Al-Jazeera's war coverage

Since I usually focus on the Arab media, it's worth a quick note about how things are playing out there.  Al-Jazeera has owned this war from the perspective of the hyper-competitive Arab satellite television media.   Salim Azouz, who frequently analyzes the Arab media for al-Quds al-Arabi, wrote today that right now al-Jazeera is only competing with itself - al-Hurra, he claims, has revealed its monstrous true face by openly sympathizing with Israel (I wouldn't know if he's right, since I don't get to watch their feed);  while al-Arabiya, he claims, has abandoned the field and opted to not even try to compete.   I had been saying and writing for the last year or so that the al-Jazeera era was over, in that the intensely competitive Arab media market made it unlikely that any single station would ever have the kind of near-monopoly position al-Jazeera enjoyed from 1998 through 2003.   Over the last week, that seems to be (at least temporarily) changing - right now the scene looks more like 2003 than like 2005.

It's worth making just a few quick notes about how al-Jazeera is scoring these gains.  It has been covering the crisis intensively, throwing resources and air time at the war.   In addition to its strong Beirut office headed by Ghassan bin Jidu, al-Jazeera has sent some of its most popular and accomplished on-air talent to Beirut (including Jamal Rayan and Jumana al-Namour).   It has gotten great visuals, and its talk shows and programs have concentrated on the war from a wide range of angles (its first episode of Behind the News, the signature prime time program, after the war started featured three guests:  Abd al-Bari Atwan, the populist Arab nationalist editor of al-Quds al-Arabi;  a Hezbollah representative; and a well-spoken Saudi guest who complained about Hezbollah and gave a preview of the Saudi foreign policy which followed.   It scored big with its exclusive interview with Hassan Nasrallah - which it got partly because bin Jidu has a good relationship with him, and partly because Nasrallah knew that al-Jazeera was the best way to reach a mass, attentive Arab audience.

It's been covering the crisis - as you'd expect - from an unabashedly pro-Arab perspective... but as it interprets "pro-Arab" (the axis of pro-American dictators would have a different definition, naturally).  As in Iraq, that mean heavy emphasis on civilian casualties and suffering, a lot of attention to Arab protests, sympathetic attention to Hezbollah, lots of voices critical of America and Israel, and lots of voices heavily critical of the Arab regimes for not acting.   Its coverage frames the Lebanon crisis as part of an overarching narrative, not an isolated event:  al-Jazeera hasn't forgotten about Gaza (it was just running an interview with Palestinian Prime Minister Ismail Haniya now, 2:20 my time), and places the Palestinian crisis alongside the Lebanon crisis as a single story, in which the Arab regimes are aligned with the Americans and Israel in the villains role, the Arab people (here represented by Lebanese and Palestinian civilians) the victims, and  Hezbollah and Arab protestors (and sometimes al-Jazeera itself, frankly) cast as the heroes.   Nobody who watched its Iraq war coverage would be surprised by its performance here -  some are accusing it of cheerleading, some of distortion, some of giving too much time to American or Israeli perspectives.  The usual - though to my eye it does seem a bit more restrained in its coverage.    This all contrasts sharply with al-Arabiya, usually its strongest challenger, which has largely followed the Saudi line and whose coverage has struck me (and most others) as indifferent at best. 

But if al-Jazeera has offered as sharp contrast with al-Arabiya, it's also clearly different from Hezbollah's al-Manar (even if it uses one of their former reporters and some of their exclusive visuals).   Right now (a little before 2:00 my time), for instance, al-Jazeera is running a lengthy stream of a live press conference by an Israeli military spokesman.

It has covered the Israeli side of the crisis, which is one of the reasons that one of its correspondents in the West Bank got arrested and another shot with rubber bullets (so did an al-Hurra reporter).  It's currently (2:05 my time) showing firefighters dealing with the aftermath of a Hezbollah missile, with prominent mention of the numbers of Israeli wounded (which of course could be interpreted either way:  as an acknowledgement of Israeli suffering or as a celebration of said suffering - for his part, the on-air reporter plays it pretty straight).   Oh, and having that reporter get arrested by the Israelis a few times was pure money for the network - it even devoted an episode of Behind the News to the subject.

Al-Jazeera is also adapting one of its best moves from the end of the Iraq war - after the fall of Baghdad, it started running every night in prime time its Minbar al-Jazeera program, which is a live, unfiltered call-in show.   That gave unprecedented voice to ordinary Arabs to argue and express themselves (see chapter five of my book for extensive details) at a time of extraordinary confusion and uncertainty about the future (the main host, Jumana al-Namour, told me that this was an extremely difficult show to run precisely because it was uncontrollable and unedited).   Al-Jazeera hasn't gone quite that far this time - it hasn't suspended its other programs - but it is featuring a regular program called Sawt al-Nas (Voice of the People) which features live phone calls from all over the Arab world.

This is interesting for several reasons.  First, it helps solidify its relationship with viewers, who highly value the participatory dimension.  Second, it's riveting television in its own way, because it's so unpredictable.  And third, it exemplifies al-Jazeera's core identity claim -   that it represents the authentic voice of the Arab public.   Note how in the screenshot above, the screen behind the host Fayruz al-Zayani is showing live coverage of a protest against the war.  True or not, the symbolism is powerful, especially at a time when its chief rival has evidently opted to be more of a voice of the Arab regimes (the Saudi regime in particular).

One last point.  Unfortunately, I haven't seen much follow-up on the one State Department guest I saw on an al-Jazeera program a few days ago... the Bush administration seems largely absent from the al-Jazeera universe, by its choice, much as it seems largely absent from the events themselves.   Right now, the prime time Behind the News program is focusing on Condoleeza Rice's statements about the conflict and debating American intentions and the risks of a wider war.  The guests are Azmi Bishara and Amr Hamzawy (a fine Egyptian writer currently based at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace).  I'm pretty sure that al-Jazeera asked for an American to come and discuss Rice's remarks, and didn't get one.  Whether Karen Hughes can't figure out the urgency of getting someone on this kind of program - arguing about American policy in front of far and away the largest possible Arab audience - or just doesn't have the clout to persuade anyone to do it, she should probably just quit on Monday.... this sort of thing defines "failure". 

Thought that those readers who don't get to watch al-Jazeera for themselves might find all this interesting. 

Comments

[Ghurab al-Bain]

Al-Jazeera always asks for US officials to go on the air with them, but except for the State Department's Near East Bureau, they rarely do. Of course, there is the usual cycle of recriminations about their bias; the fact that they are performing kind of as a "Al-Manar Lite" will not endear them to the Americans. Al-Arabiyya yesterday broadcast something, albeit briefly, that I never saw on AJ: a piece on the civilians of Marwaheen killed by the Israelis, with 23 coffins - many of them child size, and actually had footage of a bloodied child's corpse too.

[Expat Teacher]

Thanks. Don't get Al-Jazeera and found your breakdown very interesting.

[CaseyL]

Karen Hughes?

Good lord, is she even still running the US Department of Really Dimwitted Propaganda?

I haven't heard anything about her since the tour she took to explain to Arab women the earth-shattering philosophy "We all love our children." That one went over with a mighty thud, as I recall.

[Bruno Mota]

Dear AA, I don't expect you do requests, but if you can find the time can you post something on what Al-Manar (and the other Lebanese channels for that matter) is showing?

Thanks a lot for your blog. It has been really helpful in trying to make sense out this situation.

[Dirk]

I've often been struck by the cartoonish images of Israel on the Arab 'street' when visiting the Middle East - to the point where many people haven't even made the first step of accepting Israel as a fact of life. I wonder whether the era of Al Jazeera and satellite TV has, rather than opening minds, solidified existing prejudices.

[hummbumm]

Best coverage, i am not sure if they are on the air anymore. would be from LBC and other lebanese channels, Al Jazeera makes you feel that the suffering of the lebanese civilians are a prop shoehorned into their overarching narrative, rather than looking at the suffering purely for its own sake. Ama zing of course that more are dying in Iraq but as it has devolved into more of a sectarian conflict, those deaths are not as "valuable".
On another note, strange as it may be, I would have to agree with the official position of saudi etc.. Israel's response is disproportionate as it always is, BUT hHizbullah was engaged in adventurism, and did provoke this response, much to the chagrin of hte leb populace, though it is the Shia once again in leb who are suffering the brunt. I know a lot of people who have no qualms about having Haifa hit, but are rational enough to realize that creating potholes in haifa and a few casualties while suffering the total destruction of lebanon, is not quite how one declares victory. Unfortunately, Hizbullah and many others in the arab world, are perfectly happy to claim victory. reminds me of Arafat leaving beirut in 1982 donig his stupid V for victory signs. Let all the jordanians and egyptians who rally to hizbullah come to south lebanon and learn what war is like.

[TallDave]

Al Jazeera has been banned by Iraq's democratically elected government, one of the few governments in the region that doesn't massively restrict media, for inciting violence. That speaks volumes about Al Jazeera.

[jinnilyyah]

talldave, i think that is a horrible mistake. it feeds the urban legend (or maybe urban truth) that al-hurrah is the mouthpiece of the US.
al-jazheerha would make al-hurra more competitive.
suppressing them is anti-capitalistic.
just make it clear that passing targetting info is a punishible crime.

the father of advaarks has posted before on the incredible bumbling of the west in the meme-wars.

[Abu Sinan]

Al Jazeera has been banned, from time by time, by many countries in the Middle East. The fact that the "democratically elected" government in IRaq has banned them means very little.

Remember, this is the same country that allows sectarian militians to run whole sections of their security apparatus and run death squads from within it.

As an American with a Defense Department background, who also happens to speak Arabic, I find the Al-Jazeera converage to be much more accurate and in depth than any American news outlet, and maybe just a tad bit LESS biased. Most American news outlets are extremely pro Israeli so it would be hard to out do them.

As to al Manar, that isnt legally viewed in the USA since it banned by the US government. I used to enjoy watching it, it reminded me of an extremist Shi'ite version of FOX News, only with better looking presenters.

As Israel has been targeting even the Christian run, Saudi owned media in Lebanon, it is going to be hard to watch any Lebanese media here soon. But lets not make the mistake large portions of the US media are, assuming that because of person or group of people do not like or disapprove of Hizb'Allah actions that it actually means something. Lebanon is a very divided society, so if you ask a former Phalangist what he thinks of the situation you will get nothing representitive.

[hummbumm]

Abu Sinan, It does actually mean somethhing within lebanon, when the vast majority of non shiites and a minority of shiites are against Hizbullah's action as well as its raion d'etre. That is in fact a majority within the country. A majority is indeed significant. Lebanon is divided between the majority who just want to get on with life and not be a pawn in a regional game, and the rest (though of course support for Hizbullah is more complex than that which is why Israeli action is doomed to fail). Following your logic, one should not interview a democrat in the US because the US is a politically divided country and therefore that individual is not representative. Please!

[hosni]

Mark,
I was just wondering whether you could tell us whether the Arab media is saying that the Israeli soldiers were captured in Lebanon or Israel? I saw this article saying that there is a split in the Western media and was wondering whether the Arab media had a clear opinion:
http://www.antiwar.com/frank/?articleid=9401

[No Preference]

hummbumm, I have often disagreed with you in the past, but your posts here make a lot of sense.

[Iqbal Khaldun]

Thanks for the low down. Very useful. Current events have displayed so perfectly the Arab regimes' abject lack of an independent foreign policy.

[Abu Sinan]

An unpublished poll from Lebanon shows a majority of the public, even Christians, are behind Hizb'Allah.

Not the results Israel would want, I gather.

[Mohsen]

I agree with you AA that Al Jazeera seems to have a much larger audience than any other media outlet regarding the Israeli-Lebanse conflict , I'm living in the city of Tanta in Egypt's Delta ( North of cairo ) and i have noticed that the vast majority of Egyptians here in Tanta are following the events on Al Jazeera , Neither our Egyptian state-run TV.

[junglecitizen]

"Whether Karen Hughes can't figure out the urgency of getting someone on this kind of program ... or just doesn't have the clout to persuade anyone to do it, she should probably just quit on Monday.... this sort of thing defines 'failure'."

I think it's neither of those - it's option 3. They view Al Jazeera as part of 'The Enemy', and they are the sort of people who refuse to talk to their enemies. It's banned in Iraq for a reason, and that reason is not incitement to violence.

You have to remember that most of these guys' supporters view anything EXCEPT Fox TV in the US itself as anti-American propaganda. The government encourage this mindset in their statements; recently they threatened (in general terms) to prosecute journalists for not being sufficiently concious of "national security".

Their core support base - which is not small - routinely accuses the US mainstream media of being pro-terrorist, so who knows what they think of Al Jazeera. They probably equate it roughly with the voice of Satan.