Archive for war
Al Jazeera alone doing the job
It seems that Al Jazeera is now alone reporting from Gaza. We are witnessing a massacre through its screens. Few minutes ago it was also broadcasting Gaza live on one side, and President Sarkozy on the other side, involved in many diplomatic talks to stop Israeli’s attacks. Also Al Jazeera English is doing a good job, after many months -and some years- of not so brilliant news coverage- is now like revitalised, doing a very extensive coverage with interesting political analysis and live reports. Where are Western channels??Is it Gaza not a “story”in journalistic terms?
Why we are asking Al Jazeera and the other Arab media in Gaza to do what we never did before?
It’s something strange those days to read on Western press about “Al Jazeera‘s biased coverage” (Al Jazeera is always taken as the symbol which stands for the entire Arab media) on the Gaza issue. I am frankly doing all my best to try to be “objective”, by watching the Arab media coverage without making any political statement on it, just as an analyst. But, after hearing such kind of comments on Western newspapers, it is very difficult to stay even calm. I remember very well what happened in “my” media (I am Italian, European, Westerner: therefore here I mean Italian, European, Western media) after 9/11. News objectivity meant at that period to strictly stick to the “us” imperative: those attacks were against “us” as the “West”, “we” were hit, and therefore the “united West” should start a war against terrorism, for which we know that “our soldier” were bravely engaged in Afghanistan and then in Iraq. “We are all Americans”, this was the slogan always heard, in the majority of all the media. In Italian media, would you have dared to ask even a small question or to introduce a doubt in this theorema you would have been immediately accused to be anti-American, therefore anti-Western, therefore almost a terrorist.
My question now is: how we can expect the Arab media to be cold and rational in front of what’s happening to an Arab land, Gaza? How we pretend to have this objectivity while we never had it, at least in the past few years after 9/11? And why do we pretend the Arab media to stick to news values that our media themselves don’t have anymore?
The shift towards different news values from the past “English school” of being impartial, objective, without caring about the context in which the news are given is something which begun during the nineties. The scholar Daniel Hallin calls this trend “commercialisation of news” and states it is a global trend, which has being raising in popularity during the all news stations booms. To gain audiences, those new born stations should involve and engage the viewers emotionally in order to create a “story” that could grab people’s attention for a long time. It’s during this period – and for commercial reasons, first- that the old British school “commandaments” to impartiality have been replaced by those of emotional proximity and involvement. It’s during this period that the anchors start to address with the word “us” to the viewers.
Later, 9/11 has emphasized this situation with a political colour, too, which it didn’t have at the beginning.
The Arab scholars El Nawawy and Iskandar speak about “contextual objectivity” in the case of Al Jazeera. They state that maybe the “objectivity” at its large has never existed, so the concept should be replaced by the “contexual objectivity” which means to be objective to the respect of that particular context where journalists or media professionals are operating.
Al Jazeera is an Arab station, and Gaza is Arab, too. Al Jazeera’s correspondents live and operates in Gaza, so they are experiencing the same tragedy people are experiencing there. As we Westerners did in 9/11, being “all Americans”, even if the Twin Towers where not located in Rome or Paris.
Al Jazeera is giving airtime to the reasons of the Israelis, and has interviewed Livni and other Israeli officials. This is their duty as journalists, and they made it professionally: but, then, can we reproach to them to be on the Gaza’s side?
On the contrary, very sadly I don’t see many “other opinions” on our media, overwhelmed by the “we” issue. But, at this time, who is “we”?
I try to be objective in the context where I am, which is the Arab world. On a personal level, I could never state that what’s happening in Gaza is not a humanitarian tragedy. On a professional level, as an Arab media analyst, after watching “their” coverage and “our” coverage of Gaza, I could never state “we” won the battle.
Zapping with the remote control on different Arab TV stations yesterday would have shown immediately two things. Al Jazeera is doing an impressive and extensive coverage, having four correspondents on the ground and now also heading this big operation of the humaritarian ship “Dignity”. One of Al Jazeera correspondents is on the boat, whit his crew (with them there is also Sami Al Hajj, the former Al Jazeera cameram held prisoner in Guantanamo), and this have been extensively documented and advertised by the channel, which is putting lots of efforts on the coverage of the humanitarian side of the crisis. Lots of media analysts and journalists are attacking the channel for his alleged biased coverage in favor of Hamas, and among the most critical people there is also Fatah (to be honest, they were always very much against Al Jazeera, even during Arafat’s time). True, Al Jazeera is giving lots of TV space to the demonstrations happening across the Arab world, and of course all its live coverage coming from its correspondents is very critical of the Israeli attack. How do you expect otherwise when you are living in a place which is undergoing this situation?It is an old critic moved to Al Jazeera, to which many scholars have already responded by speaking about “contextual objectivity” suggesting to use this concept instead that the one of “impartiality” (and not only for Al Jazeera, actually). But the point is that Al Jazeera, as reminded by The Guardian yesterday, is also giving room for the Israeli counterpart, and it has interviewed Israel’s foreign minister Tipzi Livni despite her accusing the channel to be biased against her country. When it comes to its editorial policy of “the opinion and counter opinion” (the channel motto) Al Jazeera is always very careful not to loose this original touch that is the very key of its success being at the same time the source of all the attacks and critics to the station. Then, if the space given to the Israelis is not so “sexy” and appealing as the space given to the coverage of the Palestinian side, this is another story, but it’s not so difficult to tell the reasons why. Some coverage was also devoted to the minority of Israelis that are demonstrating against the attacks on Gaza, against their own government. We can’t say the same when it comes to the Arab state TV channels, many of them being engaged in proving how much the “Arab street” is demonstrating but hiding many other important sides of this complex regional situation brought up by the last days attacks.
Arab media coverage of Israeli attacks on Gaza
Watching today different Arab Tv stations coverage of Israeli attacks on Gaza could give us a completely different idea of the crisis. Al Jazeera has got correspondents everywhere, from Gaza to Ramallah to Jerusalem to Beirut where lots of “action” was happening. Screen was divided into four smaller windows and the correspondents live and in parallel were asked questions by the presenter from Doha, Qatar. Most of them were wearing war helmets and the atmosphere was very dramatic. Emotional participations, lots of words referring to “martyrs” (sorry for this translation, which I am sure doesn’t reflect the exact meaning of the original Arabic word “shuhada”), lots of pics featuring children blessed, deaths, blood everywhere. A promo, edited by the Doha headquarters, “advertising” the war coverage as it was the latest war movie coming from Hollywood. But these are not special effects, this is the real tragedy happening live in Gaza.
On the other side, Al Arabiya, broadcasting from Dubai, was also talking about “martyrs”, but in a colder, more “neutral” way as it was something more distant (nobody here in the Arab Region could prevent himself to use this word, it’s not a matter of “being professional” as we wrongly believe in the West, it’s a matter of belonging to a culture and speaking the local language). Al Arabiya also has got a “promo” of its own war coverage, like Al Jazeera. But more as a “European movie” rather than Hollywood, something more sober in way. Still lots of deaths, but lin a way,more aseptic. The real paradox is that, while Al Jazeera shows correspondents with helmets, Al Arabiya’s cameras are focused live on Muscat, where the Gulf summit is going on (being originally something planned for economy, then turned urgently in a debate about a common Gulf position to be taken before the Arab League summit to be held after tomorrow in Cairo). Cameras are following the king of Saudi Arabia (Al Arabiya belongs to a prince businessman who is a member of the Saudi royal family), walking silently in Muscat followed by courts dignitaries dressed in the traditional Gulf long dresses. They walk in a perfect silent, live on Arabiya cameras. And there is nothing more paradoxical that this silent compared to the noise of the war happening live just on the other side of the Arab remote control.
Hassan Nasrallah’s speech on Gaza after Israeli attacks
I am currently out in Amman and I am listening to Hassan Nasrallah‘s speech which is “mubasher”, live, from Beirut. He is speaking from a football stadium in Beirut which is overwhelmed by people. Lebanon, as Egypt, today is striking as a form of protest against Israeli attacks over Gaza. Many people are gathering in the stadium and we can see national flags of Lebanon, Palestine and Hezbollah‘s party yellow flags. Songs from Hezbollah’s resistance are heard everywhere. Al Manar, Hezbollah’s Tv channel which is banned in Europe, is broadcasting the event live. Before Hassan Nasrallah’s speech, the cameras were filming only the crowd and the flags and, even when somebody was speaking from the stage preparing the audience for the party leader’s speech, the cameras kept on filming the crowd, never the stage (the voice speaking over the images sometimes is repeating words like”maut li Israil, maut li Amrika”, death to Israel, death to America).
This situation changes only when Hassan Nasrallah appears (no stage supposed to be given to any other but the party leader, this is the message transmitted by the images). He is live, but he is speaking from another place, not from the stage in the stadium. Behind him, we can see that the words “victory to Gaza” are written. When he speaks, the camera is only for him. He has a charismatic power and his speech is in perfect “fusah”, the classical arabic, just very few words in lebanese dialect. He begins the speech in the Islamic way, by greeting in the name of God, and then starts to evocate powerful words that touch the hearth of Muslims everywhere. Like ummah, the islamic community.
Nasrallah evocates the ummah, and reminds the Lebanese people that they are a part of this ummah (which indirectly means that they are directly involved in this tragedy). The message is clear: this is a new 2006 war happening. In fact he reminds them that they know very well the meaning of being attacked, of finding their houses destroyed and their children killed. He states that Gaza is not alone, because it is a part of this bigger ummah. Then he starts his speech, which is more than a speech. It is a real warning against certain powers in the Arab region. In another way, we can say that he is mentioning the “conditions” to be respected by the Lebanese governments, other Arab governments and finally the US if they want Hezbollah to stay out of this (in a military way, i guess).
Here the main points of his speech, which are at the same time the warnings and the conditions he is dictating.
First one is the warning addressed to the Lebanese government and its president Michel Slemain. Nasrallah invites the president to take a bold position in front the other Arab governments in the upcoming Cairo summit of the Arab League. The message to the lebanese government (supported by Western governments) is clear and sounds mostly like a threat. Lebanon should be closer to Gaza and to the Palestianian resistence and be against any other kind of position. He clearly refers to Egypt and the clear position the country took by closing the border with Gaza.
The second warning is of course addressed to “some Arab governments” as he calls them without mentioning them openly, i.e. the governments that are not doing anything effective but taking a silent position which sounds more as a silent agreement with Israel for having attacked Gaza- or, at least, nothing that takes a sharp position rather than condemning-. He invites them to a “real reaction” instead of talking just words in a summit. Doesnt’ specify what this “real reaction” should be. But it’s clear that Nasrallah is taking a very tough position, as he did in the past, against many Arab governments, particularly the Gulf (and Saudi Arabia in particular).
Thirdly, he talks directly to America. When he mentions America, he starts to look at the camera as if Obama, the new elected US president, was there to listen. He seems to address directly to him -even if not mention his name- when he says “we want to see your political program, your political position” and adds that he doesn’t care about colors being yellow, red, black (clearly referring to the skin of the new president and the hope that his colour and background could help him understanding better). Again, he adds that he only cares about the political program and he only wants to see results on this topic. He also adds that America keeps on saying that the problem with Hamas is that it is an islamic party with an islamic goal, while at the same time America doesnt care about the islamic party which is ruling in Afghanistan or the one which the Iraqi president is belonging to. He states that the real reason behind American refusal of Hamas is not linked to religion at all. the real reason, which is also the one for refusing Hezbollah’s power in Lebanon, is their political programs that touch the core of US interest in the Middle East. He says that they want a “real independence” for the Arab region, something that is very much against US interest.
“Gaza will not stay alone in its resistance”, he says. What does this mean? does this mean that Hezbollah will actively support Hamas in Gaza? does this mean a new war like the july 2006 involving Lebanon and Hezbollah?
The fact that Nasrallah, in his rhetoric, is focusing a lot and stressing a lot on the july 2006 war between Israel and Hezbollah is a leading factor that helps us to imagine that behind his speech there is also a kind of “war declaration”, or at least a warning. It’s not unlike to imagine such a scenario.
From the media point of view, the coreography of the speech was perfectly suiting Hezbollah’s rhetoric of uniting people together and calling upon resistance against Israel and America who don’t want to see a united Arab ummah in the Middle East.
Nasrallah also accused -without telling its name openly- “an Arab Tv ” station of having called him “a demon” and of portraying him in a bad way. It was a kind of “warning”, too, to Al Arabiya television and the country that it represents, Saudi Arabia, which is the first “enemy” of Hezbollah party. This also reminds us to which extent Arab media are still very polarized in a political way and still very partisan, far from representing just a “commercial market” as many of them would wish to be portayed.
