15 February 2011 By Mshari Al-Zaydi The Arab media divides into two camps over every
important event, with each camp becoming entrenched in
their views and people following the dictates of their
convictions – and occasionally their raw emotions –
which is something that varies according to the
changing information. Do you recall the 9/11 attacks? In the beginning
there was a sense of joy and elation with regards to
America suffering this blow, and then positions began
to form and solidify, and the position of people in
the Arab and Islamic world divided into [opposing]
teams. Currently the Arab media – both newspapers and
satellite channels – has again divided over what is
happening. This is something that has occurred over more than
one hot topic during the first decade of the new
millennium, from the war in Afghanistan to the war to
topple Saddam Hussein to Hezbollah's wars to the Gaza
war and then the events in Sudan, the Tunisian
revolution, and finally the protests in Egypt. Why does the Arab media divide over events such as
these? The nature of analyzing events and the nature of
interests differ [between one media camp and another];
this is natural and is neither cause for praise or
satire, this would be the nature of human beings and
the logic of different interests even if Arab
satellite channels like Al Jazeera and Al-Arabiya did
not enjoy the influence that they do today. We would
have witnessed the same division and contrast in style
in 1990 over Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait; we
would have seen Al Jazeera embracing the speeches and
statements of [Iraqi Information Minister] Latif
Naseef Jassim and devoting long hours of broadcast to
the Jordanian [Muslim] Brotherhood, or Yasser Arafat's
group or Algeria's [religious] fundamentalists, or
Egyptian nationalists, or Yemeni Baathists, who would
praise and cheer Saddam Hussein's invasion [of
Kuwait]. On the other hand, we would see Al-Arabiya
focusing its coverage on the Kuwaiti voices of
resistance, and the views of the Gulf and Arab public
that reject and oppose Saddam Hussein's invasion. Of
course, both Al Jazeera and Al-Arabiya would ensure
there was sufficient space [in their broadcast] for
certain coverage that stood in contrast and opposite
to their main coverage, although by its very nature
this would be controlled. This is because a media
outlet that only broadcasts one viewpoint is a media
outlet that no longer possesses even a minimum of
professionalism but rather is just loudly sermonizing
[one point of view]. What is true for satellite television channels is
also true for newspapers, and we all recall Asharq Al-Awsat's
battles against those that have attacked this
newspaper, from fundamentalists to nationalists. For
example, Asharq Al-Awsat has been attacked for not
adopting the language or rhetoric of the Al-Quds Al-Arabi
newspaper, which utilizes a language of mobilization
and systematic attack against the opponents – both
fundamentalist and secular – of the revolutionary
trend in the Arab world. The Asharq Al-Awsat newspaper has fought huge media
battles with regards to Saddam Hussein's invasion of
Kuwait and then later over the 9/11 attacks,
Hezbollah's occupation of Beirut, the Gaza war, the
Iraq war, and other hot topics. However due to the predominance of the television
culture or the "image culture" as some experts like to
describe it, the [television] screen – thanks to its
very nature of depicting events live as they are
happening – has an immediate and more visible
influence, even if this is not necessarily a deeper
influence [than that of newspapers]. With regards to the events in Tunisia and Egypt, we
could notice that Al Jazeera was warmly received by
many of the protestors, and this is natural as this
channel has been transformed into a loudspeaker for
the protests, as well as an even greater tool to help
mobilize the people than before, where the channel's
previous behavior and coverage was not free from this
nature of mobilization! Al Jazeera became the [media]
platform that would broadcast [media] content with the
aim of raising the morale of the protestors and
contributing to weakening the opposite front, namely
the regimes and the governments. Here we are looking
at a different kind of media, in other words that of a
mobilization media, and there is nothing wrong with a
media representing one party in the conflict, such as
the army's media or Hezbollah's media; one of the
functions of such a representative media is to issue
rhetoric, raise morale, weaken the opponents, and
provide an embellished image of victories. In the case
of Egypt, Al Jazeera doubled or even trebled its
figures with regards to the number of people taking
part in the demonstrations, or the number of
demonstrators killed. As for Al Arabiya, it's coverage
of events fluctuated, sometimes giving more
[broadcasting] time to the supporters of Hosni
Mubarak's regime – who seemed to be confused and in a
state of turmoil at the beginning of the crisis – and
then later it moved closer to the opposition and the
youth who had been arrested, even broadcasting an
interview with former head of the Egyptian Muslim
Brotherhood Mahdi Akef. However following this, Al-Arabiya
quickly took a different approach, oscillating between
the protestors and those calling this crisis to be
resolved and dialogue to take place [between the
demonstrators and the Egyptian government]. A friend in the media who supports the youths of
the Tahrir Square revolution against the regime told
me "I cannot watch Al Jazeera in a continuous manner,
because I feel that it forcibly grabs me and drags me
towards a specific point of view. I say to myself,
addressing the channel: Let me choose my own point of
view, I support the revolution of the Tahrir Square
youth, I do not need to be spoon-fed by you!" The question that must be asked here is: is Al
Jazeera to blame for this behavior and manner of media
coverage? This is particularly interesting since the
angry youth and protestors do not want anything at
this moment other than for somebody to listen to their
viewpoints, news and analysis of events, and nothing
more. Personally, I do not think Al Jazeera is to
blame for this so long as it views itself as a major
player in the region – beyond even that of some states
– and so log as it, and those behind it, believe that
such behavior profits one side and bears fruit. From
here, the nature of its coverage of events is
consistent with the nature of the media discourse of
the Iranian – Syrian axis, and what we are now seeing
is the state of Al Jazeera! We have seen Al Jazeera
behave in this manner – the manner of an international
state – with regards to its coverage of the Iranian
protests, that was extremely biased towards the story
being put forward by Ahmadinejad's side; we did not
see the same close attention that Al Jazeera has paid
to the Egyptian scene, and it is certain that were
this happening in Syria, Al Jazeera would not rush to
cover events there in the same manner. Al Jazeera has become akin to a [political] party;
it has its admirers and supporters, and it even has
international relations with states, and it enough to
look at this item of news published yesterday [in the
Los Angeles Times]. The news headline reads "US mends
frosty relations with Al Jazeera" and the news story
reads "the Obama administration is courting the
pan-Arab television network Al Jazeera in an attempt
to improve a history of testy relations with one of
the most influential news outlets in the Middle East."
Therefore we are looking at the news of two
superpowers, the USA and Al Jazeera, reconciling
relations with one another! The conflict over the portrayal of news is simply
part of the nature of this scene; the media does not
just report events, it also influencing the course
that these events take. Even the protestors and the
regimes are well aware of this, and that can be seen
in the questions put forward by the Lebanese critic
Ibrahim al-Arees in his excellent column for the Al-Hayat
newspaper entitled "One thousand faces for thousands
of years." In this editorial, al-Arees looks at the
protests that occurred before the age of satellite
television, digital cameras, and reality television;
he writes "the age of television and breaking news
with regards to the demonstrations and protests has
become a form of reality television." He then went on
to talk about the revolutions that occurred in the
1960s, writing "anybody who returns to the images and
videos of the demonstrations during these years of
struggle – regardless of our [political] position
today towards this and the years of tumultuous
politics that truly guaranteed that street protests
could change the world – can see that the sincerity
and passion on the faces of those involved, and their
belief in what they were doing, without their being
concerned whether they were being recorded by
television cameras or not." Some may believe that al-Arees's words are harsh,
but he is speaking in a general manner and not about
what happened in Cairo or Tunisia in particular, this
is because what these youths are doing today is
important and complex that is extremely difficult to
analyze or trace back to any single influence. However
what cannot be denied is the large role played by the
media, particularly after traditional media
(television and newspapers) have merged with more
modern media forms (the internet and mobile phones)
resulting in everybody beginning to address everybody
else, and every media outlet being keep to monopolize
the reporting of events. The scene is mixed, with the interest of the state
and parties blended with the dreams of the new
revolutionaries, the appetite of the new media, and
means of influencing the course of events rather than
just reporting what is happening in a negative manner.
Therefore the talk about the impartiality of this
[media] outlet or that now belongs to children's
bedtime stories. A Saudi journalist and expert on Islamic
movements and Islamic fundamentalism as well as Saudi
affairs. Mshari is Asharq Al-Awsat's opinion page
Editor, where he also contributes a weekly column. Has
worked for the local Saudi press occupying several
posts at Al -Madina newspaper amongst others. He has
been a guest on numerous news and current affairs
programs as an expert on Islamic extremism
Comments 💬 التعليقات |