Watching you watching me

Watching you watching me

I could only shake my head in amazement when I learned that US assistant "secretary of state for public affairs'' (read information minister!) Phillip Crowley was unhappy with Aljazeera's converge of the disaster in Haiti.

Not that a news organisation should lose sleep over a government official - any government official's criticism. Rather, I was amazed by the flimsy excuse to attack Aljazeera English.
 
Appearing on Aljazeera to explain his characterisation of our coverage as "unfair and unbalanced", Crowley sounded paternalistic. He said he "supports" Aljazeera as an independent network and valued our presence in places like Haiti.
 
He seemed amused by Aljazeera's defensiveness towards his criticism that he said was pretty normal between governments and media outlets. What he left out, however, is why - out of all the networks - he chose to pick on Aljazeera per se.
 
Now that's not funny

It's my understanding that Crowley was upset by two issues: AJE's Seb Walker's comparison of the fortified airport of Port-au-Prince with the heavily fortified "Green Zone" in the Iraqi capital, and its reporting of criticisms of US militarisation of humanitarian assistance.
 
Green Zone, red light

Now I can understand why a Haitian official would take this the wrong way. But why would a US spokesman be offended by comparing America's military presence in Port-au-Prince to "a little Green Zone" in Baghdad.

Isn't it Washington's claim that US military presence in Iraq and in the Green Zone is to protect the Iraqi government, ensure security and protect Iraqis in the face of violence and terror?

Is it there, to use his words, to "takeover the country", or is it at the Iraqi government's invitation and will soon leave Iraq as agreed with its government?

What then is wrong with a reporter recalling the similarity from a very intimate personal observation? Crowley can't have his cake and eat it too.

When a reporter reports from a crisis zone, his or her unfiltered unedited impressions are a very necessary part of journalism. Otherwise, self-censorship due to fear of attack by media commissars of the world's superpower would undermine international freedom of the press that Washington frequently preaches.

Or is Crowley echoing the criticism of Hillary Clinton, the Secretary of State, who said the international media coverage had "either misunderstood or deliberately misconstrued" the US decision to send thousands of troops to Haiti.
 
Shooting the messenger

Which takes me to the second point. Aljazeera and others have reported how US friends like the French and the Brazilians as well as its foes like Cuba and Venezuela have complained about Washington's militarisation of the humanitarian assistance.
 
I guess Crowley "would rather we just said thank you, and went on our way, or pick up a weapon, and stand a post", to quote fictional character Colonel Jessop (Jack Nicholson) in the US film A Few Good Men.

And you know what, gratitude is in order, to America and to all those who helped Haiti.

But gratitude is not a journalist's job. Reporting is. Reporting the facts as he or she learns, hears, and sees them.  And if that's also what officials and aid organisations spokespersons contend, there is no point of shooting the messenger.

Rather a thank you would suffice to those courageous Aljazeera journalists who do whatever it takes to report back the story from the most challenging places.

That includes Seb Walker for his solid and sobering reports, and also the industrious Teresa Bo, Monica Villamizar, Mike Kirsch, and the seasoned Washington reporter Rob Reynolds.

From Colombia to Afghanistan through to Iraq, Palestine and Lebanon among others, these AJE reporters have done all it takes to accurately report the human story in the most difficult and dangerous circumstances.
 
Militarising the humanitarian

Instead of (selectively) doubting Aljazeera's intentions and criticising its reporters' coverage, the US government and the international community need to learn the lessons of their past humanitarian deployments and rethink their response to natural disasters.

There is no doubt that such sudden and horrific events require well planned response. Especially that over the last several decades, earthquakes and tsunamis have killed and injured millions.

The military of any country is designed to fight, not help. To kill, not save. They know how to win wars, not feed the hungry. And the same goes for their war-like deployment posture.

That's why perhaps under UN auspices the US, EU, Russia, China, Brazil and other regional powers should establish rapid deployment forces trained specifically for humanitarian mission and disaster areas.

This way, they do their jobs and we continue to do ours.

After all, you never know who's watching.  To be on the safe side, let's say we are watching governments and they are watching us.
 
Personally, I suggest as soon as government officials praise us for our coverage, that we examine how to change or improve it.