Friedman vs Friedman

Tom Friedman says, presumably with a straight face, "What the critics miss, though, is that the U.S. ouster of Saddam Hussein has also triggered the first real "conversation" about political reform in the Arab world in a long, long time. It's still mostly in private, but more is now erupting in public."

Breathtaking. Arabs have been openly and vigorously debating political reform in public on satellite television stations like al Jazeera for several years. September 11 gave a boost to the intensity of the arguments, but they pre-existed even that shock. Al Jazeera famously irritated almost every government in the region because it broadcast talk shows in which Arabs denounced dictatorial regimes, called for more democracy, eviscerated the status quo, and challenged taboos and red lines which had stifled political discourse for decades.

How Tom Friedman could have travelled widely in the Middle East for the last few years, writing columns regularly, and not have seen this boggles the mind. Could he really be that obtuse?

Perhaps not. Because back on February 1, 2001, Friedman had this to say: " Qatar's al-Jazeera satellite TV station, which is the freest in the Arab world, has stolen Arab TV audiences from every one of the big powers in the region with its freewheeling debates, uncensored news and, lately, online polling -- which is a total no-no in the Arab world, where people are never asked what they actually think about specific governments or policies."

And on February 27, 2001, he wrote this: "Al-Jazeera is not only the biggest media phenomenon to hit the Arab world since the advent of television, it is the biggest political phenomenon. Yes, sometimes it goes over the edge and burns people unfairly, because some of its broadcasters have their own agendas, and sometimes it hypes the fighting in the West Bank in inflammatory ways. But in a region where the evening news for decades has been endless footage of Arab leaders greeting each other at the airport, and singing each other's praises, it is no wonder that Al-Jazeera, with its real news and real opinions, has every Arab with a satellite dish trying to bring in its signal and every Arab leader gnashing his teeth."

So Friedman didn't fail to notice al Jazeera, he has just forgotten it because it doesn't fit his master narrative of the Iraq war really being about democratizing the Middle East. Missing something important is one sin... but ignoring something which you know to make a better argument, well, that's something else entirely.

Comments

[Leila]

I remember reading admiring profiles of Al-Jazeera in the New Yorker and the NY Times, before September 11, 2001. Without checking the sources, I recall a picture of an active, open, western-style news station that drove most of the Arab governments crazy with its free reporting and comment.

After 9/11 all of a sudden the press seemed to believe Al-Jazeera was some sort of evil propaganda machine, bent on inflaming tens of millions of Arabs into permanent jihad.

Fuad Ajami piled on in the NY Times with some article about what terrible things they were saying on Al-Jazeera. Since I don't speak Arabic well enough to translate the primary source, I didn't know what to think.

But it looks a lot like a bunch of hysterical sheep following the crowd.

I wonder if this wilful prejudice really helps America's international interests?

[Donald Johnson]

My memory is the same as Leila's. Anyway, leaving out inconvenient facts is standard operating procedure at the NYT when it comes to America's foreign policy. I could rant on this subject for an hour, but won't.