S for Snyd-etta!

Hoo-boy!  Remember Alvin Snyder?   Sure you, do - Snyder Gone Silly!   Back on February 10, he ran a hilarious article bashing the al-Jazeera Forum, based almost exclusively on what he misunderstood from this very blog.  So I poked some gentle fun at Alvin's reading comprehension.  And then Alvin suddenly, mysteriously, discovered an urgent interest in "blogger ethics"!

I got wind of his concerns when Alvin emailed me to ask about who paid for my trip and whether I got an honorarium.  I told him that al-Jazeera paid for the flight and the hotel, but gave me no honorarium.  I explained to him that this is absolutely normal for academics - if we give talks, travel and hotels are covered:  I'm writing this from Ann Arbor, where my flight and hotel were paid for by the University of Michigan; last week I spoke at Harvard, where my driving and expenses were covered; in two weeks, I go to the University of Texas at Austin, with travel and hotel and a small honorarium. Every speaker who comes to Williams gets the same - travel, hotel, small honorarium.  That's just the way academia works: it's the professional norm, and if Alvin didn't know that before, he knew it from my email.  I also told Alvin that, rather embarrassingly, I actually lost money on the trip because al-Jazeera did not cover my travel to and from Boston (about $100 for parking, and 300 miles of driving on my personal car, which is usually reimbursed at 37.5 cents a mile) or my internet hookup in Doha (which came to about $60).   Alvin quotes me accurately (perhaps because I cheerfully offered to publish our correspondence?).... though for some reason declined to reproduce that last bit. 

Kudos to Alvin's editors, who evidently managed to tone the piece down a bit.  But not even they could get him to actually get his facts right. He claims that "at least 100 blogger-delegates" were flown out by al-Jazeera.  Maybe.  I can't claim to have Alvin's sources, but I don't remember 100 bloggers at the forum. Nor does a Technorati search reveal a hundred bloggers reporting their experiences.  There was me, and my friend Ethan Zuckerman, Haitham Sabbah of Global Voices Online, Danny Schechter, a guy from the Guerrilla News Network and one from BlairWatch, a handful of young Arab bloggers (5 or 6 that I noticed), Issander el-Amrani.. and, well, that's it. Not sure where the other 90 were hiding.. and neither does Alvin, because he wasn't there.  And since, as he himself reports, nobody at al-Jazeera would return his calls, he didn't hear it from them either. Fact check?

Then he says "The BBC and most other mainstream media chose not to attend the session."  Also not true.  The director of BBC World News was not only at the forum, I had dinner with him.  I encountered several New York Times reporters, as well as reporters from the Telegraph, the Guardian, and a number of Arab newspapers.  Mike Boyer of Foreign Policy magazine was there (and wrote a rather critical piece about the event for the Weekly Standard).  Fact check?

Amusingly, Alvin says rather disapprovingly that I "believe" that my ethics are "in tact."  Um, maybe. I would certainly claim them to be "intact," since there's absolutely no reason outside Alvin's fevered mind to think otherwise.  But "in tact"?  Does that mean that my ethics are thoughtful of others?  That they are discreet?  I suppose that's true too, but somehow don't think that's quite what he meant.   Spell check?  Basic knowledge of the English language check?

Alvin's insinuation is that bloggers getting their travel paid to an event will not be critical of said event or the sponsoring institution.  Actually a potentially legitimate point, which could be argued (and we could probably extend it to journalists who - despite their journalistic ethics - somehow manage to routinely collect speaking fees in the five figures). Oddly enough, here's the very first thing I wrote about al-Jazeera on my return from Doha (about the Danish cartoons crisis): 

I've been dismayed by how the media has handled itself on all sides. Al-Jazeera has not been particularly constructive, which is especially disappointing after I just sat on a panel at its Forum on the topic of whether the media could be a "bridge between civilizations".  Even if its coverage of the story itself could be defended in purely professional terms - it is, after all, now a big story, and I haven't seen any other networks, Arab or Western, abstaining from coverage - al-Jazeera does seem to have a particular gusto for the story.  It can't be an accident that Faisal al-Qassem, the presenter most likely to turn a show into a screaming match, was chosen to host the most recent "Behind the News" program about the cartoons rather than its more reasonable, mild-mannered regular hosts.... I read in al-Safir (though can't verify for myself) that al-Arabiya broadcast an apology from a Danish official, while al-Jazeera did not:  if true, that's a poor editorial decision on al-Jazeera's part. .... Overall, al-Jazeera just doesn't seem to be able to help itself on this one, which is a shame:  it is playing to populism, rather to to pluralism, which I identified in my book as one of the greatest dangers for the new Arab public.

But hey, since we're on the topic of "blogger ethics," there is something I've been curious about for a while.  On January 19, Alvin published a piece declaring that surveys showed that al-Arabiya was surging ahead of al-Jazeera in Saudi Arabia, and that this proved that al-Jazeera was losing its regional appeal.   I raised a number of points at the time, but not this one, because it didn't seem very nice (see how "in tact" my blogger ethics are?).  But since Alvin raises the topic, check out what Alvin wrote about the Zogby/Telhami survey of the Arab media in his column of January 19:

While leading Arab television channels discredited Zogby's findings, Al Jazeera promoted them with a special program featuring Karen Hughes, the U.S. government's ranking public diplomacy official.

Here's what the English language version of al-Sharq al-Awsat wrote on January 2:

Leading Arab television stations have expressed their anger at the findings of a poll by Zogby International and cast doubt on its conclusion that al Jazeera was the most popular channel in the region, describing them as biased. For its part, al Jazeera celebrated the results and dedicated an entire program to a discussion of the results, featuring Karen Hughes, the U.S. new undersecretary for public diplomacy and public affairs.

Here's what Snyder wrote on January 19:

Zogby also limited its survey to satellite channels, leaving out terrestrial channels such as Al Arabiya, whose programs can be picked up with standard roof-top or television set-top antennas and reach large numbers of viewers with easy, free access.

Here's what al-Sharq al-Awsat wrote on January 2:

the Zogby poll committed a grave error when it neglected terrestrial T.V stations, at a time when they are enjoying larger viewing figures than several satellite television channels, because local audiences continue to prefer local stations and the technology was beyond the reach of low-income households, who constitute the majority of Arabs.

I wrote about the al-Sharq al-Awsat story on January 3... and we know that Alvin reads me.  So did Alvin plagiarize al-Sharq al-Awsat, or was he simply cribbing from the same al-Arabiya press release as al-Sharq al-Awsat?  Beats me.  Either way, not what I would call a bright, shining moment for Alvin's journalistic ethics.... maybe that Poynter Center hotline on journalistic ethics might have some tips?

Best part of that exchange, by the way:  when Adham Center director and TBS Journal editor Larry Pintak wrote in to comment "With all due respect, you’re beginning to sound like a shill for al-Arabiya," Alvin protested that "I’m being piled on from all sides, including Al Arabiya.  "  Inconveniently al-Arabiya Public Relations director Jihad Ballout had written in to Alvin's own website: 

Your piece was enlightening and reflected a well-researched approach in analyzing the general media landscape in the Arab world, evident through its referencing of the latest poll results from Ipsos-Stat, an international outfit specializing in media related research. It is also indicative of its objectivity on the matter.

How does Alvin stand the heat? 

Anyway, I've given Alvin a lot more attention than he really deserves here, mainly because people unaware of the context might think he's actually making a serious point.  [LINE DELETED - SEE BELOW] I hope that Alvin can get over his obsession with aardvarks, and find something actually useful, and maybe even about public diplomacy, to contribute to USC's deservedly well-regarded Public Diplomacy site.

NOTE:  in the original post, I made a reference to an earlier article Al had written about au pairs and public diplomacy (which I had found a dubious argument).   On second reading, I realized that an entirely different reading of that line was possible, which would have cast a personal aspersion on Al that not only wouldn't have been warranted but which makes me feel rather awful.  So I've deleted that line, and I apologize to Al for that bit.   

Comments

[Ibahrine]

I am also a scholar and if invited to give a talk, I konw that I can not pay. The organizer can.
I observe your blog since about a number of months.
Your carrying out an excellent research via your blog.
I fully understand Mr. Alvin Snyder's points.
Bloggers not only in the USA, but everywhere need some
policy guidelines, but not strict policy guidelines. But what I can not understand is that he quoted
"Academics ... have a conflict of loyalties".
With the best wishes,
MI

[Nur al-Cubicle]

I have in my hand here a list of 100 US bloggers who are members of al-Jazqaeda

[Ibahrine]

I am also a scholar and if invited to give a talk, I konw that I can not pay. The organizer can.
I observe your blog since about a number of months.
Your carrying out an excellent research via your blog.
I fully understand Mr. Alvin Snyder's points.
Bloggers not only in the USA, but everywhere need some
policy guidelines, but not strict policy guidelines. But what I can not understand is that he quoted
"Academics ... have a conflict of loyalties".
With the best wishes,

[Leila Abu-Saba]

The guy is jealous. You've got a cool site, the young people and hipsters listen to you, your latest book is getting reviewed, you've got this happening comic-book/pop culture sideline that adds cachet. You're going to pay for your mass-culture exposure, ya Ustaz, with such slings and arrows...academics don't like it when one of their own moves out of the sphere of dusty journals and college-sponsored conferences into the limelight (such as it is in blogworld). But clearly you can take the sparring. Bravo!

(Maybe that photo of you with Joumana sent him over the edge? Poor fellow. He's worrying over obscure au pairs, and you're hobnobbing with international TV newscasters of beauty and brilliance)

[Shaden]

Funny. I haven't met but four bloggers, and I learned that two more bloggers were around. I was paid for flight and hotel as well even though I'm not an academic and so were other bloggers/activists.

P.S I read your blog regularly and I love what you write.

[Leila Abu-Saba]

Applause for having second thoughts and deleting something objectionable. I didn't read the link so it's forgotten. It's too easy to lose one's head and say things that go too far on the internet. (I know, I've done it myself, and have even upon occasion asked to have a blog comment removed)

Some bloggers seem to think that one should never edit such remarks. I disagree. If you catch yourself trashing standards you care about, it's better for civil society (and civil blogging?) to apologize, delete, and move on.

You're a mensch, ya Ustaz.

[the aardvark]

Leila - yeah, I really felt bad when I realized how that line could be read. I mean, Alvin has written two columns in a month which seem to me to be outrageous misrepresentations of me, and I have no problem with pointing those out and criticizing him in turn, but it isn't and shouldn't be personal like that could have been interpreted. Maybe I'm just too sensitive...

[Anna in Cairo]

No, you aren't too sensitive - you just practice what you preach.

[the aardvark]

Anyway, I just feel bad about the whole thing. I hate public fights like this, even if I feel like I'm in the right. I'm hoping that two rounds of him attacking me and me responding like this are enough.

[collounsbury]

Hmmm, stupid whanker. You're too bloody nice mate.

Maybe once my bloody business issue is resolved I can take on a new jihad.

[issandr El Amrani]

I didn't know this was "One of the most controversial recent events in the blogosphere." Ridiculous.

Incidentally, I'm not sure how I feel about getting morality lessons from a former PR guy for the Nixon White House and former producer of anti-Soviet propaganda for USIA. Apparently he doesn't like ambiguity -- he wants to know for sure which way his bread is buttered.