Reality TV as cultural diplomacy

I've got an article coming out soon about Arab reality TV, which focuses on issues like their supposed contribution to "democracy", the challenge to Islamism, and the evolving uses of technology.  I don't say much about reality TV as a form of cultural diplomacy, though.   Probably because reality TV is, let's face it, kind of a synonym for poor taste (although Brent Bozell's Parents Television Council handy guide to which shows not to watch because they suck - the "best" - and which ones to watch because they're cool - the "worst" - bizarrely has reality TV shows as #1, #2, #3, and #8 in its top 10 "Best" shows....)... and because the most successful reality TV in the Arab world is actually Arab, not imported American projects (Super Star, Star Academy, al-Wadi, Ala al Hawa Sawa).

But now MBC announces "On the Road in America", a reality TV show about three young Arabs traveling through America:

Layalina Productions, Inc. the first U.S. non-profit producer of Arabic and English language television programming for airing in the Arab world, received a letter of intent from O3 Productions, the acquisition arm for MBC Group, the leading pan-Arab satellite network that owns Al Arabiya News Channel, to license Ala al Tariq fi Amrika "On the Road in America" -- Layalina's reality-based road show series.

"On the Road in America" is a 26-episode series that features the exploits of three Arab university students, a Lebanese, a Palestinian, and an Egyptian, who make their first trip to the United States. Targeted to a young Arab audience, the series attempts to explore the diversity and uniqueness of the United States through the eyes of the 3 students while they travel across the country. The main characters' interaction with the communities they visit during their travels will go some ways towards identifying common cultural facets and promoting greater understanding.

Unlike the dubious cultural diplomacy of, say, "Fear Factor" or "Wife Swap", this really is cultural diplomacy of the traditional sort... with the political intent and aspirations front and center:

"by documenting the journey of these bright young Arab men in America and their interaction with ordinary Americans, we hope this series will show the vast diversity and freedom of expression that is America and how much Arabs and Americans have in common as human beings."

... with a semi-official, pedigree:  Layalina Productions is run by several former US government officials - Richard Fairbanks (identified as a former chief U.S. negotiator for the Middle East Peace Process) and Marc Ginsberg (a former U.S. Ambassador to Morocco). It's honorary chairman is former President George Herbert Walker Bush.   

.... and to top it all off, MBC is reportedly planning to run it not on one of their many, many entertainment stations, but on al-Arabiya:  their flagship news and politics channel.  Earlier this year, an article in Foreign Policy recommended using reality TV for public diplomacy - looks like it made an impact.  For better or for worse.

Two telling things, though.  First:  why, exactly, is al-Arabiya hoping to run this semi-official American public diplomacy product, one might wonder?  Second:  why, exactly, is it not running on al-Hurra?  (Okay, that one's easy - because they want people to actually watch it.  But think about what that says about al-Hurra's value.  This series would be a natural, a perfect fit, for al-Hurra's mission, you'd think... but it isn't going there because it would be wasted.)

Comments

[Leila]

CIA! CIA! CIA!

Not that that is so horrible or anything. Just saying. (And you can bet Arabs will say it too. MIght not keep them from watching it, but most people will assume it's propaganda)

[collounsbury]

Bah, there is nothing CIA about the Layalina schmucks. They're bad businessmen, however. I say that having been involved in business with mutual parties.

[Leila]

Nothing CIA about our dear ex-President? OK he's a bad businessman and so is his son, but don't you remember the position he held in the '70s? I speak of Bush I, now, not Bush II.

Maybe the reality show is not CIA directly, but the Company has a very long history of funding this sort of thing, high culture and low. It's been in the press again recently - attempts to portray America in a favorable light, sometimes funded through the Ford foundation in the old days.

And speaking of dearest George HW Bush, who looks better every month that his son remains in office - the Oedipal irony of Plamegate just kills me. He's got to be in agony over the outing of the agent, since the law making it a crime was his doing. Some undercover agent was killed in Greece in the 70s because of a news report, when Bush I was in charge at the CIA. He took the loss personally, and when he became VP in '81 made it his business to enact the statute which someone seems to have violated in the Valerie Plame case.

It's beyond my powers as a novelist this year, but somebody might make a good book out of it. Steve Gilliard has done a hilarious play over at his blog this weekend, with W as a sullen, rebellious teenager in big trouble with Poppy and Barb.

[collounsbury]

I was not speaking to the Board. I was speaking to the actual people running the bloody thing. Don't think the "headline" people have anything to do with actual operations.

[the aardvark]

Aha! That was surreal... for some reason, Lounsbury's last comment showed up before the preceding two, and it felt like I was living in a Harold Pinter play.

Out of nowhere, he shouts "I was not speaking to the Board!" We all look around nervously... what could this outburst signify? To whose voice did he reply? Was there some ongoing conversation to which we were not privy? Was it a signal to conspirators abroad?

But it all makes sense now... although in some ways, the order in which I read the comments was more entertaining!

[John Penta]

OT, except in the "culture gap" sense:

In the spirit of Halloween, we recall a story of a Halloween past. On Nov. 4, 1979, just a few days after Halloween, militant Islamic students took over the U.S. Embassy in Tehran. Various parts of the embassy were still decorated with ghosts and goblins and other scary stuff.

So when the hostages were taken to a room with decorations, the Iranians asked what this was all about. One hostage explained, apparently closing the culture gap.

"You do this to your children?" a militant asked.

Karen Hughes, take note. This is what you're up against.
---

From "The Loop" column:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/30/AR2005103000823.html?referrer=email

[collounsbury]

I do aim to entertain.

Although with respect to the CIA accusation, that would be inevitable regardless (I can not count the times....) - of course Abu Bush adds versimiltude.

[Leila]

Well, collounsbury, since you're in country, you know much more about it than I do. But saying that the "actual people running the bloody thing" aren't CIA, whilst their board (and funding?) might be - doesn't disprove the accusation, does it?

The whole point of CIA funding of various cultural matters - there's been some talk about avante garde art exhibits in the 50s, for instance, having been funded at arm's length by The Company - the whole point is that of course the CIA itself isn't producing the actual work. That's too obvious (and wouldn't be interesting either). They back things they think will cast America in a good light, and send them around.

Now if it's not CIA, but rather State Dept. - that's a useful distinction. I happen to think that whichever branch of the government is funding it, it's a decent way to spend my tax dollars. I know of two projects in Egypt that my buddies there were calling CIA nearly a quarter century ago, that have contributed greatly to Egyptian culture. OK, the project leader was supposed to be the CIA's person in country. But the projects were and are great contributions, and if they were done as part of American efforts to look good and make friends, so what?

I'd rather my government fund cultural works of merit (or of little merit, vis this reality show) than new weapons and wars.

[Collounsbury]

I very much doubt you speak to actual US Agency experience. My sole comment is I know US Agency people, and this does not match my sense of them.

However, that is neither here nor there.

The company itself is a US non profit with certain reporting guidelines. While it may be possible that these are trumped, it would rather appear vis-a-vis grey or black arts that a nice corporate shell organised as a purely private entity would be far, far more useful.

Which is to say, if you as the innocent novelist and whatever bloody literary things you do can "ID" something as CIA (or other intel operation), it most certainly is likely not to be (although caveats do apply).

The obscure works far better.

Indeed in my own corporate world, setting up shells to disguise ownership is a art form. I would bloody well hope that this basic level of competence exists among the US officials with exposure to the same in the private sector.

However, the simple minded conspiracy mongers will of course bloody well pimp what they want.