A CNN interview with Yasser Arafat, aired on 29 March 2002, exposed more than what was expressed verbally. Christiane Amanpour took it, over telephone, when the Israeli troops laid “a complete siege” on the Palestinian Authority president’s headquarters in Ramallah, the West Bank. At one point, she wanted to know if he would rein in violence as suggested by US secretary of state Colin Powell.
Arafat - a firebrand guerrilla leader who joined a peace treaty with ‘enemy’ Isaac Robin - got upset. The question was asked at a moment when Ariel Sharon’s Israel destroyed surrounding buildings confining the Palestinian leader in his office room.
Arafat asked Amanpour to respect “your profession”. As she repeated “simply a question”, she was told: “You’ve to be accurate when you are speaking with General Yasser Arafat. Be quiet!”
Neither of them could, by means of angry shouting or superior coverage, hush one another, especially when each had a cause. Amanpour carelessly showed insensitivity to the perspective of Arafat, the symbol of Palestinian resistance against the Israeli occupation.
It is Ramallah where the fearless man turned into a patient and from where he had his last journey in October 2004 to France.
But the flame, ignited by this life-long refugee, could not be extinguished by the Israelis, who rather have to live with hatred of the global conscience.
Again, it is Amanpour who ran a story “Where were the journalists”, years after America’s Iraq debacle following the Bush administration’s false proposition to wage a war in 2003. This is the war which brought to the fore the notorious notion of ‘embedded journalism’ pursued by CNN, the BBC and others, who all already failed to dig out the truth.
Amanpour did not question herself why Arafat raised the question about her professionalism. When you are biased to your ego or evil purpose, truth eludes you, no matter how intelligent and influential you are.
How better are we, as media professionals, in today’s Bangladesh, in generating necessary noise in the public domain to uphold national interests?
‘Let us not say something which contains risks for the individual journalist and the media house concerned’ is a preferred policy for some, be it for the time being. This self-censorship is understood at home and well known to foreigners.
More peculiar is our approach to asserting freedom of thought and speech. It is none but some so-called free thinkers, who advocate censorship, giving advice on how the media outlets that try to remain critical of the establishment should be demonised and grilled. Their appreciation for the powerful who violate public rights, is no longer any secret act.
Active and passive forms of sycophancy can best serve the purpose of fascism. In an atmosphere of apparent all-chorus with the regime, as happened in pre-world war II Germany and Italy, the media prove to be a failure and the people become hostage.
With the media manipulated to stand by its side, the regime may feel that it has managed to stop many voices including those of the opposition.
However, even an unsympathetic presentation of a long list of extra-judicial killings and arrest of hundreds of political activists transmits certain messages to varieties of recipients. The people can see with their eyes happenings around them and draw their own conclusions.
The rulers, on their part, have reasons to smile after compelling the vocal to be mute. It can and did ban use of social media sites. In fact, there is no hide and seek in the attempts to make the media largely irrelevant. Still suffering from deficiency in popular legitimacy, the regime needs and loves obedient and quiet people.
This is essentially a golden opportunity for the beneficiaries of repressive policies. Silence, as loved by them, is also an illusion. With absolute power at hand, the political masters perhaps desire to hear the voice of very self in the form of echo in many others’ statements and eulogies. Is it not, in turn, a state of isolation?
In war, commanders resort to rhetoric ‘to fight until the enemy voice is silenced forever’, although this has never been successful.
LTTE guerrillas led by Velupillai Prabhakaran once eliminated the rival Tamil groups. After three decades of bloody civil war against a regular army, the guns of LTTE militias were silenced in 2009. Yet, the issue of Tamil people in Sri Lanka has not died down.
It is frustrating for any totalitarian regime to not succeed in wiping out all potential rivals. Disturbingly for it, the masses who keep mum do speak, quietly and in course of time, to whom they find trustworthy. Multi-media experts say no room in the world is silent.
Khawaza Main Uddin is Consultant at Prothom Alo English. He can be contacted at [email protected].