What to Make of Al-Jazeera

By Brigitte L. Nacos
"I've been a proponent of al-Jazeera, despite its tendency to spin coverage, because it was the first step toward real broadcast journalism in the Arab world..." I second this assessment by Washington Post columnist David Ignatius in his column "Al-Jazeera's Tricky Balancing Act." There is no doubt that the coverage of this global network is biased in favor of the predominent views in the Arab and Muslim world--especially with respect to its pro-Palestinian and anti-Israeli position. But al-Jazeera has also ruffled the feathers of governments, religious leaders, and the masses in the region.

Al-Jazeera has been condemned by the Bush administration for airing video- and audiotapes carrying communications by Osama bin Laden and other Al Qaeda figures and thus providing a propoganda stage for the architects of 9/11. Yes, Al Qaeda and like-minded terrorist groups prefer to put their propoganda productions into the hands of the most important Arab news organization rather than giving exclusives to CNN or other Western media. But if Western news organizations were to obtain such tapes first, they would do as Al-Jazeera does--air them. After all, so far each release of a new bin Laden/Al Qaeda tape by al-Jazeera was subsequently over-covered by the U.S. media.

During the decade since its establishment, al-Jazeera's reporting angered Libya's Muammar Gaddafi and several other leaders in the region to an extent that they threatened to break up diplomatic relations with Qatar whose government owns the network. But unlike the traditional state-owned media in the region, al-Jazeera is not censored by the government of the country it is also headquartered in.

The reality is, of course,that the press at all times has taken on the characteristics of the political, social, economic, cultural, and religious environment it operates in--including all the biases of the predominant societal forces. In today's world, the global media players reflect to one degree or the other basic views and ideologies of the countries and regions they are headquartered in and of their owners. Target audiences, too, enter into the calculus of reporting. Thus, the coverage on CNN International is often less U.S.-centric than on CNN's domestic version. This was, for example, the case before and during the Iraq invasion.

Ultimately, the best situation is a domestic and global media landscape that resembles a free marketplace of ideas--western and non-western, conservative and liberal, bad and good, right and wrong, etc. All we need then are news consumers willing to sift through such a marketplace of ideas and then make up their own minds about the pressing problems and issues of our time.

Comments

[Alexandr]

I like RT Al-Jazeera English is too Islamist for me. If you're interested in Middle East news check out Mosaic via, link t.v. Euronews is antoehr good news source, though you can't get it with a U.S. I.P. address which I find odd. I agree with Russia Today. It is sad that now the U.S. news media has become like the state television of the Eastern Bloc during the cold war era. You might also want to look at globalvoices.org and crowdvoices.org. You will get a feel for what are the circumstances on the ground outside of the U.S. boarders. I feel W. Bush was the best at distracting America with the Shadows on the Wall.

[Zohar]

The Al Jazeera interview of Wafa Sultan, which has been circulated in the internet since its February 2006 broadcast, is an illuminating example of the network's willingness to accomodate anti-Arab arguments to a degree of risking alienation by Muslim audiences.

The video, which was unfortunately edited to exclude Ms. Sultan's adversary in that debate (perhaps a bias of the show's production company, which seems to have distributed this segment?), is available at: http://switch3.castup.net/cunet/gm.asp?ai=214&ar=1050wmv&ak=null

[historytrivia]

Monday, August 21, 2006
A History Lesson for the Modern Media

Boswell found out early on how seriously Dr. Johnson took the English language. Boswell casually "happened to say, it would be terrible if he (Dr. Johnson) should not find a speedy opportunity of returning to London."

Johnson scolded him by saying, "Don't, Sir, accustom yourself to use big words for little matters. It would not be terrible, though I were to be detained some time here. The practice of using words of disproportionate magnitude is, no doubt, too frequent every where..."

The quotation serves as a good lesson for our modern media whether in news, entertainment, or commercials. The culture is rife with the "greatest," "most fabulous," "never before seen" use of words that are disproportionate with the magnitude of the event.

What used to be the province of carnival barkers is now a daily insult to the intelligence of the TV audience. All in hopes of making a mediocre event much greater than it is.