Ugly Americans

When ABC got access to photos of unexploded bombs found in London on July seventh, the UK’s Scotland Yard asked the news agency not to publicize the photos just yet, for the sake of two of the most important parts of investigation and/or intelligence: secrecy and its cousin, the element of surprise.

ABC’s response was a hearty “whatever, dude” and now the whole world has the photos. Hey, what were the traditionally free press-loving Brits going to do? Give ABC the boot? Of course not.

It appears, however, that, in another case, ABC's arrogance has overreached its common sense.

When the Russian Foreign Ministry asked ABC not to put a microphone under a Chechen terrorist (remember those guys?), ABC shrugged its collective shoulders, did so anyway and discovered that Moscow is a long way from London, in more ways than one.

MOSCOW - Russia's Foreign Ministry said Tuesday it will not renew permission for ABC-TV to operate in the country after the network broadcast an interview with a notorious Chechen warlord.

In a statement, the ministry said ABC would be considered "undesirable" by all Russian state agencies because of an interview with Shamil Basayev, which was broadcast last week on "Nightline."

The ministry called the broadcast a "clear fact supporting the propaganda of terrorism" and said it "resounded with direct calls for violence against Russian citizens."

As a result, the ministry said it decided "not to renew the accreditations of employees of this television company after they expire." [SNIP]

On Sunday, Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov said he was barring military personnel from contact with ABC and said the ministry now considered the network "persona non grata."

Russia has no long tradition of free expression to uphold and, therefore, is not shy about hindering that expression, especially when provoked.

Sheesh, didn't ABC bigwigs learn about other countries and their recent histories in Journalism School? /tongue meet cheek

(Thanks to Tonecluster)

UPDATE: Welcome Peter Daou's readers! Be advised, however, that manners go a long way with me. Please mind them.

UPDATE: Commenter chicagochamp points out that the UK has on occasion been as willing to muzzle her local terrorists as Russia is. That, however, doesn't have an effect on my Schadenfreude over ABC's predicament with the Russians.

Comments

[madmatt]

Pay attention and tell all the facts...The British Press used the exact same photos that ABC did, what makes that ok and ABC wrong.

Hypocritical thinking is a repugnican strong suit.

[wayne]

It's too bad the Whitehouse doesn't take this tack with some of the liberal a**hats - oops I mean journalists and their organizations that litter the White House Press Room.

They can always replace them with journalists from somewhere else so no body can really say that there is no access by the press to the Whitehouse.

I certainly would if I was in their shoes. Some particular media group makes themselves especially obnoxious in a manner that goes over the top because of a biased attitude and they get replaced by a different outfit that hasn't had access before.

Freedom ain't free. It comes with responsibility.

[wayne]

Ohh, I almost forgot - Madmatt, speaking out of their rectal areas is the strong suit of the commiecrats.

The Brit news agencies didn't release them until after ABC already had.

[baldilocks]

madmatt: you assume that I haven't paid attention to the facts, but call me hypocritical. In order to have been hypcritical in this matter, I would *had* to have been "paying attention" to the facts, but conveniently leaving them out. So which is it?

By the way, leave the childish "repugnican" epithets for the kiddie sites. This isn't one of them. Act like an adult or leave.

[baldilocks]

That goes for the rest of you also.

[chicagochamp]

Hey baldi,

Learn a tiny amount of history before shooting off your mouth. The British gov. banned the broadcast of interviews with any member of the IRA with the Northern Ireland Notice of 1988. London's a lot closer to Moscow than you seem to think.

[baldilocks]

Hey chicagochamp: Learn a tiny bit of manners when pointing out something to a blogger who, being American, may not be aware of every aspect of British history. Got it?

P.S. A link would be nice. Then I could post an update and attribute it to your diligent research.

[chicagochamp]

Fair enough,

sorry for the tone. I'll be honest, I adopt a certain tone on right wing blogs....but you're correct.

here's a link:

http://www.charter88.com/publications/violations/hall.html

[baldilocks]

Thanks. I'll take a look.

[birdwoman]

I wonder, do Al J or its ilk get carried in Russia?

anyone know?

(*)>

[Avedon]

Chicagochamp is right about censorship in Britain, of which there is a surprising amount. It came as a shock to me when I moved here.

However, Wayne seems to have missed the point that in the US, media organs and reporters that have "access" actually seem to do a worse job of reporting than those that don't. Apparently, you have to do real investigative work when it's not handed to you in a press release.

Taking ABC to task for those photos is fair game.

But you're supporting the Russian government expelling journalism it doesn't agree with? Forgive me, but conservatives are typically the most adamant in (rightfully) criticizing Russia's de facto dictatorship. I didn't expect to find any right-wingers cheerleading them.

Hostility to the press shouldn't blind anyone to democratic principle.

Matt:

'Freedom ain't free. It comes with responsibility.'

What, First Amendment rights should be contingent on agreeing with the administration line?

Can you point to that in the Bill of Rights?

[wayne]

My apologies on the language, too.

Still on the subject of journalists, why (in an age where there are a bajillion news outlets) do certain news outlets have a sacrosanct lock on a particular forum?

For example, if CBS news is engaging in a bunch of nasty, anything goes, Bush-is-liar/murderer/criminal/coward/etc kind of news reporting, why can't the White House eject them for being obnoxious and discourteous and replace them with...oh say (for the sake of argument!) a bunch of bloggers?

This happens a few times and maybe certain *unbiased* (cough) journalists (Dan Rather, Bill Moyers, Helen Thomas) might get the idea that you have to engage in something other than hit tactics if you want to keep access to the White House.

Press freedom is not violated as there are still just as many news outlets (maybe more). Courtesy is returned and scorn is rewarded.

I fail to see why this is such a problem.

Did you just suggest that press freedom isn't violated if the White House allows access to only friendly journalists?

Is anyone backing China for barring any discussion of democracy or human rights?

This really isn't a difficult concept.

[eddie]

Are you similarly outraged by a certain reporter being asked by a government official to not publish information about the identity of an intelligence agent? There was a living human being that was at risk, rather than some theoretical scenario where publishing a picture of a bomb is deemed to be giving state secrets (or even worse encouraging and abetting the construction of similar devices). Let's get the priorities of our outrage focused on humans and not theories.

[baldilocks]

eddie: If you're talking to me, in order for me to be "similarly outraged," I have to be outraged in the first place. In both cases, I'm laughing, albeit at different things.