This is not a new war but the media are showing their hypocritical astonishment at a war that can't be told. This war can't be told, or, rather, it can be told only according to strict standards which have been arranged by military circles. This is called censorship and the media are not new to it.

This is not a new war and the media are asked to be patriotic. The best way to be patriotic is to align with the government. This is called propaganda. The media can't stand censorship but they meekly surrender to the demands of propaganda.

Both censorship and propaganda deny the same right: press freedom. Nonetheless, censorship arouses media indignation while propaganda is rarely mentioned. The Italian media have abundantly discussed the problem of censorship: TV correspondents have blamed the lack of news on their restricted access to sources while newspapers have spoken in support of the Arabic al-Jazeera satellite TV station and the importance of informing people freely.

Curzio Maltese, who writes for La Repubblica, said, "Now censorship of information doesn't follow military or ideological arguments anymore, but a moral blackmail and polls. It is a humanitarian censorship which is steeped in good intentions and appeals to the conscience of each journalist. In democracy everyone does his own job, soldiers fight and journalists inform."1

Piero Ostellino, in an editorial in Il Corriere della Sera, supported American networks who have been asked not to broadcast Osama bin Laden's appeals. He said, "As always happens to pragmatic cultures, American journalism is sensibly drawing inspiration from two theories which are only seemingly contradictory: press freedom and social responsibility."2

Filippo Ceccarelli (La Stampa) reflects on the similarity between the present situation and the terrorist attacks that Italy lived through during the '70s; he reminds people that, in those days, Italian media had to face the same problem. "But," he says, "if we go back to the icon of bin Laden and to the dilemma, whether to give him prominence or not, we are hesitant to choose between freedom and fear, prudence and truth."3

Ulrich Beck, in an article for La Repubblica, comments on what is happening in the Western world saying, "If we have to choose between freedom and life, it is already too late because the majority of people will decide against freedom."4

La Repubblica has also remarked on the CNN's embarrassment at bin Laden's proposal to be interviewed by them.5

But why is the word propaganda never mentioned by any Italian television network? Perhaps it is due to patriotism. Last century, Italians knew a fascist regime. During that period, Mussolini created the Ministry of Popular Culture, which was, in fact, a Ministry of Propaganda. Since then, the word propaganda bears the shame of that period. But perhaps, since many Italians are against the war, and since television is the most powerful means of communication, the government together with the TV networks are intentionally careful not to broach this subject. Perhaps they simply want to foster this war. On the contrary, newspapers, at least some of them, are willing not only to spread propaganda but also to actually write about it.

Every day and for almost a month, the daily Il Corriere della Sera6 has been publishing excerpts from Sun Tsu's "The Art of War." This book is widely considered the manifesto of psychological warfare, that is to say, of propaganda. But no-one has publicly criticized Il Corriere della Sera for this series. On the 19th of October, La Stampa published a short article in which Fabrizio Rondolino praised Sun Tsu's essay. In that case, the newspaper wasn't spreading propaganda covertly but informing people about it.

Massimo Alberizzi, in an article headlined "Radio USA, Here: Afghan People, We Are Your Friends," criticizes how the military broadcasts propaganda in Afghanistan. "Afghan people," he asserts, "think that Americans use the wrong tone"8and he explains that it is as if an American hit music station played a song by Frank Sinatra instead of Mariah Carey's lasest.

The daily La Repubblica has published an article by former U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Richard Holbrooke9 who urges the intervention of diplomacy, the creation of an organization that, like in the past wars, could spread the government's viewpoint. Then, two days later, Repubblica dedicated two pages to Maurizio Ricci's dossier on wartime propaganda in the West. Ricci wrote, "Overwhelmed by a wave of patriotism, many American media have reached the boundary line of propaganda."10

Ricci lays bare the counter-propaganda program set up by Alistair Campbell, Tony Blair's spin doctor, to counteract the loss of support for the war in Europe and in many Muslim countries. The program establishes a Center of Information for the coalition which sets up information relays at three centers: Islamabad, London, Washington. The plan is to contain the negative impact of Taliban statements and counter them in real time with a team of experts who are trained to spin news stories rather than inform journalists. Those who have read this article have been warned.

It is disturbing when you wake up in the morning, switch on the TV to watch the latest news on the war in Afghanistan and the RAI1 correspondent in New York tells you what is happening thousands miles away. Yet, TG1 (RAI1 news)11has its correspondents in Pakistan as well as in Afghanistan. Eventually, you understand that this is The Program in place.

But this war is losing consent. Bush's speeches are beginning to lose their shine12 and some newspapers don't fail to stress it. When the Italian government agreed join the military coalition, Italian mums changed their mind about the necessity of the war.

On October 14, 200,000 people took part in a peace march from Perugia to Assisi. This march was a sign of the Italian pacifist response to the present situation but the government perceived it as a symptom of anti-Americanism. Italian Premier Silvio Berlusconi took up the proposition of Giuliano Ferrara, editor of Il Foglio: to hold a pro-USA march. It could have been a good idea if only it hadn't been conceived after the bombings began in Afghanistan and after the Italian decision to take part in this war. Many parties refrained from participating in this rally which seemed to acclaim war rather than cry for the Twin Towers' victims.

On November 10th, Rome welcomed two different demonstrations: the pro-USA day and an anti-corporate-globalization demonstration (whose date had been previously set by its organizers to protest at the World Food Summit). Both demonstrations went off peacefully but only the USA-day was fully covered by RAI1, a public network. The opposition demanded an explanation of why RAI management made such a concession to the government when they didn't allow RAI presenter Michele Santoro to film the anti-corporate-globalization demonstration.13 However, newspapers did print the figures: 120,000 against corporate globalization versus 40,000 marching pro-USA. Sometimes figures can be more explicit than words.

Seven journalists have been killed since in this war so far. One was Italian. Beppe Servegnini, in his column "Italians," pays a moving tribute to Maria Grazia Cutuli. He writes, "Those who, like me, often read her articles but knew her little, can do nothing but thank her. She has told events without using too many adjectives and has left us a gift. Many seem to understand, after her death, that ours is a profession."14

The daily La Stampa published a poll by ANSA, the National Association of Italian Press Agencies: 96 percent of Italians get their information from TV news, 73 percent buy a daily newspaper, 42 percent listen to the radio, 54 percent buy a weekly newspaper and 16 percent get information in the Internet. But, 55 percent of Italian men and 64 percent of Italian women think that news information is biased.15

Michele Serra, a commentator for La Repubblica says that, these days "information arouses tenderness rather than anger. It is the willing effort to go on talking even when logic would suggest to be silent."16

What We Know
On the 7th of October the English and the American air forces began bombing Afghanistan and have continued bombing for nearly two months. Of course they succeeded in striking weapon stores and important operations bases of al-Qaeda; of course they destroyed the Taliban regime by killing many of them. Unfortunately, bombs also fell on hospitals, poor houses, a bus, two UN food stores and a few other things that could be useful to Afghan people. How many civilians have been killed? No one knows. All things considered, casualties are the inevitable consequence of war but the indiscriminate killing of civilians becomes less acceptable in a war on terrorism.

Government officials apologize for these terrible accidents; how civilized we are, we're able to apologize for our mistakes. But the ability to apologize can become a fault when it is over-exploited. In past wars we apologized so many times for having hit the wrong targets that now our excuses have lost value. In Italy we say, "To err is human, to persist is devilish." To apologize for something means to regret a bad deed.

The United States counter-attacked after one month, that's true. The fact is, during this period, they didn't find alternative strategies, they were firmly convinced that war was the only reasonable answer to terrorism. This month should have served to elaborate new methods, to understand the enemy's unsound reasoning. It only served to anticipate the adversary's movements.

In these days the Northern Alliance is marching on Kabul and Kunduz triumphantly, is that a victory? It seems so, but Americans are worrying that Afghanistan is wasted more than ever and meanwhile Omar and Osama are likely to have escaped. And so? We could bombard the other countries in which they'll be able to hide.

No, that march on Kabul is one of the saddest things I ever seen; the Northern Alliance soldiers crushing Taliban corpses, pelting them with stones and jumping on them. This is the victory of barbarity and we Westerners have, once more, stirred up and invited such behavior.

— Mariella Li Bergoli studies Russian Language and Literature and English at the University of Bologna.

References:

AS THE MEDIA WATCH THE WORLD, WE WATCH THE MEDIA.

The Media Channel is a not-for-profit project of OneWorld and The Global Center, and is produced by Globalvision New Media.