Archive for media
Al Jazeera and the Lebanese elections: a missed opportunity
I’m still wondering why at 10,30 pm Lebanon time, when the entire world (OK, maybe not the entire world but the entire Arab world) was following the only true competitive elections in the entire Region, Al Jazeera was broadcasting Sheikh Qaradawi’s programme Sharia wal hayat, an episode focused on cinema and Islamic religion, i.e. what’s “haram” and “halal” in art. The topic sounded more than surrealistic, while all the Lebanese parties (including the Islamic one, Hezbollah, which is one of the best in the Region in terms of media strategy, they produce everything, from TV to radio to films to videogames) were pretty much involved in showing the first projections on the results, hosting talk shows, debating on the Internet. Sharia wal hayat is one of the flagship programmes in Al Jazeera schedule and Qaradawi is more than a Sheikh, he is an institution, probably untouchable, but I am sure this is not the only reason for having this weak coverage of Lebanese elections. Even during the day -the election day, yesterday sunday 7th of June- while Al Arabiya was hosting talk shows featuring Lebanese and non-Lebanese writers, journalists, political analysts, Al Jazeera was giving very few airtime to the elections, being much more focused on issues like Iran’s upcoming elections and Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu.
Al Jazeera almost ignored the fact that Lebanon was about to vote in what was considered an historical elections, despite the fact that the channel bureau in Beirut is one of the best the network has, being his manager Ghassan Bin Jeddu one of the most prominent journalist of the station. Moreover, during the 2006 Israeli war on Lebanon Al Jazeera provided an excellent and extensive choice. It’s clear that not to cover the Lebanon 2009 elections has been a choice, not a mistake for the most famous Arabic all news channel. So why Al Jazeera has not covered the elections properly? Wasn’t this election “breaking news” as it should have been? Were there yesterday other more relevant breaking news to be followed?
I don’t have the answer to these questions, unfortunately. But of course Lebanon was a breaking news, in journalistic terms, and particularly for an Arab media it should have been so. Al Jazeera’s competitor, Al Arabiya, has devoted much more airtime to the electoral marathon, during all the election day and even today.
Too easy to say that Al Jazeera -closer to Hezbollah’s position- and Al Arabiya -closer to the Hariri family’s position, an historical ally of Saudi Arabia (which controls Al Arabiya and all the MBC group) were playing their Lebanese allies’ interest. In this case, Al Jazeera should have known before the results of the elections and devoted less airspace to the story, just cause it knew before that Hezbollah was going not to win? I don’t trust conspiracy theories. I just think that, as my colleague and Arab media analyst Augusto Valeriani suggested yesterday, “Al Jazeera has some difficulties in finding a new role in the post-Bush world”. It was much more easier to have an enemy to blame being able to mobilise the people around this common enemy.
Obama is not Bush and Al Jazeera knows it. We will be all waiting to see this new, post-Bush Al Jazeera and its upcoming editorial choice.
Al Jazeera in the past few years has given its best by reporting conflicts and wars like the Lebanese one in 2006 and the Gaza attack of 2008, not to go too far in time. The Lebanon war coverage, for example, was great and very professional and yesterday I wish I could have seen the same professional journalists Al Jazeera has got in Lebanon reporting not a war, but a peaceful election, at least once.
Being used to watch Sayyed Nasrallah‘s speeches in a great Arabic language on Al Jazeera I was indeed surprised to have seen that both Al Jazeera and Al Arabiya, despite broadcasting Sayyed’s speech tonight, were interrupting it and not broadacasting it entirely. I understand why Al Arabiya has done so but, again, it’s very hard for me to understand why Al Jazeera, which has always supported Sayyed, has now changed its view. Even worst, if we consider that Nasrallah‘s speech tonight was an exercise of diplomacy, not a call out to war. @mikewhillis wrote the best Twitter on this: “Nasrallah’s speech sounds like it could’ve been written by Obama‘s staff. It puts M14 in a tough position”. True. Nasrallah said: we acknowledge their victory with democratic spirit. Mabrouk, ya Sayyed, very clever.
It”s easier when you have a common enemy or a war to mobilise your audience at…what will be the future of Al Jazeera in the post-Bush, new Obama era? I hope to see a new Al Jazeera soon, at the forefront of news reporting as we’ve always seen.
War on words. Arab media on Obama’s speech in Cairo..and the winner is: Twitter!
Just finished a couple of hours marathon split between TV and computer screen to follow Obama‘s first live speech addressed to the Muslim world from a Muslim-majority country, Egypt. I’ve tried to follow the speech live on the Internet, through the WhiteHouse’s YouTube channel , following at the same time reactions on Al Jazeera and Al Arabiya.
Of course the two most important Arab media have a very different view on President Obama‘s words, even if it’s not always through words that they express this view. Take Al Jazeera for example: since the very end of Obama’s talk in Cairo has started broadcasting two different feature stories. First one is what’s now happening in Qalqiliya. While Obama was mentioning Palestine and Israel and the right of both to leave in peace and have each one its own state, the reality of Palestine is that Palestinians are killing each others in internal fights. Al Jazeera did not say openly that this internal fights are US (and Europe)’s fault, cause they have never recognised Hamas‘ right to govern Palestine after they won the elections. But the mere fact of showing the images of what’s happening in Palestine, right after Obama spoke of Palestine and peace, is eloquent and doesnt’ need more words to be said. Also right now, in the news bullettin, Al Jazeera is presenting as headline news Obama’s speech in Cairo as first, and Qalqiliya as second. Do we need more words than those justaxposed images to understand what Al Jazeera thinks about Obama?
On the other hand, Al Arabiya. They have a very different tone from Al Jazeera, quiet and very analytic. However, all the analysis are positive. The sheikh who spoke from Saudi Arabia was very optimistic and labelled Obama’s language as “new language” (at the same time, an Egyptian guest on Al Jazeera was saying exactly the contrary: “same old language” used by Bush, words like “civilization”). Generally speaking, even after Obama’s speech was over, Al Arabiya went on (and it’s still going on) with analysis, collecting different views, etc. Do you remember who was the first Arab channel to get an interview with President Obama? Well, that’s the answer to Al Arabiya’s coverage of today.
Obama mentioned many points in his speech, but which ones are picked up by Al Jazeera and Al Arabiya, even if with different angles? Number one, the Palestinian issue. Reasonable. Without finding a solution to this, the other points are useless for the Arabs. Number two, religious tolerance and minorities. Number three, women issue. Somebody on Al Jazeera also remarked the importance of the educational point mentioned by Obama. Good. But who between them would have stayed a bit more on democracy in the Arab world? Obama mentioned the need to open to democracy, not through wars -but not even with internal coercion-. He was not that bold and didnt’ give the names, but -guess what- this is a whole chapter rather than a simple point for Arab media to open the discussion. I am hoping that at least Faysal Qassem will pick up this point and make a whole episode on this! If not him, then who?!
While zapping in between Al Jazeera and Al Arabiya during Obama’s speech and trying to pick up the nuances in their coverage, I had hundreds of Tweets pulling out from my computer screen. Including people watching the speech from Israel, giving their opinions, translating things from Hebrew. Twitters written by Elizrael were very helpful. Neither Al Jazeera nor Arabiya were ready to pick up this energy and different views coming from Twitter live. Projects like Meedan of live translation Arabic-English and viceversa were helping. People were helping to understand, through Global Voices community. An incredible compilation of information, discussions, live translation, different opinions.
Obama spoke, Al Jazeera and Al Arabiya listened. Twitter (and the Internet) won.
Speaking about Al Jazeera and the eternal controversy on the channel..
..here you are a link to the Global Voices online, talking about some Moroccans praising Al Jazeera for having hosted , during an episode of Ahmad Mansour‘s “Shahidun ala Asser”, an interview with former political prisoner Ahmad el Marzouki speaking about secret prisons in Morocco…have a look: http://allal-cinemagoer.blogspot.com/2009/04/powerful-image-through-al-jazeera.html
Arab Media at the European Parliament in Brussels
For those of you who are in Brussels or not too far, here you are some info about the conference organised by PSE at the European Parliament to be held next 29 april. I am going to moderate the first session, starting at 4pm, with Al Jazeera, Mbc, American University of Cairo‘s keynotes. At the end of the session, I will also deliver a speech about the Internet and current web 2.0 situation in the Arab world.
Second panel is starting at 5.45 pm till7.15 and will be moderated by Beatrice Patrie, member of the PSE, featuring speeches of Deutsche Welle’s Dirk Beusch, BBC Arabic‘s Ahmad Kamel, Anna Lindht Foundation‘s Andreu Claret. Thomas McGrath from European Commission will also join the panel.
At the end of the debate, from 7.30 pm till 8.30 pm, there will be a TV screening of some Arab Tv programmes that I had selected for the festival “Occidente dai media arabi” held in Rome last january 2008.
There are lots of interesting TV materials, including musalsalat, everything subtitled in english.
The event is open to everybody, so pls circulate.
In room ASP, A3G3, European Parliament, Brussels.
Jasad, il sesso patinato sbarca nel mondo arabo
Ripubblichiamo l’articolo di Lorenzo Trombetta apparso su Limes che parla dell’interessante caso di Jasad, una rivista libanese piuttosto particolare…
Erotismo: Jasad, una rivista contro l’oscurantismo
di Lorenzo Trombetta
Il secondo numero del discusso trimestrale ‘Corpo’ è diffuso in tutto il mondo arabo ma nasce in Libano, paese in cui si gode maggior libertà di altri della regione. Una libertà però limitata. —–
Basta guardare la copertina per capire che non si tratta della solita rivista patinata araba: le scritte sono sì in arabo, ma la foto – una foto decorata di due mani di donna che coprono il pube, visibile l’ombelico – contrasta con l’idea di “oscurantismo” che in Europa e Nordamerica si ha del mondo arabo-islamico. Si chiama ‘Jasad’ (“corpo” in arabo) e si autodefinisce come “rivista culturale periodica specializzata nella letteratura, le scienze e le arti del corpo”. A sfogliarla si è sorpresi nel vedere tante riproduzioni di stampe e foto di nudi, falli delle più disparate fogge, seni e pubi femminili. A leggere l’indice del secondo numero (marzo 2009) si capisce il motivo del perché di tanti glandi patinati: il “dossier erotico” del volume (in tutto quasi 200 pagine) è proprio dedicato al pene, inquadrato da vari punti di vista descritti nei numerosi articoli di intellettuali, giornalisti, studiosi arabi. “I collaboratori sono tutti arabi e non devono firmarsi con pseudonimi. Queste sono le condizioni per scrivere su Jasad”, spiega Joumana Haddad, fondatrice, editrice, direttrice, grafica e redattrice unica della rivista apparsa per la prima volta nelle edicole libanesi lo scorso dicembre. Poetessa da quando aveva 12 anni, autrice della raccolta poetica in italiano ‘Adrenalina’ (Leone, Roma, 2009), la Haddad ha al suo attivo già sei libri di poesia tradotti in numerose lingue. Ha tradotto in arabo Cesare Pavese e sta lavorando alla compilazione di un’antologia, sempre in arabo, dei poeti italiani contemporanei. Giornalista, responsabile delle pagine culturali del principale quotidiano libanese an-Nahar, la trentottenne creatrice di Jasad ha due lauree, un dottorato in corso sul Marchese De Sade, e conosce arabo, francese, inglese, armeno, italiano (da autodidatta), tedesco e spagnolo. La sua rivista, tutta in arabo, è una scommessa: “Avrei potuto scegliere di farla in francese, ma ciò che è accettabile nelle lingue europee non lo è in arabo. La scommessa – afferma la Haddad – è proprio quella di far riscoprire l’antica eredità di questa lingua, usata in passato per scrivere testi che oggi farebbero arrossire il pubblico più smaliziato”. Diffusa con 4.000 copie (il primo numero, 3.000 esemplari, si è esaurito in 10 giorni), Jasad è venduta nelle edicole e nelle librerie libanesi come le altre riviste di “contenuto esplicito” (in una busta che cela l’immagine della copertina), e ha già molti abbonati nel mondo arabo e persino nella conservatrice Arabia Saudita. “Sono donne e uomini sauditi. La rivista è vietata nel Regno, ma la spediamo agli abbonati per corriere internazionale e i nostri lettori sono pronti a rischiare di esser segnalati alle autorità pur di saperne di più su temi cari a tutti”. Il “dossier erotico” del primo numero era sul “feticismo del piede”, mentre quello “sociale” affrontava il tema dell’omosessualità, tema considerato ancor più tabù nelle società arabo-islamiche di quanto non lo sia in Italia. Il “dossier sociale” nel secondo numero s’è fuso con quello “anti-estetico” e ha dato vita a una sezione tutta dedicata alla violenza coniugale, dove emerge – con tanto di foto – che anche gli uomini possono esser vittime delle percosse fisiche delle proprie mogli. La rivista offre numerose pagine di recensioni di libri, film, mostre, oltre a interviste che altrove sarebbero definite “choc”: un pittore è chiamato a rispondere a domande sulla masturbazione, mentre una nota scrittrice è invitata a raccontare la sua “prima volta”. Tutto ciò non poteva accadere se non in Libano, non a caso definito da più parti “un’isola di libertà nel mondo arabo-islamico oscurantista”. E se è pur vero che nel Paese dei Cedri la “libertà” viene a volte confusa da osservatori stranieri con l’assenza dello Stato, non c’è dubbio che, rispetto a realtà arabe, in Libano si respira un’atmosfera di maggior libertà culturale e politica. Lo dimostra il fatto che Beirut è stata per decenni, e in parte continua a essere anche oggi, un rifugio per i “dissidenti” di altri Paesi arabi, che trovano nella capitale libanese protezione, sostegno alla propria causa, platee per proclami, liberi forum di discussione. I cafés della centrale via Hamra sono stati per decenni il simbolo di questa libertà, un’isola nell’isola. Eppure, la libertà di cui gode il popolo libanese rimane del tutto relativa: ci sono infatti alcuni temi sui quali l’apparato statale della censura interviene in modo assai severo. Tra questi, la “memoria della guerra civile”, il “sesso” e “Israele” sono i soggetti più bersagliati dalla scure della Sicurezza generale, l’istituzione militare incaricata, tra l’altro, di censurare film e rappresentazioni teatrali in modo preventivo, e di fare altrettanto, ma a posteriori, per quanto riguarda libri e pubblicazioni di vario genere. Accade così che il nudo del premio Oscar Kate Winslet nell’ultimo film “The Reader” venga mostrato solo in parte, e che alcune scene più esplicite della sua relazione col giovane protagonista vengano tagliate non solo a danno del piacere dello sguardo, ma anche a scapito della coerenza della trama. In Libano accade anche che la distribuzione nei cinemadell’animazione “Waltz With Bashir” del regista israeliano Ari Folman venga proibita anche se il tema centrale del cartone animato, vincitore del Golden Globe 2009, sia proprio il Libano e un episodio cruciale della guerra civile libanese (1975-90), alla quale partecipò anche l’esercito israeliano. Ogni prodotto israeliano – sia esso commerciale, culturale, alimentare – non può essere distribuito in Libano, Paese in guerra con lo Stato ebraico da sessant’anni. Eppure al primo piano del ‘Virgin Mega-Store’ di Piazza dei Martiri a Beirut per mesi è rimasta esposta sullo scaffale “novità” la biografia dell’ex premier israeliano Ariel Sharon (ma pubblicata da un’edizione europea!), che da ministro della difesa svolse un ruolo di primo piano negli eventi raccontati nell’animazione di Folman. “Arik” dalla culla al coma si può leggere, mentre non si può vedere nei cinema di Beirut “Waltz con Bashir”, che avrebbe potuto innescare l’avvio dell’indispensabile, quanto da anni volutamente evitato, dibattito sulla memoria e sulle responsabilità della guerra fratricida. La copia pirata in formato Dvd del cartone animato è però reperibile nel mercato nero di Beirut e un dibattito seppur “clandestino” si è comunque acceso in alcuni circoli locali, formati però purtroppo solo da quell’élite pensante destinata a rimanere un’afona minoranza. La stessa che è tuttavia riuscita ad assistere, l’anno scorso, al dramma teatrale “Come Nancy avrebbe preferito che tutto questo fosse solo un pesce d’aprile”, col quale il giovane regista Rabih Mroue ha denunciato la permanenza nella società libanese delle barriere culturali e ideologiche eredità della guerra civile (1975-90). La pièce è andata in scena in un teatro di Beirut soltanto dopo un lungo braccio di ferro tra la Sicurezza generale e l’allora ministro della cultura Tareq Mitri. Mitri è oggi ministro dell’informazione ed è tra i principali sostenitori di una modifica alla legge sulla censura (che risale ai primi anni ’60). A tal proposito, Mitri ha presentato una proposta di emendamento che però, secondo lui stesso, “non ha alcuna possibilità di diventare legge”. Il perché è presto detto: i leader libanesi, e con loro le massime autorità religiose, in contrasto tra loro sui modelli culturali da seguire, si trovano tutti d’accordo su un punto: la massa, la gente, l’elettorato, il “popolo” devono rimanere ignoranti, represse, senza memoria. Solo così continueranno a essere manipolabili con la facilità di sempre. Da qui il mantra che in pochi osano contraddire: proibire la liberalizzazione dei costumi (censurare ogni aspetto legato alla sessualità), non svelare le sfaccettature culturali del “nemico” (proibire i prodotti culturali “Made in Israel”), evitare che l’amnistia-amnesia post-guerra civile lasci lo spazio a dibattiti sul passato e a scomode attribuzioni di responsabilità. Gli ex signori della guerra, oggi “rispettabili” leader politico-istituzionali in giacca e cravatta, rischierebbero di veder la propria autorità messa in discussione. Molti di loro potrebbero anche finire in ipotetiche prigioni per crimini di guerra e contro l’umanità. I patriarchi, i vescovi, i gran mufti, gli shaykh che guidano le diverse comunità rischierebbero dal canto loro di perdere la loro funzione di “pastori” e protettori della moralità. E chi basa la propria legittimità politica anche sulla retorica della “guerra difensiva contro il nemico” israeliano – descritto come un orrendo e bestiale Leviatano senza pietà fatto esseri immondi assetati di sangue – non può certo permettere che il libanese medio metta in dubbio questo stereotipo. Magari guardando un film proprio di un israeliano, ex soldato nella guerra del 1982 (Ari Folman appunto), che non inneggia alla guerra santa contro gli arabi, ma fa autocritica e mette addirittura sotto accusa chi lo mandò a uccidere libanesi e palestinesi oltre il confine nord. L’uscita nelle edicole della rivista ‘Jasad’ non ha comunque finora creato agitazione da parte delle autorità religiose o politiche. La censura a posteriori della Sicurezza generale non si è mossa. Solitamente si attiva solo su segnalazioni ad hoc da parte degli “istituti di controllo morale” delle varie comunità confessionali. Qualcuno ha tentato di protestare e di chiedere invano alle autorità di vietare la diffusione della rivista. “Io non impongo a nessuno di leggere Jasad”, afferma la Haddad. “Come nessuno deve impormi di non pubblicarla. Rispetto la legge diffondendo le copie nelle buste anti-contenuto esplicito, ma non voglio farmi umiliare”. Perché “è umiliante – sostiene la giornalista libanese – che nei nostri Paesi le autorità trattino la gente come dei bambini, a cui si dice cosa possono e cosa non possono leggere. Come se fossimo dei minorati, incapaci di farci un’idea con i nostri strumenti”. http://temi.repubblica.it/limes/erotismo-jasad-una-rivista-contro-loscurantismo/3641 —–
Creative Commons at Al Jazeera Forum
Creative Commons was at Al Jazeera Forum on the 14th march. There was a co-hosted day featuring a panel on “Building successfull projects on open networks”. Joi Ito, Creative Commons’ Ceo, moderated a debate with Mohamed Nanabhay from Al Jazeera presenting the CC Al Jazeera repository case study; Helmi Noman from Harvard University talked about Arab content on the web; and a nice delegation from European Broadcasting Union headed by Nicoletta Iacobacci, Head of New Media was there to discuss the issues, together with blogger and media activist Danny Schetcher from Mediachannel.org. New media is getting more important than ever, even from a TV news channel perspective as Al Jazeera, and it was interesting to discuss all those issues in the framework of the Forum. Plus, it was great to see a very active Arab world CC group forming, putting together people with different backgrounds and skills, from lawyers to IT experts from bloggers to language experts. This was a great beginning that should hopefully have a follow up on many topics that are core to be developed in the Arab world, like having more content in Arabic over the web, enhancing the new born web 2.0 communities and fostering sharing and cooperation among Arab youngsters.
Al Jazeera Forum just over in Doha
Al Jazeera Fourth Forum (14-16th march) is just over in Doha, Qatar. Three days of debates mostly focused on geopolitics from a middle eastern perspective: the strategic importance of Turkey and Iran as neighbouring countries, but also of India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, China. This is the “new world political order” the Al Jazeera way: not only US, not only Europe, not western centered. The Forum agenda seems to reflect perfecly this emerging perspective, which is also interpreted on a TV level by the English channel.
But for the Arabs the debate that first counts is still the Middle East and particularly the Palestinian issue.
Gaza is still the hottest potato: and, as remarked by one of the panelists of today’s Gaza session, we don’t have to consider it “history” yet. 3iani, we can’t consider it as a written page but more likely as a still-to-be-written one. There are many individuals and organisations in Europe currently working to bring Israel to the International Court for having committed a crime against humanity, so the page is yet to be written. Moreover, as the world famous journalist Robert Fisk recalls -he is one of the guests of the panel together with Alain Greish from Le Monde Diplomatique and Ahmed Sheikh, Al Jazeera Head of News-, in Western media we also have the problem of facing the past, i.e. to trace back the real beginning of the Gaza crisis which is not on the 26 of dec 2008. He reminds the audience that the crisis started more than 2 years ago, in 2006, and since then the Palestinian population was isolated and suffered a big humanitarian crisis. He sadly adds that the media in general is conflict-driven, the TV channels don’t light their cameras if there is not a “story” (which should be an invasion, a rocket, but not people that are starving and dying). The problem is, Al Jazeera’s Ahmed Sheikh remarks, that then they started to be very suspicious about why channels like Al Jazeera have access to this kind of stories, while the answer is very easy: because we invested before, we have been there for many years, he said.
Same in Afghanistan: I remember that when Tayseer Allouni, Al Jazeera correspondent over there was the only to get access to Bin Laden for an interview and then the office was receiving the famous tapes everybody was attacking the channel. Why Al Jazeera? Why not another? Well, answer is easy: cause they were there, they invested money, they built a relation with them. Just like CNN did with Peter Arnett in the First Gulf War, but at the time nobody would have found it strange.
I think it’s time to stop asking questions like this and blaming Al Jazeera. I think it’s time that European media, too, invest in crisis zone but not actually only when the conflict is happening. I think it’s time we start to understand places like the Arab world, Afghanistan, and whatever by living there, understanding the languages, making an effort to understand the cultures, too. Otherwise, we will be to blame. And when somebody from the audience asks Al Jazeera Arabic why they haven’t been as “objective” as Al Jazeera English was in reporting the Gaza conflict (I wonder if the guy does actually understand arabic but it is very unlike: most likely he has just watched images on the Arabic channel and then decided they were biased anyway), Ahmed Sheikh has to remind him that they interviewed many Israeli officials, and they gave the floor and the airspace to Israelis, too. Robert Fisk actually adds something very important to the current debate about “objectivity” in the news: what does it mean to be “objective” in such a situation like Gaza?Does it mean we have to give 50% of airtime to Israelis and 50% of the time to Palestinians and let the audience decide by itself?Is it possible to do this for Gaza the same way we do it during an election or a football match by giving the floor to one party or the other, to one team or the other (what we call in Italian TV, borrowing by Latin, “par condicio” which ends up to be a “sandwich news”? first half cheese, second half tomato in equal parts..)? How can we apply this rule in a situation where journalists are prevented to enter where the actual conflict is happening?So how can they actually report the two sides of the story if one side is forbidden by the other side to be watched and told?
Fisk thinks we have to think about justice before thinking about “objectivity” (which by the way doesn’t exist in general terms and particularly in this Gaza situation for the reasons above mentioned) and I actually do agree with him. We shouldn’t be ashamed to have an ethic in our profession, or values that drive us. Values are not only “objectivity” which by the way can’t be applied in such an unjust unbalanced situation. How can the news be balanced and objective if the situation is objectively unbalanced?
This is, I have to say, a very bad Western habit to think that values can be applied in general conditions while there are no general conditions ever. There is always a context.
Having said that, I really wish Western media can understand and move forward. The real point is not how much floor you give to Palestinians and Israelis, the real point is how you frame the context of what’s happening. And how you portay the Palestinians, too. Cause actually there is no such a general thing as Palestinians, there are different human beings that think different ways. There are Palestianians who are against Hamas, others who are against Fatah, and others that are simply against both of them. The issue is much much more complicated than this. The real question is: how can we expect to challenge Al Jazeera -which could be actually be challenged for the way it portays Palestinians and for the way it portrays one part of the Palestianians as it was all of them- if first, we don’t understand it, and secondly, we are always stressing on this “generalisation process”? Palestinians are no more individuals, they become just a collective entity opposed to Israelis in our generalised view. I wish I could see one day a more complex and deeper debate on those issues which concern us as media professionals and as human beings too.
photo by Joi Ito published under Creative Commons license: http://www.flickr.com/photos/joi/3358743639/in/photostream/
Dox Box, the documentary festival in Damascus
I’ve just attended the “Voices of women” workshop, one of the side events and meetings of the DoxBox Festival, currently being held in Damascus till the 15th of march. A very interesting and bold discussion was taking place in front of a very mixed audience, men and women, syrians and foreigners. At the core of the discussion there was the so-called “gender issue” and the complexity of this in a very male driven society like the Arab one. But there is no such a thing as “one” Arab society, and even in the same country women’s lifestyles, behaviours,problems are very different. The discussion, which features many women directors and also a man-a Moroccan French who has shot a film on modern women slavery in Europe- is quite monopolised by questions asked to Moroccan filmaker Fatima Jebli Ouazzani. She moved with her family to Holland when she was ten years old and since then her struggle between tradition and innovation has started. The topic of her film is virginity and marriage, and her freshness and strenght is not to stand on one side or the other, but to try to understand the reasons of both. “In my father’s house” is the title of her film which was never distributed in Morocco. It is fresh, and doesn’t take anything for granted, just as Fatima herself seems to be. Discussion is joined also by Saudi female filmaker Haifa Al Mansour who speaks about Saudi Arabia and its women, a topic which is always so much seen through Western stereotypes. Among the European filmakers invited, there is also the Italian Alina Marazzi, one of our best new fresh voices in documentary film. Sitting in the audience we can see Omar Amiralay, the father of Syrian documentary and a very controversial one in his country; and Mohamed Malas, the great director of “The night” feature film.
Tomorrow, another round table about the war and filmakers who have dedicated their work to tell people what TV doesn’t always tell.
DoxBox is a very bold association of independent filmakers who since 2007 has been working on creative documentary in Syria and all across the Arab world.
Israeli cartoon on Gaza
BBC Arabic is now reporting about this cartoon on Gaza which was just released by Yoni Goodman, one of the creators of Academy Award nominated “Walz with Bashir” on Sabra and Chatila Israeli massacre. BBC Arabic reports of him now launching this short cartoon “Closed Zone” which can be screened here: www.closedzone.com. The cartoon features a Palestinian child who runs but every time he is approaching Gaza “borders”human hands are preventing him from trespassing. Israeli hands, but also Egyptians. And, even when he takes a small boat to sail the sea he is prevented to go further thanks to the same “human hands”. The cartoon is produced by Gisha-Legal Center for Freedom of Movement, a human rights organisation which defends the right to freedom of movement of Palestinians through legal and public advocacy.
The cartoon is very interesting and surely it will have a large distribution on the net, hopefully reminding the people around the world about the everyday life tragedy that every palestians should face to go to school, to work, to do every kind of activity which implies freedom of movement.
