The al-Hurra hearing

I was curious whether the much-anticipated oversight hearings on al-Hurra would actually be a serious investigation of the various complaints about the station, or a whitewash.  The answer to that came pretty much in the first couple of minutes.   Not serious.

First, the witness list:  no critic of al-Hurra was invited to present evidence, argument, or a dissenting view.   The two external witnesses were Andrew Kohut, who presented a general overview of polling findings on anti-Americanism and punted when asked a direct question about the validity of BBG audience surveys, and Jim Phillips of the Heritage Foundation, who offered some interesting ideas about the purpose of al-Hurra which the committee declined to discuss. 

Second, after a somewhat promising opening statement by Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) - "We need al-Hurra, but we need an al-Hurra that is respectful, well-run, and a positive force in a very volatile region.... while realizing the challenges America faces, and not expecting instant results, we do expect a reasonable level of efficiency to what we are funding" - two Democrat members of the subcommittee made clear their lack of interest.  First, William Delahunt (D-MA) rambled off topic to talk about Iraq.  Then Howard Berman (D-CA) explained his conception of the hearing's purpose:  "Today's hearing is important because it gives Mr. Harb and Chairman Tomlinson an opportunity to answer their critics and hopefully clear the air."   Berman then parroted BBG talking points, defended al-Hurra, and made it clear that he was there as a defender, not as a prosecutor. 

All in all, a disappointment - especially if it serves as an excuse to avoid any further oversight.  The only positive to come out of it was this exchange, on the record:

Rep.  Rohrabacher:  Oine of the major areas that people have concern is... the credibility of the statistics in terms of the listening audience.  We have invested a great deal of money. There are some people who believe that perhaps the listening audience is not as good as suggested.  I take it that you are open to people who would scrutinize that listening audience.  So if the State Department, for example, office of research would try to look into that issue, you would be open to that?

Mr. Tomlinson:  Absolutely.

I hope that someone takes Mr. Tomlinson up on this agreement, on the record, to open up the BBG audience research files - not just the ones released to the public, but the whole array of survey results (all paid for with taxpayer money).    That would be appropriate, since the BBG evidently has no objections and won't mind, why not follow up, someone? 

Comments

[Jon Alterman]

Thanks for not even suggesting that Democratic silence was a consequence of al-Hurra booster (and BBG member) Norm Pattiz being a big contributor to Democratic campaigns. Such a connection is inconceivable, and to suggest as much would have been unseemly.

[the aardvark]

Jon - geez, I thought that pointedly referring to Berman as a D made that point... But a thought: Pattiz is out, right, and none too happy about it, so shouldn't his people be free to criticize away now?

[Jon Alterman]

Pattiz is on an expired term but serves until he's replaced (which hasn't happened yet). Also, there's no sign that he's had second thoughts on al-Hurra -- after all, he's the guy who made Muafac into a star.

But none of this could possibly have any effect on Berman.