Dying in Silence

Map of the Congo from the CIA World Factbook.

Friday, September 29, 2006

Dying in silence

We are on our way to central Africa. Right now we're in Dubai waiting for one of several connecting flights we'll be taking to get to the Congo.It's a place many Americans know little about, and yet each of us carries a piece of the Congo with us, wherever we go. Minerals mined in the Congo like tin ore and coltan are essential components in cell phones, computers, and video game consoles.

The battle over who gets to mine those minerals has fueled the deadliest conflict the world has seen since World War II. More than three million people have died in the Congo since 1998 and there has been very little coverage of it. Tens of thousands of women have been raped; often gang raped by soldiers and militia members. What has happened there is hard to fathom, and still some 1200 people are dying every day from malnutrition and disease.

It is ironic of course, that in our hi-tech world, the very place that makes our phones and computers work, is one of the least developed and impoverished places on the planet. Next week we will be doing something I don't think any other network has ever done. We will be covering two major humanitarian crises at once, the Congo and Darfur. Jeff Koinange and Dr. Sanjay Gupta will be reporting on Darfur and I will be in eastern Congo.

Logistically this is an incredibly difficult undertaking. It's expensive, and requires a huge team of people. The truth is no one but CNN would undertake a mission like this. Our plan is to take all of you along on this journey, to two places you have rarely seen. So many people in the Congo and Sudan have already lost their lives; so many more lives hang in the balance. There are few things worse than dying in silence, too many already have. I hope you'll join us on this trip.

Posted By Anderson Cooper: 4:04 PM ET

--from the AC 360 blog

Go here to read a blog that features news about the Congo.

Anderson Cooper didn't read my comments, but one of the 15 people employed to do so did!

Many seek and comment at the Anderson Cooper's blog at the CNN page expecting to have at least a cyber connection with the gray haired anchor. In reality, if he read all the comments he wouldn't have a career nor a life. Instead of Anderson, all comments are filtered by an army of 15 content editors employed at CNN solely to monitor comments on his blog.

Mark Chernesky, Web Development Director for Digital Media Technologies, Turner Broadcasting System, gives us an inside look of how the cyber version of CNN works.

"It is not magic. Type in the URL -- cnn.com -- and all the day's news suddenly appears on the screen before you. Just like our on-air sister, frequent updates and breaking news bulletins provide readers with up-to-the minute coverage of world events.

But in this speed of light medium, getting a story onto the Web is a bit more complicated than the simple push of a button. The article passes through no fewer than 10 people. Follow the chart below as the story evolves from a news event to a full-blown in-depth interactive report, where the reader, order the news by priority and decide which elements of a story are most important"

So how it works?

1. After searching through the CNN network-wide news gathering system called Basys, the producer consults with the senior producer to construct a rundown that contains the day's events in order of importance and the coverage planned by the network. Early in his or her shift, the producer holds an editorial meeting to discuss the rundown with the rest of the staff and offer content and presentation suggestions. Three different shifts go through this same process over the course of 24 hours.
Each story is listed on the white board, with the initials of the writer-associate producer team assigned to the story.
2. A writer and an associate producer pick up the story and begin to gather the necessary elements. This is a closely-knit team. The writer sifts through wires, CNN reports and raw video feeds to produce a coherent document that incorporates pictures, sounds, movies and links. The associate producer tracks down the multimedia elements, creates the pictures and sounds, consults the multimedia designer for special graphic requests and discusses QuickTime movie possibilities with the associate producer/video editor. Throughout the process, the writer and associate producer communicate with each other to decide which elements will make the story complete and cohesive.
3. Meanwhile, the web editor scours the Internet for appropriate links and the editorial assistant conducts Lexis-Nexis searches for further background information.
4. Once the story is written, the copy editor takes over to check spelling and style and review factual accuracy.
5. When the story has been copy edited and the elements have been gathered, the associate producer lays out the page on paper, showing where pictures and other multimedia elements should be positioned. This goes to the web editor, who codes the story with HTML so it can be read on the Web.
6. Next, the producer steps back into the picture along with the senior producer. Both check the story for accuracy on an inside server.
7. The nod is given and the Web master double-checks the story for multiple browser support and finally moves it to the outside.
8. If a posted story receives feedback from readers, the online coordinator gathers the feedback and has it posted on the site.
Overseeing the editorial process:
The executive producer handles all of the daily operations of the Web site and offers advice in tough situations.
Crowning the editorial process is the editor in chief, who's responsible for overall editorial vision and direction of the entire department.


So there you go! and as the receipt email from Anderson 360 goes "Anyway, the best we can do is to acknowledge that we have indeed received and will read your message, and this little note is to let you know that. It’s automatic, yes; fails to take into account whether you’ve patted us on the back or slapped us across the face; does not differentiate between praise, correction, fury, proposals of marriage, or invitations to get lost. But rest assured we’ll know that part when we read it! "

You are on notice.

Giving 360...or the Interface THAT SUCKS!

It was frustrating, after identifying sources for my nominees, the site doesn't process the submission, anyhow, they are titans and they deserve to be honored so here they go!

My Nominees: Dr. José Vargas Vidot and Goldmand Price recipient Eng. Alexis Massol.

Vargas Vidot:Executive Director of the Community Initiative organization, a heavyset man with a soft voice and a ponytail, has emerged as one of the island¹s leading community health activists. He has been recognized for his work with numerous awards in Latin America and the United States, including an award from the prestigious Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.
He has devoted his medical career to help homeless and drug addicts plagued by the AIDS epidemic, not limiting himself to Puerto Rico, in 2000 he organized Iniciativas de Paz: Brigada de Salud Internacional, an integrated medical and social services - similar to Doctors Without Borders - in order to provide free health services to remote areas in Guatemala.
There are plenty of websites and news articles describing his efforts in Spanish. Your affiliate in Puerto Rico XXXXXXX might provide you with further information ( Ms. XXXXXX is the primetime news producer): http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/puertorico/needle.htmhttp://www.latinamericanstudies.org/puertorico/crosshairs.htm

Alexis Massol http://www.casapueblo.org/

Bosque del Pueblo, Puerto Rico: How a fight to stop a mine ended up changing forest policy from the bottom up.

A civil engineer by training, Alexis Massol-González, 58, is the founder and director of Casa Pueblo of Adjuntas, Puerto Rico, a self-managed community organization that proposes and develops plans to protect the environment, affirm cultural and human values, and create sustainable economic alternatives.
Cited as a major contributor to Puerto Rico’s education sector, Alexis Massol has dedicated many years to the protection and conservation of the island’s natural resources and culture. As founder of Casa Pueblo in Adjuntas, he has succeeded in creating environmental awareness within the community through various projects, legislation, and campaigns.
For Casa Pueblo independence is very important. The organization accepts neither corporate sponsorship nor government handouts. People from all over the island and from all professional backgrounds have contributed donations or labour to the group. But Casa Pueblo's main economic support is its own brand of coffee, called Madre Isla.
Winning the Goldman Environmental Prize was a total surprise for Casa Pueblo's staff and volunteers. ''I had never heard of the Goldman Prize, so I thought it was a joke'', recalled Massol-Gonzalez with a laugh. ''I told them that I don't work for money or awards, and they told me 'That's why you earned it'.''
No strip mines were ever dug in Puerto Rico. The opposition triumphed in 1996 and the land in Adjuntas set aside for the first mine was turned into El Bosque del Pueblo (The People's Forest), a community-run state forest that today forms part of the biodiversity corridor. Casa Pueblo manages the forest through a one-of-a-kind agreement with the Puerto Rico Department of Natural Resources. http://www.goldmanprize.org/node/130http://www.iied.org/pubs/display.php?o=13503IIEDhttp://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/apr2002/2002-04-23-02.asphttp://ipsnews.net/interna.asp?idnews=28740

Anderson Cooper and Team: CHEERS!!! For A Job Well Done...SOMETIMES!

Many forget the heroes behind the cameras, they work like manic ants and make the talent look good. Sometimes they are more lazy for my taste, but cheers for you for these awards. Some we have met though the AC 360 blog, so here they are, the not so anonymous producers and heros of Anderson Cooper 360!


Charlie Moore and David Doss of Anderson Cooper 360 on CNN, winners for Outstanding Live Coverage of a Breaking News Story - Long Form at the 27th Annual News and Documentary Emmy Awards.

Hey David! Is that Anderson's tie?
P.D. you are cute!







Heather O'Neill, Bud Bultman, Dr. Sanjay Gupta, Robert Howell, A. Chris Gajilan and David Tinko of Anderson Cooper 360 on CNN, winners for Outstanding Feature Story in a Regularly Scheduled Newscast at the 27th Annual News and Documentary Emmy Awards.

Heather O'Neill, Bud Bultman, Dr. Sanjay Gupta, Robert Howell, A. Chris Gajilan and David Tinko of Anderson Cooper 360 on CNN, winners for Outstanding Feature Story in a Regularly Scheduled Newscast at the 27th Annual News and Documentary Emmy Awards.







My favorite anchor of all times, María Elena Salinas,


Saludos a Sol!


Oops I almost forgot the boy


Anderson Cooper presents at the 27th Annual News and Documentary Emmy Awards.





Emmy strip tease Anderson?










Anderson Cooper presents at the 27th Annual News and Documentary Emmy Awards





"Ok Christiane...will you stop freaking out with the show or I might slam this Emmy on your head. What you think?"










Images are © Marc Bryan-Brown 2006

Thought Experiments

The Nation
Tue Sep 26, 8:00 AM ET

The Nation -- For a little thought experiment, go to the website of Newsweek's International Edition: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3037881/site/newsweek/. There, running down the left side of the page, are three covers, all the same, for the European, Asian, and Latin American editions of the October 2 issue.

Each has a dramatic shot of a Taliban fighter shouldering an RPG (rocket-propelled grenade). The cover headline is: "Losing Afghanistan,' pointing to a devastating piece on our Afghan War by Ron Moreau, Sami Yousafzai, and Michael Hirsh, "The Rise of Jihadistan." which sports this subhead: "Five years after the Afghan invasion, the Taliban are fighting back hard, carving out a sanctuary where they--and Al Qaeda's leaders--can operate freely." The piece begins: "You don't have to drive very far from Kabul these days to find the Taliban." (In fact, the magazine's reporters found a gathering of 100 of them in a village just a two-hour drive south of the Afghan capital.)

Now, go back to the international edition and take another look. Scroll down the page to the cover which doesn't match the others. That's the one for Newsweek's US edition. No Taliban fighter. No RPG. Instead, a photo of an ash-blond woman with three young children dressed in white, one in her arms, and the headline: "My Life in Pictures." The woman turns out to be Annie Liebovitz, photographer of the stars, and the story by Cathleen McGuigan, "Through Her Lens," has this Taliban-free first line: "Annie Leibovitz is tired and nursing a cold, and she' s just flown back to New York on the red-eye from Los Angeles, where she spent two days shooting Angelina Jolie for Vogue."

"The Rise of Jihadism" is still inside, of course; now, a secondary story. After all, Angelina Jolie is ours, while a distant botch of a war in Afghanistan..? As the magazine's editors clearly concluded, while the rest of the world considers the return of the Taliban, let us eat cake.

~from The Nation

Iraq War Worsens Terror Threat to US

A classified intelligence report reveals the Iraq war has made the terror threat to the US worse.

"Some intelligence officials have said as much in the past, but the newly revealed document is the first formal report on global trends in terrorism by the National Intelligence Estimate, which is put out by the National Intelligence Council.

As Democrats seized on the report to support their position on the war, violence Sunday left at least nine Iraqis and two U.S. Marines dead at the start of the holy month of Ramadan.
And raising doubts whether the Iraqis can maintain order once a security operation in Baghdad concludes, The Associated Press reported Sunday that some U.S. soldiers working in Shiite neighborhoods say the Iraqi troops are among the worst they've ever seen. (Full story)

The White House Sunday said a New York Times report on the National Intelligence Estimate document 'is not representative of the complete document.'

Beyond that, the White House said it does not comment on classified documents.

Citing officials familiar with the report, The New York Times said the document 'attributes a more direct role to the Iraq war in fueling radicalism than that presented either in recent White House documents or in a report released Wednesday by the House Intelligence Committee.'

Director of National Intelligence John Negroponte, in a written statement Sunday, warned that any news report that includes 'only a small handful of those judgments distorts the broad strategic framework the NIE is assessing -- in this case, trends in global terrorism.'

Intelligence officials told CNN the report, completed five months ago, said the war and the insurgency are the main recruiting vehicles for new Islamic extremists.

The extremists communicate through various Islamic Web sites and share an ideology with al Qaeda, the officials said.

The document has not been shared with senators because it is classified, U.S. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, told ABC's 'This Week.'"

~CNN's Kelli Arena and Jomana Karadsheh contributed to this story
from CNN's website

AP Photographer Being Held By US

Bilal Hussein joking around with his family in Baghdad

Bilal Hussein, an AP photographer and Iraqi citizen, has been in a US military prison since April. No official charges have been filed against him, nor has a hearing been held. Hussein was captured with two insurgents who were alleged members of al-Qaida.Hussein started working for the AP in September 2004. He photographed events in Ramadi and Fallujah until his detainment began back in April.He is one of 13,000 people in Iraq being held without trial by the US.The AP is calling for Hussein's release, saying the US military has not revealed any evidence against Hussein. The military says Hussein had relationships with insurgents, but has not charged him with any crime.Is this acceptable? Should the US give Hussein the same rights afforded to US citizens?Some information on the Fourth Geneva Convention, which lays the ground rules for the treatment of civilians who are in enemy hands during wartime:An unlawful combatant (also unlawful enemy combatant or unprivileged combatant/belligerent) is a person who is accorded neither the rights a soldier would normally have under the laws of war, nor the civil rights a common criminal would normally have.[citation needed]The phrase "unlawful combatant" does not appear in the Third Geneva Convention (GCIII). However, Article 4 of GCIII does describe categories of persons who are entitled to prisoner of war status. "Prisoner of war" is generally synonymous with "detained lawful combatant."Since the September 11, 2001 attacks, the Bush administration in particular has suggested that those who do not meet this definition should be determined to be "unlawful combatant." It is opined that by this definition legal protection under the Geneva Conventions is not warranted. Nathaniel Berman in the Columbia Journal of Transnational Law observes that by declaring that some detainees do not merit the protections of criminal law, because of their combatant activities, and that they do not merit the protections of jus in bello due to the unlawful nature of their combat, the use of the term in current legal discourse seems "designed to put detainees beyond the reach of any law."[1]Should there be doubt about whether persons have fulfilled the conditions that confer prisoner of war status, Article 5 of the GCIII states that their status may be determined by a "competent tribunal" and until such time they are to be treated as prisoners of war.[2] After such "competent tribunals" have determined their status, the "Detaining Power" may choose to accord detained unlawful combatants the rights of prisoners of war as described in the Third Geneva Convention, but is not required to do so. Unlawful combatants do retain rights under the Fourth Geneva Convention so that they must be "treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial".[3] This latter Convention also applies to civilian non-combatants who are affected by the conflict and due special protections as "protected persons."[4](from Wikipedia)One of Hussein's photos was part of a group that won the Pulitzer Prize for Breaking News Photography last year.
Posted by courtney Sunday, September 17, 2006

Tonight on AC 360

Tonight George Clooney will be on AC 360 discussing the troubles in Darfur.A peace agreement was signed this past May, yet the humanitarian crisis continues.This Sunday, September 17th, is the Global Day for Darfur. People all over the world will come together to show support for the people of Darfur and to petition governments for action. You can take part in this demonstration by wearing a blue hat, the symbol of a UN Peace Keeper.For more information, visit Global Day for Darfur

To Post or Not to Post

Censorship on blogs--what's your take?So where should the admin draw the line? In the name of good taste or out of fear?Naturally I agree that as an admin you have a responsibility to your audience and you hope no one is offended by your blog's contents or tone. But where does free speech end and blog security (for lack of a better word) begin?Should I be able to go to a blog and post rumors about someone with no consequences? Are these rumors still protected as free speech? And what are the motives in spreading these rumors?Things to ponder.
Posted by courtney

"360°" asks why so many Muslims around the world say they hate Americans. Can their minds be changed? "

You asked: "360°" asks why so many Muslims around the world say they hate Americans. Can their minds be changed? " When people forget and ignore their history they are condemned to repeat it...The answer for your question would be Respect and Tolerance. I live in a country that was invaded by the USA a century ago, the american authorities unilaterally intended to impose the use of the English language to a country who have been using Spanish for 400 years, unilaterally - again - changed our national anthem and up to the 1980s to display the national flag was proscribed and it was a reason enough to be persuted and killed. We also served as guinny pigs for the studies for the development of "The Pill" tricking women to consume them thinking it was vitamins, others were simply sterilized without their consent, ( Joseph Mengele comes to mind, but his american version was Dr. Cornelius Rhoads who in written opinions stated the Puerto Rican population should be eradicated). The Infamous "Orange Agent Chemical" was test tried over our population and our rain forest. To live near military bases like Roosevelt Roads granted you the dubious right to have your daughters, mothers and sisters harrased or raped by marines, sometimes in their days off they could just get drunk and have hit and runs killing entire families and hiding behind the military bases where they were immune to local authorities. The latest assault attempt: how the Federal Prosecutor Office is intending to over rule OUR CONSTITUTION forcing the death penalty. And the list goes on and on, race included. You will see this pattern again and again in all of the countries that have lived this experiences with the USA and other invading countries as Albert Memmi presents in his book Portrait of the Colonizer. If we transport this experience to the Middle East, we see a super power like the USA - through its Executive Branch - with a xenophobic discourse against muslims, their millenium way of life and culture, it is no longer only against Al Qaeda or specific terrorist groups. It is an overly offensive to every muslim in the world. For a country as young as the USA, who still struggles with its own cultural definition, many countries find extreamly arrogant their intention to impose "their way of life" that unfortunately translates to the interest and needs of USA based corporations and multunationals. We just have to see the dramatic political changes in LatinAmerica to understand it. After the attacks in Madrid (11/3) the spaniards and its new government ( the misleading of information and Aznar's support to the war in Iraq was key to the overturn) took a novell approach, first they recognized the influence of the muslim and islamic culture to its own. Their history has been linked through centuries. Then in order to control the illegal immigration mostly from the north of Africa, they created incentives for corporations to establish fair business practices in those countries in order to promote their local econmomy and development that they hope will translate into less illegal migration. The entire world is very eceptic of the USA. We see it as a country of contadictions, a world police with a thin glass roof. Were people are educated through the entertainment industry and video games. Where it is more newsworthy if someone kidnaps Paris Hilton dog, Tinkerbell, beat it to death and it will make frontlines. Cut to the Mexico - USA border and try to make a story of an illeagal that got killed while trying to enter the USA and no one will care. Probably you will have cheerleaders cheering those who commited the crime. You know there is something wrong with a society when Humane Rights go over Human Rights.My mother always told me that arrogance is based on ignorance. I think history lessons are in order.
Posted by Christiane Amanpour Wednesday, September 13, 2006

Looking Back on a Tragedy With Energy and Respect

From The New York Times: Looking Back on a Tragedy With Energy and Respect

September 12, 2006The CoverageLooking Back on a Tragedy With Energy and Respect By ALESSANDRA STANLEY

It was smart of CNN to send Anderson Cooper to Afghanistan, not ground zero, for the fifth anniversary of 9/11. Afghanistan is where this all started. Ground zero is where innocence ended. That was obvious throughout the slow, mournful roll call of victims’ names at the World Trade Center memorial service — a public tribute to private family tragedies, more than 2,700 of them, one after another.It was just as clear on MSNBC, which chose to rebroadcast the “Today” show of Sept. 11, 2001. Until the second plane hit the south tower that morning, Katie Couric and Matt Lauer assumed, like almost everyone else, that the first plane crash was an accident. What stands out now is how calm they seemed as reality sank in and things kept getting worse, and how little anyone really understood at the time.It is painful, but not difficult, to memorialize Sept. 11 on television. There are so many images from that morning, so many ways to recreate its horror and mourn those who died. President Bush used that sadness and rekindled anger as a frame to challenge criticism of the Iraq war in his televised address. “We face an enemy determined to bring death and suffering into our homes,” he said from the Oval Office. “America did not ask for this war, and every American wishes it were over. So do I. But the war is not over — and it will not be over until either we or the extremists emerge victorious.”The day of ceremony, remembrance and wreath-laying was bracketed by fresh scenes of violence in Iraq and Afghanistan and renewed jitters at home. Al Qaeda’s second-in-command, Ayman al-Zawahri, issued his own tribute, a video warning that new attacks were imminent. In Afghanistan, a suicide bomber blew himself up at the funeral of the assassinated governor of Paktia. A United Airlines flight from Atlanta to San Francisco was diverted after an unclaimed BlackBerry was found on board. In New York, Pennsylvania Station was evacuated for a while. For New Yorkers especially, yesterday unfolded with that same sense of sorrow and unease that darkened the entire fall of 2001.CNN provided the morning’s most ambitious fifth anniversary special by weaving together a time line of pivotal moments on Sept 11, 2001. Besides covering the president and Laura Bush as they paid their respects in New York, in Pennsylvania and at the Pentagon, CNN brought out witnesses in those places who recounted their memories. A CNN reporter, Jonathan Freed, was at the Norad command center in Colorado to review what took place there five years ago. From there, he was the first to report that United Flight 351 was being rerouted for fear of a terrorist bomb — a precaution that fortunately proved unnecessary. Mr. Freed’s live bulletins may have needlessly alarmed viewers, but they did evoke the pinpricks of tension that are a legacy of Sept. 11. Sometimes CNN switched to the ceremony at ground zero, at others it went overseas to a forward base in Afghanistan where Mr. Cooper had gone to observe American soldiers gather for their own commemoration in the field. As he spoke onscreen about being on the “frontline” of the war on terror, the men suddenly broke into a run behind him, rushing to escape incoming fire. (To his credit, Mr. Cooper, who was on live, kept talking and didn’t duck or run.)Throughout all those zigzags, CNN held its own tribute — the news crawl at the bottom of the screen showed a candle and the word “remembering” as the names of the victims spilled across the screen, all day. At 9:05 a.m. yesterday, CNN showed the clip of that exact moment five years ago in a classroom in Sarasota, Fla., when President Bush first learned that the county was under attack, and sat frozen in his seat. CNN accompanied it with an interview with the teacher who sat next to Mr. Bush at the blackboard, and she recalled that she knew something was wrong by the look in his eyes.Hours before the president attended the ceremony for Flight 93 in Shanksville, Pa., CNN interviewed an assistant volunteer fire chief, Rick King, at the same time that, five years earlier, he was on his porch talking by cellphone to his sister when he saw a fireball in the distance and rushed to the scene of smoke and tangled metal. “I just looked around, and no people,” he recalled. “I was thinking, Where are the people?” All the news programs covered the anniversary with energy, respect and exhaustive detail. CNN found a way to relive the day hour by hour without losing track of the world around it.
Posted by Christiane Amanpour

Anderson Cooper Needs To Manage His Anger?

Media Anger Management Tom Rosenstiel and Bill Kovach, The Washington Post, October 2, 2005

Much has been made of the surge of emotion among journalists who covered the devastation of Hurricane Katrina and to a lesser degree Hurricane Rita. Jean Meserve of CNN broke down. Anderson Cooper, also of CNN, got mad. Shepard Smith of Fox was outraged.Many have lauded the news media's newfound passion, and some have even wondered whether it might be a welcome sign of a new aggressiveness on their part.But the praise has by no means been unanimous. "A 100-year journalistic commitment to a dispassionate report of facts seems to be in jeopardy," one well-known Washington journalism educator wrote us. Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour was moved to ask Anderson Cooper one night: "Is this an argument or an interview?"The issue cuts to the heart of what it means to be a journalist at a time when the matter is more in doubt than ever. In a profession that pledges itself to suppress self-interest to ensure its credibility, are emotionalism and outrage ever appropriate? And if so, when do they go too far?Emotional responses to breaking events have become increasingly common with the new technology that allows instant visual reports from any place on Earth: the World Trade Center, Fallujah, tsunami-stricken villages, a bloody schoolhouse in the Russian town of Beslan, and towns and cities ravaged by Katrina. The pictures provide the stimulus. Anchors, sometimes armed with little more information than viewers have, offer the response.It would be difficult to argue that emotion from journalists on the scene witnessing such human suffering is always out of place. Journalists are in essence our surrogate observers. It would have been odd, even distressing to most, if reporters had reacted like journalistic robots to the devastation in the Gulf Coast -- further proof, press bashers would be quick to suggest, that the media have lost their humanity.Rejecting that kind of emotional isolationism helped spawn movements such as civic journalism over a decade ago. The goal was to "reconnect" with citizens and present news in terms that made it more relevant to them. Bonding with audiences is also one of the forces that fueled the rise of the new partisan media.Genuine human emotion drives journalism to higher levels of inquiry and gives journalists spine. Yet clearly there are risks to it. It can quickly descend into manipulative gimmickry, with journalists as professional emoters who cover events to express their outrage. Paddy Chayefsky explored this in the movie "Network," in which anchorman Howard Beale announces that he's fed up and isn't going to take it anymore. The angry everyman is an old cliche in the news game, one that is alive and well in talk radio, on cable TV and on new Internet venues.One problem is that this kind of emotional formulation of the news can distort coverage. You search for stories that play that tune, and avoid those that do not. The emotionalism becomes the news, the brand, the gimmick. Information is deemed too cerebral and insufficiently visual.The first sensible rule here would seem to be that emotion ought to come at those moments when any other reaction would seem forced or out of place -- when it's the only organic response. When anchorman Walter Cronkite wiped his eyes after John F. Kennedy's assassination in 1963 or showed the sense of awe he felt over the space shots a few years later, it struck Americans as appropriate -- as did the concern of anchors Tom Brokaw, Peter Jennings and Dan Rather after Sept. 11, 2001. Katrina qualifies. The emotion wasn't a journalistic device. It was simply what it was -- a human reaction, difficult to control.The second rule should be that once journalists have reacted in a human way to what they've seen, they must compose themselves to sort out responsibility for how and why things happened. The search for answers requires all their skepticism, professionalism and intellectual independence.In a disaster of the magnitude of Katrina, we will continue to mourn what America has lost, and emotion will at times be part of the story. But we are now beginning to identify and learn from the mistakes, and the public will be called on to support or oppose decisions that will be made in its name.Vested interests, political and otherwise, will supply the outrage and fingerpointing ad nauseam. That is the time when citizens most need journalists to have their wits about them, to apply serious critical, independent thought to questions that will cut through the spin and provide people the information they need to make up their own minds.Human emotion is at the heart of what makes something news. But if journalists try to manufacture it or use it to bring attention to themselves, they're into something there is already enough of: reality entertainment.Tom Rosenstiel is the director of the Project for Excellence in Journalism. Bill Kovach is the chairman of the Committee of Concerned Journalists.
Posted by Christiane Amanpour

9/11/01

Five years ago, I was working on my undergraduate degree in history.It was a Tuesday morning. That's how I remember 9/11--because of the classes I had that day. I had HST (history) 518: Colonial America at 9:30am-10:45am and LLT 121: World Mythology at 11:00am-12:15pm. In order to get to school and find a parking place, I needed to get up at 7am. My alarm was set for that time but because I'd stayed up way too late the night before, I reset my alarm for 9am and skipped my first class.My alarm went off at 9am and because I had it set on radio instead of buzz (the buzz was too loud and would scare me), I heard the DJs talking about these two planes that had hit the World Trade Center in New York City.Caught between being awake and asleep, I thought it was a joke. I remember mumbling "That's not funny" and rolling over. They kept talking about it though, instead of admitting they were joking, so I thought maybe I'd better get up and see what was going on.I went into my living room and turned on the Today Show. Katie Couric told me it was no joke, that two planes had in fact crashed into the WTC and another had crashed into the Pentagon. I sat in stunned disbelief as she explained that the first tower had already collapsed, and a few minutes after I'd turned on the TV, to my horror the second tower collapsed. I saw this live and it has stayed with me for five years.My first thought after this was to call my mother. She was at work, of course, and when I got her on the phone I burst into tears. She began to cry too and we told each other "I love you."I remember Katie telling me that another plane was missing, a Delta flight, and another plane had crashed into a field in Pennsylvania--possibly headed for Washington.It was a nightmare that had crept into waking hours.I forgot about school and sat in front of my television all day long. Luckily I didn't have to work that night, or I probably would have called in sick. I did work the next day and bought a copy of the 9/12/01 New York Times. I still have it, along with other magazines from that week.The memories of that day have stayed with me and I think I'll remember what I was doing that day for the rest of my life. Psychologists call this phenomenon a "flashbulb memory"--from Wikipedia:A flashbulb memory is a memory laid down in great detail during a highly personally significant event, often a shocking event of national or international importance. These memories are perceived to have a "photographic" quality. The term was coined by Brown and Kulik (1977), who found highly emotional memories (e.g. hearing bad news) were often vividly recalled, even some time after the event. For example, a great many people can remember where they were when they heard of the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001 or the assassination of John F. Kennedy or John Lennon.I was in the World Trade Center in April 1995. I stood at the base of the towers, pointed my camera up to the sky, and took a picture.Unfortunately, I can't find the picture. Just spent thirty minutes trying to find it, but to no avail.I also took several pictures of the iconic Manhattan skyline.

Solidarity

NEW YORK - SEPTEMBER 11: (PUERTO RICO OUT) Hector Rosario (R), David Sanchez (C) and the rest of the Puerto Rico Urban Search and Rescue Task Force (PRUSRTF) stand solemnly after being honored by the Puerto Rican community September 11, 2002 in Spanish Harlem, New York. The PRUSRTF were honored for their effort during the rescue efforts at Ground Zero after last years deadly terrorist attack at the World Trade Center. The PRUSRTF was the first international rescue team to arrive in New York City after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. (Photo by Jose Jimenez/Primera Hora/Getty Images)
Posted by Christiane Amanpour

Robertson: Al Qaeda slicker even with bin Laden out of sight

I am a huge fan of CNN International, and truly enjoy when they overlap into the US Editions this report is an excellent account of the situation in the middle east after S11.

Robertson: Al Qaeda slicker even with bin Laden out of sightPOSTED: 1845 GMT (0245 HKT), September 8, 2006 By Nic RobertsonCNNEditor's note: In our Behind the Scenes series, CNN correspondents share their experiences in covering news and analyze the stories behind the events. Nic Robertson is currently reporting from inside Pakistan.

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan (CNN) -- So much has changed since the days after 9/11, when I watched first-hand inside Afghanistan as al Qaeda was blasted out of its terror training camps by U.S. warplanes.And yet in that same time very little in the battle against al Qaeda has really moved on.Five years after the al Qaeda attacks in the United States, the Islamist militant group and its ideological affiliates are still attacking Western targets, killing their citizens: Bali 2002 -- nearly 200 killed; Madrid 2004 -- more than 180 dead; and London 2005 -- 52 killed, with another foiled attack that could have been equally deadly.Al Qaeda's Internet messages are an almost routine monthly affair. The five-year-old tape released Thursday is proof that the terror group wants to show it is still in the game. (Watch suspected terrorists practice martial arts -- 2:44)I was in Kabul on September 11. The Taliban were in power. Osama bin Laden had been their guest for five years. With what was then cutting-edge technology, the videophone, we broadcast live the Taliban denials of bin Laden's involvement in the attacks.The Taliban threatened us, saying crowds would pull us limb from limb if we tried to stay in Afghanistan. But it was the war on terror -- as the hunt for bin Laden and his al Qaeda allies was to be known -- that ultimately forced us to retreat across the border to Pakistan. Less than three months later, bin Laden would do the same thing, chased out by heavy American bombing. It was the last time he was seen.Bin Laden ran away, but he continues his fight today, popping up occasionally on the Internet with his lieutenant, Ayman al-Zawahiri. And that's why I'm back in the hotel in Pakistan trying to figure out why bin Laden is still free and what has happened to al Qaeda five years on.To understand that you can't just fast forward from 9/11 to today.I've been following America's war on terror across the world. I was in Baghdad, Iraq, when the massive U.S. bombing barrages that forced Saddam Hussein from power in 2003 came crashing down. I've embedded with U.S. troops, hauled my gear on foot alongside Marines in the massive Falluja offensive of 2004, been shot at with Iraqi politicians in 2005, and watched men burn and women cry in 2006.To a man and woman, most U.S. troops I've met in Iraq believe they are fighting the war on terror. Most Iraqis I've met believe they are paying the price.In Saudi Arabia I've witnessed police shootouts with al Qaeda. In Jordan, along its impoverished back streets, I tracked the roots of al Qaeda's most bloodthirsty killer, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, himself killed in an attack on his safehouse in June.Mindset in Middle East changingFor the past five years I've criss-crossed the Middle East. There are common threads. The common people are mostly warm and welcoming. But there is a sea change under way. The looks I get from those who don't know me are far less happy than they used to be. Wherever I go, faces are souring.That's how it was when I got off the plane here. I know the Pakistanis. I know how warm and friendly they are. A few months ago I brought my wife and daughters here for a wedding. It was a wonderful experience they'll never forget. But the fact is, people just aren't as happy to see Westerners as they used to be. We come with baggage.Ask anyone why and they'll tell you, "your government, Mr. Blair," or sometimes they think I'm American, "Mr. Bush is against Muslims." Why else, their argument goes, would your soldiers kill Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan?I heard the same thing in London this summer and last. "We are angry," hard-line Islamists told me, "with the British government's foreign policy, putting British troops in Iraq and Afghanistan."These young men see themselves as Muslim first, British second. They listen to al Qaeda's messages, watch tapes of Osama bin Laden and cheer at the 9/11 attack. Their views are some of the most radical I've come across since I used to meet with the Taliban.It's clear that bin Laden still has relevance. Ask in Pakistan, the last country he was believed to be headed toward, why he hasn't been caught and you'll get a conspiracy theory. Pakistan's military president, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, won't catch him because if he does the Americans won't need him and his autocratic rule any more and will dump him. Like all conspiracy theories, this one is shot full of holes and denied by the Americans. Push a little harder and you may get closer to what people really think.The hard-liners believe no one will help because Pakistanis don't trust America and dislike its war on terror. Musharraf's critics say he is a hard-liner whose policies have empowered the country's influential religious parties. His opponents say he strikes a fine balance, telling the religious leaders they need him to keep America at bay while telling the Americans they need him to keep the religious leaders at bay.Little in the hunt for al Qaeda or bin Laden is done, they say, without massive pressure from the United States.Over the past five years the cumulative effect is that only a handful of al Qaeda figures, most notably Khalid Sheik Mohammad, the reported coordinator of the 9/11 attacks, has been picked up. Significantly, most have been picked up in Pakistan's teeming cities. Not hiding in caves.I've been discovering a far more worrying trend than Pakistan simply harboring former al Qaeda leaders. It is becoming a principal al Qaeda hub of operation. London bombers Shahzad Tanwer and Mohammad Sediq Khan came here for training and to record their suicide messages before their July 7 attack in 2005. Their messages were later released by al Qaeda's video production arm, As Sahab, apparently a Pakistan-based operation.And this year the arrests in London in August over the suspected multiple hijacking plot came after a British Pakistani was arrested here. And there's more.People across the Middle East -- from moderates to radicals to plain ill-informed -- tell me the real reason America is not getting what it wants is that the United States has mishandled its war on terror to the point that it's backfired.The conclusion here is the threat of terror attacks is as great, if not greater, than it ever was.That's what I'm thinking about as my team and I rush to set up for a live broadcast about the latest al Qaeda message. Of course, like al Qaeda's, our job is technically easier than it was five years ago. Gone is the videophone. Nowadays you simply hook up to the hotel broadband and off you go."So what does this latest message mean?" the CNN anchor in Atlanta asks me. A valid question. The best answer, I think, from all we know, is that it surely doesn't mean anything good.A few days ago in a now familiar hotel room in Islamabad, I got a call from CNN's headquarters in Atlanta, Georgia, telling me a new al Qaeda video had just been released. (Full story)Five years ago that would have been massive news. Now I wasn't even surprised. So slick has Osama bin Laden's terror group become, I had seen al Qaeda's heralding of their latest anti-Western diatribe on a broadband Internet connection two days earlier.
Posted by Christiane Amanpour @ 1:51 PM

Where Were You?

Where were you on September 11?

Hard to believe, but it was five years ago tomorrow that America was attacked.

Five years later, are we in a better place? Do you feel safer? Is the world a safer place? We got Saddam, but Osama is still out there, somewhere. We didn’t find the WMDs in Iraq, but we helped put a democratically elected government in power in Afghanistan and got rid of the Taliban…or did we?

President Bush has taken to the streets again, trying to rally the base and get the American public to see that terrorism is our number one fear and Iraq is the “ground zero” for the War on Terror. Despite evidence to the contrary—a report issued this past week from the US Senate states there was no link between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda—Bush and his pals insist Saddam helped Osama bin Laden set up the attacks on the US in 2001.

So what do you believe?

And is it still considered unpatriotic to question the government?

Posted by Courtney @ 8:47 PM ::Sunday, September 10, 2006