« November 2008 | Main

December 2008 Archives

December 1, 2008

Mumbai

Hearing of the terrorist attacks that occurred in Mumbai last week, I knew that I would be seeing the story from a different angle this time around. Because it was a very busy Thanksgiving weekend for me, I was only able to watch a little bit of news on television, but what I did watch was very telling.

Standing in the kitchen of my friend's house in New Jersey, I listened to coverage of the attacks. The reporters speculated on the identity of the terrorist attackers, discussed the terrorists' suspected method of entry into Mumbai, and they rattled off the number of victims -- both those who were injured and those who were lost. But most of all, in the particular news show that I was watching -- unfortunately the network/channel escapes me now, but I think it might have been CNN -- the reporters talked about Rabbi Gavriel Noach Holtzberg and his wife, Rivkah.

What I specifically remember about the coverage of the attacks was the mention of these two people who are survived by their two year old son. This is because, as the reporter spoke of the Nariman House, the Bombay Center for Jewish Life, she took the time to speak very specifically about these two people instead of the other victims. She also paused whilst talking and began again with something along the lines of, "And we just found out now that the Holtzbergs have a connection with the U.S.," explaining that the Holtzbergs had lived in the U.S. for a period of time before they moved to Mumbai.

Why take the time to specifically point this out?

What relevance this has is arguably vague, but it is something that is mentioned in many articles that I've looked at. Some articles I've seen have even called the Holtzbergs Americans, but I've read that at least Noach is Israeli. By connecting this Jewish couple to America, the news media seems to be perpetuating the Clash of Civilizations. Jews and Christians are lumped together as 'The West' and of course pitted against the Muslims and terrorists of the East.

Yes, of course the terrorist attacks in Mumbai were aimed at tourists and, clearly because the Nariman House was hit, so were the Jewish. This makes the terrorists of course guilty of perpetuating the Clash as well. Both sides have grouped the enemy into something amorphously monolithic and oppositional.

December 3, 2008

Arab Money

So because I have not been up-to-date on popular music lately, I've missed out on something glaringly offensive in its use of stereotypes: Busta Rhymes' new song called "Arab Money." A video of Busta Rhymes' singing it can be found here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lfqraa2hUlg

It's popular, as I discovered one day in my friend's room: everyone seemed to know the dance moves and the lyrics. It's like the new Soulja Boy song. In fact, a rapper named Arab, who frequently works with Soula Boy, has even created a remix of the song.

When I heard it, I could easily tell, although I wasn't paying much attention to the lyrics, that it was blatantly racist. The song's chorus utilizes stereotypically Arabic-sounding vocals, and the name of the song is ARAB MONEY. They also pronounce it "A-rab" instead of simply "Arab."

Of course, I couldn't resist making a comment about how racist the song was, and my friend informed me that "they're only saying that because they're trying to say they have a lot of money." I then informed him that there are many Arabs who don't have a lot of money, which then somehow turned into a discussion about the N word and how just because you call someone the N word, it doesn't make them black.

Again, I'm not sure what point he was trying to make, but I am sure that the song can definitely be found offensive. Here are the lyrics, so decide for yourself.

CHORUS
Shalai Lai Lai Halilili Hai Lo!
Hi Li Ba Lai Hey Hi Li Bai Lo!
We gettin' Arab money!
We gettin' Arab money!
Ha La Shiki Hai Lili Ba La!
Milli Ai Lai Shi Lili Ba La!
We gettin' Arab money!
We gettin' Arab money!

Now, there ain't no way that you could kill the beast dead
I got Middle East women and Middle East bread
I got oil well money in the desert playing golf
Dolce shorts, dashiki with a Louis Scarf
Chest cold, diamonds make a nigga wanna cough
In Dubai, 20 million on the villa loft
And then I step up in the club and then these other niggas mad as shit
The way I make the people wanna sing the hook in Arabic!

Seven star hotels, Maybach, movie sick
Big bitches, knock-kneed camel-toed groupie shit
Women walk around while security on camelback
Club on fire now, niggas don't know how to act
Sittin' in casinos while I'm gamblin' with Arafat
Money long, watch me purchase pieces of the Almanac
Y'all already know, I got the streets buzzin'
While I make you bow down and make Salaat like a Muslim

See, now I take trips to Baghdad dummy
While I use stacked chips and count Arab money now
I don't need to get fresh, about to grow a beard dude
So much cake even the money look weird too
Domestic bread, and I'm broad, I'm tryna eat right
Prince Alwali, Bin Talal, Al Saul
They respect the value of my worth in Maui, Malaysia
Iran and Iraq, Saudi Arabia!

Of course, some of these lyrics are simply stupid, silly, unrelated references to the Middle East, such the mentions of the dashiki, Arafat, the royals, Baghdad, etc. I would say that these types of irrelevant references are pretty common in hip-hop. However, there are also the things that I have highlighted in bold. These things are much more harmful to Arab identity and perceptions.

Firstly, there's the reference to oil money. The Middle East is of course known for oil, and the stereotype is that Arabs are all rich because of it. Obviously, many countries in the Middle East are not rich in oil, and even for those who are, I doubt the majority of the population is rich from it. There's also the desert and camels reference. Of course, the Middle East is portrayed as place where men ride camels in endless sand. Again, this is a misconception that the song perpetuates. The mention of Salaat and Islam is similarly detrimental in that it gives the impression that 'Arab' and 'Muslim' are synonymous, which we know to be inaccurate. Lastly, Busta Rhymes mentions growing a beard, as if all Arabs have beards.

Nice -- totally politically correct. You know what else doesn't help? The girl warbling at the end of the video! All of this, paired with the faux-Arabic chanting, is really respectful to those A-rabs, isn't it? Although according to this Wikipedia article, this remix, featuring such heavy hitters as Lil Wayne, Diddy, Akon, and T-Pain, utilizes actual Arabic:

"Bismillāhi r-raḥmāni r-raḥīm. Al ḥamdu lillāhi rabbi l-'ālamīn"
Translation: "In the name of Allah (God), most gracious most merciful. All Praise is due to Allah, Lord of the worlds.

"As-Salamu Alaykum Warahmatullah Wa Barakatu"
Translation: "Peace be upon you" (A Greeting)

"Alhamdulillah"
"Praise to Allah (God)"

"Habibi"
"My Love"

"Bismillāhi r-raḥmāni r-raḥīm"
Translation: "In the name of Allah (God), most gracious most merciful."

I suppose this is at least an improvement, although this time around, Busta does claim that he has "so much paper [he] could probably gift wrap a planet." Lyrics for this remix have not yet been posted and I don't have the ear or the energy to transcribe rap lyrics, so I can't definitively say whether or not this version is an improvement or not. :/

December 4, 2008

Just in Time

Just in time for the end of this class, my friend with the Israeli flag on his bedroom wall -- let's call him Steve -- and I had a conversation about Hebron and Israel and his experience in Egypt. We went out for dinner early this week, and he brought up his friend who is now living in Egypt, dating a man who, according to Steve, is apparently part of a terrorist group or at least a strong supporter of a terrorist group. Steve calls him "Terrorist Boyfriend." Whether Terrorist Boyfriend is actually a terrorist or even a supporter or not is not clear to me.

Anyhow, this led to us talking about Egypt, which he was lucky enough to visit over the summer. Steve told me that he went with his mother and they took verrryyyy extreme measures, such as hiding their Star of David necklaces, to hide their Jewish identities. He said they were anxious the whole trip because of the conflict and anti-Jewish/anti-Israeli sentiment. He constantly made jokes about hiding his "Jewishness" in Egypt. However, despite all this, he seemed to have had a great time there. He said that he saw the pyramids, which were "right across the street" from his hotel.

This made me think that he perhaps experienced, to quote "Architourism" again, not "the reality of Islamic Egypt but a cruel Western perversion of it" (20). Perhaps this is why he enjoyed it. He never experienced the actual Muslim Egypt, but an ancient Egypt that worshipped Horus, Osiris, and Ra.

However, as he spoke more about his trip, it seemed he had seen more than just this side of Egypt, as he traveled to many different places throughout Egypt, not simply the pyramids in Cairo. As he described it, it was interesting to see, but it's difficult to say with what lens he viewed Egypt and whether it was a different one than I would have used. He said that, as a Jew, he was worried the whole trip about "being discovered," which leads me to think that perhaps his own slight anti-Muslim attitude may have colored his view on Egypt.

But when I really think about it, wouldn't I be worried as well, simply as a Westerner? In light of the recent attacks at Mumbai, where tourist areas were targeted, it seems that Westerners, regardless of religious affiliation, are also in the crosshairs of those radicals who believe that violence can resolve the conflict in the Middle East.

These "religious extremists," as some would call them, do not exist solely on the side of Muslims, of course. As Steve and I spoke further, the conversation traveled to Hebron. He informed me that a building in Hebron, which is currently inhabited by settlers, is in dispute. Settlers are being forced to vacate it, and they are unwilling to do so, which will probably result in them being removed by force.

Of course, Hebron, which is located in the West Bank, is technically Palestinian territory, the very little territory that the Palestinians now have left after Israel has claimed almost all of what used to be Palestine. Obviously these settlers were being unreasonable. I expressed this to Steve, hoping he wouldn't react sensitively, and I was pleasantly surprised when he agreed, dismissing the settlers by rolling his eyes and calling them "religious extremists." He said that these people believed that all of Israel belonged to the Jews, including the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, that the Palestinians had no right to be there at all.

According to this article, "About 500 of the settlers live in Hebron in heavily guarded enclaves among 170,000 Palestinians. They see Israel's government as too sympathetic to the Palestinians." Someone knowing all the facts and history of the conflicts relating to Israel could wonder how this statement is even close to being true. However, as members of a religious group which has faced immense amounts of discrimination, hatred, and genocide, some Jews may not find that this statement to be outlandish. They simply believe that Israel is theirs -- their safety, their home -- finally.

Attempting to see it from their eyes makes me understand why they would behave this way. However, they fail to try and see from the perspective from the Muslims and Palestinians. This was once their home as well, and now they have been evicted. And the little land they have is being encroached upon by Jewish settlers who believe that THEIR government is too lenient towards the people that they forced out of their homes. They also fail to see the life hasn't been easy historically for Muslims either.

In "Slumdog Millionaire," there is a scene in which the main character, his brother, and his mother are washing clothes in a river with a large group of others. Suddenly, his mother sees people running towards them with sticks, bats, and various other weapons. They shout something along the lines of, "Get them! They're Muslims!" Then they storm the people, attacking them ruthlessly. The main character's mother is killed in this attack, in the name of Hinduism. Of course, the All Indian Muslim League was not created without reason. And neither was Pakistan. And even after a Muslim country was created for Indian Muslims, conflicts continued to sprout afterwards, for example, the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971.

Any religious group faces persecution, discrimination, and massive amounts of conflict. Apparently, this is unavoidable. I don't mean to be preachy, but perhaps if people were to be more tolerant of one another's beliefs, life would be easier for everyone. Trying to see things from another's perspective will make everyone more understanding and tolerant of those they disagree with or don't understand. I know that much of the reading for this class, especially Palestine and Persepolis, helped me to see more clearly what people in the Middle East are going through and to be more sympathetic of their plight.

December 8, 2008

U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT: ANALYSIS OF ARAB TELEVISION

ABSTRACT: This report includes an analysis of the Arab television industry structure in terms of level of government ownership and funding (high) and also government control (low because of the advent of satellite). It also describes trends that Arab TV seems to be drawn towards, including call-in segments and adaptations of Western programs. It then describes some U.S. attempts to influence the Arab world through media, like Al Hurra, identifying reasons for failure and suggesting less propagandistic future media ventures along with encouragement to fuel advertising to the region to decrease government-dependence.

TABLE OF CONTENTS:
STRUCTURE OF THE ARAB TELEVISION INDUSTRY
Ownership
-Channels and Owners
-Funding
-Ownership and Control
State Control
-Range
-Satellite and Censorship
Competition
Role of Advertising
-Dependence on Government
-Lack of Advertising

CURRENT PROGRAMMATIC TRENDS
News
Interactivity
Variety
Adaptations

US INVOLVEMENT IN ARAB TELEVISION
Al Hurra
Reasons for Al Hurra’s Failure
Other Attempts
Anti-Western Propaganda?
Suggestions
-News
-Advertising

BIBLIOGRAPHY


THE STRUCTURE OF THE ARAB TELEVISION INDUSTRY

Ownership
Channels and Owners:
MBC was started by Saudi businessmen, while Orbit has “close links to the Saudi royal family” (Hammond 209). In Lebanon, Future TV is partially owned by the former prime minister, Rafiq Hariri, and LBC “is controlled by a board dominated by ministers and officials close to the Syrian government” (Sakr). Meanwhile, MBC belongs to Shaikh Walid bin Ibrahim al-Ibrahim, a relative of Saudi Arabia's King Fahd and Al Jazeera is annually financed with $30 million by the Emir of Qatar (Sakr; Zayani 10).

Funding:
“Most television systems in the Arab world are subsidized by the government partly because they need a great deal of money and partly because Arab governments have a stake in the media,” such as Saudi Arabia (Zayani 14, 15).

Ownership and Control:
In the Arab world, there is a general trend of the “politicization of media ownership,” meaning “the media in general, and satellite channels in particular, operate under a patron who is either government or some rich owner who in many cases is associated, in one way or another, with the ruling elite or government (Zayani 14).

However, it would be inaccurate to claim these people promote the governments’ agendas. Someone who is has connections in the government may have self-interest in mind or business interests in addition to or instead of government agendas (Khazen).

State Control

Range:
State control of television in the Arab world varies drastically in the Arab world from what may be considered the freest of all channels, Al Jazeera – which is “not government-controlled, but is nonetheless government owned” – to state controlled channels such as Al-Iraqiya (Zayani 17).

Satellite and Censorship:
In general, satellite TV is “impossible to control” (Khazen). “By transcending borders, satellite broadcasts are technically capable of circumventing national controls. Several channels serving Middle Eastern audiences are based outside the region,” such as previously London-based MBC (Sakr).

However, some countries have been slow to relinquish control; there are “twenty-seven Egyptian terrestrial and satellite channels in total, almost all of them fully government-owned” (Hammond 214).

This is no surprise, as historically in the Arab world, media was government controlled prior to independently owned Arab satellite stations and spewed propaganda, such as what Nasser and the PLO sanctioned, leaving people to turn to CNN, BBC World and Voice of America for information on the world” (Hammond 208; Heemsbergen 1).

Competition
The Arab world is frequently described as “media congested” (Zayani 26). There are around three hundred satellite channels, encompassing a wide range of subjects, but “few of them are professional in terms of content management and audience retention” (Hammond 216).

As well, “this proliferation of satellites has made it possible for smaller operators to compete with propaganda-manufacturing oil lobbies and it has reduced the latter’s revenues by fragmenting audiences” (Mernissi).

Role of Advertising
Media outlets rely on advertising. Advertising depends on viewer numbers. However, because “advertising is tied to political considerations and succumbs to outside pressures,” advertising can be hard to procure in Arab media (Zayani 15).

Dependence on Government:
Al Jazeera survived its first few years without airing commercials consistently (Zayani 15). This, no doubt, is due to funding by the Emir of Qatar. “It is the case that some kind of subsidies, whether by state or by individuals, will continue to be necessary to the survival of much of the Arab media” (Khazen).

Lack of Advertising:
Advertising would free the Arab media from state control, but advertising expenditure is low in the Arab world compared to Western and Israeli standards (Khazen). “In global terms, Arab advertising revenue is tiny--only about a third of 1 percent of that of the world media” (Khazen).

CURRENT PROGRAMMATIC TRENDS

News
The Second Gulf War was important to the development of Arab TV broadcasting. CNN, especially, with its 24-hour news coverage, had a great effect. It became an important information outlet, “providing alternative news coverage which changed media practices and audiences’ expectations.” (Zayani 29).

CNN “gave people in the Arab world and beyond a sense of how powerful the media can be, galvanized the development of Arab satellite broadcasting” (Zayani 30). After that, Arab channels replaced the Western channels, supplying them with “more reliable news, uncensored credible information and better programs than those offered by the heavily regulated state media” (Zayani 30).

This powerful drive for news was new to the Arab world. Some conjecture that this was a result of “westernization or globalization,” that the Arab media was becoming “linked through flows of capital and goods, information and ideas, people and force” to Western media (Heemsbergen 2, 3). This is undeniable, as the obvious effect that CNN had during this time was great, instilling in the Arab people a thirst “for live, unedited and uncensored news during times when state media have fed them stale news” (Zayani 29).

Proof of this can be seen in viewers’ abandonment of MBC for Al Jazeera. Mernissi claims, “MBC’s systematic censorship was projected through the superficiality of its entertainment programs, alienat[ed] viewers… violated citizens’ right to information and reduced talk shows with intellectuals to pitiful masquerades” (Mernissi). Thus, viewers preferred Al Jazeera.

Al Jazeera also “accelerated the institutionalization of new trends in programming… nudging competitors toward live interviews… pushing some channels to display a new savvy for finding stories,” even forcing state media to conform a bit (Zayani 6).

Interactivity
Al Jazeera also initiated the trend of interactivity with its groundbreaking “talk shows with viewer call-ins” (Zayani 6). Because of the call-ins, “Arab viewers are no longer seen as consumers in a one-way communication stream” (Zayani 6). They are capable of debating live on air with politicians and experts.

This is revolutionary because “the kind of debate championed by Al Jazeera is something new in the Arab world where public political debate is considered subversive” (Zayani 6).
But instead, now“all media lobbies… who used to scorn Arab citizens and club them with one-sided propaganda, are now shifting to interactive programming to please viewers” (Mernissi).

Variety
Television seems to be following the “trends of openness and democratization in the Arab world” (Zayani 33). This is partially because “the fact that satellite television is bound, by virtue of its audience of millions of viewers, to compete for market share, forces channels, even the overwhelmingly religious ones to provide for a space for alternative spaces to emerge” (Echchaibi 2).

There is the conservative – “Aylit al-Hagg Metwalli,” a drama about a “patriarchal Cairo clothes merchant who marries an Islamically sanctioned four wives (Hammond 234). There is the middle range of New Age Islam programs – like on Islamic channel Al-Resalah – “modeled after American televangelism and religious entertainment… a simpler, more moderate message that rebukes radicalism and makes religion cool” (Echchaibi 2). And there is also the racy -- Lebanon’s “Carla-la-la,” an example of “pop video channels featuring Arab women in scanty attire” (Hammond 232).

In Syria, there is “‘Buqat daw’ (‘Spotlight’), a comedy series produced, directed, and acted by a group of young actors criticizing corruption, the role of intelligence services in clamping down on freedoms” (Hammond 233). This was unheard of Syria before 2000; “observers reckon the authorities felt it was time to allow some margin of criticism, or a release valve, as economic and political pressures in society increase (Hammond 234).

Adaptations
These, such as copies of “Star Academy,” “Big Brother,” “Who Wants to be a Millionaire?” are popular in the Arab world (Hammond 223). There are also indirect adaptations, such as “The Opposite Direction,” which is based on CNN’s “Crossfire” and “Kalam Nawa’em,” which is based on “The View” (Kraidy 48)

This is reflective of globalization; “co-productions and format adaptations reflect a ‘growing synchronization of the Arab television sector with the global television industry’” (Kraidy 48). This is also due to the lack of state revenues for media production. “These economic factors militates against the commissioning of challenging documentaries or innovative dramas, and means that broadcasters will instead rely on readymade material or imports” (Sakr).

US INVOLVEMENT IN ARAB TELEVISION

Al Hurra
Al Hurra, meaning “the free one,” was launched in 2002 as an alternative to Al Jazeera with aims to provide “accurate, balanced and objective news” and direct access to U.S. policies, but it began immediately as “a mouthpiece of the U.S. government” (Pintak 260, 258).

The channel was clearly propagandistic, and disappointed viewers, e.g., when the “leader of Hamas, Sheikh Amhed Yassin, was assassinated by the Israelis… Al Jazeera, al-Arabia and other Arab satellite channels carried the funeral live. Al-Hurra broadcast a cooking show” (Pintak 259, 260).

According to the Arab Advisors Group, “only 16 per cent of Saudi, 4.6 per cent of Egyptian and 1.3 per cent of Jordanian satellite viewers said they watched al-Hurra, versus the 71 to 88 per cent responses drawn by al-Jazeera” (Pintak 263). Obviously, Al Hurra failed in gaining support for the U.S. and in obtaining an audience.

Reasons for Al Hurra’s Failure
“The rationale behind Al Hurra is based on two erroneous assumptions: that satellite networks are responsible for the anti-Americanism in the Arab world and that once America is more clearly heard, it will be more appreciated” (Zayani 26).

On the opposite end of Al Hurra, “Al-Jazeera’s popularity stemmed directly from the fact that, in a region where the media had always been government controlled, it was largely independent” (Pintak 258). The idea that another government-controlled channel – regardless of it being the U.S. government this time – could capture Arab audiences was plainly misguided.

Other Attempts
American attacks on Al Jazeera, including the bombing of Al Jazeera’s Baghdad bureau and the ousting of Al Jazeera’s New York correspondent from the New York Stock Exchange were failed attempts at controlling Middle Eastern media as well. These attempts seemed only to galvanize Middle Eastern viewers by confirming their suspicions of America’s hypocrisy when it came to free speech and made Al Jazeera more popular in the process (Pintak 163).

The “Shared Values” campaign with “mini-documentaries” about Muslim life in America produced by advertising executives was a failure as well, with critics dismissing it as
“good news propaganda” (Pintak 270).

Anti-Western Propaganda?

Critics are wary of Al Jazeera, the supposed most widely watched and independent news channel in the Arab world (Zayani 6). Some believe that Al Jazeera is “a mouthpiece of Islamic fundamentalists” (Zayani 23). A 2002 Gallup poll also found that “objectivity is perceived as the network’s weakest area,” despite being high in objectivity compared to other networks of the region (Zayani 17).

This means that Al Jazeera is lacking in objectivity and also that other channels are further subjective. However, it is difficult to quantify objectivity. Realistically, “to what extent [can] one can be truly objective when reporting from the Arab world about issues that matter to Arabs the most”? (Zayani 18).

However, a comparison on the effects of CNN International and the BBC versus al-Jazeera found that “for both types of networks, increasing levels of attention to coverage of the U.S. leads to stronger anti-American attitudes’” (Pintak 261). This, then, illustrates the anti-American policy attitude, not a journalistic bias on the part of Al Jazeera.

Suggestions
Continuing with channels such as Al Hurra and campaigns such as “Shared Values”
would be misguided. These clearly propagandistic and reality-obscuring media ventures do not capture Arab audiences or boost their perceptions of U.S. policies. They damage the integrity of the U.S. and continue to promote the U.S. as an oppressive propaganda peddler.

News:
Al Jazeera is respected for its “commitment to daring live unedited news as well as its tendency to broadcast uncut, live pictures,” meaning no censorship or screening (Zayani 5). If the U.S. is to produce another news channel, it would have to match up to the standards that Al Jazeera has set in order to be successful, including the unedited rawness and possibly the interactivity in formatting as well, allowing those who disagree to air their opinions.

It would also have to break news before Al Jazeera, giving the U.S. an “opportunity to frame the story” for Arab viewers, which it failed to do in Iraq during Saddam Hussein’s capture (Pintak 280).

In order to guarantee this news channel’s integrity, it should be aired, and be capable of being aired in the U.S. (not in violation of Smith-Mundt Act), assuring that it would be free of propaganda.

Advertising:
Another way to indirectly affect Arab media is through advertising. “In the Middle East advertising remains woefully underdeveloped” (Sakr). Advertising has increased, but “future growth is not assured” (Sakr). This is partially because there are no reliable viewing figures for advertisers to base their media purchases on; “ratings in most countries compiled by unsophisticated methods, leaving analysts skeptical about their accuracy” (Sakr).

The U.S. can encourage companies at home and abroad to advertise in the Arab world in the aims of driving up advertising expenditure and therefore decreasing media outlets’ dependency on government funding. The U.S. can also provide reliable methods to determine viewing figures, ratings, and audience tracking for Arab TV, offering advertisers more assurance in their investments and encourage advertising spending.


BIBLIOGRAPHY

Heemsbergen, Luke. "Middle East Media and Knowledge Creation." Quest Journal, University of Belfast, 2007.

Khazen, Jihad. "Censorship and State Control of the Press in the Arab World." The Harvard International Journal of Press Politics 4.3 (1999) 87-92

Sakr, Naomi. "Reform or Reaction: Dilemmas of Economic Development in the Middle East." PublicationNo. 210. Middle East Report. 1999. 6 Dec. 2008

December 12, 2008

Wrap-Up

Reading my classmates’ blogs, I found that we all generally spoke about the same things. One thing that many did for their blogs posts was linking and then referring to news pieces and videos that related to Islam and/or the Middle East. For example, one news piece that was mentioned was, of course, the terrorist attacks in Mumbai. Another was the election of Barack HUSSEIN Obama. Some people also posted videos of things that they either found to be offensive or inspirational. These included parody videos of terrorists, clips from Religulous, and links to Morgan Spurlock’s Where in the World is Osama Bin Laden. Others also spoke about their personal experiences.

I think that a common theme amongst the blogs – or at least the theme that was most apparent and therefore probably most interesting to me – was the realization of how villailnized Arab people and Muslim people are in the United States and how the government and media have done this systematically and, oftentimes, intentionally as well. Another was the shock and disbelief at the way the American government has obscured the truth from its citizens. Where Al Jazeera shows all the gory, bloody, and terrible truth – albeit somewhat sensationally – the U.S. government has not allowed Osama Bin Laden’s speeches on television in America. My belief is honestly that no resolution or understanding can come from a conflict when the other side is not allowed to air its opinions and views, as unreasonable and violent as their tactics and strategies have been. And, of course, the U.S. has prevented the other side form understanding our intentions and views as well by concealing the real reasons for our “defensive” actions through stupid and unsuccessful PR machines like Al Hurra and Radio Sawa. It seems like the U.S. is constantly trying to pull the wool over everybody’s eyes, and we’re shocked that they’ve done this so well without many of us knowing.

I think another very important theme that seems widespread amongst the blogs is a much higher understanding of why the Middle East is structured the way it is now (the British, of course) and why they have reacted in the way that they have as well as their reasons for behaving in this way. I think that previously, many people did think that perhaps the Middle East was a violent place that was inherently violent and conflicted. Now knowing the history behind this region, it seems much more likely that instead of a Clash of Civilizations (where the Occident is developed and civilized and modern, trying to subdue an evil Orient that is primitive and angry and violent), it is the Middle East having a reaction to the atrocities that the Occident has committed towards them and their people. Without this historical and political context, it is easy to see and believe the Middle East as a place that is innately “bad,” while the West is a place that is innately “good.” It is easy to see through Orientalist lens that people like Thomas Friedman and the rest of the media have given us.

I think it really shows a lot that, even as media and communication students, we had trouble with media literacy in relation to the Middle East. This class definitely seems to have improved media literacy for those of us who did not know much about the Middle East before this semester (as evidenced by a few posts I read on my classmates’ blogs on their realization of the importance of utilizing different news sources), and I think that a lot of it has to do with the historical context that we were provided and also the portrayal of the opinions and views of the other side (not “the other”). The autobiographical accounts (and of course Palestine) that we read seems to have affected some of my classmates the way it affected me, making me rethink the way I once thought of the people of Muslims and people of the Middle East. The contrast between the story that the U.S. media and government tells us and the story that Al Jazeera and Joe Sacco has told us is so drastically different, and we have to find ways to reconcile these two views in our minds. This class has definitely taught me to look deeper, and it seems to have taught others in our class to do so as well.

About December 2008

This page contains all entries posted to Emily's Islam, Media, and the West Blog in December 2008. They are listed from oldest to newest.

November 2008 is the previous archive.

Many more can be found on the main index page or by looking through the archives.