Oleksandr LUKYANENKO, special correspondent, information and analysis, Inter:
I think that trying to convey all the information in such cases can be very damaging. Remember the first two days at Nord Ost [where the hostages were held]? Everybody could watch and hear everything happening on the scene. Reporters described every move made by the spetsnaz, what the brass were up to, when the first layouts of the building were obtained, when and how the theater was likely to be stormed. The trouble was that the terrorists also watched television, so that in such cases keeping the public informed can cost hundreds of innocent people their lives.
It is true that the media attract public attention to acts of terrorism and that terrorists use the media to gain publicity, employing increasingly devious methods (it was the first time hostages were taken during a musical). All this was broadcast live and at some point it seemed that whatever you said on the air, no matter how carefully you chose your words, it was all playing into the terrorists’ hands. An act of terrorism broadcast live is the best breaking news these days. Except that the press appears to take a back seat. It is like a large monitoring video camera in the terrorist hands. Also, television helps spread fear of terrorism a million times, precisely what the terrorists need. And this fear costs hundreds if not thousands of human lives. Thus I think that the media people should agree once and for all on how to cover such events, so as not to damage the victims or inadvertently help the terrorists. It’s not an infringement on the freedom of expression. It’s a necessity. Even the hottest story is not worth losing a single human life.
Yevhenia STULOVA, special correspondent, information desk, ICTV:
The principal distinction between what happened in Moscow and New York is that it was a terrorist attack on America and the tragedy in the capital of the Russian Federation was a sequel to the Chechen War on its territory. How is a journalist supposed to behave under the circumstances? He must be unbiased and avoid going to extremes making as few conclusive statements as possible.
“He must analyze all aspects of the problem and be open to new facts, not fear them. All these are hallmarks of an open society and the latter is the only way to avoid a repetition of such tragedies. Otherwise the Russian Federation risks turning into a giant version of Israel.
Hanna HOROZHENKO, editor, international department, STB:
The scene of the tragedy was a whirlpool of emotions, tears, and nerves. We journalists operating at Dubrovka at the time had many reasons for amazement.
Not only because the Russian special services remained silent or fed us innuendoes, so much so the whole thing began to look more like a farce. We were also surprised to watch a kind of journalist solidarity that we’d never seen before. Journalists of Ukrainian channels and newspapers, reporters of Russian television — NTV, TV-6, RTR — and their colleagues from such international giants as Reuters or IPTN tried to peacefully coexist, sharing information and helping each other.
Media people seemed more human than the Russian law enforcement authorities. Anna Politkovskaya, a noted Russian journalist, passed the hat to buy juice for the children among the hostages. That’s what I call real professional class. Things like that don’t often happen in the journalist domain, so that’s what must have been the biggest surprise for us all.
Viktor ZABLOTSKY, 1+1 special correspondent in Moscow:
I agree that every journalist must be his own censor, take a public stand and be patriotic. He also must always convey two opinions, not the way it happened in Moscow. One could sense a degree of censorship there. On Sunday, whole print runs of newspapers were impounded, lest the people learn details of the storming of the theater and problems arising in the immediate aftermath. Also, a special circular was adopted before the attack on the theater (I don’t know if it was a kind of law or what) banning propaganda of terrorism by the media. Any live coverage of an act of terrorism is an official warning to the media and such warnings may result in suspending a newspaper, journal, television, or radio channel.
I think that the Ukrainians could see how vulnerable this world is. They actually lived through the tragic event just as the Russians did because we are in the same information space with Russia. Moreover, I can say that because of the financial problems haunting our television and radio channels, as well as newspapers, we are still influenced by the Russian media. Our media are dependent on theirs. As a result, our citizens followed the same political course as their Russian neighbors.
