Phil Taylor's papers
|
BACK TO : PROPAGANDA AND THE GLOBAL 'WAR' ON TERROR (GWOT) Years 1 and 2, ie 9/11-2003
Losing the Media War from the Washington Post Wash Post: Losing the Media War December 15, 2003 Washington Post Monday, December 1, 2003; Page A22 ONE BATTLE THAT the occupation authority in Iraq has been steadily losing is that of the media. Since the fall of Saddam Hussein there has been an explosion of information sources in the country; more than 200 newspapers are being published, and Iraqis have rushed by the tens of thousands to acquire satellite equipment allowing them to watch Arab and other international news stations. Meanwhile, the coalition's own attempts to broadcast news and information have been woefully deficient. Although it controls Iraq's main broadcast channel, two domestic radio stations and a major newspaper, the authority and its American contractors have failed to capture the Iraqi audience -- news programs, in particular, smack of sanitization. The problem is made all the more serious by the fact that Arab satellite broadcasters are at once more skilled in production, more credible with many Iraqis and wildly biased against the U.S. mission. Last week, with the approval of the Bush administration, Iraq's Governing Council reacted by shutting down the Baghdad operation of one of the two leading broadcasters, al-Arabiya. In addition to setting a terrible precedent for press freedom in Iraq, this will only make the underlying problem worse. Al-Arabiya, like its competitor al-Jazeera, covers Iraq and the Middle East with a slant that is disturbing to Westerners, but typical of the prevailing outlook among the Arab intelligentsia. It heaps attention on violence in the Israeli-occupied territories, and on the resistance to the U.S. forces in Iraq. Both channels sympathized with Saddam Hussein's resistance to the U.S. invasion, and al-Arabiya recently broadcast a statement it received at its Dubai headquarters that was attributed to the former dictator. This last act was the pretext for its shutdown. Yet the channel was doing no more or less than American networks that report smuggled statements from Saddam Hussein or Osama bin Laden, not because they support them but because they are news. After this fact was pointed out, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld charged at a press conference that al-Arabiya works in league with the Iraqi resistance, which, he claimed, summons it to cover attacks. But he offered no evidence to back this sensational charge. The channel, like other media outlets, covers the aftermath of attacks, but those who monitor it say it has not broadcast them as they occur. If al-Arabiya really were a mere tool of the Iraqi resistance, the U.S. challenge in Iraq would be easier than it is. In fact the channel merely reflects as well as drives common Arab and Iraqi opinion about the United States and the occupation -- which is mistrustful, misinformed and often antagonistic. Censorship will only reinforce such biases while driving up al Arabiya's viewership. The only effective way to attack the problem is to offer an alternative -- or many alternatives -- that give Iraqis and other Arabs access to quality programming and credible information, provided by professional journalists who are independent of the governing authority. This ought to be something that an American administration can get right. That it has not done so, after seven months in power, is an inexcusable failing. |