John Brown, a retired State Department professional, has a good piece up proposing some practical ways to improve al-Hurra. I agree with most of his recommendations, perhaps unsurprisingly (I've worked informally with a number of people in this public diplomacy network, and contributed a chapter to a volume published by the Public Diplomacy Institute).
His diagnosis of what's wrong with al-Hurra are familiar:
"Its focus has been to win audience share in perceived Middle East "media wars" by aiming for slick commercial television -- by trying, if you will, to out-Aljazeera Aljazeera, the Qatar-based satellite broadcaster that is by far the most popular in the area and the one that has been compared to Fox News. Privately, Alhurra staff boasts about the attractiveness of its female news presenters as one of its strong points.
I'll just pass over that last sentence without comment, other than to say good luck if that's how you want to compete with al-Jazeera.
Brown begins with the premise that whatever al-Hurra's problems - which are legion - it makes no sense to just kill it now given that we've already paid to get it up and running (I said much the same thing to Lindsey Wise in the TBS Journal). Still,
Its purpose needs complete rethinking, including consideration of the extent to which the U.S. government should be involved in television broadcasting in the first place. The value of "winning" audience share -- rather than informing opinion makers -- should be reexamined... . And the question arises: Shouldn't scarce resources go to supporting local independent media (through, for example, grants and training programs), rather than for expensive broadcasting facilities based in the United States?
He then offers these eminently practical solutions:
- Focus on C-Span-type programming relevant to Middle East audiences. To be sure, such "unexciting" programming would not be as audience-grabbing as, for example, the scandal-mongering local show aired on Iraq's U.S.-funded al-Iraqiya channel, "Terrorists in the Hands of Justice." (This program is criticized for violating the Geneva Conventions). With more low-key, unfiltered information programs, however, Alhurra would be seen as a reliable and objective outlet -- especially in times of crisis -- about what the U.S. government really thinks and does. Alhurra's live continuous coverage of the Congressional Hearings regarding the Abu Ghraib photos is a fine example of this.
- Air in-depth documentaries on serious, relevant issues produced by local filmmakers. A priority theme should be the historical links between the United States and Arab countries. Such documentaries are all too few; funds should be made available to produce them.
- Create an effective website. Alhurra's current site at http://www.Alhurra.com/ consists of only one page, an almost offensively simple listing of its programs in English and Arabic. Given the increased importance of the Internet in the Middle East, especially among young people, the site should be far more detailed and user-friendly, providing up-to-the-minute news and links. It should be interactive, with streaming video and audio. It should contain an archive, always a valuable resource for scholars and researchers.
- Establish a legal mechanism that would allow Alhurra to be seen more widely in the United States, making it possible for interested laypersons and specialists to view its programs easily and thus be better able to critique it constructively.
I've made most of those recommendations at one point or another, but it's good to see them laid out so clearly and effectively by an experienced ex-diplomat.
Focus on C-SPAN type broadcasting? Hmmmm. Where have we heard this before? See the New York Times on July 6, 2004. Here is a link:
http://www.cfr.org/pub7168/steven_a_cook/hearts_minds_and_hearings.php
Posted by: Abu Tabakh | June 06, 2005 at 03:02 PM
Wait a minute ... I want an Abu Whatever pseudonym, too! All the cool guys have them, it seems.
Posted by: praktike | June 06, 2005 at 07:08 PM
Random thoughts:
1. What about covering other legislatures, too?
One of the things that draws me to C-SPAN is the thought that I'll get to see foreign parliaments in action if I tune in at the right time. I then stay for the hearings on Social Security.:-)
You could do much by covering, say, Westminster or Ottawa as well.
If you want to be really daring, you could cover the Israeli Knesset and borrow the Arabic feed I presume they have for local coverage (Arabic being an official language and all).
3. 24-hour broadcasting seems viable, in a C-SPAN format. (anybody know how much C-SPAN costs, anyway?)
4. Borrow from PBS. Their documentaries, if translated, would I think be excellent.
Posted by: Penta | June 06, 2005 at 11:18 PM
Al-Hurrah should rebroadcast BBC's "Yes Minister" for a week.
Posted by: Nur al-Cubicle | June 07, 2005 at 12:07 AM
Yes Minister in Arabic would be GREAT! No better introduction to the joys of Parliament :)
Posted by: SP | June 07, 2005 at 01:19 AM
Actually, a few weeks ago al-Jazeera announced its own Arabic C-Span (I blogged about it back then). Haven't heard much about it, and I'm not able to watch it, but that would tend to reduce the value of turning al-Hurra into Hurra-Span at this point...
Prak: if you really want to become an Abu, there are some steps along the way that maybe your folks, or the Discovery Channel, or Wonkette, could explain to you. Warning, though: feedings every few hours at night can leave you VERY tired, so think carefully!
Posted by: aardvark | June 07, 2005 at 06:56 AM
ha ha ha
Posted by: praktike | June 07, 2005 at 05:18 PM