NBC's Chris Drake says he was in CBS's office when a cameraman for Visnews bragged that CBS had paid him $12,000 for hostage footage. CBS News executive vice-president Howard Stringer denies that CBS paid any money either to Visnews or to the Amal for videotape.

Such charges, whether against CBS or ABC, are hard to prove. A Beirut veteran puts it, "Even if there were payments, they'd be impossible to trace. People have been burying cash in Beirut for years."

It is undeniable, however, that Ali Hamdan favored ABC over the competition. This is not unknown in Lebanon, where press spokesmen have played favorites before. Fadi Hayak, a former spokesman for the Forces Lebanese, a Maronite Christian militia, says favoritism is a way of life: "We helped the [reporters] who showed friendliness. They got our cooperation because they'd be more willing to show our point of view."

But Hayak's response doesn't satisfy many Beirut correspondents. Says CNN's Clancy: "There was a great deal of anger directed at Ali Hamdan, not because he wasn't doing enough to help people, but because he was actually preventing people from doing their jobs."

☐ When CBS's Peter Bluff showed up with a camera crew at the schoolyard where the hostages were being held, a glowering Ali Hamdan blocked his way. Bluff says that he and his crew spent the next several hours in Amal custody.

☐ Even as the hostages were being brought to the Summerland Hotel (where ABC was headquartered) for their "farewell" dinner, Ali Hamdan was standing in the lobby of the Commodore Hotel telling correspondents that nothing was going on. Says Tom Brokaw: "I was furious. Ali Hamdan lied to me ... right to my face."

☐ Hamdan delayed issuing Jim Clancy's Amal press credential, despite the fact that he knew that getting around Beirut without it would be difficult for CNN's Clancy, whose only other credentials were American.

Indeed, it was dangerous to be identified as an American. NBC correspond-

ent Rick Davis says, "We were coming out of the airport and the car was stopped at a checkpoint. This guy ... asked if I was an American and I said, 'Yes'.

"He started yelling, and I asked my driver what he was saying. And the driver said, 'He says he's a follower of the Ayatollah Khomeini and he should slit your throat and the throats of all Americans'. At which time the gunman pulled out a knife and started playing with it under my nose. I looked at my driver and said, 'How about you tell him not today'."

Says Peter Bluff: "Beirut changes every time you go. In the past, there have always been people on the streets with guns. Nowadays, nobody doesn't carry a gun."

At the Commodore bar, CNN's Jim Clancy tried to concentrate on the beer in front of him and not on the Kalashnikovs and machine pistols of the gunmen circling the bar with the scared teen-ager. But he couldn't help glancing at the frightened teen-ager who'd been brought here to identify him. For one casually terrifying moment, their eyes met. But the kid said nothing, and finally the group filed out.

Akl Hamieh—the man who'd given him the original warning he was under suspicion by the Hezbollah—motioned to him to meet the leader of the gunmen who had come to the bar.

Clancy went. He shook the Hezbollah leader's hand.

After the gunman had left, Hamieh told him, "It's all over."

"But they can still take me."

"No—not now. It's against Islamic law. You faced them."

"Akl, you did a lot for your friend."

The Shiite smiled. In other days he'd taken hostages himself. Indeed, one non-U.S. intelligence source credits Hamieh with at least two attacks on Israeli troops in South Lebanon, participation in terror operations in 1982 and '83—and even a hand in the TWA hijacking itself.

Only here in this city could a terrorist save a man from being kidnaped.

Clancy thought about it. It was bizarre. It was surreal. It was Beirut. (END)

TV GUIDE SEPTEMBER 21, 1985

19

[L.C.]

# THE IMPACT ON NEGOTIATIONS—WHAT THE EXPERTS SAY

By Neil Hickey

Does television do more harm than good in its coverage of hostage situations? Should Government restrictions be imposed? In the wake of the Beirut hostage crisis, our New York bureau chief, Neil Hickey, asked several prominent statesmen and former public officials for their views.

## HENRY KISSINGER

—Secretary of State, 1973-77

Television is often accused of letting the bias of its commentators affect the presentation of the story. This was not the case in Beirut. The problem was the nature of the story, plus the competitiveness of the medium, which gives hijackers an incentive to create and prolong such a situation in order to increase television to get before the American public. It's a tough problem, because television, being a visual medium, goes after whatever pictures it can get. So the networks show the hostages and the hostage families when they can. Obviously, those are the people who have

Michael Dudash

20

[L.C.]

the least judgment of the situation's overall necessities.

One could argue that, in the long run, the best way to save lives is not to negotiate with kidnapers at all. If they win their demands, the incentive will be to grab another bunch of Americans in the future. But you can't expect the hostages or their families to have that view. And so the abstract requirement of saving American lives in the future is not necessarily the main priority of the hostages themselves and their families. This is a very complex issue, because if in any one situation the hijackers prevail and achieve most of their objectives, you create a premise that another hijacking will also be successful. And while you may then save some or all of the people being held at the moment, you are endangering the lives of future, potential victims. This is an objective problem and I don't know what television can do about it. You can't tell the networks not to show the hostages and their families. What they might perhaps do is explain that there are other considerations involved.

When they put on terrorists themselves, this is where I become worried. I do not advocate Government regulation or prescription. But perhaps the networks could agree among themselves that there are several things they will not do. They will not photograph the kidnapers stating their demands while holding hostages. I don't object to the simple reporting of demands. I object to letting the terrorists stage performances for American television during which they state their demands. That may create an incentive to kidnap people in order to get on television. I believe the networks might consider some self-limiting guidelines. I'm emphatically not talking about Government censorship.

And, if at all possible, the networks should not show pictures of Americans, on display, under the control of terrorists. There's something indecent about having one group of Americans walk freely into a press conference and be free to leave, while another group of Americans is there under guard. I found it offensive to see a pilot on television with a gun held to his head and a guy putting a hand over his mouth. The networks wouldn't show a picture of an actual rape on television. There are some decencies that you must observe.

Another point to consider: when the →

Opposite page: Amal leader Nabih Berri.
Above (clockwise from top left): National Security Adviser Robert McFarlane, Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger, Secretary of State George Shultz and President Reagan.

TV GUIDE SEPTEMBER 21, 1985

21

continued

network anchormen go on TV every hour, it creates a crisis atmosphere. If there's nothing new to report, why not just have a printed message run through the regular program saying: "There is nothing new to report, and when there is we will interrupt the program and bring it to you"?

I thought the anchormen were pretty responsible. I don't remember any interview that particularly outraged me. One big danger is that men like [Amal leader] Nabih Berri will act according to what they're saying on television rather than what they are saying, privately, to the United States.

I believe that self-restraint by television can take care of most of what concerns me.

## ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI

—National Security Adviser, 1977-81

Did TV help or hurt the situation? Let me speak to that from the vantage point of a close observer of the Beirut affair, but also as the crisis manager of the 1980 hostage problem in Tehran. I would say that television has three negatives and one potentially beneficial effect.

First, television tends to transform what is essentially a political issue into a personal drama. It prevents the Government from dealing with the situation as a political problem and forces it to think of it as a personal problem.

Second, television becomes a medium for conveying the kidnappers' demands and for permitting them to appeal directly to the American people over the head of the Government for the acceptance of the demands. It thus enhances the bargaining capacity of the kidnappers.

And third, television humanizes the enemy, thereby also making it more difficult for the Government to respond firmly.

The only possible beneficial effect is that, in the absence of any contact between the U.S. Government and the terrorists, television can fill a void that otherwise would have existed.

The networks could have exercised more restraint. Their performance was probably the consequence of uninhibited competitiveness and lack of judgment. I think

crass commercialism does dominate the medium. And crass commercialism produces such consequences.

I think there should be some mechanism for voluntary communication between Government and the media in these cases. It's done during wartime. A kidnapping or an act of terrorism is something akin to a wartime situation, and I would have thought that patriotism—an old-fashioned word—would have played some role in guiding their decisions.

## ALEXANDER HAIG

—Secretary of State, 1981-82

As always, coverage of a terrorist act has pluses and minuses. The minus is always that electronic coverage is the main vehicle for the portrayal of terrorist goals and aims, and therefore serves their purpose. The medium needs to assess this recent crisis from a standpoint of whether it is serving the expansion of terrorism or genuinely serving the information needs of the public. And that's a fine line that can best be determined by the medium itself. I would not be one who would suggest that guidelines be promoted by the Government.

When TV reporters interview kidnappers it inevitably complicates the job of the President. Also, it risks making international outlaws seem like responsible personalities. Television should avoid being used that way. But there's so much competition involved that it's almost naive to expect such a thing.

The emotional climate created by television in a hostage situation leads to national pronouncements in which the lives of the hostages take precedence over the broader interests of the American people. The first principle in a terrorist situation in my view should be: what is in the best interests of the American people as a whole, not a particular group of victims. TV tends to reverse those priorities. It certainly did in the recent crisis.

## DEAN RUSK

—Secretary of State, 1961-69

In the Beirut situation, the effect of television came out about neutral—no runs,

22

AUG 19 1985

TV GUIDE

1290 AVENUE OF THE AMERICAS, NEW YORK, N.Y. 10104/212-484-9900

Aug. 19, 1985

Dear Chris,

As you recall, I interviewed Dr. Kissinger a few weeks ago on the subject of the Beirut hostage crisis. As usual, he asked that I send him his direct quotation so that he could check it over before we publish it. It is enclosed.

The other editors and I are quite happy with it the way it stands, so naturally we hope that Dr. Kissinger's emendations, if any, will be minor.

Once again, I'd like to thank you for setting up the interview. We really do appreciate your help and cooperation.

We would need Dr. Kissinger's corrections by the end of this week, or next Monday---a week from today---at the latest.

TRIANGLE PUBLICATIONS, INC.

Dr. Kissinger: quotations for
TV Guide

LQ

Television is often accused of letting the bias of its commentators affect the presentation of the story. This was not the case in Beirut. The problem was the nature of the story, plus the competitiveness of the medium, which gives hijackers an incentive to create and prolong such a situation in order to use television to get before the American public. It's a tough problem, because television, being a visual medium, goes after whatever pictures it can get. So the networks show the hostages and the hostage families when they can. Obviously, those are the people who have the least judgment of the situation's overall necessities.

One could argue that, in the long run, the best way to save lives is not to negotiate with kidnappers at all. If they win their demands, the incentive will be to grab another bunch of Americans in the future. But you can't expect the hostages or their families to have that view. And so the abstract requirement of saving American lives in the future is not necessarily the main priority of the hostages themselves and their families. This is a very complex issue, because if in any one situation the hijackers prevail and achieve most of their objectives, you create a premise that another hijacking will also be successful. And while you may then save some or all of the people being held at the moment, you are endangering the lives of future, potential victims. This is an objective problem and I don't know what television can do about it. You can't tell the networks not to show the hostages and their families. What they might perhaps do is explain that there are other considerations involved.

When they put on terrorists themselves, this is where I part company with the networks. They should agree among themselves that there are several things they will not do. They will not photograph the kidnappers stating their demands while they are holding hostages. I don't object to the simple reporting of demands. I object to letting the terrorists stage performances for American television during which they state their demands. That may create an incentive to kidnap people in order to get on television. I believe the networks could agree on some self-limiting guidelines.

I'm not talking about government censorship. That I don't think would be desirable.

Why cannot the presidents of the networks get together on this? They wouldn't show a picture of an actual rape on television. There are some decencies that you must observe.

Another point to consider: when the network anchormen go on television every hour, it creates a huge crisis atmosphere. If there's nothing new to report, why not just have a printed message run through the regular program saying: "There is nothing new to report, and when there is we will interrupt the program and bring it to you?"