Doha Debates

I'm told by a friend in Cairo that the Doha Debates have aired.  Now that it's aired, I can say that my side lost (with only about 30% of the votes) and that I'm glad. 

I didn't like the motion, that "the Arab media needed no lessons in journalism from the West", and I'm glad that the audience voted against it (in spite of my own rhetorical brilliance, of course!).  All four of us (Khaled al-Hroub, Mona Eltahawy, and Abdullah Schleiffer) basically agreed that al-Jazeera, al-Arabiya and the main satellite TV stations were doing a pretty good job AND that the local and state-run media still stunk. I tried to keep the debate focused on the satellite TV, and I think that I was pretty successful there:  Abdullah Schleiffer essentially conceded the point about the satellite TV stations two-thirds of the way through.  But he and Mona successfully kept the focus on the stilly lousy local media, and that (as well as Mona's eloquence) won the day.

As I said, I was actually quite happy with the outcome.  I had never been comfortable in the role of arguing that the Arab media didn't need to improve, since I don't believe that, and I consciously avoided making a number of arguments which might have scored some easy points but would have felt cheap and counter-productive to me.  One of my two main points to the AJ Forum the next morning, in fact, was precisely that the satellite TV stations had pretty much reached the limit of their potential for driving political change in the absence of effective, independent, critical local medias, and that encouraging such local media should be the primary goal for would-be reformers now.

I can't wait to see the debate.  It was really a great experience, with a fine panel of debaters, an outstanding audience (including, it seems, about half the AJ Forum!), and very professional producers.   It's a bit startling to think about how many more people around the world will see it than have ever heard of Abu Aardvark (the same is true of the al-Jazeera program).  As I wrote the other day, I'm mystified as to how the producers got a 90 minute debate down to 46 minutes.  Someone from the BBC who I got to know at the Forum told me that he had seen the final product (before airing it), and that it came out very well.  Anyone who sees it, feel free to post comments here about it!

Comments

[Matt]

Dear Mark,

I happened to stumble upon the show today on BBC world. Very lively, indeed! Yes, I agree that the motion was silly, but the questions and issues raised were quite good, I thought.

Matt Ellis
Cairo

[menj]

Greetings,

I saw it last night (Malaysian time) on BBC World too. You stated your position well and I like the way you debated.

Best regards.

- MENJ

[raf*]

dear aa,

i just saw the debate. i did like it, but have some misgivings. the most important is that "western" media was immediately equated to "american (& maybe some bri'ish)" media. a lot of the arguments - particularly khaled's - do simply not apply to continental european media: that they are owned by big conglomerates & only out for profits, that they toe the gov't line, that they are not critical of israel. it's too bad that none of you ever picked up on that.

i am not sure what the target audience of the "doha debates" is. if it is a "western" one, then khaled did not do your side any favors as he spoke heavily-accented and bad english, spiced with generic accusatory lingo and silly "evidence". if you find yourself sounding like jibril al-rajoub or yasir arafat, change your tone & phrasing.

mona came across as if she was defending the danish cartoons (you seem to have missed most of the fun with those - we have a decent coverage @ 'aqoul) - which i am certain she didn't mean to.

all-in-all, i found the debate very interesting. and now i know what you look & sound like!

tahyaat,

--raf*

www.aqoul.com

[Ibn ad Dunya]

I´l just love Doha Debates with Tim Sebastian, interesting panels and themes all the time, nice to get a voice to the interesting blogging you do. Mona was the best though. And alf Mabrouk on your first voices review!

[Stacey]

Hi, Mark,

Vikash and I watched with enthusiasm - we thought you were polished and on-task, and did a great job. That said, I wondered if you might have been seated on the wrong side...but that may be because of the prompt, already crtiticized by Matt and Ashraf.

I had three general observations related to the earlier comments:

1) Khaled: I was really disappointed by his opening statement. Showing that the Arab media has nothing to learn from the Western media is not as simple as showing that the Western media has problems. Unfortunately, I think this kind of attitude (e.g., if there's anything wrong with the West, then ipso facto, we have nothing to offer anyone) is characteristic of al-Jazeera's editorial posture in general. Fortunately, YOU were there to make the affirmative case, to show what the satellite stations have done that is original, that wasn't being done by the Western stations, etc. It is sad, though, that the head of al-Jazeera didn't make that case on his own.

2) Abdullah (who is, Mark, also an American, despite your claim to the contrary...): With all due respect to Mona, who was indeed articulate, passionate, and may have won the crowd, Abdullah was the shining star when it came to logic. His answers were sharp, to the point, and - I thought - not to be easily dismissed, despite Khaled's efforts (I swear, if he said "that's not the point" one more time, when it really WAS the point...) As the head of the #1 institution in the Arab world where students can train to become journalists, I thought he well lived up to his reputation.

3) The Cartoon Issue: I give credit to all of the panelists and to the moderator for preventing the broadcast from being irretrievably lost to a discussion of the cartoons which, while important, can't be allowed to define the debate in total.

Great job - it was good to "see" you again! -Stacey