THE AMBASSADORS - OPINIONS - Vol. 5, Issue 1 (January 2002)

When I read Middle Eastern scholar Fouad Ajami’s November 18, 2001 article in The New York Times Magazine, “What the Muslim world is watching,” it prompted me to draft a response. I wondered while reading Ajami’s words if he and I were watching the same Al Jazeera television news station and its reporting from and about the same Muslim world that I know.

Whether we accept it or not, Osama Bin Laden is a media star, not just in the Arab world, but across the globe. Not since the last United States presidential elections can I recall the last time when a person’s face so filled newspapers, magazines, kiosk stands, and t-shirts. He is the poster-boy of this new war, the epitome of evil for some, and a hero to others. For many American, the name “Al Jazeera” will be remembered for the 6-minute videotape of Bin Laden that aired on the first day of U.S. military strikes on Afghanistan. As the bearded militant cleric threatened Americans in his soft voice, Al Jazeera staff realized that they scored a journalistic breakthrough of tremendous proportions. The station’s obscure name soon became a household word on this side of the globe. However, it is one thing to broadcast Bin Laden, and another to support him. Ajami argues that Al Jazeera has used its power as the major new provider in the pan-Arab media sphere to represent Bin Laden, using uplifting imagery, to make him out to be a hero. However, reading through Ajami’s descriptions, it occurred to me that American networks also have shown the very same footage that Ajami accuses Al Jazeera of airing: Images of Bin Laden seated on the ground, another of him firing a rifle, another with him in military fatigues. On any given day, the same footage can be seen on any network, from Al Jazeera to Fox News Channel, CNN, and ABC.

The reputation of Bin Laden engenders curiosity from practically any audience. Right now, audiences around the world are watching and learning as much as they can about him. Most media repeat the footage of Bin Laden tens of times every day, a strategy Ajami claims that only Al Jazeera employs. In reality, Bin Laden is the critical element of all media’s rhetorical and sensational construction of war now. The public demands to see as much of the declared enemy as possible. Some people now know more about the life of Bin Laden, our nation’s declared enemy, than they know about our top government officials. The U.S. war on terrorism is being fought thousands of miles away on the ground in Afghanistan, but it is also being fought in our living rooms across television screens where Bin Laden is, undoubtedly, the star.

The mistake, however, is in assuming that Bin Laden is a star or hero because Al Jazeera and its staff think or believe he is. Instead, he is as much a selling-point for Al Jazeera and its host country, Qatar, as the Gulf War was for CNN and the U. S. The truth is that although Al Jazeera has filled headlines in the Arab world since its inception in 1996, the events of September 11 and the exclusive access to Bin Laden created a formula that catapulted the station to international media’s celebrity status. Furthermore, it is a fact that like all satellite broadcast stations in the Arab world, revenues have been hard to generate, another reason why exclusive coverage of Bin Laden is so beneficial to the station. Al Jazeera, like all other private media in the Middle East and elsewhere, is intended to earn its keep through independent revenue sources. Right now, news of Bin Laden drives increases in Al Jazeera’s viewership and advertising sales. But with its rush of success, comes a rush of controversy.

I cannot count the number of times I've heard, “but why do these people hate us?” the one question that Americans have asked ceaselessly about the Muslim world since September 11. Dozens of Middle Eastern experts, columnists, reporters, and historians have been asked to answer this question. Given Ajami’s reputation renowned Middle Eastern scholar, Ajami’s position on this issue is bound to resonate with American readers and officials. The diagnosis he offers for the antagonism towards the U.S. right now seems to be reduced to one symptom: Al Jazeera. For anyone who has watched the Al Jazeera, Ajami’s answer is simplistic, if resoundingly convenient. It is as if he is saying, “Here’s the disease, now cure it. Here’s the tumor, remove it.”

While Ajami may be suggesting such a prescription, he also argues that hatred by the Arab Muslim world toward the west is deep-rooted and difficult to understand. With statements like “anti-Americanism is a potent force that cannot be readily dissolved” little is accomplished besides a distortion of reality. Instead, statements like these tell American readers that they cannot possibly understand the world “through Arab eyes” and that the Middle Eastern expert is the only portal through which we can learn. Similar statements also offer scenarios that showcase the Arab world as dark with hatred, inhabited by hostile peoples who reject American ways regardless of intent. Arab audiences are not as impenetrable to American media as Ajami makes them seem. In hindsight, we shouldn’t forget that the western media campaign of the early 1990’s was capable of selling the Gulf War to the same Arab citizens from whom we are trying to win support today. Ajami painted a picture of an Arab world, that for someone like me who grew up in the region, is a picture I do not recognize.

Instead, it seems to me that Ajami makes sweeping generalizations about the fanatical position of Al Jazeera, a kind of fiction to justify his arguments. For example, in his description of a regularly broadcast talk show on Al Jazeera, he criticizes the conservative opinions of the guests and uses them to illustrate what he claims is the station’s bias. Is that not the point of most talk shows? Are they not supposed to showcase variable opinions on a given issue? Would American audiences make such a judgment about CNN from the opinion of one guest on Burden of Proof or Crossfire?

Al Jazeera works strenuously to provide balanced coverage. In one episode of a popular talk show, whose name translates from the Arabic to More Than One Opinion, the guests included the Israeli deputy chief of Shimon Strait - the Jerusalem municipality, Afif Safiya, Palestinian delegate to the UK, and U.S. Ambassador Richard Murphy. The assembly of this kind of guest roster should demonstrate to Ajami that Al Jazeera attempts to showcase multiple opinions. How can anyone call Al Jazeera a partisan radical network that promotes anti-Americanism when its talk shows are filled with western and western-minded officials? Are these the guests Ajami believes espouse extremist anti-American views?

More recently, on another news talk show dedicated to the topic of the U.S. bombing of Al Jazeera’s office in Kabul, the show’s host interrogated one of the guests for making unsubstantiated accusations against the American attack. The host of the show sharply rebuked the guest for suggesting that U.S. officials might have deliberately targeted Al Jazeera’s offices. Is this proof of the wave of anti-American rhetoric that Ajami claims is propagated by Al Jazeera’s staff? In this case and numerous others, the station’s staff has attacked Islamic fundamentalist thought in the Arab world. It would behoove Ajami to remember that Al Jazeera is staffed primarily by former BBC Arabic television employees, many of whom were educated in European and American journalism schools.

Ajami also makes no distinction between the talk show genre and regular news coverage. Just because Fox News Channel’s Bill O’Reilly (of The O’Reilly Factor) has an opinion doesn’t imply the network follows his example. If one of O’Reilly’s guests is a Christian extremist, we don’t assume that Christian extremists govern Fox’s editorial desk. How can the views of a few guests represent what Ajami claims to be a network philosophy? It appears that Ajami handpicked his examples, weeding out anything positively constructive, to demonstrate the argument that Al Jazeera breeds Arab fanaticism.

On several occasions, Ajami refers to Al Jazeera as a ‘pan-Arabist’ station, as if it were a populist movement reminiscent of the Nasser era of Arab nationalism. Yet it doesn’t take much for viewers to realize that Al Jazeera is not the populist movement that Ajami and others assume it to be. Populism and pan-Arabism are built on a unitary vision for the Middle East, not the varied and contradictory vision of Al Jazeera’s pluralistic approach. In fact, some Arab government officials contend that Al Jazeera’s controversial broadcasts are not consolidating Arab public opinion, but instead are weakening the collective Arab position. "They are undermining us. They are undermining Egypt, undermining Saudi Arabia, undermining all the Arab countries. They are separating the Arab world. It's no good," explained Mohamad Abdul Monem, a former spokesman for the president of Egypt in an interview on CBS’s 60 minutes.

The opening photo in Ajami’s article implies this notion of populist mass appeal in a singular Muslim world. In fact, it shows family and neighbors in Peshawar, Pakistan congregating around the television, apparently watching Al Jazeera. A miniscule .08 percent of Pakistan’s population speaks Arabic and comprehends Al Jazeera’s unilingual broadcasts. In fact the percentage of Arabic speakers in the U.S. is greater than that of the place depicted in the photograph. The reality is that Al Jazeera is only pan-Arabist to the extent that it is a transnational Arab satellite network that crosses national boundaries and can be viewed by Arabic-speaking audiences throughout the entire Middle East and beyond. But it is also pan-Arab because of the composition of its staff members. Those employed at Al Jazeera come from virtually every Arab country and reflect various academic, political, and religious backgrounds.

Ajami seems to argue also that Al Jazeera is a voice for orthodoxy and traditionalism. If so, then how did the station dedicate a special report to Egypt’s mid-November 2001 sentencing of 23 men for charges relating to homosexuality? For perhaps the very first time, Arab audiences heard the word ‘gay’ on television. The news of the Egyptian sentencing was nowhere to be seen on Egyptian television. There is little public sympathy for homosexuality in Egypt, where it is forbidden socially and by religious law. Al Jazeera, in an attempt to be impartial, interviewed various theologians, human rights activists, prosecutors, and took calls from viewers. To many Arab viewers, the very coverage constituted blasphemy. In instances like these, Al Jazeera is every traditionalist’s worst enemy. Where there is discomfort, there is abundant material for a talk show.

Contrary to Ajami’s statement that the “enmity runs too deep” between Al Jazeera and the U.S., the station has presented repeatedly and equally the American perspective in its news reports. In more ways than one, Al Jazeera is more American than Ajami and other critics claim, not only in journalistic substance but also in style. Most anchors and many guests dress in western style suits, and are styled and made-up off camera so that they look good on camera. Most women employees do not wear the Islamic veil (hijab). In fact, Al Jazeera is probably one of few Arab stations that provides women staff the opportunity to host major talk show debates. This runs contrary to the supposed conservative attitude that Ajami claims to have witnessed. Recently, when I showed a short clip from Al Jazeera to my World Media Systems class at the University of Kentucky, several students commented that the programming, setting, and general look of the news was virtually identical to any CNN news report -- with the exception the show was broadcast in Arabic.

In a way, I agree with Ajami that Al Jazeera programming is often inflammatory. In fact, I would go further to argue that the station relies on controversy and provocation as a strategy to attract audiences. Turn on any episode of Opposite Direction, which was initially the flagship program for Al Jazeera, and you will witness on-camera commotion ten-times that of CNN’s Crossfire. The show’s host, Faisal Kasim, an outspoken and often domineering host who graduated from Hull University in England, positions two or more guests in such a way that they will do little else but clash. Each guest represents an extreme position on the issue at hand, and any topic is fair game. Whether it is the role of women in Islamic society, the future of globalization in the wake of September 11, sanctions on Iraq, or even a self-reflective discussion on the role of Al Jazeera in the Arab world, Kasim navigates the feisty two-hour show like a war strategist who wants both sides to lose. He alternates by taking jabs at each of his guests, interrogating each, and demanding coherent and persuasive responses, even when emotions run high. He often contradicts himself in a single breath. For many viewers, the absurdity of this program style is both riveting and engaging. But while the audience is mesmerized by the presentation, the lengthy verbal arguments may not culminate in any kind of conclusion, agreement, or recommendation. For Kasim, the only true objective is discourse and debate itself. This type of program follows the station’s philosophy, as provided by that other Al Jazeera program, The Opinion and the Other Opinion, a line that has evolved into the motto advertised relentlessly during program intermissions and in every piece of Al Jazeera publicity. It appears that truth, according to Al Jazeera, lies in the mix of opinions. Al Jazeera presents a world where truth can be reached only if all possible opinions are treated, exposed, and argued.

It follows then, that Al Jazeera is not without fault. In the quest for pluralistic coverage, Al Jazeera’s staff has fallen short of their motto on several occasions. While the station is without inhibition in their critique of Arab regimes from Mauritania to Oman, it rarely condemns its host and primary financer, the government of Qatar. A host like Al Jazeera’s Kasim might want to air a special show on democracy in Qatar, or the legitimacy of its monarchy. Kasim and his colleagues have never proposed such a show. This begs the question: How much influence does the Qatari government exert on Al Jazeera? To what extent does this influence affect editorial decision-making? At what point will the station wean itself, as it grows into a private news medium, from the governance of the state?

Another perception is evident: Al Jazeera seems sympathetic to the Palestinian cause, in apparent support for those Arabs who demonstrate anger and anguish after 53 years of lost wars and peace negotiations that have brought no peace. The station, as Ajami notes, made a hero out of 12–year old Mohammed Al-Durra, who was shot dead by Israeli soldiers during the early weeks of the Intifada. The dizzying repetition of the footage, as Ajami asserts, is etched in every Arab memory, to the extent that several popular Arab nationalistic songs have been composed that recite the dead child’s name.

Despite such an incident, constant repetition of violent footage has become a staple of modern war coverage. Consider the broadcasts of the Baghdad sky, flickering with grainy lights that we watched for days during the Gulf War, the chilling images of the commercial jet airliner crashing into the World Trade Center, and the horrifyingly heinous sight of Twin Towers’ collapse. The media have engraved these tragic images onto our minds. We shall not forget them. Al Jazeera’s news coverage is no different from any other network with its emphasis on images of human grief.

A central reason for Ajami’s article is to focus attention on Al Jazeera’s coverage of the current war in Afghanistan. He argues that Al Jazeera’s reporting is similar in intention to the televised press releases of the Taliban: Both demonstrate the enormous technological difference between the U.S. and the Taliban armed forces. Do Arab audiences need Al Jazeera to make this distinction for them? Ajami seems to assume that Arab audiences are not exposed to the media barrage that details America’s military superiority over the Taliban forces in Afghanistan. Similarly, do Arab audiences believe Taliban officials when it is reported on Al Jazeera that the Taliban will be victorious? The reality is that the Arab public can think critically and form reasonable opinions based upon assessment of news, news analysis, and televised talk shows.

First time viewers are often surprised by the level of intellect, command of language, and broad knowledge base required to comprehend some of the discussions on Al Jazeera. Al Jazeera provides more than panoply of gory images. It also delivers content, much of which perhaps can be deciphered only by the educated elite in the Arab world. Still, for those who can decipher (or afford) that content, it offers hope for a better Arab world.

In an area of the world where satellite audience ratings are difficult to estimate, Ajami declared the Middle Eastern Broadcasting Centre (MBC) to be the veteran of Arab transnational broadcasting. For a station that has made its name from shows like the American import, Who Wants To Be A Millionaire, to various entertainment and variety programs, MBC is no competitor to Al Jazeera. The other station Ajami cited as a worthy substitute for Al Jazeera is the Lebanese Broadcasting Corporation International (LBCI), a channel most known for its all-night musical concerts, soap operas, and cosmetic specialty shows. Neither of these broadcast stations devotes it programming to rigorous coverage of world news and current affairs. Arab audiences realize also that these stations cannot be taken seriously on issues of political criticism. In the past, MBC and LBCI have remained on the sidelines while Al Jazeera’s investigative and daring reports drew over 400 complaints from government officials throughout the Arab world. What Ajami does not realize is that what draws Arab viewers is not soap operas, game-shows, or music concerts, but news and political debate of a kind that the Arab world never experienced regularly until the advent of Al Jazeera. For this very reason, US officials should not ignore Al Jazeera; they should court it. If we want to be taken seriously, we must talk to the Arab public through avenues they themselves take seriously. In the free-market of ideas, the U.S government could establish a conduit through which its officials share opinions and discussions with their Arab peers. This could, in all likelihood, counter much anti-American sentiment. Consider how Christopher Ross, the former U.S. ambassador to Syria, U.S. State Department counter-terrorism coordinator, and fluent Arabic speaker, rendered clear-headed, logical criticism of Bin Laden’s videotape in a live interview on Al Jazeera just hours after its broadcast. This could stand as an excellent example for other American officials.

Before September 11, Al Jazeera was considered by most western governments to be a champion of free speech in the Arab world. Now, Al Jazeera’s contribution to creating a more civil society in the Middle East is being challenged by a handful of scholars including Ajami. For Al Jazeera’s Arab audience, the taste of a free press is surely considered priceless, contagious, and addictive. What message would we be sending if the U.S. neglects, boycotts, or ignores Al Jazeera? As the leader of the free, democratic world, the U.S. would do better to acknowledge and work with Al Jazeera.

Adel Iskandar teaches communication at the University of Kentucky and is the co-author of Al Jazeera: How the Free Arab News Network Scooped the World and Changed the Middle East, forthcoming from Westview Press.

* This opinion piece includes excepts that were published elsewhere and are copyrighted to the author. Unauthorized usage is a copyright infringement.

If you wish to send any information or comments, email us as mail@ambassadors.net.