# data[].attributes.body
How did the attacks of September 11, 2001, reshape U.S. foreign policy, national security measures, and Media & Public Discourse?

# data[].attributes.body
U.S. War on Terror

Invasion of Afghanistan (2001)

Invasion of Iraq (2003)

Bush Doctrine / preemptive warfare

U.S. relations with the Middle East after 9/11

NATO involvement post-9/11

Patriot Act (2001)

Department of Homeland Security (DHS)

Transportation Security Administration (TSA)

Airport security reforms after 9/11

Border control and immigration policy changes

Domestic surveillance programs (NSA, wiretapping)

Rise of Islamophobia in the U.S.

Patriotism and national unity post-9/11

9/11 memorials and Ground Zero

Media representation of terrorism and Arabs

9/11 in literature, film, and art

# data[].attributes.body
"9/11 and Its Aftermath." Gale U.S. History Online Collection, Gale, 2023. Gale In Context: U.S. History, link.gale.com/apps/doc/JWNFKS388278007/UHIC?u=san74543&sid=bookmark-UHIC&xid=645b72f5. Accessed 6 Oct. 2025.

# data[].attributes.body
For example, the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the U.S. Customs Service were merged into U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

# data[].attributes.body
https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010911-16.html

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Statement by the President in His Address to the Nation

View the President's Remarks
Listen to the President's Remarks

8:30 P.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT: Good evening. Today, our fellow citizens, our way of life, our very freedom came under attack in a series of deliberate and deadly terrorist acts. The victims were in airplanes, or in their offices; secretaries, businessmen and women, military and federal workers; moms and dads, friends and neighbors. Thousands of lives were suddenly ended by evil, despicable acts of terror.

The pictures of airplanes flying into buildings, fires burning, huge structures collapsing, have filled us with disbelief, terrible sadness, and a quiet, unyielding anger. These acts of mass murder were intended to frighten our nation into chaos and retreat. But they have failed; our country is strong.

A great people has been moved to defend a great nation. Terrorist attacks can shake the foundations of our biggest buildings, but they cannot touch the foundation of America. These acts shattered steel, but they cannot dent the steel of American resolve.

America was targeted for attack because we're the brightest beacon for freedom and opportunity in the world. And no one will keep that light from shining.

Today, our nation saw evil, the very worst of human nature. And we responded with the best of America -- with the daring of our rescue workers, with the caring for strangers and neighbors who came to give blood and help in any way they could.

Immediately following the first attack, I implemented our government's emergency response plans. Our military is powerful, and it's prepared. Our emergency teams are working in New York City and Washington, D.C. to help with local rescue efforts.

Our first priority is to get help to those who have been injured, and to take every precaution to protect our citizens at home and around the world from further attacks.

The functions of our government continue without interruption. Federal agencies in Washington which had to be evacuated today are reopening for essential personnel tonight, and will be open for business tomorrow. Our financial institutions remain strong, and the American economy will be open for business, as well.

The search is underway for those who are behind these evil acts. I've directed the full resources of our intelligence and law enforcement communities to find those responsible and to bring them to justice. We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them.

I appreciate so very much the members of Congress who have joined me in strongly condemning these attacks. And on behalf of the American people, I thank the many world leaders who have called to offer their condolences and assistance.

America and our friends and allies join with all those who want peace and security in the world, and we stand together to win the war against terrorism. Tonight, I ask for your prayers for all those who grieve, for the children whose worlds have been shattered, for all whose sense of safety and security has been threatened. And I pray they will be comforted by a power greater than any of us, spoken through the ages in Psalm 23: "Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I fear no evil, for You are with me."

This is a day when all Americans from every walk of life unite in our resolve for justice and peace. America has stood down enemies before, and we will do so this time. None of us will ever forget this day. Yet, we go forward to defend freedom and all that is good and just in our world.

Thank you. Good night, and God bless America.

END 8:35 P.M. EDT

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Statement by the President in Address to the Nation

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A great people has been moved to defend a great nation. Terrorist attacks can shake the foundations of our biggest buildings, but they cannot touch the foundation of America. These acts shattered steel, but they cannot dent the steel of American resolve.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-107publ56/pdf/PLAW-107publ56.pdf

# data[].attributes.body
Bush grants the CIA authorization to capture and detain anyone who poses a “continues and serious threat” to the us. Prior to this the us was only able to capture individuals with pending legal charges. From this the “black cites” where created the CIA could interview them in an undisclosed location.

https://www.cfr.org/timeline/how-911-reshaped-foreign-policy

# data[].attributes.body
Bush signs a document with congress authorizing the president to use “ all necessary and appropriate force” to capture those who planned, authorized, and committed the 9/11 attacks, or who knows anyone who did. Bush’s administration initially was authorized to talk down al- Qaeda and its Taliban sponsors in Afghanistan.

https://www.cfr.org/timeline/how-911-reshaped-foreign-policy

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The events of September 11, 2001, set in motion sweeping changes to U.S. intelligence and counterterrorism practices, launched two major wars, and altered Americans' daily routines. This timeline traces three pivotal years whose reverberations continue today.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Timeline: How 9/11 Reshaped Foreign Policy

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The events of September 11, 2001, set in motion sweeping changes to U.S. intelligence and counterterrorism practices, launched two major wars, and altered Americans' daily routines. This timeline tra...

# data[].attributes.body
NATO ( North Atlantic Treaty Organization) invokes its collective self defense mechanism for the very first time, the US and Uk decide to begin air strikes in Afghanistan. The US invasion was supported local anti-Taliban forces. The talbian government collapsed by December.

https://www.cfr.org/timeline/how-911-reshaped-foreign-policy

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The events of September 11, 2001, set in motion sweeping changes to U.S. intelligence and counterterrorism practices, launched two major wars, and altered Americans' daily routines. This timeline traces three pivotal years whose reverberations continue today.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Timeline: How 9/11 Reshaped Foreign Policy

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The events of September 11, 2001, set in motion sweeping changes to U.S. intelligence and counterterrorism practices, launched two major wars, and altered Americans' daily routines. This timeline tra...

# data[].attributes.body
- bush signs the patriot act

-legislation aims to strengthen the federal government

-the bill provided a bolster cooperation between differnet law enforcements and different intelligence agencies

-strengthen bank regulations

https://www.cfr.org/timeline/how-911-reshaped-foreign-policy

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The events of September 11, 2001, set in motion sweeping changes to U.S. intelligence and counterterrorism practices, launched two major wars, and altered Americans' daily routines. This timeline traces three pivotal years whose reverberations continue today.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Timeline: How 9/11 Reshaped Foreign Policy

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The events of September 11, 2001, set in motion sweeping changes to U.S. intelligence and counterterrorism practices, launched two major wars, and altered Americans' daily routines. This timeline tra...

# data[].attributes.body
During the UN General Assembly bush delivers an ultimatum to saddam’s govermnt which bush calls “grace and gathering dangers”. Bush accused them of violating multiple UN security councils which destroys all weapons of mass destruction.

https://www.cfr.org/timeline/how-911-reshaped-foreign-policy

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The events of September 11, 2001, set in motion sweeping changes to U.S. intelligence and counterterrorism practices, launched two major wars, and altered Americans' daily routines. This timeline traces three pivotal years whose reverberations continue today.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Timeline: How 9/11 Reshaped Foreign Policy

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The events of September 11, 2001, set in motion sweeping changes to U.S. intelligence and counterterrorism practices, launched two major wars, and altered Americans' daily routines. This timeline tra...

# data[].attributes.body
Bush signs a new law which approves the authorization of military forces (AUMF). This allowed bush to defend the US against “ the contiunes threat posed by Iraq”. People later claim that the subsequent president abused the 2002 (aumf)to conduct the unrelated military operations.

https://www.cfr.org/timeline/how-911-reshaped-foreign-policy

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The events of September 11, 2001, set in motion sweeping changes to U.S. intelligence and counterterrorism practices, launched two major wars, and altered Americans' daily routines. This timeline traces three pivotal years whose reverberations continue today.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Timeline: How 9/11 Reshaped Foreign Policy

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The events of September 11, 2001, set in motion sweeping changes to U.S. intelligence and counterterrorism practices, launched two major wars, and altered Americans' daily routines. This timeline tra...

# data[].attributes.body
-after Washington attempt to support the Un fails the US and UK forces invaded the Iraqi Army in a quick invasion. This resulted in civil war, and the subsequent rise of the Islamic state . This resulted in kill nearly five thousand US service members.

https://www.cfr.org/timeline/how-911-reshaped-foreign-policy

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The events of September 11, 2001, set in motion sweeping changes to U.S. intelligence and counterterrorism practices, launched two major wars, and altered Americans' daily routines. This timeline traces three pivotal years whose reverberations continue today.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Timeline: How 9/11 Reshaped Foreign Policy

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The events of September 11, 2001, set in motion sweeping changes to U.S. intelligence and counterterrorism practices, launched two major wars, and altered Americans' daily routines. This timeline tra...

# data[].attributes.body
boarder shift in foreign policy

Martin Indyk contended that reducing the terrorist threat

Kenneth pollack urged that the United States “invaded Iraq, eliminate the present regime, and pave the way for successors”

Engaged and complicated its mission

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/lists/911-transforms-us-foreign-policy

# data[].attributes.headline
9. Post 9/11 international coalition and wartime response

# data[].attributes.subject
9. Post 9/11 international coalition and wartime response

# data[].attributes.body
the attacks turned the us on its side

This was the first time NATO when the latter invoked article 5

The invoked article 5 because they said that the attack on US was an attack on all of the US was an attack on all of nato members

The us took the advantages to construct the global war on terror

https://nycfpa.org/09/11/from-unity-to-isolation-transformation-of-us-foreign-policy-since-9-11/

# data[].attributes.headline
10. Expansion of the military and intelligence apparatus 

# data[].attributes.subject
10. Expansion of the military and intelligence apparatus 

# data[].attributes.body
dealing with terrorism led to structural changes

Patriot act was established -> this was a indication of a new order for internal security

Authorization to use military force gave the executive power which they were able to send the US forces into the new world

America grew its military and its intelligence presence

https://nycfpa.org/09/11/from-unity-to-isolation-transformation-of-us-foreign-policy-since-9-11/

# data[].attributes.headline
11. Transition toward withdrawal and isolationist tendencies 

# data[].attributes.subject
11. Transition toward withdrawal and isolationist tendencies 

# data[].attributes.body
forge in policy was reserved

When barrack was elected his goverment sought to cycle out the policy’s of massive intervention and focus on more multilateral relations and alliances

The pivot to Asia’s approach cause a shift in their priories

https://nycfpa.org/09/11/from-unity-to-isolation-transformation-of-us-foreign-policy-since-9-11/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
New York Center For Foreign Policy Affairs

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
US foreign policy transformation since 9/11

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Analysis of the US foreign policy shift from post-9/11 global unity to isolationist trends by 2025.

# data[].attributes.body
trumps abrupt rejection of the past approaches to internationalism

His administration followed a transactional and sovereignty foreign policy

Emphasis on the Americas first echos

Significant changes are -> tariffs, the exit of numerous internal agreements, Paris climate agreement, the rejoin of Iran nuclear deal. Decreased participation in international organizations

https://nycfpa.org/09/11/from-unity-to-isolation-transformation-of-us-foreign-policy-since-9-11/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
New York Center For Foreign Policy Affairs

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
US foreign policy transformation since 9/11

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Analysis of the US foreign policy shift from post-9/11 global unity to isolationist trends by 2025.

# data[].attributes.headline
13. Isolationism on. Global and nation security 

# data[].attributes.subject
13. Isolationism on. Global and nation security 

# data[].attributes.body
old allies started to becoming doubtful of the US commitments

NATO members agreed about how much the military was spending

The Russian aggression in Ukraine and Syria

Abandonment of the strategic leadership positions

https://nycfpa.org/09/11/from-unity-to-isolation-transformation-of-us-foreign-policy-since-9-11/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
New York Center For Foreign Policy Affairs

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
US foreign policy transformation since 9/11

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Analysis of the US foreign policy shift from post-9/11 global unity to isolationist trends by 2025.

# data[].attributes.headline
14. Reassessing multilateralism and national security 

# data[].attributes.subject
14. Reassessing multilateralism and national security 

# data[].attributes.body
unity isolation becasue a new debate concerning the basics of the Us involvement in the world

The Biden administration took steps to renew their relationship with other country’s

Internal politicking still influences the foreign policy

https://nycfpa.org/09/11/from-unity-to-isolation-transformation-of-us-foreign-policy-since-9-11/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
New York Center For Foreign Policy Affairs

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
US foreign policy transformation since 9/11

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Analysis of the US foreign policy shift from post-9/11 global unity to isolationist trends by 2025.

# data[].attributes.headline
15. Defense spending and the strategic priorities 

# data[].attributes.subject
15. Defense spending and the strategic priorities 

# data[].attributes.body
budget cut effects the us department of defense

Most of the budget shifted to technological modernization

Transformation is the step towards shifting image of power projection between in solitary of 2001 and the isolationism of the years after it illustrates an even greater conflict

https://nycfpa.org/09/11/from-unity-to-isolation-transformation-of-us-foreign-policy-since-9-11/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
New York Center For Foreign Policy Affairs

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
US foreign policy transformation since 9/11

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Analysis of the US foreign policy shift from post-9/11 global unity to isolationist trends by 2025.

# data[].attributes.body
1. The Role of Cable News in Shaping Public Opinion After 9/11

2. How 9/11 Influenced the Rise of Political Talk Radio and Punditry

3. The Spread of Misinformation and Conspiracy Theories After 9/11

4. Media Censorship and Self-Regulation in the Wake of National Tragedy

# data[].attributes.headline
1. Department of homeland security (start)

# data[].attributes.subject
1. Department of homeland security (start)

# data[].attributes.body
1. Department of homeland security is shorten to DHS

2. DHS is made up of 22 different federal department agencies

3. This office oversaw and coordinated a comprehensive nation strategy to safeguard

4. Eleven days Pennsylvania governor tom ridge was appointed as the first director of the office of homeland security in the White House

5. In November of 20023 the DHS came into being as a stand alone

https://www.dhs.gov/creation-department-homeland-security

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Secretary Michael Chertoff took office on February 15, 2005, and initiated a Second Stage Review (2SR) to evaluate the department's operations, policies, and structures. More than 250 members of the department and 18 action teams participate in this effort. The teams also consulted public and private partners at the federal, state, local, tribal, and international levels. On July 13, 2005, Secretary Chertoff announced a six-point agenda, based upon the findings, which included a significant reorganization of the department.

On October 13, 2006, Congress passed the Security Accountability for Every Port Act, or SAFE Port Act of 2006 (Public Law 109-347). The act authorized the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office (DNDO) and completed the reorganization of FEMA, transferring the Radiological Preparedness Program and the Chemical Stockpile Emergency Preparedness Program to FEMA.

The Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 (Public Law 110-53) was enacted on August 7, 2007. The Act built on the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006, focusing on the reorganization of the grant process as administered by FEMA. The Act also reorganized intelligence operations at the Department, elevating the Assistant Secretary for Intelligence and Analysis to the Under Secretary level, requiring Senate confirmation. Additionally, many of the features of the new homeland security architecture align with recommendations contained in the 9/11 Commission Report.

The President's fiscal year 2010 budget requested the transfer of the Federal Protective Service (FPS) from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to the National Protection and Programs Directorate (NPPD)-streamlining decision-making and aligning the protection of federal buildings with DHS' broader critical infrastructure protection mission and the provision was included in the DHS appropriations bill President Obama signed into law on Oct. 28, 2009. It also elevated the Office of Intergovernment Programs from NPPD to a direct report to the Secretary and renamed it to the Office of Intergovernmental Affairs.

In 2010, Secretary Janet Napolitano led the completion of the first-ever Quadrennial Homeland Security Review (QHSR), which established a unified, strategic framework for homeland security missions and goals. Subsequently, DHS conducted a Bottom-Up Review (BUR) to align our programmatic activities and organizational structure to better serve those missions and goals. The QHSR reflects the most comprehensive assessment and analysis of homeland security to date. DHS worked closely with the White House, National Security Staff, other Federal departments and agencies, and our state, local, tribal and territorial partners to represent the whole-of-government approach to national security envisioned by the Administration.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Creation of the Department of Homeland Security | Homeland Security

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A summary of historical laws and regulations constructing and modifying the existing Department of Homeland Security.

# data[].attributes.body
1. The executive division is the us federal government branch for safeguarding the country against terrorist attacks

2. George w bush created this branch

https://www.dhs.gov/creation-department-homeland-security

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Secretary Michael Chertoff took office on February 15, 2005, and initiated a Second Stage Review (2SR) to evaluate the department's operations, policies, and structures. More than 250 members of the department and 18 action teams participate in this effort. The teams also consulted public and private partners at the federal, state, local, tribal, and international levels. On July 13, 2005, Secretary Chertoff announced a six-point agenda, based upon the findings, which included a significant reorganization of the department.

On October 13, 2006, Congress passed the Security Accountability for Every Port Act, or SAFE Port Act of 2006 (Public Law 109-347). The act authorized the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office (DNDO) and completed the reorganization of FEMA, transferring the Radiological Preparedness Program and the Chemical Stockpile Emergency Preparedness Program to FEMA.

The Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 (Public Law 110-53) was enacted on August 7, 2007. The Act built on the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006, focusing on the reorganization of the grant process as administered by FEMA. The Act also reorganized intelligence operations at the Department, elevating the Assistant Secretary for Intelligence and Analysis to the Under Secretary level, requiring Senate confirmation. Additionally, many of the features of the new homeland security architecture align with recommendations contained in the 9/11 Commission Report.

The President's fiscal year 2010 budget requested the transfer of the Federal Protective Service (FPS) from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to the National Protection and Programs Directorate (NPPD)-streamlining decision-making and aligning the protection of federal buildings with DHS' broader critical infrastructure protection mission and the provision was included in the DHS appropriations bill President Obama signed into law on Oct. 28, 2009. It also elevated the Office of Intergovernment Programs from NPPD to a direct report to the Secretary and renamed it to the Office of Intergovernmental Affairs.

In 2010, Secretary Janet Napolitano led the completion of the first-ever Quadrennial Homeland Security Review (QHSR), which established a unified, strategic framework for homeland security missions and goals. Subsequently, DHS conducted a Bottom-Up Review (BUR) to align our programmatic activities and organizational structure to better serve those missions and goals. The QHSR reflects the most comprehensive assessment and analysis of homeland security to date. DHS worked closely with the White House, National Security Staff, other Federal departments and agencies, and our state, local, tribal and territorial partners to represent the whole-of-government approach to national security envisioned by the Administration.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Creation of the Department of Homeland Security | Homeland Security

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A summary of historical laws and regulations constructing and modifying the existing Department of Homeland Security.

# data[].attributes.headline
3. DHS white house documents during bush presidences 

# data[].attributes.subject
3. DHS white house documents during bush presidences 

# data[].attributes.body
1. The presidents most important job is to protect and defend the American people

2. The responsibility’s for homeland security’s are dispersed among more than 100 different federal department

3. Pathway of the goverment activities into one single department whose primary missions

https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/deptofhomeland/sect1.html

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Department of Homeland Security - Executive Summary

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Department of Homeland Security The Department of Homeland Security The President’s most important job is to protect and defend the American people. Since September 11, all levels of government have cooperated like never before to strengthen aviation and border security, stockpile more medicines to defend against bioterrorism, improve information sharing among our intelligence agencies, and deploy more resources and personnel to protect our critical infrastructure. The changing nature of the threats facing America requires a new government structure to protect against invisible enemies that can strike with a wide variety of weapons. Today no one single government agency has homeland security as its primary mission. In fact, responsibilities for homeland security are dispersed among more than 100 different government organizations. America needs a single, unified homeland security structure that will improve protection against today’s threats and be flexible enough to help meet the unknown threats of the future. The President proposes to create a new Department of Homeland Security, the most significant transformation of the U.S. government in over a half-century by largely transforming and realigning the current confusing patchwork of government activities into a single department whose primary mission is to protect our homeland. The creation of a Department of Homeland Security is one more key step in the President’s national strategy for homeland security. Immediately after last fall’s attack, the President took decisive steps to protect America – from hardening cockpits and stockpiling vaccines to tightening our borders. The President used his maximum legal authority to establish the White House Office of Homeland Security and the Homeland Security Council to ensure that our federal response and protection efforts were coordinated and effective. The President also directed Homeland Security Advisor Tom Ridge to study the federal government as a whole to determine if the current structure allows us to meet the threats of today while anticipating the unknown threats of tomorrow. After careful study of the current structure – coupled with the experience gained since September 11 and new information we have learned about our enemies while fighting a war – the President concluded that our nation needs a more unified homeland security structure. In designing the new Department, the Administration considered a number of homeland security organizational proposals that have emerged from outside studies, commissions, and Members of Congress. The Department of Homeland Security would make Americans safer because our nation would have: One department whose primary mission is to protect the American homeland; One department to secure our borders, transportation sector, ports, and critical infrastructure; One department to synthesize and analyze homeland security intelligence from multiple sources; One department to coordinate communications with state and local governments, private industry, and the American people about threats and preparedness; One department to coordinate our efforts to protect the American people against bioterrorism and other weapons of mass destruction; One department to help train and equip for first responders; One department to manage federal emergency response activities; and More security officers in the field working to stop terrorists and fewer resources in Washington managing duplicative and redundant activities that drain critical homeland security resources. The Organization of the Department of Homeland Security The Department of Homeland Security would have a clear and efficient organizational structure with four divisions: Border and Transportation Security Emergency Preparedness and Response Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear Countermeasures Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection Border and Transportation Security The Department would unify authority over major federal security operations related to our borders, territorial waters, and transportation systems. It would assume responsibility for operational assets of the Coast Guard, Customs Service, Immigration and Naturalization Service and Border Patrol, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service of the Department of Agriculture, and the recently created Transportation Security Administration – allowing a single government entity to manage entry into the United States. It would ensure that all aspects of border control, including the issuing of visas, are informed by a central information-sharing clearinghouse and compatible databases. Emergency Preparedness and Response The Department would oversee federal government assistance in the domestic disaster preparedness training of first responders and would coordinate the government’s disaster response efforts. FEMA would become a central component of the Department of Homeland Security, and the new Department would administer the grant programs for firefighters, police, and emergency personnel currently managed by FEMA, the Department of Justice, and the Department of Health and Human Services. The Department would also manage such critical response assets as the Nuclear Emergency Search Team (Department of Energy) and the National Pharmaceutical Stockpile (Health and Human Services). Finally, the Department would integrate the federal interagency emergency response plans into a single, comprehensive, government-wide plan, and ensure that all response personnel have the equipment and capability to communicate with each other as necessary. Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear Countermeasures The Department of Homeland Security would lead the federal government’s efforts in preparing for and responding to the full range of terrorist threats involving weapons of mass destruction. To do this, the Department would set national policy and establish guidelines for state and local governments. It would direct exercises and drills for federal, state, and local chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear (CBRN) attack response teams and plans. The result of this effort would be to consolidate and synchronize the disparate efforts of multiple federal agencies currently scattered across several departments. This would create a single office whose primary mission is the critical task of protecting the United States from catastrophic terrorism. Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear Terrorism. The Department would be the lead agency preparing for and responding to chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear terrorism, including agro-terrorism. The Department would unify three of America’s premier centers of excellence in this field, including the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (Department of Energy). The Department would also manage national efforts to develop diagnostics, vaccines, antibodies, antidotes, and other countermeasures. Science and Technology.In the war against terrorism, America’s vast science and technology base provides us with a key advantage. The Department would press this advantage with a national research and development enterprise for homeland security comparable in emphasis and scope to that which has supported the national security community for more than fifty years. The new Department would consolidate and prioritize the disparate homeland security related research and development programs currently scattered throughout the Executive Branch. It would also assist state and local public safety agencies by evaluating equipment and setting standards. Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection Intelligence and Threat Analysis. The Department would fuse and analyze intelligence and other information pertaining to threats to the homeland from multiple sources – including the CIA, NSA, FBI, INS, DEA, DOE, Customs, DOT and data gleaned from other organizations. The Department would merge under one roof the capability to identify and assess current and future threats to the homeland, map those threats against our current vulnerabilities, issue timely warnings, and immediately take or effect appropriate preventive and protective action. An important partner with the Department’s intelligence and threat analysis division will be the newly formed FBI Office of Intelligence. The new FBI and CIA reforms will provide critical analysis and information to the new Department. Protecting America’s Critical Infrastructure.The Department would be responsible for comprehensively evaluating the vulnerabilities of America’s critical infrastructure, including food and water systems, agriculture, health systems and emergency services, information and telecommunications, banking and finance, energy (electrical, nuclear, gas and oil, dams), transportation (air, road, rail, ports, waterways), the chemical and defense industries, postal and shipping entities, and national monuments and icons. Working closely with state and local officials, other federal agencies, and the private sector, the Department would help ensure that proper steps are taken to protect high-risk targets. Other Key Components State/Local Government & Private Sector Coordination. The Department would consolidate and streamline relations with the federal government for America’s state and local governments. The new Department would contain an intergovernmental affairs office to coordinate federal homeland security programs with state and local officials. This new Department would give state and local officials one primary contact instead of many when it comes to matters related to training, equipment, planning, and other critical needs such as emergency response. Secret Service. The Department would incorporate the Secret Service, which would report directly to the Secretary. The Secret Service would remain intact and its primary mission will remain the protection of the President and other government leaders. The Secret Service would also continue to provide security for designated national events, as it did for the recent Olympics and the Super Bowl. The White House Office of Homeland Security and the Homeland Security Council. The White House Office of Homeland Security and the Homeland Security Council will continue to play a key role, advising the President and coordinating a vastly simplified interagency process. Non-Homeland Security Functions. The new Department would have a number of functions that are not directly related to securing the homeland against terrorism. For instance, through FEMA, it would be responsible for mitigating the effects of natural disasters. Through the Coast Guard, it would be responsible for search and rescue and other maritime functions. Several other border functions, such as drug interdiction operations and naturalization, and would also be performed by the new Department. Interim Steps The President – using the maximum legal authority available to him – created the Office of Homeland Security and the Homeland Security Council in the weeks following the attack on America as an immediate step to secure the homeland. Since then, the government has strengthened aviation and border security, stockpiled more medicines to defend against bio-terrorism, improved information sharing among our intelligence agencies, and deployed more resources and personnel to protect our critical infrastructure. The White House Office of Homeland Security will continue to coordinate the federal government’s homeland security efforts and to advise the President on a comprehensive Homeland Security strategy. The current components of our homeland security structure will continue to function as normal and there will be no gaps in protection as planning for the new Department moves forward. Preliminary planning for the new Department has already begun. The formal transition would begin once Congress acts on the President’s proposal and the President signs it into law. The President calls on Congress to establish the new Department by the close of their current session – with full integration of the constituent parts occurring over a phased-in period. Specific Examples of How The New Department Will Make America Safer Example: Removing Barriers to Efficient Border Security Currently, when a ship enters a U.S. port, Customs, INS, the Coast Guard, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and others have overlapping jurisdictions over pieces of the arriving ship. Customs has jurisdiction over the goods aboard the ship. INS has jurisdiction over the people on the ship. The Coast Guard has jurisdiction over the ship while it is at sea. Even the Department of Agriculture has jurisdiction over certain cargoes. Although the Coast Guard does have the authority to act as an agent for these other organizations and assert jurisdiction over the entire vessel, in practice the system has not worked as well as it could to prevent the illegal entry of potential terrorists and instruments of terror. Consider this scenario: if the Coast Guard stops a ship at sea for inspection and finds there are illegal immigrants on the ship, the Coast Guard relies on the INS to enforce U.S. immigration law and prevent their entry. If the Coast Guard finds potentially dangerous cargo, it relies on Customs to seize the dangerous cargo. Unfortunately, these organizations may not always share information with each other as rapidly as necessary. So, instead of arresting potential terrorists and seizing dangerous cargo at sea, our current structure can allow these terrorists to enter our ports and potentially sneak into our society. The system might also allow the dangerous cargo to actually enter our ports and threaten American lives. Under the President’s proposal, the ship, the potentially dangerous people, and the dangerous cargo would be seized at sea by one Department that has no question about either its mission or its authority to prevent them from reaching our shores. Example: Protecting Our Nation’s Critical Infrastructure Nearly five million Americans live within a five mile radius of the most hazardous chemical facilities in the nation. Right now there is no single agency in the government whose core mission is to protect against and respond to an attack on one of these major facilities. Consider the current homeland security apparatus facing a non-citizen that intends to enter our nation and attack one of our chemical facilities. At our border, INS, Customs, Border Patrol, the Coast Guard, and others share jurisdiction over preventing this person’s entry. These government organizations may or may not share information, which makes it possible that this potential terrorist might slip through the cracks. Currently, at least twelve different government entities oversee the protection of our critical infrastructure. These many government entities may or may not share all information, and state and local governments must work with twelve separate contacts just to help protect their local infrastructure. Under the President’s proposal, the same Department that analyzes intelligence data on the potential terrorist who wants to attack the chemical plant would also be the same Department that can simultaneously alert our border security operatives, alert all of our hazardous materials facilities to ensure that they are prepared to meet this specific new threat from this specific terrorist, and alert all of the affected communities. Example: Communicating to the American People Currently, if a chemical or biological attack were to occur, Americans could receive warnings and health care information from a long list of government organizations, including HHS, FEMA, EPA, GSA, FBI, DOJ, OSHA, OPM, USPS, DOD, USAMRIID, and the Surgeon General – not to mention a cacophony of state and local agencies. There is currently no single organization with operational responsibility that could communicate with the American people in a clear, concise, and consistent voice. Consider another recent example. Information was provided to local law enforcement entities by multiple U.S. government organizations about potential threats to the Brooklyn Bridge, apartment complexes, shopping malls, the Statue of Liberty, subways and public transit systems, our oil and gas infrastructure, and our financial system. Under the President’s proposal, a single government Department would communicate with the American people about a chemical or biological attack. The new Department would also be the organization that coordinates provision of specific threat information to local law enforcement and sets the national threat level. The new Department would ensure that local law enforcement entities – and the public – receive clear and concise information from their national government. Citizens would also have one Department telling them what actions – if any – they must take for their safety and security. Example: Intelligence Sharing and Comprehensive Threat Analysis Multiple intelligence agencies analyze their individual data, but no single government entity exists to conduct a comprehensive analysis of all incoming intelligence information and other key data regarding terrorism in the United States. There is no central clearinghouse to collect and analyze the data and look for potential trends. Under the President’s proposal, the new Department would contain a unit whose sole mission is to assemble, fuse, and analyze relevant intelligence data from government sources, including CIA, NSA, FBI, INS, DEA, DOE, Customs, and DOT, and data gleaned from other organizations and public sources. With this big-picture view, the Department would be more likely to spot trends and would be able to direct resources at a moment’s notice to help thwart a terrorist attack. Example: Distribution of Key Pharmaceuticals Potassium Iodide (KI) is a drug that helps prevent thyroid cancer in the event of exposure to radiation. The drug must be taken within hours of exposure for maximum effectiveness. Currently, if you live within a ten-mile radius of a nuclear power facility, the distribution of Potassium Iodide is regulated by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). The NRC is responsible for getting people this crucial drug, even though the NRC’s actual mission is to license nuclear facilities, not provide emergency supplies to the greater population. Outside the ten-mile radius of the nuclear facility, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is responsible for regulating the distribution of Potassium Iodide. The Department of Health and Human Services controls the national pharmaceutical stockpiles that are to be sent rapidly into emergencies. And other government agencies would control evacuation of the emergency zone. To make matters even more confusing, if you happen to live within a ten-mile radius of a nuclear weapons facility, the Department of Energy controls the distribution of the Potassium Iodide. In the event of radiation exposure, states must currently work with three separate government organizations to distribute critical pharmaceuticals, organizations whose jurisdictions are divided by an invisible ten-mile border. Consider this possible scenario: the NRC and the state decide to distribute Potassium Iodide to everyone within the ten-mile radius. FEMA, however, disagrees with the state and decides against distributing the drug outside the ten-mile radius. In the middle of the NRC, FEMA and state decision process, the state and local governments decide to begin an evacuation. In the ensuing chaos, many exposed individuals might not receive the critical drugs they need. Under the President’s proposal, one Department would be responsible for distributing Potassium Iodide to citizens exposed – no matter where they live. There would no longer be an artificial ten-mile barrier to treatment. This same single Department would also be responsible for coordination with state and local officials on immediate evacuation from the emergency zone. Brief History of Government Reorganization History teaches us that critical security challenges require clear lines of responsibility and the unified effort of the U.S. government. History also teaches us that new challenges require new organizational structures. For example, prior to 1945, America’s armed forces were inefficiently structured with separate War and Navy Departments and disconnected intelligence units. There were no formal mechanisms for cooperation. After World War II, the onset of the Cold War required consolidation and reorganization of America’s national security apparatus to accomplish the new missions at hand. America needed a national security establishment designed to prevent another attack like Pearl Harbor, to mobilize national resources for an enduring conflict, and to do so in a way that protected America’s values and ideals. In December 1945, only months after America’s decisive victory in World War II, President Harry Truman asked Congress to combine the War and Navy Departments into a single Department of Defense. President Truman declared, “it is now time to take stock to discard obsolete organizational forms and to provide for the future the soundest, most effective and most economical kind of structure for our armed forces of which this most powerful Nation is capable. I urge this as the best means of keeping the peace.” President Truman’s goals were achieved with the National Security Act of 1947 and subsequent amendments in 1949 and 1958. The legislation consolidated the separate military Departments into the Department of Defense with a civilian secretary solely in charge, established a Central Intelligence Agency to coordinate all foreign intelligence collection and analysis, and created the National Security Council in the White House to coordinate all foreign and defense policy efforts. This reorganization of America’s national security establishment was crucial to overcoming the enormous threat we faced in the Cold War and holds important lessons for our approach to the terrorist threat we face today. [ Table of Contents | Next Chapter ]

# data[].attributes.body
The department of homeland security would make America safer because our nation would have:

One department whose primary mission is to protect the American homeland;

One department to secure our borders, transportation sector, ports, and critical infrastructure;

One department to synthesize and analyze homeland security intelligence from multiple sources;

One department to coordinate communications with state and local governments, private industry, and the American people about threats and preparedness;

One department to coordinate our efforts to protect the American people against bioterrorism and other weapons of mass destruction;

One department to help train and equip for first responders;

One department to manage federal emergency response activities; and

More security officers in the field working to stop terrorists and fewer resources in Washington managing duplicative and redundant activities that drain critical homeland security resources.

https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/deptofhomeland/sect1.html

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Department of Homeland Security - Executive Summary

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Department of Homeland Security The Department of Homeland Security The President’s most important job is to protect and defend the American people. Since September 11, all levels of government have cooperated like never before to strengthen aviation and border security, stockpile more medicines to defend against bioterrorism, improve information sharing among our intelligence agencies, and deploy more resources and personnel to protect our critical infrastructure. The changing nature of the threats facing America requires a new government structure to protect against invisible enemies that can strike with a wide variety of weapons. Today no one single government agency has homeland security as its primary mission. In fact, responsibilities for homeland security are dispersed among more than 100 different government organizations. America needs a single, unified homeland security structure that will improve protection against today’s threats and be flexible enough to help meet the unknown threats of the future. The President proposes to create a new Department of Homeland Security, the most significant transformation of the U.S. government in over a half-century by largely transforming and realigning the current confusing patchwork of government activities into a single department whose primary mission is to protect our homeland. The creation of a Department of Homeland Security is one more key step in the President’s national strategy for homeland security. Immediately after last fall’s attack, the President took decisive steps to protect America – from hardening cockpits and stockpiling vaccines to tightening our borders. The President used his maximum legal authority to establish the White House Office of Homeland Security and the Homeland Security Council to ensure that our federal response and protection efforts were coordinated and effective. The President also directed Homeland Security Advisor Tom Ridge to study the federal government as a whole to determine if the current structure allows us to meet the threats of today while anticipating the unknown threats of tomorrow. After careful study of the current structure – coupled with the experience gained since September 11 and new information we have learned about our enemies while fighting a war – the President concluded that our nation needs a more unified homeland security structure. In designing the new Department, the Administration considered a number of homeland security organizational proposals that have emerged from outside studies, commissions, and Members of Congress. The Department of Homeland Security would make Americans safer because our nation would have: One department whose primary mission is to protect the American homeland; One department to secure our borders, transportation sector, ports, and critical infrastructure; One department to synthesize and analyze homeland security intelligence from multiple sources; One department to coordinate communications with state and local governments, private industry, and the American people about threats and preparedness; One department to coordinate our efforts to protect the American people against bioterrorism and other weapons of mass destruction; One department to help train and equip for first responders; One department to manage federal emergency response activities; and More security officers in the field working to stop terrorists and fewer resources in Washington managing duplicative and redundant activities that drain critical homeland security resources. The Organization of the Department of Homeland Security The Department of Homeland Security would have a clear and efficient organizational structure with four divisions: Border and Transportation Security Emergency Preparedness and Response Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear Countermeasures Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection Border and Transportation Security The Department would unify authority over major federal security operations related to our borders, territorial waters, and transportation systems. It would assume responsibility for operational assets of the Coast Guard, Customs Service, Immigration and Naturalization Service and Border Patrol, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service of the Department of Agriculture, and the recently created Transportation Security Administration – allowing a single government entity to manage entry into the United States. It would ensure that all aspects of border control, including the issuing of visas, are informed by a central information-sharing clearinghouse and compatible databases. Emergency Preparedness and Response The Department would oversee federal government assistance in the domestic disaster preparedness training of first responders and would coordinate the government’s disaster response efforts. FEMA would become a central component of the Department of Homeland Security, and the new Department would administer the grant programs for firefighters, police, and emergency personnel currently managed by FEMA, the Department of Justice, and the Department of Health and Human Services. The Department would also manage such critical response assets as the Nuclear Emergency Search Team (Department of Energy) and the National Pharmaceutical Stockpile (Health and Human Services). Finally, the Department would integrate the federal interagency emergency response plans into a single, comprehensive, government-wide plan, and ensure that all response personnel have the equipment and capability to communicate with each other as necessary. Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear Countermeasures The Department of Homeland Security would lead the federal government’s efforts in preparing for and responding to the full range of terrorist threats involving weapons of mass destruction. To do this, the Department would set national policy and establish guidelines for state and local governments. It would direct exercises and drills for federal, state, and local chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear (CBRN) attack response teams and plans. The result of this effort would be to consolidate and synchronize the disparate efforts of multiple federal agencies currently scattered across several departments. This would create a single office whose primary mission is the critical task of protecting the United States from catastrophic terrorism. Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear Terrorism. The Department would be the lead agency preparing for and responding to chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear terrorism, including agro-terrorism. The Department would unify three of America’s premier centers of excellence in this field, including the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (Department of Energy). The Department would also manage national efforts to develop diagnostics, vaccines, antibodies, antidotes, and other countermeasures. Science and Technology.In the war against terrorism, America’s vast science and technology base provides us with a key advantage. The Department would press this advantage with a national research and development enterprise for homeland security comparable in emphasis and scope to that which has supported the national security community for more than fifty years. The new Department would consolidate and prioritize the disparate homeland security related research and development programs currently scattered throughout the Executive Branch. It would also assist state and local public safety agencies by evaluating equipment and setting standards. Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection Intelligence and Threat Analysis. The Department would fuse and analyze intelligence and other information pertaining to threats to the homeland from multiple sources – including the CIA, NSA, FBI, INS, DEA, DOE, Customs, DOT and data gleaned from other organizations. The Department would merge under one roof the capability to identify and assess current and future threats to the homeland, map those threats against our current vulnerabilities, issue timely warnings, and immediately take or effect appropriate preventive and protective action. An important partner with the Department’s intelligence and threat analysis division will be the newly formed FBI Office of Intelligence. The new FBI and CIA reforms will provide critical analysis and information to the new Department. Protecting America’s Critical Infrastructure.The Department would be responsible for comprehensively evaluating the vulnerabilities of America’s critical infrastructure, including food and water systems, agriculture, health systems and emergency services, information and telecommunications, banking and finance, energy (electrical, nuclear, gas and oil, dams), transportation (air, road, rail, ports, waterways), the chemical and defense industries, postal and shipping entities, and national monuments and icons. Working closely with state and local officials, other federal agencies, and the private sector, the Department would help ensure that proper steps are taken to protect high-risk targets. Other Key Components State/Local Government & Private Sector Coordination. The Department would consolidate and streamline relations with the federal government for America’s state and local governments. The new Department would contain an intergovernmental affairs office to coordinate federal homeland security programs with state and local officials. This new Department would give state and local officials one primary contact instead of many when it comes to matters related to training, equipment, planning, and other critical needs such as emergency response. Secret Service. The Department would incorporate the Secret Service, which would report directly to the Secretary. The Secret Service would remain intact and its primary mission will remain the protection of the President and other government leaders. The Secret Service would also continue to provide security for designated national events, as it did for the recent Olympics and the Super Bowl. The White House Office of Homeland Security and the Homeland Security Council. The White House Office of Homeland Security and the Homeland Security Council will continue to play a key role, advising the President and coordinating a vastly simplified interagency process. Non-Homeland Security Functions. The new Department would have a number of functions that are not directly related to securing the homeland against terrorism. For instance, through FEMA, it would be responsible for mitigating the effects of natural disasters. Through the Coast Guard, it would be responsible for search and rescue and other maritime functions. Several other border functions, such as drug interdiction operations and naturalization, and would also be performed by the new Department. Interim Steps The President – using the maximum legal authority available to him – created the Office of Homeland Security and the Homeland Security Council in the weeks following the attack on America as an immediate step to secure the homeland. Since then, the government has strengthened aviation and border security, stockpiled more medicines to defend against bio-terrorism, improved information sharing among our intelligence agencies, and deployed more resources and personnel to protect our critical infrastructure. The White House Office of Homeland Security will continue to coordinate the federal government’s homeland security efforts and to advise the President on a comprehensive Homeland Security strategy. The current components of our homeland security structure will continue to function as normal and there will be no gaps in protection as planning for the new Department moves forward. Preliminary planning for the new Department has already begun. The formal transition would begin once Congress acts on the President’s proposal and the President signs it into law. The President calls on Congress to establish the new Department by the close of their current session – with full integration of the constituent parts occurring over a phased-in period. Specific Examples of How The New Department Will Make America Safer Example: Removing Barriers to Efficient Border Security Currently, when a ship enters a U.S. port, Customs, INS, the Coast Guard, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and others have overlapping jurisdictions over pieces of the arriving ship. Customs has jurisdiction over the goods aboard the ship. INS has jurisdiction over the people on the ship. The Coast Guard has jurisdiction over the ship while it is at sea. Even the Department of Agriculture has jurisdiction over certain cargoes. Although the Coast Guard does have the authority to act as an agent for these other organizations and assert jurisdiction over the entire vessel, in practice the system has not worked as well as it could to prevent the illegal entry of potential terrorists and instruments of terror. Consider this scenario: if the Coast Guard stops a ship at sea for inspection and finds there are illegal immigrants on the ship, the Coast Guard relies on the INS to enforce U.S. immigration law and prevent their entry. If the Coast Guard finds potentially dangerous cargo, it relies on Customs to seize the dangerous cargo. Unfortunately, these organizations may not always share information with each other as rapidly as necessary. So, instead of arresting potential terrorists and seizing dangerous cargo at sea, our current structure can allow these terrorists to enter our ports and potentially sneak into our society. The system might also allow the dangerous cargo to actually enter our ports and threaten American lives. Under the President’s proposal, the ship, the potentially dangerous people, and the dangerous cargo would be seized at sea by one Department that has no question about either its mission or its authority to prevent them from reaching our shores. Example: Protecting Our Nation’s Critical Infrastructure Nearly five million Americans live within a five mile radius of the most hazardous chemical facilities in the nation. Right now there is no single agency in the government whose core mission is to protect against and respond to an attack on one of these major facilities. Consider the current homeland security apparatus facing a non-citizen that intends to enter our nation and attack one of our chemical facilities. At our border, INS, Customs, Border Patrol, the Coast Guard, and others share jurisdiction over preventing this person’s entry. These government organizations may or may not share information, which makes it possible that this potential terrorist might slip through the cracks. Currently, at least twelve different government entities oversee the protection of our critical infrastructure. These many government entities may or may not share all information, and state and local governments must work with twelve separate contacts just to help protect their local infrastructure. Under the President’s proposal, the same Department that analyzes intelligence data on the potential terrorist who wants to attack the chemical plant would also be the same Department that can simultaneously alert our border security operatives, alert all of our hazardous materials facilities to ensure that they are prepared to meet this specific new threat from this specific terrorist, and alert all of the affected communities. Example: Communicating to the American People Currently, if a chemical or biological attack were to occur, Americans could receive warnings and health care information from a long list of government organizations, including HHS, FEMA, EPA, GSA, FBI, DOJ, OSHA, OPM, USPS, DOD, USAMRIID, and the Surgeon General – not to mention a cacophony of state and local agencies. There is currently no single organization with operational responsibility that could communicate with the American people in a clear, concise, and consistent voice. Consider another recent example. Information was provided to local law enforcement entities by multiple U.S. government organizations about potential threats to the Brooklyn Bridge, apartment complexes, shopping malls, the Statue of Liberty, subways and public transit systems, our oil and gas infrastructure, and our financial system. Under the President’s proposal, a single government Department would communicate with the American people about a chemical or biological attack. The new Department would also be the organization that coordinates provision of specific threat information to local law enforcement and sets the national threat level. The new Department would ensure that local law enforcement entities – and the public – receive clear and concise information from their national government. Citizens would also have one Department telling them what actions – if any – they must take for their safety and security. Example: Intelligence Sharing and Comprehensive Threat Analysis Multiple intelligence agencies analyze their individual data, but no single government entity exists to conduct a comprehensive analysis of all incoming intelligence information and other key data regarding terrorism in the United States. There is no central clearinghouse to collect and analyze the data and look for potential trends. Under the President’s proposal, the new Department would contain a unit whose sole mission is to assemble, fuse, and analyze relevant intelligence data from government sources, including CIA, NSA, FBI, INS, DEA, DOE, Customs, and DOT, and data gleaned from other organizations and public sources. With this big-picture view, the Department would be more likely to spot trends and would be able to direct resources at a moment’s notice to help thwart a terrorist attack. Example: Distribution of Key Pharmaceuticals Potassium Iodide (KI) is a drug that helps prevent thyroid cancer in the event of exposure to radiation. The drug must be taken within hours of exposure for maximum effectiveness. Currently, if you live within a ten-mile radius of a nuclear power facility, the distribution of Potassium Iodide is regulated by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). The NRC is responsible for getting people this crucial drug, even though the NRC’s actual mission is to license nuclear facilities, not provide emergency supplies to the greater population. Outside the ten-mile radius of the nuclear facility, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is responsible for regulating the distribution of Potassium Iodide. The Department of Health and Human Services controls the national pharmaceutical stockpiles that are to be sent rapidly into emergencies. And other government agencies would control evacuation of the emergency zone. To make matters even more confusing, if you happen to live within a ten-mile radius of a nuclear weapons facility, the Department of Energy controls the distribution of the Potassium Iodide. In the event of radiation exposure, states must currently work with three separate government organizations to distribute critical pharmaceuticals, organizations whose jurisdictions are divided by an invisible ten-mile border. Consider this possible scenario: the NRC and the state decide to distribute Potassium Iodide to everyone within the ten-mile radius. FEMA, however, disagrees with the state and decides against distributing the drug outside the ten-mile radius. In the middle of the NRC, FEMA and state decision process, the state and local governments decide to begin an evacuation. In the ensuing chaos, many exposed individuals might not receive the critical drugs they need. Under the President’s proposal, one Department would be responsible for distributing Potassium Iodide to citizens exposed – no matter where they live. There would no longer be an artificial ten-mile barrier to treatment. This same single Department would also be responsible for coordination with state and local officials on immediate evacuation from the emergency zone. Brief History of Government Reorganization History teaches us that critical security challenges require clear lines of responsibility and the unified effort of the U.S. government. History also teaches us that new challenges require new organizational structures. For example, prior to 1945, America’s armed forces were inefficiently structured with separate War and Navy Departments and disconnected intelligence units. There were no formal mechanisms for cooperation. After World War II, the onset of the Cold War required consolidation and reorganization of America’s national security apparatus to accomplish the new missions at hand. America needed a national security establishment designed to prevent another attack like Pearl Harbor, to mobilize national resources for an enduring conflict, and to do so in a way that protected America’s values and ideals. In December 1945, only months after America’s decisive victory in World War II, President Harry Truman asked Congress to combine the War and Navy Departments into a single Department of Defense. President Truman declared, “it is now time to take stock to discard obsolete organizational forms and to provide for the future the soundest, most effective and most economical kind of structure for our armed forces of which this most powerful Nation is capable. I urge this as the best means of keeping the peace.” President Truman’s goals were achieved with the National Security Act of 1947 and subsequent amendments in 1949 and 1958. The legislation consolidated the separate military Departments into the Department of Defense with a civilian secretary solely in charge, established a Central Intelligence Agency to coordinate all foreign intelligence collection and analysis, and created the National Security Council in the White House to coordinate all foreign and defense policy efforts. This reorganization of America’s national security establishment was crucial to overcoming the enormous threat we faced in the Cold War and holds important lessons for our approach to the terrorist threat we face today. [ Table of Contents | Next Chapter ]

# data[].attributes.body
Border and Transportation Security

Emergency Preparedness and Response

Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear Countermeasures

Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection

https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/deptofhomeland/sect1.html

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Department of Homeland Security - Executive Summary

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Department of Homeland Security The Department of Homeland Security The President’s most important job is to protect and defend the American people. Since September 11, all levels of government have cooperated like never before to strengthen aviation and border security, stockpile more medicines to defend against bioterrorism, improve information sharing among our intelligence agencies, and deploy more resources and personnel to protect our critical infrastructure. The changing nature of the threats facing America requires a new government structure to protect against invisible enemies that can strike with a wide variety of weapons. Today no one single government agency has homeland security as its primary mission. In fact, responsibilities for homeland security are dispersed among more than 100 different government organizations. America needs a single, unified homeland security structure that will improve protection against today’s threats and be flexible enough to help meet the unknown threats of the future. The President proposes to create a new Department of Homeland Security, the most significant transformation of the U.S. government in over a half-century by largely transforming and realigning the current confusing patchwork of government activities into a single department whose primary mission is to protect our homeland. The creation of a Department of Homeland Security is one more key step in the President’s national strategy for homeland security. Immediately after last fall’s attack, the President took decisive steps to protect America – from hardening cockpits and stockpiling vaccines to tightening our borders. The President used his maximum legal authority to establish the White House Office of Homeland Security and the Homeland Security Council to ensure that our federal response and protection efforts were coordinated and effective. The President also directed Homeland Security Advisor Tom Ridge to study the federal government as a whole to determine if the current structure allows us to meet the threats of today while anticipating the unknown threats of tomorrow. After careful study of the current structure – coupled with the experience gained since September 11 and new information we have learned about our enemies while fighting a war – the President concluded that our nation needs a more unified homeland security structure. In designing the new Department, the Administration considered a number of homeland security organizational proposals that have emerged from outside studies, commissions, and Members of Congress. The Department of Homeland Security would make Americans safer because our nation would have: One department whose primary mission is to protect the American homeland; One department to secure our borders, transportation sector, ports, and critical infrastructure; One department to synthesize and analyze homeland security intelligence from multiple sources; One department to coordinate communications with state and local governments, private industry, and the American people about threats and preparedness; One department to coordinate our efforts to protect the American people against bioterrorism and other weapons of mass destruction; One department to help train and equip for first responders; One department to manage federal emergency response activities; and More security officers in the field working to stop terrorists and fewer resources in Washington managing duplicative and redundant activities that drain critical homeland security resources. The Organization of the Department of Homeland Security The Department of Homeland Security would have a clear and efficient organizational structure with four divisions: Border and Transportation Security Emergency Preparedness and Response Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear Countermeasures Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection Border and Transportation Security The Department would unify authority over major federal security operations related to our borders, territorial waters, and transportation systems. It would assume responsibility for operational assets of the Coast Guard, Customs Service, Immigration and Naturalization Service and Border Patrol, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service of the Department of Agriculture, and the recently created Transportation Security Administration – allowing a single government entity to manage entry into the United States. It would ensure that all aspects of border control, including the issuing of visas, are informed by a central information-sharing clearinghouse and compatible databases. Emergency Preparedness and Response The Department would oversee federal government assistance in the domestic disaster preparedness training of first responders and would coordinate the government’s disaster response efforts. FEMA would become a central component of the Department of Homeland Security, and the new Department would administer the grant programs for firefighters, police, and emergency personnel currently managed by FEMA, the Department of Justice, and the Department of Health and Human Services. The Department would also manage such critical response assets as the Nuclear Emergency Search Team (Department of Energy) and the National Pharmaceutical Stockpile (Health and Human Services). Finally, the Department would integrate the federal interagency emergency response plans into a single, comprehensive, government-wide plan, and ensure that all response personnel have the equipment and capability to communicate with each other as necessary. Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear Countermeasures The Department of Homeland Security would lead the federal government’s efforts in preparing for and responding to the full range of terrorist threats involving weapons of mass destruction. To do this, the Department would set national policy and establish guidelines for state and local governments. It would direct exercises and drills for federal, state, and local chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear (CBRN) attack response teams and plans. The result of this effort would be to consolidate and synchronize the disparate efforts of multiple federal agencies currently scattered across several departments. This would create a single office whose primary mission is the critical task of protecting the United States from catastrophic terrorism. Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear Terrorism. The Department would be the lead agency preparing for and responding to chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear terrorism, including agro-terrorism. The Department would unify three of America’s premier centers of excellence in this field, including the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (Department of Energy). The Department would also manage national efforts to develop diagnostics, vaccines, antibodies, antidotes, and other countermeasures. Science and Technology.In the war against terrorism, America’s vast science and technology base provides us with a key advantage. The Department would press this advantage with a national research and development enterprise for homeland security comparable in emphasis and scope to that which has supported the national security community for more than fifty years. The new Department would consolidate and prioritize the disparate homeland security related research and development programs currently scattered throughout the Executive Branch. It would also assist state and local public safety agencies by evaluating equipment and setting standards. Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection Intelligence and Threat Analysis. The Department would fuse and analyze intelligence and other information pertaining to threats to the homeland from multiple sources – including the CIA, NSA, FBI, INS, DEA, DOE, Customs, DOT and data gleaned from other organizations. The Department would merge under one roof the capability to identify and assess current and future threats to the homeland, map those threats against our current vulnerabilities, issue timely warnings, and immediately take or effect appropriate preventive and protective action. An important partner with the Department’s intelligence and threat analysis division will be the newly formed FBI Office of Intelligence. The new FBI and CIA reforms will provide critical analysis and information to the new Department. Protecting America’s Critical Infrastructure.The Department would be responsible for comprehensively evaluating the vulnerabilities of America’s critical infrastructure, including food and water systems, agriculture, health systems and emergency services, information and telecommunications, banking and finance, energy (electrical, nuclear, gas and oil, dams), transportation (air, road, rail, ports, waterways), the chemical and defense industries, postal and shipping entities, and national monuments and icons. Working closely with state and local officials, other federal agencies, and the private sector, the Department would help ensure that proper steps are taken to protect high-risk targets. Other Key Components State/Local Government & Private Sector Coordination. The Department would consolidate and streamline relations with the federal government for America’s state and local governments. The new Department would contain an intergovernmental affairs office to coordinate federal homeland security programs with state and local officials. This new Department would give state and local officials one primary contact instead of many when it comes to matters related to training, equipment, planning, and other critical needs such as emergency response. Secret Service. The Department would incorporate the Secret Service, which would report directly to the Secretary. The Secret Service would remain intact and its primary mission will remain the protection of the President and other government leaders. The Secret Service would also continue to provide security for designated national events, as it did for the recent Olympics and the Super Bowl. The White House Office of Homeland Security and the Homeland Security Council. The White House Office of Homeland Security and the Homeland Security Council will continue to play a key role, advising the President and coordinating a vastly simplified interagency process. Non-Homeland Security Functions. The new Department would have a number of functions that are not directly related to securing the homeland against terrorism. For instance, through FEMA, it would be responsible for mitigating the effects of natural disasters. Through the Coast Guard, it would be responsible for search and rescue and other maritime functions. Several other border functions, such as drug interdiction operations and naturalization, and would also be performed by the new Department. Interim Steps The President – using the maximum legal authority available to him – created the Office of Homeland Security and the Homeland Security Council in the weeks following the attack on America as an immediate step to secure the homeland. Since then, the government has strengthened aviation and border security, stockpiled more medicines to defend against bio-terrorism, improved information sharing among our intelligence agencies, and deployed more resources and personnel to protect our critical infrastructure. The White House Office of Homeland Security will continue to coordinate the federal government’s homeland security efforts and to advise the President on a comprehensive Homeland Security strategy. The current components of our homeland security structure will continue to function as normal and there will be no gaps in protection as planning for the new Department moves forward. Preliminary planning for the new Department has already begun. The formal transition would begin once Congress acts on the President’s proposal and the President signs it into law. The President calls on Congress to establish the new Department by the close of their current session – with full integration of the constituent parts occurring over a phased-in period. Specific Examples of How The New Department Will Make America Safer Example: Removing Barriers to Efficient Border Security Currently, when a ship enters a U.S. port, Customs, INS, the Coast Guard, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and others have overlapping jurisdictions over pieces of the arriving ship. Customs has jurisdiction over the goods aboard the ship. INS has jurisdiction over the people on the ship. The Coast Guard has jurisdiction over the ship while it is at sea. Even the Department of Agriculture has jurisdiction over certain cargoes. Although the Coast Guard does have the authority to act as an agent for these other organizations and assert jurisdiction over the entire vessel, in practice the system has not worked as well as it could to prevent the illegal entry of potential terrorists and instruments of terror. Consider this scenario: if the Coast Guard stops a ship at sea for inspection and finds there are illegal immigrants on the ship, the Coast Guard relies on the INS to enforce U.S. immigration law and prevent their entry. If the Coast Guard finds potentially dangerous cargo, it relies on Customs to seize the dangerous cargo. Unfortunately, these organizations may not always share information with each other as rapidly as necessary. So, instead of arresting potential terrorists and seizing dangerous cargo at sea, our current structure can allow these terrorists to enter our ports and potentially sneak into our society. The system might also allow the dangerous cargo to actually enter our ports and threaten American lives. Under the President’s proposal, the ship, the potentially dangerous people, and the dangerous cargo would be seized at sea by one Department that has no question about either its mission or its authority to prevent them from reaching our shores. Example: Protecting Our Nation’s Critical Infrastructure Nearly five million Americans live within a five mile radius of the most hazardous chemical facilities in the nation. Right now there is no single agency in the government whose core mission is to protect against and respond to an attack on one of these major facilities. Consider the current homeland security apparatus facing a non-citizen that intends to enter our nation and attack one of our chemical facilities. At our border, INS, Customs, Border Patrol, the Coast Guard, and others share jurisdiction over preventing this person’s entry. These government organizations may or may not share information, which makes it possible that this potential terrorist might slip through the cracks. Currently, at least twelve different government entities oversee the protection of our critical infrastructure. These many government entities may or may not share all information, and state and local governments must work with twelve separate contacts just to help protect their local infrastructure. Under the President’s proposal, the same Department that analyzes intelligence data on the potential terrorist who wants to attack the chemical plant would also be the same Department that can simultaneously alert our border security operatives, alert all of our hazardous materials facilities to ensure that they are prepared to meet this specific new threat from this specific terrorist, and alert all of the affected communities. Example: Communicating to the American People Currently, if a chemical or biological attack were to occur, Americans could receive warnings and health care information from a long list of government organizations, including HHS, FEMA, EPA, GSA, FBI, DOJ, OSHA, OPM, USPS, DOD, USAMRIID, and the Surgeon General – not to mention a cacophony of state and local agencies. There is currently no single organization with operational responsibility that could communicate with the American people in a clear, concise, and consistent voice. Consider another recent example. Information was provided to local law enforcement entities by multiple U.S. government organizations about potential threats to the Brooklyn Bridge, apartment complexes, shopping malls, the Statue of Liberty, subways and public transit systems, our oil and gas infrastructure, and our financial system. Under the President’s proposal, a single government Department would communicate with the American people about a chemical or biological attack. The new Department would also be the organization that coordinates provision of specific threat information to local law enforcement and sets the national threat level. The new Department would ensure that local law enforcement entities – and the public – receive clear and concise information from their national government. Citizens would also have one Department telling them what actions – if any – they must take for their safety and security. Example: Intelligence Sharing and Comprehensive Threat Analysis Multiple intelligence agencies analyze their individual data, but no single government entity exists to conduct a comprehensive analysis of all incoming intelligence information and other key data regarding terrorism in the United States. There is no central clearinghouse to collect and analyze the data and look for potential trends. Under the President’s proposal, the new Department would contain a unit whose sole mission is to assemble, fuse, and analyze relevant intelligence data from government sources, including CIA, NSA, FBI, INS, DEA, DOE, Customs, and DOT, and data gleaned from other organizations and public sources. With this big-picture view, the Department would be more likely to spot trends and would be able to direct resources at a moment’s notice to help thwart a terrorist attack. Example: Distribution of Key Pharmaceuticals Potassium Iodide (KI) is a drug that helps prevent thyroid cancer in the event of exposure to radiation. The drug must be taken within hours of exposure for maximum effectiveness. Currently, if you live within a ten-mile radius of a nuclear power facility, the distribution of Potassium Iodide is regulated by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). The NRC is responsible for getting people this crucial drug, even though the NRC’s actual mission is to license nuclear facilities, not provide emergency supplies to the greater population. Outside the ten-mile radius of the nuclear facility, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is responsible for regulating the distribution of Potassium Iodide. The Department of Health and Human Services controls the national pharmaceutical stockpiles that are to be sent rapidly into emergencies. And other government agencies would control evacuation of the emergency zone. To make matters even more confusing, if you happen to live within a ten-mile radius of a nuclear weapons facility, the Department of Energy controls the distribution of the Potassium Iodide. In the event of radiation exposure, states must currently work with three separate government organizations to distribute critical pharmaceuticals, organizations whose jurisdictions are divided by an invisible ten-mile border. Consider this possible scenario: the NRC and the state decide to distribute Potassium Iodide to everyone within the ten-mile radius. FEMA, however, disagrees with the state and decides against distributing the drug outside the ten-mile radius. In the middle of the NRC, FEMA and state decision process, the state and local governments decide to begin an evacuation. In the ensuing chaos, many exposed individuals might not receive the critical drugs they need. Under the President’s proposal, one Department would be responsible for distributing Potassium Iodide to citizens exposed – no matter where they live. There would no longer be an artificial ten-mile barrier to treatment. This same single Department would also be responsible for coordination with state and local officials on immediate evacuation from the emergency zone. Brief History of Government Reorganization History teaches us that critical security challenges require clear lines of responsibility and the unified effort of the U.S. government. History also teaches us that new challenges require new organizational structures. For example, prior to 1945, America’s armed forces were inefficiently structured with separate War and Navy Departments and disconnected intelligence units. There were no formal mechanisms for cooperation. After World War II, the onset of the Cold War required consolidation and reorganization of America’s national security apparatus to accomplish the new missions at hand. America needed a national security establishment designed to prevent another attack like Pearl Harbor, to mobilize national resources for an enduring conflict, and to do so in a way that protected America’s values and ideals. In December 1945, only months after America’s decisive victory in World War II, President Harry Truman asked Congress to combine the War and Navy Departments into a single Department of Defense. President Truman declared, “it is now time to take stock to discard obsolete organizational forms and to provide for the future the soundest, most effective and most economical kind of structure for our armed forces of which this most powerful Nation is capable. I urge this as the best means of keeping the peace.” President Truman’s goals were achieved with the National Security Act of 1947 and subsequent amendments in 1949 and 1958. The legislation consolidated the separate military Departments into the Department of Defense with a civilian secretary solely in charge, established a Central Intelligence Agency to coordinate all foreign intelligence collection and analysis, and created the National Security Council in the White House to coordinate all foreign and defense policy efforts. This reorganization of America’s national security establishment was crucial to overcoming the enormous threat we faced in the Cold War and holds important lessons for our approach to the terrorist threat we face today. [ Table of Contents | Next Chapter ]

# data[].attributes.body
1. TSA is short for transportation security Ty administration

2. TSA was created after 9/11 to overseeing security in all modes of transportation and completed federalization of security operations

3. TSA has been apart of DHS since march of 2003

4. TSA makes up a quarter of DHS workforce

https://www.tsa.gov/news/press/factsheets/tsa-glance-factsheet

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
U.S. Department of Homeland Security Transportation Security Administration

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
TSA at a Glance Factsheet | Transportation Security Administration

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The TSA oversees the nation’s security measures for aviation and all other modes of transportation.

# data[].attributes.body
commercial and general aviation

Mass transit systems

Freight and passenger rail

Highways

Pipes and ports

https://www.tsa.gov/news/press/factsheets/tsa-glance-factsheet

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
U.S. Department of Homeland Security Transportation Security Administration

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
TSA at a Glance Factsheet | Transportation Security Administration

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The TSA oversees the nation’s security measures for aviation and all other modes of transportation.

# data[].attributes.body
65,000 employees

50,000 transportation security officers

TSA screens more than 2 million passengers each day ay 440 airports nationwide

There are over 350 explosives specialist

More than 1,00 transportation security inspectors are in compliance of standard operations

Inspectors over see more than 40,00 transportation operators in aviation

https://www.tsa.gov/news/press/factsheets/tsa-glance-factsheet

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
U.S. Department of Homeland Security Transportation Security Administration

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
TSA at a Glance Factsheet | Transportation Security Administration

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The TSA oversees the nation’s security measures for aviation and all other modes of transportation.

# data[].attributes.body
1. Prior to 9/11 security was almost invisible

2. Several hijackers were flagged by CAPPS at the other airports but none fo them were questioned and they were allowed to board

3. The hijacker’s carried knives and razor blades in their attack

4. Even if these weapons were defaced it would of matter because they wouldn’t of matter

5. The FAA allowed knives up to 4 inches in length on an air craft during that time

6. After 9/11 the federal aviation administration order all commercial aircraft’s still until September 14

7. Once planes were allowed to fly again many people didnt fly

https://www.npr.org/2021/09/10/1035131619/911-travel-timeline-tsa

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
It's hard to fathom now, but we used to be able to arrive at the airport just minutes before a flight. We'd keep our shoes and coats on as we went through a simple metal detector, and virtually anyone could go right to the gate without a boarding pass or even showing an ID.

The 19 al-Qaida-affiliated terrorists who hijacked four commercial jetliners onSept. 11, 2001, knew that and exploited lax airport security measures, strolling through metal detectors at four airport security checkpoints with ease, with deadly weapons in hand. This allowed the hijackers to commandeer those airplanes and use them as jet fuel-filled missiles as they flew them into the twin towers of the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and a field in Shanksville, Pa., killing nearly 3,000 people.

"It was so easy - a lot of us were surprised it hadn't happened sooner," says Jeff Price, who was assistant security director at Denver International Airport on Sept. 11, 2001, and is now an aviation security expert at Metropolitan State University of Denver.

Airport security at that time was carried out by private contractors, usually hired by the airlines, with few federal standards. Those security contracts usually went to the lowest bidder.

"Before 9/11, security was almost invisible, and it was really designed to be that way," Price says. "It was designed to be something in the background that really wasn't that noticeable and definitely did not interfere with aircraft or airport operations."

"You could walk up to the gate at the very last minute. You did not have to have a boarding pass," Price says. "All you had to do was go through the security checkpoint - no questions asked, no ID needed."

That forever changed on Tuesday, Sept. 11, 2001.

Now, travelers often stand in long lines at security checkpoints with wait times that can exceed an hour. We take off our shoes, empty our pockets and take laptops and other devices out of carry-on bags before stepping into high-resolution, full-body scanners, while our bags go through 3D-imaging X-ray machines. And don't forget to take your liquids of 3.4 ounces or less out of your carry-on.

Some of us enroll in known- or trusted-traveler programs such as PreCheck, surrendering some of our privacy in an effort to have a smoother expedited screening process.

Aviation security experts acknowledge that prior to 9/11, no one envisioned suicide terrorists wanting to use commercial airplanes as weapons and being willing to kill themselves in order to kill hundreds of innocent people.

Now, counterterrorism and homeland security officials in the federal government work to imagine the unimaginable and enhance defenses to prevent the ever-changing and growing threats to aviation security.

Here's a look at how airport security has evolved over the past 20 years.

Sept. 11, 2001: Terrorists hijack and crash four passenger jets

The 19 hijackers checked in for their flights at the airport in Portland, Maine, at Boston's Logan International Airport, at Liberty International Airport in Newark, N.J., and at Dulles International Airport in the Washington, D.C., area.

When Mohamed Atta checked in at the Portland airport with a fellow hijacker for their short flight to Boston, he was selected for additional scrutiny under what was then known as CAPPS (Computer Assisted Passenger Prescreening System). But according to The 9/11 Commission Report, "Under security rules in place at the time, the only consequence of Atta's selection by CAPPS was that his checked bags were held off the plane until it was confirmed that he had boarded the aircraft. This did not hinder Atta's plans."

Several of the other hijackers were flagged by CAPPS at the other airports, but none was questioned and they were allowed to board in the same way Atta was - without much additional scrutiny. As they strolled through metal detectors at the airports, a couple of the hijackers set off alarms, but they were quickly cleared and sent on their way after going through a second metal detector or being scanned by a hand-held wand.It's not clear what exactly set off the alarms, but according to The 9/11 Commission Report, the hijackers used knives and/or razor blades in their attacks, which they likely had on them or in their carry-on bags. Even if those weapons were detected, it wouldn't have mattered.

"The FAA allowed knives of up to 4 inches in length on board an aircraft," says Price, the aviation security expert. "So even if the hijackers would have been caught with their knives prior to boarding the plane, the screeners would have handed it right back to them. "By 8:00 A.M. on the morning of Tuesday, September 11, 2001, they had defeated all the security layers that America's civil aviation security system then had in place to prevent a hijacking," The 9/11 Commission Report states.

September and October 2001: enhanced airport security, fewer Americans flying, longer wait times in airport security lines

After the planes hit the twin towers and the Pentagon, the Federal Aviation Administration immediately ordered all remaining commercial aircraft still in the air to land at the nearest available airport. All flights remained grounded until Sept. 14. But when air travel did resume, very few Americans were willing to fly. Nonetheless, in the days and weeks after the stunning terrorist attacks, airport security immediately intensified.

Armed National Guard soldiers joined local and state police in some cities to help patrol airports and screen travelers. Knives, box cutters, razors and other types of blades were banned, and the list of other items prohibited on aircraft grew significantly.

Airport security officers began searching through carry-on bags and patting down passengers, and that, according to Price, is when wait times in airport security lines started to grow longer, even though few Americans were flying. He says authorities were "slowing down the lines at the checkpoint to do a more thorough search of passengers and baggage."

November 2001: The Aviation and Transportation Security Act creates the TSA; checked baggage screened by X-rays

Congress passed and President George W. Bush signed the law that would create the Transportation Security Administration, which would become part of the newly created Cabinet-level Department of Homeland Security.

In addition to creating the TSA, the Aviation and Transportation Security Act required 100% of all checked baggage to be screened by X-rays, the Federal Air Marshal Service was expanded to put more armed air marshals on many more flights, and the law required airlines to reinforce cockpit doors on their aircraft to prevent attackers from entering.

The law also mandated that the TSA oversee security for all modes of transportation, such as passenger rail (including Amtrak) and intercity bus travel. Experts say the TSA was a major step forward in improving security.

December 2001: the shoe bomber and how shoe removal at airport security checkpoints started

On Dec. 22, 2001, on an American Airlines flight from Paris to Miami, British-born terrorist Richard Reid tried to detonate explosives that he had packed in his shoes. Passengers subdued and restrained Reid as the flight was diverted to Boston, the closest airport.

Investigators later said that Reid had enough explosive material to blow a hole in the fuselage of the plane, but that rainy weather and Reid's foot perspiration made the fuse too damp to ignite. Reid pleaded guilty to eight terrorism-related charges in October 2002 and was sentenced to three consecutive life sentences and 110 years, with no possibility of parole. The incident led to the TSA and airlines asking passengers to voluntarily remove their shoes when going through screening at airport security checkpoints.

December 2002: deploying explosives detection systems, very detailed 3D images

The TSA meets the mandate to screen 100% of all checked luggage by deploying machines that can scan bags for explosives and other dangerous weapons in every airport in the country.

The technology used in these screening systems has improved greatly over the intervening years, according to Deb Scovel, a TSA baggage and checkpoint supervisor at Chicago O'Hare International Airport, who says today's X-ray scanners are similar to CT scanners used in hospitals.

"The X-rays take images of it from all sides," says Scovel, "so it does an all-around picture of whatever goes inside so you see it from every point of view." She says the 3D images are so detailed that "I can tell you the difference between Irish Spring and Dove soap - yes, I can. And officers that have been here a while can do the same thing. You can tell the difference between an Apple and a Dell laptop; they're very detailed."

April 2003: Pilots start to carry firearms on board flights, and other cockpit protections

The first pilots certified under a voluntary program allowing them to carry handguns were on board flights. Bush signed the Arming Pilots Against Terrorism Act into law in November 2002, and the TSA began training flight deck personnel on how to use firearms on board, if needed, soon after.

Also in April 2003, the TSA announced that all airlines had met the requirement to reinforce cockpit doors on their entire fleets of planes.

Pilots and their unions continue to push for additional cockpit barriers and fortifications to protect them from possible attacks from outside the cockpit.

August 2006: liquids banned, shoe removal mandated and more air marshals added

British authorities disrupted a terrorist plot to detonate liquid explosives on board 10 commercial aircrafts bound from London to various cities in the U.S. and Canada. U.K. prosecutors alleged the would-be bombers prepared to disguise the explosives as soft drinks in 500-milliliter branded plastic bottles.

As a result, the TSA banned all liquids, gels and aerosols from passenger carry-on luggage.

A month later, in September 2006, the TSA lifted the ban on liquids and amended its rule to allow airline passengers to carry liquids, gels and aerosols in containers of only 3.4 ounces or less in a single, clear, resealable 1-quart plastic bag that had to be removed from carry-on baggage when going through security screening.

August 2006 is also when the TSA began to require that all travelers remove their shoes so footwear could be screened for explosives at airport security checkpoints.

The TSA also began deploying more federal air marshals, including on international flights.

March 2008: Canine units join airport security forces

Although bomb-sniffing dogs were already being used in a limited capacity as part of transportation security, the TSA began deploying canine teams to specifically aid in the screening of cargo loaded onto passenger aircraft at U.S. airports.

The program later expanded to use dogs to detect possible explosive materials on passengers and in checked and carry-on baggage.

December 2009: the "underwear bomber" and the installation of full-body scanners

On Christmas Day 2009 on board a Northwest Airlines flight from Amsterdam to Detroit, al-Qaida extremist Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab tried to detonate an improvised explosive device that he had hidden in his underwear.

Abdulmutallab later told FBI agents that he had been following the jetliner's flight path on his seat back's screen, as he wanted to blow up the plane over U.S. soil. Inside his briefs, he had explosive chemicals that would ignite when mixed. After going into the plane's lavatory to make final preparations, he returned to his seat and pushed a plunger to mix the chemicals.

But the volatile mix didn't explode as he intended, possibly because of excess moisture after the chemicals were inside his pants for so long. The mixture only caught fire, seriously burning Abdulmutallab, who tried to get his burning pants off before fellow passengers and crew members subdued him.

Abdulmutallab later pleaded guilty and was sentenced to life in prison.

In response to the failed attack in which a terrorist was able to sneak dangerous explosives through security, in March 2010 the TSA began installing hundreds of full-body scanners that used advanced imaging technology.

By the end of 2010, approximately 500 such machines were deployed nationwide.

December 2011: TSA PreCheck begins, vetted travelers pay to go through shorter security lines

With hundreds of millions of travelers passing through the TSA's airport security checkpoints each year, the agency wanted a better way to discern who was and who wasn't a serious threat. So it started its known- and trusted-traveler PreCheck program to provide expedited screening for those willing to pay for it and undergo a more detailed background check.

The TSA says it makes risk assessments about passengers prior to their arrival at airport checkpoints via these thorough background checks. Vetted travelers pay $85 for a five-year membership and get to go through a shorter security line where they no longer have to remove shoes and belts.

The TSA, meanwhile, says it is able to focus resources on more high-risk and unknown passengers.

June 2015: TSA flunks undercover tests

The TSA's inspector general reported that 95% of the time, TSA officers failed to detect weapons, explosives and other prohibited items that undercover agents smuggled through various airport security checkpoints.

The astronomically high failure rate led to the reassignment of Melvin Carraway, who was then the TSA's acting director. It also prompted significant changes in TSA training and procedures, including enhanced screening and increased random searches.

March and June 2016: attack outside Turkish airport security perimeter, concerns about soft targets

In June 2016, three suicide bombers who had been turned away at an airport security checkpoint opened fire with semiautomatic weapons before detonating explosive belts at Ataturk Airport's international terminal in Istanbul, killing themselves and 45 other people, while injuring more than 200.

That deadly assault followed a similar coordinated terrorist attack just three months earlier that killed 32 people and injured more than 300 at an airport terminal and subway station in Brussels. The incidents raised concerns about what security experts call soft targets - the areas outside the hard security perimeter where large groups of people wait at baggage claim, line up at check-in counters and kiosks or queue up to go through security checkpoints.

Some critics, including counterterrorism expert Tom Mockaitis at Chicago's DePaul University, say it exposes a flawed approach to security.

"I've seen, in this country, us waste literally millions of dollars on what I call placebo security - highly visual measures like armed guards strutting up and down in our airports, you know, creating a feeling of well-being and a feeling of security without providing any real added benefit," Mockaitis told NPR in July 2016.

March 2017: the laptop ban

The Trump administration, citing threats gathered from credible intelligence sources, prohibited travelers from certain countries from bringing laptops, tablets and other large electronic devices into the cabin on commercial flights to the United States.

John Kelly, secretary of homeland security at the time, said the intelligence indicated that terrorists were developing bombs powerful enough to bring down an airplane but small enough to be hidden inside those devices. The laptop ban affected travelers from 10 airports in eight countries with majority-Muslim populations.

"We didn't feel at the time that overseas airports had the kind of security initially that could give me a comfort that they could detect this device, the airports in those countries," Kelly said a couple of months after the ban was imposed.

The laptop ban was lifted in July 2017.

June 2017: facial recognition, biometric screening and privacy concerns

In 2017, some airlines, in collaboration with the TSA, began trials of facial recognition software that allows passengers' faces to be their boarding passes.

The system takes a photo and matches it with one on file with the airlines, speeding up the passenger-screening process and providing greater customer convenience. And because users of the system must be enrolled in the federal government's known-traveler program, it provides an extra layer of security.

But this and other biometric-screening methods, which could allow the government to track your whereabouts at home and abroad, raise significant privacy concerns, as NPR's Asma Khalid reported.

Aviation security experts say the TSA's efforts to expand the use of facial recognition and biometric screening was significantly delayed by the COVID-19 pandemic but could begin to ramp up again in the next couple of years.

September 2021: still room for improvement but layers of hard and soft security

TSA officials say aviation security continues to evolve to address ever-changing threats, with a layered approach that involves surveillance, intelligence and technology. The agency has 65,000 employees and spends billions of dollars each year in an effort to stay one step ahead of potential foreign and domestic terrorists.

"People are very creative. The threats are very creative," says Louis Traverzo, the TSA's deputy federal security director. He adds: "It's up to us to anticipate that, and it's up to us to look at those things and try to come up with ideas to counter methods" that terrorists may come up with.

There hasn't been a successful attack against commercial aviation in the U.S. in the 20 years since 9/11, and outside experts agree that while there is still room for improvement, the TSA has been effective in preventing another terrorist attack.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
It Was Shoes On, No Boarding Pass Or ID. But Airport Security Forever Changed On 9/11

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
No boarding pass or ID was needed to go to the gate, and 4-inch-blade knives were allowed aboard planes. Now we take off shoes, can't have liquids over 3.4 oz and go through high-tech body scanners.

# data[].attributes.body
1. The best time for people to stormy he cockpit 10-15 minutes after take off

2. In 2018 congress approved a measure to required secondary Barrie’s but only on newly built planes only

https://nypost.com/2022/09/03/21-years-after-9-11-secondary-barriers-for-cockpits-still-not-mandatory/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
It's hard to fathom now, but we used to be able to arrive at the airport just minutes before a flight. We'd keep our shoes and coats on as we went through a simple metal detector, and virtually anyone could go right to the gate without a boarding pass or even showing an ID.

The 19 al-Qaida-affiliated terrorists who hijacked four commercial jetliners onSept. 11, 2001, knew that and exploited lax airport security measures, strolling through metal detectors at four airport security checkpoints with ease, with deadly weapons in hand. This allowed the hijackers to commandeer those airplanes and use them as jet fuel-filled missiles as they flew them into the twin towers of the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and a field in Shanksville, Pa., killing nearly 3,000 people.

"It was so easy - a lot of us were surprised it hadn't happened sooner," says Jeff Price, who was assistant security director at Denver International Airport on Sept. 11, 2001, and is now an aviation security expert at Metropolitan State University of Denver.

Airport security at that time was carried out by private contractors, usually hired by the airlines, with few federal standards. Those security contracts usually went to the lowest bidder.

"Before 9/11, security was almost invisible, and it was really designed to be that way," Price says. "It was designed to be something in the background that really wasn't that noticeable and definitely did not interfere with aircraft or airport operations."

"You could walk up to the gate at the very last minute. You did not have to have a boarding pass," Price says. "All you had to do was go through the security checkpoint - no questions asked, no ID needed."

That forever changed on Tuesday, Sept. 11, 2001.

Now, travelers often stand in long lines at security checkpoints with wait times that can exceed an hour. We take off our shoes, empty our pockets and take laptops and other devices out of carry-on bags before stepping into high-resolution, full-body scanners, while our bags go through 3D-imaging X-ray machines. And don't forget to take your liquids of 3.4 ounces or less out of your carry-on.

Some of us enroll in known- or trusted-traveler programs such as PreCheck, surrendering some of our privacy in an effort to have a smoother expedited screening process.

Aviation security experts acknowledge that prior to 9/11, no one envisioned suicide terrorists wanting to use commercial airplanes as weapons and being willing to kill themselves in order to kill hundreds of innocent people.

Now, counterterrorism and homeland security officials in the federal government work to imagine the unimaginable and enhance defenses to prevent the ever-changing and growing threats to aviation security.

Here's a look at how airport security has evolved over the past 20 years.

Sept. 11, 2001: Terrorists hijack and crash four passenger jets

The 19 hijackers checked in for their flights at the airport in Portland, Maine, at Boston's Logan International Airport, at Liberty International Airport in Newark, N.J., and at Dulles International Airport in the Washington, D.C., area.

When Mohamed Atta checked in at the Portland airport with a fellow hijacker for their short flight to Boston, he was selected for additional scrutiny under what was then known as CAPPS (Computer Assisted Passenger Prescreening System). But according to The 9/11 Commission Report, "Under security rules in place at the time, the only consequence of Atta's selection by CAPPS was that his checked bags were held off the plane until it was confirmed that he had boarded the aircraft. This did not hinder Atta's plans."

Several of the other hijackers were flagged by CAPPS at the other airports, but none was questioned and they were allowed to board in the same way Atta was - without much additional scrutiny. As they strolled through metal detectors at the airports, a couple of the hijackers set off alarms, but they were quickly cleared and sent on their way after going through a second metal detector or being scanned by a hand-held wand.It's not clear what exactly set off the alarms, but according to The 9/11 Commission Report, the hijackers used knives and/or razor blades in their attacks, which they likely had on them or in their carry-on bags. Even if those weapons were detected, it wouldn't have mattered.

"The FAA allowed knives of up to 4 inches in length on board an aircraft," says Price, the aviation security expert. "So even if the hijackers would have been caught with their knives prior to boarding the plane, the screeners would have handed it right back to them. "By 8:00 A.M. on the morning of Tuesday, September 11, 2001, they had defeated all the security layers that America's civil aviation security system then had in place to prevent a hijacking," The 9/11 Commission Report states.

September and October 2001: enhanced airport security, fewer Americans flying, longer wait times in airport security lines

After the planes hit the twin towers and the Pentagon, the Federal Aviation Administration immediately ordered all remaining commercial aircraft still in the air to land at the nearest available airport. All flights remained grounded until Sept. 14. But when air travel did resume, very few Americans were willing to fly. Nonetheless, in the days and weeks after the stunning terrorist attacks, airport security immediately intensified.

Armed National Guard soldiers joined local and state police in some cities to help patrol airports and screen travelers. Knives, box cutters, razors and other types of blades were banned, and the list of other items prohibited on aircraft grew significantly.

Airport security officers began searching through carry-on bags and patting down passengers, and that, according to Price, is when wait times in airport security lines started to grow longer, even though few Americans were flying. He says authorities were "slowing down the lines at the checkpoint to do a more thorough search of passengers and baggage."

November 2001: The Aviation and Transportation Security Act creates the TSA; checked baggage screened by X-rays

Congress passed and President George W. Bush signed the law that would create the Transportation Security Administration, which would become part of the newly created Cabinet-level Department of Homeland Security.

In addition to creating the TSA, the Aviation and Transportation Security Act required 100% of all checked baggage to be screened by X-rays, the Federal Air Marshal Service was expanded to put more armed air marshals on many more flights, and the law required airlines to reinforce cockpit doors on their aircraft to prevent attackers from entering.

The law also mandated that the TSA oversee security for all modes of transportation, such as passenger rail (including Amtrak) and intercity bus travel. Experts say the TSA was a major step forward in improving security.

December 2001: the shoe bomber and how shoe removal at airport security checkpoints started

On Dec. 22, 2001, on an American Airlines flight from Paris to Miami, British-born terrorist Richard Reid tried to detonate explosives that he had packed in his shoes. Passengers subdued and restrained Reid as the flight was diverted to Boston, the closest airport.

Investigators later said that Reid had enough explosive material to blow a hole in the fuselage of the plane, but that rainy weather and Reid's foot perspiration made the fuse too damp to ignite. Reid pleaded guilty to eight terrorism-related charges in October 2002 and was sentenced to three consecutive life sentences and 110 years, with no possibility of parole. The incident led to the TSA and airlines asking passengers to voluntarily remove their shoes when going through screening at airport security checkpoints.

December 2002: deploying explosives detection systems, very detailed 3D images

The TSA meets the mandate to screen 100% of all checked luggage by deploying machines that can scan bags for explosives and other dangerous weapons in every airport in the country.

The technology used in these screening systems has improved greatly over the intervening years, according to Deb Scovel, a TSA baggage and checkpoint supervisor at Chicago O'Hare International Airport, who says today's X-ray scanners are similar to CT scanners used in hospitals.

"The X-rays take images of it from all sides," says Scovel, "so it does an all-around picture of whatever goes inside so you see it from every point of view." She says the 3D images are so detailed that "I can tell you the difference between Irish Spring and Dove soap - yes, I can. And officers that have been here a while can do the same thing. You can tell the difference between an Apple and a Dell laptop; they're very detailed."

April 2003: Pilots start to carry firearms on board flights, and other cockpit protections

The first pilots certified under a voluntary program allowing them to carry handguns were on board flights. Bush signed the Arming Pilots Against Terrorism Act into law in November 2002, and the TSA began training flight deck personnel on how to use firearms on board, if needed, soon after.

Also in April 2003, the TSA announced that all airlines had met the requirement to reinforce cockpit doors on their entire fleets of planes.

Pilots and their unions continue to push for additional cockpit barriers and fortifications to protect them from possible attacks from outside the cockpit.

August 2006: liquids banned, shoe removal mandated and more air marshals added

British authorities disrupted a terrorist plot to detonate liquid explosives on board 10 commercial aircrafts bound from London to various cities in the U.S. and Canada. U.K. prosecutors alleged the would-be bombers prepared to disguise the explosives as soft drinks in 500-milliliter branded plastic bottles.

As a result, the TSA banned all liquids, gels and aerosols from passenger carry-on luggage.

A month later, in September 2006, the TSA lifted the ban on liquids and amended its rule to allow airline passengers to carry liquids, gels and aerosols in containers of only 3.4 ounces or less in a single, clear, resealable 1-quart plastic bag that had to be removed from carry-on baggage when going through security screening.

August 2006 is also when the TSA began to require that all travelers remove their shoes so footwear could be screened for explosives at airport security checkpoints.

The TSA also began deploying more federal air marshals, including on international flights.

March 2008: Canine units join airport security forces

Although bomb-sniffing dogs were already being used in a limited capacity as part of transportation security, the TSA began deploying canine teams to specifically aid in the screening of cargo loaded onto passenger aircraft at U.S. airports.

The program later expanded to use dogs to detect possible explosive materials on passengers and in checked and carry-on baggage.

December 2009: the "underwear bomber" and the installation of full-body scanners

On Christmas Day 2009 on board a Northwest Airlines flight from Amsterdam to Detroit, al-Qaida extremist Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab tried to detonate an improvised explosive device that he had hidden in his underwear.

Abdulmutallab later told FBI agents that he had been following the jetliner's flight path on his seat back's screen, as he wanted to blow up the plane over U.S. soil. Inside his briefs, he had explosive chemicals that would ignite when mixed. After going into the plane's lavatory to make final preparations, he returned to his seat and pushed a plunger to mix the chemicals.

But the volatile mix didn't explode as he intended, possibly because of excess moisture after the chemicals were inside his pants for so long. The mixture only caught fire, seriously burning Abdulmutallab, who tried to get his burning pants off before fellow passengers and crew members subdued him.

Abdulmutallab later pleaded guilty and was sentenced to life in prison.

In response to the failed attack in which a terrorist was able to sneak dangerous explosives through security, in March 2010 the TSA began installing hundreds of full-body scanners that used advanced imaging technology.

By the end of 2010, approximately 500 such machines were deployed nationwide.

December 2011: TSA PreCheck begins, vetted travelers pay to go through shorter security lines

With hundreds of millions of travelers passing through the TSA's airport security checkpoints each year, the agency wanted a better way to discern who was and who wasn't a serious threat. So it started its known- and trusted-traveler PreCheck program to provide expedited screening for those willing to pay for it and undergo a more detailed background check.

The TSA says it makes risk assessments about passengers prior to their arrival at airport checkpoints via these thorough background checks. Vetted travelers pay $85 for a five-year membership and get to go through a shorter security line where they no longer have to remove shoes and belts.

The TSA, meanwhile, says it is able to focus resources on more high-risk and unknown passengers.

June 2015: TSA flunks undercover tests

The TSA's inspector general reported that 95% of the time, TSA officers failed to detect weapons, explosives and other prohibited items that undercover agents smuggled through various airport security checkpoints.

The astronomically high failure rate led to the reassignment of Melvin Carraway, who was then the TSA's acting director. It also prompted significant changes in TSA training and procedures, including enhanced screening and increased random searches.

March and June 2016: attack outside Turkish airport security perimeter, concerns about soft targets

In June 2016, three suicide bombers who had been turned away at an airport security checkpoint opened fire with semiautomatic weapons before detonating explosive belts at Ataturk Airport's international terminal in Istanbul, killing themselves and 45 other people, while injuring more than 200.

That deadly assault followed a similar coordinated terrorist attack just three months earlier that killed 32 people and injured more than 300 at an airport terminal and subway station in Brussels. The incidents raised concerns about what security experts call soft targets - the areas outside the hard security perimeter where large groups of people wait at baggage claim, line up at check-in counters and kiosks or queue up to go through security checkpoints.

Some critics, including counterterrorism expert Tom Mockaitis at Chicago's DePaul University, say it exposes a flawed approach to security.

"I've seen, in this country, us waste literally millions of dollars on what I call placebo security - highly visual measures like armed guards strutting up and down in our airports, you know, creating a feeling of well-being and a feeling of security without providing any real added benefit," Mockaitis told NPR in July 2016.

March 2017: the laptop ban

The Trump administration, citing threats gathered from credible intelligence sources, prohibited travelers from certain countries from bringing laptops, tablets and other large electronic devices into the cabin on commercial flights to the United States.

John Kelly, secretary of homeland security at the time, said the intelligence indicated that terrorists were developing bombs powerful enough to bring down an airplane but small enough to be hidden inside those devices. The laptop ban affected travelers from 10 airports in eight countries with majority-Muslim populations.

"We didn't feel at the time that overseas airports had the kind of security initially that could give me a comfort that they could detect this device, the airports in those countries," Kelly said a couple of months after the ban was imposed.

The laptop ban was lifted in July 2017.

June 2017: facial recognition, biometric screening and privacy concerns

In 2017, some airlines, in collaboration with the TSA, began trials of facial recognition software that allows passengers' faces to be their boarding passes.

The system takes a photo and matches it with one on file with the airlines, speeding up the passenger-screening process and providing greater customer convenience. And because users of the system must be enrolled in the federal government's known-traveler program, it provides an extra layer of security.

But this and other biometric-screening methods, which could allow the government to track your whereabouts at home and abroad, raise significant privacy concerns, as NPR's Asma Khalid reported.

Aviation security experts say the TSA's efforts to expand the use of facial recognition and biometric screening was significantly delayed by the COVID-19 pandemic but could begin to ramp up again in the next couple of years.

September 2021: still room for improvement but layers of hard and soft security

TSA officials say aviation security continues to evolve to address ever-changing threats, with a layered approach that involves surveillance, intelligence and technology. The agency has 65,000 employees and spends billions of dollars each year in an effort to stay one step ahead of potential foreign and domestic terrorists.

"People are very creative. The threats are very creative," says Louis Traverzo, the TSA's deputy federal security director. He adds: "It's up to us to anticipate that, and it's up to us to look at those things and try to come up with ideas to counter methods" that terrorists may come up with.

There hasn't been a successful attack against commercial aviation in the U.S. in the 20 years since 9/11, and outside experts agree that while there is still room for improvement, the TSA has been effective in preventing another terrorist attack.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
It Was Shoes On, No Boarding Pass Or ID. But Airport Security Forever Changed On 9/11

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
No boarding pass or ID was needed to go to the gate, and 4-inch-blade knives were allowed aboard planes. Now we take off shoes, can't have liquids over 3.4 oz and go through high-tech body scanners.

# data[].attributes.body
1. Ice stands for Immigartion and Customs Enforcement

2. Ice was created in march of 2003 by the homeland security act

3. Congress harbored ice a unique combination of civil and criminal authorities to better protect nation security and public safety

4. Ice primary mission is to promote homeland security and public safety through the criminal and civil enforcement of federal law governing border control

https://www.ice.gov/history

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
History of ICE Archives It's a story that began more than ten years ago...In March 2003, the Homeland Security Act set into motion what would be the single-largest government reorganization since the creation of the Department of Defense. One of the agencies in the new Department of Homeland Security was the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, now known as U.S.

# data[].attributes.headline
12. Ice enforcement and removal operations

# data[].attributes.subject
12. Ice enforcement and removal operations

# data[].attributes.body
1. ERO upholds US immigration Law

2. ERO work is critical to the enforcement of immigration law against those who present danger to our national security

3. ERO targets public safely threats such as convicted Criminal undocumented aliens and gang members

4. ERO manages all aspects of the immigration enforcements process

5. ERO removes undocumented aliens for t he US from more than 150 countries around the world

https://www.ice.gov/about-ice

# data[].attributes.body
Protect America through criminal investigations and enforcing immigration laws to preserve national security and public safety.

https://www.ice.gov/mission

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Immigration Enforcement

Securing our nation's borders and safeguarding the integrity of our immigration system is a primary focus of ICE officers and agents throughout the country. Immigration enforcement is the largest single area of responsibility for ERO and is a critical component of the overall safety, security, and well-being of our nation.

While ERO has significant assets near the border, the majority of its immigration enforcement mission takes place in the interior of the country. To accomplish ICE's important immigration enforcement objectives, ERO coordinates closely with law enforcement partners within the U.S. and around the world. One of the most notable law enforcement coordination and partnership efforts within ERO involves the biometric and biographic identification of priority aliens who are incarcerated within federal, state, and local prisons and jails.

ERO works with law enforcement partners in the shared responsibility for ensuring the safety of our communities through a variety resources and programs. The 287(g) program enables a state or local law enforcement entity to receive delegated authority, training, and technology resources for immigration enforcement within their jurisdictions. ICE's Law Enforcement Support Center coordinates response and enforcement actions with law enforcement partners using biometrics to identify foreign-born individuals arrested for criminal offenses.

ERO also enhances the impact of multi-agency task forces through its administrative authority to arrest individuals deemed a threat to public safety on their unlawful immigration status without additional criminal charges. Finally, leveraging resources available through foreign law enforcement partners including INTERPOL and the ICE Attaché corps, ERO develops investigative leads and provides support in locating and arresting foreign nationals wanted for crimes committed abroad who are now at-large in the U.S.

Browse through the "Immigration Enforcement" drop-down menu to learn more.

Combating Transnational Crime

As one of the country's premier federal law enforcement agencies, ICE is dedicated to detecting and dismantling transnational criminal networks that target the American people and threaten our industries, organizations and financial systems. Combating cross-border criminal activity is the largest single area of responsibility of HSI, and is a critical component of the overall safety, security, and well-being of our nation.

HSI investigates the criminal enterprises that engage in a broad range of illicit activity including narcotics smuggling, human trafficking, gang violence, money laundering and other financial crimes, intellectual property theft, and customs fraud. HSI also investigates a broad range of cybercrime, including child exploitation in the commitment to securing both physical and virtual borders.

HSI is committed to identifying and disrupting the movement of illicit proceeds generated by these criminal organizations and activities in an effort to safeguard our nation's trade, travel and financial systems.

Our workforce maintains effective relationships throughout the global law enforcement community and works closely with our domestic and international partners at every level to ensure the safety of all Americans.

HSI is the largest contributor to the FBI-led Joint Terrorism Task Forces and employs its unique and exclusive immigration and trade-based authorities to disrupt terrorist networks and prevent attacks against the homeland. This work includes HSI initiating investigations into transnational criminal organizations and subjects of national security concern or interest who are involved in narcotics smuggling, human trafficking and smuggling, and immigration document and benefit fraud, as well as investigating trade-based money laundering and intellectual property crimes used to finance or support terrorists or their activities. HSI is also responsible for preventing terrorist groups, illicit procurement networks, and hostile nations from acquiring U.S. military hardware, sensitive technical data, dual-use technology, and other materials used to develop weapons of mass destruction.

Browse through the Investigations categories under the "Combatting Transnational Crime" drop-down menu to learn more.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Securing our nation's borders and safeguarding the integrity of our immigration system is a primary focus of ICE officers and agents throughout the country. Immigration enforcement is the largest single area of responsibility for ERO and is a critical component of the overall safety, security, and well-being of our nation.

# data[].attributes.body
1. Ice is in charge of detecting and dismantling transnational criminal network that targets the American people and threaten our industries

2. Ice investigates the criminal enterprises that engage in a broad range of illicit activity including narcotics smuggling, human tracking, gang violence, money laundering and other financial crime. Intellectual property theft, customs fraud

https://www.ice.gov/mission

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Immigration Enforcement

Securing our nation's borders and safeguarding the integrity of our immigration system is a primary focus of ICE officers and agents throughout the country. Immigration enforcement is the largest single area of responsibility for ERO and is a critical component of the overall safety, security, and well-being of our nation.

While ERO has significant assets near the border, the majority of its immigration enforcement mission takes place in the interior of the country. To accomplish ICE's important immigration enforcement objectives, ERO coordinates closely with law enforcement partners within the U.S. and around the world. One of the most notable law enforcement coordination and partnership efforts within ERO involves the biometric and biographic identification of priority aliens who are incarcerated within federal, state, and local prisons and jails.

ERO works with law enforcement partners in the shared responsibility for ensuring the safety of our communities through a variety resources and programs. The 287(g) program enables a state or local law enforcement entity to receive delegated authority, training, and technology resources for immigration enforcement within their jurisdictions. ICE's Law Enforcement Support Center coordinates response and enforcement actions with law enforcement partners using biometrics to identify foreign-born individuals arrested for criminal offenses.

ERO also enhances the impact of multi-agency task forces through its administrative authority to arrest individuals deemed a threat to public safety on their unlawful immigration status without additional criminal charges. Finally, leveraging resources available through foreign law enforcement partners including INTERPOL and the ICE Attaché corps, ERO develops investigative leads and provides support in locating and arresting foreign nationals wanted for crimes committed abroad who are now at-large in the U.S.

Browse through the "Immigration Enforcement" drop-down menu to learn more.

Combating Transnational Crime

As one of the country's premier federal law enforcement agencies, ICE is dedicated to detecting and dismantling transnational criminal networks that target the American people and threaten our industries, organizations and financial systems. Combating cross-border criminal activity is the largest single area of responsibility of HSI, and is a critical component of the overall safety, security, and well-being of our nation.

HSI investigates the criminal enterprises that engage in a broad range of illicit activity including narcotics smuggling, human trafficking, gang violence, money laundering and other financial crimes, intellectual property theft, and customs fraud. HSI also investigates a broad range of cybercrime, including child exploitation in the commitment to securing both physical and virtual borders.

HSI is committed to identifying and disrupting the movement of illicit proceeds generated by these criminal organizations and activities in an effort to safeguard our nation's trade, travel and financial systems.

Our workforce maintains effective relationships throughout the global law enforcement community and works closely with our domestic and international partners at every level to ensure the safety of all Americans.

HSI is the largest contributor to the FBI-led Joint Terrorism Task Forces and employs its unique and exclusive immigration and trade-based authorities to disrupt terrorist networks and prevent attacks against the homeland. This work includes HSI initiating investigations into transnational criminal organizations and subjects of national security concern or interest who are involved in narcotics smuggling, human trafficking and smuggling, and immigration document and benefit fraud, as well as investigating trade-based money laundering and intellectual property crimes used to finance or support terrorists or their activities. HSI is also responsible for preventing terrorist groups, illicit procurement networks, and hostile nations from acquiring U.S. military hardware, sensitive technical data, dual-use technology, and other materials used to develop weapons of mass destruction.

Browse through the Investigations categories under the "Combatting Transnational Crime" drop-down menu to learn more.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Securing our nation's borders and safeguarding the integrity of our immigration system is a primary focus of ICE officers and agents throughout the country. Immigration enforcement is the largest single area of responsibility for ERO and is a critical component of the overall safety, security, and well-being of our nation.

# data[].attributes.body
1. Ice has more than 20,000 employees

2. 400 offices around the US and abroad

3. ERO officers alone have doubles from 3,00 to 6,00

4. HSI has 8,500 employees

5. The ice budgets have inception was only 3.3 billion to 7.5 billion

https://www.ice.gov/mission

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Immigration Enforcement

Securing our nation's borders and safeguarding the integrity of our immigration system is a primary focus of ICE officers and agents throughout the country. Immigration enforcement is the largest single area of responsibility for ERO and is a critical component of the overall safety, security, and well-being of our nation.

While ERO has significant assets near the border, the majority of its immigration enforcement mission takes place in the interior of the country. To accomplish ICE's important immigration enforcement objectives, ERO coordinates closely with law enforcement partners within the U.S. and around the world. One of the most notable law enforcement coordination and partnership efforts within ERO involves the biometric and biographic identification of priority aliens who are incarcerated within federal, state, and local prisons and jails.

ERO works with law enforcement partners in the shared responsibility for ensuring the safety of our communities through a variety resources and programs. The 287(g) program enables a state or local law enforcement entity to receive delegated authority, training, and technology resources for immigration enforcement within their jurisdictions. ICE's Law Enforcement Support Center coordinates response and enforcement actions with law enforcement partners using biometrics to identify foreign-born individuals arrested for criminal offenses.

ERO also enhances the impact of multi-agency task forces through its administrative authority to arrest individuals deemed a threat to public safety on their unlawful immigration status without additional criminal charges. Finally, leveraging resources available through foreign law enforcement partners including INTERPOL and the ICE Attaché corps, ERO develops investigative leads and provides support in locating and arresting foreign nationals wanted for crimes committed abroad who are now at-large in the U.S.

Browse through the "Immigration Enforcement" drop-down menu to learn more.

Combating Transnational Crime

As one of the country's premier federal law enforcement agencies, ICE is dedicated to detecting and dismantling transnational criminal networks that target the American people and threaten our industries, organizations and financial systems. Combating cross-border criminal activity is the largest single area of responsibility of HSI, and is a critical component of the overall safety, security, and well-being of our nation.

HSI investigates the criminal enterprises that engage in a broad range of illicit activity including narcotics smuggling, human trafficking, gang violence, money laundering and other financial crimes, intellectual property theft, and customs fraud. HSI also investigates a broad range of cybercrime, including child exploitation in the commitment to securing both physical and virtual borders.

HSI is committed to identifying and disrupting the movement of illicit proceeds generated by these criminal organizations and activities in an effort to safeguard our nation's trade, travel and financial systems.

Our workforce maintains effective relationships throughout the global law enforcement community and works closely with our domestic and international partners at every level to ensure the safety of all Americans.

HSI is the largest contributor to the FBI-led Joint Terrorism Task Forces and employs its unique and exclusive immigration and trade-based authorities to disrupt terrorist networks and prevent attacks against the homeland. This work includes HSI initiating investigations into transnational criminal organizations and subjects of national security concern or interest who are involved in narcotics smuggling, human trafficking and smuggling, and immigration document and benefit fraud, as well as investigating trade-based money laundering and intellectual property crimes used to finance or support terrorists or their activities. HSI is also responsible for preventing terrorist groups, illicit procurement networks, and hostile nations from acquiring U.S. military hardware, sensitive technical data, dual-use technology, and other materials used to develop weapons of mass destruction.

Browse through the Investigations categories under the "Combatting Transnational Crime" drop-down menu to learn more.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Securing our nation's borders and safeguarding the integrity of our immigration system is a primary focus of ICE officers and agents throughout the country. Immigration enforcement is the largest single area of responsibility for ERO and is a critical component of the overall safety, security, and well-being of our nation.

# data[].attributes.body
1. Tens of millions Americans and people from around the world stood around there tv watching the terriost attacks that was happening on their own soil

2. Viewers and readers relived the attacks everyday with watch the tv and newspaper and magazines

https://www.brookings.edu/events/running-toward-danger-how-the-news-media-performed-on-9-11-and-beyond/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Running Toward Danger: How the News Media Performed on 9-11...and Beyond | Brookings

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
On September 11, 2001, tens of millions of Americans clustered in front of television sets, witnessing the horrifying terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. In the anxious weeks and months that followed, viewers and readers relived the attacks and their aftermath again and again on TV and in newspapers and magazines. […]

# data[].attributes.headline
2. Twenty years later: the legacy of 9/11 media coverage (Pt. 1)

# data[].attributes.subject
2. Twenty years later: the legacy of 9/11 media coverage (Pt. 1)

# data[].attributes.body
search for answers

technological development into the American media landscape

Technological growth was reflected in how the public consumed news

The United States sat at the precipice of an uncontested digital age

https://www.browndailyherald.com/article/2021/09/twenty-years-later-the-legacy-of-9-11-media-coverage?utm_source=chatgpt.com

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Twenty years later: the legacy of 9/11 media coverage

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Serving the Brown University community since 1891

# data[].attributes.body
“I don’t think on Sept. 11, or Sept. 12, or Sept. 13 we understood the gravity and the world-changing nature of what had happened. Everybody was in shock” - Moos

https://www.browndailyherald.com/article/2021/09/twenty-years-later-the-legacy-of-9-11-media-coverage?utm_source=chatgpt.com

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Twenty years later: the legacy of 9/11 media coverage

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Serving the Brown University community since 1891

# data[].attributes.body
when the attacks first happened coverage immeditaely began coverage

Major media organizations were essential in addressing confusion and grief following 9/11 on a national scale

the only source of information for days following the attack was through the media

Confronted with a level of violence deemed unspeakable, allowing the media to do the talking

https://www.browndailyherald.com/article/2021/09/twenty-years-later-the-legacy-of-9-11-media-coverage?utm_source=chatgpt.com

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Twenty years later: the legacy of 9/11 media coverage

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Serving the Brown University community since 1891

# data[].attributes.body
1. “television cable news was the primary way that we got news about what was happening then” Patrick Moos ’02

2. “cell phones were really just for voice then,” Katherine Boas ’02

https://www.browndailyherald.com/article/2021/09/twenty-years-later-the-legacy-of-9-11-media-coverage?utm_source=chatgpt.com

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Twenty years later: the legacy of 9/11 media coverage

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Serving the Brown University community since 1891

# data[].attributes.headline
6. Patriotism and self censorship ( PT.1)

# data[].attributes.subject
6. Patriotism and self censorship ( PT.1)

# data[].attributes.body
us administration launched a new series of military operations in reaction to the new waves of terriost attacks

Terriost attackers that stroked the east coast of the United States leaving nearly 6,000 dead

The attacks on 9/11 sparks new and more difficult debate over balancing national security, free speech, and patriots

The press comments had several occasions provoked the fury of authorities, along with the interest of the American public

https://rsf.org/en/between-pull-patriotism-and-self-censorshipthe-us-media-torment-after-11-september?utm_source=chatgpt.com

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Between the pull of patriotism and self-censorshipThe US media in torment after 11 September

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Investigation: Alexandre Levy and Francois Bugingo New York – September 26 / October 2 2001 Observers cast doubt on the objectivity of the American press Ten years after the Gulf War, a conflict the reality of which was largely hidden from the media, the US administration has launched a new series of military operations in reaction to the waves of terrorist attacks that stroked the East coast of the United States leaving nearly 6,000 dead. The daily New York Times noted, “This surge of national pride sweeping the country after the terrorist attacks on 11 September sparks the beginnings of new, more difficult debate over balance among national security, free speech and patriotism.” The influential American newspaper said in an article on 28 September 2001 that the debate “is being played out on stages large and small”, that press comments have on several occasions provoked the fury of the authorities, along with that of the American public, and have led to sanctions including pulling of programmes, withdrawal of advertising in the media and disavowal, even outright sacking of the journalists by their employers. This comes on top of a long list of constraints and more subtle pressure that American and foreign media, including the Internet, have been subjected to since 11 September. Many journalists and foreign observers have already cast doubt on the objectivity and independence of the American press, particularly the TV channels, in this period of “war effort”. In the same way, several voices have been raised within the United States warning the public about a decline in freedom of expression and opinion, freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment of the Constitution, in exchange for tightening security. “We are facing an enemy which is exploiting what it is about our society that makes it strong and effective: freedom, openness and freedom of movement. We have to be sure that we remain an open society, in which individual freedoms are respected,” said Strobe Talbott, former number two at the US State Department in the Clinton Administration. But these voices, drowned out in the climate of media coverage devoted to covering the aftermath of the attacks, the preparations and continuing US counter-attacks, remain in a minority. Even those who are critical appear weakened by the emotion produced by this dramatic terrorist act, the death of thousands of innocent people and the suffering of their bereaved families. In the face of calls to national unity, US organisations traditionally devoted to defending individual freedoms, have been muted. They consider that it is still too soon, even inappropriate, to be raising the alarm over events considered largely ‘secondary’. “The shock of 11 September seems to have stifled the most militant of people, giving way to a de facto tolerance towards tougher than usual stances on the part of the military and the judiciary,” said journalist Sylvie Kauffman, former correspondent of the French daily Le Monde in New York, on 17 September 2001. In fact today, while countries throw themselves into a fresh military operation, the vigilance of organisations defending human rights and individual freedoms are all the more needed. A number of regimes find the temptation too great to exploit the genuine emotion produced by these attacks on the United States on 11 September to restrict freedom of the press and more generally to silence domestic opposition under the cover of the struggle against terrorism. In countries such as Pakistan, Israel, Territories under Palestinian Authority or Liberia, Reporters Sans Frontières (RSF) has recorded several incidents of press freedom violations directly linked to the events in America. While avoiding all linkage with these regimes, RSF also makes public here a serious of episodes affecting press freedom in the United States between 11 September and 7 October 20001, the date of the American military counter-attack. Most of them have been reported and commented on by the American press or by specialist Internet sites. Are these incidents of censorship or self-censorship? Are we witnessing a deliberate policy on the part of the authorities or a choice made by the main media themselves? What do American and foreign journalists working in New York think? What about organisations that defend press freedom? To try to answer these questions, two representatives of RSF went to the United States and meet representatives of the media, human rights organisations and US press specialists. The first suspect: internet The unprecedented scale of the attacks on New York and Washington, and the presumed use by the terrorists of advanced computer technology, prompted fears among internet users of a tightening of web surveillance, as called for by the security services. A number of sources report that a few hours after the attacks on 12 September, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) agents turned up at the headquarters of the main internet providers (Hotmail, AOL, Earthlink, etc) to obtain information on possible email exchanges between the terrorists. Technicians working for these companies have said off the record to the American online magazine Wired that FBI agents wanted to install the electronic bugging system “Carnivore” (recently renamed DCS 1000) on the main computer of internet access providers based in the United States. “From Tuesday evening FBI agents showed up at our workplace wanting to set up their machines. They promised to pick up the tab for all the costs of installation and use”. Another one working for Hotmail said that the FBI had asked for, and obtained, from company executives all information on accounts, whose names included the word Allah. All the major Internet access providers appear to have followed Hotmail’s example and fully collaborated with the American secret services. Once installed at an Internet access provider Carnivore can record and save all information exchanged between users. Under strong critical pressure from defenders of individual freedoms in the United States, the system had never been used until now except with the advance agreement of a judge. The “Combating terrorism Act” voted through after a half-hour debate in the Senate on 13 September, barely two days after the attacks, exempts the security services from judicial approval for the use of Carnivore. To become law this act has still to be approved by a joint commission of members of the Senate and House of Representatives. In the same vein, a number of US leaders have started attacking encryption. This procedure allows internet-users to enjoy confidentiality when exchanging information on the Internet with the use of encryption software. the best known being PGP (Pretty Good Privacy), which can be freely downloaded from a number of sites. Already last March the head of the FBI Louis Freeh said he was convinced that terrorist networks were using encryption. On 13 September the Republican senator Judd Gregg called in a speech to Congress for a worldwide ban on encryption software unless public authorities had been given the means to decode the messages. “One could fear that the authorities could take advantage of the emotion of the moment to achieve their objective: banning encryption” one American proponent of PGP told RSF. Other privacy protection militants such as John Gilmore of the American organisation Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) called for creation of more sites which would offer encryption software on open sale. After the first attack on the World Trade Center in 1993 the FBI found plans for hijacking 11 planes on the portable computer of the person who carried out the attack. The FBI took ten months to decode the files, the majority of which had been encrypted with PGP software. Defenders of encryption say to this that intelligence has already shown its weakness in this area in as much as the terrorists appear to have already used methods that avoid electronic surveillance. The creator of PGP, David Zimmerman, who was nearly jailed in the United States during the 1980 for distributing his programme, has once again defended his position in a recent interview in the magazine Futur(e)s. “Whether it’s congress, or in the courts or in the columns of newspapers, the country has already debated this question over the last decade. And together we have decided that society has more to gain than to lose from effective encryption. It should not be forgotten that encryption has saved lives in the entire world. The system is used by human rights organisations worldwide and especially under dictatorships”. (Quoted by the on-line magazine Transfert, 17 September 2001). Television: From spontaneity to patriotic rigour Filmed virtually live, the attack against the World Trade Center was at the same time tragic and spectacular, as if meant for television. “One should not forget that the terrorist target, Manhattan, is not only the financial heart but also the media capital of the country”, an American journalist pointed out. Never has such an event been filmed and photographed live both by cameras and surveillance, by amateurs and professionals. In the first days access to the sites of the attacks was not controlled. Numerous photographers and cameramen took advantage of this by getting as close as possible to the points of impact. The United States being cut off from the rest of the world with the grounding of all flights, it was only American journalists and foreign correspondents posted to New York who covered the story. Not having necessarily experienced war or natural disasters, they admitted to having had “the shock of their lives” when they heard about the terrorist attacks and went to the World Trade Centre. Either originally from New York or having lived their for many years, they said with a good deal of emotion, that they had covered “the most important story of their careers”. They did not hide their sympathy for Americans and in particular New Yorkers in this difficult period. “I reacted first as an adopted New Yorker rather than as a journalist” said Stéphanie Tremblay French programme co-ordinator for Radio Canada. “The terrorists had above all attacked my city and targeted my way of life.” “I never thought I would cover such an event in my whole life time.” said Don Emmert, head of photo for Agence France-Presse. “I am Canadian,” said Marc Greenought, radio producer for English programmes on the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC), “but during these past days I have never felt so deeply American.” Everyone interviewed by RSF in New York said so: The American television networks were the first to cover the story and they were an excellent source of information in the first days. “We edited the first reports on the attack on the World Trade Center with our eyes fixed on the television screen,” said Michel Moutot, Agence France-Presse bureau chief in New York. “The US television networks have matchless resources and they used them right away,” he continued. Eric Leser, correspondent for the French daily Le Monde agreed. He told RSF how invaluable the live coverage on American television was to his work. The organisation Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR), generally very critical of the major media in America, found that the coverage in the first days was acceptable overall. “We saw a new type of spontaneous and sincere journalism” said one of its organisers Steve Randell. But just a week later, the tone and content on the American television networks changed. “I think the turning point was George W. Bush’s speech to Congress on the 20 September 2001, said Eric Leser. “Since then the media has taken on a strongly patriotic tone and news has lost out to propaganda.” French journalists add that since then they have followed the television networks much less and used the internet, where there are a number of sites providing more critical news and different angles. Many foreign correspondents who spoke to RSF in New York said the same thing. The RSF representatives noted the change of tone and feeling on the American networks that covered President Bush’s 20 September speech, in which he called for a “war against terrorism.” The fate of the victims was relegated to second position and the networks devoted their airtime to hailing the country’s “new heroes”: firefighters, police and military staff, politicians. And above all reflecting an image of a united and defiant nation, ready to wage war on those who have attacked it. “America’s new war” and “At war with terror” (CNN) or “America fights back or counter-attacks? (CBS) were the watchwords, henceforth always accompanied by the ubiquitous stars and stripes. “Broadcasts became all beating the drum and flags flying in the wind. It was no longer news,” said another foreign correspondent Richard Hetu, a journalist with the Canadian daily La Presse. A French journalist, a Balkans specialist, who covered the NATO intervention in Serbia, agreed from New York that American television had “gone to war”: ” Instead of news broadcasts, Americans are watching advertising spots to the glory of their country,” he said. In one example the 62 regional channels of the Sinclair Broadcast group have been carrying an advertisement on their web site: “Our team supports the action of President Bush and the leaders of our nation in putting an end to terrorism.” continues the message, urging viewers who agree to send their views to the site. Reflecting on the patriotic outbursts, Stéphanie Tremblay of Radio Canada said she was “not at all surprised by this aspect of coverage on the US networks. “I knew, however, that if I want to hear a more critical report that gave more space to the news itself, I would have to watch BBC or event TV 5,” she said. Fellow journalist Chantal Lavigne, also acknowledged the American media’s desire to take part in the “war effort” said, “Most star television presenters have said that they were Americans before being journalists.” Journalists and media executives questioned by RSF, either strongly denied having produced propaganda or on the other hand, acknowledged and justified their decision. “The footage of the attack against the World Trade Center has no equivalent in the history of conflict,” said Paul Khlebnikov, journalist with the influential economic magazine Forbes. “In the war of pictures the terrorists have made a decisive point. That is why the war that the United States is going to wage should not be just military and economic but also psychological, therefore media-driven. Killing Bin Laden will not be enough he will have to be cut down symbolically. Mr Khlebnikov said he was not worried by the bellicose and propagandist tone adopted by some of the US media. He attributes it to a “civic revival” shared by all Americans. “The first days there could have been a collapse in morale of Americans. Then as in times of war, there was a civic revival which was picked up in the press. And if the media has sometimes lacked objectivity it was not under official pressure. Objectivity in journalism does not man an absence of values. The media, overall, did excellent work. Television in particular was a triumph,” he said. Paul Khlebnikov is not the only one in the American press to take this position. Sandy Genelius, spokeswoman for the American TV network CBS News is satisfied, she says in an interview with RSF, with the comments she has read in the press about the work of the channel. “We haven’t sunk into propaganda like some”, she says taking a swipe in passing at CBS’s main competitor Cable News Network International (CNN). The chairman of CNN Chris Cramer has been self-congratulatory about the work of his network from 18 September: “CNN has never failed to live up to the occasion (-) to supply balanced news. The 4,000 men and women of CNN have not escaped the shock and the horror of what has happened. However the coverage of the news that we gave the public and other media is testament to professionalism and integrity.” Missing images: censorship or “matter of taste” Barely a week after the attacks, some European media chiefs, particularly French, have questioned the impartiality of the American TV networks, suspected of not showing “all the images”, mainly those of the victims of the attacks. Then there have been criticisms of American authorities, accused of wanted to prevent some shots from the scene being taken and put out by the media. Robert Namias, head of information for the main private French television channel TF1 has several times condemned “filtering” which he considers a form of “censorship”. “I strongly regret the censorship imposed on us by the United States, the journalist told the French daily Le Figaro on 26 September 2001. “The images that the French media paid for were filtered, treated and purified by the American authorities. How do you think we can do our job when we are denied access to information and surrounded by security forces? I did not want to show horrifying images but, to do the job properly, there should be a minimum knowledge.” His opinion is shared, in varying degrees, by other French television bosses but not unanimously. “The horror of the two planes slamming into the towers. Wasn’t that enough? asks Hervé Brusini, head of national news on the public French channel France 3. His colleague on France 2 Oliver Mazerolle, considers that he would not have shown gory images but said the American channels balked at showing this type of image “for patriotic reasons”. The French journalists all join however in condemning increasing difficulty in getting access to the World Trade Center site and the unwillingness of the authorities to allow journalists to move about freely within the security perimeter. During their investigation in New York and Paris, the RSF representatives tried to find out more about the lack of images of the victims and the conditions of access to the World Trade Center site. Jim Rutenberg and Felicity Barringer, media specialists for the New York Times visited various television studios from 11 September onwards and questioned those in charge about their editorial choices. “Terrible pictures started arriving,” they said. “There was blood, there were dismembered bodies.” Despite the desire of some journalists to show these images, the head of MSNBC Erik Sorenson took the decision not to show them. “I think there are all sorts of ways to show the horror without descending into the gory,” he said Some networks, like NBC, CBS, CNN and Fox News did however broadcast footage of desperate people jumping from the blazing building. Only to regret it afterwards. “It was a bad decision, the pictures were really too disturbing”, confessed Bill Wheatley, vice-president of NBC News. Those who decided not to show the film explained: ” The question is are we just creating useless pain”. Those, who like CBS, showed them, justify themselves too: “That’s terrorism. From one point of view you want to protect the viewer but in another way you want to show just what the terrorists have really done.” Michel Moutot of Agence France-Presse also remembers these deeply disturbing photos. “By their clothes one could easily recognise people who jumped from the windows”. However he considered them to be “acceptable”. In fact, several photos of this scene, taken by photographers from the major international agencies appeared during the course of the week in the American and European press. Editors who published the, like Glenn Guzzo of the daily Denver Post, spoke of the virulent objections from readers. “Haven’t you any feelings, any respect for the families who have lost their loved-ones?” one reader asked indignantly. At this stage is strongly appears that a number of distressing photos were taken and used by the American media. It was they who decided, according to their own conscience, whether to use them or not. “It doesn’t look like the authorities were trying to control these pictures, given that that they didn’t even know how to protect the president,” said one observer. “The refusal to show the horrifying pictures was an editorial decision by my colleaguesm,“adds Paul Khlebnikov of Forbes. “As citizens we had to ask ourselves the question: should one show bits of bodies in a period of mourning and national remembrance?” It was indeed an “editorial choice” said Sandy Genelius of CBS News to RSF. “We had sensitive film, we had gory images, but each time we asked ourselves: What more are we contributing to history by showing them? So we decided not to show the pictures just for the pleasure of demonstrating that we had them”. This sudden reticence of the part of the American media has interested a number of foreign observers. In an analytical piece headed “The faceless dead of the World Trade Center,” the journalist Michel Guerin, specialist in images at the French daily Le Monde, stated the paradox: “5,500 people died or disappeared on the black day of 11 September...but practically no image of the bodies has been shown on the television or published in the press” (21 September 2001). “A decency of variable shape, says Dominique Wolton, head of research at the National Centre for Scientific Research (CNRS) quoted by the French daily Liberation (19 September 2001). “This should be a big lesson in decency to western media who don’t hesitate to show massacres when they happen in Rwanda...” he added. Others like the photo historian Marc Ferro do not find it surprising. “During wars you never show your own dead, only those of your adversaries. The Americans want to limit the images of the trauma they have suffered, of defeat, the affront and the mortification.” Sandy Genelius, spokeswoman for CBS News, to whom RSF put these questions, once again staunchly defended herself against applying double standards. “It’s not true that we used different standards. We applied the same rules when we filmed in Rwanda as at the World Trade Center.” An RSF representative also discussed this question with Tom Golstein, emeritus professor at the prestigious Columbia School of Journalism in south Manhattan. He considered that it was simply a “question of taste”. This opinion seems to be shared by a significant majority of American and even foreign journalists. Like Canadian journalist Marc Greenought of CBC, they did not hide their astonishment, even irritation at the criticism from the European media on the absence of more distressing and gory images of the World Trade Center victims and the restricted access to the site. “I do not understand,” he told RSF. “As a journalist I had all the access I needed, the suffering, the emotion. No need to go searching for blood under the ruins for that.” Arrests and calls to order In the first days after the attacks of 11 September, the American media certainly adopted a common position which was not to “add horror on horror” and to take part in the resurgence of patriotic national feeling. In doing this, those in charge followed the wishes of a large majority of the public which reacted strongly to the first images shown after the attacks. Added to this were very strict rules of access to the site of the disaster, injunctions by the various authorities along with sanctions against recalcitrant photographers. The perimeter of the World Trade Center was quickly secured and surrounded by US security forces after the confusion of the first few days. “The New York police were generally co-operative with the press and allowed comings and goings on the site. The arrival on the scene of the National Guard put an end to this situation,” remembered M. Moutot of AFP. Barriers appeared all around the site, the security perimeter was extended by several streets to the south and north of Manhattan. A complex system of accreditation was then established Involving both police and the military. According to the daily Los Angeles Times, from 19 September onwards the police started seizing the films of photographers and tourists close to the site. Many photographers had their access passes withdrawn for failing to respect the orders of the authorities. The American press freedom organisation The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press (RCFP) said that at least four journalists were arrested and accused of breaking the conditions of access to the World Trade Center site. Among them was Ian Austin, photographer for the Agency Aurora Quanta Productions, who was detained for three days before being released without any charge. All journalists working for the daily Dallas Daily News had their accreditation withdrawn because of the arrest and “bad conduct” of one of their photographers. In an interview with RSF, Don Emmert, head of photo at AFP in New York discussed the consequences of the restrictions and the calls to order on the work of his agency. “In photo terms, whole segments of this drama have not been covered. The reason is simple : they wouldn’t let us work. We could not satisfy the demands of our clients from abroad. For instance, we could not go to the hospitals and we can no longer freely take pictures of the World Trade Center after the disaster.” “The office of the mayor asked us not to show firefighters recovering the bodies of their colleagues.” continued Don Emmert, who also spoke out against the current working conditions on the site. “It’s like a police state, he said. They let us shoot in organized pools only what the authorities want us to shoot. The ones who move freely around are the Marine photographers and the photographers from the Federal Emergency Agency. They supply agencies with very pretty photographs Even if the American press continues to carry photos of the ruins of the World Trade Centre, all media, including the tabloids, have to accept pools, of shots taken from a distance and showing only the wide angle of the site. For some journalists working in New York the reply to the debate on the absence of images of the victims of the World Trade Center is very simple. “I quite honestly doubt that that there is much left to show,” suggests the French daily Le Monde’s correspondent. His view is shared by Richard Hetu of the Canadian daily La Presse, who believes that the bodies literally “disintegrated”. The World Trade Center has become an enormous crematorium,” he continued. “As I wrote in one article, the dust from the debris of the World Trade Center that we are breathing still probably includes the ashes of the victims.” America should not speak with the same voice as its enemies Several other incidents, comparable to press freedom violations, characterised the life of the media after the 11 September. They were caused by interventions by the authorities critical of one media or another, or by the owners of the media themselves who saw it as a good moment to sanction a particular journalist for “subversive” comments, and sometimes by both at once, without being able to establish with that media what the real reason for the sanction was. So when the television network ABC decided on 19 September to no longer broadcast images of the two planes slamming into the World Trade Center towers, it was officially so as not to “banalise the dramatic event”. Many observers suspect however that it was the result of pressure from the authorities and in particular because of a desire expressed by the owner of Disney. The most flagrant examples of corporate censorship - when media bosses sanction a journalist for his or her opinions - came from the dailies The Texas City Sun and the Daily Courier in the state of Oregon. On 23 September Les Daughty Jr, owner of the Texas City Sun for 17 years writes an apology to his readers for an article by one of his editors-in-chief Ron Gutting, who said in an article critical of President Bush on the day after the attacks, that he was “flying around the country like a scared child seeking refuge in his mother’s bed after having a nightmare”. In an article on the front page of the newspaper Daughty apologised to all the leaders of the country and particularly to President George Bush for having published such an article which could only provoke “anger and disgust”. Ron Gutting was sacked from the newspaper. His colleague Dan Guthrie of the Daily Courier at Grant’s Pass met the same fate and for similar reasons. He wrote on the 15 September on a humorous page in the newspaper that George Bush had “skedaddled” in the face of the attacks, accusing him of being “an embarrassment” for “hiding in a Nebraska hole” on the day of the terrorist attacks. The newspaper’s editor-in-chief Dennis Mack wrote for his readers that to say that the head of state was hiding at a time when America was trying to unite after the bloody attacks was neither responsible nor appropriate. As a result Dan Guthrie lost his job but for “personal reasons”, according to his employer.` In neither case was there any apparent pressure on the part of the authorities. It was the fierce reactions of the newspapers’ readers that were decisive in the decision to sack the journalists. In another case, that was widely reported in the US press star television presenter Bill Maher drew a strong reaction from the White House. On his talk show “Politically Incorrect” on ABC, Bill Maher said on 17 September, “We have been the cowards, lobbing cruise missiles from 2,000 miles away. That’s cowardly. Staying in the airplane when it hits the building, say what you want about it, It’s not cowardly”. These comments drew the rage of many viewers and led to the immediate withdrawal of the programme’s two main sponsors Federal Express and Sears. A number of television stations linked to the ABC network, mainly in New York and Washington, pulled the Bill Maher programme, especially after White House spokesman Ari Fleisher called his remarks “unpatriotic”. He added, “It was a terrible thing to say and it’s unfortunate.” He went on, “The reminder is to all Americans that they need to watch what they say, watch what they do”. Journalists who heard his statement noted later that “watch what they say” did not appear in the text of this official record of the conference. Another decision of the US administration that drew much attention was the attempt by the authorities to block the broadcasting at the end of September of an interview with the spiritual leader of the Taliban Mullah Omar on the Congress-financed Voice of America. The station that is broadcast to 50 countries worldwide, to explain America to the world, normally has reasonable editorial independence. Claude Porsella, head of the VOA French service told RSF about the content of the programme. “One of my colleagues in the Pashto language service had the scoop of his life: an interview with Mullah Omar. VOA never intended to broadcast the entire interview, extracts of which were included in some general reporting including comments from the US Administration, analysis by an Islamic expert and the position of the Northern Alliance. Mullah Omar said he was convinced that Osama Bin Laden could not be behind the attacks.” The State Department, which has a seat on the VOA board, called on the other board members to ban the interview, scheduled for 28 September. “VOA is not the voice of Mullah Omar and is not the voice of the Taliban”, said one American official. He said it would be “inappropriate” to spend the backers money to broadcast comments of the head of the movement who was protecting the terrorists behind the 11 September attacks. “This decision caused huge dismay among VOA journalists,” said Claude Porsella. The head of news protested and a petition was signed by 150 journalists. Faced with this reaction and strong interest in the press, VOA reversed its decision and decided to go ahead with the broadcast on 25 September. So far there have been no sanctions on the part of the US Administration. “We won a battle,” said Claude Porsella. “But I doubt the story will end there. Heads will probably roll,” he feared. On this occasion the VOA journalists were able to win the solidarity of their colleagues in the major US media, particularly the written press. In the same way the influential daily The Washington Post opened its columns to journalist from VOA before taking a position in an editorial on 26 September. This read: “The episode revealed an impulse to squelch facts that is never far beneath the surface in time of war or quasi-war, an impulse that is hardly less noxious when it retreats promptly under challenge. “But the time for editors to resist the censoring and self-censoring instinct is before it is acted upon, not after. We hear frequently that the only way to beat the terrorists is to hold on to this nation’s freedoms. Those include honoring Americans’ right to hear commentary that bothers some and to glimpse the thoughts of enemies.” At the beginning of October, the American authorities once more expressed their annoyance towards the media which allow a voice to “enemies of America”. This time it was the Arabic Television station Al-Jazeera, based in Qatar that drew the ire of Bush Administration by broadcasts footage and interviews with Taliban leaders or with Osama Bin Laden. The station is famous for its 1998 interview with the man they call “the head of El Qaeda”. This interview was broadcast uncut, on several occasions, after 11 September. On ” September the American ambassador in Qatar officially intervened with the authorities in the country to protest against this “incendiary rhetoric” by the station, which is accused of supplying “biased” coverage of the events of 11 September as well as “encouraging anti-American feelings” in the Middle East. On 3 October following an interview with the US Secretary of State Colin Powell in Washington, Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa el-Thani, Emir of Qatar, and main shareholder in the station, said that US officials had asked him to use his authority to influence the coverage. The Emir said he would not interfere with the editorial policy of Al-Jazeera. The US Administration again complained about the broadcast, the day after the first US air strikes, the words of Osama Bin Laden warning the United States that it would “live in fear”. A State Department official told Reuters: “Yes to freedom but we think it’s beyond the pale to provide an open platform for these sort of violent ideas. We’re concerned everywhere that Osama bin Laden not to be able to use the media to spread his ideas”. At the same time President Bush would be willing to speak on the station. Al-Jazeera, which has had a permanent studio in Kabul since 1998, is one of the rare media still present in the Afghan capital and at Kandahar. Known for the quality of its programmes, his professionalism and independence, the “CNN of the Arab world” is regularly criticized by Arab countries which fear the platform it gives to opposition of all kinds. Conclusion: Is the First Amendment in danger? US lawyer and expert on the American Constitution Floyd Abrams says that America often debates issues like patriotism and free speech n times of crisis. He considers that the First Amendment is put to the test when the country is too. When the country felt threatened, its existence challenged, the First Amendment and its values were sometimes subordinated to other priorities. This opinion is apparently shared by several US organisations for defence of press freedom, who believe it is too soon to become alarmed by the events that have been outlined in this report. Lucy Daglish, head of the Reporters Committee for the Freedom of the Press said she was not unduly concerned. She felt that the media, like the rest of society had become hypersensitive, after the attacks. Her organisation had noted the consequences of the 11 September attacks, but without taking up a position. In an interview with head of the Committee To Protect Journalists (CPJ) Ann Cooper and deputy head Joel Simon, the main US-based worldwide press freedom organisation, said they consider that much more serious violations of press freedom were going on in other parts of the world. Ann Cooper said she thought the US State Department’s criticism of VOA demonstrated an almost instinctive reflex by governments in times of conflict, not to broadcast the words of their adversaries. In some countries this had the force of law, she said. In Russia media which published interviews with Chechen faced legal action. In Angola, police had detained journalists who quoted a rebel commander. “The crucial difference is that VOA broadcast the interview, despite the opposition of the State Department and has so far not suffered any sanction.” But Ann Coooper stressed that it was the tolerance of a free press that kept democracy alive. She did not feel that the press was in danger in the United States. “American journalists don’t need us to defend them. They have their media and the entire profession to back them in case of danger.” Tim Golstein of Columbia School of Journalism also shares this view and is confident that the American media can defend its own interests. “patriotism, independence, freedom of speech: we debate these questions practically every day whether in newspapers or in university lecture halls. But it is far too soon to draw conclusions from this debate.” Media who had so far done an excellent job in covering the attacks should now try to do the same for the rest: continue to do the same good job, but in time of conflict. Following this investigation in Paris and New York, Reporters Sans Frontières nevertheless considers that a number of points of concern remain: *	Several attempts by the US authorities aimed at regulating the work of the media have been reported: Arrests of photographers near the World Trade Center, the desire of the security forces to filter images taken at the site, an attempt to ban an interview with Mullah Omar on VOA and the pressure on the Qatar-based TV station Al-Jazeera to stop broadcasting footage of Osama Bin Laden. All these interventions, in whatever context, are unacceptable.. *	Moves against confidentiality on the internet, along with a certain number of measures within the “anti-terrorist” legislation that is currently being examined, constitute a real threat to individual and collective freedoms *	The symbiosis which appears to operate between the tone of the main audio-visual industry and official US policy could eventually militate against the watchdog role of the media in a democracy. *	The cases outlined of corporate censorship, such as the sackings of the two journalists for comments considered outrageous, could lead to self-censorship and an absence of criticism in the press. *	The setting up of “pools” of photographers at the World Trade Center site and the complexities of the accreditation system do not bode well for a free and independent coverage of the actions taken by the United States in reprisal for the terrorist attacks of 11 September.

# data[].attributes.headline
7. Patriotism and self censorship ( PT.2)

# data[].attributes.subject
7. Patriotism and self censorship ( PT.2)

# data[].attributes.body
American and foreign media, including the Internet, have been subjected to since 11 September

Many journalists and foreign observers have already cast doubt on the objectivity and independence of the American press, particularly the TV channels, in this period of "war effort"

several voices have been raised within the United States warning the public about a decline in freedom of expression and opinion

freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment of the Constitution, in exchange for tightening security

https://rsf.org/en/between-pull-patriotism-and-self-censorshipthe-us-media-torment-after-11-september?utm_source=chatgpt.com

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Between the pull of patriotism and self-censorshipThe US media in torment after 11 September

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Investigation: Alexandre Levy and Francois Bugingo New York – September 26 / October 2 2001 Observers cast doubt on the objectivity of the American press Ten years after the Gulf War, a conflict the reality of which was largely hidden from the media, the US administration has launched a new series of military operations in reaction to the waves of terrorist attacks that stroked the East coast of the United States leaving nearly 6,000 dead. The daily New York Times noted, “This surge of national pride sweeping the country after the terrorist attacks on 11 September sparks the beginnings of new, more difficult debate over balance among national security, free speech and patriotism.” The influential American newspaper said in an article on 28 September 2001 that the debate “is being played out on stages large and small”, that press comments have on several occasions provoked the fury of the authorities, along with that of the American public, and have led to sanctions including pulling of programmes, withdrawal of advertising in the media and disavowal, even outright sacking of the journalists by their employers. This comes on top of a long list of constraints and more subtle pressure that American and foreign media, including the Internet, have been subjected to since 11 September. Many journalists and foreign observers have already cast doubt on the objectivity and independence of the American press, particularly the TV channels, in this period of “war effort”. In the same way, several voices have been raised within the United States warning the public about a decline in freedom of expression and opinion, freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment of the Constitution, in exchange for tightening security. “We are facing an enemy which is exploiting what it is about our society that makes it strong and effective: freedom, openness and freedom of movement. We have to be sure that we remain an open society, in which individual freedoms are respected,” said Strobe Talbott, former number two at the US State Department in the Clinton Administration. But these voices, drowned out in the climate of media coverage devoted to covering the aftermath of the attacks, the preparations and continuing US counter-attacks, remain in a minority. Even those who are critical appear weakened by the emotion produced by this dramatic terrorist act, the death of thousands of innocent people and the suffering of their bereaved families. In the face of calls to national unity, US organisations traditionally devoted to defending individual freedoms, have been muted. They consider that it is still too soon, even inappropriate, to be raising the alarm over events considered largely ‘secondary’. “The shock of 11 September seems to have stifled the most militant of people, giving way to a de facto tolerance towards tougher than usual stances on the part of the military and the judiciary,” said journalist Sylvie Kauffman, former correspondent of the French daily Le Monde in New York, on 17 September 2001. In fact today, while countries throw themselves into a fresh military operation, the vigilance of organisations defending human rights and individual freedoms are all the more needed. A number of regimes find the temptation too great to exploit the genuine emotion produced by these attacks on the United States on 11 September to restrict freedom of the press and more generally to silence domestic opposition under the cover of the struggle against terrorism. In countries such as Pakistan, Israel, Territories under Palestinian Authority or Liberia, Reporters Sans Frontières (RSF) has recorded several incidents of press freedom violations directly linked to the events in America. While avoiding all linkage with these regimes, RSF also makes public here a serious of episodes affecting press freedom in the United States between 11 September and 7 October 20001, the date of the American military counter-attack. Most of them have been reported and commented on by the American press or by specialist Internet sites. Are these incidents of censorship or self-censorship? Are we witnessing a deliberate policy on the part of the authorities or a choice made by the main media themselves? What do American and foreign journalists working in New York think? What about organisations that defend press freedom? To try to answer these questions, two representatives of RSF went to the United States and meet representatives of the media, human rights organisations and US press specialists. The first suspect: internet The unprecedented scale of the attacks on New York and Washington, and the presumed use by the terrorists of advanced computer technology, prompted fears among internet users of a tightening of web surveillance, as called for by the security services. A number of sources report that a few hours after the attacks on 12 September, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) agents turned up at the headquarters of the main internet providers (Hotmail, AOL, Earthlink, etc) to obtain information on possible email exchanges between the terrorists. Technicians working for these companies have said off the record to the American online magazine Wired that FBI agents wanted to install the electronic bugging system “Carnivore” (recently renamed DCS 1000) on the main computer of internet access providers based in the United States. “From Tuesday evening FBI agents showed up at our workplace wanting to set up their machines. They promised to pick up the tab for all the costs of installation and use”. Another one working for Hotmail said that the FBI had asked for, and obtained, from company executives all information on accounts, whose names included the word Allah. All the major Internet access providers appear to have followed Hotmail’s example and fully collaborated with the American secret services. Once installed at an Internet access provider Carnivore can record and save all information exchanged between users. Under strong critical pressure from defenders of individual freedoms in the United States, the system had never been used until now except with the advance agreement of a judge. The “Combating terrorism Act” voted through after a half-hour debate in the Senate on 13 September, barely two days after the attacks, exempts the security services from judicial approval for the use of Carnivore. To become law this act has still to be approved by a joint commission of members of the Senate and House of Representatives. In the same vein, a number of US leaders have started attacking encryption. This procedure allows internet-users to enjoy confidentiality when exchanging information on the Internet with the use of encryption software. the best known being PGP (Pretty Good Privacy), which can be freely downloaded from a number of sites. Already last March the head of the FBI Louis Freeh said he was convinced that terrorist networks were using encryption. On 13 September the Republican senator Judd Gregg called in a speech to Congress for a worldwide ban on encryption software unless public authorities had been given the means to decode the messages. “One could fear that the authorities could take advantage of the emotion of the moment to achieve their objective: banning encryption” one American proponent of PGP told RSF. Other privacy protection militants such as John Gilmore of the American organisation Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) called for creation of more sites which would offer encryption software on open sale. After the first attack on the World Trade Center in 1993 the FBI found plans for hijacking 11 planes on the portable computer of the person who carried out the attack. The FBI took ten months to decode the files, the majority of which had been encrypted with PGP software. Defenders of encryption say to this that intelligence has already shown its weakness in this area in as much as the terrorists appear to have already used methods that avoid electronic surveillance. The creator of PGP, David Zimmerman, who was nearly jailed in the United States during the 1980 for distributing his programme, has once again defended his position in a recent interview in the magazine Futur(e)s. “Whether it’s congress, or in the courts or in the columns of newspapers, the country has already debated this question over the last decade. And together we have decided that society has more to gain than to lose from effective encryption. It should not be forgotten that encryption has saved lives in the entire world. The system is used by human rights organisations worldwide and especially under dictatorships”. (Quoted by the on-line magazine Transfert, 17 September 2001). Television: From spontaneity to patriotic rigour Filmed virtually live, the attack against the World Trade Center was at the same time tragic and spectacular, as if meant for television. “One should not forget that the terrorist target, Manhattan, is not only the financial heart but also the media capital of the country”, an American journalist pointed out. Never has such an event been filmed and photographed live both by cameras and surveillance, by amateurs and professionals. In the first days access to the sites of the attacks was not controlled. Numerous photographers and cameramen took advantage of this by getting as close as possible to the points of impact. The United States being cut off from the rest of the world with the grounding of all flights, it was only American journalists and foreign correspondents posted to New York who covered the story. Not having necessarily experienced war or natural disasters, they admitted to having had “the shock of their lives” when they heard about the terrorist attacks and went to the World Trade Centre. Either originally from New York or having lived their for many years, they said with a good deal of emotion, that they had covered “the most important story of their careers”. They did not hide their sympathy for Americans and in particular New Yorkers in this difficult period. “I reacted first as an adopted New Yorker rather than as a journalist” said Stéphanie Tremblay French programme co-ordinator for Radio Canada. “The terrorists had above all attacked my city and targeted my way of life.” “I never thought I would cover such an event in my whole life time.” said Don Emmert, head of photo for Agence France-Presse. “I am Canadian,” said Marc Greenought, radio producer for English programmes on the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC), “but during these past days I have never felt so deeply American.” Everyone interviewed by RSF in New York said so: The American television networks were the first to cover the story and they were an excellent source of information in the first days. “We edited the first reports on the attack on the World Trade Center with our eyes fixed on the television screen,” said Michel Moutot, Agence France-Presse bureau chief in New York. “The US television networks have matchless resources and they used them right away,” he continued. Eric Leser, correspondent for the French daily Le Monde agreed. He told RSF how invaluable the live coverage on American television was to his work. The organisation Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR), generally very critical of the major media in America, found that the coverage in the first days was acceptable overall. “We saw a new type of spontaneous and sincere journalism” said one of its organisers Steve Randell. But just a week later, the tone and content on the American television networks changed. “I think the turning point was George W. Bush’s speech to Congress on the 20 September 2001, said Eric Leser. “Since then the media has taken on a strongly patriotic tone and news has lost out to propaganda.” French journalists add that since then they have followed the television networks much less and used the internet, where there are a number of sites providing more critical news and different angles. Many foreign correspondents who spoke to RSF in New York said the same thing. The RSF representatives noted the change of tone and feeling on the American networks that covered President Bush’s 20 September speech, in which he called for a “war against terrorism.” The fate of the victims was relegated to second position and the networks devoted their airtime to hailing the country’s “new heroes”: firefighters, police and military staff, politicians. And above all reflecting an image of a united and defiant nation, ready to wage war on those who have attacked it. “America’s new war” and “At war with terror” (CNN) or “America fights back or counter-attacks? (CBS) were the watchwords, henceforth always accompanied by the ubiquitous stars and stripes. “Broadcasts became all beating the drum and flags flying in the wind. It was no longer news,” said another foreign correspondent Richard Hetu, a journalist with the Canadian daily La Presse. A French journalist, a Balkans specialist, who covered the NATO intervention in Serbia, agreed from New York that American television had “gone to war”: ” Instead of news broadcasts, Americans are watching advertising spots to the glory of their country,” he said. In one example the 62 regional channels of the Sinclair Broadcast group have been carrying an advertisement on their web site: “Our team supports the action of President Bush and the leaders of our nation in putting an end to terrorism.” continues the message, urging viewers who agree to send their views to the site. Reflecting on the patriotic outbursts, Stéphanie Tremblay of Radio Canada said she was “not at all surprised by this aspect of coverage on the US networks. “I knew, however, that if I want to hear a more critical report that gave more space to the news itself, I would have to watch BBC or event TV 5,” she said. Fellow journalist Chantal Lavigne, also acknowledged the American media’s desire to take part in the “war effort” said, “Most star television presenters have said that they were Americans before being journalists.” Journalists and media executives questioned by RSF, either strongly denied having produced propaganda or on the other hand, acknowledged and justified their decision. “The footage of the attack against the World Trade Center has no equivalent in the history of conflict,” said Paul Khlebnikov, journalist with the influential economic magazine Forbes. “In the war of pictures the terrorists have made a decisive point. That is why the war that the United States is going to wage should not be just military and economic but also psychological, therefore media-driven. Killing Bin Laden will not be enough he will have to be cut down symbolically. Mr Khlebnikov said he was not worried by the bellicose and propagandist tone adopted by some of the US media. He attributes it to a “civic revival” shared by all Americans. “The first days there could have been a collapse in morale of Americans. Then as in times of war, there was a civic revival which was picked up in the press. And if the media has sometimes lacked objectivity it was not under official pressure. Objectivity in journalism does not man an absence of values. The media, overall, did excellent work. Television in particular was a triumph,” he said. Paul Khlebnikov is not the only one in the American press to take this position. Sandy Genelius, spokeswoman for the American TV network CBS News is satisfied, she says in an interview with RSF, with the comments she has read in the press about the work of the channel. “We haven’t sunk into propaganda like some”, she says taking a swipe in passing at CBS’s main competitor Cable News Network International (CNN). The chairman of CNN Chris Cramer has been self-congratulatory about the work of his network from 18 September: “CNN has never failed to live up to the occasion (-) to supply balanced news. The 4,000 men and women of CNN have not escaped the shock and the horror of what has happened. However the coverage of the news that we gave the public and other media is testament to professionalism and integrity.” Missing images: censorship or “matter of taste” Barely a week after the attacks, some European media chiefs, particularly French, have questioned the impartiality of the American TV networks, suspected of not showing “all the images”, mainly those of the victims of the attacks. Then there have been criticisms of American authorities, accused of wanted to prevent some shots from the scene being taken and put out by the media. Robert Namias, head of information for the main private French television channel TF1 has several times condemned “filtering” which he considers a form of “censorship”. “I strongly regret the censorship imposed on us by the United States, the journalist told the French daily Le Figaro on 26 September 2001. “The images that the French media paid for were filtered, treated and purified by the American authorities. How do you think we can do our job when we are denied access to information and surrounded by security forces? I did not want to show horrifying images but, to do the job properly, there should be a minimum knowledge.” His opinion is shared, in varying degrees, by other French television bosses but not unanimously. “The horror of the two planes slamming into the towers. Wasn’t that enough? asks Hervé Brusini, head of national news on the public French channel France 3. His colleague on France 2 Oliver Mazerolle, considers that he would not have shown gory images but said the American channels balked at showing this type of image “for patriotic reasons”. The French journalists all join however in condemning increasing difficulty in getting access to the World Trade Center site and the unwillingness of the authorities to allow journalists to move about freely within the security perimeter. During their investigation in New York and Paris, the RSF representatives tried to find out more about the lack of images of the victims and the conditions of access to the World Trade Center site. Jim Rutenberg and Felicity Barringer, media specialists for the New York Times visited various television studios from 11 September onwards and questioned those in charge about their editorial choices. “Terrible pictures started arriving,” they said. “There was blood, there were dismembered bodies.” Despite the desire of some journalists to show these images, the head of MSNBC Erik Sorenson took the decision not to show them. “I think there are all sorts of ways to show the horror without descending into the gory,” he said Some networks, like NBC, CBS, CNN and Fox News did however broadcast footage of desperate people jumping from the blazing building. Only to regret it afterwards. “It was a bad decision, the pictures were really too disturbing”, confessed Bill Wheatley, vice-president of NBC News. Those who decided not to show the film explained: ” The question is are we just creating useless pain”. Those, who like CBS, showed them, justify themselves too: “That’s terrorism. From one point of view you want to protect the viewer but in another way you want to show just what the terrorists have really done.” Michel Moutot of Agence France-Presse also remembers these deeply disturbing photos. “By their clothes one could easily recognise people who jumped from the windows”. However he considered them to be “acceptable”. In fact, several photos of this scene, taken by photographers from the major international agencies appeared during the course of the week in the American and European press. Editors who published the, like Glenn Guzzo of the daily Denver Post, spoke of the virulent objections from readers. “Haven’t you any feelings, any respect for the families who have lost their loved-ones?” one reader asked indignantly. At this stage is strongly appears that a number of distressing photos were taken and used by the American media. It was they who decided, according to their own conscience, whether to use them or not. “It doesn’t look like the authorities were trying to control these pictures, given that that they didn’t even know how to protect the president,” said one observer. “The refusal to show the horrifying pictures was an editorial decision by my colleaguesm,“adds Paul Khlebnikov of Forbes. “As citizens we had to ask ourselves the question: should one show bits of bodies in a period of mourning and national remembrance?” It was indeed an “editorial choice” said Sandy Genelius of CBS News to RSF. “We had sensitive film, we had gory images, but each time we asked ourselves: What more are we contributing to history by showing them? So we decided not to show the pictures just for the pleasure of demonstrating that we had them”. This sudden reticence of the part of the American media has interested a number of foreign observers. In an analytical piece headed “The faceless dead of the World Trade Center,” the journalist Michel Guerin, specialist in images at the French daily Le Monde, stated the paradox: “5,500 people died or disappeared on the black day of 11 September...but practically no image of the bodies has been shown on the television or published in the press” (21 September 2001). “A decency of variable shape, says Dominique Wolton, head of research at the National Centre for Scientific Research (CNRS) quoted by the French daily Liberation (19 September 2001). “This should be a big lesson in decency to western media who don’t hesitate to show massacres when they happen in Rwanda...” he added. Others like the photo historian Marc Ferro do not find it surprising. “During wars you never show your own dead, only those of your adversaries. The Americans want to limit the images of the trauma they have suffered, of defeat, the affront and the mortification.” Sandy Genelius, spokeswoman for CBS News, to whom RSF put these questions, once again staunchly defended herself against applying double standards. “It’s not true that we used different standards. We applied the same rules when we filmed in Rwanda as at the World Trade Center.” An RSF representative also discussed this question with Tom Golstein, emeritus professor at the prestigious Columbia School of Journalism in south Manhattan. He considered that it was simply a “question of taste”. This opinion seems to be shared by a significant majority of American and even foreign journalists. Like Canadian journalist Marc Greenought of CBC, they did not hide their astonishment, even irritation at the criticism from the European media on the absence of more distressing and gory images of the World Trade Center victims and the restricted access to the site. “I do not understand,” he told RSF. “As a journalist I had all the access I needed, the suffering, the emotion. No need to go searching for blood under the ruins for that.” Arrests and calls to order In the first days after the attacks of 11 September, the American media certainly adopted a common position which was not to “add horror on horror” and to take part in the resurgence of patriotic national feeling. In doing this, those in charge followed the wishes of a large majority of the public which reacted strongly to the first images shown after the attacks. Added to this were very strict rules of access to the site of the disaster, injunctions by the various authorities along with sanctions against recalcitrant photographers. The perimeter of the World Trade Center was quickly secured and surrounded by US security forces after the confusion of the first few days. “The New York police were generally co-operative with the press and allowed comings and goings on the site. The arrival on the scene of the National Guard put an end to this situation,” remembered M. Moutot of AFP. Barriers appeared all around the site, the security perimeter was extended by several streets to the south and north of Manhattan. A complex system of accreditation was then established Involving both police and the military. According to the daily Los Angeles Times, from 19 September onwards the police started seizing the films of photographers and tourists close to the site. Many photographers had their access passes withdrawn for failing to respect the orders of the authorities. The American press freedom organisation The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press (RCFP) said that at least four journalists were arrested and accused of breaking the conditions of access to the World Trade Center site. Among them was Ian Austin, photographer for the Agency Aurora Quanta Productions, who was detained for three days before being released without any charge. All journalists working for the daily Dallas Daily News had their accreditation withdrawn because of the arrest and “bad conduct” of one of their photographers. In an interview with RSF, Don Emmert, head of photo at AFP in New York discussed the consequences of the restrictions and the calls to order on the work of his agency. “In photo terms, whole segments of this drama have not been covered. The reason is simple : they wouldn’t let us work. We could not satisfy the demands of our clients from abroad. For instance, we could not go to the hospitals and we can no longer freely take pictures of the World Trade Center after the disaster.” “The office of the mayor asked us not to show firefighters recovering the bodies of their colleagues.” continued Don Emmert, who also spoke out against the current working conditions on the site. “It’s like a police state, he said. They let us shoot in organized pools only what the authorities want us to shoot. The ones who move freely around are the Marine photographers and the photographers from the Federal Emergency Agency. They supply agencies with very pretty photographs Even if the American press continues to carry photos of the ruins of the World Trade Centre, all media, including the tabloids, have to accept pools, of shots taken from a distance and showing only the wide angle of the site. For some journalists working in New York the reply to the debate on the absence of images of the victims of the World Trade Center is very simple. “I quite honestly doubt that that there is much left to show,” suggests the French daily Le Monde’s correspondent. His view is shared by Richard Hetu of the Canadian daily La Presse, who believes that the bodies literally “disintegrated”. The World Trade Center has become an enormous crematorium,” he continued. “As I wrote in one article, the dust from the debris of the World Trade Center that we are breathing still probably includes the ashes of the victims.” America should not speak with the same voice as its enemies Several other incidents, comparable to press freedom violations, characterised the life of the media after the 11 September. They were caused by interventions by the authorities critical of one media or another, or by the owners of the media themselves who saw it as a good moment to sanction a particular journalist for “subversive” comments, and sometimes by both at once, without being able to establish with that media what the real reason for the sanction was. So when the television network ABC decided on 19 September to no longer broadcast images of the two planes slamming into the World Trade Center towers, it was officially so as not to “banalise the dramatic event”. Many observers suspect however that it was the result of pressure from the authorities and in particular because of a desire expressed by the owner of Disney. The most flagrant examples of corporate censorship - when media bosses sanction a journalist for his or her opinions - came from the dailies The Texas City Sun and the Daily Courier in the state of Oregon. On 23 September Les Daughty Jr, owner of the Texas City Sun for 17 years writes an apology to his readers for an article by one of his editors-in-chief Ron Gutting, who said in an article critical of President Bush on the day after the attacks, that he was “flying around the country like a scared child seeking refuge in his mother’s bed after having a nightmare”. In an article on the front page of the newspaper Daughty apologised to all the leaders of the country and particularly to President George Bush for having published such an article which could only provoke “anger and disgust”. Ron Gutting was sacked from the newspaper. His colleague Dan Guthrie of the Daily Courier at Grant’s Pass met the same fate and for similar reasons. He wrote on the 15 September on a humorous page in the newspaper that George Bush had “skedaddled” in the face of the attacks, accusing him of being “an embarrassment” for “hiding in a Nebraska hole” on the day of the terrorist attacks. The newspaper’s editor-in-chief Dennis Mack wrote for his readers that to say that the head of state was hiding at a time when America was trying to unite after the bloody attacks was neither responsible nor appropriate. As a result Dan Guthrie lost his job but for “personal reasons”, according to his employer.` In neither case was there any apparent pressure on the part of the authorities. It was the fierce reactions of the newspapers’ readers that were decisive in the decision to sack the journalists. In another case, that was widely reported in the US press star television presenter Bill Maher drew a strong reaction from the White House. On his talk show “Politically Incorrect” on ABC, Bill Maher said on 17 September, “We have been the cowards, lobbing cruise missiles from 2,000 miles away. That’s cowardly. Staying in the airplane when it hits the building, say what you want about it, It’s not cowardly”. These comments drew the rage of many viewers and led to the immediate withdrawal of the programme’s two main sponsors Federal Express and Sears. A number of television stations linked to the ABC network, mainly in New York and Washington, pulled the Bill Maher programme, especially after White House spokesman Ari Fleisher called his remarks “unpatriotic”. He added, “It was a terrible thing to say and it’s unfortunate.” He went on, “The reminder is to all Americans that they need to watch what they say, watch what they do”. Journalists who heard his statement noted later that “watch what they say” did not appear in the text of this official record of the conference. Another decision of the US administration that drew much attention was the attempt by the authorities to block the broadcasting at the end of September of an interview with the spiritual leader of the Taliban Mullah Omar on the Congress-financed Voice of America. The station that is broadcast to 50 countries worldwide, to explain America to the world, normally has reasonable editorial independence. Claude Porsella, head of the VOA French service told RSF about the content of the programme. “One of my colleagues in the Pashto language service had the scoop of his life: an interview with Mullah Omar. VOA never intended to broadcast the entire interview, extracts of which were included in some general reporting including comments from the US Administration, analysis by an Islamic expert and the position of the Northern Alliance. Mullah Omar said he was convinced that Osama Bin Laden could not be behind the attacks.” The State Department, which has a seat on the VOA board, called on the other board members to ban the interview, scheduled for 28 September. “VOA is not the voice of Mullah Omar and is not the voice of the Taliban”, said one American official. He said it would be “inappropriate” to spend the backers money to broadcast comments of the head of the movement who was protecting the terrorists behind the 11 September attacks. “This decision caused huge dismay among VOA journalists,” said Claude Porsella. The head of news protested and a petition was signed by 150 journalists. Faced with this reaction and strong interest in the press, VOA reversed its decision and decided to go ahead with the broadcast on 25 September. So far there have been no sanctions on the part of the US Administration. “We won a battle,” said Claude Porsella. “But I doubt the story will end there. Heads will probably roll,” he feared. On this occasion the VOA journalists were able to win the solidarity of their colleagues in the major US media, particularly the written press. In the same way the influential daily The Washington Post opened its columns to journalist from VOA before taking a position in an editorial on 26 September. This read: “The episode revealed an impulse to squelch facts that is never far beneath the surface in time of war or quasi-war, an impulse that is hardly less noxious when it retreats promptly under challenge. “But the time for editors to resist the censoring and self-censoring instinct is before it is acted upon, not after. We hear frequently that the only way to beat the terrorists is to hold on to this nation’s freedoms. Those include honoring Americans’ right to hear commentary that bothers some and to glimpse the thoughts of enemies.” At the beginning of October, the American authorities once more expressed their annoyance towards the media which allow a voice to “enemies of America”. This time it was the Arabic Television station Al-Jazeera, based in Qatar that drew the ire of Bush Administration by broadcasts footage and interviews with Taliban leaders or with Osama Bin Laden. The station is famous for its 1998 interview with the man they call “the head of El Qaeda”. This interview was broadcast uncut, on several occasions, after 11 September. On ” September the American ambassador in Qatar officially intervened with the authorities in the country to protest against this “incendiary rhetoric” by the station, which is accused of supplying “biased” coverage of the events of 11 September as well as “encouraging anti-American feelings” in the Middle East. On 3 October following an interview with the US Secretary of State Colin Powell in Washington, Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa el-Thani, Emir of Qatar, and main shareholder in the station, said that US officials had asked him to use his authority to influence the coverage. The Emir said he would not interfere with the editorial policy of Al-Jazeera. The US Administration again complained about the broadcast, the day after the first US air strikes, the words of Osama Bin Laden warning the United States that it would “live in fear”. A State Department official told Reuters: “Yes to freedom but we think it’s beyond the pale to provide an open platform for these sort of violent ideas. We’re concerned everywhere that Osama bin Laden not to be able to use the media to spread his ideas”. At the same time President Bush would be willing to speak on the station. Al-Jazeera, which has had a permanent studio in Kabul since 1998, is one of the rare media still present in the Afghan capital and at Kandahar. Known for the quality of its programmes, his professionalism and independence, the “CNN of the Arab world” is regularly criticized by Arab countries which fear the platform it gives to opposition of all kinds. Conclusion: Is the First Amendment in danger? US lawyer and expert on the American Constitution Floyd Abrams says that America often debates issues like patriotism and free speech n times of crisis. He considers that the First Amendment is put to the test when the country is too. When the country felt threatened, its existence challenged, the First Amendment and its values were sometimes subordinated to other priorities. This opinion is apparently shared by several US organisations for defence of press freedom, who believe it is too soon to become alarmed by the events that have been outlined in this report. Lucy Daglish, head of the Reporters Committee for the Freedom of the Press said she was not unduly concerned. She felt that the media, like the rest of society had become hypersensitive, after the attacks. Her organisation had noted the consequences of the 11 September attacks, but without taking up a position. In an interview with head of the Committee To Protect Journalists (CPJ) Ann Cooper and deputy head Joel Simon, the main US-based worldwide press freedom organisation, said they consider that much more serious violations of press freedom were going on in other parts of the world. Ann Cooper said she thought the US State Department’s criticism of VOA demonstrated an almost instinctive reflex by governments in times of conflict, not to broadcast the words of their adversaries. In some countries this had the force of law, she said. In Russia media which published interviews with Chechen faced legal action. In Angola, police had detained journalists who quoted a rebel commander. “The crucial difference is that VOA broadcast the interview, despite the opposition of the State Department and has so far not suffered any sanction.” But Ann Coooper stressed that it was the tolerance of a free press that kept democracy alive. She did not feel that the press was in danger in the United States. “American journalists don’t need us to defend them. They have their media and the entire profession to back them in case of danger.” Tim Golstein of Columbia School of Journalism also shares this view and is confident that the American media can defend its own interests. “patriotism, independence, freedom of speech: we debate these questions practically every day whether in newspapers or in university lecture halls. But it is far too soon to draw conclusions from this debate.” Media who had so far done an excellent job in covering the attacks should now try to do the same for the rest: continue to do the same good job, but in time of conflict. Following this investigation in Paris and New York, Reporters Sans Frontières nevertheless considers that a number of points of concern remain: *	Several attempts by the US authorities aimed at regulating the work of the media have been reported: Arrests of photographers near the World Trade Center, the desire of the security forces to filter images taken at the site, an attempt to ban an interview with Mullah Omar on VOA and the pressure on the Qatar-based TV station Al-Jazeera to stop broadcasting footage of Osama Bin Laden. All these interventions, in whatever context, are unacceptable.. *	Moves against confidentiality on the internet, along with a certain number of measures within the “anti-terrorist” legislation that is currently being examined, constitute a real threat to individual and collective freedoms *	The symbiosis which appears to operate between the tone of the main audio-visual industry and official US policy could eventually militate against the watchdog role of the media in a democracy. *	The cases outlined of corporate censorship, such as the sackings of the two journalists for comments considered outrageous, could lead to self-censorship and an absence of criticism in the press. *	The setting up of “pools” of photographers at the World Trade Center site and the complexities of the accreditation system do not bode well for a free and independent coverage of the actions taken by the United States in reprisal for the terrorist attacks of 11 September.

# data[].attributes.headline
8. Patriotism and self censorship (PT.3)

# data[].attributes.subject
8. Patriotism and self censorship (PT.3)

# data[].attributes.body
United States warning the public about a decline in freedom of expression and opinion, freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment of the Constitution

We have to be sure that we remain an open society, in which individual freedoms are respected," said Strobe Talbott

US counter-attacks, remain in a minority

critical appear weakened by the emotion produced by this dramatic terrorist act

critical appear weakened by the emotion produced by this dramatic terrorist act

"The shock of 11 September seems to have stifled the most militant of people, giving way to a de facto tolerance towards tougher than usual stances on the part of the military and the judiciary," said journalist Sylvie Kauffman

https://rsf.org/en/between-pull-patriotism-and-self-censorshipthe-us-media-torment-after-11-september?utm_source=chatgpt.com

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Between the pull of patriotism and self-censorshipThe US media in torment after 11 September

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Investigation: Alexandre Levy and Francois Bugingo New York – September 26 / October 2 2001 Observers cast doubt on the objectivity of the American press Ten years after the Gulf War, a conflict the reality of which was largely hidden from the media, the US administration has launched a new series of military operations in reaction to the waves of terrorist attacks that stroked the East coast of the United States leaving nearly 6,000 dead. The daily New York Times noted, “This surge of national pride sweeping the country after the terrorist attacks on 11 September sparks the beginnings of new, more difficult debate over balance among national security, free speech and patriotism.” The influential American newspaper said in an article on 28 September 2001 that the debate “is being played out on stages large and small”, that press comments have on several occasions provoked the fury of the authorities, along with that of the American public, and have led to sanctions including pulling of programmes, withdrawal of advertising in the media and disavowal, even outright sacking of the journalists by their employers. This comes on top of a long list of constraints and more subtle pressure that American and foreign media, including the Internet, have been subjected to since 11 September. Many journalists and foreign observers have already cast doubt on the objectivity and independence of the American press, particularly the TV channels, in this period of “war effort”. In the same way, several voices have been raised within the United States warning the public about a decline in freedom of expression and opinion, freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment of the Constitution, in exchange for tightening security. “We are facing an enemy which is exploiting what it is about our society that makes it strong and effective: freedom, openness and freedom of movement. We have to be sure that we remain an open society, in which individual freedoms are respected,” said Strobe Talbott, former number two at the US State Department in the Clinton Administration. But these voices, drowned out in the climate of media coverage devoted to covering the aftermath of the attacks, the preparations and continuing US counter-attacks, remain in a minority. Even those who are critical appear weakened by the emotion produced by this dramatic terrorist act, the death of thousands of innocent people and the suffering of their bereaved families. In the face of calls to national unity, US organisations traditionally devoted to defending individual freedoms, have been muted. They consider that it is still too soon, even inappropriate, to be raising the alarm over events considered largely ‘secondary’. “The shock of 11 September seems to have stifled the most militant of people, giving way to a de facto tolerance towards tougher than usual stances on the part of the military and the judiciary,” said journalist Sylvie Kauffman, former correspondent of the French daily Le Monde in New York, on 17 September 2001. In fact today, while countries throw themselves into a fresh military operation, the vigilance of organisations defending human rights and individual freedoms are all the more needed. A number of regimes find the temptation too great to exploit the genuine emotion produced by these attacks on the United States on 11 September to restrict freedom of the press and more generally to silence domestic opposition under the cover of the struggle against terrorism. In countries such as Pakistan, Israel, Territories under Palestinian Authority or Liberia, Reporters Sans Frontières (RSF) has recorded several incidents of press freedom violations directly linked to the events in America. While avoiding all linkage with these regimes, RSF also makes public here a serious of episodes affecting press freedom in the United States between 11 September and 7 October 20001, the date of the American military counter-attack. Most of them have been reported and commented on by the American press or by specialist Internet sites. Are these incidents of censorship or self-censorship? Are we witnessing a deliberate policy on the part of the authorities or a choice made by the main media themselves? What do American and foreign journalists working in New York think? What about organisations that defend press freedom? To try to answer these questions, two representatives of RSF went to the United States and meet representatives of the media, human rights organisations and US press specialists. The first suspect: internet The unprecedented scale of the attacks on New York and Washington, and the presumed use by the terrorists of advanced computer technology, prompted fears among internet users of a tightening of web surveillance, as called for by the security services. A number of sources report that a few hours after the attacks on 12 September, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) agents turned up at the headquarters of the main internet providers (Hotmail, AOL, Earthlink, etc) to obtain information on possible email exchanges between the terrorists. Technicians working for these companies have said off the record to the American online magazine Wired that FBI agents wanted to install the electronic bugging system “Carnivore” (recently renamed DCS 1000) on the main computer of internet access providers based in the United States. “From Tuesday evening FBI agents showed up at our workplace wanting to set up their machines. They promised to pick up the tab for all the costs of installation and use”. Another one working for Hotmail said that the FBI had asked for, and obtained, from company executives all information on accounts, whose names included the word Allah. All the major Internet access providers appear to have followed Hotmail’s example and fully collaborated with the American secret services. Once installed at an Internet access provider Carnivore can record and save all information exchanged between users. Under strong critical pressure from defenders of individual freedoms in the United States, the system had never been used until now except with the advance agreement of a judge. The “Combating terrorism Act” voted through after a half-hour debate in the Senate on 13 September, barely two days after the attacks, exempts the security services from judicial approval for the use of Carnivore. To become law this act has still to be approved by a joint commission of members of the Senate and House of Representatives. In the same vein, a number of US leaders have started attacking encryption. This procedure allows internet-users to enjoy confidentiality when exchanging information on the Internet with the use of encryption software. the best known being PGP (Pretty Good Privacy), which can be freely downloaded from a number of sites. Already last March the head of the FBI Louis Freeh said he was convinced that terrorist networks were using encryption. On 13 September the Republican senator Judd Gregg called in a speech to Congress for a worldwide ban on encryption software unless public authorities had been given the means to decode the messages. “One could fear that the authorities could take advantage of the emotion of the moment to achieve their objective: banning encryption” one American proponent of PGP told RSF. Other privacy protection militants such as John Gilmore of the American organisation Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) called for creation of more sites which would offer encryption software on open sale. After the first attack on the World Trade Center in 1993 the FBI found plans for hijacking 11 planes on the portable computer of the person who carried out the attack. The FBI took ten months to decode the files, the majority of which had been encrypted with PGP software. Defenders of encryption say to this that intelligence has already shown its weakness in this area in as much as the terrorists appear to have already used methods that avoid electronic surveillance. The creator of PGP, David Zimmerman, who was nearly jailed in the United States during the 1980 for distributing his programme, has once again defended his position in a recent interview in the magazine Futur(e)s. “Whether it’s congress, or in the courts or in the columns of newspapers, the country has already debated this question over the last decade. And together we have decided that society has more to gain than to lose from effective encryption. It should not be forgotten that encryption has saved lives in the entire world. The system is used by human rights organisations worldwide and especially under dictatorships”. (Quoted by the on-line magazine Transfert, 17 September 2001). Television: From spontaneity to patriotic rigour Filmed virtually live, the attack against the World Trade Center was at the same time tragic and spectacular, as if meant for television. “One should not forget that the terrorist target, Manhattan, is not only the financial heart but also the media capital of the country”, an American journalist pointed out. Never has such an event been filmed and photographed live both by cameras and surveillance, by amateurs and professionals. In the first days access to the sites of the attacks was not controlled. Numerous photographers and cameramen took advantage of this by getting as close as possible to the points of impact. The United States being cut off from the rest of the world with the grounding of all flights, it was only American journalists and foreign correspondents posted to New York who covered the story. Not having necessarily experienced war or natural disasters, they admitted to having had “the shock of their lives” when they heard about the terrorist attacks and went to the World Trade Centre. Either originally from New York or having lived their for many years, they said with a good deal of emotion, that they had covered “the most important story of their careers”. They did not hide their sympathy for Americans and in particular New Yorkers in this difficult period. “I reacted first as an adopted New Yorker rather than as a journalist” said Stéphanie Tremblay French programme co-ordinator for Radio Canada. “The terrorists had above all attacked my city and targeted my way of life.” “I never thought I would cover such an event in my whole life time.” said Don Emmert, head of photo for Agence France-Presse. “I am Canadian,” said Marc Greenought, radio producer for English programmes on the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC), “but during these past days I have never felt so deeply American.” Everyone interviewed by RSF in New York said so: The American television networks were the first to cover the story and they were an excellent source of information in the first days. “We edited the first reports on the attack on the World Trade Center with our eyes fixed on the television screen,” said Michel Moutot, Agence France-Presse bureau chief in New York. “The US television networks have matchless resources and they used them right away,” he continued. Eric Leser, correspondent for the French daily Le Monde agreed. He told RSF how invaluable the live coverage on American television was to his work. The organisation Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR), generally very critical of the major media in America, found that the coverage in the first days was acceptable overall. “We saw a new type of spontaneous and sincere journalism” said one of its organisers Steve Randell. But just a week later, the tone and content on the American television networks changed. “I think the turning point was George W. Bush’s speech to Congress on the 20 September 2001, said Eric Leser. “Since then the media has taken on a strongly patriotic tone and news has lost out to propaganda.” French journalists add that since then they have followed the television networks much less and used the internet, where there are a number of sites providing more critical news and different angles. Many foreign correspondents who spoke to RSF in New York said the same thing. The RSF representatives noted the change of tone and feeling on the American networks that covered President Bush’s 20 September speech, in which he called for a “war against terrorism.” The fate of the victims was relegated to second position and the networks devoted their airtime to hailing the country’s “new heroes”: firefighters, police and military staff, politicians. And above all reflecting an image of a united and defiant nation, ready to wage war on those who have attacked it. “America’s new war” and “At war with terror” (CNN) or “America fights back or counter-attacks? (CBS) were the watchwords, henceforth always accompanied by the ubiquitous stars and stripes. “Broadcasts became all beating the drum and flags flying in the wind. It was no longer news,” said another foreign correspondent Richard Hetu, a journalist with the Canadian daily La Presse. A French journalist, a Balkans specialist, who covered the NATO intervention in Serbia, agreed from New York that American television had “gone to war”: ” Instead of news broadcasts, Americans are watching advertising spots to the glory of their country,” he said. In one example the 62 regional channels of the Sinclair Broadcast group have been carrying an advertisement on their web site: “Our team supports the action of President Bush and the leaders of our nation in putting an end to terrorism.” continues the message, urging viewers who agree to send their views to the site. Reflecting on the patriotic outbursts, Stéphanie Tremblay of Radio Canada said she was “not at all surprised by this aspect of coverage on the US networks. “I knew, however, that if I want to hear a more critical report that gave more space to the news itself, I would have to watch BBC or event TV 5,” she said. Fellow journalist Chantal Lavigne, also acknowledged the American media’s desire to take part in the “war effort” said, “Most star television presenters have said that they were Americans before being journalists.” Journalists and media executives questioned by RSF, either strongly denied having produced propaganda or on the other hand, acknowledged and justified their decision. “The footage of the attack against the World Trade Center has no equivalent in the history of conflict,” said Paul Khlebnikov, journalist with the influential economic magazine Forbes. “In the war of pictures the terrorists have made a decisive point. That is why the war that the United States is going to wage should not be just military and economic but also psychological, therefore media-driven. Killing Bin Laden will not be enough he will have to be cut down symbolically. Mr Khlebnikov said he was not worried by the bellicose and propagandist tone adopted by some of the US media. He attributes it to a “civic revival” shared by all Americans. “The first days there could have been a collapse in morale of Americans. Then as in times of war, there was a civic revival which was picked up in the press. And if the media has sometimes lacked objectivity it was not under official pressure. Objectivity in journalism does not man an absence of values. The media, overall, did excellent work. Television in particular was a triumph,” he said. Paul Khlebnikov is not the only one in the American press to take this position. Sandy Genelius, spokeswoman for the American TV network CBS News is satisfied, she says in an interview with RSF, with the comments she has read in the press about the work of the channel. “We haven’t sunk into propaganda like some”, she says taking a swipe in passing at CBS’s main competitor Cable News Network International (CNN). The chairman of CNN Chris Cramer has been self-congratulatory about the work of his network from 18 September: “CNN has never failed to live up to the occasion (-) to supply balanced news. The 4,000 men and women of CNN have not escaped the shock and the horror of what has happened. However the coverage of the news that we gave the public and other media is testament to professionalism and integrity.” Missing images: censorship or “matter of taste” Barely a week after the attacks, some European media chiefs, particularly French, have questioned the impartiality of the American TV networks, suspected of not showing “all the images”, mainly those of the victims of the attacks. Then there have been criticisms of American authorities, accused of wanted to prevent some shots from the scene being taken and put out by the media. Robert Namias, head of information for the main private French television channel TF1 has several times condemned “filtering” which he considers a form of “censorship”. “I strongly regret the censorship imposed on us by the United States, the journalist told the French daily Le Figaro on 26 September 2001. “The images that the French media paid for were filtered, treated and purified by the American authorities. How do you think we can do our job when we are denied access to information and surrounded by security forces? I did not want to show horrifying images but, to do the job properly, there should be a minimum knowledge.” His opinion is shared, in varying degrees, by other French television bosses but not unanimously. “The horror of the two planes slamming into the towers. Wasn’t that enough? asks Hervé Brusini, head of national news on the public French channel France 3. His colleague on France 2 Oliver Mazerolle, considers that he would not have shown gory images but said the American channels balked at showing this type of image “for patriotic reasons”. The French journalists all join however in condemning increasing difficulty in getting access to the World Trade Center site and the unwillingness of the authorities to allow journalists to move about freely within the security perimeter. During their investigation in New York and Paris, the RSF representatives tried to find out more about the lack of images of the victims and the conditions of access to the World Trade Center site. Jim Rutenberg and Felicity Barringer, media specialists for the New York Times visited various television studios from 11 September onwards and questioned those in charge about their editorial choices. “Terrible pictures started arriving,” they said. “There was blood, there were dismembered bodies.” Despite the desire of some journalists to show these images, the head of MSNBC Erik Sorenson took the decision not to show them. “I think there are all sorts of ways to show the horror without descending into the gory,” he said Some networks, like NBC, CBS, CNN and Fox News did however broadcast footage of desperate people jumping from the blazing building. Only to regret it afterwards. “It was a bad decision, the pictures were really too disturbing”, confessed Bill Wheatley, vice-president of NBC News. Those who decided not to show the film explained: ” The question is are we just creating useless pain”. Those, who like CBS, showed them, justify themselves too: “That’s terrorism. From one point of view you want to protect the viewer but in another way you want to show just what the terrorists have really done.” Michel Moutot of Agence France-Presse also remembers these deeply disturbing photos. “By their clothes one could easily recognise people who jumped from the windows”. However he considered them to be “acceptable”. In fact, several photos of this scene, taken by photographers from the major international agencies appeared during the course of the week in the American and European press. Editors who published the, like Glenn Guzzo of the daily Denver Post, spoke of the virulent objections from readers. “Haven’t you any feelings, any respect for the families who have lost their loved-ones?” one reader asked indignantly. At this stage is strongly appears that a number of distressing photos were taken and used by the American media. It was they who decided, according to their own conscience, whether to use them or not. “It doesn’t look like the authorities were trying to control these pictures, given that that they didn’t even know how to protect the president,” said one observer. “The refusal to show the horrifying pictures was an editorial decision by my colleaguesm,“adds Paul Khlebnikov of Forbes. “As citizens we had to ask ourselves the question: should one show bits of bodies in a period of mourning and national remembrance?” It was indeed an “editorial choice” said Sandy Genelius of CBS News to RSF. “We had sensitive film, we had gory images, but each time we asked ourselves: What more are we contributing to history by showing them? So we decided not to show the pictures just for the pleasure of demonstrating that we had them”. This sudden reticence of the part of the American media has interested a number of foreign observers. In an analytical piece headed “The faceless dead of the World Trade Center,” the journalist Michel Guerin, specialist in images at the French daily Le Monde, stated the paradox: “5,500 people died or disappeared on the black day of 11 September...but practically no image of the bodies has been shown on the television or published in the press” (21 September 2001). “A decency of variable shape, says Dominique Wolton, head of research at the National Centre for Scientific Research (CNRS) quoted by the French daily Liberation (19 September 2001). “This should be a big lesson in decency to western media who don’t hesitate to show massacres when they happen in Rwanda...” he added. Others like the photo historian Marc Ferro do not find it surprising. “During wars you never show your own dead, only those of your adversaries. The Americans want to limit the images of the trauma they have suffered, of defeat, the affront and the mortification.” Sandy Genelius, spokeswoman for CBS News, to whom RSF put these questions, once again staunchly defended herself against applying double standards. “It’s not true that we used different standards. We applied the same rules when we filmed in Rwanda as at the World Trade Center.” An RSF representative also discussed this question with Tom Golstein, emeritus professor at the prestigious Columbia School of Journalism in south Manhattan. He considered that it was simply a “question of taste”. This opinion seems to be shared by a significant majority of American and even foreign journalists. Like Canadian journalist Marc Greenought of CBC, they did not hide their astonishment, even irritation at the criticism from the European media on the absence of more distressing and gory images of the World Trade Center victims and the restricted access to the site. “I do not understand,” he told RSF. “As a journalist I had all the access I needed, the suffering, the emotion. No need to go searching for blood under the ruins for that.” Arrests and calls to order In the first days after the attacks of 11 September, the American media certainly adopted a common position which was not to “add horror on horror” and to take part in the resurgence of patriotic national feeling. In doing this, those in charge followed the wishes of a large majority of the public which reacted strongly to the first images shown after the attacks. Added to this were very strict rules of access to the site of the disaster, injunctions by the various authorities along with sanctions against recalcitrant photographers. The perimeter of the World Trade Center was quickly secured and surrounded by US security forces after the confusion of the first few days. “The New York police were generally co-operative with the press and allowed comings and goings on the site. The arrival on the scene of the National Guard put an end to this situation,” remembered M. Moutot of AFP. Barriers appeared all around the site, the security perimeter was extended by several streets to the south and north of Manhattan. A complex system of accreditation was then established Involving both police and the military. According to the daily Los Angeles Times, from 19 September onwards the police started seizing the films of photographers and tourists close to the site. Many photographers had their access passes withdrawn for failing to respect the orders of the authorities. The American press freedom organisation The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press (RCFP) said that at least four journalists were arrested and accused of breaking the conditions of access to the World Trade Center site. Among them was Ian Austin, photographer for the Agency Aurora Quanta Productions, who was detained for three days before being released without any charge. All journalists working for the daily Dallas Daily News had their accreditation withdrawn because of the arrest and “bad conduct” of one of their photographers. In an interview with RSF, Don Emmert, head of photo at AFP in New York discussed the consequences of the restrictions and the calls to order on the work of his agency. “In photo terms, whole segments of this drama have not been covered. The reason is simple : they wouldn’t let us work. We could not satisfy the demands of our clients from abroad. For instance, we could not go to the hospitals and we can no longer freely take pictures of the World Trade Center after the disaster.” “The office of the mayor asked us not to show firefighters recovering the bodies of their colleagues.” continued Don Emmert, who also spoke out against the current working conditions on the site. “It’s like a police state, he said. They let us shoot in organized pools only what the authorities want us to shoot. The ones who move freely around are the Marine photographers and the photographers from the Federal Emergency Agency. They supply agencies with very pretty photographs Even if the American press continues to carry photos of the ruins of the World Trade Centre, all media, including the tabloids, have to accept pools, of shots taken from a distance and showing only the wide angle of the site. For some journalists working in New York the reply to the debate on the absence of images of the victims of the World Trade Center is very simple. “I quite honestly doubt that that there is much left to show,” suggests the French daily Le Monde’s correspondent. His view is shared by Richard Hetu of the Canadian daily La Presse, who believes that the bodies literally “disintegrated”. The World Trade Center has become an enormous crematorium,” he continued. “As I wrote in one article, the dust from the debris of the World Trade Center that we are breathing still probably includes the ashes of the victims.” America should not speak with the same voice as its enemies Several other incidents, comparable to press freedom violations, characterised the life of the media after the 11 September. They were caused by interventions by the authorities critical of one media or another, or by the owners of the media themselves who saw it as a good moment to sanction a particular journalist for “subversive” comments, and sometimes by both at once, without being able to establish with that media what the real reason for the sanction was. So when the television network ABC decided on 19 September to no longer broadcast images of the two planes slamming into the World Trade Center towers, it was officially so as not to “banalise the dramatic event”. Many observers suspect however that it was the result of pressure from the authorities and in particular because of a desire expressed by the owner of Disney. The most flagrant examples of corporate censorship - when media bosses sanction a journalist for his or her opinions - came from the dailies The Texas City Sun and the Daily Courier in the state of Oregon. On 23 September Les Daughty Jr, owner of the Texas City Sun for 17 years writes an apology to his readers for an article by one of his editors-in-chief Ron Gutting, who said in an article critical of President Bush on the day after the attacks, that he was “flying around the country like a scared child seeking refuge in his mother’s bed after having a nightmare”. In an article on the front page of the newspaper Daughty apologised to all the leaders of the country and particularly to President George Bush for having published such an article which could only provoke “anger and disgust”. Ron Gutting was sacked from the newspaper. His colleague Dan Guthrie of the Daily Courier at Grant’s Pass met the same fate and for similar reasons. He wrote on the 15 September on a humorous page in the newspaper that George Bush had “skedaddled” in the face of the attacks, accusing him of being “an embarrassment” for “hiding in a Nebraska hole” on the day of the terrorist attacks. The newspaper’s editor-in-chief Dennis Mack wrote for his readers that to say that the head of state was hiding at a time when America was trying to unite after the bloody attacks was neither responsible nor appropriate. As a result Dan Guthrie lost his job but for “personal reasons”, according to his employer.` In neither case was there any apparent pressure on the part of the authorities. It was the fierce reactions of the newspapers’ readers that were decisive in the decision to sack the journalists. In another case, that was widely reported in the US press star television presenter Bill Maher drew a strong reaction from the White House. On his talk show “Politically Incorrect” on ABC, Bill Maher said on 17 September, “We have been the cowards, lobbing cruise missiles from 2,000 miles away. That’s cowardly. Staying in the airplane when it hits the building, say what you want about it, It’s not cowardly”. These comments drew the rage of many viewers and led to the immediate withdrawal of the programme’s two main sponsors Federal Express and Sears. A number of television stations linked to the ABC network, mainly in New York and Washington, pulled the Bill Maher programme, especially after White House spokesman Ari Fleisher called his remarks “unpatriotic”. He added, “It was a terrible thing to say and it’s unfortunate.” He went on, “The reminder is to all Americans that they need to watch what they say, watch what they do”. Journalists who heard his statement noted later that “watch what they say” did not appear in the text of this official record of the conference. Another decision of the US administration that drew much attention was the attempt by the authorities to block the broadcasting at the end of September of an interview with the spiritual leader of the Taliban Mullah Omar on the Congress-financed Voice of America. The station that is broadcast to 50 countries worldwide, to explain America to the world, normally has reasonable editorial independence. Claude Porsella, head of the VOA French service told RSF about the content of the programme. “One of my colleagues in the Pashto language service had the scoop of his life: an interview with Mullah Omar. VOA never intended to broadcast the entire interview, extracts of which were included in some general reporting including comments from the US Administration, analysis by an Islamic expert and the position of the Northern Alliance. Mullah Omar said he was convinced that Osama Bin Laden could not be behind the attacks.” The State Department, which has a seat on the VOA board, called on the other board members to ban the interview, scheduled for 28 September. “VOA is not the voice of Mullah Omar and is not the voice of the Taliban”, said one American official. He said it would be “inappropriate” to spend the backers money to broadcast comments of the head of the movement who was protecting the terrorists behind the 11 September attacks. “This decision caused huge dismay among VOA journalists,” said Claude Porsella. The head of news protested and a petition was signed by 150 journalists. Faced with this reaction and strong interest in the press, VOA reversed its decision and decided to go ahead with the broadcast on 25 September. So far there have been no sanctions on the part of the US Administration. “We won a battle,” said Claude Porsella. “But I doubt the story will end there. Heads will probably roll,” he feared. On this occasion the VOA journalists were able to win the solidarity of their colleagues in the major US media, particularly the written press. In the same way the influential daily The Washington Post opened its columns to journalist from VOA before taking a position in an editorial on 26 September. This read: “The episode revealed an impulse to squelch facts that is never far beneath the surface in time of war or quasi-war, an impulse that is hardly less noxious when it retreats promptly under challenge. “But the time for editors to resist the censoring and self-censoring instinct is before it is acted upon, not after. We hear frequently that the only way to beat the terrorists is to hold on to this nation’s freedoms. Those include honoring Americans’ right to hear commentary that bothers some and to glimpse the thoughts of enemies.” At the beginning of October, the American authorities once more expressed their annoyance towards the media which allow a voice to “enemies of America”. This time it was the Arabic Television station Al-Jazeera, based in Qatar that drew the ire of Bush Administration by broadcasts footage and interviews with Taliban leaders or with Osama Bin Laden. The station is famous for its 1998 interview with the man they call “the head of El Qaeda”. This interview was broadcast uncut, on several occasions, after 11 September. On ” September the American ambassador in Qatar officially intervened with the authorities in the country to protest against this “incendiary rhetoric” by the station, which is accused of supplying “biased” coverage of the events of 11 September as well as “encouraging anti-American feelings” in the Middle East. On 3 October following an interview with the US Secretary of State Colin Powell in Washington, Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa el-Thani, Emir of Qatar, and main shareholder in the station, said that US officials had asked him to use his authority to influence the coverage. The Emir said he would not interfere with the editorial policy of Al-Jazeera. The US Administration again complained about the broadcast, the day after the first US air strikes, the words of Osama Bin Laden warning the United States that it would “live in fear”. A State Department official told Reuters: “Yes to freedom but we think it’s beyond the pale to provide an open platform for these sort of violent ideas. We’re concerned everywhere that Osama bin Laden not to be able to use the media to spread his ideas”. At the same time President Bush would be willing to speak on the station. Al-Jazeera, which has had a permanent studio in Kabul since 1998, is one of the rare media still present in the Afghan capital and at Kandahar. Known for the quality of its programmes, his professionalism and independence, the “CNN of the Arab world” is regularly criticized by Arab countries which fear the platform it gives to opposition of all kinds. Conclusion: Is the First Amendment in danger? US lawyer and expert on the American Constitution Floyd Abrams says that America often debates issues like patriotism and free speech n times of crisis. He considers that the First Amendment is put to the test when the country is too. When the country felt threatened, its existence challenged, the First Amendment and its values were sometimes subordinated to other priorities. This opinion is apparently shared by several US organisations for defence of press freedom, who believe it is too soon to become alarmed by the events that have been outlined in this report. Lucy Daglish, head of the Reporters Committee for the Freedom of the Press said she was not unduly concerned. She felt that the media, like the rest of society had become hypersensitive, after the attacks. Her organisation had noted the consequences of the 11 September attacks, but without taking up a position. In an interview with head of the Committee To Protect Journalists (CPJ) Ann Cooper and deputy head Joel Simon, the main US-based worldwide press freedom organisation, said they consider that much more serious violations of press freedom were going on in other parts of the world. Ann Cooper said she thought the US State Department’s criticism of VOA demonstrated an almost instinctive reflex by governments in times of conflict, not to broadcast the words of their adversaries. In some countries this had the force of law, she said. In Russia media which published interviews with Chechen faced legal action. In Angola, police had detained journalists who quoted a rebel commander. “The crucial difference is that VOA broadcast the interview, despite the opposition of the State Department and has so far not suffered any sanction.” But Ann Coooper stressed that it was the tolerance of a free press that kept democracy alive. She did not feel that the press was in danger in the United States. “American journalists don’t need us to defend them. They have their media and the entire profession to back them in case of danger.” Tim Golstein of Columbia School of Journalism also shares this view and is confident that the American media can defend its own interests. “patriotism, independence, freedom of speech: we debate these questions practically every day whether in newspapers or in university lecture halls. But it is far too soon to draw conclusions from this debate.” Media who had so far done an excellent job in covering the attacks should now try to do the same for the rest: continue to do the same good job, but in time of conflict. Following this investigation in Paris and New York, Reporters Sans Frontières nevertheless considers that a number of points of concern remain: *	Several attempts by the US authorities aimed at regulating the work of the media have been reported: Arrests of photographers near the World Trade Center, the desire of the security forces to filter images taken at the site, an attempt to ban an interview with Mullah Omar on VOA and the pressure on the Qatar-based TV station Al-Jazeera to stop broadcasting footage of Osama Bin Laden. All these interventions, in whatever context, are unacceptable.. *	Moves against confidentiality on the internet, along with a certain number of measures within the “anti-terrorist” legislation that is currently being examined, constitute a real threat to individual and collective freedoms *	The symbiosis which appears to operate between the tone of the main audio-visual industry and official US policy could eventually militate against the watchdog role of the media in a democracy. *	The cases outlined of corporate censorship, such as the sackings of the two journalists for comments considered outrageous, could lead to self-censorship and an absence of criticism in the press. *	The setting up of “pools” of photographers at the World Trade Center site and the complexities of the accreditation system do not bode well for a free and independent coverage of the actions taken by the United States in reprisal for the terrorist attacks of 11 September.

# data[].attributes.body
climate of media coverage devoted to covering the aftermath of the attacks, the preparations and continuing US counter-attacks, remain in a minority

Critical appear weakened by the emotion produced by this dramatic terrorist act, the death of thousands of innocent people and the suffering of their bereaved families

They consider that it is still too soon, even inappropriate, to be raising the alarm over events considered largely

secondary

stances on the part of the military and the judiciary

While countries throw themselves into a fresh military operation, the vigilance of organisations defending human rights and individual freedoms are all the more needed

https://rsf.org/en/between-pull-patriotism-and-self-censorshipthe-us-media-torment-after-11-september?utm_source=chatgpt.com

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Between the pull of patriotism and self-censorshipThe US media in torment after 11 September

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Investigation: Alexandre Levy and Francois Bugingo New York – September 26 / October 2 2001 Observers cast doubt on the objectivity of the American press Ten years after the Gulf War, a conflict the reality of which was largely hidden from the media, the US administration has launched a new series of military operations in reaction to the waves of terrorist attacks that stroked the East coast of the United States leaving nearly 6,000 dead. The daily New York Times noted, “This surge of national pride sweeping the country after the terrorist attacks on 11 September sparks the beginnings of new, more difficult debate over balance among national security, free speech and patriotism.” The influential American newspaper said in an article on 28 September 2001 that the debate “is being played out on stages large and small”, that press comments have on several occasions provoked the fury of the authorities, along with that of the American public, and have led to sanctions including pulling of programmes, withdrawal of advertising in the media and disavowal, even outright sacking of the journalists by their employers. This comes on top of a long list of constraints and more subtle pressure that American and foreign media, including the Internet, have been subjected to since 11 September. Many journalists and foreign observers have already cast doubt on the objectivity and independence of the American press, particularly the TV channels, in this period of “war effort”. In the same way, several voices have been raised within the United States warning the public about a decline in freedom of expression and opinion, freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment of the Constitution, in exchange for tightening security. “We are facing an enemy which is exploiting what it is about our society that makes it strong and effective: freedom, openness and freedom of movement. We have to be sure that we remain an open society, in which individual freedoms are respected,” said Strobe Talbott, former number two at the US State Department in the Clinton Administration. But these voices, drowned out in the climate of media coverage devoted to covering the aftermath of the attacks, the preparations and continuing US counter-attacks, remain in a minority. Even those who are critical appear weakened by the emotion produced by this dramatic terrorist act, the death of thousands of innocent people and the suffering of their bereaved families. In the face of calls to national unity, US organisations traditionally devoted to defending individual freedoms, have been muted. They consider that it is still too soon, even inappropriate, to be raising the alarm over events considered largely ‘secondary’. “The shock of 11 September seems to have stifled the most militant of people, giving way to a de facto tolerance towards tougher than usual stances on the part of the military and the judiciary,” said journalist Sylvie Kauffman, former correspondent of the French daily Le Monde in New York, on 17 September 2001. In fact today, while countries throw themselves into a fresh military operation, the vigilance of organisations defending human rights and individual freedoms are all the more needed. A number of regimes find the temptation too great to exploit the genuine emotion produced by these attacks on the United States on 11 September to restrict freedom of the press and more generally to silence domestic opposition under the cover of the struggle against terrorism. In countries such as Pakistan, Israel, Territories under Palestinian Authority or Liberia, Reporters Sans Frontières (RSF) has recorded several incidents of press freedom violations directly linked to the events in America. While avoiding all linkage with these regimes, RSF also makes public here a serious of episodes affecting press freedom in the United States between 11 September and 7 October 20001, the date of the American military counter-attack. Most of them have been reported and commented on by the American press or by specialist Internet sites. Are these incidents of censorship or self-censorship? Are we witnessing a deliberate policy on the part of the authorities or a choice made by the main media themselves? What do American and foreign journalists working in New York think? What about organisations that defend press freedom? To try to answer these questions, two representatives of RSF went to the United States and meet representatives of the media, human rights organisations and US press specialists. The first suspect: internet The unprecedented scale of the attacks on New York and Washington, and the presumed use by the terrorists of advanced computer technology, prompted fears among internet users of a tightening of web surveillance, as called for by the security services. A number of sources report that a few hours after the attacks on 12 September, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) agents turned up at the headquarters of the main internet providers (Hotmail, AOL, Earthlink, etc) to obtain information on possible email exchanges between the terrorists. Technicians working for these companies have said off the record to the American online magazine Wired that FBI agents wanted to install the electronic bugging system “Carnivore” (recently renamed DCS 1000) on the main computer of internet access providers based in the United States. “From Tuesday evening FBI agents showed up at our workplace wanting to set up their machines. They promised to pick up the tab for all the costs of installation and use”. Another one working for Hotmail said that the FBI had asked for, and obtained, from company executives all information on accounts, whose names included the word Allah. All the major Internet access providers appear to have followed Hotmail’s example and fully collaborated with the American secret services. Once installed at an Internet access provider Carnivore can record and save all information exchanged between users. Under strong critical pressure from defenders of individual freedoms in the United States, the system had never been used until now except with the advance agreement of a judge. The “Combating terrorism Act” voted through after a half-hour debate in the Senate on 13 September, barely two days after the attacks, exempts the security services from judicial approval for the use of Carnivore. To become law this act has still to be approved by a joint commission of members of the Senate and House of Representatives. In the same vein, a number of US leaders have started attacking encryption. This procedure allows internet-users to enjoy confidentiality when exchanging information on the Internet with the use of encryption software. the best known being PGP (Pretty Good Privacy), which can be freely downloaded from a number of sites. Already last March the head of the FBI Louis Freeh said he was convinced that terrorist networks were using encryption. On 13 September the Republican senator Judd Gregg called in a speech to Congress for a worldwide ban on encryption software unless public authorities had been given the means to decode the messages. “One could fear that the authorities could take advantage of the emotion of the moment to achieve their objective: banning encryption” one American proponent of PGP told RSF. Other privacy protection militants such as John Gilmore of the American organisation Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) called for creation of more sites which would offer encryption software on open sale. After the first attack on the World Trade Center in 1993 the FBI found plans for hijacking 11 planes on the portable computer of the person who carried out the attack. The FBI took ten months to decode the files, the majority of which had been encrypted with PGP software. Defenders of encryption say to this that intelligence has already shown its weakness in this area in as much as the terrorists appear to have already used methods that avoid electronic surveillance. The creator of PGP, David Zimmerman, who was nearly jailed in the United States during the 1980 for distributing his programme, has once again defended his position in a recent interview in the magazine Futur(e)s. “Whether it’s congress, or in the courts or in the columns of newspapers, the country has already debated this question over the last decade. And together we have decided that society has more to gain than to lose from effective encryption. It should not be forgotten that encryption has saved lives in the entire world. The system is used by human rights organisations worldwide and especially under dictatorships”. (Quoted by the on-line magazine Transfert, 17 September 2001). Television: From spontaneity to patriotic rigour Filmed virtually live, the attack against the World Trade Center was at the same time tragic and spectacular, as if meant for television. “One should not forget that the terrorist target, Manhattan, is not only the financial heart but also the media capital of the country”, an American journalist pointed out. Never has such an event been filmed and photographed live both by cameras and surveillance, by amateurs and professionals. In the first days access to the sites of the attacks was not controlled. Numerous photographers and cameramen took advantage of this by getting as close as possible to the points of impact. The United States being cut off from the rest of the world with the grounding of all flights, it was only American journalists and foreign correspondents posted to New York who covered the story. Not having necessarily experienced war or natural disasters, they admitted to having had “the shock of their lives” when they heard about the terrorist attacks and went to the World Trade Centre. Either originally from New York or having lived their for many years, they said with a good deal of emotion, that they had covered “the most important story of their careers”. They did not hide their sympathy for Americans and in particular New Yorkers in this difficult period. “I reacted first as an adopted New Yorker rather than as a journalist” said Stéphanie Tremblay French programme co-ordinator for Radio Canada. “The terrorists had above all attacked my city and targeted my way of life.” “I never thought I would cover such an event in my whole life time.” said Don Emmert, head of photo for Agence France-Presse. “I am Canadian,” said Marc Greenought, radio producer for English programmes on the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC), “but during these past days I have never felt so deeply American.” Everyone interviewed by RSF in New York said so: The American television networks were the first to cover the story and they were an excellent source of information in the first days. “We edited the first reports on the attack on the World Trade Center with our eyes fixed on the television screen,” said Michel Moutot, Agence France-Presse bureau chief in New York. “The US television networks have matchless resources and they used them right away,” he continued. Eric Leser, correspondent for the French daily Le Monde agreed. He told RSF how invaluable the live coverage on American television was to his work. The organisation Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR), generally very critical of the major media in America, found that the coverage in the first days was acceptable overall. “We saw a new type of spontaneous and sincere journalism” said one of its organisers Steve Randell. But just a week later, the tone and content on the American television networks changed. “I think the turning point was George W. Bush’s speech to Congress on the 20 September 2001, said Eric Leser. “Since then the media has taken on a strongly patriotic tone and news has lost out to propaganda.” French journalists add that since then they have followed the television networks much less and used the internet, where there are a number of sites providing more critical news and different angles. Many foreign correspondents who spoke to RSF in New York said the same thing. The RSF representatives noted the change of tone and feeling on the American networks that covered President Bush’s 20 September speech, in which he called for a “war against terrorism.” The fate of the victims was relegated to second position and the networks devoted their airtime to hailing the country’s “new heroes”: firefighters, police and military staff, politicians. And above all reflecting an image of a united and defiant nation, ready to wage war on those who have attacked it. “America’s new war” and “At war with terror” (CNN) or “America fights back or counter-attacks? (CBS) were the watchwords, henceforth always accompanied by the ubiquitous stars and stripes. “Broadcasts became all beating the drum and flags flying in the wind. It was no longer news,” said another foreign correspondent Richard Hetu, a journalist with the Canadian daily La Presse. A French journalist, a Balkans specialist, who covered the NATO intervention in Serbia, agreed from New York that American television had “gone to war”: ” Instead of news broadcasts, Americans are watching advertising spots to the glory of their country,” he said. In one example the 62 regional channels of the Sinclair Broadcast group have been carrying an advertisement on their web site: “Our team supports the action of President Bush and the leaders of our nation in putting an end to terrorism.” continues the message, urging viewers who agree to send their views to the site. Reflecting on the patriotic outbursts, Stéphanie Tremblay of Radio Canada said she was “not at all surprised by this aspect of coverage on the US networks. “I knew, however, that if I want to hear a more critical report that gave more space to the news itself, I would have to watch BBC or event TV 5,” she said. Fellow journalist Chantal Lavigne, also acknowledged the American media’s desire to take part in the “war effort” said, “Most star television presenters have said that they were Americans before being journalists.” Journalists and media executives questioned by RSF, either strongly denied having produced propaganda or on the other hand, acknowledged and justified their decision. “The footage of the attack against the World Trade Center has no equivalent in the history of conflict,” said Paul Khlebnikov, journalist with the influential economic magazine Forbes. “In the war of pictures the terrorists have made a decisive point. That is why the war that the United States is going to wage should not be just military and economic but also psychological, therefore media-driven. Killing Bin Laden will not be enough he will have to be cut down symbolically. Mr Khlebnikov said he was not worried by the bellicose and propagandist tone adopted by some of the US media. He attributes it to a “civic revival” shared by all Americans. “The first days there could have been a collapse in morale of Americans. Then as in times of war, there was a civic revival which was picked up in the press. And if the media has sometimes lacked objectivity it was not under official pressure. Objectivity in journalism does not man an absence of values. The media, overall, did excellent work. Television in particular was a triumph,” he said. Paul Khlebnikov is not the only one in the American press to take this position. Sandy Genelius, spokeswoman for the American TV network CBS News is satisfied, she says in an interview with RSF, with the comments she has read in the press about the work of the channel. “We haven’t sunk into propaganda like some”, she says taking a swipe in passing at CBS’s main competitor Cable News Network International (CNN). The chairman of CNN Chris Cramer has been self-congratulatory about the work of his network from 18 September: “CNN has never failed to live up to the occasion (-) to supply balanced news. The 4,000 men and women of CNN have not escaped the shock and the horror of what has happened. However the coverage of the news that we gave the public and other media is testament to professionalism and integrity.” Missing images: censorship or “matter of taste” Barely a week after the attacks, some European media chiefs, particularly French, have questioned the impartiality of the American TV networks, suspected of not showing “all the images”, mainly those of the victims of the attacks. Then there have been criticisms of American authorities, accused of wanted to prevent some shots from the scene being taken and put out by the media. Robert Namias, head of information for the main private French television channel TF1 has several times condemned “filtering” which he considers a form of “censorship”. “I strongly regret the censorship imposed on us by the United States, the journalist told the French daily Le Figaro on 26 September 2001. “The images that the French media paid for were filtered, treated and purified by the American authorities. How do you think we can do our job when we are denied access to information and surrounded by security forces? I did not want to show horrifying images but, to do the job properly, there should be a minimum knowledge.” His opinion is shared, in varying degrees, by other French television bosses but not unanimously. “The horror of the two planes slamming into the towers. Wasn’t that enough? asks Hervé Brusini, head of national news on the public French channel France 3. His colleague on France 2 Oliver Mazerolle, considers that he would not have shown gory images but said the American channels balked at showing this type of image “for patriotic reasons”. The French journalists all join however in condemning increasing difficulty in getting access to the World Trade Center site and the unwillingness of the authorities to allow journalists to move about freely within the security perimeter. During their investigation in New York and Paris, the RSF representatives tried to find out more about the lack of images of the victims and the conditions of access to the World Trade Center site. Jim Rutenberg and Felicity Barringer, media specialists for the New York Times visited various television studios from 11 September onwards and questioned those in charge about their editorial choices. “Terrible pictures started arriving,” they said. “There was blood, there were dismembered bodies.” Despite the desire of some journalists to show these images, the head of MSNBC Erik Sorenson took the decision not to show them. “I think there are all sorts of ways to show the horror without descending into the gory,” he said Some networks, like NBC, CBS, CNN and Fox News did however broadcast footage of desperate people jumping from the blazing building. Only to regret it afterwards. “It was a bad decision, the pictures were really too disturbing”, confessed Bill Wheatley, vice-president of NBC News. Those who decided not to show the film explained: ” The question is are we just creating useless pain”. Those, who like CBS, showed them, justify themselves too: “That’s terrorism. From one point of view you want to protect the viewer but in another way you want to show just what the terrorists have really done.” Michel Moutot of Agence France-Presse also remembers these deeply disturbing photos. “By their clothes one could easily recognise people who jumped from the windows”. However he considered them to be “acceptable”. In fact, several photos of this scene, taken by photographers from the major international agencies appeared during the course of the week in the American and European press. Editors who published the, like Glenn Guzzo of the daily Denver Post, spoke of the virulent objections from readers. “Haven’t you any feelings, any respect for the families who have lost their loved-ones?” one reader asked indignantly. At this stage is strongly appears that a number of distressing photos were taken and used by the American media. It was they who decided, according to their own conscience, whether to use them or not. “It doesn’t look like the authorities were trying to control these pictures, given that that they didn’t even know how to protect the president,” said one observer. “The refusal to show the horrifying pictures was an editorial decision by my colleaguesm,“adds Paul Khlebnikov of Forbes. “As citizens we had to ask ourselves the question: should one show bits of bodies in a period of mourning and national remembrance?” It was indeed an “editorial choice” said Sandy Genelius of CBS News to RSF. “We had sensitive film, we had gory images, but each time we asked ourselves: What more are we contributing to history by showing them? So we decided not to show the pictures just for the pleasure of demonstrating that we had them”. This sudden reticence of the part of the American media has interested a number of foreign observers. In an analytical piece headed “The faceless dead of the World Trade Center,” the journalist Michel Guerin, specialist in images at the French daily Le Monde, stated the paradox: “5,500 people died or disappeared on the black day of 11 September...but practically no image of the bodies has been shown on the television or published in the press” (21 September 2001). “A decency of variable shape, says Dominique Wolton, head of research at the National Centre for Scientific Research (CNRS) quoted by the French daily Liberation (19 September 2001). “This should be a big lesson in decency to western media who don’t hesitate to show massacres when they happen in Rwanda...” he added. Others like the photo historian Marc Ferro do not find it surprising. “During wars you never show your own dead, only those of your adversaries. The Americans want to limit the images of the trauma they have suffered, of defeat, the affront and the mortification.” Sandy Genelius, spokeswoman for CBS News, to whom RSF put these questions, once again staunchly defended herself against applying double standards. “It’s not true that we used different standards. We applied the same rules when we filmed in Rwanda as at the World Trade Center.” An RSF representative also discussed this question with Tom Golstein, emeritus professor at the prestigious Columbia School of Journalism in south Manhattan. He considered that it was simply a “question of taste”. This opinion seems to be shared by a significant majority of American and even foreign journalists. Like Canadian journalist Marc Greenought of CBC, they did not hide their astonishment, even irritation at the criticism from the European media on the absence of more distressing and gory images of the World Trade Center victims and the restricted access to the site. “I do not understand,” he told RSF. “As a journalist I had all the access I needed, the suffering, the emotion. No need to go searching for blood under the ruins for that.” Arrests and calls to order In the first days after the attacks of 11 September, the American media certainly adopted a common position which was not to “add horror on horror” and to take part in the resurgence of patriotic national feeling. In doing this, those in charge followed the wishes of a large majority of the public which reacted strongly to the first images shown after the attacks. Added to this were very strict rules of access to the site of the disaster, injunctions by the various authorities along with sanctions against recalcitrant photographers. The perimeter of the World Trade Center was quickly secured and surrounded by US security forces after the confusion of the first few days. “The New York police were generally co-operative with the press and allowed comings and goings on the site. The arrival on the scene of the National Guard put an end to this situation,” remembered M. Moutot of AFP. Barriers appeared all around the site, the security perimeter was extended by several streets to the south and north of Manhattan. A complex system of accreditation was then established Involving both police and the military. According to the daily Los Angeles Times, from 19 September onwards the police started seizing the films of photographers and tourists close to the site. Many photographers had their access passes withdrawn for failing to respect the orders of the authorities. The American press freedom organisation The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press (RCFP) said that at least four journalists were arrested and accused of breaking the conditions of access to the World Trade Center site. Among them was Ian Austin, photographer for the Agency Aurora Quanta Productions, who was detained for three days before being released without any charge. All journalists working for the daily Dallas Daily News had their accreditation withdrawn because of the arrest and “bad conduct” of one of their photographers. In an interview with RSF, Don Emmert, head of photo at AFP in New York discussed the consequences of the restrictions and the calls to order on the work of his agency. “In photo terms, whole segments of this drama have not been covered. The reason is simple : they wouldn’t let us work. We could not satisfy the demands of our clients from abroad. For instance, we could not go to the hospitals and we can no longer freely take pictures of the World Trade Center after the disaster.” “The office of the mayor asked us not to show firefighters recovering the bodies of their colleagues.” continued Don Emmert, who also spoke out against the current working conditions on the site. “It’s like a police state, he said. They let us shoot in organized pools only what the authorities want us to shoot. The ones who move freely around are the Marine photographers and the photographers from the Federal Emergency Agency. They supply agencies with very pretty photographs Even if the American press continues to carry photos of the ruins of the World Trade Centre, all media, including the tabloids, have to accept pools, of shots taken from a distance and showing only the wide angle of the site. For some journalists working in New York the reply to the debate on the absence of images of the victims of the World Trade Center is very simple. “I quite honestly doubt that that there is much left to show,” suggests the French daily Le Monde’s correspondent. His view is shared by Richard Hetu of the Canadian daily La Presse, who believes that the bodies literally “disintegrated”. The World Trade Center has become an enormous crematorium,” he continued. “As I wrote in one article, the dust from the debris of the World Trade Center that we are breathing still probably includes the ashes of the victims.” America should not speak with the same voice as its enemies Several other incidents, comparable to press freedom violations, characterised the life of the media after the 11 September. They were caused by interventions by the authorities critical of one media or another, or by the owners of the media themselves who saw it as a good moment to sanction a particular journalist for “subversive” comments, and sometimes by both at once, without being able to establish with that media what the real reason for the sanction was. So when the television network ABC decided on 19 September to no longer broadcast images of the two planes slamming into the World Trade Center towers, it was officially so as not to “banalise the dramatic event”. Many observers suspect however that it was the result of pressure from the authorities and in particular because of a desire expressed by the owner of Disney. The most flagrant examples of corporate censorship - when media bosses sanction a journalist for his or her opinions - came from the dailies The Texas City Sun and the Daily Courier in the state of Oregon. On 23 September Les Daughty Jr, owner of the Texas City Sun for 17 years writes an apology to his readers for an article by one of his editors-in-chief Ron Gutting, who said in an article critical of President Bush on the day after the attacks, that he was “flying around the country like a scared child seeking refuge in his mother’s bed after having a nightmare”. In an article on the front page of the newspaper Daughty apologised to all the leaders of the country and particularly to President George Bush for having published such an article which could only provoke “anger and disgust”. Ron Gutting was sacked from the newspaper. His colleague Dan Guthrie of the Daily Courier at Grant’s Pass met the same fate and for similar reasons. He wrote on the 15 September on a humorous page in the newspaper that George Bush had “skedaddled” in the face of the attacks, accusing him of being “an embarrassment” for “hiding in a Nebraska hole” on the day of the terrorist attacks. The newspaper’s editor-in-chief Dennis Mack wrote for his readers that to say that the head of state was hiding at a time when America was trying to unite after the bloody attacks was neither responsible nor appropriate. As a result Dan Guthrie lost his job but for “personal reasons”, according to his employer.` In neither case was there any apparent pressure on the part of the authorities. It was the fierce reactions of the newspapers’ readers that were decisive in the decision to sack the journalists. In another case, that was widely reported in the US press star television presenter Bill Maher drew a strong reaction from the White House. On his talk show “Politically Incorrect” on ABC, Bill Maher said on 17 September, “We have been the cowards, lobbing cruise missiles from 2,000 miles away. That’s cowardly. Staying in the airplane when it hits the building, say what you want about it, It’s not cowardly”. These comments drew the rage of many viewers and led to the immediate withdrawal of the programme’s two main sponsors Federal Express and Sears. A number of television stations linked to the ABC network, mainly in New York and Washington, pulled the Bill Maher programme, especially after White House spokesman Ari Fleisher called his remarks “unpatriotic”. He added, “It was a terrible thing to say and it’s unfortunate.” He went on, “The reminder is to all Americans that they need to watch what they say, watch what they do”. Journalists who heard his statement noted later that “watch what they say” did not appear in the text of this official record of the conference. Another decision of the US administration that drew much attention was the attempt by the authorities to block the broadcasting at the end of September of an interview with the spiritual leader of the Taliban Mullah Omar on the Congress-financed Voice of America. The station that is broadcast to 50 countries worldwide, to explain America to the world, normally has reasonable editorial independence. Claude Porsella, head of the VOA French service told RSF about the content of the programme. “One of my colleagues in the Pashto language service had the scoop of his life: an interview with Mullah Omar. VOA never intended to broadcast the entire interview, extracts of which were included in some general reporting including comments from the US Administration, analysis by an Islamic expert and the position of the Northern Alliance. Mullah Omar said he was convinced that Osama Bin Laden could not be behind the attacks.” The State Department, which has a seat on the VOA board, called on the other board members to ban the interview, scheduled for 28 September. “VOA is not the voice of Mullah Omar and is not the voice of the Taliban”, said one American official. He said it would be “inappropriate” to spend the backers money to broadcast comments of the head of the movement who was protecting the terrorists behind the 11 September attacks. “This decision caused huge dismay among VOA journalists,” said Claude Porsella. The head of news protested and a petition was signed by 150 journalists. Faced with this reaction and strong interest in the press, VOA reversed its decision and decided to go ahead with the broadcast on 25 September. So far there have been no sanctions on the part of the US Administration. “We won a battle,” said Claude Porsella. “But I doubt the story will end there. Heads will probably roll,” he feared. On this occasion the VOA journalists were able to win the solidarity of their colleagues in the major US media, particularly the written press. In the same way the influential daily The Washington Post opened its columns to journalist from VOA before taking a position in an editorial on 26 September. This read: “The episode revealed an impulse to squelch facts that is never far beneath the surface in time of war or quasi-war, an impulse that is hardly less noxious when it retreats promptly under challenge. “But the time for editors to resist the censoring and self-censoring instinct is before it is acted upon, not after. We hear frequently that the only way to beat the terrorists is to hold on to this nation’s freedoms. Those include honoring Americans’ right to hear commentary that bothers some and to glimpse the thoughts of enemies.” At the beginning of October, the American authorities once more expressed their annoyance towards the media which allow a voice to “enemies of America”. This time it was the Arabic Television station Al-Jazeera, based in Qatar that drew the ire of Bush Administration by broadcasts footage and interviews with Taliban leaders or with Osama Bin Laden. The station is famous for its 1998 interview with the man they call “the head of El Qaeda”. This interview was broadcast uncut, on several occasions, after 11 September. On ” September the American ambassador in Qatar officially intervened with the authorities in the country to protest against this “incendiary rhetoric” by the station, which is accused of supplying “biased” coverage of the events of 11 September as well as “encouraging anti-American feelings” in the Middle East. On 3 October following an interview with the US Secretary of State Colin Powell in Washington, Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa el-Thani, Emir of Qatar, and main shareholder in the station, said that US officials had asked him to use his authority to influence the coverage. The Emir said he would not interfere with the editorial policy of Al-Jazeera. The US Administration again complained about the broadcast, the day after the first US air strikes, the words of Osama Bin Laden warning the United States that it would “live in fear”. A State Department official told Reuters: “Yes to freedom but we think it’s beyond the pale to provide an open platform for these sort of violent ideas. We’re concerned everywhere that Osama bin Laden not to be able to use the media to spread his ideas”. At the same time President Bush would be willing to speak on the station. Al-Jazeera, which has had a permanent studio in Kabul since 1998, is one of the rare media still present in the Afghan capital and at Kandahar. Known for the quality of its programmes, his professionalism and independence, the “CNN of the Arab world” is regularly criticized by Arab countries which fear the platform it gives to opposition of all kinds. Conclusion: Is the First Amendment in danger? US lawyer and expert on the American Constitution Floyd Abrams says that America often debates issues like patriotism and free speech n times of crisis. He considers that the First Amendment is put to the test when the country is too. When the country felt threatened, its existence challenged, the First Amendment and its values were sometimes subordinated to other priorities. This opinion is apparently shared by several US organisations for defence of press freedom, who believe it is too soon to become alarmed by the events that have been outlined in this report. Lucy Daglish, head of the Reporters Committee for the Freedom of the Press said she was not unduly concerned. She felt that the media, like the rest of society had become hypersensitive, after the attacks. Her organisation had noted the consequences of the 11 September attacks, but without taking up a position. In an interview with head of the Committee To Protect Journalists (CPJ) Ann Cooper and deputy head Joel Simon, the main US-based worldwide press freedom organisation, said they consider that much more serious violations of press freedom were going on in other parts of the world. Ann Cooper said she thought the US State Department’s criticism of VOA demonstrated an almost instinctive reflex by governments in times of conflict, not to broadcast the words of their adversaries. In some countries this had the force of law, she said. In Russia media which published interviews with Chechen faced legal action. In Angola, police had detained journalists who quoted a rebel commander. “The crucial difference is that VOA broadcast the interview, despite the opposition of the State Department and has so far not suffered any sanction.” But Ann Coooper stressed that it was the tolerance of a free press that kept democracy alive. She did not feel that the press was in danger in the United States. “American journalists don’t need us to defend them. They have their media and the entire profession to back them in case of danger.” Tim Golstein of Columbia School of Journalism also shares this view and is confident that the American media can defend its own interests. “patriotism, independence, freedom of speech: we debate these questions practically every day whether in newspapers or in university lecture halls. But it is far too soon to draw conclusions from this debate.” Media who had so far done an excellent job in covering the attacks should now try to do the same for the rest: continue to do the same good job, but in time of conflict. Following this investigation in Paris and New York, Reporters Sans Frontières nevertheless considers that a number of points of concern remain: *	Several attempts by the US authorities aimed at regulating the work of the media have been reported: Arrests of photographers near the World Trade Center, the desire of the security forces to filter images taken at the site, an attempt to ban an interview with Mullah Omar on VOA and the pressure on the Qatar-based TV station Al-Jazeera to stop broadcasting footage of Osama Bin Laden. All these interventions, in whatever context, are unacceptable.. *	Moves against confidentiality on the internet, along with a certain number of measures within the “anti-terrorist” legislation that is currently being examined, constitute a real threat to individual and collective freedoms *	The symbiosis which appears to operate between the tone of the main audio-visual industry and official US policy could eventually militate against the watchdog role of the media in a democracy. *	The cases outlined of corporate censorship, such as the sackings of the two journalists for comments considered outrageous, could lead to self-censorship and an absence of criticism in the press. *	The setting up of “pools” of photographers at the World Trade Center site and the complexities of the accreditation system do not bode well for a free and independent coverage of the actions taken by the United States in reprisal for the terrorist attacks of 11 September.

# data[].attributes.headline
10. Patriotism and self censorship (PT. 5)

# data[].attributes.subject
10. Patriotism and self censorship (PT. 5)

# data[].attributes.body
umber of regimes find the temptation too great to exploit the genuine emotion produced by these attacks on the United States on 11 September to restrict freedom of the press and more generally to silence domestic opposition under the cover of the struggle against terrorism

affecting press freedom in the United States between 11 September and 7 October 2001

Most of them have been reported and commented on by the American press or by specialist Internet sites

https://rsf.org/en/between-pull-patriotism-and-self-censorshipthe-us-media-torment-after-11-september?utm_source=chatgpt.com

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Between the pull of patriotism and self-censorshipThe US media in torment after 11 September

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Investigation: Alexandre Levy and Francois Bugingo New York – September 26 / October 2 2001 Observers cast doubt on the objectivity of the American press Ten years after the Gulf War, a conflict the reality of which was largely hidden from the media, the US administration has launched a new series of military operations in reaction to the waves of terrorist attacks that stroked the East coast of the United States leaving nearly 6,000 dead. The daily New York Times noted, “This surge of national pride sweeping the country after the terrorist attacks on 11 September sparks the beginnings of new, more difficult debate over balance among national security, free speech and patriotism.” The influential American newspaper said in an article on 28 September 2001 that the debate “is being played out on stages large and small”, that press comments have on several occasions provoked the fury of the authorities, along with that of the American public, and have led to sanctions including pulling of programmes, withdrawal of advertising in the media and disavowal, even outright sacking of the journalists by their employers. This comes on top of a long list of constraints and more subtle pressure that American and foreign media, including the Internet, have been subjected to since 11 September. Many journalists and foreign observers have already cast doubt on the objectivity and independence of the American press, particularly the TV channels, in this period of “war effort”. In the same way, several voices have been raised within the United States warning the public about a decline in freedom of expression and opinion, freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment of the Constitution, in exchange for tightening security. “We are facing an enemy which is exploiting what it is about our society that makes it strong and effective: freedom, openness and freedom of movement. We have to be sure that we remain an open society, in which individual freedoms are respected,” said Strobe Talbott, former number two at the US State Department in the Clinton Administration. But these voices, drowned out in the climate of media coverage devoted to covering the aftermath of the attacks, the preparations and continuing US counter-attacks, remain in a minority. Even those who are critical appear weakened by the emotion produced by this dramatic terrorist act, the death of thousands of innocent people and the suffering of their bereaved families. In the face of calls to national unity, US organisations traditionally devoted to defending individual freedoms, have been muted. They consider that it is still too soon, even inappropriate, to be raising the alarm over events considered largely ‘secondary’. “The shock of 11 September seems to have stifled the most militant of people, giving way to a de facto tolerance towards tougher than usual stances on the part of the military and the judiciary,” said journalist Sylvie Kauffman, former correspondent of the French daily Le Monde in New York, on 17 September 2001. In fact today, while countries throw themselves into a fresh military operation, the vigilance of organisations defending human rights and individual freedoms are all the more needed. A number of regimes find the temptation too great to exploit the genuine emotion produced by these attacks on the United States on 11 September to restrict freedom of the press and more generally to silence domestic opposition under the cover of the struggle against terrorism. In countries such as Pakistan, Israel, Territories under Palestinian Authority or Liberia, Reporters Sans Frontières (RSF) has recorded several incidents of press freedom violations directly linked to the events in America. While avoiding all linkage with these regimes, RSF also makes public here a serious of episodes affecting press freedom in the United States between 11 September and 7 October 20001, the date of the American military counter-attack. Most of them have been reported and commented on by the American press or by specialist Internet sites. Are these incidents of censorship or self-censorship? Are we witnessing a deliberate policy on the part of the authorities or a choice made by the main media themselves? What do American and foreign journalists working in New York think? What about organisations that defend press freedom? To try to answer these questions, two representatives of RSF went to the United States and meet representatives of the media, human rights organisations and US press specialists. The first suspect: internet The unprecedented scale of the attacks on New York and Washington, and the presumed use by the terrorists of advanced computer technology, prompted fears among internet users of a tightening of web surveillance, as called for by the security services. A number of sources report that a few hours after the attacks on 12 September, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) agents turned up at the headquarters of the main internet providers (Hotmail, AOL, Earthlink, etc) to obtain information on possible email exchanges between the terrorists. Technicians working for these companies have said off the record to the American online magazine Wired that FBI agents wanted to install the electronic bugging system “Carnivore” (recently renamed DCS 1000) on the main computer of internet access providers based in the United States. “From Tuesday evening FBI agents showed up at our workplace wanting to set up their machines. They promised to pick up the tab for all the costs of installation and use”. Another one working for Hotmail said that the FBI had asked for, and obtained, from company executives all information on accounts, whose names included the word Allah. All the major Internet access providers appear to have followed Hotmail’s example and fully collaborated with the American secret services. Once installed at an Internet access provider Carnivore can record and save all information exchanged between users. Under strong critical pressure from defenders of individual freedoms in the United States, the system had never been used until now except with the advance agreement of a judge. The “Combating terrorism Act” voted through after a half-hour debate in the Senate on 13 September, barely two days after the attacks, exempts the security services from judicial approval for the use of Carnivore. To become law this act has still to be approved by a joint commission of members of the Senate and House of Representatives. In the same vein, a number of US leaders have started attacking encryption. This procedure allows internet-users to enjoy confidentiality when exchanging information on the Internet with the use of encryption software. the best known being PGP (Pretty Good Privacy), which can be freely downloaded from a number of sites. Already last March the head of the FBI Louis Freeh said he was convinced that terrorist networks were using encryption. On 13 September the Republican senator Judd Gregg called in a speech to Congress for a worldwide ban on encryption software unless public authorities had been given the means to decode the messages. “One could fear that the authorities could take advantage of the emotion of the moment to achieve their objective: banning encryption” one American proponent of PGP told RSF. Other privacy protection militants such as John Gilmore of the American organisation Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) called for creation of more sites which would offer encryption software on open sale. After the first attack on the World Trade Center in 1993 the FBI found plans for hijacking 11 planes on the portable computer of the person who carried out the attack. The FBI took ten months to decode the files, the majority of which had been encrypted with PGP software. Defenders of encryption say to this that intelligence has already shown its weakness in this area in as much as the terrorists appear to have already used methods that avoid electronic surveillance. The creator of PGP, David Zimmerman, who was nearly jailed in the United States during the 1980 for distributing his programme, has once again defended his position in a recent interview in the magazine Futur(e)s. “Whether it’s congress, or in the courts or in the columns of newspapers, the country has already debated this question over the last decade. And together we have decided that society has more to gain than to lose from effective encryption. It should not be forgotten that encryption has saved lives in the entire world. The system is used by human rights organisations worldwide and especially under dictatorships”. (Quoted by the on-line magazine Transfert, 17 September 2001). Television: From spontaneity to patriotic rigour Filmed virtually live, the attack against the World Trade Center was at the same time tragic and spectacular, as if meant for television. “One should not forget that the terrorist target, Manhattan, is not only the financial heart but also the media capital of the country”, an American journalist pointed out. Never has such an event been filmed and photographed live both by cameras and surveillance, by amateurs and professionals. In the first days access to the sites of the attacks was not controlled. Numerous photographers and cameramen took advantage of this by getting as close as possible to the points of impact. The United States being cut off from the rest of the world with the grounding of all flights, it was only American journalists and foreign correspondents posted to New York who covered the story. Not having necessarily experienced war or natural disasters, they admitted to having had “the shock of their lives” when they heard about the terrorist attacks and went to the World Trade Centre. Either originally from New York or having lived their for many years, they said with a good deal of emotion, that they had covered “the most important story of their careers”. They did not hide their sympathy for Americans and in particular New Yorkers in this difficult period. “I reacted first as an adopted New Yorker rather than as a journalist” said Stéphanie Tremblay French programme co-ordinator for Radio Canada. “The terrorists had above all attacked my city and targeted my way of life.” “I never thought I would cover such an event in my whole life time.” said Don Emmert, head of photo for Agence France-Presse. “I am Canadian,” said Marc Greenought, radio producer for English programmes on the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC), “but during these past days I have never felt so deeply American.” Everyone interviewed by RSF in New York said so: The American television networks were the first to cover the story and they were an excellent source of information in the first days. “We edited the first reports on the attack on the World Trade Center with our eyes fixed on the television screen,” said Michel Moutot, Agence France-Presse bureau chief in New York. “The US television networks have matchless resources and they used them right away,” he continued. Eric Leser, correspondent for the French daily Le Monde agreed. He told RSF how invaluable the live coverage on American television was to his work. The organisation Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR), generally very critical of the major media in America, found that the coverage in the first days was acceptable overall. “We saw a new type of spontaneous and sincere journalism” said one of its organisers Steve Randell. But just a week later, the tone and content on the American television networks changed. “I think the turning point was George W. Bush’s speech to Congress on the 20 September 2001, said Eric Leser. “Since then the media has taken on a strongly patriotic tone and news has lost out to propaganda.” French journalists add that since then they have followed the television networks much less and used the internet, where there are a number of sites providing more critical news and different angles. Many foreign correspondents who spoke to RSF in New York said the same thing. The RSF representatives noted the change of tone and feeling on the American networks that covered President Bush’s 20 September speech, in which he called for a “war against terrorism.” The fate of the victims was relegated to second position and the networks devoted their airtime to hailing the country’s “new heroes”: firefighters, police and military staff, politicians. And above all reflecting an image of a united and defiant nation, ready to wage war on those who have attacked it. “America’s new war” and “At war with terror” (CNN) or “America fights back or counter-attacks? (CBS) were the watchwords, henceforth always accompanied by the ubiquitous stars and stripes. “Broadcasts became all beating the drum and flags flying in the wind. It was no longer news,” said another foreign correspondent Richard Hetu, a journalist with the Canadian daily La Presse. A French journalist, a Balkans specialist, who covered the NATO intervention in Serbia, agreed from New York that American television had “gone to war”: ” Instead of news broadcasts, Americans are watching advertising spots to the glory of their country,” he said. In one example the 62 regional channels of the Sinclair Broadcast group have been carrying an advertisement on their web site: “Our team supports the action of President Bush and the leaders of our nation in putting an end to terrorism.” continues the message, urging viewers who agree to send their views to the site. Reflecting on the patriotic outbursts, Stéphanie Tremblay of Radio Canada said she was “not at all surprised by this aspect of coverage on the US networks. “I knew, however, that if I want to hear a more critical report that gave more space to the news itself, I would have to watch BBC or event TV 5,” she said. Fellow journalist Chantal Lavigne, also acknowledged the American media’s desire to take part in the “war effort” said, “Most star television presenters have said that they were Americans before being journalists.” Journalists and media executives questioned by RSF, either strongly denied having produced propaganda or on the other hand, acknowledged and justified their decision. “The footage of the attack against the World Trade Center has no equivalent in the history of conflict,” said Paul Khlebnikov, journalist with the influential economic magazine Forbes. “In the war of pictures the terrorists have made a decisive point. That is why the war that the United States is going to wage should not be just military and economic but also psychological, therefore media-driven. Killing Bin Laden will not be enough he will have to be cut down symbolically. Mr Khlebnikov said he was not worried by the bellicose and propagandist tone adopted by some of the US media. He attributes it to a “civic revival” shared by all Americans. “The first days there could have been a collapse in morale of Americans. Then as in times of war, there was a civic revival which was picked up in the press. And if the media has sometimes lacked objectivity it was not under official pressure. Objectivity in journalism does not man an absence of values. The media, overall, did excellent work. Television in particular was a triumph,” he said. Paul Khlebnikov is not the only one in the American press to take this position. Sandy Genelius, spokeswoman for the American TV network CBS News is satisfied, she says in an interview with RSF, with the comments she has read in the press about the work of the channel. “We haven’t sunk into propaganda like some”, she says taking a swipe in passing at CBS’s main competitor Cable News Network International (CNN). The chairman of CNN Chris Cramer has been self-congratulatory about the work of his network from 18 September: “CNN has never failed to live up to the occasion (-) to supply balanced news. The 4,000 men and women of CNN have not escaped the shock and the horror of what has happened. However the coverage of the news that we gave the public and other media is testament to professionalism and integrity.” Missing images: censorship or “matter of taste” Barely a week after the attacks, some European media chiefs, particularly French, have questioned the impartiality of the American TV networks, suspected of not showing “all the images”, mainly those of the victims of the attacks. Then there have been criticisms of American authorities, accused of wanted to prevent some shots from the scene being taken and put out by the media. Robert Namias, head of information for the main private French television channel TF1 has several times condemned “filtering” which he considers a form of “censorship”. “I strongly regret the censorship imposed on us by the United States, the journalist told the French daily Le Figaro on 26 September 2001. “The images that the French media paid for were filtered, treated and purified by the American authorities. How do you think we can do our job when we are denied access to information and surrounded by security forces? I did not want to show horrifying images but, to do the job properly, there should be a minimum knowledge.” His opinion is shared, in varying degrees, by other French television bosses but not unanimously. “The horror of the two planes slamming into the towers. Wasn’t that enough? asks Hervé Brusini, head of national news on the public French channel France 3. His colleague on France 2 Oliver Mazerolle, considers that he would not have shown gory images but said the American channels balked at showing this type of image “for patriotic reasons”. The French journalists all join however in condemning increasing difficulty in getting access to the World Trade Center site and the unwillingness of the authorities to allow journalists to move about freely within the security perimeter. During their investigation in New York and Paris, the RSF representatives tried to find out more about the lack of images of the victims and the conditions of access to the World Trade Center site. Jim Rutenberg and Felicity Barringer, media specialists for the New York Times visited various television studios from 11 September onwards and questioned those in charge about their editorial choices. “Terrible pictures started arriving,” they said. “There was blood, there were dismembered bodies.” Despite the desire of some journalists to show these images, the head of MSNBC Erik Sorenson took the decision not to show them. “I think there are all sorts of ways to show the horror without descending into the gory,” he said Some networks, like NBC, CBS, CNN and Fox News did however broadcast footage of desperate people jumping from the blazing building. Only to regret it afterwards. “It was a bad decision, the pictures were really too disturbing”, confessed Bill Wheatley, vice-president of NBC News. Those who decided not to show the film explained: ” The question is are we just creating useless pain”. Those, who like CBS, showed them, justify themselves too: “That’s terrorism. From one point of view you want to protect the viewer but in another way you want to show just what the terrorists have really done.” Michel Moutot of Agence France-Presse also remembers these deeply disturbing photos. “By their clothes one could easily recognise people who jumped from the windows”. However he considered them to be “acceptable”. In fact, several photos of this scene, taken by photographers from the major international agencies appeared during the course of the week in the American and European press. Editors who published the, like Glenn Guzzo of the daily Denver Post, spoke of the virulent objections from readers. “Haven’t you any feelings, any respect for the families who have lost their loved-ones?” one reader asked indignantly. At this stage is strongly appears that a number of distressing photos were taken and used by the American media. It was they who decided, according to their own conscience, whether to use them or not. “It doesn’t look like the authorities were trying to control these pictures, given that that they didn’t even know how to protect the president,” said one observer. “The refusal to show the horrifying pictures was an editorial decision by my colleaguesm,“adds Paul Khlebnikov of Forbes. “As citizens we had to ask ourselves the question: should one show bits of bodies in a period of mourning and national remembrance?” It was indeed an “editorial choice” said Sandy Genelius of CBS News to RSF. “We had sensitive film, we had gory images, but each time we asked ourselves: What more are we contributing to history by showing them? So we decided not to show the pictures just for the pleasure of demonstrating that we had them”. This sudden reticence of the part of the American media has interested a number of foreign observers. In an analytical piece headed “The faceless dead of the World Trade Center,” the journalist Michel Guerin, specialist in images at the French daily Le Monde, stated the paradox: “5,500 people died or disappeared on the black day of 11 September...but practically no image of the bodies has been shown on the television or published in the press” (21 September 2001). “A decency of variable shape, says Dominique Wolton, head of research at the National Centre for Scientific Research (CNRS) quoted by the French daily Liberation (19 September 2001). “This should be a big lesson in decency to western media who don’t hesitate to show massacres when they happen in Rwanda...” he added. Others like the photo historian Marc Ferro do not find it surprising. “During wars you never show your own dead, only those of your adversaries. The Americans want to limit the images of the trauma they have suffered, of defeat, the affront and the mortification.” Sandy Genelius, spokeswoman for CBS News, to whom RSF put these questions, once again staunchly defended herself against applying double standards. “It’s not true that we used different standards. We applied the same rules when we filmed in Rwanda as at the World Trade Center.” An RSF representative also discussed this question with Tom Golstein, emeritus professor at the prestigious Columbia School of Journalism in south Manhattan. He considered that it was simply a “question of taste”. This opinion seems to be shared by a significant majority of American and even foreign journalists. Like Canadian journalist Marc Greenought of CBC, they did not hide their astonishment, even irritation at the criticism from the European media on the absence of more distressing and gory images of the World Trade Center victims and the restricted access to the site. “I do not understand,” he told RSF. “As a journalist I had all the access I needed, the suffering, the emotion. No need to go searching for blood under the ruins for that.” Arrests and calls to order In the first days after the attacks of 11 September, the American media certainly adopted a common position which was not to “add horror on horror” and to take part in the resurgence of patriotic national feeling. In doing this, those in charge followed the wishes of a large majority of the public which reacted strongly to the first images shown after the attacks. Added to this were very strict rules of access to the site of the disaster, injunctions by the various authorities along with sanctions against recalcitrant photographers. The perimeter of the World Trade Center was quickly secured and surrounded by US security forces after the confusion of the first few days. “The New York police were generally co-operative with the press and allowed comings and goings on the site. The arrival on the scene of the National Guard put an end to this situation,” remembered M. Moutot of AFP. Barriers appeared all around the site, the security perimeter was extended by several streets to the south and north of Manhattan. A complex system of accreditation was then established Involving both police and the military. According to the daily Los Angeles Times, from 19 September onwards the police started seizing the films of photographers and tourists close to the site. Many photographers had their access passes withdrawn for failing to respect the orders of the authorities. The American press freedom organisation The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press (RCFP) said that at least four journalists were arrested and accused of breaking the conditions of access to the World Trade Center site. Among them was Ian Austin, photographer for the Agency Aurora Quanta Productions, who was detained for three days before being released without any charge. All journalists working for the daily Dallas Daily News had their accreditation withdrawn because of the arrest and “bad conduct” of one of their photographers. In an interview with RSF, Don Emmert, head of photo at AFP in New York discussed the consequences of the restrictions and the calls to order on the work of his agency. “In photo terms, whole segments of this drama have not been covered. The reason is simple : they wouldn’t let us work. We could not satisfy the demands of our clients from abroad. For instance, we could not go to the hospitals and we can no longer freely take pictures of the World Trade Center after the disaster.” “The office of the mayor asked us not to show firefighters recovering the bodies of their colleagues.” continued Don Emmert, who also spoke out against the current working conditions on the site. “It’s like a police state, he said. They let us shoot in organized pools only what the authorities want us to shoot. The ones who move freely around are the Marine photographers and the photographers from the Federal Emergency Agency. They supply agencies with very pretty photographs Even if the American press continues to carry photos of the ruins of the World Trade Centre, all media, including the tabloids, have to accept pools, of shots taken from a distance and showing only the wide angle of the site. For some journalists working in New York the reply to the debate on the absence of images of the victims of the World Trade Center is very simple. “I quite honestly doubt that that there is much left to show,” suggests the French daily Le Monde’s correspondent. His view is shared by Richard Hetu of the Canadian daily La Presse, who believes that the bodies literally “disintegrated”. The World Trade Center has become an enormous crematorium,” he continued. “As I wrote in one article, the dust from the debris of the World Trade Center that we are breathing still probably includes the ashes of the victims.” America should not speak with the same voice as its enemies Several other incidents, comparable to press freedom violations, characterised the life of the media after the 11 September. They were caused by interventions by the authorities critical of one media or another, or by the owners of the media themselves who saw it as a good moment to sanction a particular journalist for “subversive” comments, and sometimes by both at once, without being able to establish with that media what the real reason for the sanction was. So when the television network ABC decided on 19 September to no longer broadcast images of the two planes slamming into the World Trade Center towers, it was officially so as not to “banalise the dramatic event”. Many observers suspect however that it was the result of pressure from the authorities and in particular because of a desire expressed by the owner of Disney. The most flagrant examples of corporate censorship - when media bosses sanction a journalist for his or her opinions - came from the dailies The Texas City Sun and the Daily Courier in the state of Oregon. On 23 September Les Daughty Jr, owner of the Texas City Sun for 17 years writes an apology to his readers for an article by one of his editors-in-chief Ron Gutting, who said in an article critical of President Bush on the day after the attacks, that he was “flying around the country like a scared child seeking refuge in his mother’s bed after having a nightmare”. In an article on the front page of the newspaper Daughty apologised to all the leaders of the country and particularly to President George Bush for having published such an article which could only provoke “anger and disgust”. Ron Gutting was sacked from the newspaper. His colleague Dan Guthrie of the Daily Courier at Grant’s Pass met the same fate and for similar reasons. He wrote on the 15 September on a humorous page in the newspaper that George Bush had “skedaddled” in the face of the attacks, accusing him of being “an embarrassment” for “hiding in a Nebraska hole” on the day of the terrorist attacks. The newspaper’s editor-in-chief Dennis Mack wrote for his readers that to say that the head of state was hiding at a time when America was trying to unite after the bloody attacks was neither responsible nor appropriate. As a result Dan Guthrie lost his job but for “personal reasons”, according to his employer.` In neither case was there any apparent pressure on the part of the authorities. It was the fierce reactions of the newspapers’ readers that were decisive in the decision to sack the journalists. In another case, that was widely reported in the US press star television presenter Bill Maher drew a strong reaction from the White House. On his talk show “Politically Incorrect” on ABC, Bill Maher said on 17 September, “We have been the cowards, lobbing cruise missiles from 2,000 miles away. That’s cowardly. Staying in the airplane when it hits the building, say what you want about it, It’s not cowardly”. These comments drew the rage of many viewers and led to the immediate withdrawal of the programme’s two main sponsors Federal Express and Sears. A number of television stations linked to the ABC network, mainly in New York and Washington, pulled the Bill Maher programme, especially after White House spokesman Ari Fleisher called his remarks “unpatriotic”. He added, “It was a terrible thing to say and it’s unfortunate.” He went on, “The reminder is to all Americans that they need to watch what they say, watch what they do”. Journalists who heard his statement noted later that “watch what they say” did not appear in the text of this official record of the conference. Another decision of the US administration that drew much attention was the attempt by the authorities to block the broadcasting at the end of September of an interview with the spiritual leader of the Taliban Mullah Omar on the Congress-financed Voice of America. The station that is broadcast to 50 countries worldwide, to explain America to the world, normally has reasonable editorial independence. Claude Porsella, head of the VOA French service told RSF about the content of the programme. “One of my colleagues in the Pashto language service had the scoop of his life: an interview with Mullah Omar. VOA never intended to broadcast the entire interview, extracts of which were included in some general reporting including comments from the US Administration, analysis by an Islamic expert and the position of the Northern Alliance. Mullah Omar said he was convinced that Osama Bin Laden could not be behind the attacks.” The State Department, which has a seat on the VOA board, called on the other board members to ban the interview, scheduled for 28 September. “VOA is not the voice of Mullah Omar and is not the voice of the Taliban”, said one American official. He said it would be “inappropriate” to spend the backers money to broadcast comments of the head of the movement who was protecting the terrorists behind the 11 September attacks. “This decision caused huge dismay among VOA journalists,” said Claude Porsella. The head of news protested and a petition was signed by 150 journalists. Faced with this reaction and strong interest in the press, VOA reversed its decision and decided to go ahead with the broadcast on 25 September. So far there have been no sanctions on the part of the US Administration. “We won a battle,” said Claude Porsella. “But I doubt the story will end there. Heads will probably roll,” he feared. On this occasion the VOA journalists were able to win the solidarity of their colleagues in the major US media, particularly the written press. In the same way the influential daily The Washington Post opened its columns to journalist from VOA before taking a position in an editorial on 26 September. This read: “The episode revealed an impulse to squelch facts that is never far beneath the surface in time of war or quasi-war, an impulse that is hardly less noxious when it retreats promptly under challenge. “But the time for editors to resist the censoring and self-censoring instinct is before it is acted upon, not after. We hear frequently that the only way to beat the terrorists is to hold on to this nation’s freedoms. Those include honoring Americans’ right to hear commentary that bothers some and to glimpse the thoughts of enemies.” At the beginning of October, the American authorities once more expressed their annoyance towards the media which allow a voice to “enemies of America”. This time it was the Arabic Television station Al-Jazeera, based in Qatar that drew the ire of Bush Administration by broadcasts footage and interviews with Taliban leaders or with Osama Bin Laden. The station is famous for its 1998 interview with the man they call “the head of El Qaeda”. This interview was broadcast uncut, on several occasions, after 11 September. On ” September the American ambassador in Qatar officially intervened with the authorities in the country to protest against this “incendiary rhetoric” by the station, which is accused of supplying “biased” coverage of the events of 11 September as well as “encouraging anti-American feelings” in the Middle East. On 3 October following an interview with the US Secretary of State Colin Powell in Washington, Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa el-Thani, Emir of Qatar, and main shareholder in the station, said that US officials had asked him to use his authority to influence the coverage. The Emir said he would not interfere with the editorial policy of Al-Jazeera. The US Administration again complained about the broadcast, the day after the first US air strikes, the words of Osama Bin Laden warning the United States that it would “live in fear”. A State Department official told Reuters: “Yes to freedom but we think it’s beyond the pale to provide an open platform for these sort of violent ideas. We’re concerned everywhere that Osama bin Laden not to be able to use the media to spread his ideas”. At the same time President Bush would be willing to speak on the station. Al-Jazeera, which has had a permanent studio in Kabul since 1998, is one of the rare media still present in the Afghan capital and at Kandahar. Known for the quality of its programmes, his professionalism and independence, the “CNN of the Arab world” is regularly criticized by Arab countries which fear the platform it gives to opposition of all kinds. Conclusion: Is the First Amendment in danger? US lawyer and expert on the American Constitution Floyd Abrams says that America often debates issues like patriotism and free speech n times of crisis. He considers that the First Amendment is put to the test when the country is too. When the country felt threatened, its existence challenged, the First Amendment and its values were sometimes subordinated to other priorities. This opinion is apparently shared by several US organisations for defence of press freedom, who believe it is too soon to become alarmed by the events that have been outlined in this report. Lucy Daglish, head of the Reporters Committee for the Freedom of the Press said she was not unduly concerned. She felt that the media, like the rest of society had become hypersensitive, after the attacks. Her organisation had noted the consequences of the 11 September attacks, but without taking up a position. In an interview with head of the Committee To Protect Journalists (CPJ) Ann Cooper and deputy head Joel Simon, the main US-based worldwide press freedom organisation, said they consider that much more serious violations of press freedom were going on in other parts of the world. Ann Cooper said she thought the US State Department’s criticism of VOA demonstrated an almost instinctive reflex by governments in times of conflict, not to broadcast the words of their adversaries. In some countries this had the force of law, she said. In Russia media which published interviews with Chechen faced legal action. In Angola, police had detained journalists who quoted a rebel commander. “The crucial difference is that VOA broadcast the interview, despite the opposition of the State Department and has so far not suffered any sanction.” But Ann Coooper stressed that it was the tolerance of a free press that kept democracy alive. She did not feel that the press was in danger in the United States. “American journalists don’t need us to defend them. They have their media and the entire profession to back them in case of danger.” Tim Golstein of Columbia School of Journalism also shares this view and is confident that the American media can defend its own interests. “patriotism, independence, freedom of speech: we debate these questions practically every day whether in newspapers or in university lecture halls. But it is far too soon to draw conclusions from this debate.” Media who had so far done an excellent job in covering the attacks should now try to do the same for the rest: continue to do the same good job, but in time of conflict. Following this investigation in Paris and New York, Reporters Sans Frontières nevertheless considers that a number of points of concern remain: *	Several attempts by the US authorities aimed at regulating the work of the media have been reported: Arrests of photographers near the World Trade Center, the desire of the security forces to filter images taken at the site, an attempt to ban an interview with Mullah Omar on VOA and the pressure on the Qatar-based TV station Al-Jazeera to stop broadcasting footage of Osama Bin Laden. All these interventions, in whatever context, are unacceptable.. *	Moves against confidentiality on the internet, along with a certain number of measures within the “anti-terrorist” legislation that is currently being examined, constitute a real threat to individual and collective freedoms *	The symbiosis which appears to operate between the tone of the main audio-visual industry and official US policy could eventually militate against the watchdog role of the media in a democracy. *	The cases outlined of corporate censorship, such as the sackings of the two journalists for comments considered outrageous, could lead to self-censorship and an absence of criticism in the press. *	The setting up of “pools” of photographers at the World Trade Center site and the complexities of the accreditation system do not bode well for a free and independent coverage of the actions taken by the United States in reprisal for the terrorist attacks of 11 September.

# data[].attributes.headline
11. Patriotism and self censorship (PT.6)

# data[].attributes.subject
11. Patriotism and self censorship (PT.6)

# data[].attributes.body
Territories under Palestinian Authority or Liberia

Record several incidents of press freedom violations directly linked to the events in America. While avoiding all linkage with these regimes

Series of episodes affecting press freedom in the United States between 11 September and 7 October 20001, the date of the American military counter-attack.

https://rsf.org/en/between-pull-patriotism-and-self-censorshipthe-us-media-torment-after-11-september?utm_source=chatgpt.com

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Between the pull of patriotism and self-censorshipThe US media in torment after 11 September

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Investigation: Alexandre Levy and Francois Bugingo New York – September 26 / October 2 2001 Observers cast doubt on the objectivity of the American press Ten years after the Gulf War, a conflict the reality of which was largely hidden from the media, the US administration has launched a new series of military operations in reaction to the waves of terrorist attacks that stroked the East coast of the United States leaving nearly 6,000 dead. The daily New York Times noted, “This surge of national pride sweeping the country after the terrorist attacks on 11 September sparks the beginnings of new, more difficult debate over balance among national security, free speech and patriotism.” The influential American newspaper said in an article on 28 September 2001 that the debate “is being played out on stages large and small”, that press comments have on several occasions provoked the fury of the authorities, along with that of the American public, and have led to sanctions including pulling of programmes, withdrawal of advertising in the media and disavowal, even outright sacking of the journalists by their employers. This comes on top of a long list of constraints and more subtle pressure that American and foreign media, including the Internet, have been subjected to since 11 September. Many journalists and foreign observers have already cast doubt on the objectivity and independence of the American press, particularly the TV channels, in this period of “war effort”. In the same way, several voices have been raised within the United States warning the public about a decline in freedom of expression and opinion, freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment of the Constitution, in exchange for tightening security. “We are facing an enemy which is exploiting what it is about our society that makes it strong and effective: freedom, openness and freedom of movement. We have to be sure that we remain an open society, in which individual freedoms are respected,” said Strobe Talbott, former number two at the US State Department in the Clinton Administration. But these voices, drowned out in the climate of media coverage devoted to covering the aftermath of the attacks, the preparations and continuing US counter-attacks, remain in a minority. Even those who are critical appear weakened by the emotion produced by this dramatic terrorist act, the death of thousands of innocent people and the suffering of their bereaved families. In the face of calls to national unity, US organisations traditionally devoted to defending individual freedoms, have been muted. They consider that it is still too soon, even inappropriate, to be raising the alarm over events considered largely ‘secondary’. “The shock of 11 September seems to have stifled the most militant of people, giving way to a de facto tolerance towards tougher than usual stances on the part of the military and the judiciary,” said journalist Sylvie Kauffman, former correspondent of the French daily Le Monde in New York, on 17 September 2001. In fact today, while countries throw themselves into a fresh military operation, the vigilance of organisations defending human rights and individual freedoms are all the more needed. A number of regimes find the temptation too great to exploit the genuine emotion produced by these attacks on the United States on 11 September to restrict freedom of the press and more generally to silence domestic opposition under the cover of the struggle against terrorism. In countries such as Pakistan, Israel, Territories under Palestinian Authority or Liberia, Reporters Sans Frontières (RSF) has recorded several incidents of press freedom violations directly linked to the events in America. While avoiding all linkage with these regimes, RSF also makes public here a serious of episodes affecting press freedom in the United States between 11 September and 7 October 20001, the date of the American military counter-attack. Most of them have been reported and commented on by the American press or by specialist Internet sites. Are these incidents of censorship or self-censorship? Are we witnessing a deliberate policy on the part of the authorities or a choice made by the main media themselves? What do American and foreign journalists working in New York think? What about organisations that defend press freedom? To try to answer these questions, two representatives of RSF went to the United States and meet representatives of the media, human rights organisations and US press specialists. The first suspect: internet The unprecedented scale of the attacks on New York and Washington, and the presumed use by the terrorists of advanced computer technology, prompted fears among internet users of a tightening of web surveillance, as called for by the security services. A number of sources report that a few hours after the attacks on 12 September, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) agents turned up at the headquarters of the main internet providers (Hotmail, AOL, Earthlink, etc) to obtain information on possible email exchanges between the terrorists. Technicians working for these companies have said off the record to the American online magazine Wired that FBI agents wanted to install the electronic bugging system “Carnivore” (recently renamed DCS 1000) on the main computer of internet access providers based in the United States. “From Tuesday evening FBI agents showed up at our workplace wanting to set up their machines. They promised to pick up the tab for all the costs of installation and use”. Another one working for Hotmail said that the FBI had asked for, and obtained, from company executives all information on accounts, whose names included the word Allah. All the major Internet access providers appear to have followed Hotmail’s example and fully collaborated with the American secret services. Once installed at an Internet access provider Carnivore can record and save all information exchanged between users. Under strong critical pressure from defenders of individual freedoms in the United States, the system had never been used until now except with the advance agreement of a judge. The “Combating terrorism Act” voted through after a half-hour debate in the Senate on 13 September, barely two days after the attacks, exempts the security services from judicial approval for the use of Carnivore. To become law this act has still to be approved by a joint commission of members of the Senate and House of Representatives. In the same vein, a number of US leaders have started attacking encryption. This procedure allows internet-users to enjoy confidentiality when exchanging information on the Internet with the use of encryption software. the best known being PGP (Pretty Good Privacy), which can be freely downloaded from a number of sites. Already last March the head of the FBI Louis Freeh said he was convinced that terrorist networks were using encryption. On 13 September the Republican senator Judd Gregg called in a speech to Congress for a worldwide ban on encryption software unless public authorities had been given the means to decode the messages. “One could fear that the authorities could take advantage of the emotion of the moment to achieve their objective: banning encryption” one American proponent of PGP told RSF. Other privacy protection militants such as John Gilmore of the American organisation Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) called for creation of more sites which would offer encryption software on open sale. After the first attack on the World Trade Center in 1993 the FBI found plans for hijacking 11 planes on the portable computer of the person who carried out the attack. The FBI took ten months to decode the files, the majority of which had been encrypted with PGP software. Defenders of encryption say to this that intelligence has already shown its weakness in this area in as much as the terrorists appear to have already used methods that avoid electronic surveillance. The creator of PGP, David Zimmerman, who was nearly jailed in the United States during the 1980 for distributing his programme, has once again defended his position in a recent interview in the magazine Futur(e)s. “Whether it’s congress, or in the courts or in the columns of newspapers, the country has already debated this question over the last decade. And together we have decided that society has more to gain than to lose from effective encryption. It should not be forgotten that encryption has saved lives in the entire world. The system is used by human rights organisations worldwide and especially under dictatorships”. (Quoted by the on-line magazine Transfert, 17 September 2001). Television: From spontaneity to patriotic rigour Filmed virtually live, the attack against the World Trade Center was at the same time tragic and spectacular, as if meant for television. “One should not forget that the terrorist target, Manhattan, is not only the financial heart but also the media capital of the country”, an American journalist pointed out. Never has such an event been filmed and photographed live both by cameras and surveillance, by amateurs and professionals. In the first days access to the sites of the attacks was not controlled. Numerous photographers and cameramen took advantage of this by getting as close as possible to the points of impact. The United States being cut off from the rest of the world with the grounding of all flights, it was only American journalists and foreign correspondents posted to New York who covered the story. Not having necessarily experienced war or natural disasters, they admitted to having had “the shock of their lives” when they heard about the terrorist attacks and went to the World Trade Centre. Either originally from New York or having lived their for many years, they said with a good deal of emotion, that they had covered “the most important story of their careers”. They did not hide their sympathy for Americans and in particular New Yorkers in this difficult period. “I reacted first as an adopted New Yorker rather than as a journalist” said Stéphanie Tremblay French programme co-ordinator for Radio Canada. “The terrorists had above all attacked my city and targeted my way of life.” “I never thought I would cover such an event in my whole life time.” said Don Emmert, head of photo for Agence France-Presse. “I am Canadian,” said Marc Greenought, radio producer for English programmes on the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC), “but during these past days I have never felt so deeply American.” Everyone interviewed by RSF in New York said so: The American television networks were the first to cover the story and they were an excellent source of information in the first days. “We edited the first reports on the attack on the World Trade Center with our eyes fixed on the television screen,” said Michel Moutot, Agence France-Presse bureau chief in New York. “The US television networks have matchless resources and they used them right away,” he continued. Eric Leser, correspondent for the French daily Le Monde agreed. He told RSF how invaluable the live coverage on American television was to his work. The organisation Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR), generally very critical of the major media in America, found that the coverage in the first days was acceptable overall. “We saw a new type of spontaneous and sincere journalism” said one of its organisers Steve Randell. But just a week later, the tone and content on the American television networks changed. “I think the turning point was George W. Bush’s speech to Congress on the 20 September 2001, said Eric Leser. “Since then the media has taken on a strongly patriotic tone and news has lost out to propaganda.” French journalists add that since then they have followed the television networks much less and used the internet, where there are a number of sites providing more critical news and different angles. Many foreign correspondents who spoke to RSF in New York said the same thing. The RSF representatives noted the change of tone and feeling on the American networks that covered President Bush’s 20 September speech, in which he called for a “war against terrorism.” The fate of the victims was relegated to second position and the networks devoted their airtime to hailing the country’s “new heroes”: firefighters, police and military staff, politicians. And above all reflecting an image of a united and defiant nation, ready to wage war on those who have attacked it. “America’s new war” and “At war with terror” (CNN) or “America fights back or counter-attacks? (CBS) were the watchwords, henceforth always accompanied by the ubiquitous stars and stripes. “Broadcasts became all beating the drum and flags flying in the wind. It was no longer news,” said another foreign correspondent Richard Hetu, a journalist with the Canadian daily La Presse. A French journalist, a Balkans specialist, who covered the NATO intervention in Serbia, agreed from New York that American television had “gone to war”: ” Instead of news broadcasts, Americans are watching advertising spots to the glory of their country,” he said. In one example the 62 regional channels of the Sinclair Broadcast group have been carrying an advertisement on their web site: “Our team supports the action of President Bush and the leaders of our nation in putting an end to terrorism.” continues the message, urging viewers who agree to send their views to the site. Reflecting on the patriotic outbursts, Stéphanie Tremblay of Radio Canada said she was “not at all surprised by this aspect of coverage on the US networks. “I knew, however, that if I want to hear a more critical report that gave more space to the news itself, I would have to watch BBC or event TV 5,” she said. Fellow journalist Chantal Lavigne, also acknowledged the American media’s desire to take part in the “war effort” said, “Most star television presenters have said that they were Americans before being journalists.” Journalists and media executives questioned by RSF, either strongly denied having produced propaganda or on the other hand, acknowledged and justified their decision. “The footage of the attack against the World Trade Center has no equivalent in the history of conflict,” said Paul Khlebnikov, journalist with the influential economic magazine Forbes. “In the war of pictures the terrorists have made a decisive point. That is why the war that the United States is going to wage should not be just military and economic but also psychological, therefore media-driven. Killing Bin Laden will not be enough he will have to be cut down symbolically. Mr Khlebnikov said he was not worried by the bellicose and propagandist tone adopted by some of the US media. He attributes it to a “civic revival” shared by all Americans. “The first days there could have been a collapse in morale of Americans. Then as in times of war, there was a civic revival which was picked up in the press. And if the media has sometimes lacked objectivity it was not under official pressure. Objectivity in journalism does not man an absence of values. The media, overall, did excellent work. Television in particular was a triumph,” he said. Paul Khlebnikov is not the only one in the American press to take this position. Sandy Genelius, spokeswoman for the American TV network CBS News is satisfied, she says in an interview with RSF, with the comments she has read in the press about the work of the channel. “We haven’t sunk into propaganda like some”, she says taking a swipe in passing at CBS’s main competitor Cable News Network International (CNN). The chairman of CNN Chris Cramer has been self-congratulatory about the work of his network from 18 September: “CNN has never failed to live up to the occasion (-) to supply balanced news. The 4,000 men and women of CNN have not escaped the shock and the horror of what has happened. However the coverage of the news that we gave the public and other media is testament to professionalism and integrity.” Missing images: censorship or “matter of taste” Barely a week after the attacks, some European media chiefs, particularly French, have questioned the impartiality of the American TV networks, suspected of not showing “all the images”, mainly those of the victims of the attacks. Then there have been criticisms of American authorities, accused of wanted to prevent some shots from the scene being taken and put out by the media. Robert Namias, head of information for the main private French television channel TF1 has several times condemned “filtering” which he considers a form of “censorship”. “I strongly regret the censorship imposed on us by the United States, the journalist told the French daily Le Figaro on 26 September 2001. “The images that the French media paid for were filtered, treated and purified by the American authorities. How do you think we can do our job when we are denied access to information and surrounded by security forces? I did not want to show horrifying images but, to do the job properly, there should be a minimum knowledge.” His opinion is shared, in varying degrees, by other French television bosses but not unanimously. “The horror of the two planes slamming into the towers. Wasn’t that enough? asks Hervé Brusini, head of national news on the public French channel France 3. His colleague on France 2 Oliver Mazerolle, considers that he would not have shown gory images but said the American channels balked at showing this type of image “for patriotic reasons”. The French journalists all join however in condemning increasing difficulty in getting access to the World Trade Center site and the unwillingness of the authorities to allow journalists to move about freely within the security perimeter. During their investigation in New York and Paris, the RSF representatives tried to find out more about the lack of images of the victims and the conditions of access to the World Trade Center site. Jim Rutenberg and Felicity Barringer, media specialists for the New York Times visited various television studios from 11 September onwards and questioned those in charge about their editorial choices. “Terrible pictures started arriving,” they said. “There was blood, there were dismembered bodies.” Despite the desire of some journalists to show these images, the head of MSNBC Erik Sorenson took the decision not to show them. “I think there are all sorts of ways to show the horror without descending into the gory,” he said Some networks, like NBC, CBS, CNN and Fox News did however broadcast footage of desperate people jumping from the blazing building. Only to regret it afterwards. “It was a bad decision, the pictures were really too disturbing”, confessed Bill Wheatley, vice-president of NBC News. Those who decided not to show the film explained: ” The question is are we just creating useless pain”. Those, who like CBS, showed them, justify themselves too: “That’s terrorism. From one point of view you want to protect the viewer but in another way you want to show just what the terrorists have really done.” Michel Moutot of Agence France-Presse also remembers these deeply disturbing photos. “By their clothes one could easily recognise people who jumped from the windows”. However he considered them to be “acceptable”. In fact, several photos of this scene, taken by photographers from the major international agencies appeared during the course of the week in the American and European press. Editors who published the, like Glenn Guzzo of the daily Denver Post, spoke of the virulent objections from readers. “Haven’t you any feelings, any respect for the families who have lost their loved-ones?” one reader asked indignantly. At this stage is strongly appears that a number of distressing photos were taken and used by the American media. It was they who decided, according to their own conscience, whether to use them or not. “It doesn’t look like the authorities were trying to control these pictures, given that that they didn’t even know how to protect the president,” said one observer. “The refusal to show the horrifying pictures was an editorial decision by my colleaguesm,“adds Paul Khlebnikov of Forbes. “As citizens we had to ask ourselves the question: should one show bits of bodies in a period of mourning and national remembrance?” It was indeed an “editorial choice” said Sandy Genelius of CBS News to RSF. “We had sensitive film, we had gory images, but each time we asked ourselves: What more are we contributing to history by showing them? So we decided not to show the pictures just for the pleasure of demonstrating that we had them”. This sudden reticence of the part of the American media has interested a number of foreign observers. In an analytical piece headed “The faceless dead of the World Trade Center,” the journalist Michel Guerin, specialist in images at the French daily Le Monde, stated the paradox: “5,500 people died or disappeared on the black day of 11 September...but practically no image of the bodies has been shown on the television or published in the press” (21 September 2001). “A decency of variable shape, says Dominique Wolton, head of research at the National Centre for Scientific Research (CNRS) quoted by the French daily Liberation (19 September 2001). “This should be a big lesson in decency to western media who don’t hesitate to show massacres when they happen in Rwanda...” he added. Others like the photo historian Marc Ferro do not find it surprising. “During wars you never show your own dead, only those of your adversaries. The Americans want to limit the images of the trauma they have suffered, of defeat, the affront and the mortification.” Sandy Genelius, spokeswoman for CBS News, to whom RSF put these questions, once again staunchly defended herself against applying double standards. “It’s not true that we used different standards. We applied the same rules when we filmed in Rwanda as at the World Trade Center.” An RSF representative also discussed this question with Tom Golstein, emeritus professor at the prestigious Columbia School of Journalism in south Manhattan. He considered that it was simply a “question of taste”. This opinion seems to be shared by a significant majority of American and even foreign journalists. Like Canadian journalist Marc Greenought of CBC, they did not hide their astonishment, even irritation at the criticism from the European media on the absence of more distressing and gory images of the World Trade Center victims and the restricted access to the site. “I do not understand,” he told RSF. “As a journalist I had all the access I needed, the suffering, the emotion. No need to go searching for blood under the ruins for that.” Arrests and calls to order In the first days after the attacks of 11 September, the American media certainly adopted a common position which was not to “add horror on horror” and to take part in the resurgence of patriotic national feeling. In doing this, those in charge followed the wishes of a large majority of the public which reacted strongly to the first images shown after the attacks. Added to this were very strict rules of access to the site of the disaster, injunctions by the various authorities along with sanctions against recalcitrant photographers. The perimeter of the World Trade Center was quickly secured and surrounded by US security forces after the confusion of the first few days. “The New York police were generally co-operative with the press and allowed comings and goings on the site. The arrival on the scene of the National Guard put an end to this situation,” remembered M. Moutot of AFP. Barriers appeared all around the site, the security perimeter was extended by several streets to the south and north of Manhattan. A complex system of accreditation was then established Involving both police and the military. According to the daily Los Angeles Times, from 19 September onwards the police started seizing the films of photographers and tourists close to the site. Many photographers had their access passes withdrawn for failing to respect the orders of the authorities. The American press freedom organisation The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press (RCFP) said that at least four journalists were arrested and accused of breaking the conditions of access to the World Trade Center site. Among them was Ian Austin, photographer for the Agency Aurora Quanta Productions, who was detained for three days before being released without any charge. All journalists working for the daily Dallas Daily News had their accreditation withdrawn because of the arrest and “bad conduct” of one of their photographers. In an interview with RSF, Don Emmert, head of photo at AFP in New York discussed the consequences of the restrictions and the calls to order on the work of his agency. “In photo terms, whole segments of this drama have not been covered. The reason is simple : they wouldn’t let us work. We could not satisfy the demands of our clients from abroad. For instance, we could not go to the hospitals and we can no longer freely take pictures of the World Trade Center after the disaster.” “The office of the mayor asked us not to show firefighters recovering the bodies of their colleagues.” continued Don Emmert, who also spoke out against the current working conditions on the site. “It’s like a police state, he said. They let us shoot in organized pools only what the authorities want us to shoot. The ones who move freely around are the Marine photographers and the photographers from the Federal Emergency Agency. They supply agencies with very pretty photographs Even if the American press continues to carry photos of the ruins of the World Trade Centre, all media, including the tabloids, have to accept pools, of shots taken from a distance and showing only the wide angle of the site. For some journalists working in New York the reply to the debate on the absence of images of the victims of the World Trade Center is very simple. “I quite honestly doubt that that there is much left to show,” suggests the French daily Le Monde’s correspondent. His view is shared by Richard Hetu of the Canadian daily La Presse, who believes that the bodies literally “disintegrated”. The World Trade Center has become an enormous crematorium,” he continued. “As I wrote in one article, the dust from the debris of the World Trade Center that we are breathing still probably includes the ashes of the victims.” America should not speak with the same voice as its enemies Several other incidents, comparable to press freedom violations, characterised the life of the media after the 11 September. They were caused by interventions by the authorities critical of one media or another, or by the owners of the media themselves who saw it as a good moment to sanction a particular journalist for “subversive” comments, and sometimes by both at once, without being able to establish with that media what the real reason for the sanction was. So when the television network ABC decided on 19 September to no longer broadcast images of the two planes slamming into the World Trade Center towers, it was officially so as not to “banalise the dramatic event”. Many observers suspect however that it was the result of pressure from the authorities and in particular because of a desire expressed by the owner of Disney. The most flagrant examples of corporate censorship - when media bosses sanction a journalist for his or her opinions - came from the dailies The Texas City Sun and the Daily Courier in the state of Oregon. On 23 September Les Daughty Jr, owner of the Texas City Sun for 17 years writes an apology to his readers for an article by one of his editors-in-chief Ron Gutting, who said in an article critical of President Bush on the day after the attacks, that he was “flying around the country like a scared child seeking refuge in his mother’s bed after having a nightmare”. In an article on the front page of the newspaper Daughty apologised to all the leaders of the country and particularly to President George Bush for having published such an article which could only provoke “anger and disgust”. Ron Gutting was sacked from the newspaper. His colleague Dan Guthrie of the Daily Courier at Grant’s Pass met the same fate and for similar reasons. He wrote on the 15 September on a humorous page in the newspaper that George Bush had “skedaddled” in the face of the attacks, accusing him of being “an embarrassment” for “hiding in a Nebraska hole” on the day of the terrorist attacks. The newspaper’s editor-in-chief Dennis Mack wrote for his readers that to say that the head of state was hiding at a time when America was trying to unite after the bloody attacks was neither responsible nor appropriate. As a result Dan Guthrie lost his job but for “personal reasons”, according to his employer.` In neither case was there any apparent pressure on the part of the authorities. It was the fierce reactions of the newspapers’ readers that were decisive in the decision to sack the journalists. In another case, that was widely reported in the US press star television presenter Bill Maher drew a strong reaction from the White House. On his talk show “Politically Incorrect” on ABC, Bill Maher said on 17 September, “We have been the cowards, lobbing cruise missiles from 2,000 miles away. That’s cowardly. Staying in the airplane when it hits the building, say what you want about it, It’s not cowardly”. These comments drew the rage of many viewers and led to the immediate withdrawal of the programme’s two main sponsors Federal Express and Sears. A number of television stations linked to the ABC network, mainly in New York and Washington, pulled the Bill Maher programme, especially after White House spokesman Ari Fleisher called his remarks “unpatriotic”. He added, “It was a terrible thing to say and it’s unfortunate.” He went on, “The reminder is to all Americans that they need to watch what they say, watch what they do”. Journalists who heard his statement noted later that “watch what they say” did not appear in the text of this official record of the conference. Another decision of the US administration that drew much attention was the attempt by the authorities to block the broadcasting at the end of September of an interview with the spiritual leader of the Taliban Mullah Omar on the Congress-financed Voice of America. The station that is broadcast to 50 countries worldwide, to explain America to the world, normally has reasonable editorial independence. Claude Porsella, head of the VOA French service told RSF about the content of the programme. “One of my colleagues in the Pashto language service had the scoop of his life: an interview with Mullah Omar. VOA never intended to broadcast the entire interview, extracts of which were included in some general reporting including comments from the US Administration, analysis by an Islamic expert and the position of the Northern Alliance. Mullah Omar said he was convinced that Osama Bin Laden could not be behind the attacks.” The State Department, which has a seat on the VOA board, called on the other board members to ban the interview, scheduled for 28 September. “VOA is not the voice of Mullah Omar and is not the voice of the Taliban”, said one American official. He said it would be “inappropriate” to spend the backers money to broadcast comments of the head of the movement who was protecting the terrorists behind the 11 September attacks. “This decision caused huge dismay among VOA journalists,” said Claude Porsella. The head of news protested and a petition was signed by 150 journalists. Faced with this reaction and strong interest in the press, VOA reversed its decision and decided to go ahead with the broadcast on 25 September. So far there have been no sanctions on the part of the US Administration. “We won a battle,” said Claude Porsella. “But I doubt the story will end there. Heads will probably roll,” he feared. On this occasion the VOA journalists were able to win the solidarity of their colleagues in the major US media, particularly the written press. In the same way the influential daily The Washington Post opened its columns to journalist from VOA before taking a position in an editorial on 26 September. This read: “The episode revealed an impulse to squelch facts that is never far beneath the surface in time of war or quasi-war, an impulse that is hardly less noxious when it retreats promptly under challenge. “But the time for editors to resist the censoring and self-censoring instinct is before it is acted upon, not after. We hear frequently that the only way to beat the terrorists is to hold on to this nation’s freedoms. Those include honoring Americans’ right to hear commentary that bothers some and to glimpse the thoughts of enemies.” At the beginning of October, the American authorities once more expressed their annoyance towards the media which allow a voice to “enemies of America”. This time it was the Arabic Television station Al-Jazeera, based in Qatar that drew the ire of Bush Administration by broadcasts footage and interviews with Taliban leaders or with Osama Bin Laden. The station is famous for its 1998 interview with the man they call “the head of El Qaeda”. This interview was broadcast uncut, on several occasions, after 11 September. On ” September the American ambassador in Qatar officially intervened with the authorities in the country to protest against this “incendiary rhetoric” by the station, which is accused of supplying “biased” coverage of the events of 11 September as well as “encouraging anti-American feelings” in the Middle East. On 3 October following an interview with the US Secretary of State Colin Powell in Washington, Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa el-Thani, Emir of Qatar, and main shareholder in the station, said that US officials had asked him to use his authority to influence the coverage. The Emir said he would not interfere with the editorial policy of Al-Jazeera. The US Administration again complained about the broadcast, the day after the first US air strikes, the words of Osama Bin Laden warning the United States that it would “live in fear”. A State Department official told Reuters: “Yes to freedom but we think it’s beyond the pale to provide an open platform for these sort of violent ideas. We’re concerned everywhere that Osama bin Laden not to be able to use the media to spread his ideas”. At the same time President Bush would be willing to speak on the station. Al-Jazeera, which has had a permanent studio in Kabul since 1998, is one of the rare media still present in the Afghan capital and at Kandahar. Known for the quality of its programmes, his professionalism and independence, the “CNN of the Arab world” is regularly criticized by Arab countries which fear the platform it gives to opposition of all kinds. Conclusion: Is the First Amendment in danger? US lawyer and expert on the American Constitution Floyd Abrams says that America often debates issues like patriotism and free speech n times of crisis. He considers that the First Amendment is put to the test when the country is too. When the country felt threatened, its existence challenged, the First Amendment and its values were sometimes subordinated to other priorities. This opinion is apparently shared by several US organisations for defence of press freedom, who believe it is too soon to become alarmed by the events that have been outlined in this report. Lucy Daglish, head of the Reporters Committee for the Freedom of the Press said she was not unduly concerned. She felt that the media, like the rest of society had become hypersensitive, after the attacks. Her organisation had noted the consequences of the 11 September attacks, but without taking up a position. In an interview with head of the Committee To Protect Journalists (CPJ) Ann Cooper and deputy head Joel Simon, the main US-based worldwide press freedom organisation, said they consider that much more serious violations of press freedom were going on in other parts of the world. Ann Cooper said she thought the US State Department’s criticism of VOA demonstrated an almost instinctive reflex by governments in times of conflict, not to broadcast the words of their adversaries. In some countries this had the force of law, she said. In Russia media which published interviews with Chechen faced legal action. In Angola, police had detained journalists who quoted a rebel commander. “The crucial difference is that VOA broadcast the interview, despite the opposition of the State Department and has so far not suffered any sanction.” But Ann Coooper stressed that it was the tolerance of a free press that kept democracy alive. She did not feel that the press was in danger in the United States. “American journalists don’t need us to defend them. They have their media and the entire profession to back them in case of danger.” Tim Golstein of Columbia School of Journalism also shares this view and is confident that the American media can defend its own interests. “patriotism, independence, freedom of speech: we debate these questions practically every day whether in newspapers or in university lecture halls. But it is far too soon to draw conclusions from this debate.” Media who had so far done an excellent job in covering the attacks should now try to do the same for the rest: continue to do the same good job, but in time of conflict. Following this investigation in Paris and New York, Reporters Sans Frontières nevertheless considers that a number of points of concern remain: *	Several attempts by the US authorities aimed at regulating the work of the media have been reported: Arrests of photographers near the World Trade Center, the desire of the security forces to filter images taken at the site, an attempt to ban an interview with Mullah Omar on VOA and the pressure on the Qatar-based TV station Al-Jazeera to stop broadcasting footage of Osama Bin Laden. All these interventions, in whatever context, are unacceptable.. *	Moves against confidentiality on the internet, along with a certain number of measures within the “anti-terrorist” legislation that is currently being examined, constitute a real threat to individual and collective freedoms *	The symbiosis which appears to operate between the tone of the main audio-visual industry and official US policy could eventually militate against the watchdog role of the media in a democracy. *	The cases outlined of corporate censorship, such as the sackings of the two journalists for comments considered outrageous, could lead to self-censorship and an absence of criticism in the press. *	The setting up of “pools” of photographers at the World Trade Center site and the complexities of the accreditation system do not bode well for a free and independent coverage of the actions taken by the United States in reprisal for the terrorist attacks of 11 September.

# data[].attributes.headline
12. Patriotism and self censorship  (PT.12)

# data[].attributes.subject
12. Patriotism and self censorship  (PT.12)

# data[].attributes.body
Unprecedented scale of the attacks on New York and Washington, and the presumed use by the terrorists of advanced computer technology, prompted fears among internet users of a tightening of web surveillance, as called for by the security services

A number of sources report that a few hours after the attacks on 12 September, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)

obtain information on possible email exchanges between the terrorists. Technicians working for these companies have said off the record to the American online magazine Wired that FBI agents wanted to install the electronic bugging system "Carnivore

https://rsf.org/en/between-pull-patriotism-and-self-censorshipthe-us-media-torment-after-11-september?utm_source=chatgpt.com

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Between the pull of patriotism and self-censorshipThe US media in torment after 11 September

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Investigation: Alexandre Levy and Francois Bugingo New York – September 26 / October 2 2001 Observers cast doubt on the objectivity of the American press Ten years after the Gulf War, a conflict the reality of which was largely hidden from the media, the US administration has launched a new series of military operations in reaction to the waves of terrorist attacks that stroked the East coast of the United States leaving nearly 6,000 dead. The daily New York Times noted, “This surge of national pride sweeping the country after the terrorist attacks on 11 September sparks the beginnings of new, more difficult debate over balance among national security, free speech and patriotism.” The influential American newspaper said in an article on 28 September 2001 that the debate “is being played out on stages large and small”, that press comments have on several occasions provoked the fury of the authorities, along with that of the American public, and have led to sanctions including pulling of programmes, withdrawal of advertising in the media and disavowal, even outright sacking of the journalists by their employers. This comes on top of a long list of constraints and more subtle pressure that American and foreign media, including the Internet, have been subjected to since 11 September. Many journalists and foreign observers have already cast doubt on the objectivity and independence of the American press, particularly the TV channels, in this period of “war effort”. In the same way, several voices have been raised within the United States warning the public about a decline in freedom of expression and opinion, freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment of the Constitution, in exchange for tightening security. “We are facing an enemy which is exploiting what it is about our society that makes it strong and effective: freedom, openness and freedom of movement. We have to be sure that we remain an open society, in which individual freedoms are respected,” said Strobe Talbott, former number two at the US State Department in the Clinton Administration. But these voices, drowned out in the climate of media coverage devoted to covering the aftermath of the attacks, the preparations and continuing US counter-attacks, remain in a minority. Even those who are critical appear weakened by the emotion produced by this dramatic terrorist act, the death of thousands of innocent people and the suffering of their bereaved families. In the face of calls to national unity, US organisations traditionally devoted to defending individual freedoms, have been muted. They consider that it is still too soon, even inappropriate, to be raising the alarm over events considered largely ‘secondary’. “The shock of 11 September seems to have stifled the most militant of people, giving way to a de facto tolerance towards tougher than usual stances on the part of the military and the judiciary,” said journalist Sylvie Kauffman, former correspondent of the French daily Le Monde in New York, on 17 September 2001. In fact today, while countries throw themselves into a fresh military operation, the vigilance of organisations defending human rights and individual freedoms are all the more needed. A number of regimes find the temptation too great to exploit the genuine emotion produced by these attacks on the United States on 11 September to restrict freedom of the press and more generally to silence domestic opposition under the cover of the struggle against terrorism. In countries such as Pakistan, Israel, Territories under Palestinian Authority or Liberia, Reporters Sans Frontières (RSF) has recorded several incidents of press freedom violations directly linked to the events in America. While avoiding all linkage with these regimes, RSF also makes public here a serious of episodes affecting press freedom in the United States between 11 September and 7 October 20001, the date of the American military counter-attack. Most of them have been reported and commented on by the American press or by specialist Internet sites. Are these incidents of censorship or self-censorship? Are we witnessing a deliberate policy on the part of the authorities or a choice made by the main media themselves? What do American and foreign journalists working in New York think? What about organisations that defend press freedom? To try to answer these questions, two representatives of RSF went to the United States and meet representatives of the media, human rights organisations and US press specialists. The first suspect: internet The unprecedented scale of the attacks on New York and Washington, and the presumed use by the terrorists of advanced computer technology, prompted fears among internet users of a tightening of web surveillance, as called for by the security services. A number of sources report that a few hours after the attacks on 12 September, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) agents turned up at the headquarters of the main internet providers (Hotmail, AOL, Earthlink, etc) to obtain information on possible email exchanges between the terrorists. Technicians working for these companies have said off the record to the American online magazine Wired that FBI agents wanted to install the electronic bugging system “Carnivore” (recently renamed DCS 1000) on the main computer of internet access providers based in the United States. “From Tuesday evening FBI agents showed up at our workplace wanting to set up their machines. They promised to pick up the tab for all the costs of installation and use”. Another one working for Hotmail said that the FBI had asked for, and obtained, from company executives all information on accounts, whose names included the word Allah. All the major Internet access providers appear to have followed Hotmail’s example and fully collaborated with the American secret services. Once installed at an Internet access provider Carnivore can record and save all information exchanged between users. Under strong critical pressure from defenders of individual freedoms in the United States, the system had never been used until now except with the advance agreement of a judge. The “Combating terrorism Act” voted through after a half-hour debate in the Senate on 13 September, barely two days after the attacks, exempts the security services from judicial approval for the use of Carnivore. To become law this act has still to be approved by a joint commission of members of the Senate and House of Representatives. In the same vein, a number of US leaders have started attacking encryption. This procedure allows internet-users to enjoy confidentiality when exchanging information on the Internet with the use of encryption software. the best known being PGP (Pretty Good Privacy), which can be freely downloaded from a number of sites. Already last March the head of the FBI Louis Freeh said he was convinced that terrorist networks were using encryption. On 13 September the Republican senator Judd Gregg called in a speech to Congress for a worldwide ban on encryption software unless public authorities had been given the means to decode the messages. “One could fear that the authorities could take advantage of the emotion of the moment to achieve their objective: banning encryption” one American proponent of PGP told RSF. Other privacy protection militants such as John Gilmore of the American organisation Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) called for creation of more sites which would offer encryption software on open sale. After the first attack on the World Trade Center in 1993 the FBI found plans for hijacking 11 planes on the portable computer of the person who carried out the attack. The FBI took ten months to decode the files, the majority of which had been encrypted with PGP software. Defenders of encryption say to this that intelligence has already shown its weakness in this area in as much as the terrorists appear to have already used methods that avoid electronic surveillance. The creator of PGP, David Zimmerman, who was nearly jailed in the United States during the 1980 for distributing his programme, has once again defended his position in a recent interview in the magazine Futur(e)s. “Whether it’s congress, or in the courts or in the columns of newspapers, the country has already debated this question over the last decade. And together we have decided that society has more to gain than to lose from effective encryption. It should not be forgotten that encryption has saved lives in the entire world. The system is used by human rights organisations worldwide and especially under dictatorships”. (Quoted by the on-line magazine Transfert, 17 September 2001). Television: From spontaneity to patriotic rigour Filmed virtually live, the attack against the World Trade Center was at the same time tragic and spectacular, as if meant for television. “One should not forget that the terrorist target, Manhattan, is not only the financial heart but also the media capital of the country”, an American journalist pointed out. Never has such an event been filmed and photographed live both by cameras and surveillance, by amateurs and professionals. In the first days access to the sites of the attacks was not controlled. Numerous photographers and cameramen took advantage of this by getting as close as possible to the points of impact. The United States being cut off from the rest of the world with the grounding of all flights, it was only American journalists and foreign correspondents posted to New York who covered the story. Not having necessarily experienced war or natural disasters, they admitted to having had “the shock of their lives” when they heard about the terrorist attacks and went to the World Trade Centre. Either originally from New York or having lived their for many years, they said with a good deal of emotion, that they had covered “the most important story of their careers”. They did not hide their sympathy for Americans and in particular New Yorkers in this difficult period. “I reacted first as an adopted New Yorker rather than as a journalist” said Stéphanie Tremblay French programme co-ordinator for Radio Canada. “The terrorists had above all attacked my city and targeted my way of life.” “I never thought I would cover such an event in my whole life time.” said Don Emmert, head of photo for Agence France-Presse. “I am Canadian,” said Marc Greenought, radio producer for English programmes on the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC), “but during these past days I have never felt so deeply American.” Everyone interviewed by RSF in New York said so: The American television networks were the first to cover the story and they were an excellent source of information in the first days. “We edited the first reports on the attack on the World Trade Center with our eyes fixed on the television screen,” said Michel Moutot, Agence France-Presse bureau chief in New York. “The US television networks have matchless resources and they used them right away,” he continued. Eric Leser, correspondent for the French daily Le Monde agreed. He told RSF how invaluable the live coverage on American television was to his work. The organisation Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR), generally very critical of the major media in America, found that the coverage in the first days was acceptable overall. “We saw a new type of spontaneous and sincere journalism” said one of its organisers Steve Randell. But just a week later, the tone and content on the American television networks changed. “I think the turning point was George W. Bush’s speech to Congress on the 20 September 2001, said Eric Leser. “Since then the media has taken on a strongly patriotic tone and news has lost out to propaganda.” French journalists add that since then they have followed the television networks much less and used the internet, where there are a number of sites providing more critical news and different angles. Many foreign correspondents who spoke to RSF in New York said the same thing. The RSF representatives noted the change of tone and feeling on the American networks that covered President Bush’s 20 September speech, in which he called for a “war against terrorism.” The fate of the victims was relegated to second position and the networks devoted their airtime to hailing the country’s “new heroes”: firefighters, police and military staff, politicians. And above all reflecting an image of a united and defiant nation, ready to wage war on those who have attacked it. “America’s new war” and “At war with terror” (CNN) or “America fights back or counter-attacks? (CBS) were the watchwords, henceforth always accompanied by the ubiquitous stars and stripes. “Broadcasts became all beating the drum and flags flying in the wind. It was no longer news,” said another foreign correspondent Richard Hetu, a journalist with the Canadian daily La Presse. A French journalist, a Balkans specialist, who covered the NATO intervention in Serbia, agreed from New York that American television had “gone to war”: ” Instead of news broadcasts, Americans are watching advertising spots to the glory of their country,” he said. In one example the 62 regional channels of the Sinclair Broadcast group have been carrying an advertisement on their web site: “Our team supports the action of President Bush and the leaders of our nation in putting an end to terrorism.” continues the message, urging viewers who agree to send their views to the site. Reflecting on the patriotic outbursts, Stéphanie Tremblay of Radio Canada said she was “not at all surprised by this aspect of coverage on the US networks. “I knew, however, that if I want to hear a more critical report that gave more space to the news itself, I would have to watch BBC or event TV 5,” she said. Fellow journalist Chantal Lavigne, also acknowledged the American media’s desire to take part in the “war effort” said, “Most star television presenters have said that they were Americans before being journalists.” Journalists and media executives questioned by RSF, either strongly denied having produced propaganda or on the other hand, acknowledged and justified their decision. “The footage of the attack against the World Trade Center has no equivalent in the history of conflict,” said Paul Khlebnikov, journalist with the influential economic magazine Forbes. “In the war of pictures the terrorists have made a decisive point. That is why the war that the United States is going to wage should not be just military and economic but also psychological, therefore media-driven. Killing Bin Laden will not be enough he will have to be cut down symbolically. Mr Khlebnikov said he was not worried by the bellicose and propagandist tone adopted by some of the US media. He attributes it to a “civic revival” shared by all Americans. “The first days there could have been a collapse in morale of Americans. Then as in times of war, there was a civic revival which was picked up in the press. And if the media has sometimes lacked objectivity it was not under official pressure. Objectivity in journalism does not man an absence of values. The media, overall, did excellent work. Television in particular was a triumph,” he said. Paul Khlebnikov is not the only one in the American press to take this position. Sandy Genelius, spokeswoman for the American TV network CBS News is satisfied, she says in an interview with RSF, with the comments she has read in the press about the work of the channel. “We haven’t sunk into propaganda like some”, she says taking a swipe in passing at CBS’s main competitor Cable News Network International (CNN). The chairman of CNN Chris Cramer has been self-congratulatory about the work of his network from 18 September: “CNN has never failed to live up to the occasion (-) to supply balanced news. The 4,000 men and women of CNN have not escaped the shock and the horror of what has happened. However the coverage of the news that we gave the public and other media is testament to professionalism and integrity.” Missing images: censorship or “matter of taste” Barely a week after the attacks, some European media chiefs, particularly French, have questioned the impartiality of the American TV networks, suspected of not showing “all the images”, mainly those of the victims of the attacks. Then there have been criticisms of American authorities, accused of wanted to prevent some shots from the scene being taken and put out by the media. Robert Namias, head of information for the main private French television channel TF1 has several times condemned “filtering” which he considers a form of “censorship”. “I strongly regret the censorship imposed on us by the United States, the journalist told the French daily Le Figaro on 26 September 2001. “The images that the French media paid for were filtered, treated and purified by the American authorities. How do you think we can do our job when we are denied access to information and surrounded by security forces? I did not want to show horrifying images but, to do the job properly, there should be a minimum knowledge.” His opinion is shared, in varying degrees, by other French television bosses but not unanimously. “The horror of the two planes slamming into the towers. Wasn’t that enough? asks Hervé Brusini, head of national news on the public French channel France 3. His colleague on France 2 Oliver Mazerolle, considers that he would not have shown gory images but said the American channels balked at showing this type of image “for patriotic reasons”. The French journalists all join however in condemning increasing difficulty in getting access to the World Trade Center site and the unwillingness of the authorities to allow journalists to move about freely within the security perimeter. During their investigation in New York and Paris, the RSF representatives tried to find out more about the lack of images of the victims and the conditions of access to the World Trade Center site. Jim Rutenberg and Felicity Barringer, media specialists for the New York Times visited various television studios from 11 September onwards and questioned those in charge about their editorial choices. “Terrible pictures started arriving,” they said. “There was blood, there were dismembered bodies.” Despite the desire of some journalists to show these images, the head of MSNBC Erik Sorenson took the decision not to show them. “I think there are all sorts of ways to show the horror without descending into the gory,” he said Some networks, like NBC, CBS, CNN and Fox News did however broadcast footage of desperate people jumping from the blazing building. Only to regret it afterwards. “It was a bad decision, the pictures were really too disturbing”, confessed Bill Wheatley, vice-president of NBC News. Those who decided not to show the film explained: ” The question is are we just creating useless pain”. Those, who like CBS, showed them, justify themselves too: “That’s terrorism. From one point of view you want to protect the viewer but in another way you want to show just what the terrorists have really done.” Michel Moutot of Agence France-Presse also remembers these deeply disturbing photos. “By their clothes one could easily recognise people who jumped from the windows”. However he considered them to be “acceptable”. In fact, several photos of this scene, taken by photographers from the major international agencies appeared during the course of the week in the American and European press. Editors who published the, like Glenn Guzzo of the daily Denver Post, spoke of the virulent objections from readers. “Haven’t you any feelings, any respect for the families who have lost their loved-ones?” one reader asked indignantly. At this stage is strongly appears that a number of distressing photos were taken and used by the American media. It was they who decided, according to their own conscience, whether to use them or not. “It doesn’t look like the authorities were trying to control these pictures, given that that they didn’t even know how to protect the president,” said one observer. “The refusal to show the horrifying pictures was an editorial decision by my colleaguesm,“adds Paul Khlebnikov of Forbes. “As citizens we had to ask ourselves the question: should one show bits of bodies in a period of mourning and national remembrance?” It was indeed an “editorial choice” said Sandy Genelius of CBS News to RSF. “We had sensitive film, we had gory images, but each time we asked ourselves: What more are we contributing to history by showing them? So we decided not to show the pictures just for the pleasure of demonstrating that we had them”. This sudden reticence of the part of the American media has interested a number of foreign observers. In an analytical piece headed “The faceless dead of the World Trade Center,” the journalist Michel Guerin, specialist in images at the French daily Le Monde, stated the paradox: “5,500 people died or disappeared on the black day of 11 September...but practically no image of the bodies has been shown on the television or published in the press” (21 September 2001). “A decency of variable shape, says Dominique Wolton, head of research at the National Centre for Scientific Research (CNRS) quoted by the French daily Liberation (19 September 2001). “This should be a big lesson in decency to western media who don’t hesitate to show massacres when they happen in Rwanda...” he added. Others like the photo historian Marc Ferro do not find it surprising. “During wars you never show your own dead, only those of your adversaries. The Americans want to limit the images of the trauma they have suffered, of defeat, the affront and the mortification.” Sandy Genelius, spokeswoman for CBS News, to whom RSF put these questions, once again staunchly defended herself against applying double standards. “It’s not true that we used different standards. We applied the same rules when we filmed in Rwanda as at the World Trade Center.” An RSF representative also discussed this question with Tom Golstein, emeritus professor at the prestigious Columbia School of Journalism in south Manhattan. He considered that it was simply a “question of taste”. This opinion seems to be shared by a significant majority of American and even foreign journalists. Like Canadian journalist Marc Greenought of CBC, they did not hide their astonishment, even irritation at the criticism from the European media on the absence of more distressing and gory images of the World Trade Center victims and the restricted access to the site. “I do not understand,” he told RSF. “As a journalist I had all the access I needed, the suffering, the emotion. No need to go searching for blood under the ruins for that.” Arrests and calls to order In the first days after the attacks of 11 September, the American media certainly adopted a common position which was not to “add horror on horror” and to take part in the resurgence of patriotic national feeling. In doing this, those in charge followed the wishes of a large majority of the public which reacted strongly to the first images shown after the attacks. Added to this were very strict rules of access to the site of the disaster, injunctions by the various authorities along with sanctions against recalcitrant photographers. The perimeter of the World Trade Center was quickly secured and surrounded by US security forces after the confusion of the first few days. “The New York police were generally co-operative with the press and allowed comings and goings on the site. The arrival on the scene of the National Guard put an end to this situation,” remembered M. Moutot of AFP. Barriers appeared all around the site, the security perimeter was extended by several streets to the south and north of Manhattan. A complex system of accreditation was then established Involving both police and the military. According to the daily Los Angeles Times, from 19 September onwards the police started seizing the films of photographers and tourists close to the site. Many photographers had their access passes withdrawn for failing to respect the orders of the authorities. The American press freedom organisation The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press (RCFP) said that at least four journalists were arrested and accused of breaking the conditions of access to the World Trade Center site. Among them was Ian Austin, photographer for the Agency Aurora Quanta Productions, who was detained for three days before being released without any charge. All journalists working for the daily Dallas Daily News had their accreditation withdrawn because of the arrest and “bad conduct” of one of their photographers. In an interview with RSF, Don Emmert, head of photo at AFP in New York discussed the consequences of the restrictions and the calls to order on the work of his agency. “In photo terms, whole segments of this drama have not been covered. The reason is simple : they wouldn’t let us work. We could not satisfy the demands of our clients from abroad. For instance, we could not go to the hospitals and we can no longer freely take pictures of the World Trade Center after the disaster.” “The office of the mayor asked us not to show firefighters recovering the bodies of their colleagues.” continued Don Emmert, who also spoke out against the current working conditions on the site. “It’s like a police state, he said. They let us shoot in organized pools only what the authorities want us to shoot. The ones who move freely around are the Marine photographers and the photographers from the Federal Emergency Agency. They supply agencies with very pretty photographs Even if the American press continues to carry photos of the ruins of the World Trade Centre, all media, including the tabloids, have to accept pools, of shots taken from a distance and showing only the wide angle of the site. For some journalists working in New York the reply to the debate on the absence of images of the victims of the World Trade Center is very simple. “I quite honestly doubt that that there is much left to show,” suggests the French daily Le Monde’s correspondent. His view is shared by Richard Hetu of the Canadian daily La Presse, who believes that the bodies literally “disintegrated”. The World Trade Center has become an enormous crematorium,” he continued. “As I wrote in one article, the dust from the debris of the World Trade Center that we are breathing still probably includes the ashes of the victims.” America should not speak with the same voice as its enemies Several other incidents, comparable to press freedom violations, characterised the life of the media after the 11 September. They were caused by interventions by the authorities critical of one media or another, or by the owners of the media themselves who saw it as a good moment to sanction a particular journalist for “subversive” comments, and sometimes by both at once, without being able to establish with that media what the real reason for the sanction was. So when the television network ABC decided on 19 September to no longer broadcast images of the two planes slamming into the World Trade Center towers, it was officially so as not to “banalise the dramatic event”. Many observers suspect however that it was the result of pressure from the authorities and in particular because of a desire expressed by the owner of Disney. The most flagrant examples of corporate censorship - when media bosses sanction a journalist for his or her opinions - came from the dailies The Texas City Sun and the Daily Courier in the state of Oregon. On 23 September Les Daughty Jr, owner of the Texas City Sun for 17 years writes an apology to his readers for an article by one of his editors-in-chief Ron Gutting, who said in an article critical of President Bush on the day after the attacks, that he was “flying around the country like a scared child seeking refuge in his mother’s bed after having a nightmare”. In an article on the front page of the newspaper Daughty apologised to all the leaders of the country and particularly to President George Bush for having published such an article which could only provoke “anger and disgust”. Ron Gutting was sacked from the newspaper. His colleague Dan Guthrie of the Daily Courier at Grant’s Pass met the same fate and for similar reasons. He wrote on the 15 September on a humorous page in the newspaper that George Bush had “skedaddled” in the face of the attacks, accusing him of being “an embarrassment” for “hiding in a Nebraska hole” on the day of the terrorist attacks. The newspaper’s editor-in-chief Dennis Mack wrote for his readers that to say that the head of state was hiding at a time when America was trying to unite after the bloody attacks was neither responsible nor appropriate. As a result Dan Guthrie lost his job but for “personal reasons”, according to his employer.` In neither case was there any apparent pressure on the part of the authorities. It was the fierce reactions of the newspapers’ readers that were decisive in the decision to sack the journalists. In another case, that was widely reported in the US press star television presenter Bill Maher drew a strong reaction from the White House. On his talk show “Politically Incorrect” on ABC, Bill Maher said on 17 September, “We have been the cowards, lobbing cruise missiles from 2,000 miles away. That’s cowardly. Staying in the airplane when it hits the building, say what you want about it, It’s not cowardly”. These comments drew the rage of many viewers and led to the immediate withdrawal of the programme’s two main sponsors Federal Express and Sears. A number of television stations linked to the ABC network, mainly in New York and Washington, pulled the Bill Maher programme, especially after White House spokesman Ari Fleisher called his remarks “unpatriotic”. He added, “It was a terrible thing to say and it’s unfortunate.” He went on, “The reminder is to all Americans that they need to watch what they say, watch what they do”. Journalists who heard his statement noted later that “watch what they say” did not appear in the text of this official record of the conference. Another decision of the US administration that drew much attention was the attempt by the authorities to block the broadcasting at the end of September of an interview with the spiritual leader of the Taliban Mullah Omar on the Congress-financed Voice of America. The station that is broadcast to 50 countries worldwide, to explain America to the world, normally has reasonable editorial independence. Claude Porsella, head of the VOA French service told RSF about the content of the programme. “One of my colleagues in the Pashto language service had the scoop of his life: an interview with Mullah Omar. VOA never intended to broadcast the entire interview, extracts of which were included in some general reporting including comments from the US Administration, analysis by an Islamic expert and the position of the Northern Alliance. Mullah Omar said he was convinced that Osama Bin Laden could not be behind the attacks.” The State Department, which has a seat on the VOA board, called on the other board members to ban the interview, scheduled for 28 September. “VOA is not the voice of Mullah Omar and is not the voice of the Taliban”, said one American official. He said it would be “inappropriate” to spend the backers money to broadcast comments of the head of the movement who was protecting the terrorists behind the 11 September attacks. “This decision caused huge dismay among VOA journalists,” said Claude Porsella. The head of news protested and a petition was signed by 150 journalists. Faced with this reaction and strong interest in the press, VOA reversed its decision and decided to go ahead with the broadcast on 25 September. So far there have been no sanctions on the part of the US Administration. “We won a battle,” said Claude Porsella. “But I doubt the story will end there. Heads will probably roll,” he feared. On this occasion the VOA journalists were able to win the solidarity of their colleagues in the major US media, particularly the written press. In the same way the influential daily The Washington Post opened its columns to journalist from VOA before taking a position in an editorial on 26 September. This read: “The episode revealed an impulse to squelch facts that is never far beneath the surface in time of war or quasi-war, an impulse that is hardly less noxious when it retreats promptly under challenge. “But the time for editors to resist the censoring and self-censoring instinct is before it is acted upon, not after. We hear frequently that the only way to beat the terrorists is to hold on to this nation’s freedoms. Those include honoring Americans’ right to hear commentary that bothers some and to glimpse the thoughts of enemies.” At the beginning of October, the American authorities once more expressed their annoyance towards the media which allow a voice to “enemies of America”. This time it was the Arabic Television station Al-Jazeera, based in Qatar that drew the ire of Bush Administration by broadcasts footage and interviews with Taliban leaders or with Osama Bin Laden. The station is famous for its 1998 interview with the man they call “the head of El Qaeda”. This interview was broadcast uncut, on several occasions, after 11 September. On ” September the American ambassador in Qatar officially intervened with the authorities in the country to protest against this “incendiary rhetoric” by the station, which is accused of supplying “biased” coverage of the events of 11 September as well as “encouraging anti-American feelings” in the Middle East. On 3 October following an interview with the US Secretary of State Colin Powell in Washington, Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa el-Thani, Emir of Qatar, and main shareholder in the station, said that US officials had asked him to use his authority to influence the coverage. The Emir said he would not interfere with the editorial policy of Al-Jazeera. The US Administration again complained about the broadcast, the day after the first US air strikes, the words of Osama Bin Laden warning the United States that it would “live in fear”. A State Department official told Reuters: “Yes to freedom but we think it’s beyond the pale to provide an open platform for these sort of violent ideas. We’re concerned everywhere that Osama bin Laden not to be able to use the media to spread his ideas”. At the same time President Bush would be willing to speak on the station. Al-Jazeera, which has had a permanent studio in Kabul since 1998, is one of the rare media still present in the Afghan capital and at Kandahar. Known for the quality of its programmes, his professionalism and independence, the “CNN of the Arab world” is regularly criticized by Arab countries which fear the platform it gives to opposition of all kinds. Conclusion: Is the First Amendment in danger? US lawyer and expert on the American Constitution Floyd Abrams says that America often debates issues like patriotism and free speech n times of crisis. He considers that the First Amendment is put to the test when the country is too. When the country felt threatened, its existence challenged, the First Amendment and its values were sometimes subordinated to other priorities. This opinion is apparently shared by several US organisations for defence of press freedom, who believe it is too soon to become alarmed by the events that have been outlined in this report. Lucy Daglish, head of the Reporters Committee for the Freedom of the Press said she was not unduly concerned. She felt that the media, like the rest of society had become hypersensitive, after the attacks. Her organisation had noted the consequences of the 11 September attacks, but without taking up a position. In an interview with head of the Committee To Protect Journalists (CPJ) Ann Cooper and deputy head Joel Simon, the main US-based worldwide press freedom organisation, said they consider that much more serious violations of press freedom were going on in other parts of the world. Ann Cooper said she thought the US State Department’s criticism of VOA demonstrated an almost instinctive reflex by governments in times of conflict, not to broadcast the words of their adversaries. In some countries this had the force of law, she said. In Russia media which published interviews with Chechen faced legal action. In Angola, police had detained journalists who quoted a rebel commander. “The crucial difference is that VOA broadcast the interview, despite the opposition of the State Department and has so far not suffered any sanction.” But Ann Coooper stressed that it was the tolerance of a free press that kept democracy alive. She did not feel that the press was in danger in the United States. “American journalists don’t need us to defend them. They have their media and the entire profession to back them in case of danger.” Tim Golstein of Columbia School of Journalism also shares this view and is confident that the American media can defend its own interests. “patriotism, independence, freedom of speech: we debate these questions practically every day whether in newspapers or in university lecture halls. But it is far too soon to draw conclusions from this debate.” Media who had so far done an excellent job in covering the attacks should now try to do the same for the rest: continue to do the same good job, but in time of conflict. Following this investigation in Paris and New York, Reporters Sans Frontières nevertheless considers that a number of points of concern remain: *	Several attempts by the US authorities aimed at regulating the work of the media have been reported: Arrests of photographers near the World Trade Center, the desire of the security forces to filter images taken at the site, an attempt to ban an interview with Mullah Omar on VOA and the pressure on the Qatar-based TV station Al-Jazeera to stop broadcasting footage of Osama Bin Laden. All these interventions, in whatever context, are unacceptable.. *	Moves against confidentiality on the internet, along with a certain number of measures within the “anti-terrorist” legislation that is currently being examined, constitute a real threat to individual and collective freedoms *	The symbiosis which appears to operate between the tone of the main audio-visual industry and official US policy could eventually militate against the watchdog role of the media in a democracy. *	The cases outlined of corporate censorship, such as the sackings of the two journalists for comments considered outrageous, could lead to self-censorship and an absence of criticism in the press. *	The setting up of “pools” of photographers at the World Trade Center site and the complexities of the accreditation system do not bode well for a free and independent coverage of the actions taken by the United States in reprisal for the terrorist attacks of 11 September.

# data[].attributes.body
promised to pick up the tab for all the costs of installation and use". Another one working for Hotmail said that the FBI had asked for, and obtained, from company executives all information on accounts, whose names included the word Allah.

installed at an Internet access provider Carnivore can record and save all information exchanged between users

The "Combating terrorism Act" voted through after a half-hour debate in the Senate on 13 September, barely two days after the attacks, exempts the security services from judicial approval for the use of Carnivore

This procedure allows internet-users to enjoy confidentiality when exchanging information on the Internet with the use of encryption software.

https://rsf.org/en/between-pull-patriotism-and-self-censorshipthe-us-media-torment-after-11-september?utm_source=chatgpt.com

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Between the pull of patriotism and self-censorshipThe US media in torment after 11 September

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Investigation: Alexandre Levy and Francois Bugingo New York – September 26 / October 2 2001 Observers cast doubt on the objectivity of the American press Ten years after the Gulf War, a conflict the reality of which was largely hidden from the media, the US administration has launched a new series of military operations in reaction to the waves of terrorist attacks that stroked the East coast of the United States leaving nearly 6,000 dead. The daily New York Times noted, “This surge of national pride sweeping the country after the terrorist attacks on 11 September sparks the beginnings of new, more difficult debate over balance among national security, free speech and patriotism.” The influential American newspaper said in an article on 28 September 2001 that the debate “is being played out on stages large and small”, that press comments have on several occasions provoked the fury of the authorities, along with that of the American public, and have led to sanctions including pulling of programmes, withdrawal of advertising in the media and disavowal, even outright sacking of the journalists by their employers. This comes on top of a long list of constraints and more subtle pressure that American and foreign media, including the Internet, have been subjected to since 11 September. Many journalists and foreign observers have already cast doubt on the objectivity and independence of the American press, particularly the TV channels, in this period of “war effort”. In the same way, several voices have been raised within the United States warning the public about a decline in freedom of expression and opinion, freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment of the Constitution, in exchange for tightening security. “We are facing an enemy which is exploiting what it is about our society that makes it strong and effective: freedom, openness and freedom of movement. We have to be sure that we remain an open society, in which individual freedoms are respected,” said Strobe Talbott, former number two at the US State Department in the Clinton Administration. But these voices, drowned out in the climate of media coverage devoted to covering the aftermath of the attacks, the preparations and continuing US counter-attacks, remain in a minority. Even those who are critical appear weakened by the emotion produced by this dramatic terrorist act, the death of thousands of innocent people and the suffering of their bereaved families. In the face of calls to national unity, US organisations traditionally devoted to defending individual freedoms, have been muted. They consider that it is still too soon, even inappropriate, to be raising the alarm over events considered largely ‘secondary’. “The shock of 11 September seems to have stifled the most militant of people, giving way to a de facto tolerance towards tougher than usual stances on the part of the military and the judiciary,” said journalist Sylvie Kauffman, former correspondent of the French daily Le Monde in New York, on 17 September 2001. In fact today, while countries throw themselves into a fresh military operation, the vigilance of organisations defending human rights and individual freedoms are all the more needed. A number of regimes find the temptation too great to exploit the genuine emotion produced by these attacks on the United States on 11 September to restrict freedom of the press and more generally to silence domestic opposition under the cover of the struggle against terrorism. In countries such as Pakistan, Israel, Territories under Palestinian Authority or Liberia, Reporters Sans Frontières (RSF) has recorded several incidents of press freedom violations directly linked to the events in America. While avoiding all linkage with these regimes, RSF also makes public here a serious of episodes affecting press freedom in the United States between 11 September and 7 October 20001, the date of the American military counter-attack. Most of them have been reported and commented on by the American press or by specialist Internet sites. Are these incidents of censorship or self-censorship? Are we witnessing a deliberate policy on the part of the authorities or a choice made by the main media themselves? What do American and foreign journalists working in New York think? What about organisations that defend press freedom? To try to answer these questions, two representatives of RSF went to the United States and meet representatives of the media, human rights organisations and US press specialists. The first suspect: internet The unprecedented scale of the attacks on New York and Washington, and the presumed use by the terrorists of advanced computer technology, prompted fears among internet users of a tightening of web surveillance, as called for by the security services. A number of sources report that a few hours after the attacks on 12 September, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) agents turned up at the headquarters of the main internet providers (Hotmail, AOL, Earthlink, etc) to obtain information on possible email exchanges between the terrorists. Technicians working for these companies have said off the record to the American online magazine Wired that FBI agents wanted to install the electronic bugging system “Carnivore” (recently renamed DCS 1000) on the main computer of internet access providers based in the United States. “From Tuesday evening FBI agents showed up at our workplace wanting to set up their machines. They promised to pick up the tab for all the costs of installation and use”. Another one working for Hotmail said that the FBI had asked for, and obtained, from company executives all information on accounts, whose names included the word Allah. All the major Internet access providers appear to have followed Hotmail’s example and fully collaborated with the American secret services. Once installed at an Internet access provider Carnivore can record and save all information exchanged between users. Under strong critical pressure from defenders of individual freedoms in the United States, the system had never been used until now except with the advance agreement of a judge. The “Combating terrorism Act” voted through after a half-hour debate in the Senate on 13 September, barely two days after the attacks, exempts the security services from judicial approval for the use of Carnivore. To become law this act has still to be approved by a joint commission of members of the Senate and House of Representatives. In the same vein, a number of US leaders have started attacking encryption. This procedure allows internet-users to enjoy confidentiality when exchanging information on the Internet with the use of encryption software. the best known being PGP (Pretty Good Privacy), which can be freely downloaded from a number of sites. Already last March the head of the FBI Louis Freeh said he was convinced that terrorist networks were using encryption. On 13 September the Republican senator Judd Gregg called in a speech to Congress for a worldwide ban on encryption software unless public authorities had been given the means to decode the messages. “One could fear that the authorities could take advantage of the emotion of the moment to achieve their objective: banning encryption” one American proponent of PGP told RSF. Other privacy protection militants such as John Gilmore of the American organisation Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) called for creation of more sites which would offer encryption software on open sale. After the first attack on the World Trade Center in 1993 the FBI found plans for hijacking 11 planes on the portable computer of the person who carried out the attack. The FBI took ten months to decode the files, the majority of which had been encrypted with PGP software. Defenders of encryption say to this that intelligence has already shown its weakness in this area in as much as the terrorists appear to have already used methods that avoid electronic surveillance. The creator of PGP, David Zimmerman, who was nearly jailed in the United States during the 1980 for distributing his programme, has once again defended his position in a recent interview in the magazine Futur(e)s. “Whether it’s congress, or in the courts or in the columns of newspapers, the country has already debated this question over the last decade. And together we have decided that society has more to gain than to lose from effective encryption. It should not be forgotten that encryption has saved lives in the entire world. The system is used by human rights organisations worldwide and especially under dictatorships”. (Quoted by the on-line magazine Transfert, 17 September 2001). Television: From spontaneity to patriotic rigour Filmed virtually live, the attack against the World Trade Center was at the same time tragic and spectacular, as if meant for television. “One should not forget that the terrorist target, Manhattan, is not only the financial heart but also the media capital of the country”, an American journalist pointed out. Never has such an event been filmed and photographed live both by cameras and surveillance, by amateurs and professionals. In the first days access to the sites of the attacks was not controlled. Numerous photographers and cameramen took advantage of this by getting as close as possible to the points of impact. The United States being cut off from the rest of the world with the grounding of all flights, it was only American journalists and foreign correspondents posted to New York who covered the story. Not having necessarily experienced war or natural disasters, they admitted to having had “the shock of their lives” when they heard about the terrorist attacks and went to the World Trade Centre. Either originally from New York or having lived their for many years, they said with a good deal of emotion, that they had covered “the most important story of their careers”. They did not hide their sympathy for Americans and in particular New Yorkers in this difficult period. “I reacted first as an adopted New Yorker rather than as a journalist” said Stéphanie Tremblay French programme co-ordinator for Radio Canada. “The terrorists had above all attacked my city and targeted my way of life.” “I never thought I would cover such an event in my whole life time.” said Don Emmert, head of photo for Agence France-Presse. “I am Canadian,” said Marc Greenought, radio producer for English programmes on the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC), “but during these past days I have never felt so deeply American.” Everyone interviewed by RSF in New York said so: The American television networks were the first to cover the story and they were an excellent source of information in the first days. “We edited the first reports on the attack on the World Trade Center with our eyes fixed on the television screen,” said Michel Moutot, Agence France-Presse bureau chief in New York. “The US television networks have matchless resources and they used them right away,” he continued. Eric Leser, correspondent for the French daily Le Monde agreed. He told RSF how invaluable the live coverage on American television was to his work. The organisation Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR), generally very critical of the major media in America, found that the coverage in the first days was acceptable overall. “We saw a new type of spontaneous and sincere journalism” said one of its organisers Steve Randell. But just a week later, the tone and content on the American television networks changed. “I think the turning point was George W. Bush’s speech to Congress on the 20 September 2001, said Eric Leser. “Since then the media has taken on a strongly patriotic tone and news has lost out to propaganda.” French journalists add that since then they have followed the television networks much less and used the internet, where there are a number of sites providing more critical news and different angles. Many foreign correspondents who spoke to RSF in New York said the same thing. The RSF representatives noted the change of tone and feeling on the American networks that covered President Bush’s 20 September speech, in which he called for a “war against terrorism.” The fate of the victims was relegated to second position and the networks devoted their airtime to hailing the country’s “new heroes”: firefighters, police and military staff, politicians. And above all reflecting an image of a united and defiant nation, ready to wage war on those who have attacked it. “America’s new war” and “At war with terror” (CNN) or “America fights back or counter-attacks? (CBS) were the watchwords, henceforth always accompanied by the ubiquitous stars and stripes. “Broadcasts became all beating the drum and flags flying in the wind. It was no longer news,” said another foreign correspondent Richard Hetu, a journalist with the Canadian daily La Presse. A French journalist, a Balkans specialist, who covered the NATO intervention in Serbia, agreed from New York that American television had “gone to war”: ” Instead of news broadcasts, Americans are watching advertising spots to the glory of their country,” he said. In one example the 62 regional channels of the Sinclair Broadcast group have been carrying an advertisement on their web site: “Our team supports the action of President Bush and the leaders of our nation in putting an end to terrorism.” continues the message, urging viewers who agree to send their views to the site. Reflecting on the patriotic outbursts, Stéphanie Tremblay of Radio Canada said she was “not at all surprised by this aspect of coverage on the US networks. “I knew, however, that if I want to hear a more critical report that gave more space to the news itself, I would have to watch BBC or event TV 5,” she said. Fellow journalist Chantal Lavigne, also acknowledged the American media’s desire to take part in the “war effort” said, “Most star television presenters have said that they were Americans before being journalists.” Journalists and media executives questioned by RSF, either strongly denied having produced propaganda or on the other hand, acknowledged and justified their decision. “The footage of the attack against the World Trade Center has no equivalent in the history of conflict,” said Paul Khlebnikov, journalist with the influential economic magazine Forbes. “In the war of pictures the terrorists have made a decisive point. That is why the war that the United States is going to wage should not be just military and economic but also psychological, therefore media-driven. Killing Bin Laden will not be enough he will have to be cut down symbolically. Mr Khlebnikov said he was not worried by the bellicose and propagandist tone adopted by some of the US media. He attributes it to a “civic revival” shared by all Americans. “The first days there could have been a collapse in morale of Americans. Then as in times of war, there was a civic revival which was picked up in the press. And if the media has sometimes lacked objectivity it was not under official pressure. Objectivity in journalism does not man an absence of values. The media, overall, did excellent work. Television in particular was a triumph,” he said. Paul Khlebnikov is not the only one in the American press to take this position. Sandy Genelius, spokeswoman for the American TV network CBS News is satisfied, she says in an interview with RSF, with the comments she has read in the press about the work of the channel. “We haven’t sunk into propaganda like some”, she says taking a swipe in passing at CBS’s main competitor Cable News Network International (CNN). The chairman of CNN Chris Cramer has been self-congratulatory about the work of his network from 18 September: “CNN has never failed to live up to the occasion (-) to supply balanced news. The 4,000 men and women of CNN have not escaped the shock and the horror of what has happened. However the coverage of the news that we gave the public and other media is testament to professionalism and integrity.” Missing images: censorship or “matter of taste” Barely a week after the attacks, some European media chiefs, particularly French, have questioned the impartiality of the American TV networks, suspected of not showing “all the images”, mainly those of the victims of the attacks. Then there have been criticisms of American authorities, accused of wanted to prevent some shots from the scene being taken and put out by the media. Robert Namias, head of information for the main private French television channel TF1 has several times condemned “filtering” which he considers a form of “censorship”. “I strongly regret the censorship imposed on us by the United States, the journalist told the French daily Le Figaro on 26 September 2001. “The images that the French media paid for were filtered, treated and purified by the American authorities. How do you think we can do our job when we are denied access to information and surrounded by security forces? I did not want to show horrifying images but, to do the job properly, there should be a minimum knowledge.” His opinion is shared, in varying degrees, by other French television bosses but not unanimously. “The horror of the two planes slamming into the towers. Wasn’t that enough? asks Hervé Brusini, head of national news on the public French channel France 3. His colleague on France 2 Oliver Mazerolle, considers that he would not have shown gory images but said the American channels balked at showing this type of image “for patriotic reasons”. The French journalists all join however in condemning increasing difficulty in getting access to the World Trade Center site and the unwillingness of the authorities to allow journalists to move about freely within the security perimeter. During their investigation in New York and Paris, the RSF representatives tried to find out more about the lack of images of the victims and the conditions of access to the World Trade Center site. Jim Rutenberg and Felicity Barringer, media specialists for the New York Times visited various television studios from 11 September onwards and questioned those in charge about their editorial choices. “Terrible pictures started arriving,” they said. “There was blood, there were dismembered bodies.” Despite the desire of some journalists to show these images, the head of MSNBC Erik Sorenson took the decision not to show them. “I think there are all sorts of ways to show the horror without descending into the gory,” he said Some networks, like NBC, CBS, CNN and Fox News did however broadcast footage of desperate people jumping from the blazing building. Only to regret it afterwards. “It was a bad decision, the pictures were really too disturbing”, confessed Bill Wheatley, vice-president of NBC News. Those who decided not to show the film explained: ” The question is are we just creating useless pain”. Those, who like CBS, showed them, justify themselves too: “That’s terrorism. From one point of view you want to protect the viewer but in another way you want to show just what the terrorists have really done.” Michel Moutot of Agence France-Presse also remembers these deeply disturbing photos. “By their clothes one could easily recognise people who jumped from the windows”. However he considered them to be “acceptable”. In fact, several photos of this scene, taken by photographers from the major international agencies appeared during the course of the week in the American and European press. Editors who published the, like Glenn Guzzo of the daily Denver Post, spoke of the virulent objections from readers. “Haven’t you any feelings, any respect for the families who have lost their loved-ones?” one reader asked indignantly. At this stage is strongly appears that a number of distressing photos were taken and used by the American media. It was they who decided, according to their own conscience, whether to use them or not. “It doesn’t look like the authorities were trying to control these pictures, given that that they didn’t even know how to protect the president,” said one observer. “The refusal to show the horrifying pictures was an editorial decision by my colleaguesm,“adds Paul Khlebnikov of Forbes. “As citizens we had to ask ourselves the question: should one show bits of bodies in a period of mourning and national remembrance?” It was indeed an “editorial choice” said Sandy Genelius of CBS News to RSF. “We had sensitive film, we had gory images, but each time we asked ourselves: What more are we contributing to history by showing them? So we decided not to show the pictures just for the pleasure of demonstrating that we had them”. This sudden reticence of the part of the American media has interested a number of foreign observers. In an analytical piece headed “The faceless dead of the World Trade Center,” the journalist Michel Guerin, specialist in images at the French daily Le Monde, stated the paradox: “5,500 people died or disappeared on the black day of 11 September...but practically no image of the bodies has been shown on the television or published in the press” (21 September 2001). “A decency of variable shape, says Dominique Wolton, head of research at the National Centre for Scientific Research (CNRS) quoted by the French daily Liberation (19 September 2001). “This should be a big lesson in decency to western media who don’t hesitate to show massacres when they happen in Rwanda...” he added. Others like the photo historian Marc Ferro do not find it surprising. “During wars you never show your own dead, only those of your adversaries. The Americans want to limit the images of the trauma they have suffered, of defeat, the affront and the mortification.” Sandy Genelius, spokeswoman for CBS News, to whom RSF put these questions, once again staunchly defended herself against applying double standards. “It’s not true that we used different standards. We applied the same rules when we filmed in Rwanda as at the World Trade Center.” An RSF representative also discussed this question with Tom Golstein, emeritus professor at the prestigious Columbia School of Journalism in south Manhattan. He considered that it was simply a “question of taste”. This opinion seems to be shared by a significant majority of American and even foreign journalists. Like Canadian journalist Marc Greenought of CBC, they did not hide their astonishment, even irritation at the criticism from the European media on the absence of more distressing and gory images of the World Trade Center victims and the restricted access to the site. “I do not understand,” he told RSF. “As a journalist I had all the access I needed, the suffering, the emotion. No need to go searching for blood under the ruins for that.” Arrests and calls to order In the first days after the attacks of 11 September, the American media certainly adopted a common position which was not to “add horror on horror” and to take part in the resurgence of patriotic national feeling. In doing this, those in charge followed the wishes of a large majority of the public which reacted strongly to the first images shown after the attacks. Added to this were very strict rules of access to the site of the disaster, injunctions by the various authorities along with sanctions against recalcitrant photographers. The perimeter of the World Trade Center was quickly secured and surrounded by US security forces after the confusion of the first few days. “The New York police were generally co-operative with the press and allowed comings and goings on the site. The arrival on the scene of the National Guard put an end to this situation,” remembered M. Moutot of AFP. Barriers appeared all around the site, the security perimeter was extended by several streets to the south and north of Manhattan. A complex system of accreditation was then established Involving both police and the military. According to the daily Los Angeles Times, from 19 September onwards the police started seizing the films of photographers and tourists close to the site. Many photographers had their access passes withdrawn for failing to respect the orders of the authorities. The American press freedom organisation The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press (RCFP) said that at least four journalists were arrested and accused of breaking the conditions of access to the World Trade Center site. Among them was Ian Austin, photographer for the Agency Aurora Quanta Productions, who was detained for three days before being released without any charge. All journalists working for the daily Dallas Daily News had their accreditation withdrawn because of the arrest and “bad conduct” of one of their photographers. In an interview with RSF, Don Emmert, head of photo at AFP in New York discussed the consequences of the restrictions and the calls to order on the work of his agency. “In photo terms, whole segments of this drama have not been covered. The reason is simple : they wouldn’t let us work. We could not satisfy the demands of our clients from abroad. For instance, we could not go to the hospitals and we can no longer freely take pictures of the World Trade Center after the disaster.” “The office of the mayor asked us not to show firefighters recovering the bodies of their colleagues.” continued Don Emmert, who also spoke out against the current working conditions on the site. “It’s like a police state, he said. They let us shoot in organized pools only what the authorities want us to shoot. The ones who move freely around are the Marine photographers and the photographers from the Federal Emergency Agency. They supply agencies with very pretty photographs Even if the American press continues to carry photos of the ruins of the World Trade Centre, all media, including the tabloids, have to accept pools, of shots taken from a distance and showing only the wide angle of the site. For some journalists working in New York the reply to the debate on the absence of images of the victims of the World Trade Center is very simple. “I quite honestly doubt that that there is much left to show,” suggests the French daily Le Monde’s correspondent. His view is shared by Richard Hetu of the Canadian daily La Presse, who believes that the bodies literally “disintegrated”. The World Trade Center has become an enormous crematorium,” he continued. “As I wrote in one article, the dust from the debris of the World Trade Center that we are breathing still probably includes the ashes of the victims.” America should not speak with the same voice as its enemies Several other incidents, comparable to press freedom violations, characterised the life of the media after the 11 September. They were caused by interventions by the authorities critical of one media or another, or by the owners of the media themselves who saw it as a good moment to sanction a particular journalist for “subversive” comments, and sometimes by both at once, without being able to establish with that media what the real reason for the sanction was. So when the television network ABC decided on 19 September to no longer broadcast images of the two planes slamming into the World Trade Center towers, it was officially so as not to “banalise the dramatic event”. Many observers suspect however that it was the result of pressure from the authorities and in particular because of a desire expressed by the owner of Disney. The most flagrant examples of corporate censorship - when media bosses sanction a journalist for his or her opinions - came from the dailies The Texas City Sun and the Daily Courier in the state of Oregon. On 23 September Les Daughty Jr, owner of the Texas City Sun for 17 years writes an apology to his readers for an article by one of his editors-in-chief Ron Gutting, who said in an article critical of President Bush on the day after the attacks, that he was “flying around the country like a scared child seeking refuge in his mother’s bed after having a nightmare”. In an article on the front page of the newspaper Daughty apologised to all the leaders of the country and particularly to President George Bush for having published such an article which could only provoke “anger and disgust”. Ron Gutting was sacked from the newspaper. His colleague Dan Guthrie of the Daily Courier at Grant’s Pass met the same fate and for similar reasons. He wrote on the 15 September on a humorous page in the newspaper that George Bush had “skedaddled” in the face of the attacks, accusing him of being “an embarrassment” for “hiding in a Nebraska hole” on the day of the terrorist attacks. The newspaper’s editor-in-chief Dennis Mack wrote for his readers that to say that the head of state was hiding at a time when America was trying to unite after the bloody attacks was neither responsible nor appropriate. As a result Dan Guthrie lost his job but for “personal reasons”, according to his employer.` In neither case was there any apparent pressure on the part of the authorities. It was the fierce reactions of the newspapers’ readers that were decisive in the decision to sack the journalists. In another case, that was widely reported in the US press star television presenter Bill Maher drew a strong reaction from the White House. On his talk show “Politically Incorrect” on ABC, Bill Maher said on 17 September, “We have been the cowards, lobbing cruise missiles from 2,000 miles away. That’s cowardly. Staying in the airplane when it hits the building, say what you want about it, It’s not cowardly”. These comments drew the rage of many viewers and led to the immediate withdrawal of the programme’s two main sponsors Federal Express and Sears. A number of television stations linked to the ABC network, mainly in New York and Washington, pulled the Bill Maher programme, especially after White House spokesman Ari Fleisher called his remarks “unpatriotic”. He added, “It was a terrible thing to say and it’s unfortunate.” He went on, “The reminder is to all Americans that they need to watch what they say, watch what they do”. Journalists who heard his statement noted later that “watch what they say” did not appear in the text of this official record of the conference. Another decision of the US administration that drew much attention was the attempt by the authorities to block the broadcasting at the end of September of an interview with the spiritual leader of the Taliban Mullah Omar on the Congress-financed Voice of America. The station that is broadcast to 50 countries worldwide, to explain America to the world, normally has reasonable editorial independence. Claude Porsella, head of the VOA French service told RSF about the content of the programme. “One of my colleagues in the Pashto language service had the scoop of his life: an interview with Mullah Omar. VOA never intended to broadcast the entire interview, extracts of which were included in some general reporting including comments from the US Administration, analysis by an Islamic expert and the position of the Northern Alliance. Mullah Omar said he was convinced that Osama Bin Laden could not be behind the attacks.” The State Department, which has a seat on the VOA board, called on the other board members to ban the interview, scheduled for 28 September. “VOA is not the voice of Mullah Omar and is not the voice of the Taliban”, said one American official. He said it would be “inappropriate” to spend the backers money to broadcast comments of the head of the movement who was protecting the terrorists behind the 11 September attacks. “This decision caused huge dismay among VOA journalists,” said Claude Porsella. The head of news protested and a petition was signed by 150 journalists. Faced with this reaction and strong interest in the press, VOA reversed its decision and decided to go ahead with the broadcast on 25 September. So far there have been no sanctions on the part of the US Administration. “We won a battle,” said Claude Porsella. “But I doubt the story will end there. Heads will probably roll,” he feared. On this occasion the VOA journalists were able to win the solidarity of their colleagues in the major US media, particularly the written press. In the same way the influential daily The Washington Post opened its columns to journalist from VOA before taking a position in an editorial on 26 September. This read: “The episode revealed an impulse to squelch facts that is never far beneath the surface in time of war or quasi-war, an impulse that is hardly less noxious when it retreats promptly under challenge. “But the time for editors to resist the censoring and self-censoring instinct is before it is acted upon, not after. We hear frequently that the only way to beat the terrorists is to hold on to this nation’s freedoms. Those include honoring Americans’ right to hear commentary that bothers some and to glimpse the thoughts of enemies.” At the beginning of October, the American authorities once more expressed their annoyance towards the media which allow a voice to “enemies of America”. This time it was the Arabic Television station Al-Jazeera, based in Qatar that drew the ire of Bush Administration by broadcasts footage and interviews with Taliban leaders or with Osama Bin Laden. The station is famous for its 1998 interview with the man they call “the head of El Qaeda”. This interview was broadcast uncut, on several occasions, after 11 September. On ” September the American ambassador in Qatar officially intervened with the authorities in the country to protest against this “incendiary rhetoric” by the station, which is accused of supplying “biased” coverage of the events of 11 September as well as “encouraging anti-American feelings” in the Middle East. On 3 October following an interview with the US Secretary of State Colin Powell in Washington, Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa el-Thani, Emir of Qatar, and main shareholder in the station, said that US officials had asked him to use his authority to influence the coverage. The Emir said he would not interfere with the editorial policy of Al-Jazeera. The US Administration again complained about the broadcast, the day after the first US air strikes, the words of Osama Bin Laden warning the United States that it would “live in fear”. A State Department official told Reuters: “Yes to freedom but we think it’s beyond the pale to provide an open platform for these sort of violent ideas. We’re concerned everywhere that Osama bin Laden not to be able to use the media to spread his ideas”. At the same time President Bush would be willing to speak on the station. Al-Jazeera, which has had a permanent studio in Kabul since 1998, is one of the rare media still present in the Afghan capital and at Kandahar. Known for the quality of its programmes, his professionalism and independence, the “CNN of the Arab world” is regularly criticized by Arab countries which fear the platform it gives to opposition of all kinds. Conclusion: Is the First Amendment in danger? US lawyer and expert on the American Constitution Floyd Abrams says that America often debates issues like patriotism and free speech n times of crisis. He considers that the First Amendment is put to the test when the country is too. When the country felt threatened, its existence challenged, the First Amendment and its values were sometimes subordinated to other priorities. This opinion is apparently shared by several US organisations for defence of press freedom, who believe it is too soon to become alarmed by the events that have been outlined in this report. Lucy Daglish, head of the Reporters Committee for the Freedom of the Press said she was not unduly concerned. She felt that the media, like the rest of society had become hypersensitive, after the attacks. Her organisation had noted the consequences of the 11 September attacks, but without taking up a position. In an interview with head of the Committee To Protect Journalists (CPJ) Ann Cooper and deputy head Joel Simon, the main US-based worldwide press freedom organisation, said they consider that much more serious violations of press freedom were going on in other parts of the world. Ann Cooper said she thought the US State Department’s criticism of VOA demonstrated an almost instinctive reflex by governments in times of conflict, not to broadcast the words of their adversaries. In some countries this had the force of law, she said. In Russia media which published interviews with Chechen faced legal action. In Angola, police had detained journalists who quoted a rebel commander. “The crucial difference is that VOA broadcast the interview, despite the opposition of the State Department and has so far not suffered any sanction.” But Ann Coooper stressed that it was the tolerance of a free press that kept democracy alive. She did not feel that the press was in danger in the United States. “American journalists don’t need us to defend them. They have their media and the entire profession to back them in case of danger.” Tim Golstein of Columbia School of Journalism also shares this view and is confident that the American media can defend its own interests. “patriotism, independence, freedom of speech: we debate these questions practically every day whether in newspapers or in university lecture halls. But it is far too soon to draw conclusions from this debate.” Media who had so far done an excellent job in covering the attacks should now try to do the same for the rest: continue to do the same good job, but in time of conflict. Following this investigation in Paris and New York, Reporters Sans Frontières nevertheless considers that a number of points of concern remain: *	Several attempts by the US authorities aimed at regulating the work of the media have been reported: Arrests of photographers near the World Trade Center, the desire of the security forces to filter images taken at the site, an attempt to ban an interview with Mullah Omar on VOA and the pressure on the Qatar-based TV station Al-Jazeera to stop broadcasting footage of Osama Bin Laden. All these interventions, in whatever context, are unacceptable.. *	Moves against confidentiality on the internet, along with a certain number of measures within the “anti-terrorist” legislation that is currently being examined, constitute a real threat to individual and collective freedoms *	The symbiosis which appears to operate between the tone of the main audio-visual industry and official US policy could eventually militate against the watchdog role of the media in a democracy. *	The cases outlined of corporate censorship, such as the sackings of the two journalists for comments considered outrageous, could lead to self-censorship and an absence of criticism in the press. *	The setting up of “pools” of photographers at the World Trade Center site and the complexities of the accreditation system do not bode well for a free and independent coverage of the actions taken by the United States in reprisal for the terrorist attacks of 11 September.

# data[].attributes.body
Law this act has still to be approved by a joint commission of members of the Senate and House of Representatives

This procedure allows internet-users to enjoy confidentiality when exchanging information on the Internet with the use of encryption software

Already last March the head of the FBI Louis Freeh said he was convinced that terrorist networks were using encryption

13 September the Republican senator Judd Gregg called in a speech to Congress for a worldwide ban on encryption software unless public authorities had been given the means to decode the messages

https://rsf.org/en/between-pull-patriotism-and-self-censorshipthe-us-media-torment-after-11-september?utm_source=chatgpt.com

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Between the pull of patriotism and self-censorshipThe US media in torment after 11 September

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Investigation: Alexandre Levy and Francois Bugingo New York – September 26 / October 2 2001 Observers cast doubt on the objectivity of the American press Ten years after the Gulf War, a conflict the reality of which was largely hidden from the media, the US administration has launched a new series of military operations in reaction to the waves of terrorist attacks that stroked the East coast of the United States leaving nearly 6,000 dead. The daily New York Times noted, “This surge of national pride sweeping the country after the terrorist attacks on 11 September sparks the beginnings of new, more difficult debate over balance among national security, free speech and patriotism.” The influential American newspaper said in an article on 28 September 2001 that the debate “is being played out on stages large and small”, that press comments have on several occasions provoked the fury of the authorities, along with that of the American public, and have led to sanctions including pulling of programmes, withdrawal of advertising in the media and disavowal, even outright sacking of the journalists by their employers. This comes on top of a long list of constraints and more subtle pressure that American and foreign media, including the Internet, have been subjected to since 11 September. Many journalists and foreign observers have already cast doubt on the objectivity and independence of the American press, particularly the TV channels, in this period of “war effort”. In the same way, several voices have been raised within the United States warning the public about a decline in freedom of expression and opinion, freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment of the Constitution, in exchange for tightening security. “We are facing an enemy which is exploiting what it is about our society that makes it strong and effective: freedom, openness and freedom of movement. We have to be sure that we remain an open society, in which individual freedoms are respected,” said Strobe Talbott, former number two at the US State Department in the Clinton Administration. But these voices, drowned out in the climate of media coverage devoted to covering the aftermath of the attacks, the preparations and continuing US counter-attacks, remain in a minority. Even those who are critical appear weakened by the emotion produced by this dramatic terrorist act, the death of thousands of innocent people and the suffering of their bereaved families. In the face of calls to national unity, US organisations traditionally devoted to defending individual freedoms, have been muted. They consider that it is still too soon, even inappropriate, to be raising the alarm over events considered largely ‘secondary’. “The shock of 11 September seems to have stifled the most militant of people, giving way to a de facto tolerance towards tougher than usual stances on the part of the military and the judiciary,” said journalist Sylvie Kauffman, former correspondent of the French daily Le Monde in New York, on 17 September 2001. In fact today, while countries throw themselves into a fresh military operation, the vigilance of organisations defending human rights and individual freedoms are all the more needed. A number of regimes find the temptation too great to exploit the genuine emotion produced by these attacks on the United States on 11 September to restrict freedom of the press and more generally to silence domestic opposition under the cover of the struggle against terrorism. In countries such as Pakistan, Israel, Territories under Palestinian Authority or Liberia, Reporters Sans Frontières (RSF) has recorded several incidents of press freedom violations directly linked to the events in America. While avoiding all linkage with these regimes, RSF also makes public here a serious of episodes affecting press freedom in the United States between 11 September and 7 October 20001, the date of the American military counter-attack. Most of them have been reported and commented on by the American press or by specialist Internet sites. Are these incidents of censorship or self-censorship? Are we witnessing a deliberate policy on the part of the authorities or a choice made by the main media themselves? What do American and foreign journalists working in New York think? What about organisations that defend press freedom? To try to answer these questions, two representatives of RSF went to the United States and meet representatives of the media, human rights organisations and US press specialists. The first suspect: internet The unprecedented scale of the attacks on New York and Washington, and the presumed use by the terrorists of advanced computer technology, prompted fears among internet users of a tightening of web surveillance, as called for by the security services. A number of sources report that a few hours after the attacks on 12 September, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) agents turned up at the headquarters of the main internet providers (Hotmail, AOL, Earthlink, etc) to obtain information on possible email exchanges between the terrorists. Technicians working for these companies have said off the record to the American online magazine Wired that FBI agents wanted to install the electronic bugging system “Carnivore” (recently renamed DCS 1000) on the main computer of internet access providers based in the United States. “From Tuesday evening FBI agents showed up at our workplace wanting to set up their machines. They promised to pick up the tab for all the costs of installation and use”. Another one working for Hotmail said that the FBI had asked for, and obtained, from company executives all information on accounts, whose names included the word Allah. All the major Internet access providers appear to have followed Hotmail’s example and fully collaborated with the American secret services. Once installed at an Internet access provider Carnivore can record and save all information exchanged between users. Under strong critical pressure from defenders of individual freedoms in the United States, the system had never been used until now except with the advance agreement of a judge. The “Combating terrorism Act” voted through after a half-hour debate in the Senate on 13 September, barely two days after the attacks, exempts the security services from judicial approval for the use of Carnivore. To become law this act has still to be approved by a joint commission of members of the Senate and House of Representatives. In the same vein, a number of US leaders have started attacking encryption. This procedure allows internet-users to enjoy confidentiality when exchanging information on the Internet with the use of encryption software. the best known being PGP (Pretty Good Privacy), which can be freely downloaded from a number of sites. Already last March the head of the FBI Louis Freeh said he was convinced that terrorist networks were using encryption. On 13 September the Republican senator Judd Gregg called in a speech to Congress for a worldwide ban on encryption software unless public authorities had been given the means to decode the messages. “One could fear that the authorities could take advantage of the emotion of the moment to achieve their objective: banning encryption” one American proponent of PGP told RSF. Other privacy protection militants such as John Gilmore of the American organisation Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) called for creation of more sites which would offer encryption software on open sale. After the first attack on the World Trade Center in 1993 the FBI found plans for hijacking 11 planes on the portable computer of the person who carried out the attack. The FBI took ten months to decode the files, the majority of which had been encrypted with PGP software. Defenders of encryption say to this that intelligence has already shown its weakness in this area in as much as the terrorists appear to have already used methods that avoid electronic surveillance. The creator of PGP, David Zimmerman, who was nearly jailed in the United States during the 1980 for distributing his programme, has once again defended his position in a recent interview in the magazine Futur(e)s. “Whether it’s congress, or in the courts or in the columns of newspapers, the country has already debated this question over the last decade. And together we have decided that society has more to gain than to lose from effective encryption. It should not be forgotten that encryption has saved lives in the entire world. The system is used by human rights organisations worldwide and especially under dictatorships”. (Quoted by the on-line magazine Transfert, 17 September 2001). Television: From spontaneity to patriotic rigour Filmed virtually live, the attack against the World Trade Center was at the same time tragic and spectacular, as if meant for television. “One should not forget that the terrorist target, Manhattan, is not only the financial heart but also the media capital of the country”, an American journalist pointed out. Never has such an event been filmed and photographed live both by cameras and surveillance, by amateurs and professionals. In the first days access to the sites of the attacks was not controlled. Numerous photographers and cameramen took advantage of this by getting as close as possible to the points of impact. The United States being cut off from the rest of the world with the grounding of all flights, it was only American journalists and foreign correspondents posted to New York who covered the story. Not having necessarily experienced war or natural disasters, they admitted to having had “the shock of their lives” when they heard about the terrorist attacks and went to the World Trade Centre. Either originally from New York or having lived their for many years, they said with a good deal of emotion, that they had covered “the most important story of their careers”. They did not hide their sympathy for Americans and in particular New Yorkers in this difficult period. “I reacted first as an adopted New Yorker rather than as a journalist” said Stéphanie Tremblay French programme co-ordinator for Radio Canada. “The terrorists had above all attacked my city and targeted my way of life.” “I never thought I would cover such an event in my whole life time.” said Don Emmert, head of photo for Agence France-Presse. “I am Canadian,” said Marc Greenought, radio producer for English programmes on the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC), “but during these past days I have never felt so deeply American.” Everyone interviewed by RSF in New York said so: The American television networks were the first to cover the story and they were an excellent source of information in the first days. “We edited the first reports on the attack on the World Trade Center with our eyes fixed on the television screen,” said Michel Moutot, Agence France-Presse bureau chief in New York. “The US television networks have matchless resources and they used them right away,” he continued. Eric Leser, correspondent for the French daily Le Monde agreed. He told RSF how invaluable the live coverage on American television was to his work. The organisation Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR), generally very critical of the major media in America, found that the coverage in the first days was acceptable overall. “We saw a new type of spontaneous and sincere journalism” said one of its organisers Steve Randell. But just a week later, the tone and content on the American television networks changed. “I think the turning point was George W. Bush’s speech to Congress on the 20 September 2001, said Eric Leser. “Since then the media has taken on a strongly patriotic tone and news has lost out to propaganda.” French journalists add that since then they have followed the television networks much less and used the internet, where there are a number of sites providing more critical news and different angles. Many foreign correspondents who spoke to RSF in New York said the same thing. The RSF representatives noted the change of tone and feeling on the American networks that covered President Bush’s 20 September speech, in which he called for a “war against terrorism.” The fate of the victims was relegated to second position and the networks devoted their airtime to hailing the country’s “new heroes”: firefighters, police and military staff, politicians. And above all reflecting an image of a united and defiant nation, ready to wage war on those who have attacked it. “America’s new war” and “At war with terror” (CNN) or “America fights back or counter-attacks? (CBS) were the watchwords, henceforth always accompanied by the ubiquitous stars and stripes. “Broadcasts became all beating the drum and flags flying in the wind. It was no longer news,” said another foreign correspondent Richard Hetu, a journalist with the Canadian daily La Presse. A French journalist, a Balkans specialist, who covered the NATO intervention in Serbia, agreed from New York that American television had “gone to war”: ” Instead of news broadcasts, Americans are watching advertising spots to the glory of their country,” he said. In one example the 62 regional channels of the Sinclair Broadcast group have been carrying an advertisement on their web site: “Our team supports the action of President Bush and the leaders of our nation in putting an end to terrorism.” continues the message, urging viewers who agree to send their views to the site. Reflecting on the patriotic outbursts, Stéphanie Tremblay of Radio Canada said she was “not at all surprised by this aspect of coverage on the US networks. “I knew, however, that if I want to hear a more critical report that gave more space to the news itself, I would have to watch BBC or event TV 5,” she said. Fellow journalist Chantal Lavigne, also acknowledged the American media’s desire to take part in the “war effort” said, “Most star television presenters have said that they were Americans before being journalists.” Journalists and media executives questioned by RSF, either strongly denied having produced propaganda or on the other hand, acknowledged and justified their decision. “The footage of the attack against the World Trade Center has no equivalent in the history of conflict,” said Paul Khlebnikov, journalist with the influential economic magazine Forbes. “In the war of pictures the terrorists have made a decisive point. That is why the war that the United States is going to wage should not be just military and economic but also psychological, therefore media-driven. Killing Bin Laden will not be enough he will have to be cut down symbolically. Mr Khlebnikov said he was not worried by the bellicose and propagandist tone adopted by some of the US media. He attributes it to a “civic revival” shared by all Americans. “The first days there could have been a collapse in morale of Americans. Then as in times of war, there was a civic revival which was picked up in the press. And if the media has sometimes lacked objectivity it was not under official pressure. Objectivity in journalism does not man an absence of values. The media, overall, did excellent work. Television in particular was a triumph,” he said. Paul Khlebnikov is not the only one in the American press to take this position. Sandy Genelius, spokeswoman for the American TV network CBS News is satisfied, she says in an interview with RSF, with the comments she has read in the press about the work of the channel. “We haven’t sunk into propaganda like some”, she says taking a swipe in passing at CBS’s main competitor Cable News Network International (CNN). The chairman of CNN Chris Cramer has been self-congratulatory about the work of his network from 18 September: “CNN has never failed to live up to the occasion (-) to supply balanced news. The 4,000 men and women of CNN have not escaped the shock and the horror of what has happened. However the coverage of the news that we gave the public and other media is testament to professionalism and integrity.” Missing images: censorship or “matter of taste” Barely a week after the attacks, some European media chiefs, particularly French, have questioned the impartiality of the American TV networks, suspected of not showing “all the images”, mainly those of the victims of the attacks. Then there have been criticisms of American authorities, accused of wanted to prevent some shots from the scene being taken and put out by the media. Robert Namias, head of information for the main private French television channel TF1 has several times condemned “filtering” which he considers a form of “censorship”. “I strongly regret the censorship imposed on us by the United States, the journalist told the French daily Le Figaro on 26 September 2001. “The images that the French media paid for were filtered, treated and purified by the American authorities. How do you think we can do our job when we are denied access to information and surrounded by security forces? I did not want to show horrifying images but, to do the job properly, there should be a minimum knowledge.” His opinion is shared, in varying degrees, by other French television bosses but not unanimously. “The horror of the two planes slamming into the towers. Wasn’t that enough? asks Hervé Brusini, head of national news on the public French channel France 3. His colleague on France 2 Oliver Mazerolle, considers that he would not have shown gory images but said the American channels balked at showing this type of image “for patriotic reasons”. The French journalists all join however in condemning increasing difficulty in getting access to the World Trade Center site and the unwillingness of the authorities to allow journalists to move about freely within the security perimeter. During their investigation in New York and Paris, the RSF representatives tried to find out more about the lack of images of the victims and the conditions of access to the World Trade Center site. Jim Rutenberg and Felicity Barringer, media specialists for the New York Times visited various television studios from 11 September onwards and questioned those in charge about their editorial choices. “Terrible pictures started arriving,” they said. “There was blood, there were dismembered bodies.” Despite the desire of some journalists to show these images, the head of MSNBC Erik Sorenson took the decision not to show them. “I think there are all sorts of ways to show the horror without descending into the gory,” he said Some networks, like NBC, CBS, CNN and Fox News did however broadcast footage of desperate people jumping from the blazing building. Only to regret it afterwards. “It was a bad decision, the pictures were really too disturbing”, confessed Bill Wheatley, vice-president of NBC News. Those who decided not to show the film explained: ” The question is are we just creating useless pain”. Those, who like CBS, showed them, justify themselves too: “That’s terrorism. From one point of view you want to protect the viewer but in another way you want to show just what the terrorists have really done.” Michel Moutot of Agence France-Presse also remembers these deeply disturbing photos. “By their clothes one could easily recognise people who jumped from the windows”. However he considered them to be “acceptable”. In fact, several photos of this scene, taken by photographers from the major international agencies appeared during the course of the week in the American and European press. Editors who published the, like Glenn Guzzo of the daily Denver Post, spoke of the virulent objections from readers. “Haven’t you any feelings, any respect for the families who have lost their loved-ones?” one reader asked indignantly. At this stage is strongly appears that a number of distressing photos were taken and used by the American media. It was they who decided, according to their own conscience, whether to use them or not. “It doesn’t look like the authorities were trying to control these pictures, given that that they didn’t even know how to protect the president,” said one observer. “The refusal to show the horrifying pictures was an editorial decision by my colleaguesm,“adds Paul Khlebnikov of Forbes. “As citizens we had to ask ourselves the question: should one show bits of bodies in a period of mourning and national remembrance?” It was indeed an “editorial choice” said Sandy Genelius of CBS News to RSF. “We had sensitive film, we had gory images, but each time we asked ourselves: What more are we contributing to history by showing them? So we decided not to show the pictures just for the pleasure of demonstrating that we had them”. This sudden reticence of the part of the American media has interested a number of foreign observers. In an analytical piece headed “The faceless dead of the World Trade Center,” the journalist Michel Guerin, specialist in images at the French daily Le Monde, stated the paradox: “5,500 people died or disappeared on the black day of 11 September...but practically no image of the bodies has been shown on the television or published in the press” (21 September 2001). “A decency of variable shape, says Dominique Wolton, head of research at the National Centre for Scientific Research (CNRS) quoted by the French daily Liberation (19 September 2001). “This should be a big lesson in decency to western media who don’t hesitate to show massacres when they happen in Rwanda...” he added. Others like the photo historian Marc Ferro do not find it surprising. “During wars you never show your own dead, only those of your adversaries. The Americans want to limit the images of the trauma they have suffered, of defeat, the affront and the mortification.” Sandy Genelius, spokeswoman for CBS News, to whom RSF put these questions, once again staunchly defended herself against applying double standards. “It’s not true that we used different standards. We applied the same rules when we filmed in Rwanda as at the World Trade Center.” An RSF representative also discussed this question with Tom Golstein, emeritus professor at the prestigious Columbia School of Journalism in south Manhattan. He considered that it was simply a “question of taste”. This opinion seems to be shared by a significant majority of American and even foreign journalists. Like Canadian journalist Marc Greenought of CBC, they did not hide their astonishment, even irritation at the criticism from the European media on the absence of more distressing and gory images of the World Trade Center victims and the restricted access to the site. “I do not understand,” he told RSF. “As a journalist I had all the access I needed, the suffering, the emotion. No need to go searching for blood under the ruins for that.” Arrests and calls to order In the first days after the attacks of 11 September, the American media certainly adopted a common position which was not to “add horror on horror” and to take part in the resurgence of patriotic national feeling. In doing this, those in charge followed the wishes of a large majority of the public which reacted strongly to the first images shown after the attacks. Added to this were very strict rules of access to the site of the disaster, injunctions by the various authorities along with sanctions against recalcitrant photographers. The perimeter of the World Trade Center was quickly secured and surrounded by US security forces after the confusion of the first few days. “The New York police were generally co-operative with the press and allowed comings and goings on the site. The arrival on the scene of the National Guard put an end to this situation,” remembered M. Moutot of AFP. Barriers appeared all around the site, the security perimeter was extended by several streets to the south and north of Manhattan. A complex system of accreditation was then established Involving both police and the military. According to the daily Los Angeles Times, from 19 September onwards the police started seizing the films of photographers and tourists close to the site. Many photographers had their access passes withdrawn for failing to respect the orders of the authorities. The American press freedom organisation The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press (RCFP) said that at least four journalists were arrested and accused of breaking the conditions of access to the World Trade Center site. Among them was Ian Austin, photographer for the Agency Aurora Quanta Productions, who was detained for three days before being released without any charge. All journalists working for the daily Dallas Daily News had their accreditation withdrawn because of the arrest and “bad conduct” of one of their photographers. In an interview with RSF, Don Emmert, head of photo at AFP in New York discussed the consequences of the restrictions and the calls to order on the work of his agency. “In photo terms, whole segments of this drama have not been covered. The reason is simple : they wouldn’t let us work. We could not satisfy the demands of our clients from abroad. For instance, we could not go to the hospitals and we can no longer freely take pictures of the World Trade Center after the disaster.” “The office of the mayor asked us not to show firefighters recovering the bodies of their colleagues.” continued Don Emmert, who also spoke out against the current working conditions on the site. “It’s like a police state, he said. They let us shoot in organized pools only what the authorities want us to shoot. The ones who move freely around are the Marine photographers and the photographers from the Federal Emergency Agency. They supply agencies with very pretty photographs Even if the American press continues to carry photos of the ruins of the World Trade Centre, all media, including the tabloids, have to accept pools, of shots taken from a distance and showing only the wide angle of the site. For some journalists working in New York the reply to the debate on the absence of images of the victims of the World Trade Center is very simple. “I quite honestly doubt that that there is much left to show,” suggests the French daily Le Monde’s correspondent. His view is shared by Richard Hetu of the Canadian daily La Presse, who believes that the bodies literally “disintegrated”. The World Trade Center has become an enormous crematorium,” he continued. “As I wrote in one article, the dust from the debris of the World Trade Center that we are breathing still probably includes the ashes of the victims.” America should not speak with the same voice as its enemies Several other incidents, comparable to press freedom violations, characterised the life of the media after the 11 September. They were caused by interventions by the authorities critical of one media or another, or by the owners of the media themselves who saw it as a good moment to sanction a particular journalist for “subversive” comments, and sometimes by both at once, without being able to establish with that media what the real reason for the sanction was. So when the television network ABC decided on 19 September to no longer broadcast images of the two planes slamming into the World Trade Center towers, it was officially so as not to “banalise the dramatic event”. Many observers suspect however that it was the result of pressure from the authorities and in particular because of a desire expressed by the owner of Disney. The most flagrant examples of corporate censorship - when media bosses sanction a journalist for his or her opinions - came from the dailies The Texas City Sun and the Daily Courier in the state of Oregon. On 23 September Les Daughty Jr, owner of the Texas City Sun for 17 years writes an apology to his readers for an article by one of his editors-in-chief Ron Gutting, who said in an article critical of President Bush on the day after the attacks, that he was “flying around the country like a scared child seeking refuge in his mother’s bed after having a nightmare”. In an article on the front page of the newspaper Daughty apologised to all the leaders of the country and particularly to President George Bush for having published such an article which could only provoke “anger and disgust”. Ron Gutting was sacked from the newspaper. His colleague Dan Guthrie of the Daily Courier at Grant’s Pass met the same fate and for similar reasons. He wrote on the 15 September on a humorous page in the newspaper that George Bush had “skedaddled” in the face of the attacks, accusing him of being “an embarrassment” for “hiding in a Nebraska hole” on the day of the terrorist attacks. The newspaper’s editor-in-chief Dennis Mack wrote for his readers that to say that the head of state was hiding at a time when America was trying to unite after the bloody attacks was neither responsible nor appropriate. As a result Dan Guthrie lost his job but for “personal reasons”, according to his employer.` In neither case was there any apparent pressure on the part of the authorities. It was the fierce reactions of the newspapers’ readers that were decisive in the decision to sack the journalists. In another case, that was widely reported in the US press star television presenter Bill Maher drew a strong reaction from the White House. On his talk show “Politically Incorrect” on ABC, Bill Maher said on 17 September, “We have been the cowards, lobbing cruise missiles from 2,000 miles away. That’s cowardly. Staying in the airplane when it hits the building, say what you want about it, It’s not cowardly”. These comments drew the rage of many viewers and led to the immediate withdrawal of the programme’s two main sponsors Federal Express and Sears. A number of television stations linked to the ABC network, mainly in New York and Washington, pulled the Bill Maher programme, especially after White House spokesman Ari Fleisher called his remarks “unpatriotic”. He added, “It was a terrible thing to say and it’s unfortunate.” He went on, “The reminder is to all Americans that they need to watch what they say, watch what they do”. Journalists who heard his statement noted later that “watch what they say” did not appear in the text of this official record of the conference. Another decision of the US administration that drew much attention was the attempt by the authorities to block the broadcasting at the end of September of an interview with the spiritual leader of the Taliban Mullah Omar on the Congress-financed Voice of America. The station that is broadcast to 50 countries worldwide, to explain America to the world, normally has reasonable editorial independence. Claude Porsella, head of the VOA French service told RSF about the content of the programme. “One of my colleagues in the Pashto language service had the scoop of his life: an interview with Mullah Omar. VOA never intended to broadcast the entire interview, extracts of which were included in some general reporting including comments from the US Administration, analysis by an Islamic expert and the position of the Northern Alliance. Mullah Omar said he was convinced that Osama Bin Laden could not be behind the attacks.” The State Department, which has a seat on the VOA board, called on the other board members to ban the interview, scheduled for 28 September. “VOA is not the voice of Mullah Omar and is not the voice of the Taliban”, said one American official. He said it would be “inappropriate” to spend the backers money to broadcast comments of the head of the movement who was protecting the terrorists behind the 11 September attacks. “This decision caused huge dismay among VOA journalists,” said Claude Porsella. The head of news protested and a petition was signed by 150 journalists. Faced with this reaction and strong interest in the press, VOA reversed its decision and decided to go ahead with the broadcast on 25 September. So far there have been no sanctions on the part of the US Administration. “We won a battle,” said Claude Porsella. “But I doubt the story will end there. Heads will probably roll,” he feared. On this occasion the VOA journalists were able to win the solidarity of their colleagues in the major US media, particularly the written press. In the same way the influential daily The Washington Post opened its columns to journalist from VOA before taking a position in an editorial on 26 September. This read: “The episode revealed an impulse to squelch facts that is never far beneath the surface in time of war or quasi-war, an impulse that is hardly less noxious when it retreats promptly under challenge. “But the time for editors to resist the censoring and self-censoring instinct is before it is acted upon, not after. We hear frequently that the only way to beat the terrorists is to hold on to this nation’s freedoms. Those include honoring Americans’ right to hear commentary that bothers some and to glimpse the thoughts of enemies.” At the beginning of October, the American authorities once more expressed their annoyance towards the media which allow a voice to “enemies of America”. This time it was the Arabic Television station Al-Jazeera, based in Qatar that drew the ire of Bush Administration by broadcasts footage and interviews with Taliban leaders or with Osama Bin Laden. The station is famous for its 1998 interview with the man they call “the head of El Qaeda”. This interview was broadcast uncut, on several occasions, after 11 September. On ” September the American ambassador in Qatar officially intervened with the authorities in the country to protest against this “incendiary rhetoric” by the station, which is accused of supplying “biased” coverage of the events of 11 September as well as “encouraging anti-American feelings” in the Middle East. On 3 October following an interview with the US Secretary of State Colin Powell in Washington, Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa el-Thani, Emir of Qatar, and main shareholder in the station, said that US officials had asked him to use his authority to influence the coverage. The Emir said he would not interfere with the editorial policy of Al-Jazeera. The US Administration again complained about the broadcast, the day after the first US air strikes, the words of Osama Bin Laden warning the United States that it would “live in fear”. A State Department official told Reuters: “Yes to freedom but we think it’s beyond the pale to provide an open platform for these sort of violent ideas. We’re concerned everywhere that Osama bin Laden not to be able to use the media to spread his ideas”. At the same time President Bush would be willing to speak on the station. Al-Jazeera, which has had a permanent studio in Kabul since 1998, is one of the rare media still present in the Afghan capital and at Kandahar. Known for the quality of its programmes, his professionalism and independence, the “CNN of the Arab world” is regularly criticized by Arab countries which fear the platform it gives to opposition of all kinds. Conclusion: Is the First Amendment in danger? US lawyer and expert on the American Constitution Floyd Abrams says that America often debates issues like patriotism and free speech n times of crisis. He considers that the First Amendment is put to the test when the country is too. When the country felt threatened, its existence challenged, the First Amendment and its values were sometimes subordinated to other priorities. This opinion is apparently shared by several US organisations for defence of press freedom, who believe it is too soon to become alarmed by the events that have been outlined in this report. Lucy Daglish, head of the Reporters Committee for the Freedom of the Press said she was not unduly concerned. She felt that the media, like the rest of society had become hypersensitive, after the attacks. Her organisation had noted the consequences of the 11 September attacks, but without taking up a position. In an interview with head of the Committee To Protect Journalists (CPJ) Ann Cooper and deputy head Joel Simon, the main US-based worldwide press freedom organisation, said they consider that much more serious violations of press freedom were going on in other parts of the world. Ann Cooper said she thought the US State Department’s criticism of VOA demonstrated an almost instinctive reflex by governments in times of conflict, not to broadcast the words of their adversaries. In some countries this had the force of law, she said. In Russia media which published interviews with Chechen faced legal action. In Angola, police had detained journalists who quoted a rebel commander. “The crucial difference is that VOA broadcast the interview, despite the opposition of the State Department and has so far not suffered any sanction.” But Ann Coooper stressed that it was the tolerance of a free press that kept democracy alive. She did not feel that the press was in danger in the United States. “American journalists don’t need us to defend them. They have their media and the entire profession to back them in case of danger.” Tim Golstein of Columbia School of Journalism also shares this view and is confident that the American media can defend its own interests. “patriotism, independence, freedom of speech: we debate these questions practically every day whether in newspapers or in university lecture halls. But it is far too soon to draw conclusions from this debate.” Media who had so far done an excellent job in covering the attacks should now try to do the same for the rest: continue to do the same good job, but in time of conflict. Following this investigation in Paris and New York, Reporters Sans Frontières nevertheless considers that a number of points of concern remain: *	Several attempts by the US authorities aimed at regulating the work of the media have been reported: Arrests of photographers near the World Trade Center, the desire of the security forces to filter images taken at the site, an attempt to ban an interview with Mullah Omar on VOA and the pressure on the Qatar-based TV station Al-Jazeera to stop broadcasting footage of Osama Bin Laden. All these interventions, in whatever context, are unacceptable.. *	Moves against confidentiality on the internet, along with a certain number of measures within the “anti-terrorist” legislation that is currently being examined, constitute a real threat to individual and collective freedoms *	The symbiosis which appears to operate between the tone of the main audio-visual industry and official US policy could eventually militate against the watchdog role of the media in a democracy. *	The cases outlined of corporate censorship, such as the sackings of the two journalists for comments considered outrageous, could lead to self-censorship and an absence of criticism in the press. *	The setting up of “pools” of photographers at the World Trade Center site and the complexities of the accreditation system do not bode well for a free and independent coverage of the actions taken by the United States in reprisal for the terrorist attacks of 11 September.

# data[].attributes.body
The FBI took ten months to decode the files, the majority of which had been encrypted with PGP software

Defenders of encryption say to this that intelligence has already shown its weakness in this area in as much as the terrorists appear to have already used methods that avoid electronic surveillance

The creator of PGP, David Zimmerman, who was nearly jailed in the United States during the 1980 for distributing his programme

together we have decided that society has more to gain than to lose from effective encryption

https://rsf.org/en/between-pull-patriotism-and-self-censorshipthe-us-media-torment-after-11-september?utm_source=chatgpt.com

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Between the pull of patriotism and self-censorshipThe US media in torment after 11 September

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Investigation: Alexandre Levy and Francois Bugingo New York – September 26 / October 2 2001 Observers cast doubt on the objectivity of the American press Ten years after the Gulf War, a conflict the reality of which was largely hidden from the media, the US administration has launched a new series of military operations in reaction to the waves of terrorist attacks that stroked the East coast of the United States leaving nearly 6,000 dead. The daily New York Times noted, “This surge of national pride sweeping the country after the terrorist attacks on 11 September sparks the beginnings of new, more difficult debate over balance among national security, free speech and patriotism.” The influential American newspaper said in an article on 28 September 2001 that the debate “is being played out on stages large and small”, that press comments have on several occasions provoked the fury of the authorities, along with that of the American public, and have led to sanctions including pulling of programmes, withdrawal of advertising in the media and disavowal, even outright sacking of the journalists by their employers. This comes on top of a long list of constraints and more subtle pressure that American and foreign media, including the Internet, have been subjected to since 11 September. Many journalists and foreign observers have already cast doubt on the objectivity and independence of the American press, particularly the TV channels, in this period of “war effort”. In the same way, several voices have been raised within the United States warning the public about a decline in freedom of expression and opinion, freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment of the Constitution, in exchange for tightening security. “We are facing an enemy which is exploiting what it is about our society that makes it strong and effective: freedom, openness and freedom of movement. We have to be sure that we remain an open society, in which individual freedoms are respected,” said Strobe Talbott, former number two at the US State Department in the Clinton Administration. But these voices, drowned out in the climate of media coverage devoted to covering the aftermath of the attacks, the preparations and continuing US counter-attacks, remain in a minority. Even those who are critical appear weakened by the emotion produced by this dramatic terrorist act, the death of thousands of innocent people and the suffering of their bereaved families. In the face of calls to national unity, US organisations traditionally devoted to defending individual freedoms, have been muted. They consider that it is still too soon, even inappropriate, to be raising the alarm over events considered largely ‘secondary’. “The shock of 11 September seems to have stifled the most militant of people, giving way to a de facto tolerance towards tougher than usual stances on the part of the military and the judiciary,” said journalist Sylvie Kauffman, former correspondent of the French daily Le Monde in New York, on 17 September 2001. In fact today, while countries throw themselves into a fresh military operation, the vigilance of organisations defending human rights and individual freedoms are all the more needed. A number of regimes find the temptation too great to exploit the genuine emotion produced by these attacks on the United States on 11 September to restrict freedom of the press and more generally to silence domestic opposition under the cover of the struggle against terrorism. In countries such as Pakistan, Israel, Territories under Palestinian Authority or Liberia, Reporters Sans Frontières (RSF) has recorded several incidents of press freedom violations directly linked to the events in America. While avoiding all linkage with these regimes, RSF also makes public here a serious of episodes affecting press freedom in the United States between 11 September and 7 October 20001, the date of the American military counter-attack. Most of them have been reported and commented on by the American press or by specialist Internet sites. Are these incidents of censorship or self-censorship? Are we witnessing a deliberate policy on the part of the authorities or a choice made by the main media themselves? What do American and foreign journalists working in New York think? What about organisations that defend press freedom? To try to answer these questions, two representatives of RSF went to the United States and meet representatives of the media, human rights organisations and US press specialists. The first suspect: internet The unprecedented scale of the attacks on New York and Washington, and the presumed use by the terrorists of advanced computer technology, prompted fears among internet users of a tightening of web surveillance, as called for by the security services. A number of sources report that a few hours after the attacks on 12 September, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) agents turned up at the headquarters of the main internet providers (Hotmail, AOL, Earthlink, etc) to obtain information on possible email exchanges between the terrorists. Technicians working for these companies have said off the record to the American online magazine Wired that FBI agents wanted to install the electronic bugging system “Carnivore” (recently renamed DCS 1000) on the main computer of internet access providers based in the United States. “From Tuesday evening FBI agents showed up at our workplace wanting to set up their machines. They promised to pick up the tab for all the costs of installation and use”. Another one working for Hotmail said that the FBI had asked for, and obtained, from company executives all information on accounts, whose names included the word Allah. All the major Internet access providers appear to have followed Hotmail’s example and fully collaborated with the American secret services. Once installed at an Internet access provider Carnivore can record and save all information exchanged between users. Under strong critical pressure from defenders of individual freedoms in the United States, the system had never been used until now except with the advance agreement of a judge. The “Combating terrorism Act” voted through after a half-hour debate in the Senate on 13 September, barely two days after the attacks, exempts the security services from judicial approval for the use of Carnivore. To become law this act has still to be approved by a joint commission of members of the Senate and House of Representatives. In the same vein, a number of US leaders have started attacking encryption. This procedure allows internet-users to enjoy confidentiality when exchanging information on the Internet with the use of encryption software. the best known being PGP (Pretty Good Privacy), which can be freely downloaded from a number of sites. Already last March the head of the FBI Louis Freeh said he was convinced that terrorist networks were using encryption. On 13 September the Republican senator Judd Gregg called in a speech to Congress for a worldwide ban on encryption software unless public authorities had been given the means to decode the messages. “One could fear that the authorities could take advantage of the emotion of the moment to achieve their objective: banning encryption” one American proponent of PGP told RSF. Other privacy protection militants such as John Gilmore of the American organisation Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) called for creation of more sites which would offer encryption software on open sale. After the first attack on the World Trade Center in 1993 the FBI found plans for hijacking 11 planes on the portable computer of the person who carried out the attack. The FBI took ten months to decode the files, the majority of which had been encrypted with PGP software. Defenders of encryption say to this that intelligence has already shown its weakness in this area in as much as the terrorists appear to have already used methods that avoid electronic surveillance. The creator of PGP, David Zimmerman, who was nearly jailed in the United States during the 1980 for distributing his programme, has once again defended his position in a recent interview in the magazine Futur(e)s. “Whether it’s congress, or in the courts or in the columns of newspapers, the country has already debated this question over the last decade. And together we have decided that society has more to gain than to lose from effective encryption. It should not be forgotten that encryption has saved lives in the entire world. The system is used by human rights organisations worldwide and especially under dictatorships”. (Quoted by the on-line magazine Transfert, 17 September 2001). Television: From spontaneity to patriotic rigour Filmed virtually live, the attack against the World Trade Center was at the same time tragic and spectacular, as if meant for television. “One should not forget that the terrorist target, Manhattan, is not only the financial heart but also the media capital of the country”, an American journalist pointed out. Never has such an event been filmed and photographed live both by cameras and surveillance, by amateurs and professionals. In the first days access to the sites of the attacks was not controlled. Numerous photographers and cameramen took advantage of this by getting as close as possible to the points of impact. The United States being cut off from the rest of the world with the grounding of all flights, it was only American journalists and foreign correspondents posted to New York who covered the story. Not having necessarily experienced war or natural disasters, they admitted to having had “the shock of their lives” when they heard about the terrorist attacks and went to the World Trade Centre. Either originally from New York or having lived their for many years, they said with a good deal of emotion, that they had covered “the most important story of their careers”. They did not hide their sympathy for Americans and in particular New Yorkers in this difficult period. “I reacted first as an adopted New Yorker rather than as a journalist” said Stéphanie Tremblay French programme co-ordinator for Radio Canada. “The terrorists had above all attacked my city and targeted my way of life.” “I never thought I would cover such an event in my whole life time.” said Don Emmert, head of photo for Agence France-Presse. “I am Canadian,” said Marc Greenought, radio producer for English programmes on the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC), “but during these past days I have never felt so deeply American.” Everyone interviewed by RSF in New York said so: The American television networks were the first to cover the story and they were an excellent source of information in the first days. “We edited the first reports on the attack on the World Trade Center with our eyes fixed on the television screen,” said Michel Moutot, Agence France-Presse bureau chief in New York. “The US television networks have matchless resources and they used them right away,” he continued. Eric Leser, correspondent for the French daily Le Monde agreed. He told RSF how invaluable the live coverage on American television was to his work. The organisation Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR), generally very critical of the major media in America, found that the coverage in the first days was acceptable overall. “We saw a new type of spontaneous and sincere journalism” said one of its organisers Steve Randell. But just a week later, the tone and content on the American television networks changed. “I think the turning point was George W. Bush’s speech to Congress on the 20 September 2001, said Eric Leser. “Since then the media has taken on a strongly patriotic tone and news has lost out to propaganda.” French journalists add that since then they have followed the television networks much less and used the internet, where there are a number of sites providing more critical news and different angles. Many foreign correspondents who spoke to RSF in New York said the same thing. The RSF representatives noted the change of tone and feeling on the American networks that covered President Bush’s 20 September speech, in which he called for a “war against terrorism.” The fate of the victims was relegated to second position and the networks devoted their airtime to hailing the country’s “new heroes”: firefighters, police and military staff, politicians. And above all reflecting an image of a united and defiant nation, ready to wage war on those who have attacked it. “America’s new war” and “At war with terror” (CNN) or “America fights back or counter-attacks? (CBS) were the watchwords, henceforth always accompanied by the ubiquitous stars and stripes. “Broadcasts became all beating the drum and flags flying in the wind. It was no longer news,” said another foreign correspondent Richard Hetu, a journalist with the Canadian daily La Presse. A French journalist, a Balkans specialist, who covered the NATO intervention in Serbia, agreed from New York that American television had “gone to war”: ” Instead of news broadcasts, Americans are watching advertising spots to the glory of their country,” he said. In one example the 62 regional channels of the Sinclair Broadcast group have been carrying an advertisement on their web site: “Our team supports the action of President Bush and the leaders of our nation in putting an end to terrorism.” continues the message, urging viewers who agree to send their views to the site. Reflecting on the patriotic outbursts, Stéphanie Tremblay of Radio Canada said she was “not at all surprised by this aspect of coverage on the US networks. “I knew, however, that if I want to hear a more critical report that gave more space to the news itself, I would have to watch BBC or event TV 5,” she said. Fellow journalist Chantal Lavigne, also acknowledged the American media’s desire to take part in the “war effort” said, “Most star television presenters have said that they were Americans before being journalists.” Journalists and media executives questioned by RSF, either strongly denied having produced propaganda or on the other hand, acknowledged and justified their decision. “The footage of the attack against the World Trade Center has no equivalent in the history of conflict,” said Paul Khlebnikov, journalist with the influential economic magazine Forbes. “In the war of pictures the terrorists have made a decisive point. That is why the war that the United States is going to wage should not be just military and economic but also psychological, therefore media-driven. Killing Bin Laden will not be enough he will have to be cut down symbolically. Mr Khlebnikov said he was not worried by the bellicose and propagandist tone adopted by some of the US media. He attributes it to a “civic revival” shared by all Americans. “The first days there could have been a collapse in morale of Americans. Then as in times of war, there was a civic revival which was picked up in the press. And if the media has sometimes lacked objectivity it was not under official pressure. Objectivity in journalism does not man an absence of values. The media, overall, did excellent work. Television in particular was a triumph,” he said. Paul Khlebnikov is not the only one in the American press to take this position. Sandy Genelius, spokeswoman for the American TV network CBS News is satisfied, she says in an interview with RSF, with the comments she has read in the press about the work of the channel. “We haven’t sunk into propaganda like some”, she says taking a swipe in passing at CBS’s main competitor Cable News Network International (CNN). The chairman of CNN Chris Cramer has been self-congratulatory about the work of his network from 18 September: “CNN has never failed to live up to the occasion (-) to supply balanced news. The 4,000 men and women of CNN have not escaped the shock and the horror of what has happened. However the coverage of the news that we gave the public and other media is testament to professionalism and integrity.” Missing images: censorship or “matter of taste” Barely a week after the attacks, some European media chiefs, particularly French, have questioned the impartiality of the American TV networks, suspected of not showing “all the images”, mainly those of the victims of the attacks. Then there have been criticisms of American authorities, accused of wanted to prevent some shots from the scene being taken and put out by the media. Robert Namias, head of information for the main private French television channel TF1 has several times condemned “filtering” which he considers a form of “censorship”. “I strongly regret the censorship imposed on us by the United States, the journalist told the French daily Le Figaro on 26 September 2001. “The images that the French media paid for were filtered, treated and purified by the American authorities. How do you think we can do our job when we are denied access to information and surrounded by security forces? I did not want to show horrifying images but, to do the job properly, there should be a minimum knowledge.” His opinion is shared, in varying degrees, by other French television bosses but not unanimously. “The horror of the two planes slamming into the towers. Wasn’t that enough? asks Hervé Brusini, head of national news on the public French channel France 3. His colleague on France 2 Oliver Mazerolle, considers that he would not have shown gory images but said the American channels balked at showing this type of image “for patriotic reasons”. The French journalists all join however in condemning increasing difficulty in getting access to the World Trade Center site and the unwillingness of the authorities to allow journalists to move about freely within the security perimeter. During their investigation in New York and Paris, the RSF representatives tried to find out more about the lack of images of the victims and the conditions of access to the World Trade Center site. Jim Rutenberg and Felicity Barringer, media specialists for the New York Times visited various television studios from 11 September onwards and questioned those in charge about their editorial choices. “Terrible pictures started arriving,” they said. “There was blood, there were dismembered bodies.” Despite the desire of some journalists to show these images, the head of MSNBC Erik Sorenson took the decision not to show them. “I think there are all sorts of ways to show the horror without descending into the gory,” he said Some networks, like NBC, CBS, CNN and Fox News did however broadcast footage of desperate people jumping from the blazing building. Only to regret it afterwards. “It was a bad decision, the pictures were really too disturbing”, confessed Bill Wheatley, vice-president of NBC News. Those who decided not to show the film explained: ” The question is are we just creating useless pain”. Those, who like CBS, showed them, justify themselves too: “That’s terrorism. From one point of view you want to protect the viewer but in another way you want to show just what the terrorists have really done.” Michel Moutot of Agence France-Presse also remembers these deeply disturbing photos. “By their clothes one could easily recognise people who jumped from the windows”. However he considered them to be “acceptable”. In fact, several photos of this scene, taken by photographers from the major international agencies appeared during the course of the week in the American and European press. Editors who published the, like Glenn Guzzo of the daily Denver Post, spoke of the virulent objections from readers. “Haven’t you any feelings, any respect for the families who have lost their loved-ones?” one reader asked indignantly. At this stage is strongly appears that a number of distressing photos were taken and used by the American media. It was they who decided, according to their own conscience, whether to use them or not. “It doesn’t look like the authorities were trying to control these pictures, given that that they didn’t even know how to protect the president,” said one observer. “The refusal to show the horrifying pictures was an editorial decision by my colleaguesm,“adds Paul Khlebnikov of Forbes. “As citizens we had to ask ourselves the question: should one show bits of bodies in a period of mourning and national remembrance?” It was indeed an “editorial choice” said Sandy Genelius of CBS News to RSF. “We had sensitive film, we had gory images, but each time we asked ourselves: What more are we contributing to history by showing them? So we decided not to show the pictures just for the pleasure of demonstrating that we had them”. This sudden reticence of the part of the American media has interested a number of foreign observers. In an analytical piece headed “The faceless dead of the World Trade Center,” the journalist Michel Guerin, specialist in images at the French daily Le Monde, stated the paradox: “5,500 people died or disappeared on the black day of 11 September...but practically no image of the bodies has been shown on the television or published in the press” (21 September 2001). “A decency of variable shape, says Dominique Wolton, head of research at the National Centre for Scientific Research (CNRS) quoted by the French daily Liberation (19 September 2001). “This should be a big lesson in decency to western media who don’t hesitate to show massacres when they happen in Rwanda...” he added. Others like the photo historian Marc Ferro do not find it surprising. “During wars you never show your own dead, only those of your adversaries. The Americans want to limit the images of the trauma they have suffered, of defeat, the affront and the mortification.” Sandy Genelius, spokeswoman for CBS News, to whom RSF put these questions, once again staunchly defended herself against applying double standards. “It’s not true that we used different standards. We applied the same rules when we filmed in Rwanda as at the World Trade Center.” An RSF representative also discussed this question with Tom Golstein, emeritus professor at the prestigious Columbia School of Journalism in south Manhattan. He considered that it was simply a “question of taste”. This opinion seems to be shared by a significant majority of American and even foreign journalists. Like Canadian journalist Marc Greenought of CBC, they did not hide their astonishment, even irritation at the criticism from the European media on the absence of more distressing and gory images of the World Trade Center victims and the restricted access to the site. “I do not understand,” he told RSF. “As a journalist I had all the access I needed, the suffering, the emotion. No need to go searching for blood under the ruins for that.” Arrests and calls to order In the first days after the attacks of 11 September, the American media certainly adopted a common position which was not to “add horror on horror” and to take part in the resurgence of patriotic national feeling. In doing this, those in charge followed the wishes of a large majority of the public which reacted strongly to the first images shown after the attacks. Added to this were very strict rules of access to the site of the disaster, injunctions by the various authorities along with sanctions against recalcitrant photographers. The perimeter of the World Trade Center was quickly secured and surrounded by US security forces after the confusion of the first few days. “The New York police were generally co-operative with the press and allowed comings and goings on the site. The arrival on the scene of the National Guard put an end to this situation,” remembered M. Moutot of AFP. Barriers appeared all around the site, the security perimeter was extended by several streets to the south and north of Manhattan. A complex system of accreditation was then established Involving both police and the military. According to the daily Los Angeles Times, from 19 September onwards the police started seizing the films of photographers and tourists close to the site. Many photographers had their access passes withdrawn for failing to respect the orders of the authorities. The American press freedom organisation The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press (RCFP) said that at least four journalists were arrested and accused of breaking the conditions of access to the World Trade Center site. Among them was Ian Austin, photographer for the Agency Aurora Quanta Productions, who was detained for three days before being released without any charge. All journalists working for the daily Dallas Daily News had their accreditation withdrawn because of the arrest and “bad conduct” of one of their photographers. In an interview with RSF, Don Emmert, head of photo at AFP in New York discussed the consequences of the restrictions and the calls to order on the work of his agency. “In photo terms, whole segments of this drama have not been covered. The reason is simple : they wouldn’t let us work. We could not satisfy the demands of our clients from abroad. For instance, we could not go to the hospitals and we can no longer freely take pictures of the World Trade Center after the disaster.” “The office of the mayor asked us not to show firefighters recovering the bodies of their colleagues.” continued Don Emmert, who also spoke out against the current working conditions on the site. “It’s like a police state, he said. They let us shoot in organized pools only what the authorities want us to shoot. The ones who move freely around are the Marine photographers and the photographers from the Federal Emergency Agency. They supply agencies with very pretty photographs Even if the American press continues to carry photos of the ruins of the World Trade Centre, all media, including the tabloids, have to accept pools, of shots taken from a distance and showing only the wide angle of the site. For some journalists working in New York the reply to the debate on the absence of images of the victims of the World Trade Center is very simple. “I quite honestly doubt that that there is much left to show,” suggests the French daily Le Monde’s correspondent. His view is shared by Richard Hetu of the Canadian daily La Presse, who believes that the bodies literally “disintegrated”. The World Trade Center has become an enormous crematorium,” he continued. “As I wrote in one article, the dust from the debris of the World Trade Center that we are breathing still probably includes the ashes of the victims.” America should not speak with the same voice as its enemies Several other incidents, comparable to press freedom violations, characterised the life of the media after the 11 September. They were caused by interventions by the authorities critical of one media or another, or by the owners of the media themselves who saw it as a good moment to sanction a particular journalist for “subversive” comments, and sometimes by both at once, without being able to establish with that media what the real reason for the sanction was. So when the television network ABC decided on 19 September to no longer broadcast images of the two planes slamming into the World Trade Center towers, it was officially so as not to “banalise the dramatic event”. Many observers suspect however that it was the result of pressure from the authorities and in particular because of a desire expressed by the owner of Disney. The most flagrant examples of corporate censorship - when media bosses sanction a journalist for his or her opinions - came from the dailies The Texas City Sun and the Daily Courier in the state of Oregon. On 23 September Les Daughty Jr, owner of the Texas City Sun for 17 years writes an apology to his readers for an article by one of his editors-in-chief Ron Gutting, who said in an article critical of President Bush on the day after the attacks, that he was “flying around the country like a scared child seeking refuge in his mother’s bed after having a nightmare”. In an article on the front page of the newspaper Daughty apologised to all the leaders of the country and particularly to President George Bush for having published such an article which could only provoke “anger and disgust”. Ron Gutting was sacked from the newspaper. His colleague Dan Guthrie of the Daily Courier at Grant’s Pass met the same fate and for similar reasons. He wrote on the 15 September on a humorous page in the newspaper that George Bush had “skedaddled” in the face of the attacks, accusing him of being “an embarrassment” for “hiding in a Nebraska hole” on the day of the terrorist attacks. The newspaper’s editor-in-chief Dennis Mack wrote for his readers that to say that the head of state was hiding at a time when America was trying to unite after the bloody attacks was neither responsible nor appropriate. As a result Dan Guthrie lost his job but for “personal reasons”, according to his employer.` In neither case was there any apparent pressure on the part of the authorities. It was the fierce reactions of the newspapers’ readers that were decisive in the decision to sack the journalists. In another case, that was widely reported in the US press star television presenter Bill Maher drew a strong reaction from the White House. On his talk show “Politically Incorrect” on ABC, Bill Maher said on 17 September, “We have been the cowards, lobbing cruise missiles from 2,000 miles away. That’s cowardly. Staying in the airplane when it hits the building, say what you want about it, It’s not cowardly”. These comments drew the rage of many viewers and led to the immediate withdrawal of the programme’s two main sponsors Federal Express and Sears. A number of television stations linked to the ABC network, mainly in New York and Washington, pulled the Bill Maher programme, especially after White House spokesman Ari Fleisher called his remarks “unpatriotic”. He added, “It was a terrible thing to say and it’s unfortunate.” He went on, “The reminder is to all Americans that they need to watch what they say, watch what they do”. Journalists who heard his statement noted later that “watch what they say” did not appear in the text of this official record of the conference. Another decision of the US administration that drew much attention was the attempt by the authorities to block the broadcasting at the end of September of an interview with the spiritual leader of the Taliban Mullah Omar on the Congress-financed Voice of America. The station that is broadcast to 50 countries worldwide, to explain America to the world, normally has reasonable editorial independence. Claude Porsella, head of the VOA French service told RSF about the content of the programme. “One of my colleagues in the Pashto language service had the scoop of his life: an interview with Mullah Omar. VOA never intended to broadcast the entire interview, extracts of which were included in some general reporting including comments from the US Administration, analysis by an Islamic expert and the position of the Northern Alliance. Mullah Omar said he was convinced that Osama Bin Laden could not be behind the attacks.” The State Department, which has a seat on the VOA board, called on the other board members to ban the interview, scheduled for 28 September. “VOA is not the voice of Mullah Omar and is not the voice of the Taliban”, said one American official. He said it would be “inappropriate” to spend the backers money to broadcast comments of the head of the movement who was protecting the terrorists behind the 11 September attacks. “This decision caused huge dismay among VOA journalists,” said Claude Porsella. The head of news protested and a petition was signed by 150 journalists. Faced with this reaction and strong interest in the press, VOA reversed its decision and decided to go ahead with the broadcast on 25 September. So far there have been no sanctions on the part of the US Administration. “We won a battle,” said Claude Porsella. “But I doubt the story will end there. Heads will probably roll,” he feared. On this occasion the VOA journalists were able to win the solidarity of their colleagues in the major US media, particularly the written press. In the same way the influential daily The Washington Post opened its columns to journalist from VOA before taking a position in an editorial on 26 September. This read: “The episode revealed an impulse to squelch facts that is never far beneath the surface in time of war or quasi-war, an impulse that is hardly less noxious when it retreats promptly under challenge. “But the time for editors to resist the censoring and self-censoring instinct is before it is acted upon, not after. We hear frequently that the only way to beat the terrorists is to hold on to this nation’s freedoms. Those include honoring Americans’ right to hear commentary that bothers some and to glimpse the thoughts of enemies.” At the beginning of October, the American authorities once more expressed their annoyance towards the media which allow a voice to “enemies of America”. This time it was the Arabic Television station Al-Jazeera, based in Qatar that drew the ire of Bush Administration by broadcasts footage and interviews with Taliban leaders or with Osama Bin Laden. The station is famous for its 1998 interview with the man they call “the head of El Qaeda”. This interview was broadcast uncut, on several occasions, after 11 September. On ” September the American ambassador in Qatar officially intervened with the authorities in the country to protest against this “incendiary rhetoric” by the station, which is accused of supplying “biased” coverage of the events of 11 September as well as “encouraging anti-American feelings” in the Middle East. On 3 October following an interview with the US Secretary of State Colin Powell in Washington, Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa el-Thani, Emir of Qatar, and main shareholder in the station, said that US officials had asked him to use his authority to influence the coverage. The Emir said he would not interfere with the editorial policy of Al-Jazeera. The US Administration again complained about the broadcast, the day after the first US air strikes, the words of Osama Bin Laden warning the United States that it would “live in fear”. A State Department official told Reuters: “Yes to freedom but we think it’s beyond the pale to provide an open platform for these sort of violent ideas. We’re concerned everywhere that Osama bin Laden not to be able to use the media to spread his ideas”. At the same time President Bush would be willing to speak on the station. Al-Jazeera, which has had a permanent studio in Kabul since 1998, is one of the rare media still present in the Afghan capital and at Kandahar. Known for the quality of its programmes, his professionalism and independence, the “CNN of the Arab world” is regularly criticized by Arab countries which fear the platform it gives to opposition of all kinds. Conclusion: Is the First Amendment in danger? US lawyer and expert on the American Constitution Floyd Abrams says that America often debates issues like patriotism and free speech n times of crisis. He considers that the First Amendment is put to the test when the country is too. When the country felt threatened, its existence challenged, the First Amendment and its values were sometimes subordinated to other priorities. This opinion is apparently shared by several US organisations for defence of press freedom, who believe it is too soon to become alarmed by the events that have been outlined in this report. Lucy Daglish, head of the Reporters Committee for the Freedom of the Press said she was not unduly concerned. She felt that the media, like the rest of society had become hypersensitive, after the attacks. Her organisation had noted the consequences of the 11 September attacks, but without taking up a position. In an interview with head of the Committee To Protect Journalists (CPJ) Ann Cooper and deputy head Joel Simon, the main US-based worldwide press freedom organisation, said they consider that much more serious violations of press freedom were going on in other parts of the world. Ann Cooper said she thought the US State Department’s criticism of VOA demonstrated an almost instinctive reflex by governments in times of conflict, not to broadcast the words of their adversaries. In some countries this had the force of law, she said. In Russia media which published interviews with Chechen faced legal action. In Angola, police had detained journalists who quoted a rebel commander. “The crucial difference is that VOA broadcast the interview, despite the opposition of the State Department and has so far not suffered any sanction.” But Ann Coooper stressed that it was the tolerance of a free press that kept democracy alive. She did not feel that the press was in danger in the United States. “American journalists don’t need us to defend them. They have their media and the entire profession to back them in case of danger.” Tim Golstein of Columbia School of Journalism also shares this view and is confident that the American media can defend its own interests. “patriotism, independence, freedom of speech: we debate these questions practically every day whether in newspapers or in university lecture halls. But it is far too soon to draw conclusions from this debate.” Media who had so far done an excellent job in covering the attacks should now try to do the same for the rest: continue to do the same good job, but in time of conflict. Following this investigation in Paris and New York, Reporters Sans Frontières nevertheless considers that a number of points of concern remain: *	Several attempts by the US authorities aimed at regulating the work of the media have been reported: Arrests of photographers near the World Trade Center, the desire of the security forces to filter images taken at the site, an attempt to ban an interview with Mullah Omar on VOA and the pressure on the Qatar-based TV station Al-Jazeera to stop broadcasting footage of Osama Bin Laden. All these interventions, in whatever context, are unacceptable.. *	Moves against confidentiality on the internet, along with a certain number of measures within the “anti-terrorist” legislation that is currently being examined, constitute a real threat to individual and collective freedoms *	The symbiosis which appears to operate between the tone of the main audio-visual industry and official US policy could eventually militate against the watchdog role of the media in a democracy. *	The cases outlined of corporate censorship, such as the sackings of the two journalists for comments considered outrageous, could lead to self-censorship and an absence of criticism in the press. *	The setting up of “pools” of photographers at the World Trade Center site and the complexities of the accreditation system do not bode well for a free and independent coverage of the actions taken by the United States in reprisal for the terrorist attacks of 11 September.

# data[].attributes.body
Maizland, Lindsay, and Clara Fong. “Timeline: How 9/11 Reshaped Foreign Policy.” Council on Foreign Relations, 21 Jan. 2025, www.cfr.org/timeline/how-911-reshaped-foreign-policy.

# data[].attributes.body
Albright, Madeleine, et al. “9/11 Transforms U.S. Foreign Policy.” Foreign Affairs, 1 Aug. 2022, www.foreignaffairs.com/lists/911-transforms-us-foreign-policy

# data[].attributes.body
Bonk, Alyssa. “From Unity to Isolation: Transformation of U.S. Foreign Policy Since 9/11.” New York Center for Foreign Policy Affairs, 11 Sept. 2025, nycfpa.org/09/11/from-unity-to-isolation-transformation-of-us-foreign-policy-since-9-11/.

# data[].attributes.body
U.S. Department of Homeland Security. “Creation of the Department of Homeland Security.” DHS.gov, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, www.dhs.gov/creation-department-homeland-security.

# data[].attributes.body
U.S. White House. “The Department of Homeland Security – Executive Summary.” The White House, 25 June 2002, https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/deptofhomeland/sect1.h

# data[].attributes.body
U.S. Department of Homeland Security. “TSA at a Glance Factsheet.” Transportation Security Administration, 27 July 2022, www.tsa.gov/news/press/factsheets/tsa-glance-factsheet.

# data[].attributes.body
McGinty, Tom. “How Travel and Airport Security Changed After 9/11.” NPR, 10 Sept. 2021, www.npr.org/2021/09/10/1035131619/911-travel-timeline-tsa.

# data[].attributes.body
"21 Years After 9/11, Secondary Barriers for Cockpits Still Not Mandatory." New York Post, 3 Sept. 2022, https://nypost.com/2022/09/03/21-years-after-9-11-secondary-barriers-for-cockpits-still-not-mandatory/

# data[].attributes.body
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. “History of ICE.” ICE.gov, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, www.ice.gov/history

# data[].attributes.body
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. “Who We Are.” ICE.gov, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 7 Mar. 2025, www.ice.gov/about-ice

# data[].attributes.body
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. “Who We Are.” ICE.gov, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 7 Mar. 2025

# data[].attributes.body
Hess, Stephen. “Running Toward Danger: How the News Media Performed on 9/11 and Beyond.” Brookings Institution, 19 Sept. 2002, www.brookings.edu/events/running-toward-danger-how-the-news-media-performed-on-9-11-and-beyond/

# data[].attributes.body
Walker, Jack. “Twenty Years Later: The Legacy of 9/11 Media Coverage.” The Brown Daily Herald, 13 Sept. 2021, www.browndailyherald.com/article/2021/09/twenty-years-later-the-legacy-of-9-11-media-coverage

# data[].attributes.body
Reporters Without Borders. “Between the Pull of Patriotism and Self-Censorship: The U.S. Media in Torment After 11 September.” Reporters Without Borders, 11 Oct. 2001, https://rsf.org/en/between-pull-patriotism-and-self-censorshipthe-us-media-torment-after-11-september