Press freedom in war-torn Afghanistan is regressing to a Taliban-era level of restrictions, according to a recent report. Reporters Without Borders (RSF), a Paris-based press advocacy organization, visited Afghanistan in January to survey the current situation. Their report is entitled, “We have free speech, but we’re not safe and don’t act responsibly.”

“Because of the deterioration of the situation, some of them feel that they are back to a sort of Taliban situation,” said Vincent Brossel, Asia Director for RSF. Brossel spent a little over a week traveling throughout Afghanistan and interviewing local journalists. Brossel found that the situation is grim, and threats against working journalists are common. RSF also found that the Afghan Interior Ministry has been largely ineffective and even inactive in providing help and support.

“In fact, they [the Interior Ministry] don’t take action and their investigations rarely go to the end,” said Brossel, who points to the case of slain journalist Zakia Zaki. According to Brossel, she was killed by warlords and her murder was never “seriously” investigated. “Even the Interior Ministry once put pressure on her husband because he was asking for justice.”

Farida Nekzad, a veteran journalist of ten years who lives and works in Afghanistan’s capital city, Kabul, says the greatest danger that journalists face comes from the dual threat of warlords and the Taliban.

“Warlords and people in power will kidnap,” said Nekzad by telephone from Kabul. “People cannot express their problems [through the media] because they have guns, they have power, and they don’t accept the law—they have their own laws.”

Nekzad was recognized for her work in late 2008 when the International Women’s Media Foundation (IWMF) gave her a “Courage in Journalism” award. Since 1990, the IWMF has annually recognized the work of women journalists who are at the forefront of  their field with their Courage in Journalism award. Farida Nekzad was one of the 2008 recipients.

Part of this blog posting was excerpted from an article originally published in The Epoch Times.

The Overseas Press Club of New York will host a distinguished panel of foreign correspondents and news entrepreneurs on Monday, March 30. The panel will be composed of Washington Post New York bureau chief Keith Richburg for Dispatches magazine, Marc Rosenwasser, executive producer of World Focus, and Charlie Sennott, executive editor and vice president of GlobalPost. David Andelman, editor of World Policy Journal, will moderate.

The discussion on the future of international news will be well worth listening to, considering the venerable group the OPC has assembled.

Space is limited in the intimate and charming setting of the OPC. Registration is available here.

Monday, March 30
6:30.m.

e-mail: info@opcofamerica.orgThis e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
Overseas Press Club of America
40 West 45 Street
New York, NY 10036
Phone: 212-626-9220
Fax: 212-626-9210

Carlotta Gall is the Kabul-based veteran war correspondent with The New York Times who reports on both Afghanistan and western Pakistan. Read one of her recent report from the front lines, Pakistan and Afghan Taliban Close Ranks.

I caught up with her last week while working on a piece for an upcoming article for Quill, the magazine of the Society of Professional Journalists.

What types of challenges have you faced as a reporter in Afghanistan and Pakistan simply because you are a woman?

“Only twice I think when madrassas or certain mullahs refused to be interviewed by a woman or allow a woman to enter their premises. Once I wanted to join a colleague and interview a mullah from the TNSM in Malakand and I had to sit in the car outside while he took my tape recorder in. Another madrassah in Quetta [Pakistan] said women were not allowed inside so the local reporter went in and asked the question for me. The same problem existed during the Taliban regime in Afghanistan but I have not had that problem since 2001 since the current government is more relaxed.”

Do women journalists get more access to people and parts of society because of their gender?

“Women can go into the female quarters of households. In conservative traditional areas men who are not relatives are not allowed in these areas. There are ways around this for men to interview or hear women’s views, but it is much easier as a woman. Often though language is a problem since the women often only speak local dialects, whereas the men are better educated and can speak Urdu or even English.”

You’ve covered conflict for years. What is different about the experience of covering what has been happening in Afghanistan?

“Conflict is conflict wherever you are. Kidnapping has become a serious threat, as it was in the Caucasus in the 1990s. The Al Qaeda element in the insurgency in Pakistan and Afghanistan has made it particularly dangerous for non-Muslim journalists, or anyone working for western news outlets.”

If you could go back and do it again [your career], would you do anything differently?

“No.”

Of all the stories out there, why cover Afghanistan and Pakistan?

“It’s a good story and a developing story. An important issue for the U.S. and west, and the people or the region deserve better.”

What insights about humanity have you gained from reporting in Afghanistan and Pakistan?

“Same as anywhere, civilians suffer the most in war.”

Do women bring some kind of unique insight to covering conflict?

“No—compassion, stamina, whatever you need for journalism is sexless.”

Where do you see the war in Afghanistan going in the next couple of years?

“On and on.”

Frontrunner

Monday, March 30 at 6:45p.m. at the Paley Center for Media in New York City, 25 West 52 Street

The Bread Winner

The Asia Society in cooperation with the Foreign Policy Association, at 725 Park Avenue (at 70th St) in New York City, on Monday, April 6 at 6:00p.m.

***

Two documentaries depicting the worlds within worlds that exist in Afghanistan will have screenings in the coming weeks. Both are highly recommended for anyone with an interest in Afghanistan and learning more about the impact of the war there, and the resilience and resourcefulness of the Afghan people.

The Afghan Woman Who Surprised the World at the Paley Center for Media will include a screening of the documentary by Virginia A. Williams, Frontrunner, and will be showing on Monday, March 30 at 6:45p.m. at the Paley Center for Media in New York City, 25 West 52 Street. There will be a reception prior to the screening, followed by a Q&A.

Attendees at the event will include Dr. Massouda Jalal, former Minister of Women’s Affairs in Afghanistan, S.K. Guha, Program Specialist, UNIFEM
Shireen Zaman, Vital Voices Director, North Africa and Middle East. It will be
moderated by David Marash, veteran broadcast journalist.

A second documentary, The Bread Winner, is by Sonia Nassery Cole. The screening of the documentary will be hosted by The Asia Society in cooperation with the Foreign Policy Association, at 725 Park Avenue (at 70th St) in New York City, on Monday, April 6 at 6:00p.m.

The screening will be followed by a panel discussion with Ambassador Zahir Tanin, Permanent Representative of Afghanistan to the UN, Sonia Nassery Cole, Producer/Director of The Bread Winner and Chairperson of the Afghanistan World Foundation (AWF), Natalie Cole, Grammy Award-winner and Board Member of the AWF, and Marco Vicenzino, Director, Global Strategy Project, and Board Member and Strategic Advisor of the AWF.

A recent New York Times article explores a quizzical addition to the U.S. media scene: Chinese state-run media. Several, in fact the largest, state-controlled media plan to spend a small fortune in order to expand overseas.

In the midst of what looks like a major crisis for journalists and readers,  media companies and outlets left and right are closing, downsizing, laying off and buying out staff, going online only, reducing the size of publications, and on and on. The Poynter Center points out that changes in the media industry are normal, citing recent changes at the venerable Seattle P-I and the Rocky Mountain News.

But there seems to be something different this time, with so many major publications making such major changes. Not to mention the global financial crisis. So it’s a little mysterious that the Chinese government not only has the money to spend billions of dollars pushing their media organizations into  mainstream U.S. society, but that they would choose to do it now.

According to the article:

But in China, a handful of state-controlled broadcasters and publishers have thrived, benefiting from China’s soaring economy. Many of the world’s biggest corporations, hoping to break into the Chinese market, have been spending millions of dollars on advertising each year trying to reach Chinese consumers through the country’s big newspapers and television networks.

The climate for media in the U.S., although not financially encouraging at the moment, is mostly independent and arguably remains a vital part of American democracy. Some call the media the “fourth leg” of our democratic system–after executive, legislative, and judicial. In general, the American public trusts what is published and broadcast in the media is factual, accurate, and unbiased, or at least without an agenda (for the most part). Those are the basic, lowest-level expectations the media generally has of itself as well.

However, adding Chinese state-run media into the mix could be a recipe for the spread of undetected misinformation.

According to the New York Times article:

The country’s increasingly wealthy media giants, which operate under China’s censorship rules and according to its propaganda motives, are trying to acquire international media assets, to open more overseas news bureaus and to publish and broadcast more broadly in English and other languages. Many of them have already announced plans to hire English-speaking Chinese and foreign media specialists.

….

The media outlets planning to expand overseas include China Central Television, or CCTV; Xinhua, the state-run news agency; People’s Daily, the news organ of the Communist Party; and the Shanghai Media Group.

In the end, it’s not surprising that the goal of this media expansion is not primarily to disseminate news and information for the sake of the public good. There is a much less lofty objective.

The New York Times says:

In an essay this month, China’s propaganda director, Liu Yunshan, wrote, “It has become an urgent strategic task for us to make our communication capability match our international status.” He added, “In this modern era, who gains the advanced communication skills, the powerful communication capability and whose culture and value is more widely spread is able to more effectively influence the world.”

Bob Schieffer, a journalist with more than five decades of experience, said it best during a recent event at the New York Press Club: “A free press is vital to a healthy democracy.” What an encouraging thought at a time of dramatic changes in the news business. And what a fitting prinicple in light of a recent report on press freedom in Afghanistan released by Reporters without Borders (RSF).

In Afghanistan, a country where the words “press freedom” have formed a tenuous phrase, it matters that RSF says it is in a free-fall there. The work of women journalists there is especially dangerous and even deadly.

Why should the freedom of the press in a country halfway around the world matter? The U.S. is heavily invested, more than 7 years in, in a fumbling nation building effort there. We are increasing the presence of troops. The Taliban is resurgent and curtailing every independent voice they can–especially the voices of journalists.

What Bob Schieffer said was in reference to the situation in the U.S., where many in the journalism profession are wringing their hands over the so-called “future of news.” Schieffer pointed out that there will always be a need for information, and thus always a need for news and those who gather and deliver it to the public.

If he is right, and five decades of experience is a hefty credential to base such statements on, the U.S. is not the only place that is, and will be, in need of news and information.

Afghanistan’s press freedom situation might just turn out to be the U.S.’s unlikely mirror as we continue to watch the face of our own media change.

Bill Gentile is an independent journalist and filmmaker teaching at American University in Washington, D.C. He has covered international conflict for almost 30 years, starting with the 1979 Sandinista Revolution in Nicaragua. Gentile was at the Afghan-Tajikistan border weeks after 9/11, watching American bombers strike Taliban positions in northern Afghanistan. He embedded with the 24th Marine Expeditionary Unit in 2005 in the Iraqi city of Iskandariyah, near Baghdad; and again in May-June 2008 in Afghanistan’s southern Helmand Province, near the Pakistan border.

His most recent report for PBS’s NOW is called Afghanistan: The Forgotten War

You’ve been to Afghanistan and Iraq over a time period spanning from just after 9/11 to this past June. How has the focus of reporting the story there changed?

“I see the focus of the story changing with the level of US involvement in these places. We [the media] were so compelled by Iraq, and one could justly argue that we were correctly focused on Iraq. The level of engagement, investment, blood and money were so extraordinary that the media were fixated on reporting that conflict. The coverage of Afghanistan fell by the wayside, as did the administration’s focus—unfortunately. And now we are reaping the bitter fruits of that policy. Now that America is engaged in 2 foreign wars, and we’ve caused the death of tens of thousands of foreigners. One would think the coverage would be greater.”

What has happened with the level of reporting from the fronts of these wars?

“Since 9/11 the number of foreign correspondents has dropped by 20 %. It’s extraordinary and to me it’s unconscionable that this is happening. We actually have fewer independent voices out there giving us information about America’s role in the world. The wars are practically invisible now. Even when dozens of Americans a month were being killed in Iraq, you’re going to see a handful of Americans dead. Americans don’t have a sense of the physical damage that this has done to some of its finest sons of daughters. I think it’s primarily because of the lack of aggressive media coverage.”

How has media coverage of the casualties in these wars been?

“I don’t think that mainstream US media have done a good job of reporting the war, particularly in terms of casualties. We allow these planes of smart bombs and smart missiles and limited collateral damage to pass by w/out much questioning or examining. It doesn’t take a lot of digging to speak with journalists to figure out that mainstream US media has been reluctant to dwell upon the human cost of the war in Iraq. I think human loss is the main point, and if you are not reporting on human loss you are not covering conflict.”

During your trip in May and June (2008), what part of the story made the strongest impression on you as a journalist?

“I was most impressed on two levels. I was impressed number one by the extraordinary quality of the Marines I was out there with. Second I was impressed by the enormous task ahead and how tenuous the advances that I saw are on a national level. Afghanistan is a big country, and it’s a very, very difficult place. It’s an extremely complex society. For U.S. forces and coalition forces to succeed there is going to b e a long hard slog. It’s like squeezing a balloon full of water—that’s what these counter-insurgencies are like. They take time, and consistent effort and wisdom, and I’m not sure that our political system can support it.”

By Genevieve Long

NEW YORK—In a city like New York that’s full of events to choose from, The Great Issues Forum series is worth checking out. Hosted by the City University of New York (CUNY), the panel discussions of experts are moderated and centered around a different thematic issue every year—2009’s theme is power.

March 10 was the fourth forum in this year’s series, and boasted a distinguished panel of experts who discussed military power. The panelists included Alex de Waal, program director of the Social Science Research Council; General Barry McCaffrey, four-star general in the U.S. Army (retired); and Thomas Ricks, The Washington Post’s Special Military Correspondent. Ricks is also a bestselling book author and recently published “The Gamble,” about General David Petraeus and the American military in Iraq from 2006-2008.

Tuesday’s forum, held before an audience of about 300, included a detailed discussion about the use of military power in Iraq and Afghanistan. The panelists agreed that using military force to resolve problems in the region has not been the best solution.

“I think the American invasion of Iraq was the biggest mistake in American foreign policy history,” said veteran journalist Ricks during the forum, adding that the future of the region looks bleak, especially when it comes to who will ultimately come to power. “I think what we [will] end up with is a smarter, tougher version of Saddam Hussein.”

De Waal added that he thinks the lessons of today won’t be referenced by future generations.

“Learning seems to happen during war, and then 20 years later it’s forgotten,” said de Waal. “Why do we keep deluding ourselves that we learn from history?”

All three panelists also agreed that success in Afghanistan might be even more difficult than in Iraq, partially because of the harsh terrain and lack of infrastructure.

“Afghanistan is an unusual case,” said McCaffrey. “[We need to] tell the American people we’re there for 25 years, and it’s an international operation—we’re there to do nation building.”

McCaffrey added that one of the greatest logistical problems for U.S. military success in Afghanistan is that it’s land-locked.

“Afghanistan could be a bigger problem than Iraq,” said McCaffrey. “The U.S. Army shouldn’t go anywhere where we can’t go down to the ocean and find the Navy.”

The next CUNY Great Issues Forum is on March 16, and the final forum in the 2009 series will be on April 28.

Excerpted from an article originally published in The Epoch Times