Al Hubris

A little excerpt from an interesting story on a meeting of Arab satellite TV broadcasters:

Mouafac Harb, director of news at the US government-funded al-Hurra TV, said it was a myth that pan-Arab TV channels were free and independent.

“Pan-Arab media are mouthpieces of Arab governments… they are all linked, money-wise, to one or other Arab state,” he argued.

But Abdallah Schleifer, director of the Adham Centre for TV Journalism in Cairo, countered that relying on state funding did not need to impinge on the independence of pan-Arab channels.

The real test of editorial independence lay in whether the stations could act as a force to watch over their own governments and criticise them when necessary, delegates suggested.

And Egyptian broadcaster Mohamed Gohar joked that in Egypt “we have a full democracy – in criticising Bush and Sharon.”

Mr Harb said that when it came to deciding whether to screen footage of captives filmed by kidnappers, Arabic satellite channels had to ask themselves: “Are we being used by terrorists?”

It is not only the Arabic stations that show such images
But leading satellite channels al-Arabiya and al-Jazeera both insisted that editorial value was their first consideration with footage of hostages and killings.

In tapes from Osama Bin Ladin, for instance, “we have to avoid the rhetoric and take what’s of news value”, said Salah Negm of UAE-based channel Al-Arabiya.

Al-Jazeera’s Ahmad Sheikh denied the Qatar-based channel was helping “to create the myth of Bin Ladin”.

“Any news of Osama Bin Ladin is always covered in a news context – and we are not unique in reporting Bin Ladin’s pronouncements,” Mr Sheikh argued.

I find it hilarious that Al Hurra, a TV station specifically and explicitly founded to be a propaganda tool for the US in the Arab world, is giving morality lessons to the likes of Al Jazeera and Al Arabiya, which for all their faults have done more for free speech in the Arab world in the past decade than anything or anyone else. They have certainly done more than a third-rate station run by Maronite nuts like Al Hurra.

More on Safire

Salon’s Eric Boehlert has a good wrap-up of William Safire’s history of agit-prop, including a long section on Safire’s Likudist leanings:

Safire admitted to going easy and “pulling his punches” in a 1987 column about his old friend Bill Casey and the major role he played in Iran-Contra during the Reagan administration. (Safire ran Casey’s unsuccessful congressional campaign in New York in 1966.) Back in 1981, when Casey was director of the CIA, Safire allegedly called up Casey and urged him to allow Israel to have access to restricted satellite imagery. Casey caved, but was rebuffed by Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger.

Safire denied the charge he lobbied the CIA on Israel’s behalf, but he’s a fervent and unapologetic apologist for Israel, in particular for its right-wing Likud Party. “He’s been substantially to the right of the mainstream of the American Jewish community,” notes Juan Cole, professor of history at the University of Michigan. In a 1992 Playboy interview he revived a favorite dream of the Israeli right, the idea that Palestinians would somehow leave the West Bank and move to Jordan. “I consider myself pro-Palestinian,” Safire said. “I’d like to see them have a state. I think the state they should have is Jordan, which is mainly Palestinian.” Safire said that only King Hussein of Jordan stood in the way: “I think he’s an obstacle to peace.” Hussein was “an obstacle” because he had renounced all claim to the West Bank in 1988, leaving the so-called “Jordanian option” irredeemably dead — although not in Safire’s eyes or that of the Israeli right.

Safire’s passionate commitment to Israel has led to some serious reporting gaffes. As Alterman notes in “Sound and Fury,” when Israelis destroyed Iraq’s nuclear plant in 1981, Safire quoted “Baghdad’s official newspaper,” which allegedly insisted the targeted reactor was to be used against “the Zionist enemy.” In fact, the quote was manufactured by the Israeli Foreign Ministry. And in 1991 when a group of Israelis were murdered in Egypt, Safire wrote that the PLO “condoned last week’s slaughter,” when the Times itself had documented several instances that week of the PLO denouncing the attack.

More recently, Safire’s column has doubled as an open forum for Israel’s far-right Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. As the Israeli paper Haaretz noted this year, “Safire has an open phone line to Sharon and tends to interview him by giving him an open platform with virtually no interference.”

“One of Safire’s major accomplishments was to rehabilitate Sharon in the American political discourse after he was sent into the political wilderness,” says Cole. Sharon was disgraced after Israel’s Lebanese Christian Phalange allies methodically massacred hundreds of Palestinian civilians, including women and children, in the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps, following Israel’s 1982 invasion of Lebanon — an invasion masterminded by Sharon. An Israeli commission of inquiry found Sharon indirectly responsible for the slaughter and he was removed as defense minister.

Safire’s devotion to Israel may be one reason he turned on the first President Bush, who earned the wrath of Safire, Israel and the powerful pro-Israel lobby by threatening to hold up $10 billion in loan guarantees if Israel did not stop building settlements in the occupied territories. During a 1991 press conference Bush the elder famously complained he was just “one little guy” battling the “powerful political forces” of the Jewish lobby in Washington, D.C.

Whatever his reasons, Safire all but declared war on Bush in 1992, hyping the now-forgotten “Iraqgate” — “the first global political scandal,” as he breathlessly proclaimed it. Safire, along with ABC News’ “Nightline” and other journalists, charged that the Bush administration had secretly and illegally plotted to arm Iraq and then orchestrated a coverup. Safire dubbed it “an election year Watergate,” insisting, “Never before in the history of the Republic, in my opinion, has the nation’s chief law enforcement officer been in such flagrant and sustained violation of the law.” In a column titled “Is the Fix In?” Safire charged that President Clinton and Al Gore — who had made much of the Iraqgate charges during the campaign but stopped raising them after assuming office — had been paid off to shut up. “George Bush privately assured Bill Clinton that he would not criticize the new President during the first year of his term. … Mr. Bush has kept his word,” Safire wrote. “In what may be an unspoken quid pro quo, the Clinton Administration has moved to quash any revelations about Bush’s Iraqgate scandal. … No wonder we hear not a peep of criticism about Clinton from Bush; the former President and his men are being well-protected by Clinton’s appointees in Justice.”

Iraqgate vanished when a Clinton administration investigation found no evidence that the elder Bush had armed Saddam Hussein. (Of course, if you believe Safire was right and the fix was in, this doesn’t prove anything.) Writing in the American Lawyer two years later, Stuart Taylor methodically outlined how Safire’s reckless charges were completely bogus: “False. All of it.” (The Pulitzer Prize committee saved itself a repeat of the Lance embarrassment by not awarding Safire a prize for Iraqgate, even though there was industry speculation in 1992 that he might win.)

Safire admitted to going easy and “pulling his punches” in a 1987 column about his old friend Bill Casey and the major role he played in Iran-Contra during the Reagan administration. (Safire ran Casey’s unsuccessful congressional campaign in New York in 1966.) Back in 1981, when Casey was director of the CIA, Safire allegedly called up Casey and urged him to allow Israel to have access to restricted satellite imagery. Casey caved, but was rebuffed by Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger.

Safire denied the charge he lobbied the CIA on Israel’s behalf, but he’s a fervent and unapologetic apologist for Israel, in particular for its right-wing Likud Party. “He’s been substantially to the right of the mainstream of the American Jewish community,” notes Juan Cole, professor of history at the University of Michigan. In a 1992 Playboy interview he revived a favorite dream of the Israeli right, the idea that Palestinians would somehow leave the West Bank and move to Jordan. “I consider myself pro-Palestinian,” Safire said. “I’d like to see them have a state. I think the state they should have is Jordan, which is mainly Palestinian.” Safire said that only King Hussein of Jordan stood in the way: “I think he’s an obstacle to peace.” Hussein was “an obstacle” because he had renounced all claim to the West Bank in 1988, leaving the so-called “Jordanian option” irredeemably dead — although not in Safire’s eyes or that of the Israeli right.

Safire’s passionate commitment to Israel has led to some serious reporting gaffes. As Alterman notes in “Sound and Fury,” when Israelis destroyed Iraq’s nuclear plant in 1981, Safire quoted “Baghdad’s official newspaper,” which allegedly insisted the targeted reactor was to be used against “the Zionist enemy.” In fact, the quote was manufactured by the Israeli Foreign Ministry. And in 1991 when a group of Israelis were murdered in Egypt, Safire wrote that the PLO “condoned last week’s slaughter,” when the Times itself had documented several instances that week of the PLO denouncing the attack.

More recently, Safire’s column has doubled as an open forum for Israel’s far-right Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. As the Israeli paper Haaretz noted this year, “Safire has an open phone line to Sharon and tends to interview him by giving
him an open platform with virtually no interference.”

“One of Safire’s major accomplishments was to rehabilitate Sharon in the American political discourse after he was sent into the political wilderness,” says Cole. Sharon was disgraced after Israel’s Lebanese Christian Phalange allies methodically massacred hundreds of Palestinian civilians, including women and children, in the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps, following Israel’s 1982 invasion of Lebanon — an invasion masterminded by Sharon. An Israeli commission of inquiry found Sharon indirectly responsible for the slaughter and he was removed as defense minister.

Safire’s devotion to Israel may be one reason he turned on the first President Bush, who earned the wrath of Safire, Israel and the powerful pro-Israel lobby by threatening to hold up $10 billion in loan guarantees if Israel did not stop building settlements in the occupied territories. During a 1991 press conference Bush the elder famously complained he was just “one little guy” battling the “powerful political forces” of the Jewish lobby in Washington, D.C.

Whatever his reasons, Safire all but declared war on Bush in 1992, hyping the now-forgotten “Iraqgate” — “the first global political scandal,” as he breathlessly proclaimed it. Safire, along with ABC News’ “Nightline” and other journalists, charged that the Bush administration had secretly and illegally plotted to arm Iraq and then orchestrated a coverup. Safire dubbed it “an election year Watergate,” insisting, “Never before in the history of the Republic, in my opinion, has the nation’s chief law enforcement officer been in such flagrant and sustained violation of the law.” In a column titled “Is the Fix In?” Safire charged that President Clinton and Al Gore — who had made much of the Iraqgate charges during the campaign but stopped raising them after assuming office — had been paid off to shut up. “George Bush privately assured Bill Clinton that he would not criticize the new President during the first year of his term. … Mr. Bush has kept his word,” Safire wrote. “In what may be an unspoken quid pro quo, the Clinton Administration has moved to quash any revelations about Bush’s Iraqgate scandal. … No wonder we hear not a peep of criticism about Clinton from Bush; the former President and his men are being well-protected by Clinton’s appointees in Justice.”

Iraqgate vanished when a Clinton administration investigation found no evidence that the elder Bush had armed Saddam Hussein. (Of course, if you believe Safire was right and the fix was in, this doesn’t prove anything.) Writing in the American Lawyer two years later, Stuart Taylor methodically outlined how Safire’s reckless charges were completely bogus: “False. All of it.” (The Pulitzer Prize committee saved itself a repeat of the Lance embarrassment by not awarding Safire a prize for Iraqgate, even though there was industry speculation in 1992 that he might win.)

Bin Talal backs Murdoch

It would seem weird if an Arab prince and business would save Fox News from slipping from Rupert Murdoch’s hands, wouldn’t it? Well, that may very well happen:

The Australian Financial Review said Thursday that Prince Alaweed bin Talal, listed by Forbes as the world’s fourth-wealthiest individual, had thrown his support firmly behind Murdoch.

The prince owns about three percent of non-voting shares in News Corp. and offered to boost his stake if needed, the newspaper said in a report from New York.

“I have the utmost confidence in Mr Murdoch, his management team and his succession plan,” bin Talal said, as quoted by the Review, saying that Saudi companies would be willing to boost their stake to defend his position.

“If necessary, the kingdom companies and I will convert currently owned shares and purchase additional ones to increase ownership of voting shares in News Corp. in support of Mr Murdoch and his plans.”

The prince added that Murdoch’s sons Lachlan and James were qualified to run News Corp.

At least with Murdoch Bin Talal can be sure he can buy positive coverage…

So long Safire

In this dark, tenebrous world, a little piece of good news: the New York Times’ leading conservative editorialist, William Safire, is retiring. Over the past few years there has been nothing as consistently infuriating as a Safire column. There are many reasons for this — his dogged pursuit of a mythical Iraq-Al Qaeda meeting in Iraq, which he continued to refer to even after President Bush and the CIA denied it, or his insinuations against the UN in the oil-for-food scandal we admittedly still know too little about, or his professed love of the Kurdish people for no other reason, apparently, that they are against Arabs. True, he did not always support the conservative orthodoxy, and took progressive stands on stem cell research, privacy rights and media consolidation. It’s said his Sunday column, On Language, was learned and well-written, but I didn’t read it often enough to tell. He’ll be continuing that one every Sunday anyway.

But what I’ll remember him most for was his shocking hatred of Palestinians (who unlike the Kurds did not have a national cause worth worrying about, apparently) and tendency to write press releases straight from the office of the Prime Minister of Israel. Perhaps his old habits — he ran his own PR companies in the 60s before he joined the Nixon administration as spinmeister — die hard. Two particularly grating examples of Safire hackery are below:

A Chat With Sharon, October 21, 2002

He’s an unabashed admirer of this President Bush. “Thank
God, at this historic moment, the U.S. is leading the free
world toward liberation from fear of terror.”

And his unwavering confidence under sustained pressure
makes me an unabashed Arik Sharon admirer. “We go back many
years,” he says. “Call me more often.” I may just do that.

His schoolgirl crush on Ariel Sharon — surely one of the most grotesque and unsavory politicians in a region which has its shares of assholes — made me want to throw up at the time. This was a regular Safire shtick — phone calls to his old pal Arik — that befits Pravda or Tishreen (the appalling Syrian daily) more than the New York Times.

But there’s worse to come:

Sharon, Trusting Bush, May 26, 2003 (no link available)

Especially sticky is the claim of refugees to land fled from a half-century ago, which Arabs call a “right of return.” Palestinians want to kick hundreds of thousands of Jewish “settlers” out of a future Palestine while inserting an even greater number of Muslims into Israel. Jews find that a deal-breaker.

So-called “settlers,” is it? Safire takes the single issue that has done the most to propagate the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and tries to spin it into a Palestinian myth.

William Safire is a morally bankrupt hack when it comes to the Middle East. Good riddance.

CPJ on Iraq press freedom

From the Committee to Protect Journalists:

The Committee to Protect Journalists is deeply disturbed by a new directive from Iraqi authorities that warns news organizations to reflect the government’s positions in their reporting or face unspecified action.

The warning came in a statement released Thursday but dated November 9 by the government regulatory Media High Commission. The commission cited the 60-day state of emergency, declared when U.S.-led forces began their offensive in Fallujah this week, The Associated Press and Reuters reported. The state of emergency covers all of Iraq except the Kurdish north, giving the prime minister additional powers to quash the insurgency before elections in January.

Directing the news media to differentiate between “innocent citizens of Fallujah” and insurgents, the commission instructed journalists not to attach “patriotic descriptions to groups of killers and criminals,” according to the statement, obtained by CPJ. The statement also asked the media to “set aside space in your news coverage to make the position of the Iraqi government, which expresses the aspirations of most Iraqis, clear.”

“You must be precise and objective in handling news and information,” the statement said. “We hope you comply … otherwise we regret we will be forced to take all the legal measures to guarantee higher national interests,” it added.

“We are very troubled by this directive, which is an attempt to control news coverage through government coercion,” said CPJ Executive Director Ann Cooper. “It damages the government’s credibility in establishing a free and democratic society.”

In August, Iraqi authorities closed the Baghdad office of the satellite television channel Al-Jazeera and barred the Qatar-based station from newsgathering in Iraq after deeming its coverage to be against the Iraqi people and government. The government extended the ban indefinitely a month later.

Opposition writer roughed up

A prominent columnist for the Egyptian opposition weekly Al Arabi (an organ of the Nasserist party) was kidnapped by security services, taken to the desert outside Cairo, stripped and beaten. Abdel Halim Kandil, who is a prominent columnist writing in one of the most vocal anti-regime publication in Egypt, told: reporters of his ordeal today at the Press Syndicate:

Abdelhalim Kandil’s newspaper, the weekly al-Arabi, condemned the attack and said it suspected the government of being behind the assault and a wider campaign of intimidation.

Kandil said he was nabbed in his Cairo neighbourhood in the middle of the night as he was returning from the traditional meal taken by Muslims during Ramadan before fasting for the day.

He was gagged and blindfolded, beaten up and stripped before being dumped on the main motorway between Cairo and Suez, he said, adding that his attackers told him to “stop talking about important people”.

Although that story does not make it clear, I heard from a reporter who was at the press conference and it’s certain this was not just a random kidnapping but probably involved state security goons.And if that’s so, press freedom and democracy in general just took a nose-dive in Egypt. Kandil, who wrote inflammatory pieces about the regime his Al Arabi — making him one of the most-read writers in the country — was also a signotory to the recent petition asking Mubarak not to run again. This could be a signal to all journalists to quiet down as next year’s elections and presidential referendum approach.

Update: Here is another, better article on what happened.

“We want to elect the American president”

Syrian journalist Yassin Al-Haj Saleh says out loud what many Middle Easterners think: they would a say at who is going to be the next president of the US, since he is going to have such a hold over their lives.

We ought to take seriously the findings of a recent global opinion poll in 23 countries and consider joining the citizens of the world in electing the next American president. Making this proposition a reality should be very simple since it rests on a fundamental and democratic tenet: decisions taken by the resident of the White House affect the destiny of countries, peoples and individuals all over the world. In other words, the latter is the president of the world and it is only right for those who are at the receiving end of any authority’s decisions to express their opinion and participate in its election.

[…]

The decisions of Mr. Bush or Kerry will affect the future of my country as well as my own destiny as a member of the Syrian and Arab democratic opposition, and this will manifest itself most evidently in the next few months. I therefore see American policies as coming from the corner of power and hegemony rather than those of solidarity with the weak and in defense of the persecuted. I do not need to witness the daily killings of Palestinians to dismiss any illusions I might have concerning the American project in our region, for those who want to see justice in Iraq and Syria cannot at the same time lend support to a professional killer’s work in Palestine. That is why I see American policy in the “Middle East” (this terminology itself does not give due recognition to the peoples of this region) as being the other face of the Syrian ruling elite that does not recognize the right of the Syrian people to make up their own mind and decide on their own future. American policies in the area therefore are a mixture of dictatorship and cultural condescension, as was manifested in the Abu Ghraib prison scandal a few months ago.

It seems to me that to democratize the Middle East we need to liberate ourselves from not one but three authorities: autocratic power structures throughout the region; the authorities above the law, i.e. Israel; and the most overreaching authority of all, the United States of America. None of these authorities, as far as the “Middle East” is concerned, is genuinely democratic.

U.S. policies in the region always had a far greater impact on our destiny than the Americans ever dared to admit, and this impact is only second to that of the local ruling dictatorships that could always count on the support of the U.S. as long as they carried out their designs and fulfilled their every request. Today the latter wants to control us under the pretext of liberating us, and the former want to preserve their power under the pretext of standing steadfast in the face of external threats.

TV agit-prop

The Washington Times on Al Manar and Znet on Al Hurra: they could be talking about the same thing.

There has been a spate of stories on Al Hurra recently, none of them particularly enlightening. A few weeks ago I met one of their reporters who was coming through Cairo. That person told me that the atmosphere at Al Hurra was unbearable: most of the staff are Lebanese Maronites who come from the MBC channel in Lebanon, which was closed by the authorities for being critical of Syria. Many of them come from Aounist backgrounds, after General Michel Aoun who was one of the main and bloodiest warlords during the Lebanese civil war.

Apparently they have decided to take revenge and now devote a considerable portion of their time to attacking Syria, while other areas of the Arab world — North Africa for instance — are ignored. They also have a tendency to promote Arab and Arab-American reporters who have a history in Arab Christian activist movements, not only Maronite but Coptic too. More than one presenter of talk shows has also reportedly shown a slight obsession with minority-related issues: for instance a 90-minute interview with

If all this is true — and it has been confirmed elsewhere so I think it is — no wonder no one has confidence in this channel.

Two quick TV stories

As anyone who has lived in the Arab world during Ramadan knows, this is the time of the year when new TV series come out and families crowd around their TV set from sunset to the late evening, watching the latest on offer from Egypt, the Gulf and elsewhere. In Egypt, for instance, the big hit show so far is Abbas Al Abiad fil Youm Al Aswad (literally, Abbas the White in Dark Days), a story of mistaken identities in the context of the Gulf War (the 1991 one), which is quite good from what I’ve seen so far.

But the big TV event came before Ramadan, on the eve of the Taba bombings, when Egyptian TV viewers found their 10 national channels bereft of news about the bombings and continuing normal programming even as Al Jazeera provided continuous coverage of events. Tarek Atia — who, as well as writing for Al Ahram Weekly, runs one of the first blog-like Egyptian sites, cairolive.com — reported on what happened on the small screen:

“I couldn’t believe what I was seeing,” said Hossam El- Garahi, a stock exchange analyst. Having learned of the incident from the satellite channel, Al-Arabiya, El-Garahi kept flipping back to Egyptian TV, determined to find out more about what was going on in Taba. “All the channels had the regular stuff going on — a play here, a video clip there — it was like this thing wasn’t happening in Egypt.”

Millions of other people couldn’t believe their eyes as they watched their TV screens late Thursday night. It wasn’t just the horrific images emerging from Taba that astounded them, but the seeming oblivion to those events being demonstrated by their local channels.

On channel 1, a play continued without interruption. On channel 2, a video clip. Channel 3 was airing an interview, as was channel 4, and so on.

Finally, said a flustered and angry El-Garahi, a news ticker appeared that indicated that an explosion, which might have been caused by a gas leak, had occurred in Taba. “That useless ticker remained unchanged for the next several hours,” he said.

Viewers hungry for information relied more on channels like Al-Jazeera and Al-Arabiya (or CNN, as in El-Garahi’s case) that were basically blanketing their coverage with news from Taba, albeit with an annoying lack of new details. In fact, most of that first coverage was basically a continuous reel of an Israeli ambulance leaving the scene, and a wounded blond woman on a stretcher.

The other interesting story about TV comes from Jordan, with state TV there pulling a new serial about Afghanistan after threats from Islamists that they would take revenge if it showed the Taliban in a bad light. The same show has also apparently been pulled from Qatar, where it was produced.

Makram Ebeid’s Op-ed

Mona Makram Ebeid, a former Egyptian MP turned leading opposition figure, had penned a new editorial for the Daily Star. She reviews the unwillingness of her country’s ruling National Democratic Party (NDP) to move ahead with even limited political decompression. It’s all worthwhile, but I am a big taken aback by the following paragraph:

Among those who expressed their most vociferous criticism were individuals seeking to establish new political parties. During its 23-year existence, the governmental Parties Committee has systematically refused all requests submitted to it (except one) to legalize parties. All other legalized parties since 1990 owe their existence to the State Council, which though bounded by a restrictive law, has tended to interpret it more broadly than the Parties Committee, which remains a mere puppet in the hands of the executive branch. Most significantly, one party, Hizb al-Ghad (The Party of Tomorrow), whose guiding principles are liberty, democracy and respect for fundamental freedoms and the rule of law, has watched its appeal to be licensed, which it lodged with the State Council, adjourned for the third time. The irony is that the adjournment coincided with the ringing call by the NDP to widen political participation!

The part that’s highlighted above about the Hizb Al-Ghad struck me because at no point does Makram Ebeid tell us that she is a leader of that party, and nor does her biographical information at the bottom of the editorial. I’m all for attacking the NDP, but the Daily Star should know better than to provide her a platform for her own political propaganda without saying who she is. Indeed, that might be a better way to promote her party.