Russia uses KGB playbook on press

The words "special operation" was prohibited, as was "shahid" [suicide martyr] - a word that, along with the phrase "war in Chechnya," has already been prohibited on state TV for a year. Forbidden, too, were listing of hostage-takers' demands and interviews with hostage relatives. Analysis of options to save the hostages, of steps already taken, or reasons for the crisis was also forbidden.

The impact was felt even at Rossiya TV, considered the Kremlin's mouthpiece, which acknowledged government deception. "At such moments, society needs to know the truth," Rossiya news anchor Sergei Brilyov announced on air, blaming "generals, the military, and civilians" who refuse to act "until the president gives them the order."

These attempts to control the media are sparking a debate in Russia about the role of the media as acts of terror unfold - a debate that raged in October 2002 after Chechens seized a Moscow theater and 800 hostages. Later, broadcasters voluntarily agreed to a list of self-censorship restrictions.

Some critics argue that full disclosure of the facts can be dangerous. "I think this is the kind of lie that saves lives," says Alexei Pankin, editor of Sreda magazine. "I take it for granted that [authorities] are not competent, and I know that attacking them and revealing they are lying will not make them any better, only more frustrated."

Journalists have a broader responsibility, too, Mr. Pankin says. The terrorist "objective is to intimidate ... by the sheer scope of villainy," he wrote in a recent editorial. "They are the only ones with an interest in the broadest and fullest coverage of the catastrophe; they murder people precisely in order to get on TV screens and newspaper pages."

That view differs from results of one call-in poll Friday of more than 3,000 by Ekho Moskvy, Russia's last independent radio broadcaster. Some 85 percent believe that an uncensored press helps battle terror.

"The authorities were hysterical after the [Beslan] terrorist acts, so they vented their anger on harmless journalists," says Oleg Panfilov, head of the Center for Journalism in Extreme Situations. "But Rus- sian journalists didn't seem to learn how to resist."

Among those who did is Raf Shakirov, the former chief editor of Izvestia, who was forced to resign after the crisis. The paper's critical reporting culminated in a powerful day-after issue: The front-page was covered by an image of a rescuer carrying a near-naked schoolgirl; on the back page, one photo of a woman grieving as she touched the head of a dead child.

"I was reproached for coverage that was too emotional, and I was told I should not traumatize people," says Mr. Shakirov. "Wasn't it more harmful to ignore information or give wrong information? When they gave wrong figures and said terrorists gave no demands, wasn't it a threat to hostages' lives? No doubt it was."

The media debate is already shifting into Russian politics, where some State Duma deputies want to block press talk of terrorist attacks at all.

"We should make sure that the media do not facilitate terrorist activity and all means are good for this," Lyubov Sliska, a ranking Duma deputy told one newspaper. "We should not be afraid of the suppression of freedom of speech, the suppression of democracy."

• Monitor Moscow staffer Olga Podolskaya contributed to this report.

Page: 1 | 2