Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Saturday Morning News

Reporter's Notebook: Journalists in Jeopardy

Aired February 02, 2002 - 09:35   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
MILES O'BRIEN, CNN ANCHOR: Pakistani police are winding down their search of Karachi's 200-plus cemeteries for the body of American Daniel Pearl. Kidnappers claim, though, through an e-mail, they killed the "Wall Street Journal" reporter and dumped his body in a graveyard. Authorities can't confirm the e-mail's authenticity, however, and "The Wall Street Journal" today is discounting it.

Adding to the confusion, someone has called the U.S. embassy in Islamabad demanding $2 million for Pearl, suggesting he is still very much alive. "The Wall Street Journal" also says it considers the ransom phone call false.

Let's talk about journalists in jeopardy, though, in general with a pair of CNN correspondents. Both know quite a bit about risky assignments. Christiane Amanpour, chief international correspondent for CNN, she has covered conflicts in the Gulf, Bosnia, Somalia, and Afghanistan, you name it. CNN's Ben Wedeman is based in Cairo where he serves as bureau chief. Ben has been on the front lines in Iraq, Sierra Leone, and the Middle East conflict, injured in the line of action. He joins us from Karachi, Pakistan, where he is covering the Daniel Pearl story.

Good morning to you both.

CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Good morning.

O'BRIEN: We have lots of good questions this morning...

BEN WEDEMAN, CNN CAIRO BUREAU CHIEF: Morning.

O'BRIEN: ... let's get right to them. We'll go ladies first. Christiane, this one comes from Debbie Doherty in Vermont. "With the current situation of a journalist having been kidnapped and threatened, are you taking any new personal security precautions, and do you generally exercise security precautions as a normal part of your routine in war zones? It seems to me that journalists tend to regard themselves as immune and neutral when in the center of a conflict and to believe that the warring factions will honor that neutrality." That last point is interesting, Christiane.

AMANPOUR: Yes, it is. And I think that's the increasing problem for us journalists who cover the news around the world, and who are viewed in real time. Now, with satellite television, 24-hour news television, the conflicts and the events that we cover are seen in the countries that we cover almost immediately. So we are -- we absorb the reaction very, very quickly.

So for a journalist to remain and to maintain his independence is increasingly a big challenge for us.

In terms of protection, obviously in the last few years, as events have become more and more unpredictable and the wars that we cover have become more and more dangerous, in that these wars are for the most part now directed at civilians, and we journalists are covering the civilian fallout, therefore we are much more in the line of fire than perhaps a traditional conflict between two armies.

So that is very, very difficult, and we have obviously taken certain precautions. You know, starting from Bosnia, journalists started to wear bullet-proof jackets in certain instances. There were bullet-proof cars that journalists started to use.

But none of that is fail-safe and foolproof. And of course what's happened to people like Daniel Pearl and back in the '80s to the journalists who were kidnapped in Beirut is a much more political action and not one that is necessarily one of violence towards the journalists. And that's what's very, very, very scary.

O'BRIEN: All right, let's take a phone call. This one comes from Bob who is in Virginia this morning. And he's addressing a question to Ben. Go ahead, Bob. Good morning.

CALLER: Ben, how are you? Got a question for you. My question is, what sort of...

WEDEMAN: I'm fine, Bob.

CALLER: ... what -- how do you guys survive, like, the weather? And are you guys given specific survival skills in order to avoid a hostile situation that's, like, if you're in Karachi, like, say, if the weather turns really bad in Afghanistan, how do you avoid situations where your survival depends on food, water, and proper clothing for the weather and climate there?

WEDEMAN: Well, Bob, I can tell you the weather really is the least of our worries in these situations. Really, the question -- it's the danger of being in a war zone, finding yourself in a very unpredictable situation. And we do take many precautions. Christiane mentioned one of them. For instance, we wear bullet-proof vests. But as I found myself, those aren't a foolproof means of protection against bullets.

As far as the weather goes, it's like anywhere else you go. If you go skiing, you dress warmly. In Afghanistan, we experienced some bitterly cold weather. And when you know where you're going, you take what you need to bring with you. You dress very warmly. Oftentimes, you find that you don't have an opportunity for days on end to change your clothing, so you better be prepared to put up with what you're wearing for a long time. In terms of training, CNN and the other news organizations provide what's called a hostile environment training course, where we receive instructions from experienced, in this case British special forces in how to act in a dangerous war zone. And they give you sort of the A to Z as far as protecting yourself, trying to maximize your safety in a dangerous zone.

We take it all very seriously, and we listen to what they say, and we do what they tell us to do, because clearly many of us do not have military training, and we need to benefit from those who do, because we find ourselves in many cases, we are in more war zones, experience more firefights than your average veteran of the U.S. or British or anybody else's military service.

O'BRIEN: All right, let's go back to the e-mailbox, this one for Christiane. It comes from Jane Greening, and here's the question. "As a parent, do you ever hesitate to report from dangerous areas, such as Afghanistan? How do you measure the danger quotient versus the value of getting a good story? Also, is it true that you do not wear a flak jacket because you find them uncomfortable?" I hadn't heard that one.

AMANPOUR: In terms of how do you do it as a parent and how do you do it when you have much more in play than just your own security and your own personal self to worry about, obviously it's more difficult. Obviously you're much more concerned about the people who rely on you and for whom you're responsible in your life.

I am nonetheless committed to this work that I do, this work that I consider very important, as do all of us journalists, which is why we put ourselves in this position, to be able to go out, tell these stories, bring them back, vital stories, important stories that people need for their own security, for their own information about what's going on in the rest of the world. It's a balance that we have to be able to try very hard to maintain.

In terms of how I try to keep myself safe, I do the best I can. And occasionally I find wearing a flak jacket is too difficult, because it's very heavy and it can sometimes impede you from moving fast. On the other hand, I would also recommend people to do that in hostile zones, because I know for a fact that they have saved lives.

And a word on the Daniel Pearl situation, which is a different situation than just sheer violence. You know, all of us who are in the journalistic profession and who cover the kind of stories that he does obviously feel an enormous amount of solidarity, sympathy, and anguish right now, because any one of us could be in that position.

And it's an outrageous thing to happen to a journalist, because journalists are the only profession, the only people who actually give these groups who are claiming to have kidnapped him and others a platform, who actually tell their stories.

It's an absolutely misguided thing for them to have done, to do what they've done, and we hope very, very much that he's released very, very quickly, because it impedes getting their message out, and it impedes the great work that people like Daniel Pearl and others do.

O'BRIEN: All right, we're going to take a break. We're going to come back with more of this. We have lots more questions via phone and via e-mail, so stay with us for more Reporter's Notebook with Christiane Amanpour and Ben Wedeman.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

O'BRIEN: We're back now. We're talking to two of our esteemed colleagues who have risked an awful lot in years past to tell a story for your behalf. And we're taking your questions about how they do their job and how they assess those risks.

Ben, this next one is for you. It comes from Sam. He's on the line with us from New York. Sam, good morning to you.

CALLER: Good morning.

O'BRIEN: Your question, please.

CALLER: Actually it could be a question for both of them. And I just want to know, what kind of responsibility as journalists do you guys feel that the news organizations you work for should have in situations like this? For example, the U.S. government has said they don't want to negotiate for the release of this guy Pearl. And I'm just wondering, you know, would you expect your news organization, for example, in this case "The Wall Street Journal," to pay the $2 million ransom, or to, you know, engage in some type of negotiations?

O'BRIEN: Dan, why don't you go first?

WEDEMAN: Well, Sam, that's the kind of hypothetical -- yes, OK. Sam, that's the kind of hypothetical situation we -- excuse me -- prefer not to ponder. But I have complete confidence in my news organization, and I know probably I can speak for many others, that they certainly are very concerned about our well-being. For instance, here in Karachi, our -- CNN has made it very clear that as far as our security is concerned, no-- excuse me -- no expense will be spared.

And no, I don't even want to ponder the possibility that any of us would be in the same situation as Mr. Pearl. But I know from "The Wall Street Journal" that they certainly are doing everything they can to win the release of Mr. Pearl. In the case of this $2 million ransom demand, all indications are that that was a hoax. And so really there's no point in discussing that at any great length.

But these organizations, CNN or whatever news agency that sends us out here, they know that we are going into a dangerous situation, and they certainly don't want to see us come in harm's way. So I do have confidence that they will do everything they can to protect us. When I was wounded in Gaza a year and a half ago, they spared no expense for my medical treatment. Senior executives came out to oversee my transfer from the battlefield to a hospital in London.

So I have complete confidence, and I'm sure all of my colleagues do. O'BRIEN: Christiane, we have an e-mail follow-up to this point. Let me just pose this before you answer. "First of all, when reporters take assignments overseas, such as in war areas in dangerous zones, aren't they doing this voluntarily? Secondly, is there something that these reporters sign that states they understand these types of things could happen to them? And third, if we start to negotiate with people now, won't this just open up a huge can of worms that we just do not need right now?" That from Susie Hicks. Good question, Susie.

AMANPOUR: Well, I think on the negotiations question, Ben has answered that quite well, and I think that we've seen in many instances past, and, you know, we go all the way back to the '80s when it really started, this wave of kidnapping, politically motivated kidnapping of journalists in Beirut, and there have been others. And now with Daniel Pearl.

Obviously, "The Wall Street Journal" is doing everything it possibly can and dealing with the proper authorities and trying to communicate in ways to get their reporter released.

I think that, as to the other questions, you know, we don't sign away our life. I know this is a litigious society, but we don't sign a piece of paper saying that if something happens to us, you know, we absolve everybody of responsibility.

This is -- you know, we're human beings, we are a family of workers, we're colleagues. Our bosses and many of us work very closely together. And we all know that this is and can be a very risky, dangerous, but vital work. And I think that both the people on the ground and the people at headquarters are very conscious of this, and we work closely together, and there's a lot of emotion involved, a lot of, you know, friendship. And it affects all of us when these kinds of things happen.

And we have taken many hits in our ranks over the last many years through the Balkans and in other countries that we've covered recently, certainly. And it's one of the terrible, sad, horrible things that is a reality of our profession.

I think the only thing that I would say is that people who are properly qualified to do this kind of thing need to go out in the field. It's not a profession for yahoos, cowboys, and wannabes. It really is something that's very serious, not just the physical aspect of it, but the reporting and editorial aspect of it too.

And I think that we have to be very careful when we send people out into the field that they're really prepared in every way to do -- to deal with the assignment.

O'BRIEN: All right. Let's do an e-mail question now. Pat Raymond has this, and we'll send it out to Ben. "Number one, have you ever been contacted by a representative of any government to provide them with information that was not part of a report for CNN? And number two, do you know any professional journalist who provides information to any branch of any government?" This point brought up because of the accusation by the kidnappers, allegedly, that Mr. Pearl was an agent of Mossad.

Ben, take it away.

WEDEMAN: Yes, Miles, on the first point, yes, we often find that government officials from a variety of countries are trying to milk us for whatever information we might have that not -- that didn't appear on air. And I can tell you categorically, we never give that information. Excuse me.

On the second hand -- the second part, no, we do not, as far as any intelligence organizations, we do not cooperate with them. We never have, and I don't know any journalist who would. In addition to the ethical breach that would represent, it would represent a security breach as well, because basically you are -- if word were to get out that a journalist is in contact, sharing, providing information to an intelligence service, all of us would be branded as such.

And simply -- it's an absolute taboo, and anybody who crosses that line risks -- puts in danger the lives of all of his or her colleagues. So first question no, absolutely not, I'm -- absolutely not.

O'BRIEN: Christiane, this is such an important point. Why don't you amplify on that if you have anything further to say?

AMANPOUR: Yes. Well, I just think these allegations that are tossed out are outrageous and specious, and they just need to be quashed immediately. And "The Wall Street Journal" did that immediately, denying these allegations. And it's very, very important that they be denied, and that these people understand that this man was and is a journalist who is out there trying to tell their story, period, end of story.

And we hope that they understand that, and that they release him unconditionally, and that he is allowed to continue doing the kind of reporting, as I say again, journalists are pretty much the only avenue and the only outlet for the views of these kinds of groups and these people who have stories to tell. And they will not get their stories told in any kind of fashion if they pursue these kinds of methods.

O'BRIEN: Let's take a phone call, this one is for Christiane from Jackie, who is in Illinois. Good morning, Jackie.

CALLER: Good morning.

O'BRIEN: Your question?

CALLER: Both of you are very remarkable individuals, and if you were not paid the millions that you're paid, would you still do it?

AMANPOUR: Well, you know, look, nothing can -- I don't even know how to answer that question, because I think that what we do is so raw and so real that we've been doing this for years and years and years and years, and it -- I don't think it matters how much people are paid or how much people aren't paid. This is something that I can speak for myself, I believe in, I'm committed to. I've been doing this for now more than a decade. And I know the risks, but I know the vital importance also of what we do. And I really mean that. And I think that after September 11, people in the United States know that our stories and the reporting we do from around the world is vital and contributes to their own security, their own information, and their own knowledge about the world.

O'BRIEN: All right, Jackie, you couldn't see it, but Ben Wedeman was on the line with his agent during that response trying to figure out why he's not getting millions.

Now, let's get a phone call in for Ben. This is from Ohio, from Laksh. Good morning, Laksh.

CALLER: Good morning. Ben, I just wanted to find out, what are the sorts of pressures you're put under by people to report viewpoints which are totally in contradiction to what we hold here in the United States, by groups like the one which kidnapped Danny Pearl. I mean, is there any sort of pressure which you are put under to report the type of viewpoints which we really do not like to have -- see or hear? That's my question. Thank you.

WEDEMAN: Well, we're not under any pressure. We're under certain ethical boundaries that -- within which we must operate. Sometimes we are put in a position where we have to convey viewpoints that might not be pleasing to everybody, especially in the United States, because this is a very big world and there are many other countries in addition to the United States.

We report the news. The news oftentimes contains statements and information and points of view that don't please everybody. As far as, for instance, the situation I am right now, for instance, we received a statement claiming that Danny Pearl, the "Wall Street Journal' reporter, had been killed. It was a very -- it was a relatively long statement. I did not read it in its entirety because for one thing, I felt that we could not confirm the source. On the other, I didn't see the point of putting out statements that are sort of very bombastic and threatening and not necessarily serving any purpose whatsoever.

So you have to judge every case as it goes. In some situations, people's lives are at risk, and therefore you have to balance your professional duty to report the news against the possibility that news or information that you have could harm people.

So it's a daily struggle between the truth and the need to protect people.

O'BRIEN: All right, one final question, where -- time is expiring, we have about 90 seconds, Christiane. I'll try to get this one out quickly. It comes from Kevin Porter in Capitol Heights. "As a spectator who's able to watch your dangerous reports, I've always wondered how your families feel about your dangerous lifestyle. Do they ever request that you not travel to certain countries or locations for fear of your life?" AMANPOUR: The short answer to that is that our families are obviously very, very worried for us all the time, but they know better than to stand in our way and try to stop us doing -- again, I speak for myself -- what I believe is important, necessary, and vital work. So we consider our families', you know, feelings obviously very, very, very closely, but to the extent that we possibly can, we continue to do this work.

O'BRIEN: Ben, I imagine when you told your family you were going to go back into harm's way, after -- especially after having been injured, there was some discussion, to say the least.

WEDEMAN: Yes, there were discussions. There are always discussions. And I don't go into these areas lightly. I do balance the dangers against my professional demands. And I certainly reassure my wife and children that when I go into these places, I will take all precautions.

Now, obviously, after I was wounded, that was a shock for my family, almost more than for me. And I have -- I'm -- I was even careful before that. But I'm even more cautious afterwards.

And when you do find yourself going into a situation, I certainly -- the first thing I think about is my family, my wife, and the possible dangers that I could be walking into. And I don't go into these things lightly. So it's definitely something we think about quite a lot -- Miles.

O'BRIEN: Good place to leave it. Ben Wedeman in Karachi, Christiane Amanpour in New York, thank you both for taking some good questions from our viewers and providing some excellent answers. We appreciate your time. Thank you, all of you, out there for phoning in and for e-mailing.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com