Al-Hurra under fire, again

Two major investigations into al-Hurra dropped yesterday, the first by CBS News/Pro Publica (airing on 60 Minutes) and the other by Craig Whitlock of the Washington Post (with part 2 slated for tomorrow).   Both delved nicely into the deep, structural problems with the station, making a number of points which I've raised over the last few years.  Both got some important and insightful people to speak on the record, and Pro Publica has posted some relevant documents on its website.   Since the Pro Publica site includes several links to Abu Aardvark, I suppose I should note that I did not get the chance to talk to them before they went to air.  Both pieces are far better than the witch-hunt led by the Wall Street Journal against Larry Register last year, though I thought Pro Publica fell into the trap of sensationalism by hyping some alleged anti-Israeli remarks that ran on al-Hurra recently - which might attract ratings while distracting from the bigger issues which they effectively raised.   I'm not going to get into the substantive issues they raise about the station's management (or lack thereof), content, or conception since I've said my piece on these issues many times and haven't got anything new to add.  Instead, I'll just recommend both for those interested in public diplomacy.   

I'm glad to see these issues get aired, and I hope that this will spark a serious debate over how to approach public diplomacy instead of another round of partisan warfare.   At the end of the day, the Post and Pro Publica focus attention on some big questions which remain unresolved:  Is the real problem conceptual or implementation and management?  Could something like al-Hurra have succeeded if done differently, or was it a missed opportunity?  What should al-Hurra be, a pseudo-independent news outlet or a mouthpiece for US foreign policy?  And should the station now be refurbished or should it be abandoned - particularly given half a billion dollars of sunk costs and the entry into the Arab TV arena of the British, Germans, Russians, and so many others?   It's important to have a serious debate about these kinds of questions, though this may have to wait for a new administration - either of which will no doubt take a new direction in the public diplomacy arena.   Maybe this even calls for a conference, or something....

Comments

[Solomon2]

Al-H's staff needs to shower more. It really turns people off. No, I'm not kidding. It's easier to write bad things about people who smell bad.

[john brown]

The below, while written several years ago, might be of interest to persons following the debate about Al Hurra.

http://www.unc.edu/depts/diplomat/item/2005/0406/brow/brown_ahu.html

[Ghurab al-Bain]

Strange to see the MSM come so late to an issue which had been explored quite well and argued by Abu Aardvark, Arabic language media and even the USG internally. But who will forget those heady days when Al-Hurra seemed to act like Michel Aoun TV, at the US taxpayers expense? Or marvel at the Al-Hurra Iraq staff made up exclusively of Islamists from Al-Da'wa and SCIRI? Or squirm to see Tomlinson and Pattiz at the Broadcasting Board of Governors defend imaginary ratings and broadcast decisions made in a language neither one understood? Too bad because there are some decent journalists still at Al-Hurra, who've always tried their best despite the circumstances.

[Ashraf al-Halabi]

Marc Lynch, Ambassador to Iraq?