Human Rights: The AP Stylebook

We're hearing plenty about human rights these days. Pick up one of Seattle's daily newspapers, and you'll probably find a couple of stories touching on the issue. Often these stories originate at the Associated Press, the New York Times, or the Washington Post, but the local papers select and edit them, and therefore share responsibility. Judging from these stories, reporters and editors must follow certain rules when they cover human rights. Here's a guess at what those dos and don'ts might be.

Do not distinguish between a country's government and its people, no matter how little say they have in the government. Thus, a June 22 Seattle Times editorial says, "China wants to be treated as a major power whose opinions and actions matter in global affairs." Really? Most Chinese can hardly dream of their opinions mattering domestically, much less globally. But of course, when the Times says "China," they really mean exalted comrade Jiang Zemin.
Avoid mentioning individual victims of human rights abuse, whose stories would bring the issue to life. Do not seek out the opinions of courageous exiles such as Wei Jingsheng or Wang Dan. Instead, on June 25 the P-I gave a platform to Secretary of State Albright, who once demonstrated her commitment to human rights by asserting on 60 Minutes that the deaths of half a million Iraqi children was an acceptable price to pay for sending a message to Saddam Hussein.
Ignore the role of the United States government, and of corporations, in encouraging atrocities. Never mind that it is precisely such information that would be most relevant to us. Thus, a June 25 AP story reports on the impending release in El Salvador of several guardsmen convicted of killing four American nuns in 1980. It neglects to mention that some of these officers are graduates of the infamous School of the Americas in Georgia. (Other graduates of this U.S. Army school have been implicated in the assassination of Oscar Romero and in the El Mozote massacre.)

There was a flurry of news from Nigeria following the death of dictator Sani Abacha. The only reference to Shell Oil (a major player in Nigeria) was a quote (in a June 9 AP story) from a company official, saying, "We try not to get involved in politics. There won't be an impact on our production." No mention was made of claims that much of the persecution committed by the Nigerian military has been on Shell's behalf.

Although American human rights policy is driven by corporate interests, suggest that big business is merely indifferent to human rights. Do not expose their outright hostility to it. Do not explain, for example, why they've moved so many operations to non-democratic countries. It's not just cheap labor--they also like the fact that workers aren't permitted to organize. Pass out pamphlets on workers' rights, and you'll be imprisoned for subversion.
Minimize the seriousness of abuses. Use words like "crackdown" instead of "slaughter" to describe what happened at Tiananmen Square. On May 15, the P-I editorialized on Suharto's rule in Indonesia: "It has not been a violent, terrible regime, as regimes go. Suharto is no Pol Pot or Mao Zedong." (Apparently, killing 200,000 East Timorese or a million alleged "subversives" is small-time stuff.) If referring to the invasion of East Timor is unavoidable, spare readers the details, such as "They did what they had done to small children the previous year, grabbing them by the legs and smashing their heads against rocks."
When our government acts hypocritically, remain silent. For example, reports on the conference to establish a permanent international war crimes court dutifully mentioned our representatives' "sovereignty" concerns. They're afraid American soldiers--or commanders--would get hauled before the court, so they're out to ensure it will be ineffectual. At the same time, they're throwing sovereignty away in the Multilateral Agreement on Investment. And we're constantly hearing about the value of "engagement" with China, but the media is silent on the contrast with our treatment of Iraq.
Oversimplify the debate over our response to human rights abusers. In the case of China, for example, focus narrowly on the issue of Most Favored Nation status. News media could press companies to do more than pay lip service to the idea of "engagement" on human rights.
It's fine to break the rules once in a while, because perceptions are highly keyed to repetition. If nine out of ten stories fit the pattern, that's all that most people will see.

In reality, there is no formal set of rules--there doesn't have to be. It's no surprise that the news media treat peoples' struggles for self-determination in other countries with disdain. That's the same treatment they give such struggles here.

MediaWatch is written every two weeks by members of the MediaWatch collective, a local group monitoring Seattle news media. Our next meeting will be Monday, July 20 at 6:00 PM, 3rd floor Univ. Baptist Church (4554 12th Ave. NE in Seattle). For info or to get involved, e-mail mediawatch@u.washington.edu or call 206-632-1656.