Al-Jazeera Louiza
Patsis
GOV 263 December 2, 2006
Al-Jazeera
started to broadcast in 1996 from the tiny, rich Arab country of
It is the
premiere, most widely-known Arab news channel. It has been around since 1996,
and has been a source of inspiration and controversy ever since. Parties
ranging from
Adel
Iskandar and Mohammed El-Nawaway (21) write that Al-Jazeera first became
internationally well-known on October 7, 2001 when it broadcast its first
videotape of Osama bin Laden. It was also the only network allowed by the
Taliban in
This paper will explore six aspects of Al-Jazeera and how five various authors speak about them. Below is a list of the authors and books:
Adel Iskandar and Mohammed
El-Nawaway Al-Jazeera: How the Free Arab
News Network Scooped the World and Changed the
Marc Lynch Voices of the New
Arab Public:
Hugh Miles Al-Jazeera: The Inside Story of the Arab News Channel
Tat Is Challenging the West*
Khalil Rinnawi Instant Nationalism: McArabism, Al-Jazeera and Transnational Media in
the Arab World
Rinnawi is a lecturer in the
Steve Tatham Losing Arab Hearts and Minds: The Coalition, Al-Jazeera and Muslim
Public Opinion
Tatham is a serving officer in the Royal navy and a corporate communications specialist.
The topics or questions to be explored are:
5. Is Al-Jazeera a leading media force in the world?
Surprisingly, all of the single-author books on Al-Jazeera found revealed a mostly positive and optimistic view on all of the topics, with the exceptions of some subtle discrepancies within each book and between books.
Topic I: Is Al-Jazeera biased, most
likely toward Arab and/or Muslim opinion?
Adel Iskandar and Mohammed El-Nawaway
believe that Al-Jazeera encompasses no bias new reporting (23), writing that it
gives “evenhanded reporting and uninhibited critique of authoritarian regimes
have rattled the Arab world”. This is a reason why many Arab leaders criticize
Al-Jazeera, making the case of some US officials that it is biased against
Americans. They write that Al-Jazeera “operates under very little government
restriction (25). The media source however, does not put down members of the
In fact,
Adel Iskandar and
Mohammed El-Nawaway (41) agree with other authors that before Al-Jazeera, Arabs
were stuck between a rock and a hard place: they could listen to Western news
media that was biased and usually in English, which most of them could not
understand, and listening or watching state-controlled Arab news networks that
were either biased or simply did not focus on many topics past what the king or
emperor were doing. The same authors point out (49) that several Arab leaders
have been infuriated over Al-Jazeera, such as the leaders of Libya and Kuwait,
which threatened to pull their ambassadors from Qatar in protest, Palestinian
officials more than once closed the offices of Al-Jazeera in Palestine. This
would lend evidence hat Al-Jazeera is not biased toward an Arab or Muslim
viewpoint. They write how al-Jazeera was pulled from
They write that
Al-Jazeera represents an array of views (51): “Secularists debate
fundamentalists, Israelis debate Palestinians, Iraqis debate Kuwaitis. There is
no bias.” They go one to say that they interview such opposing leaders as bin
Laden and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak and Foreign Minster Shimon Peres.
They write (57) how Al-Jazeera coverage of Palestinian uprising, where they called on Arab leaders to do more for the Palestinians ignited Palestinian demonstrations and led several Arab governments to accuse Al-Jazeera of inciting violence. They talk about how some media experts say that Al-Jazeera is biased toward the well-being of Arabs but also tries to show all views(184). For instance, they cite Al-Jazeera managing director Al-Ali saying that since so many different entities are against Al-Jazeera, they must not be so biased. Joel Campagna, program director for Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) , said that Al-Jazeera is well-respected; it is biased as every channel is, but does its best to air all points of views (184).
Adel Iskandar and
Mohammed El-Nawaway (8) do write that Al-Jazeera is biased in not reporting
several things about the
On page 84 they
write about how Faisal Al-Kasim, the host of the most popular Al-Jazeera talk
show The Opposite Direction, said
“Nothing that happens in
The authors reviewed the Law of Print and Publication of 1979: “1. The media cannot and should not undermine or criticize the emir in any way; 2. The media are prohibited from publishing anything that could undermine the ‘established order’ or endanger the current political regime; and 3. the state has the right to impose censorship on the media to ensure restrictions 1 and 2. (87) Thus there does seem to be a bias by Al-Jazeera in not reporting on newsworthy items of the Qatari government.
The authors also
write (95) that, on the other hand, Al-Jazeera’s small advertising revenue do
not make it controlled by media conglomerates as perhaps other media corporations
are. They write how Al-Jazeera offered
different viewpoints from Arab leaders, as in its first interview after 9.11,
when it interviewed Muammar Qaddafi of
From 123-133 they
review some complaints that various governments, such as the case of
In this country,
both conservatives and liberals criticize Al-Jazeera. This may mean that it is
not biased after all. For instance, on an episode of Saturday Night Live
(162-163), Al-Jazeera managing director Mohammed Jasim Al-Ali and it
Afghanistan reporter Tayseer Allouni were made fun of, and it was joked that
Bill Cosby would start making made-for-television movies with them. Powell an
other
Rinnawi writes that McArabism is* an opposing force to that of jihad in the Arab world and encompasses structure, content and audience. Structure refers to “complex game over control and ownership between transnational media stations, owners and political, social and religious elites. Content means tension found in political and socio-cultural arenas, and is reflected in which content the media broadcasts. Transnational media pushes for freedom to elect content attracting the largest audience, political and social forces try to prevent the broadcast of content challenging political and socio-cultural status – quos. He writes that most independent Arab news media like Al-Jazeera contribute to this. He notes (87) that Al-Jazeera, compared to several of this stations, take sin less advertising dollars, as
Adel Iskandar and Mohammed El-Nawaway noted. For instance (87), the LBCI took in $93 million in advertising in 2000, while Al-Jazeera took in just $15 million. He points out that 60% of Arab channels are state-owned, while 30% are semiprivate (80). Al-Jazeera is one of the few Arab channels that are independent. he explicitly writers (62): “Despite the proliferation of satellite channels, Al-Jazeera filled a new need for relatively unbiased, critical, well-covered news from an Arab perspective.”
He wrote (88) about pressure from Arab countries or social elite value organizations against Arab media organizations. Often transnational television channels received pressure from pan-Arab institutions to restrain critical content offending other Arab regimes. The Satellite Channels Coordinating Committee in the Arab States Broadcasting Union (ASBU) took a collective stand against Al-Jazeera after controversial political programs. It is hard to see how Al-Jazeera could be biased if so many different entities from US government officials to Arabian Prime Ministers attacked it.
Rinnawi writes how Palestinian officials closed the Ramallah Al-Jazeera offices in May 2001 without prior notice (89) because of a critical report made by an Al-Jazeera reported in Ramallah about about the administrative performance of the PLO, accusing it of abusing power and corruption. In addition, a preview of an Al-Jazeera documentary featured how Palestinian guerillas played a role in the Lebanese 1975-1990 war.
Al-Jazeera has
interviewed both PLO and Hamas officials, further showing that it is not
biased. He writes how Al-Jazeera critiques all Arab states except
He writes about
two different titles given to the same event in
From page 116 to
119, Rinnawi lists several days of reporting in 2001 to compare CNN, Al-Jazeera
and a Jordanian network. He shows that Al-Jazeera provides more relevant news
from the Arab world such as the Arab-Israeli conflicts while CNN sometime skips
the stories and the Jordanian network sometimes concentrated on King Abdullah.
Rinnawi writes (121) that compared to other Arab networks and to Western
sources of Arab news, Al-Jazeera is credible. He does write (122) that
Al-Jazeera can bring in more Israeli voices, although doing that may “risk a
loss of legitimacy to individual Al-Jazeera reporters and perhaps to
Al-Jazeera’s coverage of the conflict”. He writes that more Israeli voices are
being interviewed by Al-Jazeera. He concludes (149) that Arab news networks
like Al-Jazeera and a sense of Arab identifying the
Regarding bias, Lynch writes how Al-Jazeera views could be found in Arab television (5): moderate American on Saudi-owned al-Arabiya, and radical anti-Americans on Hezbollah-owned al-Manar, and “all points in between”. Al-Jazeera is one of the few networks to show most, if not all, voices. He writes how Al-Jazeera has critics in the Western and Arab world, making its bias questionable (6).
Lynch (16)
and Miles write how Saddam Hussein wanted to enjoy a good relationship with
Al-Jazeera because of its popularity and influence. He quotes Mohamed Krishan: “…our target is
public opinion, the masses...to win the confidence of the people in this
station, even at the expense of the anger of the official Arab institutions and
the United States (25).He does write (26, 62) that by late 2001, even before
9.11, the opinion expressed on Al-Jazeera became more coarse, angry, and
emotional. He writes how Al-Jazeera was not as biased as news networks like
al-Manar, that
Lynch does write
that Al-Jazeera resembled Fox in its overwhelming focus on one side of the
conflict to the exclusion of the other”.
Fox focused on stories of American soldiers while Al-Jazeera focused on
Arab views. For instance, they called the American war in
Lynch suggests that Al-Jazeera in the future can be even more fair in its news coverage by having American guests that are less conservative, unlike conservative guests in the past such as “hawkish ‘terror expert’ Steven Emerson”. Lynch suggests having an American Muslim, for instance. If this does not happen, he writes that viewers may not get a correct sense of the distribution of opinions and may believe that the other side” so more radical than it is (48). Then he turns around and writes (55) that Al-Jazeera is not biased in that it does conduct regular self-critique. He also writes on page 236 that Al-Jazeera hosts routinely invited Al-Jazeera critiques on the shows, as when Faisal al-Kasim invited one of his fiercest critics Shaker al-Nabulsi. Al-Jazeera established an honor code to govern its programming (236).
On page 134 he
show some good analysis of Iraq-themed Al-Jazeera talk shows In 1999: Of 26
guess, five were Kuwaiti, five were pro-regime
To sum up, Lynch’s views on bias on Al-Jazeera are that (192): “…Al-Jazeera was considered the most credible news source and remained the most-watched station, albeit its considerable regional variations” (Abu Dhabi did better in the UAE than elsewhere, for example, and the LBC in Lebanon). On page 212 he writes: “The Al-Jazeera hosts generally tried to stay out of the way of the callers, rather than impose their own viewpoints, and the callers represented a diverse cross-section of Arabs from all over the world.” He writes how Al-Jazeera is dedicated to reform in Arab countries (241).
On
bias, Miles believes that Al-Jazeera
shows different sides of each story. He writes how different regimes were not
satisfied with Al-Jazeera, as the Saudis when it aired bin Laden videotape (53) He writes about
(88-89) how Mr. Al-Asim’s younger brother Magd was kicked out of Egypt just for
being related to someone on Al-Jazeera, since it had featured guests opposed to
the Egyptian regime. In other words, Al-Jazeera was not afraid to have guests
that would offend different Arab factions. The manager al-Ali said that he does
not want to hide anything from the audience (92). Miles writes (93) how
Al-Jazeera is interested in voicing the Israeli and the Arab view on conflicts,
unlike other Arab media that are interested in either or. Al-Jazeera emphasized
that Israeli victims of suicide bombs were civilians, not military (95). He
also writes (99) about Palestinians closing the Ramallah office of Al-Jazeera.
He wrote about how the New York-based CPJ said that this move basic
international norms for free expressing (100). Al Omary of Al-Jazeera told the
PLO that he would not change his coverage (103) Many Americans and American
officials accused Al-Jazeera of perhaps passing on bin Laden coded messages or
furthering terrorist tendencies by airing his videotapes. Miles points out
(136) that some of those same networks, like CNN used Al-Jazeera footage like
parts of the videotapes and
He
writes about the
He
gives an example of how other news networks did not always report fact: a study
by Professor Justin Lewis of University of Cardiff showed how the four major
British television networks – BBC, ITN, Sky News and Channel 4 – showed that
what was reported was up to 49% based on unsubstantiated statements issued by
the British government, and about 17% was based only on uncorroborated
government reports (247). Al-Jazeera did broadcast videotapes of Arab groups
calling for soldiers and bombers to help in
All
in all, Miles thinks that Al-Jazeera, compared to even some US media sources
sometimes, is “a model of professionalism and objectivity: (359). He writes
that sometimes
Tatham (69) writes that the West mostly
did not care about Al-Jazeera since it showed the Arab viewpoint, implying that
the West in general did not care about Arab viewpoints insofar as the
"common person". He writes that this changed after 9.11 with
Al-Jazeera’s coverage of the
Tatham
is British and gives us a glimpse of English Lieutenant Commander Mark Hankey’s
views on Al-Jazeera; he thinks that their journalists were polite compared to
their Western counterparts and treated the British well. He writes about
different players from Americans to Arabs find objection with Al-Jazeera( 125).
It appears that the
He
writes that Al-Jazeera may not be perfect, yet it is not as criticized as the
BBC or the “heavily-slanted” Fox News (202).
. He writes that the
Synopsis of Topic I
The authors have high regard for Al-Jazeera.
They do believe that it is under some control of the Qatari government and so
does not criticize it. They also believe that it does speak more about the Arab
view of topics, but point out that it has not fully satisfied any one Arab or Muslim
faction or country, and that it is natural for the network to tend to express a
point of view from where it originates, as other media sources, such as
American and British ones, do as well. Lynch favors more moderate guests, and
Miles wants to see more American views broadcast, as in
Topic II: Is Al-Jazeera too
graphic, in images such as those of bomb victims?
Many US and Western government officials and media networks accused Al-Jazeera of broadcasting material that is too graphic, saying that this is not good taste and may incite Arab public opinion against the West. El-Nawawy and Iskandar (167) write that Al-Jazeera does not shy way from showing different images of war, implying that this is part of the free press, including graphic images of the Palestinian-Israeli conflicts. They write that often the images “serve Israeli interests”.
Rinnawi writes how, unlike other state-controlled Arab news media whose trend is toward screening safe material, Al-Jazeera does not have that pressure (94). He writes (124) that their being accused of sensationalism is overly critical. He writes that interest and lobby groups have made much of Arab and Western media “bland, rather than balanced”. Balance to the West, he writes on page 125, often means “ preserving Anglo-European interests (and by extension, Israeli interests), an absence of critique, analysis or context to relevant contemporary events and the silence of subaltern voices. He gives as an example the criticism of Al-Jazeera (124) for repeatedly showing the killing by Israelis of the 12-year-old Palestinian youth Mohamed Al-Durra who was trying to escaping fire with his fire. Although this can be graphic for some audience members, it does show the true events happening to innocent civilians, something that much of Western media does not show, at least anywhere close to as often as it happens.
He
writes (144-145) that Israeli television covers Israeli-Palestinian events less
effectively than Al-Jazeera due to political or public onion sensitivities, not
showing graphic images of suicide bombings and civilian-soldier conflicts. He
does write that, even though some Israeli guests appear on Al-Jazeera shows,
the image of
He writes about the period 1997-2002,
including the second infatada: “Its [Al-Jazeera’s] live coverage of these
contentious events, in real time, with graphic imagery and openly supportive
and engaged commentary, defined those conflicts for viewers in intensely
personal and vivid ways” (128). Al-Jazeera and
Miles writes that some Al-Jazeera
footage is “graphic, with heart-rendering testimonies and explicit photographs
(99). Photographs from
Tatham writes how the Algerian
government cut power to two cities to prevent families from watching an
Al-Jazeera program on its civil war
(69).He points out that there was not outcry when American media showed
Saddam Hussein’s two dead sons (120). The Iraqi reporter Jihad Ali-Ballout
quotes (132) that “…in the Middle East
it was not shocking to see carnage – we have been living through it for
decades…be it in Lebanon, Yemen or Palestine, it has something to do with
belief in fatalism…” An issue can be if US families were to see casualties on
Al-Jazeera television before knowing of their family member’s passing. He then
points out that Al-Jazeera is not readily available in the
Synopsis of Topic II
The authors all agree that Al-Jazeera is
graphic compared to Western media. However, they seem to agree that this at
least shows “the other side” of events in the
Topic III. Is Al-Jazeera opening
a door or furthering the expression of a variety of viewpoints and liberal
ideas in the Arab world, especially through shows like its talk shows?
I
believe that talk shows like these will get the
All authors mention The Opposite Direction, Al-Jazeera’s
most popular talk show, hosted by Faisal Al-Kasim . It is famous for its wide range of topics and guests. El-Nawawy and Iskandar writes how there
is not much censorship in their talk shows and how they have broken up years of
“drab propaganda, endless soap operas and outdated cabaret acts”(43). He gives
the picture of chaos mixed with intellect (50): “Its programs often contain
fiery debates and arguments that appear to be on the verge of fistfights, but
Al-Jazeera’s producers strive to maintain more than a semblance of intellectual
rigor as well”. He quotes Israeli guest Gideon Ezra, former deputy head of the
General Security Service (GS): “I wish all Arab media were like Al-Jazeera”
(51). He calls Al-Jazeera’s talk shows
granting the people of
He writes how talk shows like The Opposite Direction result in “floods
of telephone calls to the studios and reams of protests throughout the Arab
press” (92). He writes about how Mr. Al-Kasim before each show expounds on the
two different sides of the issue. He gives one of many examples of opposing
guests on pages 96 to 97: Guests for The
Opposite Direction included a renowned
People on The Opposite Direction even talk about religion. On one show (103),
a religious figure had it our with a prominent Arab secularist and professor of
philosophy in
They write (5) that the view that Al-Jazeera cannot promote a move toward greater Arab democratization and political mobilization as one-dimensional, even though its talk shows have not initiated coups nor motivated the Arab people to revolt violently in the streets. The network has been credited with playing a role in mobilizing support for Palestinians and sustaining their current uprising which started with the second Palestinian infatada in September 2000. The authors warn that Al-Jazeera should “be mindful of its responsibilities, of its unique role as the trailblazer for a liberal media voice in the Arab world”.
Rinnawi (22) writes that generally in
the Arab world there have been less gatekeepers intervening in the process of
bringing reality to audiences. He writes
how state-controlled media is continuously manipulated, preserving balances of
power and dominant perceptions of reality” (31). He writes (32) that imported
programs in the Arab world can “lead to change domestic sociopolitical and
religious cultural orders and values”. The same can certainly be said for
Al-Jazeera’s talk shows. He calls the ability of the audience to take part in
talk shows by telephone, fax or email r “is a dramatic development in the history
of the broadcast media in the Arab world” (47). He writes (87) that Al-Jazeera
has made “few concessions to sensitive egos worried about tarnished images or
ridicule”, and hat this is a source of continuous critique for Al-Jazeera. For
instance, in 1998
To
add to different views, within the Arab world, on Al-Jazeera, the author notes
that its reporters come from a variety of countries, from
Lynch writes about variety of hosts on Al-Jazeera (5). He quotes
al-Kasim is saying that the talk shows have formed an Arab opinion for the
first time. (24).He writes (32) that the talk shows “transform the satellite
television stations into a genuinely unprecedented carriers of public
argument”. He writes that the talk shows can give an outlet of anger after
seeing graphic images (128). He called the talk shows after the fall of
He does find a gap for improvement (54): He writes that an Arab in the news business Khaled Haroub said that the talk does not offer an opportunity for solutions can remain words in the air. He seems to agree, asking :”…If Arabs cannot act on their opinions, then do those opinions matter?” He also mentions a Kuwaiti critic who said that rivalry between Arab satellite networks may lead them to focus on sex and puts songs over impending issues (62). He writes (98) that The Opposite Direction “hints at the priority of political controversy over a commitment to democratic process”.
Miles writes that many Arabs had never seen an Israeli before viewing Al-Jazeera talk shows (39). He writes that Al-Kasim has been accused of being a Zionist, communist, Freemason and Arab nationalist (40-41). He shows the wide variety of topics covered on his show and the wide variety of possible interpretations. This in my opinion is good in opening up the most closed Arab societies to new views. He wrote how Kuwaitis were appalled at the bashing of their emir on the live Al-Jazeera show Religion and Life (54). This shows that open dialogue is advanced by these shows, especially because they are live. He writes about how Al-Jazeera adopted a code of ethics (324) to, as the Qatar emir said, make sure that there was “a line between news and commentary, to avoid ‘the trap of propaganda and speculation”, and always strive to keep key values, like transparency, honesty and balance, in focus.”
He
does not think that the liberal talk topics on shows like Al-Jazeera will
necessarily lead to more democratic ideas in the
Tatham writes how al-Kasim has reached
cult status in the
Synopsis of Topic III
The authors tend to believe that the ideas
discussed on talk shows are good for having people in the
Topic IV: Is Al-Jazeera
representative of an Arab and/or Muslim voice or public sphere in the world?
El-Nawawy
and Iskandar write that before Al-Jazeera Arabs had to go to Western or
Arab state-run programs such as Voice of
America, Radio Monte Carlo-Middle
East, and BBC World Service Arabic
Radio (39). He writes how Al-Jazeera set new standards of freedom for all
other Arab news media (44). And he writes: “No Arab satellite TV network other
than Al-Jazeera has ever attempted to present Arab views, opinions, and beliefs
to the West with such vigor and legitimacy” (44). They write that it can be argued that Al-Jazeera
united Arabs for first time behind one
issue (57). As helping to unite dialogue into a public sphere, Al-Jazeera has
pushed for the representation of civil rights and liberty issues such as that
of women, who use it to exercise their right to seek and receive information
and ideas (59). They write how free access to a channel like Al-Jazeera will
foster democracy in the
Rinnawi
writes that the rise of informational identities has reinvigorated a sense
of common destiny among Arabs (xvii). He writes (10) how Arabs assumed that transnational
media world “shatter all of the existing ideologies, axioms and conventions in
the political , social and cultural-religious spheres as represented by the
traditional elites, transferred by the manipulative efforts of the rival mass
media found in each state”, as per Karam 1999. My opinion is that it can plant
the seed for this and definitely make Arabs open to dialogue, which is the
first step for progress, and does not necessarily mean throwing away all
traditional ideas. He writes that the media “redirects and directs new forms of
Arab regional identity, particularly Al-Jazeera, through open discussion and
debates and investigative journalism and news (190). It serves to equalize rural, illiterate, poor
Arabs with other Arabs, and serves as a communal act since many Arabs listen to
Arab news together (4). This engenders more idea interchange. He talks about
how satellite television gave a new arena for actors to compete (83). It is my
belief that this healthy competition in itself spurs talk and adds to the
formation of an Arab public sphere. He writes (97) that Al-Jazeera has won the
hearts and minds of millions of viewers, in spite of its objectors, and is a
“critical Arab transactional channel” with impact and importance to its Arab
audiences. He writes (103) that it is not force like that of the US or
propaganda like that of US news sources it the Arab world like Radio Sawa,
al-Hurra will not win Arab opinion in the Arab street, as Al-Jazeera will. He
writes (115) how Al-Jazeera wrote more about pressing Arab issues such as
Lynch writes (11) that topics such as
concern for Palestinians or Iraqis lead to an Arab identity fostered by media.
The new Arab public (21) includes Al-Jazeera and other Arab media networks
where political issues are debated. He writes that sharing public opinions in
the Arab and Islamic world lends to the formation of a public sphere there
(31). He defines the public sphere (32) as “active arguments before an audience
about issues of shared concern”. What make this new are the talk shows which
“transform the satellite television stations into a genuinely unprecedented
carrier of public argument”. He believes that democracy is not need and that
the emergence of a public sphere in the Arab world may be due to lack of
democracy in most of it (33) Al-Jazeera’s focus on public debate and its wide
reach allowed it to contribute to Arab identity (41), such as one that defended
the Iraqi people in the latest war (142) . The new public sphere contributed to
a concrete and grounded Arabism (69).
The perception of consensus, as per Mutz 1998, inspires Arab players to support
ideas that will make them seem like “good Arabs” (72). This may eventually be
democratic ideas. He writes that what was discussed in Al-Jazeera talk shows
after the fall of
Arab
leaders like Saddam Hussein have known the importance of the Arab public
sphere, and have tried to use it for their benefit (151), by swaying public
opinion. In fact, Lynch writes that the Arab public sphere, agitated over the
recent Iraqi war, influenced Al-Jazeera’s shows to be more open, unlike the
restrained American media, instead of it being an editorial position (197). The
programs “offer an unparalleled window into an Arab public opinion in flux”. He
wrote that intense internal debates of Al-Jazeera “..are, ironically, powerful
evidence of its own existence as a public sphere; self-referential,
self-critical, and aware of its role in the Arab political system: (236). He
advises the
Miles writes that, in terms of
Tatham writes that Al-Jazeera is seen as “an honest conduit of Arab feeling and as such is regarded as balancing the debate” regarding West and East (208). He writes that in 2002 Al-Jazeera’s English-channel Web site received more than 161 million visits, with some 81 million page impressions (210). A news network like this can be seen to inspire an Arab public sphere.
Synopsis of Topic III
The
authors agree that Al-Jazeera is contributing to the formation and galvanizing
of an Arab public sphere. Lynch notes that the public sphere also influences
Al-Jazeera program direction.
Topic V: Is Al-Jazeera a leading
media force in the world?
As can be inferred from other topics, especially one and four, the authors think that Al-Jazeera is an example of a free press of high quality that is a force in this world. El-Nawawy and Iskandar talked about Al-Jazeera’s credibility and reach begin a reason that bin Laden chose to air his videotape with them (152-153). They write (4) that Al-Jazeera set the standards for freedom for other Arab satellite networks. They write that Al-Jazeera is the most watched Arab satellite network in the world (49), and the most viable network in its region (206). British Prime Minister Blair and other Western and Arab leaders request interviews from Al-Jazeera (156). They point out that some people believe that the network ended the Western monopoly of global dissemination of information (197). They write on the same page that it has scooped the world.
Rinnawi writes (88) how the Satellite
Channels Coordinating Committee in the Arab States Broadcasting Union (ASBU)
identified Al-Jazeera as the only satellite channel ready to break with
censorship taboos. He writes (94) that its importance lies in its criticizing all
Arab states except for
Lynch does not write anything other than
what has been noted under topics one and four to show that he knows that
Al-Jazeera is a credible free press force in the world. Miles writes how Al-Jazeera gained credibility in 1998, covering
Tatham writes that the arrival of Al-Jazeera, the “pan-Arab TV station” was an “explosion” (84) and was needed in a world dominated by Western and state Arab news sources. As noted before, he writes about how Al-Jazeera was well-respected by Western and Arab news sources at the conference it held to show is new code of ethics (208).
Synopsis of Topic Five
All
authors believe that Al-Jazeera is an
important media force in the world.
Topic VI: Is Al-Jazeera
contributing to global news flow and to globalization?
El-Nawawy and Iskandar cite Middle East media and political communication professor at American University in Washington , D.C. Edmund Ghareeb as naming Al-Jazeera and CNN as news networks that span international boundaries and “present in this globabilized world, new access” (148).
Rinnawi writes (23) how important it is
that media is transnational, including Arab satellite media. He writes about
how important getting to satellite Arab media is for many Arabs: some people in
Lynch writes (33) how the new Arab media used new technologies to disseminate information globally. He writes how Al-Jazeera’s Web site is one of the most popular ones on the Internet, even though it is in Arabic.
Miles
writes (36) about how important satellite dishes are: when a Bedouin
marries, they are given a satellite dish often, and not jewelry. He cites
someone saying that the second infatada is a television war (80), showing he
important of technology and the spread of information. He quotes Al-Jazeera’s
manager as saying that its audience’s mentality has changed forever (92). That
shows the overlying strength of the media. He writes (195) how the information
age has rendered censoring irrelevant; Arab countries passed information freely
whatever censorship there was. It has
already been mentioned that the writes that Al-Jazeera has 40 million viewers
at one point, more than CNN. He also writes (218) that viewer in nations like
Tatham
writes that in 2002 Al-Jazeera’s English Web site received more than 161
million visits, with about 811 million page impressions. He also writes that it
is important to Arab diaspora. It can be implied from his section in topics
one, four and five that he believes that Al-Jazeera is an international force
in globalization.
Synopsis of Topic VI
The authors agree that Al-Jazeera contributes to globalization by furthering the spread of information globally. I am surprised that this important topic was not discussed more. The importance of the information society has been discussed at length since the 1960s, if not earlier, and its presence is felt every day in the Western world through newspapers, television and most recently, and perhaps most importantly the Internet.
All
of the authors seem to have a high regard for Al-Jazeera, and think that it is
a credible, important news source that is a major world force. They believe
that it is a contributor to the formation of an Arab public sphere and to
globalization. They recognize that its reach is large, it is growing and it is
a phenomenon of the past decade. Some authors have concerns on graphic images
of dead soldiers or of oversensationalization with no ideas for action. Lynch
thinks that beheadings may not be the best topic to show and Miles thinks that
showing casualties up close before their families have found out is not a good
idea. Lynch has a concern that some of
its shows that are sensationalistic do not offer solutions, and Miles is
concerned that sometimes the American view is not expressed. But all in all,
their assessment of Al-Jazeera is positive.
References
Iskandar, Adel and El-Nawaway,
Mohammed. 2002. Al-Jazeera: How the Free
Arab News Network Scooped the World and Changed the Middle East
Marc Lynch .2006. Voices of the New Arab Public:
Hugh Miles.2005. Al-Jazeera: The Inside Story of the Arab
News Channel That Is Challenging the
Khalil Rinnawi. 2006. Instant
Nationalism: McArabism, Al-Jazeera and Transnational Media in the Arab World
Lanham, Md: University Press of
Steve Tatham. 2006. Losing Arab Hearts and Minds: The Coalition,
Al-Jazeera and Muslim Public Opinion