Privatizing al-Sharq al-Awsat

According to former editor Abd al-Rahman al-Rashed, the Saudi-owned, London-based, pan-Arab newspaper al-Sharq al-Awsat will put a third of its shares up to public bid in the coming year - an intriguing move to partially privatize one of the leading Arab newspapers.  Rashed notes that the media, "like airlines", are a particularly sensitive area for privatization - an interesting conception of the media as a symbol of national sovereignty and a national resource, it's worth noting. 

Rashed notes correctly how unusual it is for such an important part of the Arab media to be made available for purchase in the open market, even if it's only a third of the shares.  There has been constant rumour of al-Jazeera being "privatized", for instance, but nothing has ever come of it.  There are privately owned newspapers in Arab countries (al-Quds al-Arabi, for instance, is privately held, though nobody seems to know exactly where its financing comes from), but not many (any?) publicly traded ones.   

While Rashed then takes pains to argue that the Saudi-owned media has never really been Saudi-owned and has always been effectively independent (what else can he say, as director of the Saudi-owned al-Arabiya?), he also notes that this kind of public tender really is something new.   

Rashed's piece is labeled part one of two, so perhaps tomorrow's piece will offer some thoughts on who might buy shares in al-Sharq al-Awsat, what effect this might have on the paper's reporting, and what led al-Sharq al-Awsat to make such a move in the first place.   Hussein Shabakshi, writing in the same paper, has more general thoughts about the decision to partially privatize a major Saudi media firm.  Most likely he'll do an episode of his al-Arabiya program on it, so maybe that will get into those kinds of questions.

Comments

[Michael]

I was wondering. When people say "Saudi-owned", what does that really mean? Owned by a private individual friendly to the House of Saud? Joint venture by members of the royal family? Walla eh?

[jamie]

Asharq Al-Awsat is in theory privately owned. But in reality it is owned by Prince Salman, the poweful Riyadh governor. His son Prince Ahmed was the director of the company that publishes Asharq Al-Awsat (Saudi Research and Marketing Group) until he died a few years ago. Suprise, suprise, after Prince Ahmed's death his brother Prince Faisal was appointed diector. This royal Saudi ownership of this major pan-Arab newspaper, along with Al-Hayat, Al-Arabiya, and many once-independent book publising companies in Lebanon, Cairo and elsehwhere, has two main consequences: (1) It reduces the possibility of criticism of the Saudi royal family in the pan-Arab media; and (2) it makes completely impossible in the same media any criticism of the extremist Wahhabi ideology the Saudi ruling family bankrolls (not to be confused with criticism of the Al-Qaeda extremists who hate the Wahhabi religious establishment and have turned on the Al-Saud; of course the Saudi-funded columnists MUST demounce them). This funding also means the Al-Saud can use these publications to push a very pro-US foreign policy agenda in the editorial pages to please their partners in Washington. Hence the articles by Al-Rashid, Mushari Al-Zaid, Tariq Al-Homayed, Mamoun Fandy, Amir Tehri etc. (Yes, there are exceptions, but the opinion pages of Asharq Al-Awsat are basically pro-US "spreading democracy" etc -- more so than any other pan-Arab publication anyway.) And lest anyone try to convince you that there is really some kind of free flow of ideas here, bear in mind that when Al-Rashid left Asharq Al-Awsat, he was replaced by Tariq Al-Homayed, a Saudi in his early thirties whose father is close to Prince Faisal. He has no journalism experience to speak of, and he completed only a year of journalism study at Georgetown. He is basically a lackey of the Saudi royal family. Oh, and when the English-language site for Asharq Al-Awsat was set up, it was Al-Homayed's Saudi cousin Mohammed Alkhereiji who was made managing editor. He similarly has no meaningful experience as an editor, and he also dropped out of Georgetown. The Saudi owndership of the Arab mass media, in short, is one of the main hinderances to press freedom and the free flow of ideas in the Middle East -- something that Al-Jazeera has at least started to change. March Lynch should hammer home this point whenever he gets the chance. Selling 1/3 of Asharq Al-Awsat's shares is not the issue here. Al-Rashid is a phoney, and his role as a Saudi ahent in the pan-Arab media should be exposed.

[John K.]

While this development may at first glance seem positive (and maybe it will be), it should be noted that publicly-traded news companies have been a disaster for American journalism.

Yes, moving news media away from govt. control is good; but shareholder control means one thing: expanding profits. News quality is secondary, and if profits mean cutting newsroom staff, focusing on soft (cheaply produced) news over expensive investigative or hard news, so be it. At least that's been the American experience.

Not to nitpick, but word on nomenclature: if shares are being put up for public sale, this isn't privatization -- it's going public. At least in the U.S.: a "privately held" news organization is a godsend; while a "publicly held" news organization is usually an impaired operation. (Maybe in the Arab world "public" only means govt. owned, while in the U.S. it means "publicly traded"?)

[Michael]

Thanks, Jamie. This is informative. There clearly seems to be nepotism at work in al-Sharq al-Awsat management. Still, I think you're too harsh on the other staff. As far as I can tell, criticizing Qatar's powers that be is a red line for al-Jazeera, but that doesn't quite make Wadah Khanfar a Qatari agent, at least in my book. Rashid seems quite sincere to me, whether or not you agree with his views. When I look at al-Hayat and al-Arabiya's site (and on the rarer occasions when I read al-Sharq al-Awsat), Saudi agenda is also not exactly the first thing that comes to mind, even though I can readily believe that decision taken at high US and Saudi levels have had a trickle-down effect. From the perspective of mass perceptions, it's noteworthy that whenever I glance at reader comments on al-Arabiya's site, they're usually full of all kinds of ranting, but insinuations of being a mouthpiece for the House of Saud don't seem to be popular at all.

[jamie]

Michael: You will NEVER find ANY meaningful criticism of the Al-Saud or Wahhabism (as in the state ideology, not the terrorist offshoots) in ANY of the Saudi-funded media. Nor will you find ANYTHING that directly goes against Saudi foreign policy objectives. All the directors/editors in chief are directly appointed by the Saudi princes, and work very closely with them on a daily basis. That's the bottom line, whether or not those doing the dirty work are doing so sincerely. Part of the deal of writing for Saudi-funded newspapers is that you don't bite the hand that feeds you. How else to explain how Amir Taheri, who supposedly hates Arab tyrants, has never -- in his zillions of articles -- written a bad word about the Al-Saud (apart from once on his fellow Shiites)? Also: Don't underestimate just how much the Al-Saud is using Asharq Al-Awsat and Al-Arabiya to promote the necon agenda in the region. As'ad Abukhalil at The Angry Arab Blogspot is very good at tracking this in very specific ways. See this entry for example:

http://angryarab.blogspot.com/2005/08/saudi-arabia-under-fahd-served-us-by.html

Wednesday, August 10, 2005
Saudi Arabia under Fahd served the US by funding many of its covert and illegal operations (from Nicaragua, to South Yemen, to Africa, to Lebanon, etc). Under the new Crown Prince, I already see the Saudi government so intent on serving the propaganda interests of the US, not that the House of Saud would decline to fund Bush's covert wars and actions. But there is a clear utilization of the Saudi-funded Arab media for US purposes of foreign policy and wars. Even the deposed pro-Israeli dictator of Mauritania, was given a free platform on Al-Arabiyya TV to call on the army and people to return him to power. The US really favors that dictator, and so does Israel.

[Michael]

Jamie,

I know that these sources don't criticize Saudi. I was saying that al-Jazeera doesn't criticize Qatar, either. I don't read Arab government-affiliated sources for coverage of the hands that feed them. It would be great if they were more like BBC, but they're not. If you ignore the occasional attack of warm and fuzzy feeling for Saudi royals on the front page and the reluctance to criticize them, I don't really see anything in al-Hayat that would indicate direct editorial influence. Al-Arabiya's editorial line is much less anti-establishmentarian and somewhat more liberal than al-Jazeera. How much pro-American it is if you factor these out, I honestly can't tell. Al-Sharq al-Awsat is extremely liberal, and its writers are sadly prevented from criticizing Saudi, which I suspect a few of them wouldn't mind doing. Nonetheless, being a liberal Arab columnist in a Saudi-owned paper is not the same as being a pawn of a Saudi-neocon cabal. And As'ad AbuKhalil isn't exactly a paragon of neutral commentary.

[jamie]

Michael:

Fair enough. But I think you are being far, far too kind. Not criticising Qatar is not the same thing as not criticising Saudi Arabia. Qatar was until very recently an irrelevance on the world stage, and without Al-Jazeera we wouldn't even be talking about it. Saudi Arabia is a very significant world player, and has been for more than 4 decades In any case, two wrongs don't make a right. Would you have said of newspaper editors under Hitler, "oh well, they can't criticize what he stands for but then those under Mussolini can't criticize fascism either." How silly. The spread of Wahhabism, and its influence on Sunni Islam, is a very grave matter indeed. How is it possible to be a "liberal" columnist on a "liberal" Saudi newspaper, and yet be barred from criticisng the most illiberal strain of Islamic interpretation on the planet, propogated by the most reactionary Islamic regime the world has known apart from the Talibian? There comes a point when this has to be exposed as hypocrisy that has very real consequences. Simply saying "oh I wish things were better, but there we are" will not do. That's the sort of Arabist attitude that has always let the Arab regimes off the hook. So I say NO: I will NOT, and nor should you, give these Saudi and pro-Saudi columnists the benefit of the doubt. The spread of Wahhabism is a very serious matter. I will not respect Abdul Rahman Al-Rashid until the day he openly and unequivocally calls for a constitutional monarchy in his own country, and for an end to Wahhabism as the offical state ideology of Saudi Arabia. Until that moment, he will remain a hypocrite, and a lackey of the Saudi royal family, as will his supporters. Walk the walk, not just talk the talk etc. And finally: your assessment of Al-Arabiya, Asharq Al-Awsat and Al-Hayat as being essentially devoid of Saudi influence apart from the odd fawning article or coverage of a Saudi event is breathtakingly naive. You don't have to be an Angry Arab to realise that. What does Marc Lynch think? Surely he is not going to defend a royal family responsible for the absolute destruction (literally) of Islamic pluralism as represented in Mecca until the 1920s? If so, he has no credibility either. You don't have to be a neocon to be angry about all of this. A "liberal" pro-Al-Saud Arab newspaper in a complete contradiction in terms. Hypocrisy, pure and simple.

Jamie

[collounsbury]

Interesting.

A couple of issues.

First, it is not clear that any of the pan Arab media are commercially viable. Privatising in this context is.... well, nothing more than posturing or delusional.

That's the business issue, which is somewhat fundamental to the question of how the media is going to be structured.

One of the reasons I have always been unmoved by Jazeerah's Qatar funding (and really, who cares about Qatar?).

Second, not sure I care for the "Neo Con" agenda whinging with respect to the Saudi dominated/owned/controlled media. Bit overdone. Pro US to a certain extent, but whatever.

All in all, rather than looking at this as a political issue per se, I think one needs to seriously think about what these media organs can actually exist as from an econoimic perspective.

(BTW, does anyone know why al Hayat is absent (and has been for 15 years at least) from Morocco?)

[Michael]

Jamie,

Ok, that's a consistent position. There are several reasons why I don't share it. One, I don't see Wahhabism as intrinsically dangerous, nor am I very impressed by its spread, especially given the expenditures. Two, although I have little affection for the royal family, when I look at Saudi Arabia, I see intractable sociopolitical problems rather than any particular villainry in line for a quick thunderbolt of people power. While I wholeheartedly support those who work towards a better system there, I think it is really none of my business to prescribe solutions, much less condemn anyone for not taking a stand for any specific reform. Perhaps some of the folks in Saudi-owned press hold similar attitudes, perhaps not. I don't know. Having one's scope of expression restricted is obviously an ethically tricky point. Although, as you yourself pointed out, al-Sharq al-Awsat is full of imprecations against the specific manifestations of Wahhabism that are popular among jihadis. If I were indeed an Arabist or otherwise professionally associated with the Middle East, I might have been motivated by professional responsibility to have a public position on the House of Saud and related issues. If I were Saudi or Arab, I might have been motivated by a sense of civic duty. As it stands, I don't find injunctions to straighten up and fly right to be a very edifying response to complicated problems of foreign nations. That's my opinion.

[Karim]

I have followed the exchange between Michael and Jamie with great interest. I am no expert, but I tend to agree with Jamie on his assessment of the gravity of the threat posed by wahabism. It nevertheless remains that one cannot reasonably ask a journalist working for a newspaper owned by saudi royalty to be openly critical of the official religious ideology of his masters (lest he gets fired). So now, here is my question to you: what would you think would be a viable route to true independence of arab journalism ? Any answer should bear in mind that in the arab world very few entities have the means to start professional publications of the quality of al-Hayat or Asharq al-Awsat, and those who do are in some way or another connected with the ruling families in their respective countries. I am wondering just how much freedom can be achieved in such circumstances.

[jamie]

(1) Michael does not think Wahhabism is a threat to anything, or that the Al-Saud are particularly repressive, or that outsiders should try to do anything about it even if it was. End of exchange. What's the point in discussing the issue with someone who holds beliefs that even the worst appeasers in the State Dept would shy away from? All I can suggest as a final word is read The Great Theft by Khaled About El Fadl, Saudi Arabia Exposed by John Bradley, and The Rise, Corruption, and Coming Fall of the House of Saud by Khaled Aburish. Maybe you will change your mind when you have finished them. None are right-wing "spreading democracy" advocates. All three books deal extensively with the Saudi media, although Aburish is a bit out of date. The bottom line is that by leaving everything to fate, we will face a much worse situation later on and will wish we had at least tried to help the liberal reformers more at this stage instead of abandoning them in the name of the status quo and short-term interest. Why is it in principle more unethical to interfere to maintain the status quo than it is to interefere to bring about positive change?

(2) Saudi media is not commerically viable. They inflate their circulation figures. But since their main job is to provide a propaganda outlet for the Al-Saud, who can bankroll the newspapers come what may, it makes no difference to them. They are saved by the fact that they have a near-monoply on the market, and therefore get a disproportionate share of the advertising in the Arab world; that no-one checks how many they really sell; and advertisiers who turn to other outlets like Al-Jazeera are punished by the Al-Saud.

(3) The complication is the fact that they are privately owned, so in theory they have to make a profit. But there is a very confusing issue when it comes to selling "shares" in "Asharq Al-Awsat", namely: Asharq Al-Awsat is one of about 12 publications published by the Saudi Research and Marketing Group, a Saudi-based company registered in London that is basically a commerical front for the Al-Saud. The others include Al-Majallah, the kind of Newsweek fo the Arab world (which is actually quite good); Arab News, the Riyadh-based English daily; and Sayidaty, the women's mag. Since they are all owned by the same company, and are not therefore individually financed and controled, how can the shares of just ONE newspaper be sold? It doesn't make sense, at first glance.

(4) Don't know why Al-Hayat doesn't sell in Morocco. But Asharq Al-Awsat is especially proud of the fact that it apparently now sells almost 30 percent of its total copies on that country. This may be related to the absence of Al-Hayat. But it is more likely to be the result of fact that cities like Agadir and Essouira have become the new playgrounds for Saudi men looking for cheap prostitutes.

(5) Of course, there is a difference between theory and reality. In theory it would be better if journalists who worked for Saudi-funded newspapers could criticize the Saudi regime. In practice, they cannot, and no one can really blame them I suppose for not trying, since it would meaninstant dismissal. Everyone has to put bread on the table, after all. But we are also talking about higher principles: it is preposterous for Al-Rashid to get so worked up about regime change everywhere else but with barely a whisper about the need for constitutional change in his home country. The bottom line is that, for as long as the Saudis control the pan-Arab media, and Al-Jazeera is controled by rival Qatar, there will be very little room for journalists to express their opinions freely.

We will have to wait until the regimes fall to see what the Arab can do!

Jamie

[Michael]

Michael does not think Wahhabism is a threat to anything, or that the Al-Saud are particularly repressive, or that outsiders should try to do anything about it even if it was.

No, that's not what I think. What I do think is that in order to condemn a religious sect as such, together with its majority of decent followers, one ought to have an exceptionally good reason, whether one likes it or not. I suggest you look around the world for other classifications of religions as threats to see whose company you are joining. Second, I didn't say that Saudi Arabia wasn't a repressive country. Repression under various guises penetrates Saudi society from the organs under direct control of the royals to norms shared by the random ordinary family. The question is whether the nature of all or some these forms of repression is such that a journalist who forfeits the freedom to criticize it in print for a job deserves condemnation. You think yes. Most Arabs seem to think no. I think that's a judgment call. And, finally, I think that one should not confuse 1. criticising one's own goverment, 2. giving a constructive expert critique of another country, 3. supporting positive reform abroad, 4. publicizing human rights abuses, 5. working out a national security strategy, and 6. inchoate condemnations of foreign evils and threats. The first five are difficult undertakings deserving respect. The last one, under fig-leaves of various stripes, is usually a variation on old-time jingoism. Good for a quick fix of self-righteousness, but nothing to pat oneself on the shoulder about. In particular, bringing about a positive change, not unlike surgery, involves much expertise and responsibility. The armchair scalpel-waving one normally sees in US media involves neither.

[Jamie]

Michael: "Most Arabs seem to think no." Oh, really? Have you asked them all? Is that why newspaper sales in most Arab countries are at a record low, including those of the Saudi Research and Marketing Group? (Hence the merger of the popular sports daily Arriyadiyah and Asharq Al-Awsat two years ago.) In any case, talk about shifting the goal posts. I conceded that one cannot blame individual journalists for not speaking out. The question is simpler than that, and has more profound implications: Is the Saudi funding of the pan-Arab media a positive thing or a negative thing? And does it affect the way one judges the likes of Al-Rashid? I don't think that to say it is negative it to become "incohate". What I am objecting to is that you said it basically does not matter that these publications are Saudi-funded, that it does not really have an impact on their coverage. That is naive beyond measure. Look at Iraq. Look at Lebanon. Look at Iran. Look at the US role in the region. Absolutely NOTHING focusing on these issues in the Saudi-funded media contradicts Saudi foreign policy. EVER. And there is never any criticism of Wahhabism or the Saudi royal family themselves. All I am saying is that this should be pointed out whenever what their Saudi lackey journalists write is discussed. Also: As I said, read Khaled Abou El Fadl's The Great Theft. He is probably one of the most knowledgeable Muslims in the world today. You don't have to be a crazed neocon Zionist or someone given t alarmism to be angry at the devastating global impact on Sunni Islam by the combination of Wahhabi ideology and Saudi oil since the 1970s. Jamie

[Michael]

Jamie,

"Most Arabs seem to think no." Oh, really? Have you asked them all?

Does that quote say "all Arabs think no"? I've collected my own scant anectotal evidence, from individuals, from comments on al-Arabiya's site, etc. If you've collected evidence to the contrary, that's interesting. Feel free to share it.

Is that why newspaper sales in most Arab countries are at a record low, including those of the Saudi Research and Marketing Group?

No. You don't think that the rise of satellite TV has something to do with that?

The question is simpler than that, and has more profound implications: Is the Saudi funding of the pan-Arab media a positive thing or a negative thing?

Ok, but the question makes little sense if left at that. What practical alternatives are we comparing it to? The dilemma of Arab journalists is not Saudi funding per se, but the fact that -- last time I checked -- pan-Arab press basically consisted of two semi-independent Saudi-owned papers, a paper that's not even remotely semi-independent (al-Ahram international), and an apparently goverment-unaffiliated paper with a strong populist and inflammatory bent (al-Quds al-Arabi).

What I am objecting to is that you said it basically does not matter that these publications are Saudi-funded, that it does not really have an impact on their coverage. That is naive beyond measure.

I didn't say that. As I said, trickle-down effects are to be expected unless procedural safeguards are in place. The actual nature of effects, however, varies widely depending on specific accomodations. Arab press is not the only point of reference here. I could also tell you about Russian media, for example -- those supported by US money, before and after the recent market-oriented makeover, TV channels in the Soviet times, in the 90s and after the goverment-affiliated takeover. I gave my subjective quantification of practical repercussions for the three Saudi-owned sources I'm somewhat familiar with. That's neither naive nor enwisened. If you have impressions of your own, you're welcome to share them.

Absolutely NOTHING focusing on these issues in the Saudi-funded media contradicts Saudi foreign policy. EVER. And there is never any criticism of Wahhabism or the Saudi royal family themselves. All I am saying is that this should be pointed out whenever what their Saudi lackey journalists write is discussed.

In less categorical terms, I agree with that, other than the fact that it's common knowledge among people I usually discuss them with. In this specific formulation, I'm not sure what that means for most of the topics covered. For example:

Look at the US role in the region.

What exactly is Saudi foreign policy regarding it such that it's never contradicted by al-Sharq al-Awsat's OR al-Hayat's columnists?

[collounsbury]

(4) Don't know why Al-Hayat doesn't sell in Morocco. But Asharq Al-Awsat is especially proud of the fact that it apparently now sells almost 30 percent of its total copies on that country.

Well, given what I see, I highly doubt that.

But it is more likely to be the result of fact that cities like Agadir and Essouira have become the new playgrounds for Saudi men looking for cheap prostitutes.

Essaouira? Nah. Casa, Marrakech and Agadir. Essaouira isn't a Khaliji playground.

There's also absolutely nothing new about that, indeed something less of the case than Europeans actually. Still, one sees the Khaliji playboys fucking around, as one does in Marbella.

[Jamie]

Well, Michael, I think we have exhausted this debate, so we will agree to disagree, although I suspect we agree on more than might seem to be the case at this juncture. I'm sure it wouldn't suprise you that lots of Mideast experts and scholars in the West shy away from criticizing the Al-Saud for fear that they might not get invited to conferences etc organized by the Saudis, especially in Dubai, or because they fear they might get a visa to Saudi Arabia, or because they are associated with think tanks/mideast depts that are funded in part by the Al-Saud. No wonder they have so much sympathy for the plight of Saudi journalists! Anyway, that is why I raised the subject on this blog. On a perhaps not entirely unrelated note: I notice Marc Lynch did not partake in this discussion. He lets the Al-Saud get away with far too much, on this blog and in his book, which I finished this weekend. Jamie

[collounsbury]

I'm sure it wouldn't suprise you that lots of Mideast experts and scholars in the West shy away from criticizing the Al-Saud for fear that they might not get invited to conferences etc organized by the Saudis, especially in Dubai, or because they fear they might get a visa to Saudi Arabia, or because they are associated with think tanks/mideast depts that are funded in part by the Al-Saud. No wonder they have so much sympathy for the plight of Saudi journalists!

Oh give me a fucking break,

Whinging vendor of ill-thought out tripe.

[Jamie]

Great!

A personal insult at last officially ends the debate with me as the winner!

[aardvark]

Well that was a fascinating debate, right up to the end. I didn't participate in the debate because it was the weekend, not because I have any compunctions about criticizing the Saudis. I'm not exactly a fan of the Saudi media, and am probably not al-Arabiya's favorite writer, as Jamie would realize by scanning the "Arab media" category archives. But I also have a principled aversion to shouting out insults or cheers on command, so I'll pass on the degenerative bit there.

Two clarifications:

On SA vs SRMG shares, the two stories I saw differed - Rashed only mentioned SA shares being sold, while Shabakshi mentioned the whole SRMG. I don't know which is right.

And on the "privatization" vs "going public" question, I'm also not entirely sure: since the Saudi-owned media usually aren't "state" owned but rather owned by Saudi princes, and the whole "state" definition is so blurry in the Saudi case, I'm not sure whether to call such a tender "partial privatization" or "a public offer."

[collounsbury]

Afraid pointing out your argument was nothing more than hand waving tripe does not "win" anything for you.

[jamie]

"On SA vs SRMG shares, the two stories I saw differed - Rashed only mentioned SA shares being sold, while Shabakshi mentioned the whole SRMG." And both in the same newspaper. ha ha.