There is a saying about wars, that the truth is always their first victim. And for the war against the Islamic State, this is certainly true.
Mainly so, because independent journalists are not allowed to report from the ISIS frontlines, nor from inside the self-declared caliphate. They can only report from the side of ISIS enemies and they depend on news about the battle from them. How ISIS fights the battle, we only know through its own propaganda, mainly in social media, and propaganda often is disinformation.
Not being able to visit the areas under occupation means we do not have firsthand eyewitness accounts on what goes on there. We are dependent on what people who escaped from ISIS-land tell us—which almost per definition has to be a negative story.
We might find sources in the ISIS-cities that will give some information through the Internet—yet they are so scared of the possible ramifications of this act of defiance that the information is going to be colored by fear.
So we depend on secondhand sources: family members who were in contact with those who stayed behind, activists who have made it their cause to inform the world about the atrocities in their city under ISIS occupation and colleagues who fled but still keep in contact with others left behind.
And of course we have the tweets and other media communications of ISIS members, meant to attract new people—so always positive, giving the impression of paradise on earth.
Recently, things have gotten even worse for us journalists, as ISIS has gotten company from one of its main enemies. The Kurds of the PYD, the most effective force against ISIS, have declared a ban on two media outlets: Rudaw and Syrian opposition station Orient. They are no longer welcome in the region the PYD rules in Syria because of “spreading false news and disunity.”
This is interesting, because Rudaw was also banned by Turkey, the enemy of the PYD’s parent organization, the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK). Under journalists, it is considered a rule that if only one side has issues with your reporting, it could mean you are biased. However, if you are under fire from two sides, you are probably doing good work.
Banning media from reporting on the PYD/PKK side of the ISIS-front is damaging to the world’s perception of what is happening in this war, and how Kurds and others are living under the rule of the PYD. Censoring media because you only want it to report in a positive way simply means you are victimizing the truth.
The general feeling is that groups who use censorship have something to fear or hide. If you are confident that what you are doing is right, and that you have nothing to hide, a bit of negative and even incorrect reporting will not harm you. Your positive achievements will provide counter balance any time.
Somehow, it is even better to be in the news in a negative way, than not at all. And for the Kurds who need to be at the center of the world’s attention to be able to come out on top of this ISIS-fight, any ban on any media or journalists is going to be counterproductive.
Without sources and eyewitnesses, Rudaw and Orient will depend on indirect sources, on stories of people who can be reached by phone and of stories of those who got out. If journalists can no longer check the actual situation themselves, the chances of misconceptions and bad reporting are much higher—the same as we see with the reporting on ISIS.
Let me give you a recent example. Last week ISIS proclaimed it had killed some 2,000 civilians in Mosul in the past year. Media published it, and nobody thought much of it.
But look at the figure. If you knew how many civilians were executed weekly, that would have been critical, as would knowing that medical doctors who refused to treat ISIS-fighters or were caught treating women whilst being male themselves, were killed. Also, it would have been good to consider that alleged homosexuals were thrown off high buildings and couples suspected of having sex outside marriage were stoned. In this context, 2,000 killed in a year is nowhere near the right number.
Sources in the city told me that only 500 bodies of those 2,000 on the list ISIS provided were released to their families, and they were mostly former policemen. The rest were arrested and have been missing ever since—like many, many others. People were killed by having their bodies torn apart, or being driven over with heavy-duty vehicles. An additional 300 people were executed for being involved in organizing the last elections before ISIS took over—mainly women.
This is what is hidden behind the numbers, behind propaganda, behind censorship. We cannot accept not to know, not to be able to research the truth. Because this war already has far too many victims.
Mainly so, because independent journalists are not allowed to report from the ISIS frontlines, nor from inside the self-declared caliphate. They can only report from the side of ISIS enemies and they depend on news about the battle from them. How ISIS fights the battle, we only know through its own propaganda, mainly in social media, and propaganda often is disinformation.
Not being able to visit the areas under occupation means we do not have firsthand eyewitness accounts on what goes on there. We are dependent on what people who escaped from ISIS-land tell us—which almost per definition has to be a negative story.
We might find sources in the ISIS-cities that will give some information through the Internet—yet they are so scared of the possible ramifications of this act of defiance that the information is going to be colored by fear.
So we depend on secondhand sources: family members who were in contact with those who stayed behind, activists who have made it their cause to inform the world about the atrocities in their city under ISIS occupation and colleagues who fled but still keep in contact with others left behind.
And of course we have the tweets and other media communications of ISIS members, meant to attract new people—so always positive, giving the impression of paradise on earth.
Recently, things have gotten even worse for us journalists, as ISIS has gotten company from one of its main enemies. The Kurds of the PYD, the most effective force against ISIS, have declared a ban on two media outlets: Rudaw and Syrian opposition station Orient. They are no longer welcome in the region the PYD rules in Syria because of “spreading false news and disunity.”
This is interesting, because Rudaw was also banned by Turkey, the enemy of the PYD’s parent organization, the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK). Under journalists, it is considered a rule that if only one side has issues with your reporting, it could mean you are biased. However, if you are under fire from two sides, you are probably doing good work.
Banning media from reporting on the PYD/PKK side of the ISIS-front is damaging to the world’s perception of what is happening in this war, and how Kurds and others are living under the rule of the PYD. Censoring media because you only want it to report in a positive way simply means you are victimizing the truth.
The general feeling is that groups who use censorship have something to fear or hide. If you are confident that what you are doing is right, and that you have nothing to hide, a bit of negative and even incorrect reporting will not harm you. Your positive achievements will provide counter balance any time.
Somehow, it is even better to be in the news in a negative way, than not at all. And for the Kurds who need to be at the center of the world’s attention to be able to come out on top of this ISIS-fight, any ban on any media or journalists is going to be counterproductive.
Without sources and eyewitnesses, Rudaw and Orient will depend on indirect sources, on stories of people who can be reached by phone and of stories of those who got out. If journalists can no longer check the actual situation themselves, the chances of misconceptions and bad reporting are much higher—the same as we see with the reporting on ISIS.
Let me give you a recent example. Last week ISIS proclaimed it had killed some 2,000 civilians in Mosul in the past year. Media published it, and nobody thought much of it.
But look at the figure. If you knew how many civilians were executed weekly, that would have been critical, as would knowing that medical doctors who refused to treat ISIS-fighters or were caught treating women whilst being male themselves, were killed. Also, it would have been good to consider that alleged homosexuals were thrown off high buildings and couples suspected of having sex outside marriage were stoned. In this context, 2,000 killed in a year is nowhere near the right number.
Sources in the city told me that only 500 bodies of those 2,000 on the list ISIS provided were released to their families, and they were mostly former policemen. The rest were arrested and have been missing ever since—like many, many others. People were killed by having their bodies torn apart, or being driven over with heavy-duty vehicles. An additional 300 people were executed for being involved in organizing the last elections before ISIS took over—mainly women.
This is what is hidden behind the numbers, behind propaganda, behind censorship. We cannot accept not to know, not to be able to research the truth. Because this war already has far too many victims.
The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the position of Rudaw.
Comments
Rudaw moderates all comments submitted on our website. We welcome comments which are relevant to the article and encourage further discussion about the issues that matter to you. We also welcome constructive criticism about Rudaw.
To be approved for publication, however, your comments must meet our community guidelines.
We will not tolerate the following: profanity, threats, personal attacks, vulgarity, abuse (such as sexism, racism, homophobia or xenophobia), or commercial or personal promotion.
Comments that do not meet our guidelines will be rejected. Comments are not edited – they are either approved or rejected.
Post a comment