UNREALITY TELEVISION
Bin Laden's Private TV Channel
Westerners who praise al Jazeera have bought a bill of goods.
BY AMIR TAHERI
Friday, December 28, 2001 12:01 a.m. EST
"All that noise from this matchbox?" quipped Egypt's President Hosni Mubarak as he toured al Jazeera's TV station near Qatar's capital, Doha, a year ago. The Qatari network, owned by the Gulf state's ruler, Sheik Hamad bin Al-Thani, became known to the West soon after Sept. 11 as the mouthpiece of Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda terrorists. That view was reinforced further this week as yet another bin Laden tape got its first airing on the network.
The reason often given for al Jazeera's success is that it can criticize Arab leaders where other stations cannot, and that it is the only place where Arabs, and Muslims in general, can freely debate all issues. This is what many in the Western media have come to believe. Thomas Friedman of the New York Times called it a "flower" of democratic stirrings after he too toured the station back in February. But how true is this? A deeper look makes clear that al Jazeera does more damage to democratic debate than many of the drab Arab channels it's been taking viewers from since its creation in 1996.
Let us go back to Mr. Mubarak. By the time he dropped by for a visit, he had long ceased to be the butt of attacks by the Qatari channel. Previously, Qatar and Egypt had quarreled for almost three years over allegations that Cairo had backed a coup attempt in Doha in favor of the deposed emir, Sheik Khalifah Ben Hamad al-Thani. While that quarrel lasted, al Jazeera gave Mr. Mubarak no quarter. But once it ended, the Egyptian leader was put back on a pedestal.
The channel respects other "no-go areas." Saudi Arabia is always mentioned with deference, while Qatar's domestic affairs are either ignored or presented in a rosy light. Syria was criticized only once, in June this year, and then ever so gently. It still led to the expulsion of al Jazeera's correspondent from Damascus. Indeed, the only two Arab countries to be systematically criticized are Algeria and Kuwait, the first because it has fought Islamist terrorists and the second, presumably, for its refusal to be swallowed by Iraq.
The secret of al Jazeera's undoubted success, however, lies not in its craven approach to Arab leaders, but elsewhere. It tells Arabs what they already think the mythical "Arab street" feels. It assumes that radical Islamism is on the rise in all Arab countries and that it's secretly supported by the majority. This is why al Jazeera talk shows, the backbone of its programming, favor radical Islamists. The situation also takes for granted that the average Arab is deeply anti-West and especially anti-American. The channel creates the impression that the West, and the U.S. in particular, are behind all of the Arabs' woes, including the presence of incompetent and corrupt regimes.
Given its large audience throughout the Arab world (it claims to have 10 million viewers), its presentation of events can sometimes become self-fulfilling prophesies. On the Islamist issue, of 35 frequently invited guests on talk shows, no fewer than 30 are linked with radical Islamist organizations. Between 1996 and 2000, Hassan al-Turabi, a Sudanese former associate of Osama bin Laden who is regarded as the godfather of Arab Islamism, appeared on al Jazeera 73 times, an all-time record. It should hardly be surprising then that a dozen of al Jazeera's most frequent guests, including the Jordanian Abu Qattadah and the Egyptian Yasser al-Sirri, are now in prison in Europe for alleged links with al Qaeda.
Al Jazeera, as the latest tape suggests, also acts as bin Laden's private TV channel. It even broadcast a documentary of the terrorist's son's wedding. The station also runs documentaries that present such terrorists as Ayman al-Zawahiri and Abu-Hofs al-Mauritani as heroes of Islam. Such programs are rerun beyond whatever journalistic interest they might hold.
The impression created is that not only do Islamists dominate Arab politics, but also that they are the only ones with a credible program of reform in societies that badly need change. The slogan "Islam is the solution" is often heard on al Jazeera. The result is that all political issues are transformed into theological ones, persuading viewers that only by becoming "more Islamic" would society escape poverty, tyranny and corruption.
Suppose the topic of discussion is the desperate shortage of housing in Cairo or Algiers, or the lack of jobs for millions of young Arabs. The typical al Jazeera talk show mentions the topic and then swings into an almost pathological exercise in nostalgia about the golden age of Islam when everyone had jobs and houses. In a weird Islamic version of Jerry Springer, al Jazeera shows often end as shouting matches, with some guests walking out for dramatic effect.
Yet the truth is that Islamists represent a small, though vocal, minority in most Arab societies. In many Arab countries, a new urban middle class has taken shape and is looking for an alternative to both the theo-paranoia of the Islamists and the corrupt lethargy of the ruling cliques. Al Jazeera never offers this new middle class a chance to express itself. It fails to give a tribune to the rich diversity of opinion in the Arab world. The democratic left, the democratic right and the moderate center are never represented on al Jazeera.
It may or may not be its intention, but by Islamicizing all issues, al Jazeera plays the game of the ruling cliques, who have their own reasons to fear normal politics. Key issues such as economic development, privatization, educational reform and the eradication of corruption are never discussed in political terms. Nor does al Jazeera look into such issues as the absence of free elections throughout the Arab world, the status of women in Islamic societies, or the emergence of growing numbers of "street children" in many Arab capitals.
Saddam Hussein's brutal regime is never criticized. On the contrary, his conflict with the United Nations over sanctions and arms inspection is presented as "America's War Against Iraq." Needless to say, Saddam's opponents are never given a chance to express their views.
Al Jazeera's assumptions about the Arab "street" find their most dramatic application in the case of the Arab-Israeli conflict. The channel has tried to transform a conflict that is mainly about land and statehood into a duel between Islam and the Judeo-Christian world. Israel is routinely referred to as "the Zionist enemy" and vilified as "the occupier," even by TV presenters. Al Jazeera viewers could easily form the impression that the Palestinians are more truly represented by Hamas and Islamic Jihad than by Yasser Arafat's beleaguered authority.
Al Jazeera managers point out that several Western and Israeli leaders, including Tony Blair, Colin Powell, Shimon Peres and Ehud Barak, have been among its guests. But by "presenting the other side," it further drives the point that there is a conflict between Islam and the Judeo-Christian world. Muslims who support a negotiated peace with Israel are never invited, nor are those who supported the U.S. action in Afghanistan.
In the early stages of the war against terrorism in Afghanistan, al Jazeera became the source of many exclusives on al Qaeda, including tape-recorded messages by bin Laden and his associates. Its "scoops" were not always accurate. It was al Jazeera, for example, that broadcast claims that the Taliban had captured American soldiers, and that a U.S. plane had been shot down near Kabul. Several reports of villages being pulverized by American bombs were also proved false.
Clearly, al Jazeera had hoped that the war would be long--"another Vietnam" was the phrase used--and that its special relationship with the bin Laden gang would continue to enhance its position as a prime source of news. That, however, did not happen.
The Arab world needs an independent and professional satellite news channel. It has the intellectual resources to conduct a serious political debate on all aspects of its life and the Arab world's relationship with the rest of the world. The state-owned channels that are frozen by a pathological fear of politics exclude such a debate. Al Jazeera does not fit the bill either because it aims at arousing passions rather than encouraging a rational approach to politics. The solution will have to come from truly private TV stations that compete by offering true democratic debate.
opinionjournal.com |
