Integrity and Humanity: Remembering Daniel Pearl
Forward Article to a Friend
Print Article
On October 17, Kresge Auditorium overflowed with hundreds of spectators anxious to hear the inaugural Daniel Pearl Memorial Lecture. Pearl, a Stanford alum, was tragically murdered by Islamic extremists while covering a story in Pakistan for the Wall Street Journal in February 2002. Coming on the heels of 9/11, the world gasped as Pearl was kidnapped, beaten, and beheaded.
Today, the Daniel Pearl Foundation strives to encourage tolerance and understanding—so absent in Pearl’s murderers—through journalism, music, and speeches. The Daniel Pearl Memorial Lecture is one such project by the foundation, put on with the assistance of the ASSU Speaker’s Bureau, Hillel at Stanford, and the Office of Religious Life. The event attracted such speakers as Pearl’s classmate and friend Howard Kaplan, parent’s Judea and Ruth Pearl, and CNN Chief International Correspondent Christiane Amanpour. Yet, the lecture series is dedicated not only to the memory of Daniel Pearl, but one of his greatest passions: journalism. Indeed, Ruth Pearl stated in her remarks, “There must be easier ways to make money, but few are as rewarding or as important to a free society.”
Headlining the event was Christiane Amanpour with a presentation called “Journalism and the World.” Amanpour, a distinguished journalist, has won the prestigious Peabody Award on two occasions and was named one of Forbes Magazine’s “100 Most Powerful Women.” In her speech, Amanpour stressed journalism’s role as a public service by promoting knowledge and fostering understanding. Though admitting that many criticisms of the profession may be justified, Amanpour claimed that objectivity remains the “Golden Rule” of journalism.
While objectivity may remain the standard on the job, Amanpour spoke more candidly in her discourse about her perceptions of the world. Focusing a great deal on events in the Middle East, she stated, “The clash of cultures today is the defining struggle of our lifetime.” Amanpour, however, seemed to take an interesting perspective on that struggle. When asked who her journalistic role models were, she stated that her “all-time hero” was the late Oriana Fallaci, the author of the controversial post-9/11 books The Rage and the Pride and The Force of Reason, which argue that Islamic extremism is perhaps the single-greatest threat to Western civilization. The treatises, best-sellers in Europe, have been hailed largely by conservative groups on both sides of the Atlantic. In addition to her support for Fallaci, Amanpour also claimed that America is the only nation capable of cultivating democracy in the Middle East. Though she would not state whether or not she had supported the Iraq War, Amanpour seemed at least receptive to the idea of American intervention in the Middle East.
But while Amanpour was vague about the justifications for the conflict in Iraq, she did not hide her strong disapproval of the Bush Administration’s war-time policies. Though American involvement may have the power to create peace and democracy, she argued, “This one they did wrong. The mechanics were wrong and the results have been devastating.” Amanpour also maintained that American policies in the last five years have destroyed the massive support she saw worldwide in the days after 9/11. In Iraq itself, she argued, the war has radicalized “the people in the middle”—the average citizens who had been neither terrorists nor strong American supporters. Amanpour further decried the administration, stating that “Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo have removed the moral authority of this country,” making Muslims perceive the War on Terror as a war on Islam. Whether that view is right or wrong, Amanpour continued, it must be addressed if we are to win “hearts and minds.” When asked what she believed the solution to Iraq was, Amanpour suggested that we copy the approach taken in Bosnia: take the various leaders to a third country to hammer out both a peace agreement and a way to enforce that peace. Acknowledging the solution’s shortcomings, she stated “It (an Iraqi peace agreement) may be distasteful. Bosnia’s was distasteful too, but it did stop the war.”
While America tries to secure peace, Amanpour portrayed journalism as in a battle of its own. Occasionally, her criticism extended past the Bush Administration and turned toward the media itself. She stated, “This is the age of serious…but the networks are too beholden to the profit motive,” relying on “banality and frivolity” instead of objective, in-depth foreign coverage. She reminded the audience that whatever journalism’s faults, people like Daniel Pearl are taking tremendous risks to tell the stories of an ever-more dangerous world. And, Amanpour asserted, “Telling those stories makes a difference.”
Amanpour’s confidence in journalism’s benevolent character seems to echo the sunny optimism of Daniel Pearl. As classmate Howard Kaplan stated, “Danny exemplified the best of a Stanford education” and was always committed to improving the human condition. Today, the foundation that bears his name attempts to advance the same goals Pearl did in life. The board of directors of the Daniel Pearl Foundation includes Amanpour, Queen Noor of Jordan, Nobel Peace Prize winner Elie Wiesel, alumnus Ted Koppel, and Stanford President John Hennessy. Though Daniel Pearl has been taken from the world, his father Judea pointed out, “His spirit of curiosity, integrity, and humanity lives on.”
