One of the interesting aspects about the Wikileaks revelations is how it demonstrates that in many areas, decision makers are a lot better informed than mere readers of newspapers (or blogs). Given how clueless much of the media and commentariat often is, this is mildly reassuring. Here are some random examples:
Al Jazeera isn't, actually, independent at all. It spouts what the Qataris want it to spout.
Hezbollah has an Iranian-built fiber-optic communications network of its own, that makes it even more independent of the rest of Lebanon than previously published. Lots of the player in the area don't like this.
The Americans operate spy planes over Lebanon. The British aren't happy about this, but don't get asked. Keep this in mind the next time you (inevitably) read about how pernicious the Israelis are for flying over Lebanon to keep updated.
Christopher Hitchens, meanwhile, explains how destructive Julian Assange is. Evelyn Gordon, following Henry Kissinger, explains that what decision makers know can be irrelevant, when their paradigm for understanding it is all wrong (h/t Barry). And an Egyptian official demonstrates that it's possible to blame the Jews (Israelis, in this case), when no conceivable facts exist to support one's silliness. Dutch officials will pay for the most repulsive anti-Israeli lies, if they're cloaked with some politically correct bauble-words.
Finally, an American tourist in Israel noticed an enormous opportunity the Israelis were inexplicably missing, so he set about rectifying, thereby probably becoming much richer, but also demonstrating that much of the chatter about and around Israel is less important than facts on the ground, so to speak (really, on the ground).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
Dutch officials will pay for the most repulsive anti-Israeli lies, if they're cloaked with some politically correct bauble-words.
Indeed, Jew hatred has, historically, been such a boon for Europe---and especially the Netherlands (cf. the 1930s and the 40s)---that they can't seem to get too much of a good thing.
http://www.jpost.com/JewishWorld/JewishNews/Article.aspx?id=198382
(File under: Consequences be damned! Let's have fun while we can...(?)
A couple of points regarding Al Jazeera. While I won't argue that Al Jazeera is independent or some paragon of journalistic virtue, I didn't find the Guardian article particularly interesting or insightful for several reasons. First, regarding its editorial independence, it's all relative: Al Jazeera is considerably more independent than other state-supported media, and while its coverage of Qatar may be muted (or nonexistent), that doesn't mean its coverage of other Arab countries is particularly biased (apart from the bias that's present in its world view). I think it'd be hard to argue that Al Jazeera hasn't been an overall net plus for Arab media. Second, I have little trust in American embassies' judgment of Al Jazeera's editorial slant or coverage decisions because I don't believe American diplomats or foreign service employees speak Arabic well enough to have any idea what they're talking about. Third, regarding the purported deal between Qatar and Egypt, I recently watched an interview Ahmed Mansour conducted last year with Sheikh Hamad in which he mentioned the deal with Egypt. As I understood his comments (and he may well have been lying), the point was: look, we like Al Jazeera, but if we thought shutting it down could bring about regional piece, we'd do it in a minute. So it's not so much about Qatar manipulating Al Jazeera as it is an admission that their commitment to the station doesn't trump other goals.
rukn
that doesn't mean its coverage of other Arab countries is particularly biased (apart from the bias that's present in its world view).
Fascinating statement. You want to unpack it? Here, let me try:
"...that doesn't mean its coverage of other Arab countries is particularly untruthful (apart from the lies that are present in its world view)."
And gosh, what lies might those be?....
...it'd be hard to argue that Al Jazeera hasn't been an overall net plus for Arab media.
Indisputably. Instead of being bombarded by the official (and rather transparent, if not tedious) lies of their respective governments, the viewing public can now choose to be bombarded by "unofficial" (and far more exciting, daring, and anti-establishment) lies, which they may or may not prefer to believe at any particular moment. (Let's see, shall we dare guess which of Al Jazeera's---categories of---lies are the most popular?)
it is an admission that their commitment to the station doesn't trump other goals.
That is, if you believe them...
(And if you do, what might that say about you? That you're a seasoned, highlyi educated, sophisticated, nuanced media expert a la Marc Lynch?... Or that you don't have a clue?.... Or both!!)
Barry, can you tell me that you've ever watched a significant amount of Al Jazeera? If not, why should I take you seriously?
rukn
rukn
I once listened to a good bye lecture from a BBC Afghanistan journalist of Pakistani, Indian, Arab or so descent who was to work next for AlJazeera. He told marvels about AlJazeera's professionalism and neutrality until he came to the anecdotes.
Besides that I listen once in a while to Riz Khan
now of course these are few examples and if I got a full hit of disgust from any one of them doesn't prove anything. It may all be coincidence.
Also it is only AlJazeera English which of course is the bad one while the Arabic one is totally different.
Now I have put all my cards on the table how much more do I have to imbibe before I am entitled to agree with Barry?
Silke
Silke,
You have to imbibe more (though I admit that an element of the psychology that leads to hazing is probably behind that conclusion: I have sat through way too much Ahmed Mansour and Faisal al-Qassem not to wish to visit similar suffering on others). And Al Jazeera English is not Al Jazeera. That's, again, not a comment about their adherence to journalistic standards but an observation that they have different agendas, have different conceptions of their role as a news oranization, are run by different people, operate in very different media environments, have different competition, etc. Particularly in regard to the question of whether the Qataris manipulate Al Jazeera's coverage of other Arab regimes for political purposes (which is the question at hand, not a holistic evaluation of the two stations), I don't think watching Al Jazeera English is very helpful.
Anon
assuming that you are again rukn ...
let me confess that I admire you for your ability to suffer boredom and your courage to admit that you have this to me a bit strange sounding preference. but chacun à son goût
and yes Qataris are manipulating AlJazeera, because whoever holds the purse manipulates even when he/she doesn't everybody always knows that they can from one second to another - it is a kind of Damocles sword one has hanging over one's head.
The claim that they don't can only be made by somebody who has never been dependent on the benevolence of an employer and the income he/she gets from that employment or if he has been, has preferred to lie to himself about his wiggle room.
here's the latest I read about AlJazeera. They have been forbidden, to report about the documents, Of course the quote doesn't say, who has forbidden it, so maybe it wasn't forbidden at all but independent and free journalists deciding.
"Es spricht Bände, dass etwa dem in Katar ansässigen Fernsehsender al-Jazeera untersagt wurde, über den Inhalt der Dokumente zu berichten."
http://www.perlentaucher.de/feuilletons/2010-12-09.html#a29436
Silke,
I can't read German, so I can't read the report you cited. I wasn't able to find a comparable article in English. Though I can't watch Al Jazeera live at the moment, their Arabic webiste has a feature on the front page called "Wikileaks...continuing leaks" with links to articles on a number of the documents.
As for your claim, "And yes Qataris are manipulating AlJazeera, because whoever holds the purse manipulates even when he/she doesn't everybody always knows that they can from one second to another - it is a kind of Damocles sword one has hanging over one's head":
I can't profess to know whether Al Jazeera reporters or editors consciously or unconsciously practice self-censorship based on what they think Qatar's reactions will be. I would say it's clear that they don't cover Qatar itself like they do other countries. But, first, some degree of self-censorship isn't the same as Qatar manipulating Al Jazeera for political ends, nor does it support, for example, Yaacov's claim that Al Jazeera "isn't actually, independent AT ALL" (emphasis mine).
Further, the reports I've read in the press about Qatar manipulating Al Jazeera consist of that anecdote about Sheikh Hamad and Egypt, which I've addressed, and vague claims by American embassy officials that Al Jazeera changed its coverage of the Saudi royal family (see my comment on U.S. embassy officials). And yet Yaacov and others in the press are acting as if some smoking gun has emerged.
I'm sorry if I don't see it. Al Jazeera biased in general? Sure. Al Jazeera practices some self-censorship with regard to its coverage of Qatar and maybe some other issues? Yes and probably. But Al Jazeera as a political tool being manipulated by Qatar? I don't see the evidence.
rukn
rukn
sorry I assumed that by now everybody is into using Google translate
Thomas v. der Osten Sacken blogs under this umbrella http://www.wadinet.de/wadiev/impressum.htm
and as best I can tell his English is up to the task so in case you are interested you can ask him yourself.
In the past he seemed to be reliable.
My memory tells me that Qatar is a bit of a headache to the other sheikdoms and the Saudis because it is a bit too friendly with Iran for their taste.
and believe you me, a lifelong subaltern, we know what our boss wants from us without him ever bothering to tell us so explicitly, heck without him even ever so slightly hinting at it. After all reading the signs correctly is what decides our next raise.
So what I'd like to see for example is a trustworthy evaluation of how AlJazeera reports Iran's stoning and hanging and lashing preferences compared to how other countries deal with criminals or rather what is considered to be criminal offence in other countries.
Silke
rukn
sorry I had an "oh so clever" answer for you but somehow I blew it, it is gone, but having reached June 2010 in my downloaded podcasts I heard from German "BBC" radio that AlJazeera journalists and as best I can tell, they mean the Arabic ones, have neither a professional organisation and unions are not allowed. I am sorry but under such conditions I assume any outfit to do its masters bidding.
As I have made my living as a subaltern I am based on those decades of experience that I am not the only one who always knew what her master wanted without him having to say so.
Kein Journalist bei Al Jazeera ist in einem Berufsverband organisiert. Gewerkschaften sind nicht erlaubt.
http://www.dradio.de/dlf/sendungen/kulturheute/1200235/
I don't see the evidence.
Indeed, there's nothing to see. Move right along.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/al-jazeera-s-world-cup_522145.html
File under: But they're all like that (some are just a bit flashier)...(?)
Related?....
http://www.carnegieendowment.org/arb/?fa=show&article=42049
if it is true that Qatar has decided to put in its lot with Iran a lot more in the vein of respecting "respect" is to be expected
once I read a quote from one of Putin's press women that went like this:
he is all for freedom of press, he just can't understand why they'd want to criticize him
I think that is a nice summing up, of what "respect" is all about.
Post a Comment