Arab media: the ice cracking?

[Daniel Morris]

Remember all that quickly-discredited talk about how democratic elections in Iraq would send positive shockwaves throughout the Arab world, unshackling the democratic aspirations of the region’s peoples?

Long after the American press gave up on that kind of talk, it seems that the Arab media have not. In fact, with the timely death of Arafat, the month of January now brings not just the first but also the second democratic election in the history of the Arab world, with Palestinians joining Iraqis at the ballot station. And Arab journalists and commentators seem to have felt the shock of recognition now running the whole circle round.

From these selections, you’ll see that Arab commentators are publicly asking the harshest questions ever asked of the region’s Arab regimes. The answers, one can hope, will soon be forthcoming.

We start on the op-ed page of the London-based Al Sharq Al Awsat:


Some of the [Arab League] members…maintain that the Baghdad government is not legitimate. Why? They argue that it is not elected and was appointed by the American occupation. This widespread view has some basis…However, the talk of the illegitimacy of the government…allows us to raise questions regarding most of the regimes in the region…some of which emerged as a result of coups or internal conspiracies, when no one asked the people what it thought.

[i]Abdel Rahman al-Rashed, director-general of Al Arabia TV, November 24

…and we continue straight on through to al-Jazeera TV, that famous bastion of neoconservative views…


We are not being fair to the current Iraqi government. Not me, nor you, nor the other guest on this program, not even the viewers, but history will do justice to them. These people are establishing the first democracy in the Middle East. This country will be a platform for liberties in the whole region. In Iraq, the days of a leader who remains on his throne until he dies are gone. This is over. For the first time the Iraqi leader will be elected by Iraqi ballots.

Egyptian journalist Nabil Sharaf al-Din, speaking on Al Jazeera TV, November 23

…before moving on to my personal favorite, and, I think, the most eye-opening…


It is outrageous, and amazing, that the first free and general elections in the history of the Arab [world] are to take place in January: in Iraq, under the auspices of American occupation, and in Palestine, under the auspices of the Israeli occupation. It is well and good for the Arabs to demand the right of political representation for Sunni Arabs out of concern for them in the face of the tyranny of the other Iraqi groups and out of concern for national unity and the ideal relative representation. But we do not understand why this concern does not apply to the many Arab countries that do not permit their minorities to announce their existence, let alone their right to [political] representation…

It is sad and pathetic that the eyes of the entire world are upon the Palestinian and Iraqi elections that will be held under the lances of foreign occupation, while the peoples of the "independent, free, and sovereign" Arab countries have no way of expressing their will.

[i]Salameh Nematt , Washington bureau chief for the London-based daily Al Hayat, November 25

This last one really says it all.

Maybe more importantly, last week saw Palestinian Authority TV allow a progressive imam to deliver the televised Friday sermon – and instead of the usual incitement and diatribe, Palestinians heard a sermon of conciliation, urging them to consider an Islam that can get along with the changing world, remaining true to the prophet while heeding the prophet’s admonition that Islam must be “reborn with each new century.”

Where it goes from here, I guess we will see.

[MikeSofaer]

I can't explain it, but reading that gave me the same sort of overwhelming happy feeling that reading about Radio Free Europe or the Berlin Airlift does.

[shift6]

Seriously, is there anyone who isn't relieved that Arafat is finally out of the picture?

[Jason McCullough]

"The illegitimacy of the CIA puppet government in Baghdad has finally given us the ability to discuss how illegitimate our governments are!"

[Tim Partlett]

I can't explain it, but reading that gave me the same sort of overwhelming happy feeling that reading about Radio Free Europe or the Berlin Airlift does.

Of course it does, that is the intention. It's a small collection of translations from selective MEMRI (http://www.memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SD82104). With a billion opinions in the Muslim world, there are bound to be several which support any view you want to create. MEMRI, run as it is by former members of Israel's intelligence service, wants to create a certain picture of the Middle East. Today they are painting the picture that the occupations of Iraq and Palestine are actually a great thing, because they are changing the opinions of Arabs and making them move more in the direction we want. Tomorrow it will be giving us the translation of crazy extremists ranting about murdering Americans being the duty of Islam as evidence of why we need to invade and crush them.

This may or may not be true, but with the limited window on the Islamic world offered by a clearly biased MEMRI, you will never know the truth, only what they want you to hear about.

[Jakub]

Nice point, Tim!

[antlers]

So the true value of the war in Iraq is that they made new Arab media outlets more popular? While it is true that Al-Jazeera's ratings were greatly improved by the war, I can't believe that's sufficient justification. Maybe we just could've paid for a slick promotional campaign: cheaper and fewer lives lost.

It's not like the fledgling Arab independent media wouldn't be pushing for more openness and democracy anyway. They've always done that. They are now just doing it in the context of the Iraq war.

[MikeSofaer]

It's a small collection of translations from selective MEMRI (http://www.memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SD82104). With the limited window on the Islamic world offered by a clearly biased MEMRI, you will never know the truth, only what they want you to hear about.

While you are correct in framing this as propaganda, RFE was propaganda, too. You can argue that the Airlift was propaganda. That voices like this are in the mainstream Arab media at all is encouraging. Would you say that Al Jazera (sp) has broadcasted things like this before?

Selective MEMRI. That's nice. Probably an old joke, but I like it.

[Jason McCullough]

Would you say that Al Jazera (sp) has broadcasted things like this before?

Yes.

Propaganda is for the *other side*, remember.

[Tim Partlett]

I don't follow Al Jazeera that carefully, so I don't know if they've had any commentary on this exact issue before, but I do know that the kind of critical reporting of local regimes is a common theme on the news channel. Long before the Iraq invasion Al Jazeera was pushing for reform in the region, and weren't popular with the authorities in the region. They have also been very forward looking in their use of female anchors, in a culture where women can sometimes consider themselves lucky to be allowed a job at all, let alone a prominent one like a news anchor. Yes, they are biased towards the Arab view point, but from the Arab perspective CNN is biased towards a Western perspective, and they'd be right.

[Uncle Larry]

What's really interresting is the name of the spokesman for Al-Jazeera: Jihad Ballout.

[Toddy]

I don't follow Al Jazeera that carefully, so I don't know if they've had any commentary on this exact issue before, but I do know that the kind of critical reporting of local regimes is a common theme on the news channel. Long before the Iraq invasion Al Jazeera was pushing for reform in the region, and weren't popular with the authorities in the region. They have also been very forward looking in their use of female anchors, in a culture where women can sometimes consider themselves lucky to be allowed a job at all, let alone a prominent one like a news anchor. Yes, they are biased towards the Arab view point, but from the Arab perspective CNN is biased towards a Western perspective, and they'd be right.

As an aside, Al Jazeera isn't breaking any ground with female anchors. Women were working anchor desks on news shows in Egypt and Jordan, as well as in the Gulf States, in the mid-late 1990s.

[Tim Partlett]

Yes, but Al Jazeera is pan-Arabic satellite channel, not just a local news outlet.


What's really interresting is the name of the spokesman for Al-Jazeera: Jihad Ballout.

Perhaps not so interesting when you consider that in Arabic the word jihad has a wider meaning than the one we generally understand. A jihad for a muslim means to strive for some higher purpose, and this can be achieved through any number of means, not just war. A muslim can study, be a politician, work for charity, etc. for his jihad.

[Daniel Morris]

A jihad for a muslim means to strive for some higher purpose, and this can be achieved through any number of means, not just war. A muslim can study, be a politician, work for charity, etc. for his jihad.

Indeed, perhaps the greatest debate of the 21st century will be the debate within the Muslim world over the interpretation of this single word. Because for every imam counseling that jihad is a personal struggle against injustice, there is one who is convinced Mohammed meant literal, ceaseless war on behalf of Islam.

That moderate clerics and commentators now feel emboldened enough to stand up to the Qutb/Wahhabist extremism on the airwaves of so belligerent an outlet as Palestinian Authority TV is a very hopeful sign.

[Toddy]

Yeah, but it's not about just one word. There are numerous sections of the Koran and there are numerous Hadiths that explicitly state that Islam is the ultimate faith, as delivered to man by God's final prophet. And as such it falls upon the adherents to bring it to the entire world. The core texts of Islam are much, much more blatant about proselytizing, even by force, than the books central to Judaism and Christianity. I mean, how can these other faiths seem like anything but errors that should be corrected when you are a Muslim worshipping as ordained by God's final prophet before Judgement Day?

The only way to reform Islam is to change one of its central tenets -- that the Koran and Hadiths have to be interpreted literally. Only then can you start addressing their actual messages, because there really isn't any room for alternate interpretations a lot of the time.

[Tim Partlett]

I doubt that either of us are expert enough in the religious texts of the Koran and Hadith to make pronouncements as to their comparative evangelical natures in regards to Christianity. That said, if the Koranic texts are, like you say, "much, much more blatant about proselytizing, even by force, than the books central to Judaism* and Christianity", then that would mean that Christians have, as a rule, been far more aggressive in their own forceful proselytizing than their holy books decree. Comparing the very gradual conversion process in Al-Andalus (Muslim Spain), caused more by inter-marriage than firebrand preaching (let alone force), to the torture, public burnings, and mass expulsions of Jews and Muslims by the subsequent Christian occupiers of that region, paints a very interesting picture. Either Muslims have, through their history, been comparitavely very liberal in relation to their apparently intolerant holy books, or their holy books aren't as intolerant as you would like us to believe.

*I agree that Islam and Christianity are far more aggressively evangelical than Judaism, hence the people of that religion have taken a one sided beating from both of these two cultures.

[Jakub]

Either Muslims have, through their history, been comparitavely very liberal in relation to their apparently intolerant holy books, or their holy books aren't as intolerant as you would like us to believe.
No way Jose.

Muslims had a three-step process for conversion.

The first was incentives. After taking over a new territory (by force or conversion of leader), Muslims would have economic incentives and extra rights.

The second step was active conversion, sort of like today's evangelists.

After that, followed persecution. Muslims weren't as bad as the Inquisition (which has no parallels on that scale in western civilization until Stalin and Hitler - it grew more brutal and lasted longer than even the French Revolution) - but they weren't exactly hospitable. Their worst excesses (still mild by Inquisition standards, except for relatively brief Shi'ite/Sunni flare-ups) were limited to their own heretics and dissidents.

[Tim Partlett]

You say no way, and then you describe your worst case scenario which still agrees with what I said. I didn't say that they were nice, kind and benevolent, I said they were relatively very liberal. If you read the articles on the mistreatment of the Jewish people on the Jewish Virtual Library, a site that is not exactly Muslim friendly, you will get one page (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/anti-semitism/Jews_in_Arab_lands_(gen).html) about the Muslims, which amounts to a few massacres, and laws forcing synogogues to never be higher than a mosque, but the Christian butchery needs a section (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/anti-semitism/Christian.html) of its own.

The laws against Jews and Christians in Muslim lands were unkind, but for the time they were very lenient to those outside the established religion of the state. The JVL even goes so far as to list "persecutions" such as making non-Muslims pay a "poll tax" and not allowing them to drink wine in public. This is pretty minor, considering that all Muslims had to pay a poll tax too, a "poor tax", as part of their religion, it's just that Christians and Jews paid the same with a different name. While no Jews or Christians were allowed to drink wine in public, they were generally allowed to drink in private. The JVL doesn't bother to mention that, of course, no muslims are allowed to drink wine at all.

Yes, the Jewish people were treated badly by the Muslims, but to try and claim that they were treated as badly as they were in Christian Europe is an attempt at historical revisionism. Even the JVL notes that "At various times, Jews in Muslim lands were able to live in relative peace and thrive culturally and economically." Compare this to some of the wonderful treatment doled out by the Christians. Let's take a look at how the JVL describes the treatment of the Jewish people in Spain (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/expulsion.html), not long after the evil Muslims were booted out by the benevolent Christians.

"On July 30 of [1492], the entire Jewish community, some 200,000 people, were expelled from Spain.

Tens of thousands of refugees died while trying to reach safety. In some instances, Spanish ship captains charged Jewish passengers exorbitant sums, then dumped them overboard in the middle of the ocean. In the last days before the expulsion, rumors spread throughout Spain that the fleeing refugees had swallowed gold and diamonds, and many Jews were knifed to death by brigands hoping to find treasures in their stomachs."

"The most fortunate of the expelled Jews succeeded in escaping to Turkey. Sultan Bajazet welcomed them warmly. "How can you call Ferdinand of Aragon a wise king," he was fond of asking, "the same Ferdinand who impoverished his own land and enriched ours?""

Lucky? To escape to Muslim Turkey? Surely not!

Let's look at the Crusades (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/Crusader.html). Let's see what the kind hearted Christians did on liberating Jerusalem from the evil Muslims.

"In July 1099, after a five-week siege, the knights of the First Crusade and their rabble army captured Jerusalem, massacring most of the city's non-Christian inhabitants. Barricaded in their synagogues, the Jews defended their quarter, only to be burnt to death or sold into slavery."

But when the evil Muslims returned, what did they do. Surely it must have been worse than the nice Christians?

"After the overthrow of the Crusaders by a Muslim army under Saladin (1187), the Jews were again accorded a certain measure of freedom, including the right to live in Jerusalem."

Then there is the Inquisitions, the Holocaust, the treatment of Jewish people during the plagues (they were blamed of course), and other nastiness. It's barely comparable.

[Linoleum]

This may or may not be true, but with the limited window on the Islamic world offered by a clearly biased MEMRI, you will never know the truth, only what they want you to hear about.

While this is a very valid point, it doesn't change the fact that what MEMRI usually chooses to highlight is not tinfoil geopages websites, but material coming out of state media organs. The notoriety of said organs has led to the creation of this thread.

As a sidenote, is there a reverse counterpart to MEMRI highlighting examples that official Arab hostility towards Israel isn't all that bad?

[Kalle]

Anyone want to guess what country in the Middle East that has the largest jewish population, besides Israel? It's Iran. Yes, the same theocratic, nuke-developing, Israel-hating state we all know and despise actually offers it's Jewish citizens a protected status precisely because it is mandated in to Koran that Jews are "people of the Book", and as such a protected minority.

Not that life in Iran is all that rosy in the first place, but there is apparently neither open persecution nor discrimination of jews.

[MikeSofaer]

The Arabic word you are looking for is "dhimmi".

It's definitely a second-class status. You're not supposed to kill them, basically. Kind of like South Africa used to be.

[Tim Partlett]

While this is a very valid point, it doesn't change the fact that what MEMRI usually chooses to highlight is not tinfoil geopages websites, but material coming out of state media organs. The notoriety of said organs has led to the creation of this thread.

How do you know whether the "state media organ" is the prime source of information for people in the country, or a barely watched side show. Not all state television companies or newspapers have a great share of the audience. MEMRI is also prone to showing the opinions of not so popular outlets, including newspapers and satellites from outside of the region, like London and Paris, that are barely watched or read by people in the Middle East. MEMRI never gives any indication as to whether a news source has any credibility or popularity in the region.

The "notoriety of said organs" in this instance isn't all that important, as the views expressed aren't that extreme. One would expect any major news source that attempts balance to get at two sides to a story, even if they don't agree with it, intend to mock it, or belittle it. Most of the major Arabic news agencies do attempt balance. If one selectively chooses any dissenting opinion, one can paint a very imbalanced impression of a region's viewpoint. If I were to selectively choose commentaries from the national dailies of the US, I could make out that America was pro-Gay, anti-gun, opposed to the war in Iraq, and with a very positive attitude towards France.

In fact, with interviews with all kinds of loons appearing in all of the best newspapers and news agencies, I could paint pretty much any picture I liked, if I was translating only selected stories for people who didn't understand the English language or American culture. Just on the left leaning CBS alone I can link to Jerry Falwell calling the prophet Mohammed a "terrorist" in an interview and their quoting verbatim of Rush Limbaugh's text on the Abu Ghraib tortures being just a bit of frat party fun. I could then say, well if that is what liberal Americans are saying, just think how much the average Joe hates Arabs.

Of course, that would be totally unfair.


As a sidenote, is there a reverse counterpart to MEMRI highlighting examples that official Arab hostility towards Israel isn't all that bad?

I don't know, but let's just hope there isn't a version of MEMRI translating English language texts into Arabic with the same kind of slanted filter, or we'll never have any peace.

[Daniel Morris]

First of all, none of these selections originated on state media outlets. The two newspapers are based in London, while al-Jazeera is a famously independent network.

From everything I've read, al-Jazeera is far from a "barely watched side show" -- rather, it's the news network of choice in the Arab world. And al-Hayat is a prestigious newspaper made all the more so by virtue of the fact that its London address makes it impervious to the meddling of Arab regimes and their censors.

The simple point of my post remains. These pro-democracy sentiments are finding expression in major Arab-language media outlets -- unless Partlett means to suggest that MEMRI invents such selections out of whole cloth.

[Tim Partlett]

If you are going to reply only to the first sentence of my post, you may as well not bother, as it becomes a meaningless waste of bandwidth. Let me repost the key final paragraphs which you ignored, so that you may revise your reply in light of them.


The "notoriety of said organs" in this instance isn't all that important, as the views expressed aren't that extreme. One would expect any major news source that attempts balance to get at two sides to a story, even if they don't agree with it, intend to mock it, or belittle it. Most of the major Arabic news agencies do attempt balance. If one selectively chooses any dissenting opinion, one can paint a very imbalanced impression of a region's viewpoint. If I were to selectively choose commentaries from the national dailies of the US, I could make out that America was pro-Gay, anti-gun, opposed to the war in Iraq, and with a very positive attitude towards France.

In fact, with interviews with all kinds of loons appearing in all of the best newspapers and news agencies, I could paint pretty much any picture I liked, if I was translating only selected stories for people who didn't understand the English language or American culture. Just on the left leaning CBS alone I can link to Jerry Falwell calling the prophet Mohammed a "terrorist" in an interview and their quoting verbatim of Rush Limbaugh's text on the Abu Ghraib tortures being just a bit of frat party fun. I could then say, well if that is what liberal Americans are saying, just think how much the average Joe hates Arabs.

Of course, that would be totally unfair.

The simple point of my post remains: with enough opinions you can make people sing any tune you like.

[Daniel Morris]

I forgot to include my very favorite Arab-language opinion of recent weeks -- the Nov. 24 letter (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6700784/site/newsweek/) from Abu Musab al-Zarqawi to the "clerics, leaders and people of Iraq":


"You have let us down in the darkest circumstances and handed us over to the enemy ... You have quit supporting the mujahedin ... Instead of implementing God's orders you chose safety and preferred your money and your sons."

How's that for singing a tune?

[Gav]

Anyone want to guess what country in the Middle East that has the largest jewish population, besides Israel? It's Iran. Yes, the same theocratic, nuke-developing, Israel-hating state we all know and despise actually offers it's Jewish citizens a protected status precisely because it is mandated in to Koran that Jews are "people of the Book", and as such a protected minority.

Not that life in Iran is all that rosy in the first place, but there is apparently neither open persecution nor discrimination of jews.

The fact that Iran has a large number of Jews doesn't really mean much in terms of how they treat them. Maybe the Iranians just make it hard to leave.

Now, I'll admit I don't know a hell of a lot about Iran, but an Iranian family fled to Israel a few years ago and moved in next to my sister-in-law. Their story is that it's very hard to leave Iran without being thrown in jail. They were fearful for their lives, and went through an elaborate subterfuge to be able to sneak out of the country without alerting any authorities. Even with that, some of the extended family had to stay behind to pull the trick off.

Sure, it's anecdotal evidence, but their story was pretty compelling to me.

Gav

[Linoleum]

How do you know whether the "state media organ" is the prime source of information for people in the country, or a barely watched side show.

This is not terribly relevant when you are evaluating the media as expressing the approved opinions of the people in actual power.

If something like MEMRI was your only source of information for say, Iran, you might not know there was a very large pro-western sentiment in the Iranian population.

On the other hand, unless you can read Parsi weblogs, you might have no clue what is being sanctioned and endorsed for propaganda by the state media.


If I were to selectively choose commentaries from the national dailies of the US, I could make out that America was pro-Gay, anti-gun, opposed to the war in Iraq, and with a very positive attitude towards France.

I think we disagree that the Arab media has a diverse enough collection of views in contrast to western media to be able to pull that kind of selective sampling off. It's far too homogenous.

[Johan O]

...
I think we disagree that the Arab media has a diverse enough collection of views in contrast to western media to be able to pull that kind of selective sampling off. It's far too homogenous.

I am going to hazard the guess that you are not fluent in arabic, and so I am a little curious how you came to that conclusion, especially since at least one of the papers cited is based in europe and thus outside the direct control of any mideast regime.

[Linoleum]

I am going to hazard the guess that you are not fluent in arabic, and so I am a little curious how you came to that conclusion, especially since at least one of the papers cited is based in europe and thus outside the direct control of any mideast regime.

Perhaps I should have been more specific in making a distinction between western media, including western Arabic media, and indigenous media sources.

I wish I were fluent in Arabic. Then if I wanted to say, try and get a broad spectrum read on coverage of the Van Gogh killing, I could do it personally. Because I think that would be very interesting indeed.

[Tim Partlett]

How do you know whether the "state media organ" is the prime source of information for people in the country, or a barely watched side show.

This is not terribly relevant when you are evaluating the media as expressing the approved opinions of the people in actual power.

First of all, what use is knowing the opinion of the people in power when trying to guage Arab opinion in general? Does a dictatorship speak for its people? Secondly why do you need MEMRI to tell you the opinions of the governments in power in the Middle East, when they hardly make a secret of it? You don't need MEMRI to tell you the opinions of the Saudi government. Thirdly, which "state media organ" was mentioned in the original post?


I think we disagree that the Arab media has a diverse enough collection of views in contrast to western media to be able to pull that kind of selective sampling off. It's far too homogenous.

As has been stated, I don't think you or I have an understanding enough of the Arab media to state that. Still, even with a limited range of opinions on offer, we could easily create the idea, through selective translation, that everyone in the Middle East was feeling all gooey towards democracy and Westernisation, or that they were all burning with hatred of the West and wanting to destroy it. MEMRI does this every day, depending on the picture it wants to paint. One day the Arabs are wanting to tear the throats out of Christian babies, thus supporting the occupations of Iraq and Palestine, the next they are feeling all warm and cuddly towards us, because of the occupations in Iraq and Palestine.

[Toddy]

Tim, we can say one thing for certain about the Arab media in the Arab world -- it is almost 100% state-controlled. Even the more liberal regimes like that of Jordan have strict controls of the media and regulate every public group and gathering with mukhabarat. You're reserving your righteous indignation for MEMRI when in reality (a concept which is obviously foreign to you) you should be more upset about how a few dozen people determine what gets onto news broadcasts and into newspapers in Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, etc.

And, by the way, it's pretty easy for even a non-Arabic reader to see that the news coming out of the Arab world is, by and large, homogenous. That's sort of the whole point of dictatorial rule.

[Jason McCullough]

So the dictator's new media organizations are talking about how the dictators are going to switch to democracy? Huh?

[Kalle]

Anyone want to guess what country in the Middle East that has the largest jewish population, besides Israel? It's Iran. Yes, the same theocratic, nuke-developing, Israel-hating state we all know and despise actually offers it's Jewish citizens a protected status precisely because it is mandated in to Koran that Jews are "people of the Book", and as such a protected minority.

Not that life in Iran is all that rosy in the first place, but there is apparently neither open persecution nor discrimination of jews.

The fact that Iran has a large number of Jews doesn't really mean much in terms of how they treat them. Maybe the Iranians just make it hard to leave.

Now, I'll admit I don't know a hell of a lot about Iran, but an Iranian family fled to Israel a few years ago and moved in next to my sister-in-law. Their story is that it's very hard to leave Iran without being thrown in jail. They were fearful for their lives, and went through an elaborate subterfuge to be able to sneak out of the country without alerting any authorities. Even with that, some of the extended family had to stay behind to pull the trick off.

Sure, it's anecdotal evidence, but their story was pretty compelling to me.

Gav

I don't doubt your anecdote, but if I understand the statistics correctly then according to the UNHCR (http://www.unhcr.ch/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/statistics/opendoc.pdf?tbl=STATISTICS&id=414ad5897&page=statistics) around 100,000 people have fled Iran each year for the past decade. This is in spite of the Iranian governments best efforts to keep it's citizens in check.

[Tim Partlett]

Tim, we can say one thing for certain about the Arab media in the Arab world -- it is almost 100% state-controlled. Even the more liberal regimes like that of Jordan have strict controls of the media and regulate every public group and gathering with mukhabarat. You're reserving your righteous indignation for MEMRI when in reality (a concept which is obviously foreign to you) you should be more upset about how a few dozen people determine what gets onto news broadcasts and into newspapers in Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, etc.

And, by the way, it's pretty easy for even a non-Arabic reader to see that the news coming out of the Arab world is, by and large, homogenous. That's sort of the whole point of dictatorial rule.

Considering that the top three TV channels in the Arab world, Al Jazeera, Abu Dhabi TV, and Al Arabiyah are all indepenent stations, with nearly 100 million viewers between them, the idea that it the media is "almost 100% state-controlled" is laughably outdated. There has been a sea-change in the Arab media world since the last Gulf War, with satellite television and the Internet being able to prise open the tight grip the local despots had on the media in the region. Back in the last Gulf War, the only independent news channel the Arab world had access to was CNN, now they have a whole host of their own independent channels to choose from, beamed from all over the Middle East and the rest of the world.

[Toddy]

What's hilarious is that you think these nations are independent of the governments in the region. You actually believe that that biased nonsense coming out of Al Jazeera -- which has never seen a dead Arab baby it didn't like and routinely all but ignores Arab terrorist atrocities like the beheadings in Iraq -- is out of journalistic responsibility? These stations have to toe the line, Tim. They don't show the Arab world in a positive light, then they either get shut down at their source or they get blocked from transmitting into certain countries.

Also, do you even have a clue about how media is distributed in the Middle East? Do you really think the average guy in Saudi Arabia or Iran or Syria can just throw up a satellite dish and legally subscribe to any channel that he wants? Or that he can just sign up with a local ISP and surf to any web site that he desires? If so, I've got a bridge you might be interested in...

Double also, a good 90% of the population can't afford any of this stuff, and subsists on what is available in the local papers (there are a LOT of newspapers in the Arab world, and it seems like everyone reads them constantly) and what is on the state-controlled local news broadcasts, which aren't exactly subtle. Even Jordan, probably the most liberal state in the Arab world, has (or had, I'm a few years out of date) a national news anchor desk that sits underneath a photo of the king, and station on-air promos that show the king's face emerging from a blossoming flower.

Anyhow, I'm sure you'll twist all this in the usual Partlettian way, but I don't know even you can state that there are loads of "independent" news organizations in the Arab world.

[Moore]

isnt the media in iraq 100% state controlled? didnt WE shut down some newspapers and such?

[Tim Partlett]

What's hilarious is that you think these nations are independent of the governments in the region. You actually believe that that biased nonsense coming out of Al Jazeera -- which has never seen a dead Arab baby it didn't like and routinely all but ignores Arab terrorist atrocities like the beheadings in Iraq -- is out of journalistic responsibility? These stations have to toe the line, Tim. They don't show the Arab world in a positive light, then they either get shut down at their source or they get blocked from transmitting into certain countries.

You said that the media in the Middle East is "100% state controlled", now you are saying they have to temper their output to the tastes of governments around the region so as not to upset them. These are two quite different issues. All independent channels in the world tailor their output to some degree, in order not to annoy governments and groups of people sensitive to certain issues, like CNN not referring to the illegal Israeli settlements in the West Bank as illegal, Rupert Murdoch's news media being careful about China because of his business interests, and ITV in England dropping "Death of a Princess" because annoying the Saudis put their advertising revenue at risk. Strangely enough CNN and every other news media has the same potential to be blocked in those countries, and yet you don't concern yourself about their independence.

In the case of Al Jazeera, they are actually famous for annoying every government in the region, including their own, by being highly critical of the local regimes. Last year the Qatari government referred to Al Jazeera as a "perpetual headache" after another spat caused the Jordanian government to close down their press office, and the Saud royal family got in a huff over a program voicing dissident Saudi criticism. You probably forget that Saddam threw Al Jazeera out too. There's not much the regimes of the region can do about it, because blocking sattelite transmissions is not exactly cheap or easy, which is why Al Jazeera is the number one channel in the region despite its relatively liberal outlook and its critical approach.

Interestingly the government putting the most pressure on Al Jazeera seems to be that bastion of democracy and freedom, the US. The Al Jazeera offices in both Kabul and Baghdad were somehow hit by American missiles and shells. Their staff have been harrassed, arrested, and, in the case of one cameraman, even shipped off to Guantanamo Bay. The Bush administration has even been reported as having put pressure on the American friendly emir of Qatar to shut down the station, at least for the duration of the occupation of Iraq.

That last comment kind of leads on to the funniest thing about your claim that Al Jazeera is "100% state controlled", because if this were true, they would be pro-American, like their pro-American Qatari government ;).


Also, do you even have a clue about how media is distributed in the Middle East? Do you really think the average guy in Saudi Arabia or Iran or Syria can just throw up a satellite dish and legally subscribe to any channel that he wants? Or that he can just sign up with a local ISP and surf to any web site that he desires? If so, I've got a bridge you might be interested in...

I'm sure it is not as easy as it is in the West. Despite this the satellite stations still manage to get audiences in the tens of millions. If it was so hard to get a satellite dish in Iran, I wonder why it is that the Iranian goverment is having such a problem with the pro-reformist channels being beamed into the country from ex-pats in the US? I wonder why they invest large amounts of money in paying the Cubans to try and block them? Couldn't they just shut it down locally? Perhaps your understanding of how easy it is to censor people in a world of the Internet and satellite broadcasts is not as sound as you think it is. I suggest you ask the Chinese how good a job they do.


Double also, a good 90% of the population can't afford any of this stuff, and subsists on what is available in the local papers (there are a LOT of newspapers in the Arab world, and it seems like everyone reads them constantly) and what is on the state-controlled local news broadcasts, which aren't exactly subtle. Even Jordan, probably the most liberal state in the Arab world, has (or had, I'm a few years out of date) a national news anchor desk that sits underneath a photo of the king, and station on-air promos that show the king's face emerging from a blossoming flower.

90%?

"Satellite dishes are abundant in the Arab Middle East and, as the footprints of satellites in the area cover the entire Arab region, most TV is pan-regional in availability, ownership and content production. State broadcasters have satellite channels in addition to terrestrial services and there are very many commercial channels, not all of them operating for commercial reasons, sharing inadequate advertising revenue. Most are transmitted by NileSat or ArabSat. A recent development has been the launch of several additional news channels to compete with the loved and hated Al Jazeera." - Research and Markets Limited (http://www.prweb.com/releases/2004/5/prweb125327.htm)

While you are correct that the state run TV shows can be almost pure propaganda in some countries (Iraqi state TV was reknowned for producing programs that were nothing but fear mongering), it is exactly because of this that the likes of Al Jazeera have become so popular. The fact that they report on the corruption, lies and dissident opinion in the countries of the region is why people believe that they are more truthful in their reporting. This is why satellite dishes have been springing up all over the region to tune into stations such as this. This is why even in coutries like Saudi Arabia, where private ownership of satellite dishes is illegal, their use is still widespread.


Anyhow, I'm sure you'll twist all this in the usual Partlettian way, but I don't know even you can state that there are loads of "independent" news organizations in the Arab world.

Loads? No. It's not up to Western standards by any means, but I was only arguing against your blatantly incorrect statement that the media in the Middle East is "almost 100% state controlled". Clearly it is not.

[Johan O]

These discussions of control of arab media sprung from the question if there was enough material for MEMRI to pick and choose. I think that this is a bit of a red herring however. If arab media is as homogeneous as Linoleum originally aserted I think we can all agree that they are unlikely to be monolithically positive of the occupation of Iraq. So I think it is more or less a given that there is enough diversity to pick and choose, otherwise these quotes would not have appeared at all, since it seems highly likely that it would pose no difficulty finding articles taking the opposite views of those quoted. The pertinent question is however if MEMRI could have picked a similar selection of articles prior to the occupation of Iraq. If the answer is yes then these articles are not particularily indicative of any change caused by the Iraqi occupation and the upcoming elections, and since Al Hayat is London based and my understanding of Al Jazeera's independence coincides with Tim's my answer would be that it appears likely that at least those 2 outlets could and probably have provided similar quotes prior to the occupation.