Al-Jazeera getting it from all sides

[Amanda]

From the Media Guardian:

"It is 'one of the darkest days for press freedom in the Arab world', according to Rageh Omaar, the respected BBC reporter who left to join Al-Jazeera, the world's most controversial news channel. A document issued earlier this month by the Arab League, which could give its member states the power to close broadcasters who are critical of regimes in the region, marks a new low in the fragile relationship between the network and the governments it reports on.

Al-Jazeera is pilloried by many in the West for providing a platform for al-Qaeda, and regarded by some members of the Bush administration as apologists for terrorism. But the majority of its battles have been fought with authoritarian regimes in the Middle East, which have imprisoned its journalists and closed down some of its bureaux - and the broadcaster that was created to reflect the view from the 'Arab street' may be about to embark on its biggest fight yet.

The contents of the Arab League documents are startling, particularly to western observers who are accustomed to seeing the rights of free speech enshrined in law. Meeting in Cairo, the information ministers of the 22 member countries - with the exception of Qatar, the kingdom which funds al-Jazeera - signed a resolution calling on satellite broadcasters: 'Not to offend the leaders or national and religious symbols' of Arab countries, and authorising signatory countries to 'withdraw, freeze or not renew the work permits of media which break the regulations'. It also stipulates that satellite channels 'should not damage social harmony, national unity, public order or traditional values'.

It also demands that programming should 'conform with the religious and ethical values of Arab society and take account of its family structure', and 'refrain from broadcasting anything which calls into question God, the monotheistic religions, the prophets, sects or symbols of the various religious communities'."

Comment: I highlighted the bit about "not offending the leaders" of the countries and the authorisation to "withdraw, freeze or not renew the work permits of media which break the regulations" because it sounds pretty familiar.

While such action may not be written into law here in the Caribbean, it is certainly the de-facto position of many leaders and has been wielded time and again in several countries.

It just goes to show us that the press freedom problems of one, apply to all. It is like the many-headed beast of mythology - the hydra. As soon as an issue is resolved in one place, a similar one pops up elsewhere.

More from the Guardian:

Other broadcasters in the region are reluctant to comment until they have examined the Arab League's charter in detail. A spokesman for the BBC said: 'We have not seen the charter and would need to study it before making detailed comment. But, reading the reports, we have seen nothing to indicate that the charter is directed at serious news channels with robust editorial guidelines to support impartiality and editorial independence. The BBC would be concerned by moves to curtail responsible and independent journalism in the region.'

But CNN, the world's largest news channel, with the biggest global reach, has also remained silent, and that has exposed some deep divisions between al-Jazeera and its western competitors.

Rageh Omaar, who worked at the BBC before being hired as a senior correspondent at al-Jazeera English, is furious about the lack of support from fellow broadcasters.

'I find it depressing the BBC and others aren't saying anything and are sitting on their hands,' Omaar says. 'This is a test case. Every time an Arab journalist looks for support from western colleagues there is silence. Arab journalists are looking for the same kind of [solidarity] they showed when Alan Johnston was kidnapped.'

He insists that the charter should be treated seriously by news organisations. 'The Arab League hasn't got executive power but no one should doubt that the [Arab League] governments are serious about coming together and imposing this level of censorship collectively. It is one of the darkest days for press freedom in the Arab world.

'I can't remember a time when all the Arab League countries came together and issued a statement that is so backward-looking,' Omaar says, arguing that the charter provides a clear indication of current thinking in the Middle East.

He adds: 'They might be testing the water through the Arab League but really they are asking "how can we use technology to control diverse opinions?".'

You can read the entire piece here:

I don't know if there are any official petitions or anything of the sort on the issue as yet, nor am I neccesarily confident that the oft-intransigent Arab League governments are in the habit of listening to civilian protest, but as journalists, I think we all understand the importance, no matter how incremental of speaking up, of writing about an issue and ventilating it and exposing the slimy underbelly to the public view. Don't let this be an issue that is ignored and allowed to quietly take place. If it takes place, let be in the full glare of public scrutiny and criticism. Blog about it, email your media and civilian colleagues about it and if you happen to be in a position to decide what goes into a newspaper or news programme, make it an item and follow up on it.

[Kim J Young]

You know, this is not new at all for that region but is none the less very disturbing. As you said, we are accustomed to freedom of speech, freedom of expression but the theocracies in the Middle East and places like Saudi Arabia (to me the official home of Al Quaeda) continue to "gag" the press by using the excuse of "Allah" or leaders who they deify as subjects not allowed to be touched by the pen.

I am utterly against this nonsense. One has to recall that these are not democracies but monarchies (in the case of Saudi Arabia) and theocracies which refuse to adhere to press ethics that we are familiar with in a democracy.

It is an excuse.

I do not believe that AL Jazeeera gives AL Quaeda a platform either. The irony is - Bush thinks Al Jazeera gives them a platform; the Arab nations think Al Jazeera favours the western style and dictats of journalism. Much work is to be done. I do not see much change until and unless, there is a change in their views of the role of the journalist.

I may not live to see that.

[Amanda]

First thing - Saudi Arabia is not just the home of Al Qaeda to you - it's the fricking home of Al-Qaeda full stop. Osama Bin Laden is from Saudia Arabia. 18 out of the 19 9/11 terrorists were Saudis. That still makes me so angry because what the heck do Saudis have to be angry or bitter about? Being one of the wealthiest countries in the world?

But they are not angry- they are just arrogant. Saudi Arabia practises (by law!) the most rigid form of Islam - Wahabi Islam and that fuels the hatefulness and arrogance of so much of Islamic terrorism. My mother used to say (only half-jokingly) that the US would have been better served by attacking Mecca or Riyadh than attacking Iraq.

And in case anyone thinks I know not of what I speak - my aunt lived there for over a decade, working as a nurse. And the things she spoke of confirmed the rigid, unjust and often ignorant nature of Saudi society - like wealthy middle-aged men bringing their 13 year old wives to the hospital puzzled that they 'cannot conceive' - when the reason the poor child 'cannot conceive' is that she not yet even had her period yet, she's so young.

Young men forced into homosexuality (it's RAMPANT, make no doubt) because they are not allowed to get near to young girls, nor can they afford to marry them because the older men snap up several young wives for themselves.

High rates of suicide among women, both old and young.

But the Saudis like to play it both ways. The very nature of their society fuels injustice, but then they want to keep themselves 'safe' by being an 'ally' of Western countries. It's nonsense. They are and have always been a false ally.

Whew! Ok that was a bit of a rant...:p

[Kim J Young]

I have a cousin who is a doctor who worked in the Kingdom and quickly left after seeing the horrible human rights abuses in that country but I find it interesting that Bush continues his "rapport" with them while accusing Iraq of all the evils in the world. The US is not without blemish.

Indeed, I completely agree with Barack that the war was illegal, unfounded and should never have been. Geo-politically, it was about oil. Saddam Husein, tyrant that he was, was never a threat to the US security except that they wanted his oil. Hanging him made me vomit! No one can come in here and execute "justice" ecause they don't like how Barbadians do things. That is not to say that Hussein was right. It is to say that no one country can impose democracy on a another and that is why the US election is so critical to the rest of the world. I think Bush plays it both ways as well.

Saudi Arabia is indeed the birthplace of Al Quaeda, the stomping ground of its operatives, the strategy host country of its fundamentalist attacks on Christianity or us "infidels" in the name of Islam.

Be cautioned though. Having read the Koran, what Al Quaeda does, does not represent Islam, and I have Muslim relatives who are completely sickened by the behaviour of a few idiots.

I also would take a closer look at the relationship between Donald Rumsfeld and Saddam Hussein (there are pictures) and know that The US is very tied up with Al Queada itself. The twin towers disaster on 9/11 is not exactly what it seems.

Whew, mine was a bit of a rant too.
Best for the weekend.
Kim

[Amanda]

Oh I am cautious Kim. I have several Muslim friends, classmates, housemates and acquaintances, chief of all my two very, very good friends from uni, Mina and Fatima. My ex is Somali. And so on. And they educate me about Islam.

Which is why Islamic extremism makes me SO angry and so sad. The actions of these freaks obscure the normal, civil, decent everyday lives of people like my friends. It has gotten so bad that it is virtually a slur or smear - witness how people are trying to undermine Barack Obama as a 'secret Muslim'. Why should he even have to fight against that as if there is something wrong with it?