Islam, Media, and the West

When I was reading over everyone’s blogs, I was surprised to see how many people were nervous about speaking up in class. I always thought that our class did pretty well asking and answering questions. It would be interesting to see if the class would have changed at all if people were more forthcoming. I guess we’ll never know, but I would caution against remaining quiet in the future. If we follow Edward Said’s advice, the only way to pierce through the lens of “Orientalism” is to better understand and to illuminate the humanity inherent in all cultures. We will never find the ties that bind us if we don’t ask questions and delve deeper into what being Arab, Muslim, American, or Judeo Christian really means. Increasing our knowledge is really the only way to fight the “clash” ideology.

When I was reading through some of the posts, I saw that we were really trying, as a class, to find stories and events that could broaden our understanding of the Middle East and its cultures. Often times, I found stories being repeated across blogs. We all seemed to be interested in the same topics Mumbai, Queen Rania’s VLog, and most commonly, Palestine and Israel. When I saw the pattern repeating, I thought it rather ironic. In class, we discussed that people within the Middle East tend to view the Israel/Palestine conflict as central to the problems in the Middle East. It would be interesting if we could figure out if we were that interested before that issue came up, or we became interested as a result of the discussion.

I also noticed something that, for lack of a better term, I’ll call ‘America-bashing.’ We have had our eyes opened to some of the injustices committed by our country, like how we stereotype the Middle East and bundle all its cultures into one blob of Arabness. I believe it was Jen’s blog that said that America toots its own horn from its position on its high horse. I loved the phrase, because I think it fits our country so well. We criticize Arab media for its lack of objectivity, yet let Fox or CNN slide for committing the same crimes. It is true, we are guilty of these infractions and our media does continue to use stereotypes of the Middle East. But, I would argue that we are doing the same thing to ourselves. After all, to pick on America and American media is to create stereotypes of our own. We are not all the same, nor should the country as a whole be dragged across the coals for what the few elites broadcast on national media. While we fight for the diversity of other countries, let us remember that we are a diverse culture as well.

When I was reading Sara’s blog I came across a post discussing Kid Rock and National Guard recruitment video played in a movie theater. In it, she called on all the NASCAR loving, working class rednecks that made up Kid Rock’s fanbase to question their motives for entering into the War on Terror. I’m not trying to pick on Sara, but I’m kind of defensive of that section of society because I identify a lot with that lifestyle. In many ways, that describes a good portion of the people I grew up with in my hometown. They’re good people, but they are largely ignorant of things that go on outside of the US. However, when I go home and I run into my neighbors at the supermarket they’re always fascinated by everything that I learn at college. One of my neighbors sends me his daughter’s college application essays to read because he isn’t sure everything is right. I check facts and grammar and send him notes about what she’s talking about so they can discuss the essay themselves. What I’m trying to say is that they want to understand. Most of the people back home really do believe that we invaded Iraq to bring freedom to the Iraqi people. Freedom is something that they hold dear and subsequently are willing to fight to give freedom to those that they think are deprived of their rights. So my final thought is this: instead of America-bashing or criticizing those that do not have the understanding of the Middle East that we do, help them. Knowledge is power—the power to change things that you don’t like around you. Spreading the knowledge we have gained through taking this class is a weapon against the hypocrisy that we find so repugnant. Pay it forward everyone, and maybe our kids won’t have to read about the ‘Orient’ like we did.

Molly N Callanan

Table of Contents

Abstract p.3

Description and Analysis of the Arab Media Landscape:
Structure of the TV Landscape p. 3
Private Ownership v. State Control p. 3
Competition and Commercialism p. 4

Programmatic Trends p. 5
News Programming p.5
Reality TV p. 5
Women’s Programming p. 5
Religious Programming p. 6

US Involvement p. 7
Recommendations p. 7

Works Cited p. 8

Abstract:
“The changing media landscape in the Arab world at the beginning of the twenty-first century is said to be creating new social and power dynamic in the region” (Matar 513).

The catalyst for the change in the Arab television landscape came from the development of satellite technology and economic upheavals of the 1990s. With the move from state control to private ownership, the overall trend moved toward commercialism and freedom of media. Abundant and diverse programming marks the post-90s television landscape. The media content is simply a reflection of culture, which allows for a difference in opinion that occasionally makes the content seem anti-American. Suggestions for tactics to include a stronger, more accepted American voice in the region are included at the end of the report.

Description and Analysis of the Arab Media Landscape:
Structure of the TV Landscape:
Private Ownership v. State Control:
Television was first introduced to the Middle East through their colonial powers, who gave control to the newly established governments after liberation. Thus, the first television programs were state controlled and can be viewed as tools of propaganda for the current administration. The first television model was created in the image of the BBC, using a public service model that was supposed to educate the masses through the top-down model and foster a sense of national unity and loyalty (Tawil Souri 11.3.08).

Before the 1990s, Arab television was defined by three structural formats: strict government control, loyalist, and ‘free.’ Egypt, Algeria, Iraq and Iran followed strict government control. Countries such as Qatar and Tunisia maintained a loyalist system, following along the party lines, despite the fact that the government did not control production. Lebanon and Israel maintained a separation between the government and television production, and “were free” to choose their broadcast material (Tawil Souri 11.3.08).

This changed following the Gulf War and the explosion of satellite television during the 1990s. During the Gulf War, the Arab community was forced to rely on Western media sources (CNN, etc.) in order to keep up to date with the unfolding events. This prompted the Middle East to look into developing their own media sources, creating an Arab perspective in the news (Tawil Souri 11.3.08). Compounded with the economic upheaval in the area, and the subsequent bailout by the IMF and World Bank, satellite television prompted a new freer system (Tawil Souri 11.3.08). The strict control exercised by the state gave way to privately owned, and funded, television channels. Egypt was the first country to extensively use the medium, though the satellite revolution was lead by the Gulf States and the Lebanese (Hammond 209). A group of Saudi businessmen set up the MBC (Middle East Broadcasting) in London, allowing them to escape from government censorship and control (Hammond 209). After the MBC, Qatar established the Al Jazeera channel, which was developed with the intention of “taking the Arab world by storm” (Hammond 210). The overall movement of the television landscape was away from strict control and toward a freer system of production.

However, this is not to say that nationalized, strict-control models do not still exist in the contemporary media landscape. Sudan, Iran and Libya are still state controlled. Loyalist structured media also remains relatively unchanged in their efforts to depict a positive image of the state, and can be found in the majority of the Gulf countries (Tawil Souri 11.3.08). Diverse structures have minimal government involvement, and are used in Lebanon, Kuwait, Morocco and Yemen (Tawil Souri 11.3.08). There are also transitional structures of media, which are moving from the older, strict control models, toward a freer television industry. These models can be found in Egypt, Jordan, and post-2003 Iraq (Tawil Souri 11.3.08).

Competition and Commercialism:
As satellite television took over in the Arab television landscape, channels were forced into fierce competition with each other. Thus, channels moved away from the old public-service model and toward a more capitalist model of media. The new satellite channels also had to choose between “free-to-air commercial broadcasting, which would carry advertising or fee-based subscription broadcasts” (Rugh 218). Those that do choose to advertise, find that they cannot cover all of their costs through advertising alone (Rugh 218). Given the transnational nature of satellite television, it is difficult to create an advertising campaign that speaks to the entire audience and as a consequence advertising is not studied within the media landscape and needs further study as satellite television grows. The most lucrative advertising market in the region is Saudi Arabia, which makes sense given the overall wealth of the country (Rugh 219). The varying economic positions of the audience also have to be taken into effect when considering advertising, since many products simply do not make sense for different segments of the audience.

Programmatic Trends:
Within the Arab television landscape, the diversity of the community has a direct correlation on the varied and diverse programming available. While the West has a tendency to reduce the diversity of Middle Eastern programming by claiming state funding limits the speech of the program producers, this is simply not the case. Arab television is based on a Western model and as a result maintains the same range and scale of programming enjoyed in the West. The Middle East has built on the original model provided by the West and modified it to suit their own cultural needs and tastes. The post-90s satellite television allowed for the creation of the new public sphere, television, which gave a voice to the previously unheard population and produced a new counter-culture (Matar).

News Programming:
Within the Arab TV landscape, each satellite channel has the capacity to produce news with a unique perspective. Depending on the country of origin or the politics of the group broadcasting, content can be biased toward the host country and critical of those who are not allies of the government. A prime example of such a struggle can be seen in the broadcasts of the Lebanese Broadcast Channel and Al Manar. The LBC is largely pro-government for the current administration, while Hezbollah funded Al Manar advocates a different set of politics. The sectarianism that is a part of Lebanese culture comes across in the news programming as the different channels trade political insults and skewed coverage of events (Cochrane).

Even Al Jazeera falls victim to this plight. The network has built its reputation on tackling controversial issues, which has labeled the channel a “threat to the very hegemony and ideology of Arab regimes whose ‘survival instinct…continue to pre-empt any liberalizing impulse of satellite TV’” (Zayani 3). While network is state funded, it is thought to have editorial freedom. Yet, Qatar is quick to allow Al Jazeera to lambaste Egypt (Hammond 212). The two countries now spar with each other through their respective channels and use the media to further criticize the enemies of the state. However, this does not detract from the popularity of the channel within the pan-Arab community (Tawil-Souri).

Reality TV:
Reality TV is extremely popular within the Arab TV landscape. “Most of the reality programs were copies of internationally patented shows, such as Star Academy and Big Brother” though some are original products (Hammond 227). Middle Eastern reality TV has the same diversity found in Western television, including dating shows, game shows, and hidden camera shows (Hammond 228). These shows are extremely popular given that they have low production costs, which work well for the channels that are low on capital. These programs tend to place men and women together in communal situations, which has a tendency to cause controversy within strict Islamic circles.

Women’s Programming:
While there is a propensity in the West to believe that women and their interests are largely ignored in the Middle East that is not the case. Women have a distinct voice within the television landscape. There is programming directed toward the women audience, and women newscasters are common during newscasts. Kalam Nawaem (Sweet Talk) is a women’s talk show that tackles controversial issues that are taboo within the Middle East. Four women from around the region discuss different topics and have a transnational appeal due to their varied backgrounds ([wide angle]). Heya also established the “first pan-Arab television station among 205 Arab satellite channels to specifically target Arab women audiences” (Matar). The channel offers a means of changing women’s historical position from a silenced group into one with a loud and well-represented voice.

Religious Programming:
“Modeled after American televangelism and religious entertainment, Islamic broadcasting seeks a simple moderate message that rebukes radicalism and makes religion cool” (Echchaibi). In the satellite TV landscape, Islamic programming is looking to popularize the religion, while being true to the tenets of the faith. This can be seen in Amr Khaled, “the Arab world’s first Islamic tele-evangelist…using the barrier-breaking power of satellite TV and the internet to turn around a generation of lost Muslim youth” (Khaled). The new religious programming helps to give voice and direction to those confused with the conflicting messages of Islam’s true meaning.

US Involvement:
Al Hurra TV and Radio Sawa act as the voice of the US in the Middle East. Launched in 2003, and 2004 respectively, the channels were started under the belief that if the right things are broadcasted, things will change (Tawil Souri 11.3.08). The channels were meant to counteract the bad publicity generated by the Al Jazeera’s broadcasts that occasionally painted a poor picture of American political and military actions. While the networks may have been started with the best of intentions, but the programs’ blatantly biased perspective has turned off a large part of the Middle Eastern population. Alhurra’s founders believed that the Arab world was like the former Soviet space, deprived of information and desperate for an objective, credible source of news and free public debate” (Lynch). Some of the problems with Alhurra had to with its management, others with more structural problems. Obviously the US should not continue with its current strategy. In a poll of Iraqi viewers, Al Hurra only holds 14% of the overall viewers in the Middle East. That is not to say that the viewers depend solely on Al Hurra, simply that they tuned into the channel the day before the survey was taken (Snyder).

Recommendations:
The US should reconsider their role in the Middle East and adapt their broadcasting style to better suit the audience. Al Hurra should take note from Al Jazeera and offer more diversity in their programming. Inviting on prominent figures from the Arab community to discuss issues with members of the US administration would be an excellent way to get back in the good graces of the Middle Eastern viewers. While we may have an agenda, the point is to appear like we are more interested in giving a more balanced perspective and less biased programming. Withdrawing completely from the Middle East would only confirm the fact that the West wants nothing to do with the East. This would only fuel the belief that the West is prejudiced against the East. Another step in dissolving such rumors would be to allow for the broadcasting of channels such as Al Jazeera within the US. The best solution would be to make an effort to first understand Middle Eastern culture, then to find a common ground where both cultures could agree to fair representations. It is not enough to have a presence in the Arab TV landscape if our presence only further alienates those with whom we are trying to court favor; we must take steps to understand before we can fully persuade our audience.

Works Cited:
“Amr Khaled: Islam’s Billy Graham.” The Independent (UK) 4 January 2006.

Cochrane, Paul. “Bombs and broadcasts: Al Manar’s battle to stay on air.” Arab Media and Society. < http://www.arabmediasociety.com/?article=19>

Echchaibi, Nabil. “From the pulpit to the studio: Islam’s internal battle.” WACC. 13 November 2008.

Hammond, Andrew. Popular Culture in the Arab World.

“Kalam Nawaem.” Dishing Democracy. PBS 31, July 2007.

Lynch, Marc. “The Alhurra Project: Radio Marti of the Middle East.” Arab Media and Society. June 2007. < http://www.arabmediasociety.com/topics/index.php?t_article=146>

Matar, Dina. “Heya TV: A Feminist Counterpublic for Arab Women?” Comparative Studies of South Asia, Africa, and the Middle East. 27.3 (2007): 513-524.

Rugh, William A. Arab Mass Media: Newspapers, Radio, and Television in Arab Politics. Connecticut, Praeger.

Snyder, Alvin. “The Great Alhurra Debate.” Arab Islamic Public Diplomacy. 7 December 2005. < http://islamicpublicdiplomacy.blogspot.com/2005/12/great-alhurra-debate.html>

Tawil Souri, Helga. The History of TV & Radio. ILA: Islam, Media and the West. New York University, NY, NY. 3 November 2008.

Zayani, Mohamed. “Introduction—Al Jazeera and the Vicissitueds of the New Arab Mediascape.”

"If there's an Arab American family being rounded up without benefit of an attorney or due process, that threatens my civil liberties. It's that fundamental belief - I am my brother's keeper, I am my sister's keeper - that makes this country work. It's what allows us to pursue our individual dreams, yet still come together as a single American family. 'E pluribus unum.' Out of many, one.”

— Barack Obama
Keynote Address at the Democratic National Convention
July 27, 2004

A friend tipped me off to a part on Barack Obama's website that is produced by the Arab-American community. I won't pretend that I've spent a lot of time surfing Obama's website, but perhaps I should. The website chronicles the efforts of the Arab American individuals working to get Obama elected, as well as bring attention to different parts of the campaign where they feel that the opposition tried to use Barack's heritage to continue to the tradition of bigotry and racism. Everyone must have seen a cartoon, or even a sticker on Facebook that likened Obama to Osama, etc. Most of them were patently ridiculous, but they continued to exist in vast numbers. I wonder if Obama will attempt to distance himself from this stereotype as he moves into office, or will he attack it head on to prove the how ridiculous it is to keep the stereotype alive.

Obama's position as the 'American Dream' candidate, as well as his heritage, makes him an interesting figure for the Arab world. Just after the election, the president of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, sent a letter to Obama congratulating him and asking for his help "to end American war-mongering" (BBC). I kind of lost track of what happened after that, but apparently Obama denounced Iran's nuclear program and chose to view Ahmadinejad's letter of congratulations separately than those sent by other world leaders. An odd stance for someone that was so open to discussions with Iran during the race. The Iranian people were understandably disappointed, which comes across in a feature on their blogs I found earlier this morning. One blogger compares Obama to Mohammad Khatami, who was president in 1997. But while Khatami struggled to make reforms due to Iran's conservatives, I feel like Obama might have an easier time creating change. He drew a great cartoon if anyone's interested. I'll put the link below. Other's worry that Ahmadinejad's actions were outside his authority and possibly not in the Islamic Republic's best interests. I don't see what could come of it, other than the President trying to establish contact with a country with who he's struggled with in the past, but I'm not exactly a political expert. I am uncertain if Iran opening up to talks with America would sufficiently anger her neighbors to the point where they took action. But that is always a possibility. I guess it will depend on Obama's other actions when he enters the White House. Personally, I am hopeful that this presidency will mark a change in Middle East/American political dialogue and that people like Friedman will no longer stand as the authority on the subject. I'm being overly idealistic, I acknowledge that but I feel as though we are a generation that is currently aware and invested in our politics. Maybe now, instead of producing films like those criticized in Reel Bad Arabs and ignoring the continued stereotyping of Arab ethnicities people will actually start to care and demand change. It feels like it could be that moment in history, but we're going to need more than just me to help that change come to fruition. At least now I'm aware of the need for change, and that's the first step in accomplishing anything.

Obama's website: http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/aahome

BBC Article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/us_elections_2008/7718603.stm

The Bloggers: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7746653.stm

I ventured outside of the BBC and found this article on Saudi ex-jihadists that are being rehabbed in am attempt to help them lead non-violent lives. According to the article, Saudi Arabia exports the greatest number of jihad extremist volunteers than any other country. The article argues that this can be explained due to the Saudi school system, which teaches world history by emphasizing the battles between Muslims and non-Muslims. If this was the case, wouldn't every school child turn out to be an jihadist, or at the very least have some violent jihad tendencies? To me, that's like saying every American child that's taught that the British colonizers dominated and subjugated our country will grow up to hate British people. It's just that ridiculous. In media terms, this theory denies the audience their agency. Something we all know to be a dangerous and naive assumption.

The article then digs itself a little further by quoting a professor of Near Eastern Studies at Princeton, Bernard Haykel, who postulates that the idea of rehabbing jihadist and offering them a lavish lifestyle to recover in “is consistent with Saudi history in that you try through nonviolent means to cajole, to bribe, to buy off the opposition.” The article completely ignores the Western rehab clinics that look more like day spas than treatment centers. Never mind the fact that the comment just reduced Saudi culture to a (in my opinion) rather contemptuous statement. One can't simply look at the efforts of a small group of people and say that they are embodying the typical Saudi norm and attempting to buy people's beliefs. Again, I find that to be an extremely offensive statement within itself.

The article goes on to argue that ex-jihadists often feel under appreciated by those that recruited them. The writer argues that many feel as though they were tricked and manipulated by deviant ideology into choosing Islamic extremism. Or, my personal favorite, that those that choose Islamic extremism do so because they see jihadism as a socially acceptable path for young Saudis with few options. The writer continually denies the former extremists any culpability for their actions and choices. While I can empathize with the circumstances that these men group up in, I cannot forgive them for their actions entirely. Being born into a terrible situation does not pardon them for committing violence against people that may or may not be connected with those that hurt them. To me, it seems like a lot of what happens violence for violence sake. Those with a large amount of rage and no outlet will eventually seek a means of alleviating their anger.

John Horgan postulates that these young men are drawn to terrorist movements because they seem to have a purpose and sense of camaraderie that they lack in their daily lives. That is an idea I can understand. People do crazy things when they feel alone and I can understand wanting to feel connected. But to deny the religious aspect that ties into jihadism would be to do a disservice to understanding the whole picture. What the whole picture is, I can't say, I haven't been in their situation.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/09/magazine/09jihadis-t.html?ref=middleeast

I was online again checking for information on the events in Mumbai and instead I found an article, I think it was an Op Ed, discussing the media's coverage of the Mumbai attacks as well as every other 'terrorist' attack. According to Paul Cornish, who wrote the article, the media makes terrorists actions easier. The media saturation of the event fills in the blanks in terms of the terrorists actions. In the wake of atrocity, every terrorism expert and foreign policy buff will step up and offer an opinion and an interpretation of the events. Cornish draws parallels to Columbine and VA Tech by saying that the actions of the students were an attempt to achieve celebrity through suicide. I'm not sure that was their only reasoning nor do I entirely agree that these students were trying to become famous. I think these students and those responsible for the Mumbai attacks were incredibly misguided. To believe that mass violence is the only solution shows a certain level of mental depravity. But going beyond that, I think Cornish might have a legitimate point. The media does, to a certain extent, celebritize terrorism. If you think about it the media is responsible for plastering Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein and countless other 'terrorists' faces on the nightly news. These men were made famous by media coverage and then made infamous through their own deeds and misdeeds. While we think we are fighting terrorism by informing the public, we may actually be perpetrating the cycle. If terrorism depends on the public reaction to the original action we are, in an extremely odd and convoluted way, supporting terrorism. That's a little worrying for me, especially since the world seemed like it was finally coming together against terrorism.

I've been keeping up with the news stories as we get more information on the attacks in Mumbai, and it seems now that the Indian PM Manmohan Singh and other senior officials believe that those responsible for the attacks had links to Pakistan. Or at least that the last surviving gunman to be captured is from Pakistan. I thought that the attacks were claimed by Deccan Mujahideen. The BBC says that the name is a reference to a "mainly Muslim region of India." The BBC also says that the Mumbai militants receive might have received training from a group that was once backed by the Pakistani government, but that was banned in 2002. From what I understand, the Pakistani government has promised to cooperate fully, which may be a show or sincere. I guess we won't be able to tell until more information becomes available. However, in doing a little more digging, it seems like Pakistan is committed to act against terrorist groups. And yes, Pakistan did used to have strong ties with Islamic militant groups (the BBC's words, not mine), but that was nearly a decade ago. If the government is being sincere, should they be blamed for having once trained an Islamist group five years ago? Also, is there any way to prove, beyond hearsay that the person captured in Mumbai was ever part of the Islamist group? I highly doubt they kept strict records of attendance at these sort of things. To me, keeping track of everyone's name would be a stupid way to get everyone caught. But I'm also operating from the perspective of someone that's seen far too many action movies. In all seriousness, should India blame Pakistan for past wrongs when the government is trying to make them right in the present? The American government helped to train several groups in the Middle East that have later abused their knowledge. At what point does a country lose accountability for its poor decisions in the past? I'm sure as we learn more about the situation, what lead up to the attacks, and how the attackers developed their strategy, this will all make more sense. I would just hate for India to rush into a war while still reeling from the overwhelming atrocity and horror stemming from the attacks. Does this situation sound familiar to anyone else?

As a follow up to the last entry in my blog, I wanted to bring up a movie that might be interesting to watch. Paradise Now chronicles the story of two best friends are they are chosen to complete a suicide mission. Below is a link to a preview on YouTube.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jyz15qG22Ec

I first saw this film when I was taking Media Crit and had to pick and indie film to dissect and analyze. I didn't really consider that it could be relevant to this class. Unfortunately, the film trailer is now narrated by Mr. Moviefone and has a western soundtrack and spin. For example, the trailer begins and ends with two messages. To start: From the most unexpected place comes a bold new call for peace. And to end: Sometimes the most courageous act is what you don't do. It's corny and ridiculous, and I think detracts from the power of the film, but that's how it's being marketed. If you can get past that and actually go see the film, they have it at Blockbuster if you're interested, it's a really interesting look at Palestine.

We all, or at least most of us, criticized Joe Sacco for ignoring the real life humanity in his study of Palestinian life. This film tries to delve into what's really happening in Palestine, in terms of how people feel and go about their lives. It's not meant to be an all encompassing view, but it makes an attempt at depicting the human elements that are normally missing in a discussion of Palestinian life. The film was (is?) extremely controversial because it asks the audience to sympathize with those we define as terrorists. Which it does, but that's not the core of the message. The film doesn't show two religious zealots bent on wreaking destruction, but two men struggling with their place in the world. I think it's worth seeing, but that is my opinion.

I've been following the series of stories on the BBC about the conditions in the West Bank and Gaza and I'm troubled by how little American news sources are covering the events. The events are not even mentioned on CNN's front page, or even on the CNN Middle East page. To me, what's going on in the West Bank and Gaza seems like blatant human rights violations. Denying people aid in the time of crisis seems like a violation to me, but then I'm not an expert on the topic.

When we discussed the Palestinian and Israeli conflict, we brushed on the idea that the West tends to turn a blind eye to some of the happenings in that particular area of the Middle East due to their favoritism for the Israelis. When we discussed it I thought that it was entirely possible that Western media would tend to ignore some of the events, but when the current situation has produced the worst conditioners ever, according to the UN, I would think the the US would discuss it at some point. CNN is supposed to be our international news channel, or at least I've always believed that to be the case. And when they are noticeably silent on the issue, it makes me question how separate our fourth estate is from our government.

I mean, we criticize a lot of Arab channels for having state funding or for being state controlled, but are we much different? The owners of the conglomerates are definitely politically connected, but they aren't actually part of the government. Does that allow us to continue to feel superior to the Arab channels, that we have a degree of separation between our news sources and our government? If the end result is the same, does it even matter who's name goes under CEO?

I may be slightly biased, given that I am a media student at NYU after all. I know that objective news is a thing of the past, but to ignore something entirely goes beyond non-objective news. This can't even be blamed on media gatekeeping, because this is a story Americans would want to hear. Or are we, as a country, so biased against what we view as the 'Muslim World' that we wouldn't feel sympathy for those suffering under these conditions? I would like to think that we would feel for any person suffering, but in post-9/11 America the answer is a little uncertain. I'm not sure that everyone would rise up to help, some might even say that the Palestinians deserved what was coming to them. Horrible as that may be, that is part of the under-educated American public thought. When did human rights violations only become interesting, or acknowledged when they fit a certain political agenda?

I don't know if anyone was following the news on election night, but every news channel I checked had a huge picture of Obama and/or McCain. This probably lasted until yesterday, then other headlines started to make their way back to the front page. The BBC is calling the 'new' conflict between residents in the Gaza Strip and Israel a 'MIDDLE EAST CRISIS.' Tensions between the Palestinians and the Israelis have been on hold for the past few months, but this isn't an easy truce. I understand that the majority of the Middle Eastern population believes that this conflict is rooted in every other conflict, and it will be interesting to see if this truly becomes a crisis. I am curious to see if other countries set up and defend the Palestinians, or if they will maintain the tentative state of peace. Any thoughts?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/middle_east/2001/israel_and_the_palestinians/default.stm

The US Military PR Officer was incredibly interesting to watch. His struggle with trying to maintain his loyalties to America, while he slowly comes to realize that, while Al-Jazeera is biased, so is the America media. The moment when he realizes that he is biased, when he is less affected by the footage of dead and wounded Iraqi civilians is amazing to watch. For me, I was surprised to see an America military officer expressing doubt in his beliefs, and in the war itself. It’s as though, for the first time, he was outside the construction of the Middle East that he’s been feed since childhood. He was the humanity, or lack thereof, in war.

I almost started to laugh when the US officer is discussing Jessica Lynch with the Al-Jazeera journalists. The journalists are trying so hard to get the truth, to find out what is happening with the invasion in Baghdad and the officer just tries to evade their questions and bring up Jessica Lynch. It’s the covering of the propaganda war, and as the CNN correspondent said, “manage the news,” but not actually covering the war. It shows that this isn’t an Al-Jazeera problem, but a universal problem for all the news sources. No one is getting the truth, but especially not Al Jazeera. Which seems incredibly stupid if you wanted Al-Jazeera to have less ‘anti-American propaganda’ on their channel. If you deny someone information, shuffle them off and ignore them, they’re going to reaction. I wouldn’t blame anyone for broadcasting anti-American news after being managed like they were. It’s frustrating for me to watch and I can imagine that the journalists had to be twice as angry as I was about the whole situation.

Then when the PR comes out and speaks to the reporter from Liberation, he does bring up an excellent point—you can’t broadcast information about the location of troops during a war. You have to protect the troops and at the same time give the news. I feel bad for the PR officer, he seems like he wants to do the right thing while he protects his country. He admits to engaging in spin, but brushes it off as saying that it’s his way of trying make the story objective.

On a completely different note, did we just confirm “the clash?” When the Al-Jazeera reporter says that he is going to be one of the last soft spoke people left, that we are creating a new generation of people with extreme opinions. Instead of bringing peace, did we confirm the belief that violence is the only way to communicate? I feel really cynical in saying this, but it seems like we just invented a new form of repression. Especially with the bombing on the Al-Jazeera and Abu Dhabi TV, its as though we’re exchanging one hegemonic opinion for another. Instead of having to be loyal to Saddam and the Ba’athist party, the Iraqis are now faced with the choice of democracy or death?