Christiane Amanpour v. Clarissa Ward in Reporting on Women and Girls in Afghanistan
United States Involvement in Afghanistan
-
In July of 1921, the United States of American recognized Afghanistan (“House”). This occurred when President Warren Harding got an Afghan Government mission at the White House (“House”). Previously, in August of 1919, British officials told the Department of State that Afghanistan was “‘officially free and independent in its affairs’” (“House”).
-
Diplomatic relations were established between the United States and the Afghan government in May of 1935 (“House”).
-
The American Legation in Kabul was made in June 1942 (“House”).
-
The American Legation became an Embassy in June 1948 (“House”).
-
American Ambassador at Kabul Adolph Dubs was assassinated in February 1979 (“House”).
-
The American Embassy in Kabul closed in January 1989 because of worries surrounding the new regime (“House”).
-
The U.S. Liaison Office in Kabul opened in December 2001, and a few days later, the United States recognized the Interim Authority in Afghanistan (“House”). This Authority “assumed the authority to represent Afghanistan in its external relations” (“House”). NATO Allies went into Afghanistan in 2001 (“NATO”).
-
The American Embassy in Kabul was opened again in January 2002 (“House”).
-
NATO launched the “Resolute Support Mission (RSM) to train, advise and assists Afghan security forces and institutions to fight terrorism and secure their country” (“NATO”). Later, this mission was halted in September 2021.
U.S. Involvement Now
U.S. Involvement Now
The United States and the Taliban agreed on the withdrawal of international forces from Afghanistan by May 2021 in February 2020 (“NATO”). This comes after almost twenty years of NATO Allies and other partnering countries had military forces in Afghanistan under a mandate from the United Nations Security Council (“NATO”). In the last twenty years, there have been no terrorist attacks on NATO Allies’ land from Afghanistan (“NATO”). With the current circumstances, NATO does not give support to Afghanistan (“NATO”).
But what about the situation of women and girls in Afghanistan?
These two women helped to shape coverage of women and girls in Afghanistan.
Christiane Amanpour
CNN
Clarissa Ward
CNN
Short Biography
Christiane Amanpour, a CNN correspondent, is considered one of the leading war reporters of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries (“Christiane”). Amanpour is English-born; however, her father moved their family to Tehrān quickly after she was born (“Christiane”). When Amanpour was eleven years old, she attended Holy Cross Convent School in Buckinghamshire, England (“Christiane”). When Amanpour moved to the United States, she graduated from the University of Rhode Island with a degree in journalism in 1983 (“Christiane”). That same year, she worked at CNN as an assistant for the international news desk (“Christiane”). In the year 1986, she began working as a CNN producer-correspondent (“Christiane”). Other than her Afghanistan coverage, she has notably covered conflicts like the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and the Kurdish uprising in Iraq (“Christiane”).
Short Biography
Clarissa Ward is the chief international correspondent for CNN (“Clarissa”). Ward started her career at CNN in 2015, where she was a foreign correspondent for four years along with creating regularly for “60 Minutes” (“Clarissa”). Ward has reported on conflicts ranging from the frontlines of Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen and Ukraine (“Clarissa”). In the past, Ward has worked for Fox News Channel, CBS News, and ABC News (“Clarissa”). However, Ward’s career in journalism started when she interned at CNN’s Moscow bureau in 2002 (“Clarissa”).
Amanpour v. Ward
Amanpour v. Ward
General Similarities
Both Amanpour and Ward are war correspondents who cover significant conflicts and issues in the world (“On” & Beard). The two women journalists also have their careers rooted in CNN where Amanpour became a war correspondent in the 1990s and Ward right now is the chief international correspondent (“On” & Beard). Both Amanpour and Ward are known for their journalistic integrity and bravery in reporting, and both have a similar journalistic philosophy that derives truthfulness and neutrality (“On” & Beard).
Well-known international journalists with a commitment to reporting on global crises.
General Differences
Amanpour has had a long career, having started at CNN in 1983 while also working at other news outlets such as ABC News and PBS. Ward is a part of a different generation of journalists (“On” & Beard). In this vein of thought, Ward’s reporting career has grown with the advent of social media and the digitization of news media, whereas Amanpour’s journalism career hit its apex during the era of cable news (“On” & Beard). In this, their reporting styles are a bit different: Amanpour is more well-known for her interview style with experts and leaders where as Ward is seen more for her ground reporting and connection with everyday people facing crises (“On” & Beard).
Recently between Amanpour and Ward…
In February of last year, Amanpour and Ward were two of many journalists who signed a letter asking for uninterfering access to Gaza regarding coverage (Shuham).
Clarissa Ward on Women and Girls in Afghanistan
-
Clarissa Ward spent thirty-six hours with the Taliban in 2019 which gave a rare look into what life was like under the Taliban’s rule and included how women were treated (“Event” & Goldsmith).
-
When the Taliban took over in August of 2021, Clarissa Ward reported from Kabul which illustrated the impact that the rule was having on women’s freedoms immediately (“Event” & Goldsmith).
-
Ward’s coverage on and in Afghanistan has made major impact through it providing first hand accounts of the constantly changing situation for women and girls under the Taliban’s rule (“Event” & Goldsmith). Ward has conducted interviews with members of the Taliban which have revealed their stance on women’s rights which brings these issues to a global light (“Event” & Goldsmith). Ward is also able to connect deeply with local women and girls, providing an event more authentic lens to her stories (“Event” & Goldsmith).
Coverage of how the Taliban affects women’s lives
Left: Clarissa Ward — Right: Christiane Amanpour
When viewing the two journalists’ work, there are some definite similarities and differences.
For instance, Amanpour’s work features an interview with Fawzla Koofi, who is a well-known Afghan women’s rights campaigner and negotiator (“Women’s”). The overall interview provides insight into the issue at hand, goes into peace deal negotiations, and speaks on Koofi’s attempted assassination (“Women’s”). Amanpour wields her questions in terms of the risks of female education and the progress made regarding women’s rights and goes deeper into the role of community (“Women’s”). The work overall is cognisant of the future by focusing on what challenges lie ahead and what help is necessary to combat those challenges (“Women’s”). In terms of objectivity and bias, the style in which she reports gives a clear follow-through for the viewpoints to be presented (“Women’s”). Amanpour asks and helps lead the conversation into one that deep dives into the situation rather than asking for either surface-level content or for one vein of thinking (“Women’s”).
As for Ward, her work is directly focused on the crisis instilled by and the impact of the Taliban’s rule in Afghanistan one year after the United States withdrew (“Women”). In terms of Ward’s style of journalism, the work’s audience sees on-the-ground reporting with a special focus on showing what it is truly like for everyday Afghans (“Women”). The on-the-ground reporting allows for interviews that are personal and provide a connection to human emotion (“Women”). Ward also pushes a person within the Taliban, which relates to Amanpour’s work, through questioning the issue of female education in Afghanistan (“Women”). In terms of objectivity and bias, Ward presents the information she gathers In an unbiased way, even with the focus that is brought to light on the humanitarian crisis and the roadblocks to female education (“Women”). It is critical but not biased.
Amanpour v. Ward
Amanpour v. Ward
“CNN reporter shows scene in Kabul streets just days after Taliban takeover”
v.
“Special report: The brave, defiant women of Afghanistan”
Left: Clarissa Ward — Right: Christiane Amanpour
When looking at Ward’s coverage, we see the issue of instant on-the-ground reporting in a visual style with a focus on what comes after the Taliban took over Kabul (“CNN”). Through Ward’s coverage, its audience sees examinations of Kabul’s streets, interviews with locals that illustrate their high emotions, and videos of the change in women’s active role in society as well as what they are wearing (“CNN”). This work is shown as the current life in Afghanistan progresses (“CNN”). What the audience sees from Ward is the truth in the sudden changes being emotional and abraded (“CNN”).
When looking at Amanpour’s coverage, its audience seems more investigative reporting and analysis in the form of audio journalism (“Special”). Within this, Amanpour focuses on how the Taliban’s rule has affected female education more long-term (“Special”). The coverage is focused on the secret network of classrooms, the overall context of the rule of the Tsloban and how it plays a role in women’s restricted dedication ban, and Afghan women's resistance (“Special”). This coverage is reflective of the post-two years of the Taliban’s takeover and shows the struggles of Afghan women (“Special”).
When putting these two pieces of work side by side, there are some similarities and differences. Ward’s coverage is more geared toward the instant repercussions, while Amanpour’s work is heavily focused on long-term reactions and consequences (“Special” & “CNN”). Ward’s coverage is more focused on visible changes in Kabul, whereas Amanpour’s work is more heavily focused on the network of resistance within Afghanistan (“Special” & “CNN”). Ward’s tone in the overall peace instills a sense of importance and unpredictability whereas Amanpour’s work emphasizes, again, that resistance aspect (“Special” & “CNN”). Furthermore, Ward’s coverage is more geared toward on-the-ground reporting with observation and everyday interviewees, whereas Amanpour (again) relies heavily on that aspect of inventive journalism (“Special” & “CNN”).
Amanpour v. Ward
Amanpour v. Ward
“Clarissa Ward presses Taliban fighter on treatment of women”
v.
“The Taliban campaign to erase women from public life”
Top: Clarissa Ward — Bottom: Christiane Amanpour
When looking at Ward’s coverage, its audience again sees on-the-ground reporting with an instant turnaround for viewership (“Clarissa Ward Presses”). Ward’s coverage is again focused on the Taliban taking over Kabul with direct observations of the situation, interviews with local Afghan women, and that aspect of visuals (“Clarissa Ward Presses”). This coverage shows how the situation in Afghanistan is progressing in August of 2021 (“Clarissa Ward Presses”). Ward’s coverage provides in-depth coverage with context in the vein of emotions with the sudden changes that come with the Taliban’s takeover of Kabul (“Clarissa Ward Presses”).
When looking at Amanpour’s coverage, its audience sees analysis and a perspective that looks more toward the long run (Kirby). There is a focus on how the Taliban is using its campaign to remove women from everyday life (Kirby). Ward is able to illustrate for her audience the following: an overall look at the restriction women in Afghanistan have been facing starting in 2021, the lasting impact with context that this has on Afghanistan’s society, and the overall view of women being removed (Kirby). Amanpour’s coverage focuses on the last three years of the Taliban’s rule and illustrates the oppression women are dealing with under their rule (Kirby).
When looking at the work of Ward and Amanpour, Ward’s reporting is more geared toward the here and now with a focus on the fear of Afghan women, while Amamnpour’s work is more focused on details concerning effects (“Clarissa Ward Presses” & Kirby). Amanpour’s work is able to give a broader slew of information and context because of its publication in 2024, whereas Ward’s coverage is more limited because of its topic and publication in 2021 (“Clarissa Ward Presses” & Kirby). Amanpour and Ward’s tones are vastly different, considering that Amanpour’s piece is much more geared towards information over time while Ward uses an on-the-spot information-gathering approach (“Clarissa Ward Presses” & Kirby)
Amanpour v. Ward
Amanpour v. Ward
Amanpour v. Ward: Another Video Example
Left: Clarissa Ward — Right: Christiane Amanpour
Again, when viewing the two journalists’ work, there are some definite similarities and differences.
When looking at Ward’s work, the work’s audience sees the aftermath of the Taliban’s takeover within Kabul with the use of on-the-ground reporting that has a focus on the immediate results of the situation as it continuously progresses (“Taliban”). Considering that Ward is directly reporting from Kabul, the audience is able to see and almost feel the presence of the fights of the Taliban, the U.S. Embassy, and how Afghan civilians are feeling (“Taliban”). In her reporting, Ward also shares how she is feeling and provides her own personal experiences, such as being told she needs to move due to the fact that she is a woman (“Taliban”). When looking more particularly at the script of Ward’s work, we see the use of detailed and powerful descriptions that show the work’s audience the actual environment that is being lived by both Ward and the people of Afghanistan (“Taliban”). When looking again at objectivity and bias, through Ward’s choices, the condition in which the Afghan people are living is able to be portrayed (“Taliban”). The audience feels the fear and uncertainty that comes with not knowing what will come next (“Taliban”).
When looking at Amanpour’s work, the audience is able to see how much of a struggle it is for Afghan women to retain basic women’s rights under the rule of the Taliban discussed through the main topic of conversation, the documentary “The Sharp Edge of Peace” (“Meryl”). In terms of Amanpour’s style, the audience sees a discussion across a multi-faceted three-person panel that features Meryl Streep, Fawzia Koofi, and Habiba Sarabi (“Meryl”). The overall conversation is based on a documentary but does provide context in the form of videos and narrative (“Meryl”). Furthermore, the conversation focuses on elements of advocating for the rights of Afghan women by shedding light on the situation in the name of awareness (“Meryl”). Amanpour’s work is also able to give a more future-forward viewpoint on the situation by, in turn, looking back to the United States withdrawal (“Meryl”). In terms of objectivity and bias, Amanpour has chosen interviewees who specifically focus on helping and providing assistance for the situation at hand.
Amanpour v. Ward
Amanpour v. Ward
“Clarissa Ward at Kabul’s airport: It’s hard being an American here witnessing this”
v.
“‘I’ve done nothing wrong… I only want my right to education,’ pleads Afghan girl”
Left: Clarissa Ward — Right: Christiane Amanpour
When looking at Ward’s coverage, its audience sees the evacuation at the Kabual airport as the Taliban’s rule was underway through the style of on-the-ground reporting with instant coverage as the situation progresses (“Clarissa Ward at Kabul’s”). Ward’s coverage included the crowds of people trying to leave, the presence of the United States military, and the distress of the Afghan people (“Clarissa Ward at Kabul’s”). Ward captures the natural sound of her environment while also including the perspective of people trying to leave (“Clarissa Ward at Kabul’s”). Ward is also able to describe what is going on around her with an objective presentation to the audience (“Clarissa Ward at Kabul’s”).
When looking at Amanpour’s coverage, its audience sees how the Taliban has restricted female education with the public efforts to try and continue female education through investigative, special focus reporting (“I’ve”). Amanpour includes interviews with women and girls who are taking part in secret schooling while also including interviews with experts in education in Afghanistan (“I’ve”). Amanpour also provides context to the policies in place under the rule of the Taliban as well as the history of girl’s education in Afghanistan (“I’ve”). Amanpour’s coverage is able to take a look at the impact that female education is getting and how Afghan society is affected (“I’ve”). In terms of objectivity and bias, Amanpour I able to be clear and concise while framing the issue around support for female education in Afghansitan (“I’ve”).
Amanpour v. Ward
Amanpour v. Ward
“The Taliban wants women in Afghanistan to wear a Niqab”
v.
“‘We feel suffocated’: Afghan women open up about life under the Taliban”
Left: Clarissa Ward — Right: Christiane Amanpour
When looking at this piece of Ward’s, we see on-the-ground reporting that is focused on everyday life in Kabul one year after the takeover of the Taliban (“The”). Ward’s coverage includes how women’s attire has changed and interviews and observations on women’s experiences and the Taliban’s presence (“The”). This piece of media takes place one year after the takeover of the Taliban (“The”).
When looking at this piece from Amanpour, we see an investigative look into the restrictions placed on female education and women’s rights in Afghanistan (“‘We’”). Amanpour portrays this through interviews with Afghan women, an analysis centered around Taliban policies, and the effects of the restrictions in a long-term view (“‘We’”).
When looking at Ward’s approach, she focused on the seen changes in Kabul, whereas Amanpour’s piece covers a bigger issue of education and women’s rights in Afghanistan (“The” & “‘We’”). Where Ward uses on-the-ground reporting styles for interviews and content, Amanpour utilizes in-depth interviews and analysis (“The” & “‘We’”). As a reporter, Ward’s tone points more towards what it is like living in these conditions right now, whereas Amapour'‘s tone portrays the crisis that is occurring for women and girls’ education (“The” & “‘We’”).
Amanpour v. Ward
Amanpour v. Ward
Overall Compare & Contrast
Overall Compare & Contrast
-
Both use video as their form of reporting; however, Ward is much more embedded than Amanpour, as seen in their works. Amanpour also seems to take a more sit-down interview approach, whereas we see Ward with a much more myriad of video coverage. We also see Amanpour push more for issue- and policy-based questions and information, whereas Ward seems to be informed on the here and now of the situation.
-
Both use video as their chosen medium.
-
Amanpour comes from a somewhat different background from Ward. For instance, Amanpour is English-born and Iranian, whereas Ward is also English but white. They both report on similar issues, however, with different viewpoints from who they are as people. Both work for CNN.
-
Amanpour reports from Afghanistan as well as from secure locations/newsrooms, whereas most of Ward’s coverage is seen on the ground.
-
Both follow the events rising in a timely order, with lookbacks to what happened (for instance) a year ago today.
Overall Viewed Challenges for Amanpour and Ward
-
Safety Concerns
Ward has been reporting situations where there has been gunfire in the background and has faced pointed conflict with fighters of the Taliban concerning women’s dress and behavior.
-
Access Issues
Amanpour and Ward had to learn how to interact with a space, people, or both that were against their existence. As women journalists, Amanpour and Ward have to learn the political and cultural barriers that were against them and learn how to overcome them to make stories, especially for women and girls.
-
A Platform for Voices
Amanpour and Ward have both brought up the voices of Afghan women and girls to bring it to a central light.
-
Public Perception: Amanpour
Throughout her career, Amanpour has been criticized for bias yet has consistenly proved this claim wrogn through her approach.
-
Ethics in Reporting: Ward
Ward has faced some criticism in her reports, however, that is more so seen recently (Pani).
THEY OVERCAME THESE ISSUES BY CONTINUING TO REPORT AND REPORT WELL.
THEY OVERCAME THESE ISSUES BY CONTINUING TO REPORT AND REPORT WELL.
What Ward and Amanpour have done:
Ward and Amanpour and their works have impacted their time by providing news from a place where news is hard to produce. Especially in Ward’s situation, she provided a deep scope into the reality of women and girls in Afghanistan. Amanpour was also able to use her accolades to boost the credibility of the situation and push the situation to more individuals. They continue to report on these situations as well, which shows how they continue to reach audiences to inform and hopefully change the situation. In their reporting, Ward and Amanpour have demonstrated how, even in different generations, reporting with integrity can reap the rewards. They both prove the true liberation that journalism can give the means to provide. Even with their differences in their work and journalism careers, both have shown that being a women journalist is possible and can create some of the best work that society has seen. By bringing significant stories and issues to global light, they have been able to change the world despite the risks they face in doing so. As news continuously evolves, the public and other journalists may look to them to instill the important principles that all journalists should have: tenacity, thoughtfulness, and sincerity. They show how to embody the true meaning of journalism.