This essay is based on a very large number of articles, so it is laid out systematically and compared on a day-by-day basis, although it does refer to previous and future articles where necessary. The Guardian is the more liberal of the two British papers and MFD is the more liberal of the two Czech papers, for this reason a lot of the essay concentrates on these two papers, although obviously not exclusively.

Saturday 20^th October 2001

Mladá fronta DNES (MFD) has five articles relating to Afghanistan, while Guardian Unlimited has twenty-six. The first article " Deset dnů vězněm Talibanu" deals with Yvonne Ridley, who was delivered to the Pakistan border on 8^th October. This is old news and is not referred to in The Guardian. "Nejprve mě zavřeli na samotku. Cela byla špinavá, přestože ji udržovali v čistotě švábi a štíři," našla později i svůj dřívější nadhled. "Snažili se mě psychicky zdeptat tím, že stále a bez přestání, den co den, kladli tytéž otázky. For a reporter she does not seem terribly bright, considering she has supposedly had experience in war zones. However if she thinks Northern Ireland is a war zone then it is not very surprising that she finds Afghanistan a bit of a shock. "Proč máma nevolá?" ptala se devítiletá Daisy Ridleyová babičky. Ta vnučce vysvětlila, že si maminka určitě jen zapomněla mobil v hotelu. This is not relevant to the situation in Afghanistan. It may be entertaining, however one reads a newspaper to inform oneself and a novel to entertain oneself. "Ty ženy mají neskutečnou vnitřní sílu," napsala o nich později. Její zbraní v tu chvíli byla hladovka. Zahájila ji poté, co si nesměla zatelefonovat. " This is an ironic thing to do in a country where people are starving and an even stranger thing to report on in a newspaper. The article finishes off by summarizing day by day what happened to Yvonne Ridley: it both summarizes and repeats what has just been said. While it is standard practice on television news to give headlines, a report and then summarize at the end, this is repetition, not a summary. It is unnecessary and appears to be simply filling space.

The second article is "Unie hledá řešení pro Kábul". There is no article in The Guardian which directly refers to EU opinion on Afghanistan. However it does mention that several EU trade agreements with former "terrorist countries" were rushed through. "Musíme pracovat na vytvoření jiné, legitimní, stabilní a reprezentativní afghánské vlády, respektující lidská práva. Uděláme pro to vše," prohlásil belgický premiér Guy Verhofstadt. According to The Guardian the Americans have quite different views on how Afghanistan should be managed after the war. In "New brothers in arms -- and cash and intelligence" America promises Pakistan and Uzbekistan a say in the future Afghan government - presumably they will only be in a position to do this if the Americans themselves have an even bigger say in the future government.

The third article "Jsou mezi nimi i nadzvukové ženy" is emotional and entertaining but is not relevant to the war. "Myslím, že dívky jsou na tohle příliš citlivé," říká Jasmine. "Mumbles" (Huhňalka) je šestadvacetiletá pilotka letadla F-14 Tomcat. Říkají jí tak pro její jiný přízvuk, vyrůstala totiž v Anglii. This is the only article that refers to the Americká letadlová loď Carl Vinson and it just does not inform the reader what is going on. With irrelevant but entertaining "information" such as Jedna z lékařek si myslí, že mít ženy na palubě přináší specifické problémy, třebže otěhotní. Podle ní jediná cesta, jak se tomu vyhnout, je dodržovat striktní vojenské řády, podle nichž je na lodi zakázána jakákoli "nevhodná familiárnost", it is more like a women's magazine than a daily newspaper. " Domky z hlíny, v nichž žijí pohostinní lidé" is an interesting and informative article. The journalist has actually spoken to Afghan civilians and describes what he sees.

Afghánistán je země války. "Skoro nikdo si už nepamatuje, že by se tady někdy nebojovalo," říká učitel Abdul Rakib ve Fajzabádu, městečku sevřeném mezi vysokými horskými štíty, centru opoziční Severní aliance. "Lidé si už na válku ani příliš nestěžují. Připadá jim to normální, a to je hrozné."... Jsou to obrázky strašidelných vesnic rozbitých při bojích a na každém kroku stojí nuzné přístřešky uprchlíků, kteří nemají co jíst.

The Guardian does not quote from any conversations and leaves the picture of poverty to the reader's imagination. I think this article is on a people-to-people level but not an emotional level. Yvonne Ridley's daughter's birthday is not news but how the American attacks are affecting ordinary Afghan civilians is. The description Ženy zahalené od hlavy až k patě pospíchají s dětmi v náručích labyrinty uliček a zpod závojů jim vykukují pouze černé střevíce makes the reader wonder if Yvonne Ridley fitted in. I imagine most readers would come to the conclusion that she did not. The final article, "Afghánská formule 1?", is an opinion. The Guardian also has opinion articles such as "We will not be silenced" and "Out of the rubble".

Both newspapers use Reuters as a source. The Guardian seems to have more on-the-spot journalists then MFD. In "US Special Forces cross the border into Afghanistan" the Taliban's ambassador to Pakistan, Abdul Salam Zaeef is quoted as saying "Most importantly, our faith is very strong". He is not quoted as saying much else. It is a journalist's job to present what happens in the world in a neutral light to their readers. Afghanistan is in the middle of a war, and granted the Taliban see themselves as a religious group, but does emphasizing the Taliban's strength of faith put the Taliban in a neutral light or an extremist light? A quick look at modern history tells us that extremists are generally dangerous and not to be trusted. Hitler and Stalin were extremists and neither of them was particularly stable. Making a conscious effort to portray them as extremists is the opposite of putting them in a neutral light. However as the reader's editor, Ian Meyes, points out in "Leading lights", since 11^th September The Guardian has supported military action. And if a paper supports military action, it is a little difficult for it to be neutral about the "enemy". The other point to be made about this article is that the militia's foreign minister, Wakil Ahmed Muttawakil was reported to have been in Pakistan and then in the next paragraph this is reported to be absolutely false. If the authors of this article do not know whether or not something has happened then surely it is best not to mention it, as hearing disorganised reports suggests to the readers that it is in fact the Taliban who are disorganized rather than the journalists and this takes away from the supposedly neutral presentation of the news. The article then goes on to tell us about the units that make up the elite. We are told about the 75^th Ranger Regiment, a light infantry first recruited from American colonists in 1756 to fight the French in Canada, and the Green Berets who served in Vietnam, Bosnia and Somalia, and who have also recently been deployed in Colombia to train local forces fighting the drug cartels, etc. While this may be of some interest to some readers, other readers may find themselves asking if this is a space filler, information or entertainment. This is very similar to entertaining but irrelevant information in MFD. The article finishes up by giving us precise weapons information The unit also uses MH-47E Chinooks equipped with two 7.62 mm mini guns, that can each fire 4,000 to 6,000 rounds a minute MFD lacks any precise weapons information. In "Ground war begins" while there is no description of people and how they are coping, there is a description given from a military point of view which MFD doesn't give: Alongside the messages aimed at Taliban soldiers, US planes were yesterday broadcasting gentler messages to Afghan civilians. "Attention. People of Afghanistan, United States forces will be moving through your area... Please for your own safety stay off bridges and roadways and do not interfere with our troops," they said.

While the war is covered in more up-to-date and accurate detail in The Guardian, some of the articles, such as "Ground operations begin", do repeat themselves. This does not happen in MFD for the simple reason that there are only five articles on Afghanistan. The article "New brothers in arms -- and cash and intelligence" is brutally honest, packed full of information and yet highly entertaining. Unfortunately MFD does not mention anything about the content of this article either, on any day. One can only ask oneself why not, as they obviously have access to, read and even report on British newspapers, as is shown by the first article which is on Yvonne Ridley who works for The Sunday Express. While this article doesn't go so far as to mention the word "bribe", it discusses the deals struck in the last month with regimes whose democratic and human rights records had made them virtual international pariahs before September 11^th, such as Syria, Egypt, Oman, Pakistan, Russia, China, Uzbekistan, Turkey and Malaysia. It is really incredible that MFD have not mentioned any of this, as this article does not relate just to Afghanistan but to several important world news stories. For example Chechnya has been a constant source of awkward questions from foreign governments. The west now accepts that Russia is confronting "terrorism" with regard to bombings in Moscow. The Guardian also reports on a case of blackmail, Members of the US intelligence community have been briefing journalists including the New Yorker magazine about the contents of some of their unsavoury national security agency phone taps involving members of the Saudi royal family and prostitutes. The threat to the Saudi elite is clear: help us or else. The question is why has MFD not alluded to these bribes and threats? After reading all the MFD articles, I felt extremely sorry for ordinary Afghans and very annoyed with America for making their already miserable existence even worse. However the articles did not actually attack America for attacking Afghanistan. Maybe the journalists or editors at MFD thought it was going too far to pin bribery and blackmail on America. After all the general opinion in the Czech republic was to condemn the terrorist attacks on the world trade buildings and unfortunately, to even condemn anyone who did not condemn the attacks, which is a breech of freedom of speech in my opinion. Thankfully The Guardian has no problem with pinning the truth on America or even poking fun at their president as "By George! Don't beat about the Bush" proves. The following poem is a selection of genuine remarks made by Bush:

This is still a dangerous world
It's a world of madmen and uncertainty and potential mental losses
Rarely is the question asked Is our children learning?
Will the highways of the Internet become more few?
How many hands have I shaked?
They misunderestimate me
I am a pitbull on the pantleg of opportunity
I know that the human being and the fish can co-exist
Families is where our nation finds hope, where our wings take dream
Put food on your family!
Knock down the tollbooth!
Vulcanize society!
Make the pie higher! Make the pie higher!

The article "Border chaos after refugee surge" has exact figures and information which once again MFD does not mention: More than 13,000 Afghans have crossed into Chaman... having paid up to $50 (£34)... for the 15-hour hike. To finish up the 20^th on a positive note, Ian Meyes in "Leading lights" points out that The Guardian is providing a range of opinion that is not generally available and that has been gaining readers via the website in the US but also in the Arab and Muslim worlds and elsewhere.

Monday 22^nd October 2001

I was given the Czech articles as a computer document and so I can only assume that all articles relating to Afghanistan are in the file. There are four articles on Afghanistan in MFD and thirty-nine in Guardian Unlimited. Thirty-nine articles is too many. Many repeat what has already been said and very few people will have time to read everything there is to read on Afghanistan in their lunch break. Obviously people can skim over the articles rather than read everything but that means that some interesting articles will be overlooked. However MFD readers will be able to read everything there is on Afghanistan in their lunch break and will come away relatively well informed.

"Chceme být v Kábulu do zimy, říká Powell" is a short article which is summed up by the headline. "Celebrita bez odpovědnosti" is an opinion article of which there are numerous in The Guardian such as "This is our Vietnam", "Macbeth: the soldier's interpretation" and "Waging their own war".

"Až přijde den vítězství, prezident sestoupí z hor" is the only article od našeho zvláštního zpravodaje

for the 22^nd. It is an interesting report on a corner of relative "western normality" in Afghanistan; Dvacet dívek sedí v nažehlených šatech v posluchárně jedné ze dvou univerzit na opozičních územích, univerzity, která se snaží zachovat duch tolerance, jenž ze zbytku země již zmizel. It is worth noting that The Guardian does not mention it, however it does not specifically relate to 22^nd so conceivably The Guardian may have reported on it before 20^th. The tone is optimistic in a positive sense, "Taliban bude poražen," říká. (Burhánuddín Rabbání) "Afghánistán se musí vrátit ke svým tradicím" rather than being optimistic in a brutal or revengeful way as in "CIA given licence to kill" which has really brutal undertones; The president has given the agency the green light to do whatever is necessary. The final article "

Komanda začala pozemní válku" is the first instance of an event which was reported by both MFD and The Guardian. The Guardian gives a broad picture; Mr Zaeef claimed the Taliban had shot down two US helicopters over the weekend and then The Pentagon has denied any of its helicopters were shot down, though it said a Black Hawk helicopter crashed in an accident on Saturday in Pakistan, killing two US servicemen on board. While

Nejméně dva mrtví ve vrtulníku

is all MFD has to say on the matter, it could be argued that this is the most neutral way to state a fact which is reported on in different ways from different sources. MFD finishes off its article with an act carried out by Americans hungry for revenge, Američtí vojáci za sebou po akci v Afghánistánu nechali štiplavé vizitky. Na místě po nich zůstaly papíry velikosti klasického školního sešitu, na nichž byla slavná fotografie newyorských hasičů, jak na troskách Světového obchodního centra vztyčují americkou vlajku. Na papírech je ještě nápis "Svoboda přežije". The Guardian does not mention the final twist, maybe because it thought that it would put America in a negative light or because it thought that it was irrelevant or because it thought that it was an unreliable source or maybe because it did not know about it. MFD obviously has access to Western media sources and quotes them podle televize CNN. Tthe question is why it rarely refers to British media. One possibility is that it is under the impression that American media are far better informed than British media, for it is America that is attacking Afghanistan, not Britain. If this is the reason, then they obviously have not considered the possibility that British media may be more neutral in its reporting than America, as Britain is not as involved as America.

The article "West must help rebuild `failed states', says Straw" is not mentioned in MFD. This is to be expected. While Jack Straw is speaking on behalf of the West, he is a British MP speaking in Britain.

"Celebrita bez odpovědnosti" is a similar article in the sense that it is reporting on a political person with an opinion. However Mr Straw is going to Washington later this week to discuss the crisis-torn country's prospects with the US secretary of state, Colin Powell, while Bill Clinton is simply giving a speech and then going home. Articles such as "Blair poised to send in ground troops" and "Hoon warning over anti-war revolt" are similar to "West must help rebuild `failed states', says Straw", they are about British politics and of little interest to Czechs. And as the Czech Republic is not involved in the war, there is no equivalent to report on. In "US targets Taliban front line" The Guardian gives figures which MFD does not: The Taliban today accused the US of killing 1,000 Afghan civilians since the start of aerial bombing... 100 people were killed today in a hospital as a result of a US bombing raid near the western city of Herat. The article "Heroin oils Afghan war machine" casts a shadow of guilt over the whole of Western Europe. It is arguable that the Czech Republic is not part of Western Europe however all European countries have a drug scene and with very few exceptions heroin is illegal in Europe. Afghanistan is paid billions of dollars by Western Europeans for heroin and that money funds the Taliban. Once again the reason this does not appear in MFD, not just on 22^nd but at any stage, is debatable. MFD reports on an optimistic group of Afghans in "Až přijde den vítězství, prezident sestoupí z hor" and The Guardian reports on a wretched group in "Trapped by the barbed wire border". The tragedy of the Afghan people is summed up by Mohammed Usman who said, "The Americans are bombing us and the Pakistanis are robbing us". "US claims China and Russia as allies" is an observation on world politics: For Russia as for China, the terrorism crisis now offers the chance to lever relations with the US to a higher level. While this is related to Afghanistan, it is not about Afghanistan and it is possible that this was reported on in MFD within world politics but without mentioning the word Afghanistan, in which case it would not have been listed as being about Afghanistan. In "Bush's war is the only way" it is not made clear as to whether or not David Clark, the author of this article, is actually employed by The Guardian or not. Whatever the case, he has missed the point of the war. It is not simply to eliminate Bin Laden, but to eliminate at least a large part of the Taliban. The Taliban is a powerful group and if they were to lose Bin Laden and only Bin Laden, they would not simply give up and hand over power. When the leader of a powerful group disappears, the group may be disappointed, but they will find a new leader and get on with things, not collapse. Comments and opinions in MFD are based on real events and make interesting points, which have not already been made in other articles.

Tuesday 23^rd October 2001

The first article in MFD is "CIA zaspala Ládinův vzestup". It is comprised of background information and a brief history of Bin Laden and Al-Qaida. It also gives reasons as to why Bin Laden became popular Nechával budovat a vybavovat nemocnice a školy, a to mu přineslo nemalou popularitu and how influential his ideas became Ve svých táborech nechal vycvičit 15-20 tisíc radikálních muslimů z celého světa. Většina z nich se vrátila domů - mají posílit tamní skupiny a verbovat pro boj za islám další souvěrce. It finishes off with news that was reported on in "yesterday's" Guardian that "Prezident dal agentuře zelenou k jakýmkoli akcím, které budou zapotřebí. Operace, které končí smrtí, byly před 11. zářím nemyslitelné, teď jsou povolené." A delay of one day is not bad considering there was a twelve-day delay on Yvonne Ridley on 20^th. Background information is important as the average reader presumably did not know much about Afghanistan until 11^th September, even if they read the papers everyday - but it is important to know about it, in order to understand the situation. If there is limited space for articles on Afghanistan, it is easy to push background information to one side and print up-to-date news. The Guardian also recognizes the importance of background information and has reported on "America's pipe dream", "Russia in multi-million arms deal with Northern Alliance", etc. The second article, "Obnova země potrvá roky", is based on Jack Straw's speech in London. The Guardian reported on this "yesterday" and again "today". However while MFD brings two points to the reader's attention: Britský ministr zahraničí Jack Straw včera prohlásil, že poválečná obnova Afghánistánu potrvá od zbavení moci nynějšího vládního hnutí Taliban pět až deset let a vyžádá si ještě více prostředků než poválečná rekonstrukce Bosny and Afghánistán je pětkrát větší než Bosna," pravil šéf britské diplomacie s tím, že obnova Bosny po občanské válce stála pět miliard dolarů

. The Guardian does not mention either of these points. It does mention Bosnia, Mr Straw, who is to meet the US secretary of state, Colin Powell, tomorrow, listed... Bosnia... as models where intervention by the international community had made a difference but obviously not in the same context as MFD. The Guardian's main point is that He laid down four principles that will underpin decision-making on Afghanistan the first and most important being that the future of Afghanistan must rest first and foremost with its own people. He was also anxious to get across that repair work would need to be carried out as quickly as possible in the first 100 days on projects that would make an immediate impact, such as restoration of water supplies and rebuilding the country's limited power plants. Mr Straw gave his speech at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, no doubt it was quite a long speech and he mentioned a lot of things, so it is to be expected that different journalists, especially from different countries, pick up on different points. I do not think there is any significance in what MFD or The Guardian did or did not mention. The next article, "Běženci, kterým válka nikdy neskončí", is the only article od našeho zvláštního zpravodaje. The Guardian on the other hand has Rory McCarthy in Islamabad, James Meek in Bagram, northern Afghanistan, Rory Carroll in Quetta and Julian Borger in Washington. If a newspaper has several reporters in different places, it is more likely to have a balanced view or at least a broader picture. Of course it is an expensive business to send reporters abroad and some newspapers have to rely on other sources for financial reasons. This reporter has spoken to people at a refugee camp and summed up the general feeling Afghánští uprchlíci znají svého nepřítele - hlad a beznaděj. Je jim jedno, kdo válku vyhraje, protože oni to nikdy nebudou. It also refers to the food packets which the Americans dropped: Je zajímavé zkusit, co jedí Američané," říká se zájmem Abdul Manon... "Jen bychom potřebovali takových krabiček mnohem více," dodává. Do celého tábora mnoha set lidí se dostalo jen asi dvacet balíčků obsahujících jednodenní porci jídla. MFD reports in an active voice and The Guardian reports in a passive voice on American food packets. It is much easier for a reader to imagine 100 people and 20 packets of food rather than several million people and 500,000 packets. If figures are too big, people cannot comprehend them, skip over them and they become irrelevant and meaningless. Despite its passive voice and meaningless figures "Brutality smeared in peanut butter" is a brilliant article. It puts together countless facts, wonderful quotes and intelligent opinions to present an eloquent and convincing argument. When he announced the air strikes, President George Bush said: "We're a peaceful nation."... "This is our calling. This is the calling of the United States of America. The most free nation in the world. A nation built on fundamental values that reject hate, reject violence, reject murderers and rejects evil"... Here is a list of the countries that America has been at war with -- and bombed -- since the second world war: China (1945-46, 1950-53), Korea (1950-53), Guatemala (1954, 1967-69)...Cambodia (1969-70)...Grenada (1983)... Bosnia (1995), etc. Then for the first time, since the 20^th, it almost but not quite justifies, but almost certainly neutralises the Taliban: Young boys -- many of them orphans -- who grew up in those times, had guns for toys, never knew the security and comfort of family life, never experienced the company of women. Now as adults and rulers, the Taliban beat, stone, rape and brutalise women, they don't seem to know what else to do with them. While MFD sympathises or at least reports on the plight of Afghan refugees, it never goes as far as to give an explanation for the Taliban's way of life. The journalist also gives his own opinions: For every "terrorist" or his "supporter" that is killed, hundreds of innocent people are being killed too. And for every hundred innocent people killed, there is a good chance that several future terrorists will be created. There are very few "journalist's comments and opinions" articles in MFD and no opinions in "today's" MFD at all. The opinion articles in MFD tend to be short and not the sort that make readers stop and think. "O Afghánistán si útočníci takřka vždy vylámali zuby" is more background, but this time it goes back too far to be of much interest to the average reader, 329 př. Kr. The final article, "Byl zabit syn šéfa Talibanu" is old news from weeks ago, not days ago.

There were forty-four articles which related to Afghanistan in Guardian Unlimited and five in MFD. "Hoon: 'strikes have destroyed al-Qaida camps'" reports that all of al-Qaida's terrorist training camps have been flattened by bombs. There is no reference to this in MFD. Once again there are numerous articles on British politicians and their attitudes to the war, e.g. "Labour rebels step up campaign", "Inside the awkward squad", etc. The letters page is particularly interesting. I can only assume that MFD has a letters page as most newspapers have one, but that they were not categorised as articles and therefore did not come up in a search on Afghanistan. There are eleven letters and only one of them is pro-war, which presumably reflects the ratio of pro and anti-war letters that The Guardian receives, and possibly though not necessarily the readers' opinions. Putting the ifs and buts to one side, the readers are against the war. "Media workers picket BBC" points out that some employees in the BBC are doing all they can to resist government attempts at censorship. Does this suggest that British public opinion is becoming more anti-war? And if so why is The Guardian not reporting on it? There is a distinct lack of ordinary people's views on the war in both The Guardian and MFD. Reporters interview ordinary Afghans on their opinions on the war, but nobody has interviewed people on the street or cited figures from opinion polls to indicate what the ordinary American, British or even Czech person thinks. If the average Guardian reader regards the war as wrong, then they will find the "Designers launch `shop for America' campaign" completely lacking in tact, taste and sympathy. While Afghans are being starved and bombed to death, the designers have created a t-shirt, which will retail for £15.60. The proceeds of sales of the shirts will go to the September 11 relief fund. The last article of any relevance, "Pakistan leader calls for end to bombing by Ramadan", quotes General Pervez Musharraf who said, one would hope for restraint during the month of Ramadan because this would certainly have some negative effects in the Muslim world. This is potentially quite an important point to make, however there is no reference to it in MFD.

Wednesday 24^th October 2001

There are six articles in MFD and twelve in The Independent relating to Afghanistan. The content of the first article in MFD, "Izraelci odmítli výzvu USA, aby stáhli tanky", is also in The Independent, but the style of reporting is very different. MFD is neutral, Mezi USA a Izraelem vypukl rozkol ohledně izraelského vojenského postupu proti Palestincům and gives both the American view and the Israeli view, Izraelci však argumentují tím, že musí chránit svoji bezpečnost. "U nás se bojuje několik kilometrů od našich měst," řekl člen kabinetu Danny Naveh. "Sharon defiant as Bush urges West Bank withdrawal" is very much in favour of America. It refers to Bush's requestand then claims the move threatened to plunge Israel's relations with the United States to their lowest point for years and continues to paint a picture of America as being helpful, kind and tactful with intense diplomatic efforts were under way on Tuesday night to persuade Mr Sharon to abide by a US call... MFD is a joy to read compared to the long list of carefully chosen but misleading words in The Independent. The second article is "I novináři svádějí své bitvy" and is od našeho zvláštního zpravodaje. It is an unusual but interesting viewpoint to take. It is about how the foreign journalists are getting on with each other in the wilds of Afghanistan. If the rich, well-equipped, well-supplied westerners are finding it tough, and they are - "Už jsem toho viděl hodně, ale nic takové jsem dosud nezažil," shrnuje názor mnohých západní fotograf -- then readers can imagine how penniless, starving and homeless refugees are coping, or not as the case may be. There is nothing even remotely similar to this in The Independent as all articles in The Independent are blatantly pro-war. The next article "Amerika už žije i zábavou a byznysem" is fairly down to earth, it mentions businessmen who are back to business and postal workers who hope for the best and get on with life "Co můžu dělat? Jak ale vidíte, nosím teď rukavice." The Independent however takes it upon itself to emphasize to the British public what poor Americans have to deal with, Authorities confirmed that two postal workers had died from anthrax in "Pentagon admits US jets bombed old people's home in Afghan city". The next article "USA hrají s opozici, ale příliš jí nedůvěřují" is interesting reading unlike "Opposition advances on vital northern gateway", which was written by Patrick Cockburn, a journalist who is about a century behind and under the impression that Britain is one of the greatest powers on earth. Believe it or not the same newspaper claims it takes three weeks for a second-class letter to get from A to B within Britain, I wonder if Cockburn would still be convinced that Britain is one of the greatest powers on earth if he read the rest of the newspaper he works for. It is interesting to note that MFD refers to the American campaign against terrorism and so far has hardly mentioned British involvement and The Independent refers to the American and British campaign. MFD points out, as The Guardian already has, that "Co se týče válečných zločinů, není na tom Severní aliance o mnoho lépe než Taliban," varovala Human Rights Watch. There is not even a hint of this in The Independent, it is too busy being pro-American and anti-Taliban. It describes in detail how a Taliban rocket kills two Afghan civilians. Presumably the rocket was an accident, but the point I am making is that American bombs are brutal and kill people and yet they are discretely ignored or referred to as successes and hitting the target. The contrast between MFD and The Independent could not be any greater, Cockburn sees and describes Afghanistan's poverty as an inconvenience; Simply concentrating Northern Alliance military forces is a nightmare. The bone-jarring quality of Afghanistan's dirt roads has to be seen and felt to be believed. That makes moving soldiers very difficult. Compare this to "Už jsem toho viděl hodně, ale nic takové jsem dosud nezažil," shrnuje názor mnohých západní fotograf from the previous MFD article. Moving on to "Všechny tábory Ládina zničeny", this is similar to "Air raids destroy all nine al-Qa'ida training camps". It is not surprising that they are similar as Geoff Hoon was the source of information for both articles. Guardian Unlimited, not The Guardian reported on this yesterday. The final article in MFD is "Skutečná strategie teroru" and is an opinion article. Autor je výkonný ředitel Centra pro ekonomiku a politik and makes the intelligent point that Čím déle válka potrvá, tím více bude nevinných muslimských obětí a humanitárních katastrof, které jakoby překryjí tragédii na Manhattanu. The Independent also has an opinion article, "Anne McElvoy: Why demand the endgame when the war's barely begun?" She is obviously not a výkonný ředitel Centra pro ekonomiku a politik. There were opinions from Guardian readers that had more (convincing) arguments than she had and they are not paid to send in opinions.

In another example of how clearly The Independent is pro-America and not pro-independent journalism, in "Pentagon admits US jets bombed old people's home in Afghan city" Rupert Cornwell writes, The Pentagon has acknowledged that American jets had probably bombed an old people's home on the outskirts of the city of Herat, in the most serious instance so far in the Afghanistan campaign of the "collateral damage" that caused such controversy in the Gulf and Kosovo. Collateral damage is jargon and is twisting words so that people either do not understand what is meant, or know what is meant but the meaning does not sink in as the words killing of innocent civilians are not actually used. The final article, "For Queen and Country" is propaganda. Despite the fact that for the past month, recruiting-offices all over the US have been inundated with young people -- and some not so young -- offering to sign up, recruiting offices in Britain have not noticed any increase in applicants since 11^th September, The Independent is out to change that. It's more emotional than a Mills & Boon, They all chose a Bible and, clutching it in their right hand, they nervously repeated the oath of allegiance. They looked so young. However in case the emotions fail to entice young men to join the army, the "Be the best" line is alsofollowed and we are informed that Recruitment is a filtering process. Between 5 and 10 per cent drop out because they have taken drugs in the past... Criminal records knock out a similar percentage. So do personal difficulties, "like debt, or having a girlfriend who's pregnant". All in all we are left with the impression that the army is a truly wonderful collection of men. I am not knocking the army, I am knocking the style of this article. It finishes off on a note designed to bring tears to one's eyes, "Somebody's got to go out and do it," his father says. "He knows that one day he may be called to put his life on the line. And I'm proud that he's decided to do it."

Thursday 25^th October 2001

There are four articles relating to Afghanistan in Lidové noviny and sixteen under the heading "Campaign against terrorism" in The Independent. The first article "Bin Ládin vrátil Západu společnou identitu" is basically an opinion article taken from the American magazine, Global Viewpoint. There are no opinion articles in "today's" Independent. The second and fourth articles "Není války bez umírání " and "Lépe hlídat, lépe informovat" are also opinion articles. This would not be a problem if there were lots of informative articles as well as opinion articles however three opinion articles out of four articles does not leave much room for information. And unfortunately the remaining article "Dvě třetiny Němců jsou pro zastavení útoků na Afghánistán" is not particularly informative of the situation in Afghanistan, it is very short and summed up by the headline. MFD also reports on German opinion in "Němci chtějí zastavit útoky", however the Independent does not mention it. This is not surprising as The Independent is pro-war and unlikely to report on anti-war feelings in Germany. LN appears to be, like The Independent, pro-war. This is made particularly clear in "Není války bez umírání", where the author is in favour of whatever America does and against the Taliban. Velvyslanec Zaíf si ani den neodpustí zrekapitulovat "terorismus", který páchají USA v Afghánistánu, oznámí počty mrtvých nevinných Afghánců, jako by četl naposledy tažená čísla v loterii, a přihodí pár frází o chemické válce a hrdinském vyhánění amerických helikoptér a letounů z afghánského vzdušného prostoru and then Prezident Bush má pravdu. Incredible as it seems, the author is so pro-war that he thinks up to date news should not be demanded and printed by the press as it might hinder the American war effort, po celou dobu však zpravodajství vévodí pouze informace zveřejněné Talibanem. Personally I think this is the wrong attitude to have as a journalist. He then goes on to point out that Spojené státy nejsou v tomto případě agresorem, ale napadeným, this would probably go down rather well in The Independent but not in The Guardian. The article "Lépe hlídat, lépe informovat" is on the front page and accuses the Czech media of a crime, the author then commits it himself. This journalist thinks that the American media are cool, calm and collected and that the Czech media stir people up without actually informing them, Sledoval jsem náhodou minutu po minutě vysílání CNN dne 11. září odpoledne. Američtí reportéři líčili a ukazovali realisticky zkázu. Neslyšel jsem však slova "panika" a "chaos". Ta jsem uslyšel až z úst českých reportérů. Later on in the article he accuses his country in general of being unprepared for an anthrax attack. What he has neglected to point out is that America was the only country to be attacked and so far there is no reason to believe that Czechs should expect any anthrax in the post. I do not agree with him on the American media but I think he has summed up his own newspaper. However I do not think all Czech media can be tarred with the same brush and MFD seems to be more informative and more open than LN.

It is almost superfluous to point out that none of the information in The Independent is reported on in LN. One of the two articles on the front page "UN in warning over US cluster bombs" is similar to an article in MFD "Proč chybují i chytré pumy?" The other article "Families blown apart, infants dying. The terrible images of this `just war'" is eye-catching, but despite the title it is very pro-American and anti-Taliban. In fact they even manage to twist what little good the Taliban do and make it sound negative. I do not know if MFD and LN have reported on the New York victims, there were certainly no articles on them that came up in the search, but it is interesting to compare how an American and an Afghan widow are treated and reported on. We can only imagine what Ms Gul's future will be like, with two children, no husband, no home, lots of burns and injuries and no future to look forward to. But we are told exactly what an American widow with children and a late husband who worked for Cantor can expect; free healthcare for the next ten years, free university education for her children, $100,000 over the next five years and $130,000 immediately. This is reported on in "Cantor Fitzgerald pledges its profits to bereaved" in the "victims" section. There are four articles specifically about anthrax in The Independent and only one that mentions it in LN. The article "Iraqi agent with terror link was expelled by Czechs" is not mentioned in LN or MFD. This is rather strange as the Czech counterintelligence agency said in a report yesterday... so it is obviously up-to-date news. The article "War is targeting Islam, says UK Muslim leader" is in the "dissent" section in The Independent. The content has already been discussed in The Guardian, however it is classed as "comment" or "opinion" there. There is no mention of a dissent section in MFD either and they also have comment and opinion sections.

Friday 26^th October 2001

MFD has eight articles on Afghanistan, this is the biggest number of articles in both MFD and LN for the whole week; however it is still smaller than either The Guardian or The Independent during the same time period. The Guardian has twenty-five articles on Afghanistan. The first article "

Miliony bídných čekají" is about how Afghan civilians are coping with everyday life. It is very similar to the article by the same author from 23^rd. The second article "Malé horské království" is very similar to the article by the same author from 22^nd, it refers to the same person, Burhánuddín Rabbání, and describes the same situation; however The Guardian has still not reported on it. The next article "Na frontě dlouhé války" is based on talks with ordinary Northern Alliance soldiers and because they are ordinary soldiers they have no facts or figures to hand. The Guardian however quotes General Abdul Basir, one of the most senior alliance commanders in "Northern Alliance losing faith in military support". He is better able to give an informed overview of what is actually happening and this gives the article a professional feel that MFD lacks. Despite its inadequacies it brings across the same sentiment as The Guardian article, Den za dnem, rok za rokem se na frontách Afghánistánu odehrávají podobné scény. Nikdo už si ani neumí představit, že by to mohlo být jinak. The next article "Co se stane v budoucnu" is similar to the previous article and like the previous article it has no facts or figures. The next article "Země války, jež potrvá dlouho" is similar to the first article, Je to také země války, která již trvá tak dlouho, že se stala nedílnou součástí života. It is very good that they have first hand experience and have actually spoken to people as it makes the reader feel properly informed, not just told something that has been passed from agency to agency and might be true, but it is also good to have facts and figures which this article does not: Deset dní jsme putovali po opozičních územích, od frontových linií na soutoku velkých řek až po sídlo prezidenta hluboko v horách. Mluvili jsme s vojáky, uprchlíky v obrovských ponurých táborech i s obyčejnými lidmi, kteří s nezdolným afghánským optimismem v horách i nížinách doufají, že lepší život je přece jen na dosah. However it could be argued that facts and figures are hard to come by in a war situation and even when they are available they are not necessarily correct. The next article "Zástupce šéfa OSN: V Afghánistánu budeme muset začít od začátku, v každém údolí zvlášť" is also reported on in The Guardian in "The United Nations faces an Afghan nightmare" although the conclusions drawn are not exactly the same, they are close enough. There are lots of questions in this article and while some of them are answered, not all of them are. There are also questions in MFD in general and these are great. If a journalist is censored and where there is war there is censorship, then a question is a great way of not agreeing or indirectly disagreeing. "A fog of uncertainty" contains one question after the next and while it contains relatively little information, the reader is almost guaranteed to sit up and think that's a good point, why haven't I the right to know the answer? An example of censorship is that at the beginning of the war The [London] Times was fairly neutral towards America, a few months later the Editor was replaced and since then The Times has become very pro-American. The article also mentions American food packets.While this is not the first time they have been mentioned, it is the first time that readers become aware of how completely inadequate they are, pokrývá to ovšem skutečné potřeby obyvatelstva asi tak z jedné satiny. On 23^rd The Guardian reported exactly how many packets had been dropped and how many packets were needed - huge figures can be meaningless and MFD has summed it up very neatly. The next article "Z Afghánistánu se valí vlna uprchlíků" was reported on in The Guardian on 22^nd, however the topic of refugees is  an ongoing news item and can be reported on at anytime. It is interesting to note that MFD tells us Pákistán tvrdí, že za celou dobu mnohaletého afghánského konfliktu přijal již přes tři miliony uprchlíků a další běžence přes hranice nemůže propustit while The Guardian claims Pakistan is already home to 2m Afghan refugees, spillage from previous wars. It is impossible to say what the real figure is and figures may even vary from different sources. The last article "Jejich osud? Jen prchat" was reported on in "yesterday's" Independent, but once again it an ongoing news item and can be reported on at any time. There is no mention of "The film Bush wants to see" in MFD at any point during the week, but the idea that despite the fact that Afghan women have no rights, that they can be educated and hoping and waiting for the situation to change, or educated and fleeing the country, is touched upon in this article, though obviously there is more detail in The Guardian.

As usual there are opinion articles in The Guardian, such as "Building will follow the bombing". There are no opinion articles in "today's" MFD, however there is an unusually large number of informative articles. There have been numerous articles in The Guardian and The Independent such as, "Britain to send in forces as allies admit problems", about whether or not British troops will be deployed in Afghanistan. There is no mention of British troops in MFD at all but the fact the daily Pentagon briefings have consisted less and less of smug and illustrated accounts of precision bombing and more and more of explaining accidents, doubts and uncertainties was not mentioned in "today's" paper but in "yesterday's" in "Při náletech se vrší omyly", which is an excellent and very detailed account of America's "mistakes". There are several articles on Islam in Britain such as, "British followers back Afghan people but condemn violence". The British population has a much higher percentage of Muslims than the Czech population, so it is to be expected that British papers write about British Muslims but Czech papers do not write about Czech Muslims. Another example of outrageous censorship and punishment is demonstrated in "Fighter punished for US comments" where an Australian sportsman had his right to compete on a professional level withdrawn because he said in a television interview that Australians should keep out of the US-led campaign in Afghanistan. MFD does not make any reference to censorship, however if MFD editors are not as liberal as Guardian editors then this is not surprising. The Guardian has a very interesting letters page where Pamela Davey writes, I should like to suggest that the next post-war government in Afghanistan be composed entirely of women. 100% of the articles in "today's" MFD were written by men and 81% of the Guardian's articles were written by men, while this trend is very similar in both countries, it is not a good trend to have. Maybe if there were more women writing articles, this might already have been suggested. While this suggestion initially sounds pretty ridiculous, there is no reason why 50% of the government should not be comprised of women. Please note I wrote should not can. While there might be a lack of experience, there are women in Afghanistan who studied economics, politics, medicine, etc. as we know from "today's" MFD and Guardian. This optimistic note finishes off "today's" comparison.

Conclusion

I thought this essay was an eye-opener. I was surprised to learn there was such a difference between British papers as well as between British and Czech papers. I found the Guardian very informative, and The Independent rather limited with the occasional article that could even be described as propaganda. MFD and LN are just not of the same standard. However when the two are compared, MFD is the more liberal of the two. I think like should be compared with like and in some ways this was an unfair comparison. Britain was involved in the "campaign" and the Czech Republic was not. It would have been much better to compare the Czech media to the Irish media as Ireland is neutral and much closer to the Czech Republic in terms of population size, number of readers and possibly even financial budget, especially compared to the British media. The British had a right to be well informed as they stood to lose British soldiers and they were well informed compared to the Czechs. Of course Czechs have a right to be well informed of world events as well, and I don't think that they were badly informed. There wasn't the sheer volume of information available to the British public but the articles in the British papers were often repetitive and I think MFD had quite a lot of the information on Afghanistan in a condensed form. Background information about what America had to gain was missing and that is annoying for the Czech public, but as people in the Czech Republic were obliged to show sympathy to America, there was probably censorship involved. As I said earlier where there is war, there is always censorship. Two hours before the first crash in New York an Israeli company who were based in the world trade centre were told to evacuate as there was going to be an attack. They left the building and were not affected. This was reported in the Israeli papers on 15^th October and then suddenly it was hushed up. This is only one of several instances which at the time were hushed up or where censorship was applied and these facts are only coming to light well after the event. Censorship is not necessarily a good thing but it is something that lots of people and lots of countries are subjected to. The Czech media like the British and the American media were subjected to censorship. If the two greatest powers on earth were subjected to it then it is hardly a crime that was only applied to the Czech Republic. Given a choice of the four papers, I think I would choose The Guardian as my daily paper.

---

FOOTNOTES:
[1] Guardian media group plc is a UK media business with interests in national, regional and local newspapers, magazines, the Internet and radio. It is wholly owned by the Scott Trust.

[2] Independent Newspapers is a division of Independent News and Media UK., part of a successful global media and communications group with a turnover of