Presidential Report by IAPA President Danilo Arbilla,
Búsqueda, Montevideo, Uruguay,
to IAPA 57th General Assembly,
October 15, 2001, Washington, D.C.

Here we are. It's normal, as if nothing had happened, but above all, because a lot has happened. This assembly and the presence of 400 members of the Inter American Press Association in Washington stands in the best history of the association and defines its unchanging tradition of being present and on the front line at difficult times, and especially when it is necessary to fight for freedom.
A few hours after the brutal terrorist attacks of September 11, we recalled to our readers in an editorial one of the best speeches of Abraham Lincoln, comparable to his Gettysburg Address. He gave his second inaugural address after being reelected during the Civil War. President Lincoln said, more or less, at that time: We wondered at one time if it would be possible to hold an election in the middle of a war. But there is no doubt about the answer: Not even war is sufficient reason to deprive the people of their legitimate and inalienable right to decide who will govern in their name. If we had not held the election, warned Lincoln, the enemy could have said that it defeated us. But the election was held, and we have demonstrated to the world that even under the worst circumstances, even in the middle of a war, there is no good reason to limit the right and freedoms of citizens.
What else can be said?
Inspired by this thought, days after the abhorrent terrorist strike against free men and all of humanity, we contacted our fellow members confirming that 57th annual assembly would be held. We said this is the best and firmest response to terrorism. We stressed that if the assembly were suspended it would be a new triumph for terrorism; it would be, we said, as if one more building was demolished after the fall of the Twin Towers. But the assembly has begun, it is being held and it doubtless marks forever one of the most worthy moments in the history of our organization.
And you have played a leading role in this magnificent moment in the history of the IAPA and its struggle for freedom.
Thank you for coming, thank you for being here and thank you for not taking one step backward.
We are here to say no to terrorism and yes to freedom. We are here to say that we know the enemy attacks everything that we defend and does it in the worst way: without showing his face, but as a betrayal, with no concern for innocent lives, with no limits.
But we know that our cause is just and that in the long run, and not so long, it will win and for this reason the attack that has occurred, and others that may occur, do not daunt us. We will not give in, nor will lose our calm or patience; we cannot. And most of all we will not be like them, with their methods and ideas.
Terrorism is the worst kind of blackmail, the dirtiest demonstration of this practice that tries to control men. Only firmness, calm, our peaceful consciences, faith in our behavior and our ideas, can defeat blackmail. It is necessary, however, to be strong and bear the first blows. The demands of the blackmailer, although low and dirty, seem unbearable; if we do not negotiate or give in they are weak and are dispelled quickly. The same thing happens with this criminal form of blackmail that is terrorism.
But just as we must be firm in facing intolerance, we must be equally firm in the defense of tolerance. The war must not make us forget other things. And we must not lose sight of them, even temporarily.
The terrorists, the fanatics, the fundamentalists and totalitarians are trying to do away with freedom and often they do it with their own defeat. They commit suicide, but not always in vain. Many of us here have experience this in the flesh.
Many times, sadly too many times, one kind of terrorist is followed by another. Guerrilla terrorism is followed by state terrorism; the Shining Path is followed by Montesinos.
We are here to watch out for that and fight it. No matter what idea or enthusiasm inflames us we will not dodge our own problems, our own faults. We will not stop pointing them out or denouncing them. As we have said since the beginning, the struggle for freedom is also the struggle against terrorism.
War concerns us all, but it concerns us journalists even more since in all its extremes it affects our work and the essence of our profession. Many years ago it was said - and proved - that in a war truth is the first casualty. And we are here to see that that is not so true.
In compliance with our responsibility, we have reviewed the problems of press freedom in our countries, we have denounced them and made the necessary complaints and protests. With respect to the situation in the host country, the United States, we have noted with alarm some judicial decisions that, in our view, violate press freedom and threaten the most sacred principles of this nation. The telephone records of a journalist have been seized. Vanessa Leggett, an independent writer and journalist, has been held for three months in a Houston detention center, as if she were just another criminal, because she refused to disclose her sources to a judge. Let us not forget them. Please do not let the war cause us to put aside this issue. It is no less important. It is part of the debate about press freedom that we are trapped in these days because of the requests and plans of the U.S. government concerning the work of the media and of journalists and with respect to their conduct in the current circumstances.
And we will not dodge this debate.
To contribute positively to this debate we should not take advantage of the circumstances to project on others our own failings and shortcomings, nor rend our garments. We must, on the other hand, set aside double standards once and for all. Finally, above all, I think we must separate the wheat from the chaff.
I don't like it when the U.S. government, or any other government, makes requests or veiled recommendations to media companies, their owners or journalists. But I cannot help but remark the difference with other governments, at least in our hemisphere that, in less extreme circumstances, decisively control or ban information. That's the way it is and we cannot deny it.
Those of us who have experienced censorship know that the first thing to get censored is the fact that there is any censorship. There is an important distinction here: The request was made public and discussed as soon as it was made. The government imposed no orders, nor did media executives hide the fact that the request had been made.
The first consideration here is the obligation of governments to report daily on their activities to the people who elected them. The government, for what it regards as very good reasons, believes there are some things that should be kept from citizens, at least for the time being. The citizens will decide at the appropriate time whether that is a good or bad thing. But it is good for citizens to be aware, that is, to know their government wants to keep certain things from them for specific reasons.
In the meantime, we journalists need to try to find out as much information as possible, including information that may be considered dangerous, because nothing will ever be more dangerous than a source willing to reveal information affecting the fate of the nation, which the government considers classified. If he or she reveals that information to a journalist, there is not doubt that the same information was passed to the enemy long ago.
Some will say that is open to debate, but such a debate is worthwhile. What I want to stress here is that the debate will be a sound one if no double standard is applied.
The same yardstick must be applied. Omissions have been made out of a sense of patriotism that has restrained some colleagues, and it can even be noted that they are the ones who take an activist stance on journalistic practice. But it must be said that many of those critical of such position look the other way on other issues and forms of conduct. For example, there has been little coverage of former French President Mitterand's involvement in Algeria; and there is constant coverage of disappearances in some Southern Cone countries, while hundreds of disappearances in Mexico go undocumented. Mexico is a place of refuge for a certain breed of intellectuals, where little is said about former presidents or corruption, and still less is done, while the former government officials of neighboring countries are relentlessly criticized. Nor can we ignore the language used by media outlets in certain developed European countries to talk about their terrorists, to whom they refer as gangs of criminals, while very nearly defending the actions of Latin American terrorists, funding them and even working with the major figureheads of such terrorism.
Without a doubt, U.S. journalism is faced with a dilemma, which it is debating. The greatest problem facing U.S. journalists is that their credibility is at stake, and that credibility will depend on how they conduct themselves. The pressures and concerns, and even the emotion and pain felt today, can be the enemies of credibility tomorrow.
We firmly believe that the only correct policy is to report all the facts and try to get at the truth. After all, truth is the best propaganda for the media, for citizens and for democracy and freedom.
We have seen U.S. journalists and media take a very strong stand on this issue, and we believe they know very well the right road to take.
But not everyone takes that view. We have seen and heard things from such quarters that worry us greatly, cast doubt on the credibility of some media outlets and their executives, and display a dangerous and reprehensible double standard.
In response to the government's request some have agreed to certain restrictions, stating that they are unwilling to serve as a conduit for terrorist messages. It is common knowledge, moreover, that the U.S. media have refrained from airing gruesome or bloody images in the wake of the tragedy. They may have considered it a good way to avoid stirring up more anger, pain or panic, or merely to avoid offending public sensibilities. That is a legitimate position that may be acceptable to many. What is unacceptable is that the same media outlets had no misgivings about showing images of the dead and wounded in the airliner accident a few days ago in Milan. Viewed from the same standpoint, it is also illegitimate to constantly show highly affecting, gruesome images of accidents and tragedies in developing or very poor countries, and images of starving people. I also wonder what those same editors or journalists would do if the governments of countries with guerrillas asked them not to report what the guerrillas were saying, because there could be coded messages to their followers, or told them to be careful what they report, not in order to avoid defending the guerrillas' actions, but simply to avoid disseminating their propaganda.
I think this is another thing to which we need to give some thought.
Speaking personally, I want to emphasize that the only policy is to tell the truth, all the time and in every case. It is the best and, indeed, the only way to combat terrorism without sacrificing freedom.