How Far Can Media Go in Covering Terrorist Attacks?

After the tragic events in Moscow and Kizlyar, the Russian society resumed the discussion about the boundaries when covering these events and those who should set these boundaries. On the one hand, some members of the State Duma suggest introduction of legal boundaries for covering terrorist attacks and their consequences. On the other hand, journalists (and they are not alone) believe that such boundaries already exist. For example, they mention the Anti-terrorist Convention signed by the leading media outlets after the events at “Nord-Ost” in 2002.

There is some controversy regarding whether or not the convention is sufficient. It is worth mentioning that the issue was brought up only after the terrorist attacks in Moscow metro in March 2010. It happened when an issue was raised regarding coverage of such incidents. Before these attacks the convention must have fully fulfilled its function.

In a way the discussion was especially heated because it was brought up at a high state level. During a meeting with Dmitry Medvedev, the heads of lower and upper houses of Parliament Boris Gryzlov and Sergey Mironov criticized the way the media covered the events in Moscow and Kizlyar. They were supported by Vladimir Zhirinovsky, the LDPR leader, who mentioned that the term Shakhid used by the media when describing suicide bombers, was inappropriate.

Russia Today: Recent history of terrorist attacks in Moscow

The President agreed that the media should be more accurate with the terminology in the events coverage. At the same time, he noted that there was nothing special in the fact that the media was criticizing the actions of law enforcement agencies, special services and officials in general after the events. “The matter is, in a civilized society it is inappropriate to antithesize struggle with terrorism and civil community. This way you can come to absolutely immoral conclusions,” Medvedev stressed.

Of course, almost all media outlets reported on this episode of the Kremlin meeting. They also reported on the statements regarding the appropriateness of terminology. Yet, the very next day some media outlets wrote about the attacks again, using the word Shakhid, and they used it in the sense that was criticized a few hours earlier.

There is a difference between various approaches to the assessment of the events. Yet, the problems occur when this difference becomes a cause for angry arguments. This is true for the conflict between several media outlets and the Duma speaker Boris Gryzlov regarding their quoting of the statements of the rebel leader Doku Umarov. This is also true for the reaction to the initiative of Robert Shegel, a member of the lower house, regarding a legislative ban for the publications of terrorists’ statements by the media.

The same is true for the opinion of Vladimir Vasiliev, Chairman in the Committee on National Security in the State Duma. During a meeting of the lower house on Wednesday he expressed his frustration with the way the Russia media covers incidents, from road accidents to terrorist attacks. He thinks that publication of incorrect materials is unacceptable.

Vladimir Vasiliev stressed that the issue has so be resolved either by the media (and management of media outlets) or at the legislative level.

He emphasized that Russian media has a much more liberal system than other countries.

“Remember explosions in London, what tough reaction it was and failure to provide information. Look at the US, is it possible to have materials there similar to what we read here?” Vasiliev stated.

It is not hard to guess that this statement would cause a negative reaction from the journalist community.

“We have a general problem in this country – we always redistribute responsibilities, who is responsible for what, and who is to blame. Sometimes our citizens are addressed with a call to action to stand up against something, and our journalists, on the contrary, are suggested to shut their mouths and keep silence,” said Yelena Zelinskaya, vice president of the Russian non-profit journalist organization “MediaSoyuz.”

“What’s important is that we have gained certain experience in the past 20 years. I think that it’s time to understand that this is, as I call it, a “soviet syndrome” – to keep silence about an issue, pretend it does not exist, and then it will disappear. Our long-lived experience should teach us that issues do not get solved under the “crust” of silence,” she said.

"I have a feeling that in a critical situation our officials developed a desire to find the ones to blame not where they can usually be found,” Zelinskaya told Pravda.ru.

Alexander Brod, a member of the Russian Public Chamber, head of the Moscow Agency for Human Rights, agrees with her: “Legislative norms that allow administering criminal and administrative responsibility towards journalists are sufficiently developed.”