During the lunch break at today's We Media conference, I discovered that the first post-prandial panel was going to be about media in the Middle East. I happened to be talking to a Persian-British woman journalist, who is half Jewish and half Muslim, at the time; when we discovered that the panelists were all male Arab journalists in their fifties, we looked at each other and rolled our eyes.
I immediately chased down the panel moderator and insisted that - hello?! - this female Jewish Israeli journalist who has a few years to go until menopause would like to talk about the very interesting conversation going on between Arab and Israeli bloggers right now, plus the rather striking difference between what Al Jazeera reports in Arabic and what it reports in English.
"Oh!" said the panelist, with a bright American smile and uncomprehending eyes, "Interesting! But, well, it might be a bit off topic. We'll try to get to you during the Q & A session."
Never fear, I didn't leave it at that. I made sure that the conference organisers knew about my desire to speak, and during the discussion I positioned myself in the first row, directly in front of the panel moderator, and I kept my eyes locked on him.
The panelists included Rami Khoury, the editor of the Lebanese Daily Star; Jihad Ali Ballout, Director of Al Arabiya's corporate communications; Saleh Ngem of BBC's Arabic service; and from Iraq by satellite Zuhair Al-Jezairy of Aswat Al Iraq.
None of them had heard of blogs. None of them was interested in the fact that Israeli, Palestinian, Jordanian, Egyptian, Lebanese and Saudi bloggers are writing and talking to and about each other and, linking to one another. None of them was interested to learn that quite a few of us are discovering that the Middle Eastern media is doing a pretty crappy job of getting beyond the cliches, the slogans and the dogma, and that we made that discovery through blogs.
Rami Khouri said that westerners have three main misperceptions about the Arab media:
1. The Arabic media deliberately incites anti-American sentiment, when in fact it is a mirror reflecting the society to which it broadcasts. The ideas and thoughts coming out of the Arabic mass media are often critical of israel, Arab regimes and America becaues that is what people are saying;
2. Al Jazeera is a mouthpiece for Bin Laden and terrorist groups because they put their tapes on air. Khouri said this was an unfair accusation. The tapes are newsworthy and any media organisation would broadcast;
3. Regarding accuracy, this is what Rami said (and I quote): "I've spent the last 5 or 6 years watching Arab, European and American mainstream cable and satellite television, and I'm prepared to bet a double felafal with hot sauce that content analysis will show Al Jazeera and Al Arabiya are more comprehensive, nuanced, accurate and balanced than any American station."
Even PBS? I wondered.
Okay, so after the panel had finished its (not very relevant, interesting or new, IMO) spiel, I got up and talked a bit about the Israeli and Arab blogospheres. None of the grumpy old men reacted. Not a one. I don't think they'd ever read a blog in their lives.
Then I told Rami Khoury that I have a friend who speaks fluent French, English, Arabic and Hebrew, and that he sent me the following comparative translations of the Arabic media's reporting about a suicide bombing in Hadera last October:
Al-Jazeera was definitely the most hard-line, calling
the bombing "'amaliyah fida'iya"(same root as
fedayeen)
meaning sacrificial operation, and they showed a photo
of the last Netanya attack using the even stronger
"'amaliyah istishadiya"- matyrdom operation.
Also they never once quote Israeli sources. Their
English page was a completely different story, calling
it "a blast" and a "human bombing"(what the fuck is
that supposed to mean?!).
Al-Arabiyya was, as usual, more objective, calling it
"hujum intihari" a suicidal attack. And they quoted
Israeli radio, Israeli TV and the Magen David Adom.
Elaph.com, a liberal on-line Lebanese daily called it
"'amaliyah tafjir" a bombing operation. and also
quoted numerous Israeli sources.
Rami looked a bit uncomfortable. Well, he said. Maybe that's what someone who called in to comment on the report said - not the actual reporter or news anchor.
No, I said politely, I don't think so. I'm pretty sure that's straight reporting I'm quoting.
Oh, said Rami. Well, Al Jazeera has changed a lot lately.
Um, this report is from five months ago, I answered. (still polite)
Well, said the moderator, Moving right along... (I'm kidding, that's not exactly what he said; but the subject was definitely changed).
Afterward, a BBC Arabic service reporter approached me, gave me his card, asked for mine and said he wanted to be in touch.
Then I went downstairs for a cigarette (sorry, Mum, I haven't quite given up yet) and met Rami leaving the building together with the American guy who'd moderated the panel.
The American guy and I smiled and shook hands. I put my hand out to Rami and, smiling, said, "It was a pleasure to meet you."
And for one horrifying split second I thought he was going to refuse to shake my hand. I saw the thought flash across his mind, I'm pretty sure. But then he reached out and grasped my outstretched hand, smiled briefly, and walked on.
And I was left feeling a strange combination of disatisfaction, bemusement, amusement, irritation and frustration.
|
|
||||
|
Login
On the Face in the News
Lebanese and Israelis blog
the war: edited by Michael Totten This Month
Month Archive
|
Thursday, May 4
A Middle East Without Persians or Jews? Strange concept...
by
Lisa Goldman
on Thu 04 May 2006 07:34 PM IDT
We Media Conference, Day Two
by
Lisa Goldman
on Thu 04 May 2006 01:42 PM IDT
 Day Two of the We Media Global Conference So here we are at the gorgeous new Reuters building in Canary Wharf. It's a world away from the BBC building in West London - and not just physically. The BBC seemed stodgy, adversarial toward bloggers and defensive. They seemed desperately anxious to be dynamic, modern and cutting edge, but painfully aware that something stops them from being so. They just couldn't figure out what it was. My impression was that they understand bloggers can't be ignored, but are more interested in undermining them with a smug, "we have the monopoly on the truth and we are professionals and you're not" attitude than seeking ways of cooperating with and learning from them. On the other hand, Reuters feels self confident and very dynamic. They seem far less afraid of changes in how the news is reported than the BBC - in fact, they seem quite open to the idea of a mutually cooperative relationship (this is just my initial observation/feeling; it might change over the course of the day). The fact that the BBC is government-funded and Reuters is a profit-oriented business forces me once again to face my ambivalence about capitalism versus (moderate, Scandinavian style) socialism. (more on that later, perhaps - again, it's difficult to formulate and articulate my thoughts while people are talking all around me). Interesting story about Reuters, which considers itself very objective: a lot of Israelis jokingly refer to it as "Al Reuters" (a play on Al Jazeera, which many Israelis think is hopelessly biased against "the Zionist entity"). On the other hand, I've heard Palestinian Reuters reporters complain that they were prevented by their editors from writing about the bereaved parents of suicide bombers in a way that showed the parents did not celebrate their child's death, did not support suicide bombings and did not think their dead child was a shaheed (martyr) who was on his way to paradise. What freaked me out a bit was that the Palestinian Reuters reporters who complained about being censored by their editors, insisted that some vaguely defined "Jewish lobby" in the USA had put pressure on Reuters to prevent them from "humanising" the suicide bombers. I just found that hard to believe, and of course the term "Jewish lobby" reeks of conspiracy theory. Unfortunately the Middle Eastern attitude toward conspiracy theories, even amongst intelligent, educated people, is too often a variation on "just because I'm paranoid, doesn't mean there's nobody out to get me." But my point is, Reuters is seen as lacking objectivity by both Palestinians and Israelis. On the other hand, Palestinian and Israeli Reuters reporters work together, in the same office in Jerusalem, sometimes covering the same stories. We GVO people (Rebecca, Salam, Eduardo, Neha, Rachel and me) left the first day of the conference feeling rather frustrated. (we drowned our irritation in a fabulous Indian meal accompanied by Cobra beer, plus excellent, stimulating conversation). Here's the thing: On the one hand I don't want to "dis" the Beeb because they did a nice job of hosting the conference yesterday and it's not nice to insult one's hosts. On the other hand, let's face it - the BBC has some non-altruistic reasons for hosting the conference. So I'm just gonna say it as I see it - with classic Israeli straightforwardness, tempered by the remaining shards of my Canadian politeness and reticence. The big issue here, the one that everyone's dancing around, is this: the MSM have recognised blogging for the phenomenon that it is and they want to figure out a way to harness it in order to make money. The thing is, bloggers aren't in it for the money - at least, the vast majority are not. (I know of only a few exceptions). A few months ago, Yael and I spoke about the blogging phenomenon to the faculty of communications at Ben Gurion University. After we'd given our spiel about how blogging was building communities and bridges, spreading information, providing nuance, correcting half-assed mainstream media reporting and so on, Ben Caspit came over to me and said, "I just don't get it." "What don't you get?" I asked. "I don't understand why anybody would invest time and effort in writing a blog for no money! Why do you do it?" I posted about the talk given by Tom Glocer, the CEO of Reuters at this morning's opening session, because I had to uphold part of the deal: We Media paid for me to attend this conference, and in exchange I wrote about part of it on the conference blog. But I'm really glad I had to listen to Tom's speech closely, because he had something important to say: the fact is that people in western democracies are voting in declining numbers, but on the other hand they do not trust the media (this according to a BBC poll done before the conference). It seems that the percentage of voters is declining because citizens do not feel that their vote translates into a voice. And perhaps blogging is a way of making one's voice heard - of forcing the politicians to hear. My question is, are they listening? And what does it say about the state of democracy in the western world if citizens are simultaneously mistrustful of the democratic process and skeptical about the willingness/ability of the media to provide truthful, in-depth and thoughtful reporting? And bloggers, why do you blog? Readers: your thoughts, please! |
The most blogged war: a retrospective
Recent Trackbacks
Search
|
||
