Rocking the Casbah

As I sit here alone in the dark recesses of my home, the light palely illuminating the dark keys, the swishing of unsteady rain coming from behind me, and Metallica’s Master of Puppets pummeling my ear drums with Heavy Metal goodness, I look back on the work of my peers over the last few months.

One of the interesting side notes I’d like to make, before my screen-wearied eyes succumb to the soothing temptations of sleep, is that it was interesting to see which of my peers got their work done on time and which saved everything for the last minute. I’m not judging, I’m just saying it was one of those things that I couldn’t help but notice.

As Fade to Black lulls me into further oblivion, I realize that I have yet to comment upon the actual blogs and not just my own exhaustion. I found that the majority of the people in the class experienced a shift in understanding the dangers of labeling the ’other’, in this case we were discussing the Middle East. A particularly interesting example that comes to mind is Tabitha’s Lion King post and how it is essentially in line with a concept of white supremacy (or eurocentric orientalism). I had seen the obvious Hamlet parallels before but this was an interesting interpretation as well. Although in general it is interesting how some of these stereotypes are built into our media framework and so mold people from a young age with subconscious fear and distrust of the ‘other’.

As the subdued chords of The Unforgiven keep me from collapsing head first into the keyboard, I also wonder on the theme of media representations. I’m glad that I wasn’t the only one to see how truly biased and uninformative the so called news channels and media outlets are. I know from personal experience how the so-called ‘gatekeepers of information’ have often forgone any real journalism and sound more like government/military outlets that were just going along with the party line (or the status quo of whatever the topic is). Although I initially saw this in how any coverage of Russia was no different than coverage of the Soviet Union. In that way is it really difficult to see why it has been impossible for the west and Russia to seriously improve relations? I bring this up because it serves as a model for what my classmates and I have discovered about the U.S.'s relationship with the Middle East. If both sides constantly portray each other as evil, how will anything besides the ‘clash’ be able to emerge?

I believe this really ties into Cassie’s Overview post. There she made an interesting refutation of the need to spread democracy. I agree. Democracy is just another in a long chain of ideologies or other cultural products that have been forced upon people by invading forces. Before democracy (in its most modern form), there was Socialism, Christianity, Pax Romana, Hellenism, etc. It’s this inherent Orientalism, that comes about when a nation or a group becomes overly arrogant in the righteousness of its own system that it would have the nerve to force others to follow those beliefs, which brings conflict. How appropriate that Wherever I May Roam enters my headphones. Both Western advocates of Democracy and the radical groups, claiming to represent at least a part of Islam, have had the mentality of spreading their ideologies wherever they might roam.

As the churn of Disposable Heroes keeps me from slipping into a pit of stress-streamed dreams, I also think over the more political undertones of the blogs. For the most part I found that almost, if not everyone, discussed how our discussion has bled into the realm of politics. Whether it was the election and everyone’s concern about McCain’s completely Orientalist view about Muslim men not being good family men, or political events occurring in various parts of the globe, like the relatively recent violence in Mumbai. From what I’ve gathered, as a class we have been struggling to be able to determine who to believe when it comes to these matters. Do we trust our government, which has betrayed our trust in the past and has been guilty of putting self interest over the wellbeing of the nation (recession, anyone?) Or do we trust outside sources, like Al Jazeera and the groups that we’ve been told are the enemies of our values? It is difficult to say. From what I gathered, a lot of people are equally unsure of whom to believe, in light of our studies this semester. But to be fair, people have become more confident in having opinions on the topic.

Shifting moods from the pounding metal of Metallica to the climactic swan song of Pink Floyd, High Hopes, I also shift from the specifics to the closing statement. It was interesting to see the thought processes of my classmates through their blogs. It’s ironic that I feel like I’ve learned more about them from what they’ve written than from in class. I guess that’s my fault for being too distant. But that’s a whole other conversation. We’ve come far in becoming more aware of the complexity of the Muslim world, but still have much to learn. There are many other themes that I've observed but I'm already over the word limit as it is. I guess I'm glad to know that no one is as jaded as I am. Must get some sleep, On the Turning Away.

Download file

The State of the Television Landscape
in the Arab World

Report commissioned by: the U.S. State Department
Compiled by: Mikhail Y. Sokolov
Date filed: 12/08/08

Abstract: With the rise of Satellite Television, as well as a mixture of liberal and religious movements throughout the region, the Middle East has evolved into a complex, diverse media landscape that should not be underestimated. This report will: give a brief overview of the evolution of different ownership models for television networks in the region, examine a few specific points of interest in the region, present a sample of the diverse nature of programming in the Arab world and then give suggestions for more progressive tactics in future U.S. involvement in the region’s television industry.

Table of Contents:
I. Overview pg.3

II. The Structure of the Television Industry in the Muslim World pg.3
A. Pre 1990’s pg.3
B. Early 1990’s pg.3
C. Post 1990’s pg.4

III. Items of interest pg.5
A. Al Jazeera pg.5
B. Saudi Arabia’s Influence pg.5
C. Other Examples. Pg.6

IV. Current Programming Trends pg.7
A. Sinaat Al-Mawt pg.7
B. Alam Al Sabah pg.7
C. Ramadan Serials pg. 7
D. Kalam Nawaem pg.7
E. Other Shows pg.7

V. Suggestions for Future Operations in the Region pg.8
A. Direct U.S. involvement pg.8
B. U.S. as a Sponsor for Local Arab media pg.8
C. Conclusion pg.8

VI. Bibliography pg.9

I. Overview
One of the main errors in past investigations into this field, the state of Arabic Television, has been the immense oversimplification of both the intentions of Arabic broadcasters and the Arabic public. By overlooking the growth of Satellite Television in the region and the diversification of programming that has followed, this commission could fail to grasp the great strides that Arab broadcasters have made in the last 20 years. Although certain countries are more influential than others in terms of quantity of TV content produced (Egypt and Saudi Arabia being two of the biggest producers in the region), the vast majority of countries in the area have also begun to produce their own content that varies in its organization and content. This report will make a brief presentation of the complex world of Arabic TV.

II. The Structure of the Television Industry in the Muslim World

Contrary to popular misconception, Arabic television is not just serving as a mouthpiece for Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hizbollah or other groups that the U.S. has recognized as terrorist organizations.

Arab Television networks have gone through several eras of Ownership structures:

A. Pre 1990’s: most Television was government run. It consisted of state propaganda and other government approved entertainment. 3rd party groups, like businesses, were kept off the air. Stations received training and equipment from outside sources, like Great Britain’s BBC. (Tawil-Souri)

B. Early 1990’s: The end of the cold war saw a split begin in the Arab world’s model of television networks. This was due to internal investment, the Gulf War and the technological improvements.
1. Strict Control Model: Government controlled stations. Similar to earlier Arab television stations, but with slightly improved technology.
Ex.: Algeria, Egypt, Iraq, Syria, South Yemen, Sudan and others
2. Loyalist Model: Similar to the Public Service Model used by BBC and other European channels. Strictly Anti-Commercial (no advertisements).
Ex.: Morocco, Tunisia, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, North Yemen
3. Exceptions: Israel and Lebanon. These countries have a more “free” media model. Similar to American TV. (Tawil-Souri)

C. Post1990’s: The rise of satellite television has a profound effect on the organization of Television stations in the region, most in a more democratic direction.
1. Nationalized: Government controlled stations. Similar to Strict Control model.
Ex.: Syria, Libya, Sudan, Iran.
2. Loyalist Model: May receive government funding, but not directly political in nature. It does not challenge authority.
Ex.: Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and other nations in the Gulf region.
3. Diverse Model: Democratically inclined channels. Allow for conflicting views to be expressed without government censorship.
Ex.: Lebanon, Israel, Kuwait, Yemen
4. Transitional Model: Channels which are difficult to label because they are inconsistent with the models above.
Ex.: Egypt, Jordan, Tunisia, Post 2003: Iraq (Tawil-Souri)
With each era, we have seen a steady movement of Arab TV networks shifting away from nationalist propaganda towards more democratic and commercially oriented models. It is important to keep in mind that this came about as direct result of both internal and external forces such as internal investment into more independent programming, regime change (like in Iraq) and larger cultural movements (either away from or towards secularism). The trend has generally been in the favor of the U.S. The more diversity in Arab television, the less likely it will be for Anti-Western stations to gain popularity in the region.

III. Items of interest

A. Al Jazeera (“The Island”)
- Founded in 1995 by Sheik Hamad Al Thani of Qatar, Al Jazeera is an independent news channel which can reach a global audience thanks to the rise of Satellite television. (Zayani 14)

- Its news broadcasts and talk shows have been critical of Arab Governments throughout the Middle East (as well as western governments), with the exception of the Qatari emirate, its biggest sponsor. This has created room for questioning its objectivity. (Zayani 17)

- Although viewers in the Middle East value Al Jazeera for its pluralist approach, by allowing people of different outlooks to come on their networks, they also believe that Objectivity is its weakest attribute (on average less than half of all viewers believed it to be objective). (Zayani 18)

- It has received hostile competition from neighboring Saudi Arabia. The Saudi government, which controls a huge media market (including advertising, controlling between 40-70% of the advertising in the region) has black listed Al Jazeera. (Cochrane) It prevents its own companies from advertising on the Qatari based network. (Miles 63-4)

- Al Jazeera has been seen as a threat here in the U.S. because it aired clips of Osama Bin Laden’s speeches. Sheik Hamad Al Thani has denied that they were putting forth Bin Laden’s perspective, but were in fact just trying to get a big scoop. (Miles 131)

- It has subsequently launched other spin-off networks, including an English speaking version.

- Al Jazeera, while often seen as a detriment to the U.S. can actually be a benefit to both our country and the region as a whole if it increases the practice of democratic dialogue and moving away from pure propaganda. It is a step towards a more open-minded Middle East.

B. Saudi Arabia’s influence

- As mentioned above, Saudi Arabia is one of the biggest media entities in the region and has a presence similar to Western Media Conglomerates in the region. (Cochrane)

- The Saudi’s sway in the region is powerful enough to keep other journalists and networks in other countries from criticizing it (including Lebanon’s Hizbullah networks and Qatar’s Al Jazeera). (Cochrane)

- Saudi Arabian owned networks (such as Middle East Broadcasting Center (MBC), The Arab Radio and Television Network (ART) and Orbit have all centred mostly on entertainment and appealing to a Pan Arab audience rather than representing Saudi Arabia explicitly (even though the Saudi ruling family has an implicit role in affecting the content being broadcast). (Cochrane)

- Although the Saudi’s are officially our allies, this kind of strict dominance over the region’s media output (and questionable business practices) can act to impede any progress towards a more democratic and open media in the Middle East.

C. Other Examples.
- Lebanese television, like LBC, is one of the more liberal examples of Middle Eastern television. It features programming that contains sexual undertones, which is rare for a region that is as traditionally conservative as the Middle East. Although this may not necessarily be the proudest example of a more open media in the region (Hammond 227).

- Iran’s Press TV is an example of an alternative news source coming from a country we have strained relations with. Although it is questionable whether Press TV can be considered an objective news source (or even a reliable one) for the region given its ties to such a controversial government.

- These are just two examples of the different extremes present in the television market in the Middle East. But it is hardly different from how television can vary in the U.S. from the very liberal to very conservative. There are numerous other examples that range across a whole spectrum of political and religious ideologies within the region.

IV. Current Programming Trends
One of the most overlooked aspects of Arab television is the immense diversity of programming that has become available on the hundreds of Arabic Satellite (and local) channels in the region. It is important to recognize that the diversity of programming options shows an increasing trend towards a pluralist and/or modernist Middle East. Below is a small sampling of the diverse programming that is offered in the Muslim world. Although it demonstrates how diverse the Arab media landscape has become, it is by no means an exhaustive list.

F. Sinaat Al-Mawt (Death Industry) is an hour long program dedicated to discussing Islam and terrorism, and is critical of using the religion to justify such activities. The female host, Rima Salha approaches the topic from many directions and features interviews and video footage that is rarely seen. The show is an indicator a growing resentment within the Arab community for the actions of extremist groups claiming to represent them. (PBS)

G. Alam Al Sabah (The World in the Morning) is a morning show that is taped in front of a live audience and features typical fare like cooking, fashion, cinema and music. Similar to morning shows in the U.S. and abroad. It shows that Muslim media can be casual just like American television. (PBS)

H. Ramadan Serials. While these can range in topic and setting, these miniseries air exclusively during the holy month of Ramadan, when most Muslim families spend the day fasting and the evening watching television with their families. These shows account for nearly a quarter of the years advertising revenues and are the equivalent of American sweeps weeks combined with the Super Bowl. An example of how strong a presence the media and commerce are making in the Muslim world. (Hammond 231)

I. Kalam Nawaem is similar to America’s all female talk show, The View. It is groundbreaking because it not only represents a cross section of nationalities and opinions within the Arab world but because they cover controversial topics like gender equality, homosexuality and women voting. This show demonstrates how Arab media is shifting towards more gender equality and open political dialogue. (PBS)

J. Other Shows include situational comedies, soap operas, religious programming, music videos, fashion shows, reality television, political talk shows similar to those on cable news channels in the U.S., documentary series and others. The wide spectrum of programming demonstrates a depth to the media in the Middle East that has often been overlooked by the U.S.

V. Suggestions for future operations in the region:

Taking into account the level of depth and diversity that the Arab television industry possesses, it presents a dilemma for the U.S. to evaluate what role to take in the region.

A. Direct U.S. involvement: this option, which we have been using thus far, is proving to become obsolete with the rise of Arab centered media production. The Muslim community is more likely to gravitate towards local or even regional programming rather than to an outside source. This is seen most clearly in Al Jazeera’s rise to popularity. Not only is the tactic not effective, it is also a waste of resources.

B. U.S. as a sponsor for local Arab media: this option is much more feasible and improvement over investing money into U.S. created networks in the region, which face more difficulty in achieving a sense of credibility with the Muslim population (that may or may not already be resentful of the U.S.). This method involves investing, in terms of advertisements and sponsorships, into established Arab channels, particularly ones that embrace democratic values. This can help both western investors get a foothold in the region as well as subtly creating a presence in the Muslim world without instigating a backlash against the west.

C. Conclusion: By pursuing a more progressive and subtle approach in the Middle East, it will be easier to start improving perceptions of the West in the eyes of Muslim viewers. Overt, pro-American propaganda is unnecessary because it increases resentment towards the west in the region and strengthens anti-western sentiments. By working within the frame of the existing Arabic television industry, it will be possible to achieve the best of both worlds: increasing American presence in the region, without creating any sense of resentment that can be attached to that.

VI. Bibliography:

Cochrane, Paul. Saudi Arabia’s Media Influence. Arab Media and Society. October 2007.
Hammond, Andrew, Popular Culture in the Arab World, Chapter 8.
Miles, Hugh. Al-Jazeera: The Inside Story of the Arab News Channel That is Challenging the West. Grove Press, 2005
PBS. Dishing Democracy: Arab TV Guide. July 31st, 2007 http://www.pbs.org/wnet/wideangle/episodes/dishing-democracy/arab-tv-guide/1847/
Tawil-Souri. Class notes. 2008
Zayani, Mohammed. ‘Introduction: Al Jazeera and the Vicissitudes of the New Arab Mediascape’, pp.1-41, in The Al Jazeera Phenomenon: Critical Perspectives on New Arab Media, 2005.

*off topic*

Well, in case anyone was wondering (and I don't know if anyone was), my novel is actually related to our class discussions. It follows three characters: A Russian, an American (both men) and an Iranian woman. The novel will explore the futility of a unilateral world, the problems presented by orientalism and 'the clash' and to a lesser degree how the media helps perpetuate it. There will also be a more personal dimension to the relationship between the Russian and the American and how that becomes even more complex once the Iranian woman enters their lives.

The novel has no narrator. Instead the story unfolds by jumping back and forth from the perspectives of the three main characters and watch how each of them processes essentially the same events but draw incredibly different conclusions from them. And I wouldn't be a good MCC student if I didn't include excerpts from the media of that world presenting its own take on the events in the story (TV News, Talk shows, blogs, Newspaper articles, etc.).

The goal of my book is to present the reader the trees and have them build the forest for themselves. I'm doing my best to make each side have its positive and negative traits to make them equally viable perspectives. Essentially none of them are villains (or perhaps all of them are, if you want to play devil's advocate). Each side views themselves as being justified in their objectives at first, but the world becomes more and more grey. They all believe that they are doing what's right, but all of their actions have effects on the world (some more devastating than others).

It began as a series of short stories in my fiction class this semester. I will be writing the novel during winter break and next semester. Don't be surprised to see it at a bookstore near you (although I might be).

Yes, this will probably be my final original blog post. It’s been a fascinating experience tearing apart articles and media objects, looking for Orientalism, ‘Clash’, stereotypes and the elusive Modernism. I’ve examined everything from sexists in Egypt to stereotyped ventriloquist dummies in the US. Here’s one last entry, hope it’s a good one.

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/2008/11/20081124212126642596.html

Last time I talked about Hezbollah, this time it’s time for Hamas. Apparently a U.S. based charity, Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (which was the largest Muslim charity on U.S. soil), was charged with supporting Hamas and therefore connected to terrorist activities. The Texas jury convicted 5 of the former leaders under numerous charges of terrorism.

What pains me about this story is that as much as I’ve been striving to seek out modernism, everything keeps dragging me back to the Clash. If there is one term that best describes this article and this situation, it’s Clashist.

I mean, seriously. There are two sides (the charity workers accused of being terrorist sympathizers, and the ‘patriotic’ prosecutors trying to look out for America’s best interests). A courtroom setting naturally makes a good arena for a clash of two sides.

Then there’s the whole ‘holier than thou’ act that the prosecutors put on. Even though they didn’t flat out accuse the charity of being terrorists (which I’m sure they would have done in a heartbeat if given the chance), they did assert that the charity was producing funds for Hamas, which is considered by the U.S. to be a terrorist organization. Apparently funding “schools, hospitals and social welfare programmes controlled by the group in the Palestinian territories, and permitting it to divert funds to the activities of fighters” is a crime. If that’s true, as one of the people who commented on the article, then isn’t the Red Cross a terrorist organization for aiding Israel (which many countries in the Middle East disapprove of) and Georgia (which Russia disapproves of)? Too strong a statement? Maybe. But to be honest, the whole case stinks of political manipulation.

The fact that the case took place in Texas is one indicator that a Clashist point of view would dominate all those involved (for reasons that should be self evident, unfortunately). The use of secret witnesses from Israel is also suspect. And the fact that it was clear from the beginning that the people being prosecuted were never going to receive a fair trial because everyone involved had a bias against the defendants that could either be politically inclined or just pure ignorance about the Middle East.

Of course I have no real way of knowing whether or not the accusations against the charity were legitimate or whether they were fabricated. The point is that despite our best efforts to create a modernist mentality about our relationship with the rest of the world, there are those who do not share that same forward thinking approach and choose to engage in mutually destructive policies (on both sides of the ‘clash’).

It is a rather depressing notion to end my final blog entry on, but perhaps that is just reflecting the depressing state of events in the world we live in today. Perhaps there will always be a divide between those who accept a paradoxical/modernist way of viewing the world and those who insist on viewing it in a perverse Manichean way, where one side is inherently good and the other is inherently bad, with no middle ground. Honestly I have long since lost hope in the possibility of there being a world in which two different powers could peacefully coexist. It didn’t work out with the Cold War because the U.S. never stopped seeing Russia as the Soviet Union, thus eliminating all chances of a potential reconciliation (which has broken my heart and disillusioned me profoundly). And I fear that it won’t work out between the Occident and the Orient because I doubt that the West will stop taking such a condescending view of the Middle East and finally take its concerns seriously. So despite me being able to see that the Middle East is a diverse group of nations with its share of rich histories,culture and traditions, there are many more people who don’t know or don’t care. Of course I would love to be proven wrong and see a new world order where there was no more strife between the two sides, and in its place understanding and cooperation. But I guess conflict is inherent in human nature, and despite our attempts to educate and understand one another, it is ultimately unavoidable. Wait did I just wax philosophically and unintentionally prove that a Clash is imminent? Whoa… That was an anticlimactic way of ending my blog.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/21/world/middleeast/21lebanon.html?ref=middleeast

Hezbollah is using an age old tradition: recruiting the next generation of its ranks by getting to them young. With a full program from elementary school through university, a young Lebanese kid can be put on the fast track to joining Hezbollah’s mission. Now, I’m going to try not to take sides with or against Hezbollah because it’s really not my place to make such political statements. But what I can do is analyze the situation and put into some historical context. Won’t that be fun?

Recruiting youth for a cause is not exactly a new thing. It was done in ancient times. Boys would be chosen to be trained to fight in the military in places like Sparta, for example, and have mentors in the form of older soldiers. I’m not going to delve into the more troubling elements of these kinds of relationships, because that’s a whole different topic altogether. This tradition has carried over into the 20th century as well. One of the more troubling examples is the Hitler Youth movement. An organization where young Germans were trained to think in the vein of the Nazi party. It’s no surprise that people who finished this program went on to have positions in the Nazi military or even the government. One of the surprising alums of this program is the current Pope. But I guess since he disapproved of it, he should be cut some slack. And then there were less morally troubling youth groups like the Soviet Pioneers or the American Scouts.

Sure those from the west automatically assume that anything that happened in the USSR was automatically evil. Not true. The pioneer movement, although associated with the government was not a malevolent group. Unlike the Hitler youth, it wasn’t training future mass murderers. It was sort of a way for young people to get more involved in their future roles in society. It was essentially no worse than the American Scouts were. Although you could argue that training people to fit into the socialist system is wrong, at least it wasn’t teaching young people to go out and kill those who are different than them.

Ok, history lesson aside, this practice of training young people for a political cause is just another in a long chain. But this group can be put more in the same category as the Hitler Youth. No, I don’t mean to be Orientalist/Clash-ist when I write this but one of the goals of the Hezbollah program is to train the youth to combat both Israel and America.

This camp is called Tyr fil Say, one of the sites in south Lebanon where the Mahdi Scouts train. Much of what they do is similar to the activities of scouts the world over: learning to swim, to build campfires, to tie knots and to play sports. Mr. Akhdar described some of the games the young scouts play, including one where they divide into two teams — Americans and the Resistance — and try to throw one another into the river. The Mahdi Scouts also get visits from Hezbollah fighters, wearing camouflage and toting AK-47s, who talk about fighting Israel.

It’s hard to remain neutral about a group that is inherently concerned with fighting someone. They use anti-Semitic propaganda in their ‘educational’ literature that they require their kids to read. Some of their activities involve anti-western exercises. But enough paranoia on my part.

As the article goes on to say, the movement is meeting difficulties in that many Lebanese youths are ‘seduced’ by the more secular aspects of modern Lebanon. What’s ironic is that the things that are reducing the commitment from the young people are inherently Western (cappuccinos, donuts and iPods, for example).

So even though for a western observer, the Hezbollah movement can be seen as a major threat because we will have a new generation of ‘terrorists’ to deal with in Israel, etc., it’s also not as all encompassing as we’d expect. Most Lebanese citizens prefer to live more peaceful lives. And even though there is the mentality (encouraged by Hezbollah) that outsiders are potential spies, there is hope that most of Lebanon has not exactly bought into the full extent of the ‘Clash’ thesis.

Let’s just hope that our scouts haven’t been training to be the future generation of Orientalist, corrupt businessmen.

Another interesting source of dissent deals with sex. Hezbollah is of course very restrictive when it comes to the topic, but apparently members have found ways of circumvent these strict limitations. It's an interesting twist of ideology that instead of just making it acceptable to have casual sex outside of marriage, the members do accept a convoluted system of "temporary marriage" in order to justify their urges. No offense, but isn't that even worse than just having sex? It's devaluing marriage by making it just an excuse to have a roll in the hay. In fact some people have lost interest in Hezbollah because it allows such weird practices without just allowing sex in general.

But then again they wouldn't be the first religious group to distort their religion for the sake of more carnal desires. The catholic chrch has had its share of convenient manipulations of doctrine. Like charging money frompeople to guarantee them a palce in heaven or having a Pope with kids. And it isn't the first political group to be hypocritical. Like the U.S. claiming that all men (sexist in its own right) being created equal and yet a gay couple still can't get married in most states (and some states that used to allow it now are revoking that right).

Overall the article provided a fascinating observation on how Lebanon is essentially a modern country (even if the author didn't say it directly). The Lebanese people aren't just westernized or just Hezbollah supporters. They can be both. And even though we in the west have tried pigeonholing certain parts of the population as being one or the other, it's a pointless task since they are complex individuals who can exist as paradoxes, just like we can. They are struggling with reconciling their religious/political beliefs with their desire to be a part of a global community. So, as long as we don't antagonize them by demonizing them in our press and media, I think that any violent urges they might have (as a result of Hezbollah indoctrination) can subside. After all, they are people just like us, that can make their own decisions and aren't just subject to some hypodermic needle effect from Hezbollah. Just like we aren't the mindless puppets of our past administration (for the most part).

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7747460.stm
Ok well for this post I decided to do something a little less lofty or serious than my previous posts (but I guess that's assuming that all my previous posts have been lofty and/or serious). I remember hearing about the ‘couple’ who got in trouble for having sex on a beach in Dubai. And as I was scouring BBC for a story to tear apart, I found out about their sentence: to be deported. OK, this will probably be a quickie. I mean the blog entry will be small. Argh, it’ll be brief. Jeez, it seems like every possible description for a blog about this topic ends in a double entendre. OK, I’ll get this one over with.

The whole controversy, that has erupted from this situation in which a British male and a British female were found engaging in premarital relations on a beach in Dubai, is a bit over the top. I can’t think of a single country where sex (or at the very least making out, which is what the aforementioned couple claimed to be doing) is allowed in a public space. But then again I’m not exactly well traveled, or going around testing the limits of public decency laws. Like we mentioned in class, if a couple were to ‘do it’ on, for example, the Jersey Shore, they would get arrested as well.

But then we face the whole nuanced message of it being a big deal because they aren’t a married couple (or a couple at all) and premarital relations are frowned upon by Islam. True, but pretty much all the religions I can think of off the top of my head frown upon premarital sex. And even though Dubai happens to be one of the more open minded cities in the Middle East, that still doesn’t make it ok to get carried away on the beach during the day.

The couple was lucky to receive a relatively relaxed sentence of just having to leave the country. Although it may seem extreme, it is far better than having them serve jail time. But is there a bigger issue here? A clash of two worlds? West vs. east? The liberal lovers VS. the conservative authorities? The strict adherence to the religious belief that premarital relations are immoral and applying that to non-Muslims?

Honestly, a lot of the possible controversies with this situation are total bull. The couple was in the wrong. Sure getting deported seems a bit extreme, but we’d all be up in arms if a couple of westerners were sentenced to a few months in a Middle Eastern prison. They got off easy. There is no ‘Clash’ present here because there isn’t a place in the world where a prude won’t report on a couple of lovers who happened to give in to their passion in public. This is one of the few posts, if not the only one, that shows that some things don’t depend on whether you are Occidentalist or Orientalist, because they are universal.

The moral of the story is: Next time, Get a room!

Ok, so enough clash-talk. I want to have a more optimistic, modernist themed blog. So I was happy to find this article on the New York Times website today.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/24/arts/design/24muse.html?_r=1

It was refreshing to see an article about the Middle East that wasn’t about terrorists, war or repression of rights. Apparently Qatar is now trying to become a center for high culture in the Gulf region by opening up the Museum of Islamic Art. This is significant, as the article states, because it is reasserting the value which the Muslim world once had as a cultural epicenter centuries ago. We in the west have taken for granted the fact that the Muslim world was at one point a major player in scholarly works whilst Europe was neck-deep in the void that was the Middle Ages. Our short term memories have focused too much on recent, rogue fanatical movements and we have forgotten the significance and relevance that the Muslim world had on global culture like the development of Algebra (without which we might not have achieved much in terms of computing and engineering) and the preservation of important ancient texts that would have been lost otherwise (which helps us to keep a record of our past as a human race). So the idea of having a museum built in the Middle East to honor that tradition of fine art and scholarship, which has unfortunately been undermined by European colonialism as well as internal turmoil in the region over the centuries, struck me as a great idea.

The fact that an American (well, Chinese originally) Architect was responsible for its construction also gave me some hope. No longer are we in a world where everything is separate. Such a grand project seems like a natural occasion for an international collaboration (as a sign of good faith, similar to the joint U.S.-Russian space program). And from what I’ve seen, it’s a beautiful structure, which had a grand opening ceremony (fireworks and all). While I’d love to just leave on such an optimistic note, I also have to be realistic and critical about the article and the situation. As much as I’d rather not do it, I wouldn’t be a media scholar worth my salt if I didn’t poke holes in this seemingly idealistic project.

One major issue I had was the thought process involved in the construction of the building.

Taking his cue from the diversity of the collections, Mr. Pei sought to create a structure that would embody the “essence of Islamic architecture.” He spent months traveling across the Middle East searching for inspiration.

The idea of there being something ‘essentially Islamic’ is enough to break me out of the day dream of a multicultural exchange in which both sides viewed each other in 3-dimensions. Anytime you try to boil down a culture (especially one that is as diverse and spread out as the Muslim world) to its essential elements, even in terms of something as specific as architecture, you are treading a dangerous path. I’m sure Mr. Pei had good intentions in his idea of trying to reflect the multiplicity of Islamic artifacts that would be housed in the building. But at the same time it can be, arguably, a step backwards (reducing a group of countries that share the same religion and sometimes a common language, into an easy to classify group.) Sure this isn’t exactly ‘Clash’ or even Orientalist (because there isn’t really an outside group asserting power over Qatar). But it is acting upon the whole idea of stereotype vs. authenticity. Is the composite structure really an accurate representation of unity (read: uniformity) within the Muslim world? Or is it like those sites in Dubai that play off of the expectations we have of what we think to find in the Orient. The fact that Pei admitted himself that he knew nothing about Islam before this project also speaks volumes. Is he just another westerner (or outsider in general) who is asserting his vision of what Muslim architecture is based on taking his preconceived notions of how things are and applying that to this situation? Well I guess that’s subjective.

Overall I’d still like to return it to a modernist theme. The structure is technically a combination of Western cubism and a Tunisian Fortress. So this is where I can ask how can this be a Muslim cultural setting if it includes western concepts of architecture? Well, according to modernism, I don’t have to ask that because things exist in contradiction. This is a Muslim structure because it is combining classical design with more modern theory. That is the very tradition that the Muslim world is honoring (the artifacts that are going to be on display) in the museum. All of these contradictions are what makes this exhibit an interesting and necessary step in rebuilding the Middle East’s reputation as innovators as opposed to the condescending Western view that we need to improve the Orient because they can’t do it themselves.

Good Job Qatar and Mr. Pei.

Ok, since we've been talking about TV, I decided to write about something that I noticed a while ago and has been brought back to my attention. Ventriloquist Jeff Dunham (who has several specials on Comedy Central) has made a living off of his quirky acts that often play on stereotypes. His characters include Walter (a curmudgeonly, late middle age old man), Bubba J( a run of the mill ‘white trash red neck’ complete with an addiction to NASCAR and experience with incest), Peanut (a purple creature with green hair that simultaneously embodies elements of a closeted homosexual and a xenophobe), Jose Jalapeno (literally a Mexican Jalapeno pepper on a stick that is meant to poke fun at the whole Illegal immigration issue) and Achmed (the dead terrorist).

As you may have guessed from the title, I’m going to discuss Achmed. First of all, there’s his physical presence. He is wearing the stereotypical turban wrap on his head; he has a dark beard growing on his chin and bushy eyebrows. In addition to that, he is a skeleton (which he himself initially dismisses as a flesh wound). This alone fits into the Orientalist tradition of portraying a man from the Middle East. There is no deviation from the expectations that a western audience would expect from this character. Throughout the performance, he uses his eyebrows in a sinister manner and laughs menacingly (like a cartoon character).

Then there is his voice. The portrayal of Achmed incorporates a blend of various different Middle Eastern accents. Again it is stereotypical. But why is it that way? Perhaps fitting in with the American perception of what a Middle Eastern man would sound like that has been perpetuated through American pop culture like Disney’s adaptation of “Aladdin”, or the Governator’s “True Lies”.

Of course the subject matter is what’s really key here. Throughout this 10 minute+ set, Achmed has a hostile, Anti-western tone. He has a consistent refrain of “Silence… I keel (read: kill) you” which takes on a variety of nuanced pronunciations depending on his mood or level of confidence. Although he starts off as being a clichéd villain ripped from some orientalist propaganda piece, Achmed (upon realizing his demise) becomes a slightly more balanced figure in that he starts questioning and poking fun at the extremist outlook that he allegedly had when he was still alive. At one point he even tries to be amicable and starts telling jokes (although a slightly off-color anti-Semitic joke does bring his persona back closer to his roots). Overall however, he is still just a caricature, not a fully fledged character.

So why does all of this matter? Well Achmed the dead terrorist is essentially an example of the normalization of stereotyping Arabs in Western media. The puppet is not questioned for its (in)accuracy or demeaning portrayal of Arabs. It’s fodder for semi-witty/semi-offensive post 9/11 humor. How is it Orientalist? Well, as we said Orientalism is not merely about stereotyping a group, it’s about taking the power away from that group as well. By having a dead terrorist (who happened to die due to his own ineptitude) saying “I keel you” and having that being received by thunderous laughter, it’s clearly reducing him (and the group of people he is representing) to a mere punch line. As opposed to presenting them as a group of disillusioned individuals who are products of manipulation/exploitation by both Super Powers during the Cold War and dating back to the colonial heyday of Europe. It’s similar to that Mad TV sketch where all of the AL Jazeera reporters (and interviewees) were constantly repeating an Anti-American refrain (as if it were a punctuation mark). It lacks a realistic commentary on the relationship between the Middle East and the West.

But perhaps that is the point. Stand-up comedy, especially Ventriloquism, is not known for profound socio political satire. This was just an excuse to get a few quick laughs using xenophobia as a conduit.

OK, so I’m still a bit paranoid as to whether I’ve been doing a good job with the blog, so here is my attempt to inject some life into my blog.

I found that the main argument of the film was that not all media was created equal (besides the fact that the Iraq war was staged under false pretenses and was a series of staged events set up by the Bush administration).

The news station of Al Jazeera was often harshly dismissed by the western media, military and politicians and given a hard time for trying to portray the Arab perspectives. I felt that the American soldier, that was featured throughout as a foil to the Al Jazeera reporter who interviews him multiple times, is somewhat Orientalist but not as much as Bernard Lewis or Samuel Huntington. He gives me hope that not everyone in a position of power is hell bent on a ‘Clash’ agenda.

One of my favorite parts of the film was how the Al Jazeera producers discussed how staged the toppling of Saddam’s statue was. I always thought that there was something off about the whole ordeal, so it was fascinating to hear that alternate perspective. The comment about the young Iraqi who just happened to have an old Iraqi flag with him was particularly eye-opening.

But now down to my main point of discussion. What we’ve talked about has been the potential ‘Clash’ between the Occident and the Orient. But the fact that it exists in something like the practice of a free press is why I’m intrigued with this film. The U.S. is not mad at Al Jazeera for withholding information (which is the usual critique the U.S. has on foreign media that opposes it) but rather because it shows what the U.S. refuses to show, the Arab perspectives. Am I to assume that if Al Jazeera had suppressed any Anti-American news and solely presented information that benefitted the U.S.’s appearance in the region, that it would be considered better news coverage? Bull!

I don’t recall the so-called media watch dogs complaining when American, British and Georgian ‘news outlets’ were posting ‘footage’ of the ‘destruction of Gori’ by ‘Russian troops’ which ended up actually being the destruction of Tskhinvali by Georgian troops. What Control Room pointed out was the utter hypocrisy of the west’s standards for journalism. I guess the rule is that as long as it benefits the U.S. (and its allies), it’s OK.

I think the movie did a decent job showing the Arab perspectives during the Iraq war. I use the plural version because only an Orientalist would try to assume that all Arabic people share a common view. I think it was a bit skewed in their favor because they showed numerous occasions of the Al Jazeera reporters mocking the westerners behind their backs in a tongue-in-cheek manner. Although I did agree on most occasions with the critique of the Orientalist westerners, like ol’ Rummy.

OK I know my previous blog posts may have been somewhat rigid and maybe a bit too detached (or I’m just being needlessly paranoid). Perhaps that is just a reflection of deeper seated issues of trying to stay neutral in light of conflicting worldviews playing for (or against me), Russian and American. I know this is getting off topic, but I think I can steer this back on track in the course of this blog, trust me.

After our class with Mohamed Elshahed (I hope I got his name right), I was made very aware of how different I was from practically everyone else in the class (besides gender, obviously): I have not succumbed to the tourist mentality of going to different places, documenting my travels with trivial photo-ops and buying kitschy souvenirs to put on my desk. Perhaps this might be because I was dragged along to Moscow (and Paris, twice) by my family on summer vacations as a kid, away from the familiar sights of home, NYC. In my stubbornness I would refuse to go see exhibits, “sights” and all the other touristy activities. I think that mentality has followed me to this day because I still dread (and avoid) travelling and spending a whole day just looking at stuff.

This is why I find the article on Architourism fascinating. Not only are the places that he describes in that article foreign to me, but so is the very practice of being a tourist. The concept that we talked about in class of constructing a new sense of authentic Arab-ness in Dubai made me think of what New York City presents as its authentic qualities. Sky Scrapers, Time Square, Rockefeller Center, the Statue of Liberty, Central Park, etc. But when you think about it, how often does the typical New Yorker visit any of the landmarks that are allegedly the heart of the city? The city has many sides to it that present very conflicting views of what it really is. There is some very expensive real estate that is occupied by some of the richest people in the world. And then there are the very poor sections where people are struggling to survive because of the high cost of living.

Where am I going with this? Good question. Where AM I going with this? Oh yeah, NYC is portrayed abroad (For example: in the Middle East) as an incredibly wealthy city with loose morals and no values (well, maybe not as bad as Las Vegas, but still). This harsh portrayal (either as a gritty and soulless “Gotham City” or as an opulent and superficial “Metropolis”) has been fueled by Hollywood, and may be partially responsible for us being targeted by OBL in 2001. I’m not sure if he’s ever traveled here (highly unlikely that he did), so he wouldn’t have been able to make an accurate analysis of the culture of the city outside of the realm of economics and media portrayal. I’m going to turn this around now and say that the very fact that I’ve never been to Dubai makes it very uncomfortable for me to make an accurate or fair discussion of it. I personally believe that if you haven’t experienced something first hand, you shouldn’t then assume to be an expert on it. Like if someone who has never been in combat themselves suddenly decided that they wanted to start a war; that would be a bad idea. But I digress…

http://www.arabmediasociety.com/?article=224
I recently found another article about the city we discussed, “Picture perfect: How the story of Dubai’s other side can never be told” by Dana El-Baltaji, that continued my fascination with this dynamic of trying to know a city from an outsider’s point of view. El-Baltaji deals with the issue of trying to cover Dubai as an Arab journalist working for the Arab media. She finds it difficult to have full journalistic freedom because she is prevented by her publication from saying critical things about the Emirate run city. This raises an interesting question. If a place can’t even be covered objectively by the local press, what hope can there be that the world can have an accurate portrayal of the city? El-Baltaji’s western counterparts aren’t encumbered by the same restrictions for their coverage of the city and that creates a sharp imbalance of the type of reporting that can occur. This article raises some interesting points like the censorship of the media in Dubai, the citizens of Dubai not being able to form their own voice because of the massive scale of change that has been going on in the city in such a short window of time, and the issue of perspective (who’s speaking makes a big difference).

It made me think of the inherent censorship that exists in our media (no news networks were allowed to be critical of the war with Iraq (events leading up to it and the first couple of years or so of actual combat ) without facing charges of being Anti-American; the totally one-sided portrayal of the Russia-Georgia conflict where any mention that the Georgians were responsible for the devastation of South Ossetia that forced Russia to retaliate was suppressed by going to commercial and cutting the person off in mid sentence).

How does this tie in with my earlier personal account. Well, I don’t go around traveling to other countries and then help perpetuate the stereotypes that people come to expect (the Great Wall of China, anyone?) Is that too weak? Well then how about the fact that I try to find the truth beneath the bull of the Orientalists and the Occidentalists? I may not be as well traveled as others but that doesn’t make me close minded. It just means that I don’t have as many Frequent Flier Miles.

But also it brings up the issue of whether or not we should place the western expectations of a free and open press on the nations of the Middle East. As we saw in Control Room, even when the Arab media tries to provide some extra perspective that isn’t covered by the west, it gets heavily criticized by the West (Rumsfeld, of all people). Does a democratic press in the Middle East have to mean total obedience to the west or bust?