 . |
| Many Americans gathered outside the White House to celebrate the death of the most wanted face of terrorism, Osama bin Laden |
Upon hearing the news that an elite team of U.S. Navy Seals had killed Osama bin Laden, many Americans unabashedly celebrated. Those in close proximity to the White House in Washington D.C. took to the streets, sporting patriotic clothing and chanting “Osama bin Gotten!” While they did so in a slightly less obvious and visceral way, the American news media reacted in a similar way on May 2nd and in the weeks to follow. One must keep in mind that most Americans have an understandably biased view of bin Laden because of his involvement in the 9/11 terrorists attacks that killed thousands in New York. That being said, the initial reporting of bin Laden’s death admittedly carried a tone of satisfaction and pride. On the extreme side of the spectrum, a New York Times columnist wrote this inflamed editorial just minutes after watching Obama’s speech: “This is revenge, but it’s also deterrence and also means that bin Laden won’t kill any more Americans. This is the single most important success the United States has had in its war against al Qaeda.” One could argue that in the heat of the moment, this columnist failed to put bin Laden’s death into context. While he does examine the possibility of a backlash of sympathy or revenge if Americans “continue appear too celebratory and triumphant dancing on [Osama’s] grave,” he seems more concerned with how “finally getting bin Laden” will positively affect the reputation of the United States as a powerful and influential nation. He touches on the reality that killing bin Laden is not the same as killing al-Qaeda, but fails to go into depth. Perhaps this is because he wrote the piece so hastily, which raises another point about the Western coverage: In their excitement and haste, did journalists fail to report the truth? Is it better to get the story first, or to get the story right?
It seems that with events of this magnitude, getting the news out as quickly as possible trumps waiting to confirm accuracy. In the media frenzy that followed the announcement of bin Laden’s death, details of the attack were reported that later turned out to be false. One such detail was the account that Osama had used one of his wives as a human shield, and that she had subsequently died. Whether this was merely the result of the media blindly and hastily repeating White House officials, or a subconscious attempt to portray bin Laden as the epitome of evil, we may never know. We do, however, know that this detail was falsely reported. According to a Reuters article, “the woman killed during the raid of Osama bin Laden’s compound in Pakistan was not his wife and was not used as a human shield by the al Qaeda leader before his death.” The woman who died was the wife of another man living on the compound and she was reportedly caught in the firefight. Bin Laden’s wife was injured but not killed. And let us not forget the clearly-Photoshopped pictures of bin Laden's mutilated face that was published by many a newspaper.
 |
| This photograph was published by many world newspapers despite the fact that it is obviously edited. Not until days later was the image officially dismissed as fake. |
Russian media was very supportive of the events that transpired on May 2nd, according to an article in The Moscow Times. The article, titled “Kremlin Got Tip on Bin Laden’s Death,” highlights the open lines of communication and sense of camaraderie between the U.S. and Russia since both have experience al-Qaeda first hand. Apparently, Russian authorities were informed of bin Laden’s death before Obama made any public announcements; perhaps this was Obama’s attempt to return the favor after past-President Putin called past-President Bush shortly after the 9/11 attacks. The article cited that 2001 phone call as a turning point in U.S. – Russian relations at the time. The Kremlin was quoted as saying, “[The Kremlin] welcomes the serious success achieved by the United States in the fight against international terrorism,” and also said that Russia is committed to expanding cooperation in order to fight global terrorism as a unified front. While the article seemed slightly slanted and promotional (both of Russian efforts and post Cold War Russian-U.S. relations), it clearly communicated that Russia both believed and supported the killing of bin Laden.
Other non-Western countries seemed to be much quicker to analyze the potential consequences that may arise as a result of the U.S. killing bin-Laden. A Lebanese online newspaper, The Daily Star, examined the global ramifications the killing of bin Laden might have in an article titled “World on alert after U.S. kills bin Laden.” The rhetorical difference between this headline and those of Western stories is worth noting; this title immediately assigns responsibility and blame to the U.S., whereas other titles such as “Osama bin Laden Dead,” or “Bin Laden’s Bizarre Death” are more evasive. This particular article’s lead got straight to the possibility of revenge: “World leaders warned of revenge attacks after Osama bin Laden was killed in a U.S. assault…” Another rhetorical discrepancy between Western articles and this article is the word chosen to describe what took place on that evening in Pakistan. This Lebanese article uses the more violent and offensive term, “assault,” while a New York Times article called it a “targeted operation.” Overall, the minor word choices were the only hints of bias in the otherwise comprehensive and objective article.
Another predominately Muslim nation was not so impartial. An Iranian news site called Payvand published an article expressing officials’ refusal to believe that bin Laden had actually been killed on May 2nd and desire to see photographic evidence (something many Americans also wanted). The article quoted the head of the Ministry of Intelligence in Iran, Heydar Moslehi, reading: “Moslehi…has accused the U.S. of fabricating its account of Osama bin Laden’s death, alleging that bin Laden had died much earlier from health complications.” The article went on to report that Moslehi had announced that “Iran is in possession of ‘accurate information and reliable and significant documents’ regarding bin Laden’s death.” It seems counterintuitive that Iranian officials would not welcome this news since Iran is primarily Shiite and bin Laden was a Sunni extremist whose followers actually killed Shiites and Iranian soldiers. This LA Times article on the subject presents an interesting point: perhaps whatever is considered a victory for the U.S. is assumed to be defeat for the Islamic Republic of Iran. This theory, along with the rocky relationship between the U.S. and Iran, may explain the deeply critical and dismissive nature of Iranian news coverage of bin Laden’s death.
In an Indonesian editorial titled “When democracy bit itself in the bum,” a columnist compares the killing of bin Laden to the pruning of flowering trees: “one dies, a thousand others grow to take its place.” The columnist continued on with yet another metaphor for the killing of bin Laden and its subsequent effect on global terrorism: the chopping off of one of the hydra’s heads. She asserts that this will likely only exacerbate terrorism and is quick to criticize Americans, suggesting they should spend their time figuring out what happens next instead of celebrating.
A Japanese article references this same multi-headed mythological Greek beast, which was said to grow two heads back for every one head that was cut off (suggesting that the killing of bin Laden will result in an even stronger terrorist force). The Japan Times piece titled “Bin Laden’s bizarre death” reads: “Bin Laden was only the face of a hydra-headed terror monster that has been spreading tentacles in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Somalia, Yemen, Europe and America. But governments should remember that it is a monster best defeated by brains, not brute force.” This is a similar stance as Lebanese media in the sense that it focuses on the future consequences and the work still to be done in order to win the war on terror. However, as evidenced by the monster metaphor, the Japanese article revealed more of the writer’s opinion about bin Laden’s character and the nature of his legacy of terrorism.
 |
| Both Indonesian and Japanese articles compared killing bin Laden to chopping off one of this mythical beast's heads. They argue that for every head removed the Hydra grew two in its place, so for every terrorist leader killed the al Qaeda network will grow stronger and more fierce. |
News on this matter – opinions included – was few and far between in North Korea. Somewhat expectedly, the state-controlled media did not some much as mention that Osama bin Laden had been killed by U.S. Navy Seals. The country is known for its extremely low level of press freedom and is not particularly fond of the United States; one can only assume events such as these make Kim Jung-Il nervous because he too is seen as a threat to the U.S. The Daily NK, an activist online newspaper, did publish perhaps the first North Korean reaction to bin Laden’s death. The article references a Chosun Shinbo publication (put out by the General association of North Korean Residents in Japan) that is said to represent the stance of the North Korean authorities. This article asserts that the Shinbo article (which could not be found in the Internet), “heavily criticized the U.S., calling the killing the actions of an arrogant imperialist and an infringement of state sovereignty.” Instead of associating bin Laden with terrorism, this Shinbo article turns the tables on the U.S., stating: “The U.S. is a really frightening state and its terror will get more serious. The U.S. is digging its own grave.” Given what we know about North Korea, it may very well be safe to assume that these sentiments expressed in the Shinbo article are reflective of how authorities reacted to the news.
It seems as though large-scale international news such as the recent death/killing/assassination (circle verb of choice) of Osama bin Laden are best at bringing out differing media responses from around the world. With a topic as controversial as this, it appears that no country is able to keep their opinion separate from their news coverage, if they cover it at all. Some media outlets only subtly revealed their bias through violent and accusatory language, while others had no qualms about sharing their criticism and skepticism. Others still found themselves swept up in the fast-paced media frenzy and had a difficult time verifying information or containing their excitement. Completely objective journalism is an ideal that is expected but hardly ever achieved, especially when each country has a unique point of view on such a controversial world event.
