Dan Darling,

Censorship requires government involvement. You don't have that power (thankfully), so you can't censor.

Do you have an actual transcript of the interview?

...ABC even let him get away...

Ahh, little fact check here, but ABC didn't conduct the interview (which is clear once you read the link that provided), a Russian journalist did apparently of his own accord. The Russian journalist then gave it to ABC. The way you paint the story you act like ABC went out and searched for this guy and got an interview from him.

This is the "objectivity" fetish at work. Gotta present all sides equally without being judgemental, you know...

Castillon:

It is probably for the best of all concerned that the power of censorship is out of my hands.

The article says that the Russian journalist provided it Nightline, who decided to air it. The article (nor any of the others I've seen on the subject) don't make it clear whether he went out to do the interview on his own or whether he came up with the idea to interview Basayev in collaboration with the network.

It is entirely possible that ABC was absolutely clueless as to precisely what this man is.

Following the 'objective' "One man's terrorist is another man's Freedom Fighter" meme in the fine tradition of al-Reuters, it is not beyond comprehension that the producers and anchors of Nightline (complicit in their own willful ignorance) had no idea the monster (aptly put, btw) that Shamil Basayev is.

To them, he was another name, another leader, another man with questionable methods but a grievance nonetheless.

There are those at ABC who would also resent being characterized as an 'American' media organization. One cannot be American and maintain objectivity, after all.

I'd love to lay into them, but honestly, I just think they have dumbed themselves down and the Reporters Without Borders are out of their league in covering a War Without Borders.

USMC_Vet: Useful reminders here of the subtle multiculti Tranzi drift factors. As the old saw has it, "Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by..."

But then again, there is declassified GRU+KGB evidence from the old Red Scare days that at least some of the "paranoia" was warranted.

I wonder what we'll find out down the road, I do...

PS: You know, in the post above you come off as an awfully, err, nuanced thinker for a jarhead. (*ducks*) :)

Seriously, I'd like to invite you to visit my new blog some time. I think you could carry some weight there, if you saw anything of interest.

The Europeans present stuff like this all the time. Not directly with Zarqawi, but the only reason why not is because he doesn't do interviews. C'mon, we're talking about the networks et. al. whose correspondents cried when Yasser Arafat died, who refuse to label Osama a terrorist, etc.

They know full well what they're dealing with, but many of them are "68s" who assume anyone with a gun and a manufactured grievance against the people they hate too is basically one of the good guys. Others just see a ratings grabber and don't care what's involved.

The combination of ideological and institutional biases is lethal, and ensures that the media plays its requisite enabling role for the mastermind behind Beslan's child rapists. Among others.

The only thing that will change this is enough pain experiences from an outraged public. Produce them, and the institutional biases will give more weight to good judgment. This will also clip the careers of some of the "68s" when they get their media into trouble.

For instance, The Guardian was outed for hiring a jihadi columnist with ties to Hizb-ut-Tahrir and a personal devotion to a global Muslim Caliphate.

Predictably, the Guardian tried the usual media response: stonewall, deny, spin. But they eventually fired the columnist under pressure, and their Executive Editor for News just stepped down.

Do this sort of thing enough times, and the media's taste for enabling terrorists will begin to change. Fortunately for us, our enemies will remain our saving grace in this respect. Their relentless will to evil is creating slow sea-changes that I can see over time - and the general public's tolerance level for media idiocies like this will continue to shrink as we continue to push back.

I just can't get over the fact that a journalist knew where this mother-- would be, and didn't let anyone know. We could of had this bastard who killed children and women.

Interesting interview of Asst. Prof. Robert Bruce Ware of Southern Illinois University at the Novosti website. It begins:

Novosti: Did you watch ABC's interview of Shamil Basayev?

Ware: I'm relieved to say that I didn't, but I read the transcript.

Novosti: What's the difference?

Ware: The first difference is that the transcript omitted the advertisements; ABC didn't make money from it. The second difference is that an examination of the transcript allowed for scrutiny of Basayev's claims. The ABC format did not.

Novosti: What did you think of ABC's justification for the interview?

Ware: ABC failed to grasp several important points. For example, Ted Koppel defended the interview on air by noting that he also interviews common criminals. Yet there is an important difference between common criminals and terrorists. Common criminals do not commit their crimes for the purpose of attracting media attention; terrorists do. Terrorists depend upon media coverage, and without media coverage they are powerless. If we are serious about preventing terrorism, then we must begin to accept responsibility for limiting media access for recognized terrorists...

Dan Darling,

The article you link to is very clear that he did this independently of ABC.

This is what ABC says:

With a $10 million bounty on his head and the Kremlin on a massive manhunt, Basayev spoke candidly with Russian journalist Andrei Babitsky about his motives and what he seeks to accomplish through terrorism. Babitsky, in turn, brought the interview to ABC News' "Nightline."

Unless you're pulling a Clinton/Bush, it seems very clear that ABC was given this interview by an journalist independent of the network without them asking for it before the interview took place.

Joe Katzman,

The Europeans present stuff like this all the time.

Yeah, right. I'm a loyal reader of Le Figaro and I've never seen anything like this published in that paper. If you've got a beef with the Guardian that's fine, but this wide brush approach of yours doesn't hold up to the light of reality.

BTW, what portions of the Italian, Polish, German, French, Dutch, etc. do you read?

Common criminals do not commit their crimes for the purpose of attracting media attention; terrorists do.

I guess I'd have to know what a "common criminal" is? Is a "common criminal" the BTK killer or are we talking about a car thief? If the latter, its unlikely that Koppel would interview him/her.

If we are serious about preventing terrorism, then we must begin to accept responsibility for limiting media access for recognized terrorists...

Actually, I don't think you should limit it at all. Limiting media coverage allows for the vacuum of knowledge that leads to myths, rumors, etc. When you take the paternalistic approach (so common amongst socialist liberals and conservatives) to such matters it simply makes things worse.

"For example, Ted Koppel defended the interview on air by noting that he also interviews common criminals. Yet there is an important difference between common criminals and terrorists."

There is another, perhaps far more important distinction that Ware fails to mention. When ABC interviews a 'common criminal' its someone who has already been detained by authorities and is in custody. Shamil Basayev most certainly is not.

Now imagine for example that ABCNEWS conducted an interview with Timothy McVeigh shortly after the OKC bombings while Timothy McVeigh was still on the run, or with the Unabomber, or with an anonymous serial killer suspected of killing 20 women over the past 10 years. That would be the same sort of situation. If ABCNEWS could make contact with such a monster, they are to my mind honor bound to consider any help that they can offer in the capture of such a criminal to be more important than getting the story.

Consider the alternative. ABCNEWS is suggesting that getting the story is more important than actually preventing a mass murderer from engaging in more attacks. Should I consider it coincidental that 'getting the story' is profitable to them, and turning this guy in isn't (because they probably could not reveal thier role in doing so)? I don't think so. Basically, ratings has trumped the lives of innocent people.