Ripples

Home

First Wave

Undertow

Reflections

Stepping Stones

Weblogs

Contributors

About Us

Archive

From a Distance: Global Perspectives on Terror and War
By Samantha Bong

My mother called me at 3 a.m. on a Sunday morning about two weeks after the World Trade Center attacks. "If anything happens, I want you to cross the border to Canada in any way possible, and then try to catch a flight home, you hear?" she shrilled in my ear. She had spent the entire weekend reading Singapore's gloom and doom newspaper reports.

Media impact on mass opinion has never been so sharply illustrated as it has been through international media coverage of the recent terrorist attacks on America. While television news coverage has not contrasted greatly in different cities in the world, due to the ever-widening influence and broadcast of CNN, newspaper coverage has differed greatly throughout the world.

In the United Kingdom, a longtime ally of the United States, Prime Minister Tony Blair's immediate support of America influenced British newspapers to adopt a similar attitude. Newspaper coverage has by and large been in overt support of America.

In Asia, reactions have ranged from indifferent newspaper reports in anti-American China, to a slightly overblown sense of panic and tragedy in Singapore's traditionally soft-news focused newspapers. The concentration has been on coverage of the actual attacks, and political statements about the counterattacks on Afghanistan were de-emphasized.

Australia's news dailies have managed to successfully straddle the fence between both sides, reporting impartially on the events, and their social and political aftermath. There has been a general tone of sympathy for America, but news coverage of the bombing of Afghanistan has been distinctly negative.

Singapore
Singapore's largest daily newspaper, The Straits Times, had a tendency to focus on the human-interest angle of the terrorist attacks. True to form, they refrained from expressing any extreme political opinions, steering clear of the question of right and wrong to instead focus on the suffering of individuals. Their news coverage on September 12th consisted mainly of stories about the chaos and terror on September 11th, and articles about the number of firefighters, policemen, and other victims trapped underneath the rubble. This sharp focus on the human details has led Singaporeans to develop a rather narrow view of the events of September 11th.

"It's sad, because so many people have died," said Yvonne Lim, 38, a Singaporean stockbroker. For her, the loss of life is what stands out the most about the World Trade Center attacks. When asked about the bombing of Afghanistan, she remained silent for a second, and then said, "It's just another war. People always suffer in wars."

More recent news coverage still has a human-interest bent to it. The Straits Times has run many articles on the Anthrax scares in the US, emphasizing the fear of those involved in each scare, as well as the concerns of actual victims.

United Kingdom
Short hours after the attack on the World Trade Center towers, U.K. Prime Minister Tony Blair gave a speech in front of hundreds expressing his support of America, and his condemnation of the terrorist actions. This response from Prime Minister Blair has also extended to actual military support in America's recent retaliatory actions. Taking their cue from their political leader, British newspapers have run articles with a distinctly sympathetic tone. The day after the attacks, The Times led with the headline "Terror For All." The British media chose to view the terrorist acts as an attack on the whole world, not just the United States.

Reflecting this attitude, Amanda Yeo, 21, a student at Imperial College in London, said that she viewed America as the victim in the September 11th attacks. "It's an atrocity," she said, "The attacks on the World Trade Center were completely disproportionate to whatever real or imagined crimes the U.S. might have committed." When asked her opinion on the bombing of Afghanistan, Ms. Yeo staunchly supported the American-British military action. "If the evidence was good enough for Blair, it's good enough for me," she said.

Consistently through The Times' coverage of the attacks and their aftermath, they have chosen to present them as an attack against most of the world, emphasizing the fact that every Western political leader has expressed their sympathy and condolences for America's loss. Their opinion is clear, and they do not shy from using strong language to express themselves. "America's European allies have an obligation, not merely a moral duty, to stand with it," said the lead article on September 13th.

On October 22nd, the day after America had begun military ground action in Afghanistan, The Times described the counterattacks in glowing terms. The attacks were "much-awaited" and an "important signal" to Afghanistan and the world. They also declared "operations inside Afghanistan must now accelerate."

Australia
However, not all countries support US military actions as wholeheartedly. "I agree that September 11th should not have happened," said Louise Campbell-Smith, 23, a graphic designer working in Sydney, Australia, "but I also think that bombing Afghanistan is a little reactionary." Australia's more impartial coverage of the terrorist acts have expressed the expected shock and sympathy over the actual terrorist attacks, but have also boldly questioned US political reactions and President Bush's leadership abilities.

The Sydney Morning Herald (SMH) ran an article on September 28th subtly expressing sympathy with various Moslem complaints against the United States, and has followed that with a continuous presentation of both sides of the conflict. In an article on September 28th, Patrick Bishop wrote of Israel's reliance on America, and how the "unwavering support of its vital American ally" could not be taken for granted any longer.

In their first article concerning the bombing of Afghanistan, SMH gave an impartial description of US military operations, but also expressed doubt as to the probability of the Northern Alliance having any sort of impact on attacks on the Taliban. "The US was using sophisticated satellite imagery and the alliance was working as it usually does - with bare-footed men on donkeys, looking through binoculars." The article conveyed a nebulous belief that the US was using the Northern Alliance as a political excuse for their actions in Afghanistan, but never directly accused the US.

Throughout their news coverage, SMH has been unstinting with its sympathy for America's loss in the World Trade Center and the Pentagon attacks, but they also do not shy away from criticizing the bombing of Afghanistan. This ability to present both sides of the story has allowed Australians to form opinions of their own. "When Bush started listing other countries as targets," said Ms. Campbell-Smith, "I had to wonder when this would all end."

Have something to say? email the author

Contributors | About Us | Archive