Funny old world

"Russia is traditionally an alcohol-hardened nation," deputy prosecutor general Sergei Lubenets told a press conference in Volgodonsk,"but even by our standards, this competition was deeply irresponsible. So far there's been one death, four others are fighting for their lives in the local hospital, and a dozen other contestants only survived because they were rushed to a clinic for an emergency stomach pump. Yet so far we're at a complete loss to find any criminal charge that we can bring against the organisers.

"Lubenets was speaking after a vodka-drinking marathon contest in southern Russia had resulted in an epidemic of alcohol poisoning, and at least one fatality. "About fifty people took part in the event at a local food and drink shop. Each contestant was given a bucket of vodka, filled to the brim, and a half-litre glass, and told to drink an entire glassful each time a bell was sounded. By the fifth round, most of the participants had fallen over and were unconscious, but Alexander Nakonechny kept on refilling and draining his glass, and threw up his hands in celebration when he was declared the winner. The prize was ten bottles of vodka, but after taking a celebratory swig from the first bottle, he shouted out 'I have shot myself and dropped dead on the spot.

"Over 40,000 Russians die each year from alcohol poisoning, and the last thing our society needs is competitions that encourage more of this ridiculous drinking. If we can find grounds to charge the organisers, then well prosecute them, but let's face it. If people are reckless enough to enter a contest than involves drinking themselves to death, it's hard to blame anyone else for their stupidity." (Baltic Times, 27/11/03. Spotter: Mike Edmeades)

36

37

BBC N E W S , 30 . 10 . 04 .

Are the media helping the hostage takers?

The taking of hostages has prompted debate on the media's role and responsibilities in covering such events. Does publicity help or hinder their plight?

The dilemma is beginning to haunt editors everywhere. How do you deal with this wave of hostage taking from Russia to Iraq? How do you cover something. Your coverage is part of the reason why the hostages were taken in the first place? Perhaps the media has been blinded by a certain arrogance.

But that is the truth of it. The Chechens who stormed that school in Beslan and shot their own videos

inside it expected to see TV cameras poking 24 hours a day from surrounding buildings. That was one of the points of their brutal exercise. The most vicious of the Iraqi groups who take hostages like Kenneth Bigley aren't after ransom money: they want their deeds on the internet and then on front pages and television screens everywhere. It boosts their power in the Arab world. It shakes western public opinion. It's the name of their game. What do we - those editors who have come to realize the ploy and our readers and listeners - do about that?

Another infernal dilemma. Many readers or listeners have a simple answer, the one Mrs Thatcher gave long ago when she decried the 'oxygen of publicity'. Simply: don't show the hostages or their masked captors, don't publicize the demands or chart the progress, don't mention the beheadings or the agonies of their families. Enforce blanket silence and (perhaps) the hostage takers will go away. News isn't a water tap, to be switched off and on arbitrarily. Readers and listeners aren't stooges, to be informed and then ignored. In a free society, moreover, that citizens who have the profound ill luck to be taken hostage deserve more than being left to die in silence, to join the ranks of the disappeared. That is us using them as pawns; and we ought to be better than that.

Bridget Randolph, London. Publishing the actions of terrorists invariably gives them greater power. Mr. Blair is absolutely right: if you don't respond to terrorists, their actions become worthless. Unfortunately we feed off bad news and newspaper sales increase considerably when something like the Ken Bigley situation is on the front page. If the press could see the bigger picture and put world safety above profits, then perhaps we would be able to find a way to reduce these increasingly frequent situations.

Maple Ridge, Canada. The media is not a root cause for criminal acts, but it does bear some responsibility to deal with such situations in a responsible manner. Currently press 'self-censorship' exists and is used in cases of suicide, where it has been well-proven that press coverage results in an increase in the number of subsequent attempts, and also in accidents where the injuries are deemed too unpalatable for public consumption. Perhaps a similar mechanism can be used for hostage situations.

Helen, London, England. Banning the reporting of hostage situations might stop the press from unwittingly becoming an agent of terrorism, but would bolster its role as an agent of government. Like it or not, terrorist activity has drawn far more attention to the developed world's complicity in oppression throughout the globe than years of'peaceful' protest. We need to suffer this paradox in the knowledge that banning hostage reporting would do a far more sinister favour to the governments of the developed world.

Glenn McGowan, St. Louis USA. In the US a mere handful of people control all media outlets. I don't trust their judgement when it comes to unbiased reporting. Here, in order to learn the truth, a person has to sift through commercial and independent media from around the world. In addition, I think if we start a fight, we disrespect and dishonour ourselves if we turn our heads because we don't like violence. If we don't want to watch violence we shouldn't start fights.

Shanti, London. Why don't we weigh the whole issue? See the pros and cons of allowing such brutality to be broadcasted. For me, showing this conduct means a free-of-charge favour for those terrorists to reinforce what they advocate and a call to others to do the same around the world.

38

39

S U N , 26 . 10 . 04 .