Transcript from CNNi Q&A , 5-20-2002

GUESTS: Raja Qureshi, William McGowan, Carl Gottlieb

BYLINE: Zain Verjee, Ash-har Quraishi

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Just the news that we have got so far is that it seems to be Daniel Pearl's body. And we are waiting for the confirmation.

ZAIN VERJEE, HOST (voice-over): DNA testing is being done on parts of a body suspected to be Pearl's. Four men are on trial for the kidnapping and murder of the American journalist, but the trial has been turbulent.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The defense counsel is (UNINTELLIGIBLE) adjournment.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This argument has got no legs to stand on.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It depends on the new set of circumstances.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: They have no case, and now they are apprehensive.

VERJEE: In the United States, anger over one television network's decision to broadcast segments of a tape showing Pearl's death.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The department contacted CBS News to confirm whether CBS intended to broadcast parts of the videotape, and to ask that in consideration for the sensitivities of Mr. Pearl's family, CBS reconsider that decision.

VERJEE: On Q&A, the investigation, the trial and the controversy over the death of Daniel Pearl.

VERJEE: Welcome to Q&A. I am Zain Verjee. Could the body found last week just outside of Karachi be that of Daniel Pearl? And if so, what in fact, if any, will it have on the trial now under way in Hyderabad. CNN's Ash-har Quraishi joins us now by videophone from Karachi. Ash-har, give us a background here.

ASH-HAR QURAISHI, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Hello, Zain.

VERJEE: How exactly was the body believed to be Daniel Pearl's actually found?

QURAISHI: Well, from what our understanding is that late Thursday night, police were led to a location on the outskirts of Karachi by three men that were taken into custody in connection with the kidnapping and murder of Daniel Pearl. Now, that location was shown to police. They began digging on Friday. They say they (AUDIO GAP) that some body parts as well of what they believe to be Daniel Pearl.

Now, as far as these three men, it's a very mysterious thing in terms of where these men came from, who they are. Originally what our sources were telling us these men were suspects that were rounded up in large crackdowns across the country, suspected militants, extremists, and that these men were connected to the crime.

Late on Friday, the inspector general here in Karachi said that nobody was actually arrested, saying that this was a typical (AUDIO GAP).

So it's still unclear exactly how the remains were found. Police say one thing one day, and another thing another day. But what we have (AUDIO GAP) three suspects that were linked to this kidnapping and murder actually led police to the body, which was in a very remote place (AUDIO GAP) compound that was once a nursery -- Zain.

VERJEE: How long is it going to take for the government, for forensic experts to make a positive identification? Are you hearing anything at all?

QURAISHI: Well, the forensic experts were there on Friday. They were looking at evidence. They were also taking samples at that time. Our understanding is that this team picked up these samples from Lahore. They actually arrived here in Karachi today, picked up these samples and are expected to take them to a medical facility in Lahore. Unclear as to how long this will take.

Now, my understanding is that there is no DNA facility real (AUDIO GAP) in Pakistan. These are forensic experts that are going to try and conduct these tests. There is no DNA database in Pakistan, so what we are hearing is it could be as quickly as five days, as long as ten days. But you know, a simple blood test here takes about 24 hours for that test to come through as well -- Zain.

VERJEE: The three men that you referred to earlier are believed to have tipped off investigators to what is believed to be Daniel Pearl's body. They are also believed to be connected in some way to a bombing in Karachi that killed 11 French nationals. Is this a significant connection to make, and is there any connection there in the first place that is of importance here?

QURAISHI: Now, I hope I heard you correctly. I am having some audio trouble, but my understanding is that you are asking if there is any connection to the Karachi bombing. What we hear here is that these three men were picked up in nationwide sweeps, nationwide crackdowns that followed that bombing. Now, President Musharraf has had sweeps like this before in the past. In January, he launched a crackdown on militants across the country.

So our understanding is that while they may have been picked up because they were part of (AUDIO GAP) militants, extremists connected to groups like the (AUDIO GAP) which these three men have been linked to, but in this case, it turns out that what they really knew something about was the Daniel Pearl case -- Zain.

VERJEE: Just one more quick question. I know we have a bad line. But, Ash-har, how is all of this going to affect the trial that's currently under way of four men suspected of murdering and kidnapping Daniel Pearl?

QURAISHI: I hope this is about the trial. I heard a little bit about it. What we understand is that this could change the course of this trial. Now, this has been going on since late April. This trial has been plagued with delays. This could be something that could delay it a little further.

Now, the prosecution, depending on what happens here, they have made no comments about this body, but if it in fact it turns out to be Daniel Pearl, this may be something that the prosecution will have to look into in terms of...

VERJEE: Thank you. Thank you, Ash-har -- appreciate that.

Joining us now on the phone from Hyderabad in Pakistan is Raja Qureshi. He is the chief prosecutor in the Daniel Pearl case.

Sir, if it does indeed turn out to be Daniel Pearl's body, how could this affect the prosecution's case?

RAJA QURESHI, CHIEF PROSECUTOR: Well, firstly, I don't think it is Daniel Pearl's body until such time that we have the confirmation in terms of the DNA and the sample test. And prior to that, it will be just an assumption for the time being.

VERJEE: Many though say that the circumstantial evidence is very strong. It does, in fact, point to that direction. You are the chief prosecutor. You must be preparing your case if it, in fact, is, if the circumstantial evidence is indeed strong. What is your take on that? You surely must be considering it.

QURESHI: Well, and so far, as the recovery of the body in ten pieces is concerned, there is an independent force information report, which has been registered, which states that a capital offense has taken place in terms of an unnatural death. And that is being investigated independently.

VERJEE: Would a body, though, strengthen the prosecution's case?

QURESHI: Well, I would not be in a position to comment at this point of time whether the body...

VERJEE: But you would know it if it would strengthen or weaken a case though.

QURESHI: I would say that one will have to wait to arrive at the final results of the DNA, and then can one be in a position to state as to whether it strengthens or otherwise.

VERJEE: One thing, though, that we do know, as Ash-har was also pointing out, there are three men believed to have tipped off investigators to this body yet to be, as you say, confirmed positively identified that it is in fact Daniel Pearl's. How could this role of the three men here play into the case?

QURESHI: And so far as my knowledge goes, I am unaware of any person having been arrested in respect of the remains of the body. It's only the FIR, and it was a source of information to the local investigators, which led to them the recovery of the body followed by the registration of the FIR.

VERJEE: The information, though, I have received completely contradicts what you are saying. I have information to suggest that those three men have definitely been arrested. We have strong sources inside the government and the police saying so. And also the state media in Pakistan, PTB, is also reporting the same. If that was the case, you are the chief prosecutor, wouldn't you know that?

QURESHI: Well, being the chief prosecutor let me tell you with full responsibility that I have no knowledge or idea of any arrests having been made in this regard to date.

VERJEE: But if these men have been arrested, as CNN sources have confirmed that they definitely are, that could be presumably impact your case and would mean that you would have to issue a new charge sheet, and the defense would probably argue, well, we have to start this all over again?

QURESHI: Well, if the defense argues that, first they will have to establish that there is a direct nexus between the second -- first information report and the ongoing trial. Once they are able to establish that could one contemplate what you are stating. But otherwise, I don't think there is any direct nexus with the second FIR to the ongoing trial (UNINTELLIGIBLE).

VERJEE: How long do you believe it's going to take to make a positive identification of the body?

QURESHI: Well, as soon as possible. It's a process of which I am foreign to for the -- I am not a medical expert. However, as soon as possible the identity is reflected will the law take its own course.

VERJEE: Roger Qureshi, the chief prosecutor in the Daniel Pearl kidnap and murder case, thank you for speaking to us on Q&A.

And coming up, if you were a director at a news station, would you air a portion of a tape that shows images of the captivity and murder of Daniel Pearl? We're going to debate one American television network's decision to do just that when Q&A returns.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

VERJEE: Welcome back. Daniel Pearl's kidnappers shot a three-minute videotape of him alive in captivity. It also showed scenes of Pearl with his throat then cut.

The American network, CBS, didn't air that portion, but it did air a 15-second section of the video, where Daniel Pearl talked about his Jewish heritage, saying, "My father is Jewish, my mother is Jewish, I am Jewish."

The Pearl family responded with this statement: "Terrorists have made this video confident that the American media would broadcast it, and thereby serve their exact purpose. By showing this video, CBS or any other broadcaster willing to show it, proves that they fall without shame into the terrorists' plan."

CBS news anchor, Dan Rather, released this statement: "We believe it's important for Americans to see it and understand the full impact and the danger of the propaganda war being waged against the United States and its allies, and also its effect on the young people of the Arab world. We did not show the graphic scenes contained on the video, both for reasons of taste and out of respect for Mr. Pearl's family."

In Washington now to discuss this with us is Carl Gottlieb with the Project for Excellence in Journalism. He supports CBS News' decision to run a section of the tape. In New York, is journalist William McGowan. He is also the author of "Coloring the News," and does not agree with CBS' decision.

Well, why don't we start with you first then, William. Why not?

WILLIAM MCGOWAN, AUTHOR, "COLORING THE NEWS": Well, basically, Zain, I think it was a violation of journalistic taste, and more importantly, I think it was a violation of Daniel Pearl's basic human dignity. Remember, the things he was forced to say on the tape about Israel and America's unconditional support for Israel were basically extracted under conditions of torture and terror, and were the results of the brutalization and terrorization of a man.

And the portions of the tape that were aired, absent the most graphic parts, but the portions that were aired I think we should remember were basically part of what is essentially a political pornographic snuff film.

VERJEE: Carl, you disagree with that. Why?

CARL GOTTLIEB, PROJ. FOR EXCELLENCE IN JOURNALISM: Well, yes, I do. I think that the better idea we can give to people about the mindset of what goes on in that part of the world the better. I obviously have tremendous feelings for the Pearl family. I think any caring human being would. Yet at the same time, I think this is an instance of providing the most information for the most people and hopefully to do the most good.

VERJEE: What about then, William? I mean, Dan Rather said in his statement, it's important for the American people to see what's out there, to understand the kind of propaganda that's out there. Journalistically is it not then arguably just passing information in a responsible way? And the gruesome parts of the video weren't shown.

MCGOWAN: Two things. I don't think you need to show that tape in order to report on the propaganda effort that's aimed at the United States, and it is very successful in young Arab minds, particularly among Saudis. Two, I think that in reporting on this propaganda campaign, you really run the risk, and in this case I think they did do this, they crossed the line into aiding and abetting it.

I mean, we look at that film, and we hear all the anti-Semitic garbage that comes through on that, and we say, oh, my god, these are hateful, racist killers. Yet I think in the Arab world, it might have a different resonance. I mean, essentially this tape gave that effort bounce. If I was a minister of al Qaeda, the minister of communications for al Qaeda, I would certainly be very happy that Dan Rather decided to give this tape a bigger platform in the United States. It makes us look powerful, and I think young Arabs actually rally to that, because they want to side with the side in the war that is gaining and is powerful. And they perceive that...

VERJEE: OK. Carl?

GOTTLIEB: You know, perhaps they do. Perhaps this how al Qaeda leaders, if you will, felt about it. But the tape on CBS, of course, was for American consumption. And it really gave people an idea of brainwashing and all, torture and all, and really everything that went on to make Mr. Pearl say what he said.

MCGOWAN: But you can do that without showing the tape. You can do that. You can show a still photograph. You can quote Pearl. You can do it in a tasteful manner...

GOTTLIEB: But a still photograph doesn't...

MCGOWAN: ... that doesn't extract from a snuff film.

GOTTLIEB: You know -- well, I don't know if this is a snuff film. It's horrible certainly enough. But giving it that title doesn't do anything. But the fact of the matter is television...

(CROSSTALK)

MCGOWAN: The man was killed on tape.

GOTTLIEB: Yes, but we didn't see that did we?

MCGOWAN: No, but this where...

GOTTLIEB: Television is because it's a visual medium and part of what television is successful at doing is allowing us to experience what's really going on. A still picture doesn't even get at that.

VERJEE: OK. OK, if I may jump in here.

MCGOWAN: Well, I disagree with that entirely.

VERJEE: If I may jump in here, Carl. Carl, I want to add another element here. Did showing it add anything editorially to the story? Did it advance the story in any way?

GOTTLIEB: Well, I think it did. I think it further supported something that many Americans may suspect, at least to a degree. But showed us even more, in fact, as we like to say, brought home really the hatred of a lot of these people for the United States, for Israel in this case, and frankly, some of their own prejudices. I think it really did go a ways, you know, towards advancing the story.

And in fact, there are journalists who believe CBS didn't show enough, not to suggest that they show the execution of Mr. Pearl, but what else was on that tape. And frankly...

MCGOWAN: I don't think...

GOTTLIEB: ... I am sure that if CBS hadn't aired this and then it came out that, well, CBS had this tape and refused to air it for reasons of taste or whatever, the same people who are criticizing CBS would be criticizing them for withholding information.

VERJEE: William?

MCGOWAN: I wouldn't be criticizing them for withholding. I think you can get the same points across without airing the tape itself. I don't think that television has the right -- just because it's on a video means that television has a right to broadcast it. I think that it added very little in news value. If you were reading the paper...

GOTTLIEB: But...

MCGOWAN: ... you knew this stuff was on there.

GOTTLIEB: See, but it's more than a right. I think it's a responsibility. If this is out there, and if this, as I believe, does enhance the amount of information we have and our understanding of what we are up against, again as Americans, then CBS did have a responsibility to share that tape.

VERJEE: And just, William...

MCGOWAN: Well, what about the responsibility...

VERJEE: William, I just want to pick up from that point. I mean, this video was out there. It was out there on the Internet, and people could have accessed it quite easily. I mean, CBS then arguably was just showing what was already out there. I mean -- and is that such a problem? Because if everyone can access it, they are just showing what people are accessing?

MCGOWAN: Well, first of all, it wasn't so ubiquitous on the Internet. Secondly, why did CBS take it upon itself to feel responsible to give this propulsion and bounce it all over America? I disagree with the fundamental premise that that was a responsibility. I think it was an abdication of responsibility.

GOTTLIEB: You know...

MCGOWAN: You also asked about other instances where tapes have been made. I mean, William Buckley, the former CIA station chief from Beirut, was tortured to death, and there was a videotape made out of it that his torturers -- Islamic torturers sent to the CIA. That tape has been bouncing around for years, and nobody has ever aired that to my knowledge. So I think, you know, there is plenty of reason for restraint and reserve.

The other question that, you know, to bring up is, is airing this tape giving potential copycatters an incentive to do the same, to kidnap an American journalist and to videotape this? I mean, I worked in parts of South Asia for a number of years, and you know, I look back on that time. And you know, I would hate to think that a militant group would get the idea of, oh, let's grab an American journalist. Let's make him say stuff under torture, and they'll broadcast it in the United States.

GOTTLIEB: First of all, the Buckley tape did not have the kind of produced propaganda and then reaction from locals that the Pearl tape had. It's a completely different type of tape as I understand it. You know, the other thing, and certainly we have heard this before, is does airing something create perhaps copycat crimes, if you will? And you know, there is really no evidence to support that. It's a wonderful theory.

But do we stop airing everything in the news that perhaps may be a little rough, because we worry about people handling it the wrong way, or perhaps using it against this? I don't think so. I think what that does is it serves the terrorist interests in shutting down the flow of -- the free flow of information.

VERJEE: I want to add another element to this discussion. I mean, we are discussing journalistic responsibility, the moral issues that William has brought up. But what about the fact of the matter that CBS is undergoing enormous financial strain? Of the three big American networks, they are third in the ratings. And was this just a great ploy or of strategy by CBS to get its ratings up, so more people would watch them -- William?

MCGOWAN: Well, any television news executive that says that ratings aren't part of the formula or part of the calculation is, I think, lying. I think that they saw a very powerful piece of tape, and they tricked up their journalistic responsibility in order to put it on the air for reasons that I agree with MaryAnn Pearl. I don't agree with her entirely, but I agree that basically this sensationalizes tragedy.

GOTTLIEB: Well...

VERJEE: Sensationalizing tragedy all about the ratings really here, Carl?

GOTTLIEB: Well, of course, ratings are always a component in television, just as readership is in print. And frankly, there is nothing wrong with wanting more people or more eyeballs to watch your broadcast. Every broadcast does it. Again every newspaper is concerned with circulation.

To suggest that CBS said or somewhere the thinking went, oh, we have to show this and we have to concoct some reason to show this just to boost our ratings, I'm afraid without inside information, it's kind of a nonstarter for me.

I think every single story, frankly, on network news, on local news, on any news is viewed as an opportunity to bring more viewers into the fold. And after all, if you do journalism, if you commit journalism as some of us say, don't you want more people to consume the information?

VERJEE: Carl, do you think that CBS had an obligation to the family here as well to respect what the family wanted? They had asked the State Department to say, please consider not running that.

GOTTLIEB: Well, that's tough. As a human being, you want to be able to take these things into consideration. I don't know Dan Rather, and I don't know that it was Rather who made the final decision. But it's tough, and I think the fact that the tape was heavily edited, that there was an extensive lead in to the story explaining why it was shown and the process they went through was in effect a message to the family, as well as to all Americans who might be concerned with that.

I think, again, when you have news that affects this many people, your obligation is to serve the many. And I guess, as we can see here, this is going to be something that American journalism, if not journalism all over the world, wrestles with for quite a while.

VERJEE: William, does this show how journalism all over the world, in this instance here in America, is willing to push the envelope here on this one?

MCGOWAN: Well, I think they did push the envelope. I agree with Carl to the extent that I don't think the sensitivities of the family should have solely dictated Dan Rather's decision. I think that there is a much wider scope here to understand this video or understand the decision making that went into airing it, and I think in my case, I would argue that there are other compelling reasons not to air it besides the raw wounds of Mr. Pearl's widow and family.

Does American journalism sensationalize? Yes, it does. However, you know, you have to remember, on 9/11, we had dozens if not a couple of hundred people jumping out of the World Trade Center and our television news directors had the taste and decency to flash away from that.

So I think, you know, I don't think we are in, you know, some kind of situation where it's a juggernaut and we're just going to get more raw and more sensational. These are specific decisions that get made on a daily basis. In this case, I disagree with the decision that's made. I am not going to wring my hands and lament for the over-sensationalism in the American media, because I don't think that this one case can be considered as part of that problem.

VERJEE: Carl, your final comments, final thoughts on this.

GOTTLIEB: Well, I think as journalists, just as part of this nation, we face many, many challenges in the coming days. I think our challenge and the beauty of journalism is that it's sort of an organic pursuit, and that as the news changes, as it becomes more difficult to tell and therefore more vital to tell fully and honestly, we are going to face challenges like this unfortunate Pearl story and what to do with it a great deal.

VERJEE: OK.

GOTTLIEB: And this is one chapter.

VERJEE: We'll leave it there. Carl Gottlieb, William McGowan, both of you, thank you for speaking to us on this controversial...

GOTTLIEB: Thank you.

VERJEE: ... and difficult subject.

MCGOWAN: Thank you, Zain.

VERJEE: Appreciate it. That's Q&A for now. There is more Q&A in just a few hours with Jim Clancy. We'll be debating whether airline pilots should be allowed to have guns with them in the cockpit at 19:30 GMT.

For now, though, the news continues here on CNN.

Home | About the Author | Preface | Media Contact
Encounter Books | Order the Book