Al Jazeera's influence on the Middle Eastern peace process

How much influence does the Middle Eastern broadcaster Al Jazeera have over any settlement of the Israel-Palestinian conflict?

Quite a lot according to Noah Bonsey and Jeb Koogler who believe that negotiators should take note that

The channel’s tremendous popularity has also, for better or worse, made it a shaper of public opinion. Its coverage often determines what becomes a story and what does not, as well as how Arab viewers think about issues.

They add that

The result of Al Jazeera’s market dominance is that it has itself become a mover and shaker in Palestinian politics, helping to craft public perceptions and influence the debate. This has obvious implications for the peace process: how Al Jazeera covers the deliberations and the outcome of any negotiated agreement with Israel will fundamentally shape how it is viewed—and, more importantly, whether it is accepted—by the Palestinian public.

Praise indeed for Al Jazeera

Al Jazeera may have its critics especially across the Atlantic but Robert Kaplan isn't one of them.

Writing in the October edition of Atlantic magazine he describes it as

a rebuke to the dire predictions about the end of foreign news as we know it.adding that

if Al Jazeera were more widely available in the United States—on nationwide cable, for example, instead of only on the Web and several satellite stations and local cable channels—it would eat steadily into the viewership of The NewsHour With Jim Lehrer. Al Jazeera—not Lehrer—is what the internationally minded elite class really yearns for: a visually stunning, deeply reported description of developments in dozens upon dozens of countries simultaneously.

Al Jazeera critical of media coverage of Gaza

Journalism.co.uk hosted an online interview with Al Jazeera's Ayman Mohyeldin at the end of last week and was rather critical of the Western Media's coverage of the conflict in Palestine.

"The western media has failed tremendously in covering the Israeli-Palestinian conflict accurately and contextually.

adding that

"They would not tolerate what has continued for decades and now what is happening in Gaza. I am extremely frustrated by how Gaza and the entire Israeli-Palestinian conflict is portrayed, in the western world particularly,"

Sherine Tadros went further and said that

"I think it comes down to finance and editorial judgement," Tadros said. "Unless there is a military operation - i.e a sexy picture - editors won't spend on deploying teams to cover humanitarian tragedies.

Some more comment on the reporting of Gaza

A couple of interesting posts about the media coverage of the Gaza conflict this morning.

Over at Charlie Beckett's Polis blog there is a guest appearance by Nina Bigalke who has been researching Al Jazeera's English channel for the last 18 months.

She points out the advantage that the channel has

The reason why the Israeli government’s ban was not effective in the case of AJE is strikingly simple. Their correspondents were around before the news broke. As coincidental as this may sound, it is symptomatic of a different approach to reporting where continuous presence takes precedence over momentary action.

and adds that

Those who are turning to Al Jazeera English for an entirely different kind of journalism may not find what they are looking for – but in its reporting on Gaza, the channel shows where its real potential for making a difference lies: in having a presence before news breaks in regions where other networks predominantly engage in situations of acute crisis. And in the political and cultural sensitivity on the part of the journalists that is growing out of this presence.

Whilst Reuters reports that

Israel has opened a hotline for tip-offs about uniformed officers or politicians suspected of spilling state secrets.

As the Israeli government continues its crackdown on reporting from the region it reports that

Soldiers have had cellphones confiscated to prevent them sending SMS messages about combat losses or troop deployments as they advance on Hamas and other Palestinian guerrillas in Gaza.
Military censors, who avoid nosing around routine news coverage, now show their teeth. Two Israeli freelancers were arrested on suspicion they gave an Iranian TV station details about the Gaza sweep that was not cleared for publication.

Both the Beeb and Al Jazeera take stick over election coverage

i didnt manage to stay awake for the US coverage on Tuesday night,good intentions giving way to heavy eyelids.

I get the impression that the BBC has come in for a great deal of critisism so much so that people were actually switching to ITV

Dave Lee has written his thoughts on the coverage which are well worth a read.

Amongst his critique are accusations that David Dimbleby looked tired from the start,that the coverage was routine,that it was slow in responding to breaking news and its use of two rather unimportant bloggers


Meanwhile it is not just the BBC that comes under attack.The English version of Al Jazeera was described as

a bit like watching a local college TV station attempt to compete with the big boys. No matter how hard they try, it’s just not the real thing.

by Lawrence Pinkac on Arab Media and society.

According to Lawrence it was

Another missed opportunity for the two-year old channel that has yet to live up to its potential to produce true borderless journalism

Back though to Dimbleby who according to the Indy's Pandora

yesterday faced unflattering catcalls to be pensioned off, over his handling of the BBC's coverage of the US election from Washington.
The veteran broadcaster twice clashed with his guests, once with Simon Schama and with George Bush's walrus-faced former ambassador to the UN, John Bolton.

The trials and tribulations of getting Al Jazeera in the United States

Over on Global voices,Gillian York reflects the problems for Al Jazeera in the land of freedom.

Reminding us that Donald Rumsfeld accused the channel of inciting terrorism,it seems not surprisingly that America stations are reluctant or take its feed

In order to access the channel from most places within the country, Americans must pay upwards of $45 per month in addition to their usual subscription fee (on the DishTV network) - prohibitively expensive for many.

However

Burlington Telecom, owned by the small city of Burlington, Vermont (population 39,000), decided to carry Al Jazeera English, sparking debate amongst its residents and leading some groups to protest for its removal

Debate has ranged from

It is time Americans engage the world and expose themselves to voices beyond our borders. Al-Jazeera, English represents just that.

to

It would seem to me that this fledgling city-owned outfit, already struggling with customer subscriptions far below expectations, would want to provide a varied cable menu without having to feel like they needed to make potentially self-harming political statements.

Roll on Al Jazeera

BBC Arabic launches but how will be it be percieved?

The BBC launches its Arabic service today,aimimg to compete directly with the likes of Al Jazeera.

Richard Sambrook writing on the BBC editors site says

Together with our radio and internet services in Arabic, it will form part of the first multimedia offer to the Arab world with programming scheduled across all three media - from the web, to radio, to TV.

Describing how

The Arab world is one of the most important regions of the world. Events there affect all of us in some way, from terrorism and war, to oil prices and trade. It is natural therefore that the World Service should seek to reach as many people as possible with its broadcasts - and today that means being on TV which is now the most used medium for news and information.

The service will be

distinctive for Arab audiences offering an international, not just Arab, perspective on events and an objective approach to issues. It will have the same standards and values as any other BBC service, reporting on the rest of the world as well as the region. In surveys in the region, 85% of those asked said they would watch the BBC channel. We hope some 35 million people will be using the service in 5 years time.

One problem that the service will have as Colin Crummy writes at Press Gazette is its percieved association with the British Government

But critics said the BBC would face scepticism in the region over its impartiality, with its funding of £25m a year coming from a Foreign Office grant-in-aid under particular scrutiny.
Dr Makram Khoury-Machool, a lecturer in media studies at Cambridge University, said the reaction would depend on how much it would be seen as “a mouthpiece for the British Government”.
Chapman said that audiences could make the distinction between what the BBC does and British Government policies, and that the BBC would report “without fear or favour” in the region

This perspective can be backed up by an editorial in Gulf news ( via Adrian Monck.In coming late to the party it asks

What can a British broadcaster do for a region that looks less and less towards the West for quality news programming, and has already found it in its own backyard?
In reality - for the vast majority of Arabs sitting in coffee shops on the streets of Cairo or Beirut - probably not very much

Indeed

Censorship or spurious editing

Perhaps the BBC had simply made a simple mistake.Its decision though to edit out the comments made by the late Benazir Bhutto when interviewed by Sir David Frost on Al-Jazeera seemed a little strange.The claims in the interview,largely ignored, were that Osama Bin Laden had been murdered by Omar Sheikh.

Steve Herrman on the editors blog claims it was edited out due to time constraints and the fact that it was a spurious comment.

What for yourselves here on you tube

Should we be concerned about Al Jazeera's ownership?

After bringing up the subject of Al Jazeera yesterday and how Americans should watch and take in what it says,an interesting alternate point of view from Adrian Monck who writes a piece for Press Gazette.

Shold we be concerned that despite its excellent coverage of news,it is being bankrolled by a totally undemocratic state? As Adrian puts it

While Al Jazeera English’s strength in foreign news and politics is to be applauded, a year on its reluctance to criticise its owner, the micro-state of Qatar, gives cause for concern

The fact that the State of Qatar is bankrolling the station should created problems

Qatar is a micro-state where, by popular consent, there is no popular consent. Only a quarter of its 800,000 inhabitants have citizenship. Elections promised for this year have yet to materialise. No one’s likely to be standing on a platform of confiscating royal assets.

Why America should be watching Al Jazeera but plainly isn't

In an indication of what the Bush administration thinks of Al Jazeera journalism (and habeas corpus), it has locked up one of the network’s cameramen, Sami al-Hajj, in Guantánamo Bay for more than five years without charging him.

Says Roger Cohen writing in the New York Times.

And yet at the US miltitary base in Kabul,the soldiers are permenantly tuned to the channel


Cohen goes onto say that

The choice of viewing at the NATO gym is a lot wiser than Rumsfeld’s choice of words or the terrible treatment of Hajj. America, and not just its front-line soldiers, needs to watch Al Jazeera to understand how the world has changed. Any other course amounts to self-destructive blindness.

Why,well

1.It must be grasped is America’s diminished ability to influence people.

2.to be able to see the erosion of American power.

3.to view the the solidification of anti-Americanism as a political idea.