It was with some degree of dismay that I learned that a number of Mongolian journalists – competitors of Eagle TV – have been putting significant pressure upon our journalists because of our live coverage of the fake hijacking of a Mongolian Airlines (MIAT) plane. These competitors have ridiculed our journalists for their handling of the coverage, saying of the hijacking which assaulted innocent people and victimized their families that, “It was only a test.”

In a communal society like Mongolia peer pressure can be a powerful incentive, or in this case, a disincentive to pursue truth – much more so than in Western cultures. Worse yet, when you work in a small industry in a small country where everyone seems to know everyone else, the pressure to conform can be intense. As an American living in Mongolia I can say that Americans don’t really understand this because Americans have never really experienced it. Even I, as an American am immune to this level of pressure since I can never experience it in the same way a Mongolian can – though I can understand it through the observation that comes with living here.

I include this in my analysis of the media’s coverage of the hijacking because it has a direct impact on the quality of Mongolia’s journalism. That in turn has a direct impact on the development of Mongolia’s democratic freedoms as they continue to build a more transparent society. The reaction of Mongolian media to Tuesday’s hijacking was exactly opposite one would expect from real journalists.

At every step of the events of this Tuesday there were ample and obvious opportunities for Mongolian journalists to demonstrate the necessity of their profession as part of a free and open society. At virtually every step Mongolian journalism fell flat. This was not a top down reaction where some political force lowered the boom. This was a peer-level reaction that has as much of a potential to facilitate censorship and media repression as if it had come from higher up the food chain. The result of this peer-level abandonment of journalistic principles in the face of this important story is that the abuses and violation of human rights that occurred on Tuesday may have already been swept under a Mongolian carpet and the floor called clean. To be sure we understand why this is so, let us briefly review the facts.

At 11:45am a MIAT plane from Umnugobi Aimag landed at Chinggis Khan International Airport in Ulaanbaatar with 32 passengers. Passengers on the plane reported that the flight went without incident except noting that four men appeared to be drinking significantly – the four men who would play the part of hijackers.After most of the passengers had deplaned, the four men assigned by the Mongolian CIA to stage a fake hijacking, jumped up, brandished at least one firearm (others indicated there may have been more), and attacked the remaining passengers and pilot. One pilot who was let off the plane warned the leaving passengers to run and that the plane was being hijacked. Witnesses reported hijackers acting violently, injuring at least one woman, abusing the remaining pilot, tying him up.

The hijackers closed the plane door and it stayed on the tarmac for the next 90 minutes. The remaining passengers were escorted to a holding area for their safety. When the deplaning passengers made it to the holding area, word managed to leak out to the waiting families and friends that the plane had been hijacked and the free passengers were being held for security reasons. At this point someone began calling local media to report a hijacking. The hijackers aboard the plane continued to abuse the remaining passengers and made demands, including ordering the pilot to take off.

Some passengers were checked by a doctor after the ordeal. Immediately after the incident as passengers were released to the waiting crowd of family, friends, and media, many were interviewed by TV stations, including Eagle TV, about their ordeal. Multiple passengers reported that they were hijacked and scared. They reported witnessing physical abuses and that no one on board the plane or ground knew that the hijacking was an exercise. The pilots were obviously terrified, to the point that one witness said one of the pilots was unable to speak correctly.

During the hijacking, the media was trying to get a spokesperson from the airport or MIAT to clear up the confusion – was this a real hijack or an exercise? No one would speak until almost 1:30 when an official from the General Office of Civil Flight confirmed to an Eagle TV journalist by phone that the hijack was an exercise. Throughout the day as more details became known, including the name of the woman attacked, and various offices claiming responsibility, two government offices issues statements.

First, the Deputy Director of the CIA held a press conference (holding back the information from Eagle TV) declaring that the hijacking was a “planned action” and not a training exercise. The DD declared that weapons and possibly explosives were smuggled aboard the plane by their operatives and that it was “easy to hijack” a plane in Mongolia. Just before 10:00pm I received a fax from the Prime Minister’s office declaring the hijacking to be an exercise and that no normal citizens were involved. As a courtesy to the Prime Minister’s office we read that state three times, without journalist’s comments.

Now to the point: When the hijacking was declared to be a security exercise, as far as the Mongolian media was concerned, the story was over. In fact, even the initial reaction at Eagle TV was similar and by 2:00pm we segued into other programming. However, stopping the story at that point was an enormous error, in fact, the story was only beginning. That is why after realizing what we had in our hands we resumed our coverage less than 15 minutes later. Even by this time there were still many unanswered questions:

• Why was it necessary to attack real passengers for a security exercise?
• Who was the injured woman?
• How did the authorities handle what they thought was a real hijacking?
• What was the human drama going on behind the scenes, in the holding area, on the airplane?
• Who authorized the hijacking of a plane with passengers on board?
• Why did the four hijackers begin their exercise while passengers were still aboard?
• If this was an exercise, who was being trained?
• How did the hijackers get a firearm on board?
• What was the reaction of the airport authorities in Umnugobi when learning firearms had been smuggled aboard the plane?
• In fact, the CIA Deputy Director indicated that explosives may have been smuggled on board – who authorized smuggling explosives onto an airplane?

I could fill this website with questions for an investigative journalist or analyst, so could our viewers; in fact, THEY DID! While journalists from our competitors were busy with live criticism of Eagle TV’s coverage on their stations, our viewers were positing some of these and many other questions about the hijacking.

Isn’t that the journalist’s job?

The point that I wish to make here is very simple. It does not matter that the General Office of Civil Flight, the Mongolian CIA, or the Prime Minister’s office declared that the hijacking was just a test. Yes, we all acknowledge that all of these offices told the media and the public the truth – this was a test of the airport authorities to gauge their reaction to a terrorist hijacking. The first and most important question is, “Why was it necessary to assault real passengers, and victimize real families for the sake of a test?”

I already know the reaction that some will have to that question – because I’ve already faced it in internal discussions. “The authorities said that no normal citizens were involved.” Yet according to eyewitnesses that assertion is a lie. From the witnesses caught on tape at the airport, to those interviewed live on Eagle TV, to the accounts given by three MPs from Umnugobi Aimag, normal citizens were victimized, believing they were being hijacked. If multiple eyewitnesses assert the official line is an official lie, then why are you giving it an official pass?

The questions can (and should) go further. For instance, if the CIA successfully smuggled firearms and explosive on board the airplane, why was it necessary to proceed with the hijacking exercise? Did the CIA operatives smuggle explosives onboard? That’s seems unclear from the press conference. Wasn’t the successful smuggling of terror weapons enough to make a security evaluation? Did you have to hold real people hostage and assault them?

CIA Deputy Director Jargalsaikhan said quite clearly in this press conference, “We can say that explosives and weapons could be smuggled into Mongolian passenger planes without a problem. Therefore it is possible to hijack a plane using firearms and even explosives” My journalist friends, do you not see the opportunities that lie before you when confronted with even just this small statement out of a whole day’s news coverage? Why are you not asking the most obvious and important questions? In the case of Tuesday’s hijacking, every time an official opened their mouth, they were presenting you with numerous opportunities to hold them to account for one of the most ill-conceived and ill-managed security exercises in recent memory.

Imagine if these questions were posed to the Deputy Director:

• If you know explosive are sold at the Black Market and are a threat to national security, then what is the CIA specifically doing about it?
• You indicated that it is easy to steal explosives from the mining company’s warehouses. Which companies present the highest risk? What steps has the CIA already taken to tighten security around volatile materials at warehouses?
• Why are you giving public details on how easy it is to steal explosives and hijack a plane? From the perspective of national security, is this level of public detail really necessary or wise?

I haven’t even addressed other important angles: Was the operation legal? How will this botched exercise be evaluated and policies on such exercises changed? Will the hijackers be held to account for injuring citizens and being drunk on the job while using firearms on a fueled aircraft? Journalists: Who will call upon the mining companies to talk about security? Will you send video crews to the mining warehouses? The list goes on, but not – apparently – for the majority of Mongolian journalists – and that is a professional tragedy. This story is rich with opportunity, not just for journalism, but also for journalists to make a real difference in the nation’s security as well as government transparency by doing nothing more than asking a few probing questions, and keep asking and investigating until the answers become clear. For much of the day, as one foreign journalist told me, the facts of the story were unclear – and the majority of journalists did not pursue the angles necessary to make it clear. They only focused on being a conduit for official statements and criticizing the sole entity that was asking even a few of the more probing questions.

Journalism is not the practice of imitating a parrot, or taking the word of a spokesperson at a press conference and rewriting his words into your own words. Journalism is about getting to the truth. If the person behind the mic is telling the truth – verify it, then report it. Confront the speaker during the press conference. Don’t ask the question once. Rephrase it; ask it again. Summarize it and give it a new angle then ask it again. Don’t simply give someone a free pass when every eyewitness on the scene gives a contrary account to the official line as we saw on Tuesday. And when the eyewitnesses suddenly change their story – radically – later in the day, don’t give them a free pass either.

Investigate. Find out why.

To be journalists we must have more than a professional passion about reporting events. We must have a personal love affair with the truth. The lack of passion for truth is the first failing of all journalists. Without a clear and ambitious desire to discover the truth of a matter, and disseminate that truth to the viewers, listeners, and readers who depend upon us, then we cannot be trusted – period. Tuesday’s failure of journalists to pursue the hijacking story wherever it would lead was a demonstration of professional laziness. That many of them have turned to pressuring other journalists to drop the story reveals a lack of understanding of the issues presented, and a lack of journalistic passion for truth. It does not matter that it was a “test.” The journalist must ask, “Was it right?” And in case you think that journalism isn’t about this all-important question, then you must not be paying attention to the world at large. Isn’t that what journalists around the world are doing right now?

• Was the Iraq war a right decision?
• Does Iran have a right to nuclear arms?
• Is North Korea a global menace?

Visit any news site on the Internet and scour the headlines. The most important stories and controversies of our day always revolve around issues of right and rights, truth and corruption.

In the Bible, Jesus Christ is recorded as saying, “You will know the truth, and the truth will make you free” (John 8:32). While Jesus was specifically referring to the testimony about himself, he was also presenting an important principle equally applicable to us all.

Truth brings freedom. It is imperative that the journalist pursue truth in his craft above else. It is for the discovery of truth that so many have worked so hard for freedom of press in the first place. Shall we let truth fall by the wayside now that we have freedom? If we do, will not freedom follow it?

The hijack story has been put to bed. All of the new stories that could come out of it, waiting to be told – most will never see the light of day. They will rest like a quiet bump under that thick Mongolian carpet, stepped over, but never quite noticed enough for anyone to wonder, “Why does the carpet bulge like that?” Why not peel it back and see what is there? Follow the trail of dirt where it leads – no matter where it leads – and then go find out who is supposed to clean up.

You may discover that in part, that’s the job of the journalist.