blogging the 4th Arab Media Forum in Dubai
The first plenary session dealt with journalistic credibility in the Arab world, and no surprises there: the panel was unanimous in condemning the state of credibility of the Arab media. We can go back to sleep now… especially that no resolutions were put forth on how to deal with this situation.
That didn’t stop Mohammed Jassim Al-Saqer (ex-managing editor of the Kuwaiti Al-Siyasah Al-Qabas newspaper) from ripping the media an old hole where he ranted about national TV channels overriding love with spending inordinate amounts of money and time in glorifying a country’s leaders rather than seeking to display and discuss the news. He also told us that western journalists take more pains investigating the story than their counterparts in the Arab world. For instance a western journalist (he didn’t specify who) has been calling him for more than 3 weeks trying to get the facts surrounding the Iraqis imprisoned in Kuwait for their attempt to murder George Bush Sr. While he says that Arab “investigative journalist” would finish his story in a couple of hours!
Abdulrahman Al-Rashed (Al-Arabiya’s GM) was more moderate in his criticism and suggested – in effect – that there are more than 200 television channels in the Arab world and it is easy enough for a viewer to just switch over to any of those channels rather than the national channels; moreover, if the viewer is multilingual, that choice is increased exponentially.
The real good thing about this session however was from the floor, where Dr. Sa’ad bin Tiflah Al-Ajmi – the ex-minister of information and academic in Kuwait – where he suggested that in order to increase credibility of the Arab media, a higher board or council or society should be established where journalists are only inducted within it when a journalist’s credibility is assured, and more importantly it should have some disciplinary teeth in order to ensure that journalists are taken to task by their own.
Another point he raised was that the majority of media-personnel are more concerned with making money (he didn’t use the term “mercenary” but he certainly implied it!) For this point specifically he was attacked by just about every person on the panel! That to me sounds like he put his finger directly on the wound.
No one during the session talked about the credibility of electronic media, although on the panel was the founder and chairman of Elaf, the Arabic news site. No one that is other than the dean of Arab journalists and the person who officially opened the forum Mr. Ghassan Twaini (editor in chief of Al Nahar newspaper), who has come out during question time very strongly for websites and described them as “complimentary elements” to the printed press, rather than what they are traditionally regarded as errant competitive nuisances.
Comments
What can I say, your blog was the first commentary on the Forum – beating the traditional media who will not be reporting on the event until the late evening news, at best. Only supports the points that were made during the blogging workshop 🙂
Very true!
You mean all those stories in the Arab press about Americans harvesting organs from Iraqis are not true?
Maybe the journalists are not the ones at fault but the consumers. After all, the journalists are only serving their constituencies. They don’t get paid unless they serve their constituents what they want. For the most part, what those constituents want is not the truth, but stories which support their prejudices.
Steve
Mahmood,
Was/Is this event being filmed? Id like to see clips from it. Certainly, if people are giving talks, I would think it would be filmed. I hope you are taking pictures!
I support this endeavour. However I dont want conference to become a preaching-to-the-choir event. Perhaps the journalists can come up with more implementable solutions…
…perhaps you can suggest what I has said earlier about being a hard-core freedom-of-speech fanatic, since all other rights will derive from there! 🙂
To all:
Maybe the journalists are not the ones at fault but the consumers. After all, the journalists are only serving their constituencies.
People, this is flawed reasoning on Steve’s part. Steve is attempting to apply free market principles (the market is consumer driven, supply and demand), to countries that are predominantly dictatorships, or authoritarian. It seems Steve does not realise that in such cases, the only “constituents” to please, are the police.
But this is typical of Steve’s attitude of simply blaming (he prefers “hold responsible”) a vague collective whole, rather than look through the details.
-Ibn
Ibn,
That’s why I used “constituents” rather than “customers.” The constituency served by most Arab journalists is their government. In other places, like Egypt, many journalists also serve some very nasty political parties. These are the journalists constituencies.
These constituencies favor highly partisan versions of events and tend to shift the blame for their own failings to outsiders, especially the US. They also favor appeals to the prejudices and Islamic bigotry of their readers.
You see, Ibn, had I meant “free market” I would have written “free market.” That’s why I wrote “constituent” instead of “customer.” The words I use are valuable clues to understanding what I am writing. For example, if I write “white” it means “white,” not black nor orange nor chartreuse.
The only flawed reasoning evident here is your continued practice of distorting my positions into something else with specious logic, rather than responding to what I actually wrote. But then, erecting scarecrow arguments to beat up on is so much easier than actually thinking about what other people say and making an intelligent rebuttal, isn’t it?
Steve
Steve said:
That’s why I used “constituents†rather than “customers.†The constituency served by most Arab journalists is their government. In other places, like Egypt, many journalists also serve some very nasty political parties. These are the journalists constituencies.
These constituencies favor highly partisan versions of events and tend to shift the blame for their own failings to outsiders, especially the US. They also favor appeals to the prejudices and Islamic bigotry of their readers.
Agreed.
BUT:
Maybe the journalists are not the ones at fault but the consumers
A consumer is ANYONE who takes in a journalist’s publications. A reader who buys their papers, a reader who subscribes to their e-journals, a listener who listens to their punditry. ANYONE.
In a free-market, such consumers CAN be blamed, because they actively support those kinds of journalists. In an authoritarian regime, consumers CANNOT be blamed, since they have no other choice BUT to support those kinds of journalists.
Example: When I was in the Middle East, I too was a “consumer” of those journalists. Thus the statement “Maybe the journalists are not the ones at fault but the consumers” places “fault” SQUARELY on ME, and others in similar predicaments. If Steve is going to fault people starting with ME by virtue of us being unwitting “consumers” of journalists, then let us hear the charges.
In a free market, “consumers” are implied to be WILLING participants, and thus are fair game for fault, and blame.
In predominantly authoritarian regimes, the “consumers” are implied to be UN-WILLING participants, and thus CANNOT be blamed or placed at fault.
The entire CONCEPT behind an authoritarian regime is to make the ENTIRE population a “consumer” of propaganda. The regime wants them to “consume” false information. So how in the HELL is blame going to be placed on them?
Yet ANOTHER rift between what Steve means, (first quote), and what Steve says, (bottom quote).
-Ibn
Ibn;
In predominantly authoritarian regimes, the “consumers†are implied to be UN-WILLING participants, and thus CANNOT be blamed or placed at fault.
Eh, are people forced to purchase those newspapers or watch those programs by those authoritarian regimes?
Al-sager was – in an owning sense still is- of Al-Qabas.
Ibn: “A consumer is ANYONE who takes in a journalist’s publications. A reader who buys their papers, a reader who subscribes to their e-journals, a listener who listens to their punditry. ANYONE.”
That’s your definition, not mine. I used consumer to include the organizations (government and political parties) which pay the journalists (ie are the primary consumers of their product) and their client media audience.
Ibn: In a free-market, such consumers CAN be blamed, because they actively support those kinds of journalists. In an authoritarian regime, consumers CANNOT be blamed, since they have no other choice BUT to support those kinds of journalists.
Once again, you are building a scarecrow argument to beat up on. You have redefined my use of “consumer” to your preference and then are debating this phantom argument of your own creation. It’s a pretty dishonest tactic.
Ibn: “In a free market, “consumers†are implied to be WILLING participants, and thus are fair game for fault, and blame. In predominantly authoritarian regimes, the “consumers†are implied to be UN-WILLING participants, and thus CANNOT be blamed or placed at fault. The entire CONCEPT behind an authoritarian regime is to make the ENTIRE population a “consumer†of propaganda. The regime wants them to “consume†false information. So how in the HELL is blame going to be placed on them?”
If propaganda papers have no credibility, they would remain untouched in their stands. If propaganda broadcasts had no credibility, they would have no viewers. That is not true in the Middle East.
In the old Soviet Union, the newspaper Pravda (“Truth”) had no credibility. The ordinary Russky did not believe a thing in it. For news, they tuned in Radio Free Europe and created an underground samizdat press.
Such is not the case in the Middle East, where people uncritically accept the propaganda news and TV. They are not tuning in to other sources to discover unbiased news nor creating an underground press to counter the official press. They readily believe the media when it tells them that Western women marry dogs and donkeys, that most Danish women have no idea who the fathers of their babies are, that the US has created dinosaurs to eat Muslims, that Mossad planted the bombs that blew up Sharm al Sheikh. Such propaganda suits their biases and bigotry.
Ibn: “Yet ANOTHER rift between what Steve means, (first quote), and what Steve says, (bottom quote).”
The only rift here is between your ears.
Steve
Thanks for the correction!, I’ve fixed that now, and neatly demonstrated that credibility is an assured quality of blogs due to peer review, exactly as has happened here.
Thank you again.