The rise of Al-Jazeera "عشر سنوات من "الرأي والرأي الآخر
Al-Jazeera is an anomaly in the conservative, autocratic Middle East where freedom of the press has traditionally applied to everything except criticism of Arab state policies and positions. Its reporting has made it unpopular with many Arab governments, and it is also unique in the Middle East for giving regular air time to Western (including American and Israeli) voices and perspectives.
The channel is also unpopular with Western governments, particularly the United States, due to its coverage of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and for airing video and audio messages of Al-Qaeda members, including Osama bin Laden.
Al-Jazeera remains the news channel of choice for the Arab world masses and the Arabic-speaking diaspora around the world, and with its upcoming English edition that has many former CNN and BBC reporters and staff members, will likely expand its viewership many-fold from the current 50 million viewers.
I've been watching Al-Jazeera intermittently since its birth. I look forward to a time when North American viewers will have more than just CNN and Fox News to turn to for their current affairs. It would be good to have a non-American, non-Western, English language perspective with a level and reach comparable to present US media giants beaming into homes here, although I'm not holding my breath.
Suggested reading:
- Hugh Miles, "Think Again: Al Jazeera" Foreign Policy July/August 2006.
- Hugh Miles, Al-Jazeera: The Inside Story of the Arab News Channel that is Challenging the West (New York: Grove Press, 2005).
1 comment:
There are many who feel the need "to have a non-American, non-Western, English language perspective with a level and reach comparable to present US media giants."
One wonders is it by mere chance that a campaign is pursued to deny the American viewers get the other side of the picture that doesn't usually make it on US media some of whom either co-opted by corporations and/or corruption?
Instead of educating the American people and exposing myths surrounding matters of real American security, why does Cliff Kincaid, President of America’s Survival wishes his compatriots NOT to have alternate sources to crosscheck facts so vital to Americans?
One would expect media activists to ask the major US channels draw adequate attention to matters that are of vital priority and concern for the protection and well-being of American lives. But many are found silent on most occasions.
Some are observed busy to attract attention on irrelevant
and insignificant issues.
Media activist should encourage even wider access to channels like Al Jazeera that provides objective coverage of critical foreign policy and security issues, while many US media organs tiptoe around issues in fear of not to over step their boundaries. The following examples serve as a litmus test:
According to Joseph E. Stiglitz, a Columbia University professor and Nobel laureate, so many soldiers are being injured that the costs of caring for them over their lifetimes is likely to be $350 billion, or up to twice that, depending on how long the war lasts. The high cost is the result of huge advances in military medicine that have greatly reduced the chances that a soldier injured in Iraq will die. As a result, the ratio of injuries to deaths 16:1 by his estimate is higher than in any other war in U.S. history.
The White House budget director, Rob Portman has asked, in the new budget, basically for another $365 billion over the next few fiscal years. This comes on the $433 billion that ’s already been spent, a total of nearly $800 billion.
And what a lot of people are asking: Is this good money going after bad given the current situation in Iraq? Senator Patrick Leahy, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said the other day: It ’s doubly shameful because we’re trying to restore places like New Orleans and the Gulf Coast here in this country. That’s been held up, and this money’s being wasted in Iraq.
Media outlets ought to probe the cakewalk crowd who promised a casual march to victory in Iraq. Media activists should campaign for accountability of the likes of Ken Adelmen who misled the American media by claiming “measured by any cost-benefit analysis, such an operation would constitute the greatest victory in America’s war on terrorism.”
The Self-pronounced champions of accuracy, fairness and honesty in media should think hard why they remain indifferent and unwilling towards Americans getting a pluralistic picture on ground. Those who call for restricting plurality of opinion deny the option of diversity and deprive the US audience to judge the facts for themselves.
All Americans have a right to alternate opinion. More so, when owing to movement restrictions on US media in Iraq, security risks and language barriers for American expatriates and diplomats there is limited interaction to gather facts. This is for a country spending $8 billion a month to win hearts and minds in Iraq. The self-pronounced champions of accuracy, fairness and honesty in media should think hard why they remain indifferent and unwilling towards Americans getting a pluralistic picture on ground.
Those who call for restricting plurality of opinion deny the option of diversity and deprive the US audience to judge the facts for themselves. It is the absence of and NOT presence of accountable media that is injurious to American interest.
Post a Comment