Mr. Andre DeNesnera
News Director
Voice of America
330 Independence Avenue SW
Washington DC 20547
USA

Fax: (+1-202) 619 1241

Vienna, 2 October 2001

Dear Mr. DeNesnera,

The International Press Institute (IPI), the global network of editors, leading journalists and media executives, is writing to express its unconditional support for the decision by the Voice of America (VOA) to air an interview with the leader of Afghanistan’s ruling Taliban militia, Mullah Mohammed Omar, despite governmental pressure.

According to information provided to IPI, on 21 September, the State Department contacted other members of the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) and expressed concern at the decision of the VOA to broadcast an interview with Omar. Subsequently, the BBG applied pressure on the staff at the radio station to shelve the recording, but, on 25 September, the VOA decided to air the interview.

Commenting on the case, State Department spokesperson Richard Boucher said, “We recognise the independence of the Voice of America. Its Charter says that they should explain US government policy and present responsible discussion about it. We don’t consider Mullah Omar to be responsible discussion.”

IPI believes that the actions of the State Department and the comments made by Boucher represent an undue interference in the editorial independence of the VOA. Therefore, in order to support the VOA, IPI has decided to write to you and set out our own examination of the situation and provide you with the perspectives of a global press freedom organisation.

Regarding the VOA’s Charter, which has been enacted into law, this states that news broadcasts are to be “consistently reliable and authoritative” and “accurate, objective and comprehensive”. In the opinion of IPI, the Charter provides a specific statement on editorial independence and the State Department has failed to heed its contents. IPI firmly believes that editorial policy exists to ensure that reporting is objective and balanced; any attempt to interfere with this essential principle will have the inevitable consequence of undermining the media organisation in question, damaging its integrity, and thereby causing a loss of public confidence.

Concerning the BBG, which was created as a safeguard against encroachment by government, IPI is surprised the body chose to comply with the State Department’s wishes. As President Clinton has stated previously, “[the BBG] will ensure independence, coherence, quality and journalistic integrity” in services such as the VOA (Papers of William J. Clinton 857 – 58, June 15, 1993).

Although not specifically a public broadcast service, IPI does believe that the VOA arrangement is analogous to such organisations. In its 1993 Vienna Declaration on Public Broadcasting, IPI called for “constitutional and statutory measures to remove the governing and managing bodies from everyday politics”. It is IPI’s view that this has not been done in the present case and more should be done in order to improve the situation.

One of the most disturbing aspects of the case are the remarks made by Boucher in a press briefing on 26 September. During the press briefing, Boucher said, “We just don’t think that broadcasting an interview with this man is in any way consistent with the Charter”, and “considering the fact that US taxpayers pay for this… We don’t think that the head of the Taliban belongs on this radio station”.

For the following reasons, IPI feels that these statements are inconsistent with editorial independence. The belief that editorial independence may be compromised because tax payers provide funding is misleading. Editorial independence exists to protect objective and balanced reporting, irrespective of the narrow opinions of interest groups, whether these be government departments, publishers or tax payers. IPI is also deeply concerned that the statements by Boucher may provide active encouragement for governments in other countries to apply pressure on their own public service broadcasters or analogous institutions. The United States is viewed as an open and democratic country but IPI fears that this case may set a precedent for behaviour in other countries.

Finally, by seeking to prevent the interview from being aired, the State Department has also damaged its own integrity. This is because arguments and viewpoints may only be truly evaluated when exposed to opposing arguments. A failure to include such views will invariably lessen the impact of the State Department’s own arguments and lead to a vacuum in which rumour, as opposed to fact, may become a determining factor. It is IPI’s strong belief that balance is essential when reporting the news.

With the above in mind, IPI would like to affirm its strong support for the courageous stand taken by the staff of the VOA. It is often said that truth is the first casualty in any conflict but, with news organisations such as the VOA working on the key issues, it is to be hoped that the events currently unfolding will be reported without further damage to either the truth or the integrity of journalists.

We thank you for your attention.

Best regards,

Johann P. Fritz
Director

For more details see analysis of the Voice of America