Just got an email this morning that Uptown Magazine, a very popular publication in Mongolia, recognized Eagle TV as the “best media” of the year. The award was given in recognition of this year’s anti-corruption campaign and our coverage of the July 1st riots.

When media is released to operate freely, instead of controlled, great things can happen.

Congrats to the staff of Eagle TV for a job well done.

Found this while doing some Internet searching.

John Tkacik, a senior research fellow in Asian studies at the Heritage Foundation in Washington, said “there is a certain amount of press freedom in Mongolia, but as in many countries the ruling party tends to exert its influence a bit unduly.”

Tkacik said that even though the print media seems to be fairly independent in Mongolia, television news reporting tends to be government-controlled, which “presents certain press freedom problems.”

“NOT AS FREE AS IT COULD BE”

Tom Terry, president of the Eagle Broadcasting Company in Mongolia’s capital of Ulaanbaatar, says “a great deal has changed in the Mongolia media landscape.” Mongolian journalists, he said, are “definitely more free” than they were five years ago.

In fact, said Terry, a U.S. native, “it’s actually illegal to interfere with the work of a journalist, though that law is not always obeyed.” What holds back Mongolian journalism, Terry said, “is not the issue of freedom. Rather it is the issue of ethics. Bribery for stories is commonplace and nearly impossible to control.”

Although news in Mongolia is “skewed and certainly not as free as it could be,” said Terry, “most television stations in the country are not government controlled.” However, Terry said, in his experience, Mongolian television journalists “are usually poorly trained, and lack basic skills necessary to understand the fuller dynamics of stories they are often reporting on.”

U.S.-based Freedom House says in a 2008 draft report about Mongolia that freedom of speech and press in the country are protected by law, and the government “generally respects these rights in practice.”

However, the nonpartisan group said media freedom in Mongolia was “compromised somewhat in 2007 owing to ongoing legal harassment and financial difficulties facing journalists.” Freedom House says press freedom in Mongolia has “slipped a bit” in the last several years.

Freedom House said that even though there is no direct government censorship in Mongolia, “journalists complain of indirect forms of censorship such as harassment and intimidation, as well as pressure from the authorities to reveal confidential sources.”

The entire original article by Eric Green of American.gov is here.

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.

“All fear societies are based on a certain degree of brainwashing. State-controlled television, radio, and newspapers glorify the actions of the regime’s leaders and incite their populations against those it deems to be enemies.”

The Case For Democracy: The Power of Freedom to Overcome Tyranny and Terror, has given me extra insight into the condition of media in Mongolia – and our mission of Faith and Freedom.

My ability to read the latest western books is limited by living in Mongolia (where’s a Barnes and Noblebaatar when you need one?) but during a recent trip to the States I stocked up with a good year’s supply of reading material. Sharansky’s book was my last pick-up; at the Denver airport while suffering through an 8-hour delay. Thank God for airport delays! The Case For Democracy, is one of the most insightful books on political freedom I’ve read.

You may remember from an earlier commenterry that a recent analysis by Mongolia’s Press Institute and Globe International found that while there is sufficient media freedom for journalists to pursue their craft, there is, in practice, less freedom because of how ideological control of the media has developed over recent years. Keep in mind that Mongolia is a young democracy, without the foundation of Judeo-Christian traditions from which modern political freedom sprang (I explore this issue in my forthcoming book, Faith & Freedom: How the missionary principle facilitates political freedom). Like any nation going through a major political change, there are significant issues to grapple with and problems to overcome as the society experiments with new social concepts. Allow me to illustrate.

Yesterday a missionary friend in Mongolia said to me, “To Mongolians unity is often much higher in their priorities than truth because they have a communal society.” Brilliant! Coupled with Sharansky’s comments in his book about the differences between fear societies and free societies, I was beginning to gain greater insight into why, socially, Mongolia slipped so easily into communism. Sharansky notes, “A society is free if people have the right to express their views without fear of arrest, imprisonment, or physical harm… A simple way to determine whether the right to dissent in a particular society is being upheld is to apply the town square test: Can a person walk into the middle of the town square and express his or her views without fear of arrest, imprisonment, or physical harm? If he can, then that person is living in a free society. If not, it’s a fear society…fear societies never cross this threshold and are always unjust.”

What does this have to do with Eagle TV and state of Mongolian media? Very simply, while Mongolia has successfully transitioned from a fear society (under communism) to a free society (under democratic reform), much of its media still lags behind. Most journalists still cannot apply the town square test to their industry, or even many of their workplaces and come away saying they work in an atmosphere of complete media freedom.

The 2005 edition of Freedom of Information in Mongolia, published by Mongolia’s Press Institute, Pact Mongolia, and the U.S. Embassy, illustrates this well. It provides citation after citation of instances where Mongolian journalists were not permitted to write or produce stories on significant political or social issues. Many of those who took the risk lost their jobs, were interrogated by police, or suffered other injustices.

Even at the most free and independent media entity in the country – Eagle TV – we still see the problem of a fear society entrenched in the Mongolian media industry. During the recent Presidential elections I provided a specific set of instructions to our journalists that were designed to obey the existing laws on media and elections, while at the same time pushing the envelope – within the law – in order to gain new ground for press freedom. After the meeting was over one of our journalists came to me privately and said, “I don’t want to do this. I’m afraid.”

She wasn’t kidding, or making a mountain out of a mole hill. While there have been significant developments in media freedom during the last three years, 2003-2004 was still the period that more journalists were interrogated by authorities than any time previously. Udriin Sonin newspaper reported on April 17, 2004 that 400 journalists were interrogated, with 80 cases unresolved during that time (the Central Police Department and Judicial Authority take issue with that report). I don’t think it’s a coincidence that the reported increase happened during the period when the American-run Eagle TV was no longer on the air, serving as the standard-bearer for media freedom.

The point here is that even at the single most free, uncensored, creative media outlet in the country – Eagle TV – run by an American organization applying principles of western ethics, the fear society that still exists within the Mongolia media has not quite breathed its last. It is still able to stretch its leathery claws into our protective sphere – even if only a little.

I confess to a great deal of pride in what has been accomplished at Eagle TV. Our journalists don’t have an ideological overseer looking over their shoulder. No one on staff, or in management, has any authority to refuse airing a story on ideological grounds beyond the standard practices of fact-checking, proper sourcing, etc. It doesn’t mean things are perfect, and that our people don’t make mistakes. But it does mean that they are free to make mistakes in the exercise of their own judgment. And they are free to say no to the facilitators of the fear society within the media knowing that they will have the unquestionable backing of their fellow staff – and the boss. I believe it is this approach which best serves the growth of democratic ideals within the media – and help us set the stage for further efforts to advance freedom of conscience, and our faith in Jesus Christ.

The American media is awash with concern over New York Times correspondent Judith Miller and Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper. The two refused to reveal confidential sources for a report that ended up revealing the identity of a covert CIA operative, and later refused to testify to the grand jury about the matter.

For the American media this is an issue of Freedom of Press. Do journalists have an absolute right to keep the sources of their stories confidential? According to Miller’s attorney, “They said she must have confidential access to high-level government sources to do her job. ‘Nothing less will do in a free society with an independent press.’” [1] Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald countered in court documents saying, “Journalists are not entitled to promise confidentiality — no one in America is.” [2]

This is certainly not the first time that the issue of Journalistic Privilege has reached the ears of the American public. The question is: How far should Journalistic Privilege go?

That the left-leaning press has lost its former luster in the eyes of the American public is no surprise. People don’t trust the media like they used to. It was once said that Walter Cronkite was the most trusted man in America. Regardless of what you think of Cronkite’s political views, who has stepped up in the 30-years since Cronkite’s day to take his place as “most trusted?”

No one. That includes Miller, Cooper, Time, and the New York Times.

In fact, it is to Cronkite that the mainstream press may owe its thanks for its ever-diminishing confidence. It was Cronkite who as anchor of the CBS Evening News stepped away from his position as a neutral reporter of the Vietnam War and declared his public opposition to the war. CBS hasn’t been the same since; and neither has the rest of the media. So much for trust.

Clearly Judith Miller and Matthew Cooper are not in the league of Walter Cronkite. But they seem to be the current poster-children for the idea that Press Privilege is a right on par with Attorney-Client Privilege; or perhaps on par with the privilege of a covert CIA operative to keep his identity safe.

Modern journalism views itself as trusted by the American people to help safeguard freedom by being a watch-dog on the government. But there is no truth in this attitude, especially since so many journalists are watch-dogging from only one side of the fence — the left side.

The entity that is entrusted by the American people to safeguard its freedom is the U.S. Government, guided by a set of principles embodied in the Constitution. The Constitution protects Freedom of Speech and Press, but does not give such wide latitude to journalists that they can publish stories which threaten national security, or reveal the identity of CIA agents working to protect the nation. Such a notion is absurd. Yes, government can and does go bad, and yes journalists play an important role in revealing corruption and trends of oppression. But America is not Nazi-Germany, or Stalin’s Russia, or Bin-Laden’s Middle East. Nor did the ideas that permit Freedom of Press or Press Privilege exist in these nations.

Left-leaning journalists will counter by trying to define what national security is, and what kinds of foreign policy are in the best interest of America. In doing so they forget that while they are free to do so, they are not the ones finally entrusted to define such matters. That is up to the President, aided by Congress, all of whom are elected by the popular vote of the states, and the people. Journalists are elected by no one.

In Mongolia the idea of Press Privilege is gaining small ground, but it is slow going. Although there is Freedom of Press in Mongolia it is not as well developed as in the States. As an example, I sat in the recent meeting with a number of Mongolian journalists, NGO representatives and a public relations officer for the police department who told the gathering, in no uncertain terms, “We [the police] think you journalists have enough freedom. Maybe you have too much freedom.” I was stunned not so much by what the man said, but by the reaction of the journalists. They said nothing.

Methinks they protest not enough.

Press Freedom in Mongolia is still in development, along with press ethics – which also have a long way to go. In many ways Mongolian journalists are still fighting for their press freedoms, or trying to exercise the freedoms they already have, while watching their backs. This is completely different from the United States where the issue is not really “press freedom” as some might want to frame it, rather, “press responsibility” as in “moral responsibility.” Certainly the ethics of American journalism is much more developed than in Mongolia – but the current political environment in so many American news rooms is convoluted by the idea that somehow the rights of the press are higher or nobler than a government’s right to govern.

It was war-time president Abraham Lincoln who during the Gettysburg Address phrased the creation of America as a nation “of the people by the people, and for the people.” The idea is not that the government is supposed to be separate from its people, rather an extension of citizenship. What of journalism? Is it “of the people, by the people, and for the people?” Or does modern journalism view itself as an outside entity, looking in, or in the case of some, looking down upon?

Journalists are not above the privileges afford them under the law, nor above the responsibilities of citizenship. It is because of their citizenship that they are able to practice the kind of journalism that even permits the notion of Journalistic Privilege in the first place. Press Privilege is a necessary part of the job, but not without the ethics needed to define its boundaries. If journalists wish to exercise the industry-standard idea of Journalistic Privilege they are welcome to do so. However, they should keep in mind that Journalistic Privilege is not a constitutional right, or necessarily a moral right. Especially when it comes to revealing identities and situations that could harm national security or the people who are the ones actually entrusted to carry out that charge.

[1] Prosecutor: Jail for Journalists in Leak Case, James Vicini; Reuters, July 5, 2005.
[2] Ibid.