Srebrenica: Prologue, Chapter 1, Section 1
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Srebrenica: a ‘safe’ area Appendix VIII Background and influence of media reporting of the conflict in the former Yugoslavia during the period 1991-1995: A study of views and methods of Dutch journalists 2 Contents Introduction..................................................................................................................................................................... 3 Chapter 1 Media: process and effects ........................................................................................................................ 6 Politics, media and public opinion ......................................................................................................................... 6 Representation ............................................................................................................................................................ 7 News as a matter of time, place and person ........................................................................................................ 8 News values and frames .........................................................................................................................................11 The news process in international conflicts.......................................................................................................12 Influence of media reports and opinion in international conflicts ...............................................................14 Television and other media ...................................................................................................................................15 Chapter 2 Yugoslavia and Dutch journalism .........................................................................................................18 Actors .........................................................................................................................................................................18 Coverage ....................................................................................................................................................................19 Background I (prior to Dutchbat) .......................................................................................................................26 Manipulation and influence ...................................................................................................................................38 Between ‘something must be done’ and Yugoslavia fatigue ..........................................................................43 ‘Good guys’ ...............................................................................................................................................................47 The media and the military ....................................................................................................................................49 Turning point............................................................................................................................................................53 Competition ..............................................................................................................................................................58 The Srebrenica dossier ...........................................................................................................................................60 Epilogue..........................................................................................................................................................................63 Bibliography and References .....................................................................................................................................66 3 Introduction In 1998, the Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR), was asked by the Netherlands Institute for War Documentation (NIOD) to contribute to the investigation being undertaken by that organization into the circumstances and events before, during and after the fall of Srebrenica. ASCoR was specifically asked to perform a study of the role and significance of media aspects in this regard. Clearly, the term ‘media aspects’ can have many different meanings. However, given the terms of reference of the NIOD’s overall investigation, the priority was seen to be a consideration of the manner in which media may have influenced the formation or confirmation of general assumptions and prejudices on the part of the actors relevant to the study, and the extent of any such influence. Much of the research this involved was difficult, if not impossible, to separate from that conducted by the NIOD itself. However, while the interaction with the NIOD study was in itself important, useful contributions could be made ‘from outside’ in two important areas, namely, an examination of the news process itself and a content analysis of some representative media. These then were the areas of research undertaken by ASCoR. The analysis of news reporting in the national newspapers NRC Handelsblad, De Telegraaf, Trouw, and De Volkskrant and the NOS Journaal television news in August 1992, throughout 1993 and the first seven months of 1995 is reported in detail in In Sarajevo wordt geschoten, in Genève gepraat (‘They’re shooting in Sarajevo, they’re talking in Geneva’) and Good guys, bad guys by Otto Scholten, Nel Ruigrok and Pieter Heerma (2001a and 2001b). The current report, Srebrenica and journalism, should be seen as a ‘companion volume’ to the Scholten, Ruigrok and Heerma study. Its primary purpose is to present and clarify the background to the reports from and about the former Yugoslavia. The first part of this document consists of an account (based on desk research) of the news production process, the context in which it is carried out, and the complex relationship between mass media, politics and public opinion. The second section is largely based on interviews with Dutch journalists who were involved in reporting the hostilities in the former Yugoslavia. The main purpose of these interviews was to gain an insight into the motives and working methods of the journalists, (and of the publications they represented at the time), their opinions concerning the conflict and those concerning the role and influence of the media. Given the aims and terms of reference of this part of the research, little or no attempt was made to ascertain the veracity of the statements made or to verify the opinions stated by comparing them to those of others. Like the analysis conducted by Scholten et al., this component of the study is concerned with the media reporting in the period immediately prior to the deployment of Dutchbat forces in Srebrenica, and the events surrounding the fall of the enclave in July 1995. It should be noted that no attempt has been made to arrive at a representative sample of Dutch journalists. Rather, those interviewed were selected because their position, or that of the media organizations which employed them, suggested that their influence on the process of providing information and forming opinion – might have been greater than average. To some extent, the selection was made on the basis of the results of the content analysis. Because the scope of the NIOD study overlapped with that of this ASCoR report, it was decided that some of the journalists whose names appeared on both organizations’ lists would be interviewed jointly by Paul Koedijk of the NIOD and the author of this report. The main in-depth interviews were conducted between August 1999 and November 2000. They varied in duration from approximately ninety minutes to over four hours. The respondents were – without exception – remarkably willing to cooperate with the research, not only in answering our questions but in many cases also by providing additional information. We are grateful for their help. Direct quotations from interviews and references to statements made in interviews are indicated in the footnotes by the name of the respondent and the date of the interview, e.g. ‘Zimmermann, 28 4 April 2000’. Where comments were received by e-mail or by telephone, this is indicated in a similar manner. The following is a list of respondents, their date of interview, and (journalistic) position/affiliation: – Anet Bleich, 16 September 1999. De Volkskrant; foreign editor since 1 October 1989. – Raymond van den Boogaard, 5 November 1999. NRC Handelsblad; correspondent in Moscow and Berlin; correspondent in the former Yugoslavia between 1991 and 1994; currently media editor. – Carolien Brugsma, 2 February 2000. Nova; November 1990, editor at NOS Laat; editor at Nova since 1992. – Gerri Eickhof, 18 January 2000. NOS Journaal; as news editor since 1988; domestic news chief in 1992; reporter since 1992. – Twan Huys (23 December 1999), 8 July 2000 (interviewed by Paul Koedijk, NIOD1)Nova; reporter. Currently Washington correspondent for Nova and Radio 1. – Mark Kranenburg, 13 September 2000. NRC Handelsblad; political editor and chief parliamentary editor. Editor of editorial and opinion page since 1996. – Cees Labeur, 16 August 1999 and 21 August 2000 (with Roelof Schut). NCRV Hier en Nu (Netwerk); executive editor Hier en Nu (TV), now manager of current affairs unit. – Hans Laroes, 18 and 24 November 1999. NOS Journaal; deputy editor, later joint executive editor. – Harry Lockefeer, 30 November 1999. De Volkskrant; editor-in-chief until early 1995; now Professor of Journalism at Groningen University. – Willem Lust, 19 July 2000 (interviewed with