a trade-off. On the one hand, media owners wish to reach the broadest possible audience rapidly, so the vast majority of stories are expected from the field very quickly and with limited cross-referencing and detail. At the same time, the media has this incredible responsibility to get the story not only correct, but also - despite the fog of war - extremely well-evidenced.

You: What do you think? Send us your comments or write your points on our HELO Blog.