Banned reporters
It's the iron law of newsgathering - stories happen in the least convenient places. After two months of dodging the authorities first in China and then in , we're at it again - this time in Burma. The country is one of the last "closed" nations on earth. But unlike Zimbabwe, it's not just the ´óÏó´«Ã½ that's banned from Burma - all foreign journalists are unwelcome there.
Reporting natural disasters are difficult at any time. Our teams endure the same conditions as the people affected - operating without electricity and clean water, sometimes without shelter. Most of the time, we're able to take our own supplies into the affected area - but in Burma, our team has had to pose as tourists. So reporting the devastating aftermath of Cyclone Nargis is even more difficult than usual. Particularly when the .
´óÏó´«Ã½ reporters are recognised all the time - most of the time, they enjoy it. Our Asia correspondent Andrew Harding arrived in Rangoon just hours after the cyclone hit on Monday morning. But after passing through immigration, an eagle-eyed policeman spotted our intrepid reporter in the baggage hall. Andrew was put on the next plane to Bangkok. Despite everything else going on in Burma, Andrew's deportation was considered sufficiently news-worthy to make the evening news in Rangoon last night.
So it is, that Paul Danahar - more used to being behind the camera as our Asia-Pacific bureau chief rather in front of the microphone - finds himself as the only British broadcaster inside the country. Paul is normally based in Beijing and has spent the past six weeks leading our coverage of the protests in Tibet, and the aftermath. During the Iraq War, he ran the operation in Baghdad, braving the coalition air strikes and the wrath of Saddam's regime. As South Asia bureau chief, he led the ´óÏó´«Ã½'s response to the Bam Earthquake in Iran, the Asian Tsunami and the Pakistan earthquake. So when it comes to natural disasters, he's got form. Leading the Today Programme and the - well that's a different matter!
The UN says it's still waiting for visas for its aid workers. We hope the regime may relax its restriction on western journalists. The aid agencies argue they need the coverage to generate donations to fund their relief efforts. At its best it becomes a virtuous circle. Without it, the danger is that hundreds, maybe thousands of those fortunate to survive may not do so.
Comment number 1.
At 7th May 2008, bonnindia wrote:I have a question...why is it so that ´óÏó´«Ã½ has only problem of blacklisted in majority of world places, name from China to Myanmar to Zimbabwe.
I think its time for introspection that is ´óÏó´«Ã½ is too much biassed and runs with racial feelings that so many origins do treat it so.
I write many times articles on blogs but observed the editorial section just block it, this itself is sign that there is an no entry for criticism in ´óÏó´«Ã½ reporting.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 1)
Comment number 2.
At 7th May 2008, murkee wrote:I too hope more journalists get into Burma. It's a vicious cycle with nobody inside, it doesn't get reported, the Junta continues without any spotlight.
We don't even have the 'Zimbabwe Solution' of saying 'We're banned from Zimbabwe, so we're reporting from South Africa' (as if that was a substitute).
Somehow, someway, Burma needs a continuous light upon it. If the cyclone can help start that, then it might have some benefit.
I think what'll happen though is the usual - no pictures, no story, and it'll fade from our screens again.
For me, Aung Sang Suu Chi is someone who has higher stature than people like Nelson Mandela - though very few have even heard of her.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 2)
Comment number 3.
At 7th May 2008, Max Eaves wrote:Jon,
Do you think it is a sensible thing to name the reporter in Burma, when the 10 o clock news did not name him? What happened in the editorial meeting to change this?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 3)
Comment number 4.
At 7th May 2008, PSMako wrote:i cant believe you can look at whats just happened in burma and use the words 'least convenient'.
isnt it more "inconvenient" that over 22,000 people have died?
instead of wishing that journalists are allowed in the country how about wishing no more people die? surely thats the humane thing to do.
however you decide to judge a country on its journalists rules isnt really of any of your concern, as its not your or anybody elses choice to make.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 4)
Comment number 5.
At 7th May 2008, pearlthevanayagam wrote:I have been a reporter from the conflict zones in Sri Lanka for over 10 years. I am now resident in London and I could easily pass off as Burmese.
Why not try and send me there?
I have been known to get hard- to-get stories. if anyone is willing I'll post my credentials.
Pearl Thevanayagam
Complain about this comment (Comment number 5)
Comment number 6.
At 7th May 2008, bavederry wrote:Jeez, ppl, lighten up. I think ´óÏó´«Ã½ does a fine job in journalism and they are just trying to let the world know what's happening over there. I have family over there and I want to know what's going on. But the paranoid rules imposed by the junta is making it very difficult to get any information. It doesn't help that they haven't been able to restore basic infrastructure such as electricity and phone lines. Let the journalists do their jobs. I will decide what is biased and what is real reporting.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 6)
Comment number 7.
At 7th May 2008, lhobdrak wrote:It's not just Burma that closes it's door on all foreign journalist. China has done the same with Tibet. They don't want the world to see the atrocities that they are committing. They even kicked out their own journalist from Hong Kong.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 7)
Comment number 8.
At 7th May 2008, RJMolesworth wrote:Why does the ´óÏó´«Ã½ use the colonial name for Myanmar (Burma) when it does not use the colonial name for Sri Lanka (Ceylon) or Mumbai (Bombay)? The Burmese are only one part of many peoples who live in Myanmar.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 8)
Comment number 9.
At 7th May 2008, katyrouth wrote:R J Molesworth - here's a ´óÏó´«Ã½ article from last year explaining the use of Burma/Myanmar:
Essentially, the regime that changed the name to Myanmar is one that is not recognized as a legitimate government, and cannot therefore make legitimate decisions on the name of the country. Burma is preferred by the remaining elements of the democratic movement in the country.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 9)
Comment number 10.
At 7th May 2008, Dubbeltje wrote:As the deathtoll rose, I wondered how the media would link the natural disaster to the regime.Now the reports of "monks helping out", while the army supposedly does nothing: of aid workers denied visas and U.S. officials demandinng entry to the country, in the name of humanitarian aid. If we link aid to undermining the regime, it will backfire and like the Iraq war discredit the west's motives for humanitarian intervention.
Lets not go there and concentrate on the victims instead.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 10)
Comment number 11.
At 7th May 2008, Hank_Reardon wrote:Can you not embed journalists with our arms dealers when they head out to these dangerous places
Complain about this comment (Comment number 11)
Comment number 12.
At 7th May 2008, Greatest_Valentines_Day_Ever_2009 wrote:Yesterday I was listening to Five Live at 7 PM, and I expected the major incident in London to be the top story, but instead, the top story was the natural disaster in Burma. Therefore I don't support the ´óÏó´«Ã½.
How much are licence payers paying for the ´óÏó´«Ã½ to send journalists into Burma disguised as tourists? Did millions of licence payers requested that journalists be sent disguised as viewers into Burma? Did they?
I don't believe the majority of licence payers wake up every day wondering what's going on in Burma. What's happening closer to home is more important to licence payers, so why not tell us about that instead?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 12)
Comment number 13.
At 7th May 2008, bangkokkiwi wrote:Good on ya ´óÏó´«Ã½ you are doing a great Job. In reporting the situation in Burma. I seem to get more info from the ´óÏó´«Ã½ than an other outfit.
Keep up the good work
Complain about this comment (Comment number 13)
Comment number 14.
At 7th May 2008, jonnyboy122 wrote:Re: Zimbabwe... other organisations claim to be "banned" but they had reporters in Zimbabwe, undertaking covert (and pretty overt) filming. Obviously there are security issues, not least for those filmed (e.g. police raid on MDC HQ to remove election papers seen on TV) but why did the ´óÏó´«Ã½ apparently not try to get in despite the ban?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 14)
Comment number 15.
At 8th May 2008, Nick Vinehill wrote:From a general perspective simply because there may be no reporting restrictions on journalists in some world hotspot locations doesn't mean to say that what they freely report isn't a load of garbage!
Complain about this comment (Comment number 15)
Comment number 16.
At 8th May 2008, k sriramulu wrote:Authoritarian regimes are not concerned about the welfare of people. They take care to ensure that they are not exposed. It is a shame that the developed countries refuse to intervene to end the dictators in Burma. India and China should exert pressure on Burma rulers to free the country from under the yoke of dictatorsip
Complain about this comment (Comment number 16)
Comment number 17.
At 8th May 2008, Lucy Jones wrote:Why is the ´óÏó´«Ã½ talking about a flood in Burma when the rest of us have been forced to call it Myanmar for years?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 17)
Comment number 18.
At 8th May 2008, JonWilliams_News wrote:Max (post 3) asks why we are naming Paul when the ´óÏó´«Ã½ News at 10 on Tuesday night did not. I'm not sure it's sensible to go into the reasoning behind our decision. Safe to say that the circumstances changed to alter our assessment of the risk. It's not just on the blog, but across all our output. It's important that our audiences can trust our reporting - they're more likely to do so if they can identify the reporter. We need to balance that with the risk to the individual. On Tuesday night, the balance was against, on Wednesday morning, after circumstances changed, the balance is in favour. It's a fine call.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 18)
Comment number 19.
At 9th May 2008, average_visionary wrote:wns_195 wrote: "I don't believe the majority of licence payers wake up every day wondering what's going on in Burma. What's happening closer to home is more important to licence payers, so why not tell us about that instead?"
Dear WNS, while you were in your warm, solid, brick home having a shower in clean water, listening to the radio and deciding which of the vast selections of food to consume for breakfast did the 200,000 rotting bodies, the 1 million homeless and the 10,000s of dying Burmese interupt your train of thought?
My sincere apologies ...nuaghty Burma! We cannot apologise enough and will withold aid to teach them a lesson!!
Get some perspective!
Complain about this comment (Comment number 19)
Comment number 20.
At 9th May 2008, netkeeper718 wrote:I guess the reason your reporters were banned from the country is because of the way how your company conduct your "business". The report has been drafted and approved by the people in your office before they arrive. All the report do on the ground is to add-in some vedio so it looks real. Whatever is happening there is actually irrelavent.
It happens not only in the report. Look at the interview ´óÏó´«Ã½ had with the UN food program officer. The poor UN guy was trying to explain UN doesn't want to involve in any political dispute at this moment. All UN wants is get the aid as quick and as much as possible. ´óÏó´«Ã½ presenter tried 3~4 time to lead the conversation to criticize on the military government. Will criticizing the goverment help to save more lifies at this particular? Do you even care?
Look at what happened in Tibet, your report has all the pictures and only the pictures favouring your political review were showed on air. But there were so few, so some "creative" ways were invented. In a proper English, it is called "lie". BTW, the ´óÏó´«Ã½ reported were never banned in China. The suggestion was the situation in Tibet was not stable so it was not recommended to travel to Tibet by that time. Your reporter lied again. In his program, he hired a LC and travel inside Tibet which I belive everybody who decide to ignore the message can do. He stopped outside a village and claim he was not able to travel further. Then there is a long balabala on Chinese goverment human right records. Suddenly I realized I can do the same thing and claim I am reporting from a Nazi concentration camp in WW II, I can show a wire netting used by the local farmer.
I was very surprised the Chinese goverment was so tolerant and invited ´óÏó´«Ã½ reporter to Everest base camp while they were "banned".
I blieve ´óÏó´«Ã½ reports will not have problem get into the country if they can concentrative on reporting itself instead of chatter on politics just for once.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 20)
Comment number 21.
At 13th May 2008, shinylittlesunshine wrote:I think that news needs to come in from the country well done ´óÏó´«Ã½. We are losing trust in media and what it says to the world. To truly understand what is happening in Burma we need this type of journalism people who put themselves at risk in order to represent the truth.
You may find that ´óÏó´«Ã½ are not welcome in Burma/Zimbabwe etc is due to the fear of the impact of a worldwide respected news broadcaster. if you were comitting illegal crimes against your people let me ask you who you would be opening the doors to? ´óÏó´«Ã½ would not be on your list!
Complain about this comment (Comment number 21)
Comment number 22.
At 28th Dec 2008, dennisjunior1 wrote:Jon Williams:
I am very sad that the media is using the party; That will get the explusion by the government in a country that does not want to have its "dirty laundry" air out in the world media waves...
Complain about this comment (Comment number 22)
Comment number 23.
At 23rd Jan 2009, oliriki wrote:I'm a freelance journalist working in Africa at the moment and I can say I admire the perserverance of British journalists to continue their reporting in Zimbabwe. I've had numerous colleagues beaten up and threatened, particularly over the last year. Media blackouts and bannings - be they in Zimbabwe, Burma or Gaza are for me a clear indication of foul play.
Keep up the good work ´óÏó´«Ã½ and please continue your efforts for accurate reporting in Zim.. the world definitely needs to know what's going on there and how ineffective the regional powers have been in managing the crisis there.
Olga ()
Complain about this comment (Comment number 23)
Comment number 24.
At 23rd Jan 2009, oliriki wrote:sp. perseverance I beg your pardon!
Complain about this comment (Comment number 24)
Comment number 25.
At 3rd Apr 2009, akadarklord wrote:please don't make me laugh. I see that the vulture and economic parasite pearl thevanayagam is at it again. trying to angle for a job in the ´óÏó´«Ã½ now. this type of scum should not be given the time of day. firstly she calls her self a journalist in exile. She ran out of sri lanka for greener pastures. The extent of her writitng is to write on milk pouring out of the mouths of statues of gods in Colombo. she never went to any conflict zone. the only conflict she created was her tattle tale mouth that created conflict in the office she worked in in Colombo. TYou ´óÏó´«Ã½ people are so gullible
Complain about this comment (Comment number 25)