Site Presented By
Monday, Nov 9, 2009
Al-Jazeera has long planned to go public, thinking financial independence would further boost its status in the eyes of the wider world. Channel executives are optimistic about prospects for survival without tens of millions of dollars in annual subsidies, and estimate the size of the Arab advertising market at $500 million. On the other hand, a Congressional Research Service report from July 2003 advised that the U.S. government could kill Al-Jazeera by pushing for its privatization; the report's author, Jeremy M. Sharp, puts the ad market at no more than $180 million --not enough to support a private news channel. And the Saudis already encourage advertisers to boycott the Qatar-based muckrakers; presumably, they would redouble their efforts if they thought they could finally finish off a newly privatized and financially vulnerable Al-Jazeera.
Some Middle East watchers, like Jon Alterman at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, dispute the idea that Qatar would put its media darling in such jeopardy. Why would the Emir cut off a channel that has brought his tiny country international prestige and regional influence? Good question. But nobody ever said the world of international relations made sense. For example, few wonks acknowledge the dissonance caused by America's apparent efforts to simultaneously promote freedom and democracy while muzzling the first independent source of news in the Arab world.
Indeed, the U.S. government is sending mixed signals on how it plans to deal with Al-Jazeera. While neocons in the military brass still want to eradicate it, perceiving it to be a tool for terrorist propaganda, some prominent administration officials are taking a more conciliatory approach. Karen Hughes, a loyal Bush advisor who advocated buying ad time on Al-Jazeera at the start of the Afghan war, is now in charge of "public diplomacy" at the State Department. Her boss, Condoleezza Rice, says we need to do more listening to the Arab world. These are subtle signals, but significant, and may indicate that some in the Bush administration see Al-Jazeera as potentially useful in improving its image among Arabs and spreading its gospel of "democracy."
If the tone of recent public diplomacy legislation in Congress is any sign, more policymakers are realizing that Al-Jazeera must be worked with, because it won't easily be stifled. In the bill implementing the 9/11 commission's recommendations, Congress asked the executive branch to "more intensively employ existing broadcast media in the Islamic world" -- in other words, to acknowledge Al-Jazeera's influence and play ball with it. When it was introduced, the bill targeted Al-Jazeera with provisions about "combating biased and false foreign media." But when the legislation passed, its language had softened. Perhaps some of Al-Jazeera's critics in the U.S. are realizing that its programming probably has liberalized Arab society more than anything Paul Wolfowitz did at the Pentagon. (Across the pond, Tony Blair's old mouthpiece Alastair Campbell wrote a piece in the Guardian titled "I Was Wrong About Al Jazeera.")
To an extent, Al-Jazeera has forced critics to take it seriously. Around the world, some 30 million to 50 million viewers watch Arabs and Jews, Shiites and Sunnis, liberals and fundamentalists, captives and corpses, all above Al-Jazeera's pointy golden logo. As for the Western media, they have railed against its "anti-American" tilt and willingness to air Osama bin Laden's videotaped messages unabridged. At the same time, though, American and European news organizations have relied heavily on Al-Jazeera's footage and reporting -- especially when the violence is worst in Iraq and Afghanistan -- to fill the gaps in their own coverage, made inevitable by years of cutbacks.
But in the United States, at least, Al-Jazeera's enemies have defined its public image. Bill O'Reilly frequently tells viewers that it is "a terrorist organization." That goes a little beyond the mainstream view, but not far beyond. Obviously, it doesn't help Al-Jazeera's image in the U.S. that one of its top correspondents was, until recently, under house arrest in Spain on charges of belonging to al-Qaida. The reporter, Tayseer Allouni, maintains his innocence, and has not been proven guilty. But when it comes to politics and Middle Eastern affairs, "proof" in the sense of verifiable facts is not always required -- which is why great numbers of Americans believe Saddam Hussein blew up the World Trade Center, while many Arabs aren't sure it happened at all.
So is Al-Jazeera just propaganda? Its programming is difficult to monitor in the States, not least because of the language barrier. Like any round-the-clock network, though, the tone and content varies with the show and the subject matter. Organizations like the oft-cited Middle East Media Research Institute, based in Washington and headed by former Israeli military officer Yigal Carmon, usually translate only the most inflammatory stuff. One could paint a pretty damning picture of the American press, too, by highlighting Joe Scarborough and ignoring the Atlantic Monthly.
Indeed, voices more moderate than Bill O'Reilly often say Al-Jazeera is the Arab world's Fox News. There's something to that view -- the network's disposition is as much against American "colonialism" and Israeli "apartheid" as Fox News is enthusiastic about "the war on terror." Its talk shows give a platform to some unpalatable ideas: Sheik Yusuf al-Qaradawi, a regular talking head on "Religion and Life," heartily endorses Palestinian suicide bombers who fight "the tyrannical Jewish entity." (He did, however, condemn the 9/11 attacks.) But Al-Jazeera also airs a show devoted to women's issues. Considering its audience and how state-controlled Arab media has been in the past, Al-Jazeera is more radically Western than it is fundamentalist.
Al-Jazeera's handling of Israel and Palestine is a recurring complaint from its American critics, who accuse it of being virulently biased against Israel. A common charge is that the channel's correspondents invariably describe suicide bombers as "martyrs." And Al-Jazeera reporters have, by their own admission, used the term -- though they say that where their audience is concerned, describing the dead as a martyr is more an obligatory display of respect than a glorification of murder. (Contrast this with the administration-approved term employed by Fox News, "homicide bombers," which strips the bombers of their only positive trait, bravery.) Regardless, transcripts from the CIA-operated Foreign Broadcast Information Service show that anchors and reporters regularly use "suicide bomber," while guests and sources prefer "martyr." Al-Jazeera spokesman Ballout says that in every case, context matters: "We figure that if somebody dies in the cause of defending his own land then he is a martyr, but if he carries a bomb into Tel Aviv and blows himself up, then he is not a martyr."
