|
Daily Life in Post-Taliban Afghanistan
By Andres Ortiz
Introduction
On November 12th, Northern Alliance forces entered the
Afghan capital of Kabul. While some news reports focused
on the success of the military campaign, and others
focused on the political challenges they face in building
a new government from the ground up, there were those
that reported on regular Afghan citizens shaving there
beards, shedding their burkas and playing music for
the first time in years. These stories, focusing on
daily life in Afghanistan, post-Taliban, were what I
followed for this web log.
11.13.01
Newsday & MSNBC.com
Newsday featured a special pull-out section today
with the headline "Taliban Flees Kabul" and
a photograph of jubilant Northern Alliance soldiers.
Inside, amid descriptions of the Alliance's triumphant
march into the city, were questions of their ability,
or desire, to maintain order. "The lightning advances
by the Northern Alliance … threaten to leave a
power vacuum in the capital, and renew the kind of street
fighting that plagued Kabul for years until the Taliban
captured it in 1996." This is in striking contrast
to the MSNBC.com report, "Scenes of Jubilation,
Vengeance", which opened "Tuesday was a day
for jubilation in the Afghan capital, where men exultantly
shaved off their beards for the first time in years
and danced in the streets." There is violence reported,
but it's between the Northern Alliance and "foreign
Muslim fighters" associated with the Taliban, not
the various factions of the Northern Alliance against
one another as feared by the Newsday reporter. Also
significant is the photograph in the MSNBC story, which
shows everyday Kabul citizens in celebration, not Northern
Alliance soldiers. Closer to the Newsday article in
tone, however, is a second MSNBC.com report entitled,
"Kabul Topples with Barely a Push". While
mentioning the joy of Kabul citizens, it also makes
reference to the Northern Alliance's fractured and violent
history. What makes it stand out from the Newsday story,
however, is the inclusion of a (minimally) interactive
sidebar called "Afghanistan's Fractured Opposition"
which neatly summarizes who the Northern Alliance are
and what challenges, internal and external, they face.
Overall, however, MSNBC.com's coverage is much more
optimistic than Newsday's.
11.14.01
The New York Times & Slate.com
"Despite Flowers and Festivities, Alliance Finds
an Uneasy Capital" is the headline on the front
page of the New York Times today. As reflected in the
headline, the article tries to contrast the joy immediately
following the Alliance's entrance into Kabul with the
violence and "potential for chaos" that lingered
a day later. In Slate.com, the author of "The Fall
of Kabul", a news analysis piece, chose to downplay
the negative aspects of the same story. She concedes
that it will be "a few days" before we know
the true nature of the Northern Alliance, and whether
they really have the situation in Kabul under control,
but concludes that "the evidence of the first 24
hours is encouraging." She also writes "It's
clear that the Northern Alliance really did wait, as
it had promised, before entering the city," which
is especially interesting because the New York Times
characterized their entrance as "defying American
requests" to stay out. The Times did quote an Alliance
leader who claimed the entry was necessary to maintain
order, but put this quote in the 12th paragraph, on
page B2, whereas the accusation of defiance came in
the second paragraph, on page A1. While both articles
mention the positive and negative aspects of the Northern
Alliance's presence in Kabul, there is a clear sense,
once again, that the online article is more optimistic.
The Slate article also features a message board, which
is a welcome bit of interactivity for a story where
the ending remains unclear.
11.15.01
The New York Times & CNN.com
If a picture is worth a thousand words, then the coverage
in today's New York Times was the best yet. The front
page featured photos of women gathered in public and
showing their faces, smiling brilliantly for the camera.
Another picture showed men buying postcards featuring
photos of their favorite movie stars. Finally, an electronics
store seemed to be doing brisk business selling VCRs.
It seems that the Northern Alliance is in firm control
of Kabul, successfully averting the chaos and infighting
warned of in the past few days of reporting. The articles
today focused more on the political than the social
climate, but the details given as asides are telling:
a man who ran a radio station for the Northern Alliance
took control of the local station in Kabul, "hiring
three women as news readers and airing music,"
unthinkable under the Taliban. CNN.com featured a transcript
of a Christiane Amanpour piece, probably from a television
report, though I don't know why they wouldn't just put
the video online if that is the case. With the only
photo being a head shot of Amanpour, the internet was
outdone by the papers today in terms of multimedia.
Interestingly, though both are reporting on the sense
of calm and happiness in the city, CNN.com devoted an
entire article to it while it could only be gleaned
from asides and photos in the New York Times. The bit
about the radio station, for example, comes from a piece
headlined "Northern Alliance Tries to Ease Fears
of Captives," while the CNN piece was called "Sense
of Freedom as Kabul Looks to Future". So, for the
third day in a row, the online media are focusing on
the successes of the Northern Alliance while the papers
focus on the challenges still facing them. Perhaps it's
because newspapers, with their limited space, are focusing
more on hard news, while online publications, unconstrained
by time or space concerns, can run as much news as they
want. People who don't like following the news often
say it's too negative. At the same time, news sources
that don't dwell enough on the negative are derided
as "fluff." Perhaps the internet has finally
made it possible to present news in a way that pleases
almost everybody.
11.16.01
The New York Times & BBC News Online
Day 4. I'll let the headlines speak for themselves:
"Warlords Are Vying to Fill Vacuum Left by the
Taliban" and "Seven Amazing Days in Afghanistan".
Guess which is from print and which is from online.
I really didn't expect to uncover any patterns in the
coverage, but after just a few days it's undeniably
clear, at least as far as this story goes, that online
news outlets are more likely to run soft news than their
print counterparts. I still think space concerns have
a lot to do with it. If you have to choose what's going
to be published and what isn't, then a retrospective
of the past week - of events that have already been
reported on - is going in the garbage.
Another great feature on the BBC web site today was
"In pictures: Scenes from inside Afghanistan".
Surprisingly, these are not more pictures of smiling
women and beardless men, but of beggars, refugees and
prisoners. The "Seven Amazing Days" piece
is celebratory and fairly optimistic, so it's good to
see that tempered with some reality. I should also add
that the BBC has really taken advantage of the organizational
potential of the web with a "war on terror"
section providing links to breaking news, analysis,
and guides on just about every aspect of the war you
can think of.
11.17.01
The New York Times & CNN.com
More concerns today of the Northern Alliance's ability
to maintain order, this time in the city of Herat. "The
Warlord, in Charge Again, Thanks the West but Wants
It Gone", is the story of Ismail Khan, a former
warlord turned Northern Alliance commander, back in
charge again. He insists he has the situation under
control in Herat, but the intrepid Times reporter finds
discontent. Will the city's Shiite Muslim minority trust
the Sunni leader? (Answer: maybe). Is the influx of
heavily armed soldiers making locals nervous? (Answer:
yes). But then there are the obligatory mentions of
kite flying, music playing, beard shaving and burka
shedding, so this uneasy peace seems, for now, preferable
to the violently enforced peace of the Taliban. Meanwhile,
a video on CNN.com entitled "Popular resentment
against the Taliban" barely echoes the concerns
of the Times piece with just one line: "too many
men and too many guns are causing concern here."
But while the Times focuses on Khan's desire for Western
military forces to stay out of his territory, as reflected
in the headline, no mention of that was made in the
CNN video. Instead, we hear Khan's pleas for humanitarian
aid. So, for the fifth straight day, online coverage
of life in Afghanistan is more positive than newspaper
coverage. This time it's not even a matter of hard vs.
soft news, as both pieces are covering the situation
in Herat. It's starting to seem as though the online
sources are trying to present the Northern Alliance
as valuable allies while the print sources are trying
to present them as unstable and untrustworthy.
11.18.01
The New York Times & ABCnews.com
ABCnews.com ran a piece today entitled "Afghan
Women: Free at Last?" It's just a normal op-ed
piece, nothing online-specific about it, but it gives
a good overview of just how big a step backwards the
Taliban regime represented for women's rights: Afghan
women won the right to vote in the 1920's, were guaranteed
equality by the Afghan Constitution in the 1960's, and
held more than 15% of seats in the nation's highest
legislative body in 1977.
The one problem I have with the story is her characterization
of the burqa as "despicable." As I understand
it, the burqa (or burka, the spelling varies from one
publication to another) is a traditional Muslim garment.
All the Taliban did was make it illegal for women not
to wear it. The men hated their long beards, which was
evident by the mass shavings following the Taliban's
retreat, but I have yet to hear of burka bonfires. In
fact, from the reports I've seen, many women still wear
the burka, simply lifting the veil as they see fit.
Meanwhile we're finally treated to some soft news in
the NY Times: "In Kabul, DVD's and TV's Fill the
Shopping Bags; Burkas Sit on the Shelves". The
reference to burkas in the headline doesn't imply that
women aren't wearing them, as every woman in the story
is, just that they aren't selling as well as "cosmetics
and high-heeled shoes." It isn't clear, however,
whether the women are wearing their burkas out of religious
piety or lingering fears. And of course, it wouldn't
be a NY Times article without mentioning the "fears
of a repeat of the ethnic-based civil war that engulfed
the country when the Northern Alliance last tried to
govern in 1992."
11.19.01
The New York Times & MSNBC.com
I have to say this: I hate the way MSNBC.com sets
up their articles. The first paragraph is in a font
so huge it's impossible to take seriously, and then
there's a giant block of
advertising you have to scroll through to get to the
second paragraph. They also put
sidebars right in the middle of a story, rather than
on the side. This is fine if it's something you've never
seen before, but they run the "Taliban Taboos"
sidebar (detailing what was banned under the Taliban
regime) with every single story that mentions the Taliban,
turning it into just another obstacle to read around.
A 1998 photojournalism piece on "the suffering
of Afghani women under the Taliban" is a much more
powerful piece, yet it's much more discreetly linked.
The story today, incidentally, was "Movies, TV,
Return to Afghanistan". What a great time to live
in Kabul! Quote of the Day goes to the TV station's
director, Shamsuddin Hamad: "The Taliban left on
Tuesday, and we came to work the same day." Five
years of oppression and his first thoughts as a free
man are of TV!
The New York Times ran another soft news story today.
I guess developments in the war are slowing down. This
one was about a woman who secretly ran a school for
girls in Herat, and how she will now be able to teach
openly as she returns to work at the local school. Side
note: one ironic thing about all of the Times coverage
is that it's contained in a special section called "A
Nation Challenged." I'm pretty sure when they thought
of that title, the nation they had in mind was the United
States, challenged by terrorists. Today it seems like
Afghanistan is the one facing all of the challenges.
11.20.01
Newsday & Slashdot.org
Very interesting. Yesterday's MSNBC.com report on
the first movie to play in Kabul in five years made
it sound like a Star Wars movie opening in the U.S.
-- disorganized but lighthearted with lines forming
hours in advance and enthusiastic crowds packing the
theater. Today's report in Newsday ("Frenzied Filmgoers
In Kabul") makes it seem more like a riot nearly
took place. The photos seem to support Newsday's take
on it, with military police (but then, what other police
are there in Kabul?) there to "push filmgoers back
and break up scuffles." Also, compare these two
lines: MSNBC.com: "Monday's audience was exclusively
male simply because the scene at the front gate was
so chaotic." Newsday: "Despite Kabul's new
status, women were not allowed to attend." Newsday
makes it sound like women are still being oppressed.
It's amazing how the same story can seem so different
from one publication to the next, but unfortunately
impossible to say right now which one is more accurate.
Meanwhile, on Slashdot, Jon Katz is reporting that at
least one man in Kabul has internet access ... and he's
using it to e-mail Jon Katz! My first thought, echoed
by many on the message board, was that Katz had been
hoaxed, but he also claims that this individual, named
Junis, had emailed him before, years ago, before the
Taliban came to power. So what are actual Afghanis thinking
in this era of momentous change and revolution?! "Junis
predicts 'Temptation Island' will be the number one
show in Afghanistan within a month." But wait,
there's more! "He's already made his way to some
sex sites, and wishes he had a printer." Ah, the
indomitable human spirit. Most people on the message
board still think it's a hoax, though others have done
an excellent job of explaining how it's technologically
feasible.
11.21.01
The Daily News & BBC News Online
"Scores of women shed their burqas and marched
through the ruined streets of Kabul yesterday, demanding
... the right to work and a voice in the government,
and called for girls to be admitted to schools. They
then covered up again and hurried home," (from
the Daily News article, "Afghan women feel free
to protest"). Judging from this article, women
in Afghanistan aren't taking the Northern Alliance's
word for it that the new government will grant women
equal rights. They also don't feel safe enough to keep
their burkas off for extended periods of time. Meanwhile,
the BBC is reporting on an international initiative
to help rebuild Afghanistan after the war. Which of
these stories is more important? It may seem like a
silly question, they're completely different stories
and both important in their own right. What struck me
today, however, is how much more control newspapers
have in making a story seem important depending on how
long it is, how close to the front page it is, and the
pictures that accompany it. The protest story in the
Daily News took up almost an entire page, including
a photo which took up half a page on its own. Online
news sites, however, can only emphasize one or two stories
on the front page. Everything else, from a visual standpoint,
is equally emphasized. I think this is actually a good
thing, since it encourages people to read stories they
would might passed over in a newspaper. Either that,
or they only read the one or two front page stories...
11.22.01
The Daily News & CNN.com
Seems like some of that chaos the papers have been
warning us about has come to pass, though not as they
imagined it. The cities captured by the Northern Alliance
seem to be under control, but the roads between them
are not, according to the Daily News article "Warlords
Rule Afghan Roads," and now someone's gone and
stolen 815 tons of food intended as humanitarian aid.
It's not clear what the bandits intend to do with that
much food. CNN.com takes a broader look at the problem
in "Afghans Need Outside Help to Rebuild",
warning that if Afghanistan is left on its own as it
was after the defeat of the Soviets, the door will be
left open for another oppressive regime and "another
Osama bin
Laden." There are a couple of typos in the online
piece which makes me wonder if the accusations of sloppiness
in online journalism are true. Are Afghans "tried"
of war or tired of it? Oh well. One nice thing about
the CNN coverage is a little "War Against Terror"
box on the side with links to other stories and features
on the same subject. I guess that's online journalism
in a nutshell, sloppy but comprehensive.
11.23.01
The Washington Post & CNN.com
I chose today's CNN story, "Afghan women looking
for a voice", not for the content of the article
itself, but because it featured something which I absolutely
hate about CNN.com: the poll. "Will Afghan women
get a fair deal in post-Taliban Afghanistan?" How
the hell should I know?! It's one thing to ask people
who should be the next president, or whether human cloning
should be legal; those are matters of opinion. But asking
people with no expertise in an area to speculate on
its future is ridiculous. The stupidest poll of all
time had to be "Is Osama bin Laden still in Afghanistan?"
As though the winning vote, yes or no, would make it
so. I think the FBI should track down the people who
voted in that one and ask them how it is that they're
so sure of their answer. Keeping with today's theme
of "ridiculous" is the Washington Post story,
"$25 Million Reward Does Not Translate." "Mohammed
Agha, an 18-year-old balloon seller, figures $25 million
would buy 100 party balloons at a wholesale price of
two cents each." People with a better idea of the
reward's value aren't necessarily amused. "I can't
look for him because I'm looking for food. You spend
all that to find Osama, and we're still hungry"
said one man. Another joked, "Why don't you give
me an advance of a million dollars, and I will go look
for him." One million dollars, the writer estimates,
would last the average Afghani 20,000 years. Hmm.. if
I correctly guess where Osama bin Laden is in a CNN
poll, do I qualify for the reward?
11.24.01
The Daily News & MSNBC.com
If there's anything nice to be said about the Taliban,
it's that they brought order to a war torn country and
brought a halt to opium production, which is only a
good thing if you don't like heroin. Well, as good as
the Northern Alliance's intentions may be (and that's
up for debate), the order is gone and the opium is growing
again. At least that's the gist of today's coverage.
The Daily News today ran expansion of Thursday's report
that violence and looting following the collapse of
the Taliban is hampering efforts by humanitarian groups.
Meanwhile, MSNBC.com is reporting that some farmers
won't be needing aid come springtime, when the lucrative
opium they planted when the Taliban fled is harvested.
These two stories are presented very differently, and
I don't think it can be accounted for by the simple
fact that they are very different stories. The Daily
News report, "Violence after victory KOs aid for
millions" has a sense of urgency and tragedy. Millions
of Afghans may starve or freeze to death if aid doesn't
get through. It tries to show how the problem arose
and, more importantly, what's being done about it. The
MSNBC story, "Afghan farmers resume planting poppies
for heroin", is presented as a simple matter of
fact, neither good nor bad. On the one hand, it's interesting
to see things from the morally relativistic farmers'
point of view ("We can't grow wheat and still survive.
We need to grow [opium], even if it is not fair to the
rest of the world."). On the other hand, it's impossible
to read this as an American and not spot the dramatic
ironies that aren't being addressed. Is the war on terrorism
undermining the war on drugs? It doesn't seem likely
that the U.S. will turn a blind Ha! Someone at the New
York Times heard my complaints. "A War on Terror
Meets a War on Drugs" is eye to this development,
given that Afghanistan is poised to become, once again,
the worlds largest producer of opium. The story is well
written, but incomplete.
11.25.01
Newsday & NYTimes.com
Someone at the New York times heard me last night.
"A War on Terror Meets a War on Drugs" is
one of today's featured stories, and ties up all of
the loose ends left by yesterday's MSNBC article. I
wonder if the lack of detail yesterday is an example
of the sloppiness people talk about in online journalism,
where getting the scoop on a competitor can be a matter
of minutes, not days. Sure, they beat the New York Times
on the opium story, but the Times has a much better
article. The Newsday story today talks about the humanitarian
crisis reported in yesterday's Daily News, though it's
primarily about surrendering Taliban forces. I've spoken
before about how much more control papers have over
how important a story looks than web sites do, but I'm
also impressed with how unobtrusive the advertising
in papers is. The story, "Mass Surrender",
taking up all of page 3, has several pages between it
and any advertisements. Also, ads near the front of
the paper are usually full-page ads, meaning that news
and advertising are completely separated. At worst,
ads in a newspaper surround a story, but never break
it up as is all too often the case online, even on nytimes.com.
11.26.01
The New York Times & CNN.com
How is Afghanistan different from Northern Ireland,
Palestine, and every other area of the world plagued
by ethnic or cultural violence? The people of Afghanistan,
according to a NY Times article, actually want to get
along! "On the streets of Kabul ... people from
all major ethnic groups recite the same wishes for ...
a multiethnic government." "Speaking frankly,"
said one ethnic Tajik, "we hate these people with
guns." Well that just warms my heart. CNN had a
video today. I suppose having a cable channel for a
parent company makes that easy for them to do. It was
the story of a 20 year old girl in Kabul returning to
medical school to register for classes after being banned
for five years. Hooray. Drugs, violence, television,
haircuts, and women's faces -- it's been a whirlwind
couple of weeks for the people of Afghanistan. And the
coverage was very good, both online and off. I was afraid,
at the start, that reports on the daily lives of liberated
Afghans would die down in favor of reports on military
campaigns and political bickering, but the coverage
actually increased over time, getting more detailed
and personal along the way. The paper coverage was more
somber and detailed, while the online coverage more
optimistic and easier to read. Obviously, if somebody
truly wanted to be informed, they'd be best off getting
the news from as many different sources as possible,
and I think that anyone who did that would find that
online and print news sources complement each other
very well, but most people aren't obsessed enough with
the news to do that. If I had to pick one, I would choose
online news for its convenience, but I would recommend
looking at more than one site per day to get the full
story.
Home | First
Wave | Undertow | Reflections
| Stepping Stones
| Weblogs
Contributors
| About Us | Archive
|
