reflectivepundit

Note to Pres. Obama: Public Diplomacy Must Aim at Largest Audience

By Brigitte L. Nacos
That President Barack Obama is sticking to his campaign promise of changing America’s foreign policy approach was obvious, when he granted his first formal White House interview to the Arab TV-network  al-Arabiya and used the occasion as a platform to address the Arab and Muslim street. As Karen DeYoung reports in the Washington Post, the responses to the president’s outreach “have been largely positive.” But her assessment is not based on polls of or interviews with regular Arabs and Muslims but rather on the reactions of various government officials. While there is no doubt that leaders of governments and of non-governmental groups took notice of Obama’s promise for a new start in America’s relations with the Muslim and Arab world, one wonders how many members of general public in these countries watched the actual interview.

Unfortunately, by selecting the Saudi-owned al-Arabiya network rather than the Qatar-owned al-Jazeera, the White House selected a moderate medium with a rather modest viewership over a more Arab-centric network with the by far largest audience in Arab countries.

This, then, was a missed opportunity in public diplomacy in that it did not aim for and did not get the attention of the largest segment of the targeted audience. As the 2008 Annual Arab Public Opinion Poll of the Anwar Sadat Chair for Peace and Development at the University of Maryland found by surveying representative samples of the public in Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates, taken together al-Jazeera has 53% of the audience whereas al-Arabiya has only 9%. Similarly, a December 2008 survey found that more than 50% of Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza al-Jazeera was the most watched satellite television compared to 10% for al-Arabiya.

Unlike traditional diplomacy or government-to-government communications—often during person-to-person contacts--, public diplomacy is directed to foreign publics and therefore must aim at reaching the largest number of people. You do not have to agree with the medium of communication as long as you are assured that an interview, a speech, and messages in whatever form are aired in their original form. In other words, al-Jazeera, not al-Arabiya, is the by far best platform for public diplomacy with Arabs and Muslims.

The Promise of America's and Obama's Patchwork Heritage

By Brigitte L. Nacos
Multi-racial, multi-ethnic, multi-cultural, multi-lingual, multi-religious plus atheist, multi-sexual, and so on, all of these stitched together the tapestry of rare community between the hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions on and around the National Mall to experience the inauguration of Barack Obama as the 44th president of the United States. Around the country, collective watch experiences united people with the same or similar “multi” markers. If there ever was an event and a day that may begin to turn the myth of America as melting pot into a real possibility, it might have been this day.

In his inauguration speech, President Obama addressed this uniquely American quality when he said that “we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness.” And he was right in not limiting this unique American quality to the domestic setting but recognizing its possibilities for the global context as well. In the president's words, 
 “We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus - and non-believers. We are shaped by every language and culture, drawn from every end of this Earth; and because we have tasted the bitter swill of civil war and segregation, and emerged from that dark chapter stronger and more united, we cannot help but believe that the old hatreds shall someday pass; that the lines of tribe shall soon dissolve…; that as the world grows smaller, our common humanity shall reveal itself; and that America must play its role in ushering in a new era of peace.”

He then offered to open a new chapter in America’s relations with the Muslim world “based on mutual interest and mutual respect.” This was an important message because most Muslims believe that President Bush’s declared “war on terrorism” is in reality a “war against Islam” and that America considers Muslims as inferior. 

But it was equally important that he sent a tough message to terrorists: “We will not apologize for our way of life, nor will we waver in its defense, and for those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents, we say to you now that our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken; you cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you.”

Obama Inauguration: News Overload and News Fatigue

By Brigitte L. Nacos
One of the most over-used words of the media’s talking heads and writing hands is the term “historic.” Unlike many other events and developments that are labeled as such, Barack Obama’s victory last November and the inauguration of the 44th U.S. president this week calls for the term “historic”: the swearing in of the first Black president is truly a huge milestone in America’s history that many people (I among them) considered an impossible dream when Obama announced his candidacy two years ago. In the midst of the greatest economic crisis since the Great Depression and actual warfare and threats thereof around the world, most Americans want to believe in Barack Obama’s promise for meaningful change—and so do many people around the globe.

No doubt, then, the inauguration of the next president deserves to be celebrated and reported extensively. It deserves to be a media event as were earlier inaugurations here and coronations abroad. For communication scholars, media events have a particular meaning; they are, as Daniel Dayan and Elihu Katz put it, “preplanned and televised live” and “co-produced by broadcasters and organizers.” The media event becomes what James Carey called a “sacred ceremony that draws persons together in fellowship and communality.”

I wonder, though, how long a true media event can last before it loses a highly engaged audience and thus the potential for positive effects. Recently, Bree Nordenson wrote about a study commissioned by the Associated Press which found that participants who were exposured to news overload “showed signs of news fatigue, that is, they appeared debilitated by information overload and unsatisfying news experiences.”

As much as I look forward to President Obama’s inauguration speech and his taking the helm in the White House, I suffer by now from inauguration news fatigue. I am tired of talking heads in television--particular cable--and their colleagues in the print press who talk and write, when they have nothing new or worthwhile to report or comment on. I am tired of television’s annoying count-downs to inauguration day and teasers for non-stop coverage long before the actual event. I am tired of the speculations about cooperation and friction in the president’s “team of rivals.” I am tired of stories by witnesses to history who are coming out of the woodwork because they once shook Barack Obama’s hand or sat next to him or talked to his wife. Speculations about future politics and policies in Washington are fine as are human interest stories. But not in ever more replays.

To be sure, besides television, radio, and the print press, the Internet in particular contributes to today’s information overload in general and news glut with respect to Tuesday’s changing of the guards in particular.

But whatever the most significant causes may be, news overload and fatigue threaten to water down the positive effects of media events. If anything, the news coverage of the event will increase over the next hours. Tuning out till Tuesday may be the only hope for the appetite to return in time for the inauguration speech.

Israel and Hamas: Villain-and-Hero Narrative and the t-Word

By Brigitte L. Nacos
This is the lead paragraph from an editorial in today’s Washington Post:

“HAMAS'S QUICK rejection of the U.N. Security Council's call for a cease-fire in Gaza might have surprised some in the West who have followed the mounting civilian casualties and the near-breakdown of access to food, water, and medical services with growing concern. In fact, Hamas revels in the Palestinian suffering its terrorism has triggered. Thousands of its fighters have retreated into Gaza's most densely populated areas, where they continue to fire dozens of rockets a day at Israeli civilians. They want nothing more than to draw Israel into an even bigger and bloodier fight -- during which, Hamas calculates, Israeli forces will suffer heavy casualties, while the even bigger Palestinian losses will reap a propaganda windfall for Hamas across the Middle East and Europe.”

As I wrote in earlier posts, this propaganda windfall for Palestinians and, more important, for Hamas is already reality. There are ever more and ever larger demonstrations against Israel and in support of Hamas during which Hamas flags are prominently displayed and embraced. One protester in London assured a reporter, “I am not supporting Hamas, but…” She obviously did not have a problem with Hamas flags around her and the fact that she contributed to a now dominant mass-mediated narrative in which Israel is the villain and Hamas the hero.

Were The Washington Post’s editorial writers right in using the term “terrorism” to describe Hamas’s activities as they did in the paragraph cited above? 

Israel and Hamas: It is Time for Soft Power

By Brigitte L. Nacos
Robert Gates, the present and future U.S. Secretary of Defense, writes in the latest issue of Foreign Affairs that “military force will continue to play a role” in the struggle against terrorists but that the “United States cannot kill or capture its way to victory.” The same holds true for Israel. Just as Israel’s 2006 war against Hezbollah did not weaken the Lebanese group, the current military conflict in Gaza will not weaken Hamas nor the organization’s will and ability to fight on.  

States that are faced with domestic or transnational terrorism will not and should not altogether exclude military options in form of air-strikes or commando raids against terrorist hide-outs, weapon depots, training facilities, or for the purpose of freeing hostages. But even if successful, such limited measures accomplish only modest objectives (i.e., the decimation of a group’s leadership, the rescue of hostages)--they are not likely to end terrorism or destroy terrorist organizations.

Typically, terrorists and insurgents hide among civilians in cities, towns, or villages. In such situations, even limited military operations are likely to result in collateral damage. One tragic example of high risk offensive actions was an August 2008 ground operation by U.S. Special Operation Forces backed by air strikes in the Afghan village of Azizabad, When the dust settled, more than 90 civilians—most of them women and children—were dead along with three dozen or so insurgents. The damage to America’s reputation in this Afghan village, in all of Afghanistan, and in the international community was far greater than the benefit of eliminating a few terrorists or insurgents. Military actions, especially when they involve the death of innocent bystanders, tend to rally supporters and recruit new ones. The mentioned commando operation and surgical strikes against al-Qaeda operatives in Pakistan were followed by a surge in violence by the Taliban and al-Qaeda in both Afghanistan and Pakistan. 

The scope and risk of missile strikes and commando operations in the border areas of Pakistan and Afghanistan by the U.S. military pale in comparison to the Israel’s use of military force against Hezbollah in 2006 and now against Hamas in the Gaza Strip; the same is, tragically, also true with respect to the large number of innocent civilian victims. The outcry against Israel in generally hostile and friendly countries is fueled by the unspeakable “collateral damage” inflicted on the civilian population of Gaza. Ignored by the audiences of such conflicts is the fact that terrorists, by cowardly operating in the midst of civilians, put the lives of innocents at risk in the first place. But in the age of mass-mediated politics, perception trumps reality.

Tax Cuts to Cure Economic Ills? Come on, Obama!

By Brigitte L. Nacos

George W. Bush insisted on and got hefty tax cuts for the wealthy and for corporations early on in his presidency and--in spite of huge costs for the right and wrong responses to the 9/11 catastrophe--, these tax cuts prevailed, were never repealed..

This tax policy contributed to an unprecedented budget deficit that the incoming president will have to deal with. For Barack Obama to push now for $300 billion or so in tax cuts for the benefit of the middle class--and for certain businesses--without repealing at the same time the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy is as imprudent as Bush’s earlier policies.

When I voted for Senator Obama I did so with the understanding that he would roll back the tax advantages for the rich and for fat corporations that they got thanks to George W. and shift those funds to middle and lower class Americans. Unless the reports I read and hear are wrong, this is not what the incoming president has now put on the table--those with the highest incomes will not return to tax rates before Bush lowered them.

The idea that the current economic crisis must delay the Obama agenda and force the president-elect to side with Republican tax cut ideologues is disconcerting--particularly, because last summer’s hasty tax rebates for the middle class did nothing to stimulate the economy and did not prevent or slow the  economic disaster we are experiencing now. Just as the Wall Street bail out did not work as Washington hoped. Instead, these moves widened the federal deficit significantly.

Why, then, should we expect that Mr. Obama’s current tax cut initiative, if enacted, would fare better?

The Congress—Democrats and Republicans—must reject tax cuts without repealing the earlier gifts to the rich and rather fatten those parts of the president-elect’s stimulus package that would allow massive public funding for repairing and expanding America's long neglected infrastructure (i.e., schools, hospitals, bridges, public transportation systems, electric power grids) and support green projects. This would put a large number of people to work within a reasonable time-frame and strengthen America’s economic muscle in the long run.

As candidate, the now president-elect promised change. Further tax-cuts without rolling back the earlier ones would be more of the old stuff.

Now, it is time for Mr. Obama to show that, yes, he can--do it differently and better in Washington!

Israeli-Palestinian Clash: Who Is Winning the PR War?

By Brigitte L. Nacos
The following is the lead in  today’s article by Rachel Shabi published in The Guardian:

“Israel believes its has won broad international support in the media for its actions in Gaza thanks to its PR strategy, which through a new body has for months been concerned with formulating plans and role-playing to ensure that government officials deliver a clear, unified message to the world's press.” Shabi reports furthermore, that “Israeli officials have also enjoyed a clear edge with coverage. An Israeli foreign ministry assessment of eight hours of coverage across international broadcast media reported that Israeli representatives got 58 minutes of airtime while the Palestinians got only 19 minutes.”
If true, such a PR victory would be a remarkable change from the experience during the 2006 conflict with Hezbollah. But a less than cursory review of some media content does not reveal the most important coverage patterns and characteristics and their likely impact on audiences.
For a week now, newspaper headlines and broadcast leads refer typically to Israel’s “assault” or “attack” on Gaza—not to rockets launched from Gaza against Israeli targets as the cause of renewed hostilities. But neither headlines nor the explanations that Israeli officials give in the international broadcast media match the dominance of mass-mediated images of Palestinian children and women killed and injured by Israeli airstrikes. Take today’s online slideshow in the New York Times titled “Seventh Day of Gaza Attack,” eight of the 11 images depict scenes in Gaza, 3 show damage in Israel caused by rockets launched by Hamas. A Washington Post report from Beersheba titled “On Both Sides of the Border, Wounded Bodies and Minds,” is accompanied by the heartbreaking picture of a wounded Palestinian boy being carried into Shifa Hospital after an Israeli airstrike in Gaza City. A comprehensive slide show on the Post’s web site includes several photographs of sites in Israel hit by Hamas rockets and Israelis mourning victims of such attacks but most and the most shocking visuals are of Palestinian victims and their loved-ones.
I mention the Times and Post as examples here because there is no reason to suspect that these newspapers would wittingly slant their headlines, articles, and visuals of this conflict against Israel and in favor of Hamas. It is in the nature of asymmetrical warfare that more harm is inflicted on the weaker side and that this is reflected in the news. More so than in the past, today’s instant and 24/7 global reporting of such conflicts plays into the hands to terrorists, insurgents—the weaker side.