As I look back at all of the global media I've taken in over the last few months, determining the next global crisis is not a difficult decision for me. Reading Egyptian papers week after week there is really only one issue that continues to reappear, and it appears quite frequently. The issue is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and as it grows in importance to those in the Middle East, I see no escalation or urgency in reporting on the topic by the American press. Although it is surely an issue that affects some more than others, aspects of the conflict influence things all over the world. The United States has very strong political ties to Israel, and yet the American media doesn't deem it that pressing of a matter to report on even the most landmark of developments with any priority or consistency. Only two years ago the U.S. signed a historic deal to give Israel $30 billion in military aid over the next decade, yet leaders like Israel's Benjamin Netanyahu and the PLO's Mahmoud Abbas are hardly household names.
The conflict is one of the longest ongoing disputes in modern history, the details of which are as controversial as they are bloody. When the Jewish state of Israel was created by UN mandate in 1947 it partitioned the region into a Jewish state, an Arab state, and a UN run state. But the partition was rejected by Arab leaders who already occupied the territory and war broke out. The Jewish people won decisive victories and expanded their land to include Palestinian territories, creating hundreds of thousands of Palestinian refugees. Wars broke out again in 1956, 1967, 1973, and 1982.
To end the conflict and solve the dispute countless proposals have been made, but one has seen the overwhelming majority of support over the years, and that is the two-state solution. This would involve the creation of an Arab state and a Jewish state, as originally envisioned in the UN mandate, which traditionally never worked because Arab leaders refused to recognize Israel or their right to exist. Palestinian leaders of the PLO first indicated that they would be receptive to a two-state solution as far back as the 1970s, their one requirement being that the territories be drawn on pre-1967 lines. This was vetoed by the U.S. in a 1976 UN Security Council vote. Ever since then talks have come close to a negotiation but lasting peace has never been achieved, although most polls over the last decade reveal that a vast majority of the populations of both sides would agree to a two-state solution drawn on pre-1967 territory lines.
Right now, it appears the biggest point of contention is the building of Israeli settlements. Israel continues to expand settlement building into the West Bank and East Jerusalem, areas that may be Palestinian land upon the creation of a second state. The PLO has asked that all settlement building be halted for peace talks to resume, and the Obama administration has attempted to pressure Israel to comply, but without much success. Last November Israel agreed to stop building in the West Bank for 10 months, but this did not include East Jerusalem. Vice President Biden was in Israel only a month ago, pledging America's continued support for Israeli security and to promote new peace talks between the two sides. During his visit, Israel announced plans to complete 1,600 new housing units in East Jerusalem. This was a brash move that threatened to end the peace talks before they had even started, and was viewed by many as an insult in the face of a foreign dignitary trying to facilitate these talks. Still Abbas has not threatened to back out of the talks, and Biden made a brief statement about the move “undermin[ing] the trust we need right now” and the issue quickly faded from the radar of the American people.
Although many of the pieces are in order for peace talks to move forward, it's key details that seem like they will continue to hold them back. This fighting has gone on for far too long and has endangered the lives of far too many people, both Jewish and Arab. It's an issue that greatly affects the Middle East, but should concern Americans just as much. If this cause is treated with the attention and legitimacy it deserves then perhaps the international community can pressure the peace talks into getting farther than they ever have before and reach a lasting accord, but if things continue down the road they are on, the situation could just as easily worsen, and it will be just another international incident we should have seen coming.
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
Monday, April 5, 2010
Citizen Journalism in Egypt
When I began my search for an example of citizen journalism in Egypt I was a little worried. I have been reading through the partially state-owned Al Ahram for months now and although I've gained a lot, a citizen's perspective on the state of affairs is not one of them. Lucky for me my search did not take very long at all. Omraneya.net is an aggregator of Egyptian blogs maintained by citizen journalists, an extremely good find for a source.
After reading several of the entries I was painted a picture of Egypt that I had never gotten a sense of from the paper, and that was Egypt as a police state. From reading the Al Ahram I was always given the impression that demonstrations and protests were constantly taking place over various policy issues and other violations, but for the most part I assumed they were peaceful. This blog entry tells a different story. A protest was being held for the release of a student, Tarek Kheder, who was arrested by the SSI for collecting signatures for a petition for the National Association of Change. The SSI is the State Security Intelligence, and it is the highest national investigative body in Egypt. The gathering was only just beginning when they were approached by SSI officers looking to see papers. The event quickly erupted in violence and the scene described is that of chaos and brutality. The citizen reporter describes participants as being dragged, beaten, and “kidnapped”. The reporter himself was never attacked but he did have his rights violated. He says that he was the only journalist on the scene at the time of the violence, and he was getting exclusive footage that would surely shock the nation, when he made the fatal mistake of accidentally filming an SSI officer. The officer had him apprehended and of course confiscated his identification and camera. The footage was never recovered.
Stories similar to this one appear again and again when talking about Egypt. Although it is a very developed country and a key American ally in the Middle East, it continues to top many human rights lists as a chief violator. Although their press allows from them to criticize everything under the sun that occurs outside of the country, their freedom to report on controversial actions of the government and to criticize their own leadership is severely limited. That is why a unified and dedicated citizen journalist press is so important to the region. It is vital for the Egyptian people to create checks on the government's powers and ensure that the world is aware of what is going on under their nose. Sites such as Omraneya.net have an important duty to do, but so do the people, in seeking out the truth when it is hidden and reporting on the news themselves when no one else sees it.
After reading several of the entries I was painted a picture of Egypt that I had never gotten a sense of from the paper, and that was Egypt as a police state. From reading the Al Ahram I was always given the impression that demonstrations and protests were constantly taking place over various policy issues and other violations, but for the most part I assumed they were peaceful. This blog entry tells a different story. A protest was being held for the release of a student, Tarek Kheder, who was arrested by the SSI for collecting signatures for a petition for the National Association of Change. The SSI is the State Security Intelligence, and it is the highest national investigative body in Egypt. The gathering was only just beginning when they were approached by SSI officers looking to see papers. The event quickly erupted in violence and the scene described is that of chaos and brutality. The citizen reporter describes participants as being dragged, beaten, and “kidnapped”. The reporter himself was never attacked but he did have his rights violated. He says that he was the only journalist on the scene at the time of the violence, and he was getting exclusive footage that would surely shock the nation, when he made the fatal mistake of accidentally filming an SSI officer. The officer had him apprehended and of course confiscated his identification and camera. The footage was never recovered.
Stories similar to this one appear again and again when talking about Egypt. Although it is a very developed country and a key American ally in the Middle East, it continues to top many human rights lists as a chief violator. Although their press allows from them to criticize everything under the sun that occurs outside of the country, their freedom to report on controversial actions of the government and to criticize their own leadership is severely limited. That is why a unified and dedicated citizen journalist press is so important to the region. It is vital for the Egyptian people to create checks on the government's powers and ensure that the world is aware of what is going on under their nose. Sites such as Omraneya.net have an important duty to do, but so do the people, in seeking out the truth when it is hidden and reporting on the news themselves when no one else sees it.
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
The Cost of Coverage
As I searched for articles pertaining to embedding this week I had a few things on my mind. In doing some research through my Egyptian newspaper the Al-Ahram I found some articles about embedding that focused my attention on an aspect of embedding that we've previously talked about; the issue of information control. Although Jill McGivering's talk shed a lot of light on the issues of embedding, I wanted to explore the issue from the other side, the government's.
From reading the Al-Ahram on a regular basis I have come to understand that much of its reporting, especially on sensitive subjects such as the Arab-Israeli conflict, is admittedly biased, and from a Western perspective it is at times shocking. But that is not to say that all of their reporting should be discredited. There are shocking facts on both sides of every conflict and I am inclined to believe that the reporting of the Al-Ahram is still dutiful and that many of their facts about the conflict that could be easily proven are true.
The article I found entitled “Covering Gaza” reports that in Israel's struggle in Gaza they are following suit with the Americans in Iraq and requiring all reporters covering the conflict to embed with the military. This works to control the flow of information in two ways; they keep unaccredited and freelance journalists out of the area while they can apply pressure and restrictions on those let in. To get in to Gaza a reporter must obtain a press card from the Government Press Office. To be eligible for a card an applicant must have accreditation with “a recognised media organisation”, these are traditionally very large Western/sympathetic mainstream news outlets, and if a news organization has had a history of being critical of Israel in the past, they could easily be denied any access to the action. Reporters that do receive a GPO card must sign an agreement stating any reports dealing with defense and security will be turned over to Israel's military censor.
When the facts are laid bare these are shocking blockades to press freedom, but I don't Israel's embedding process all that different from any other, including our own. The government controls who is allowed to embed, where they are embedded, what they can see, who they can talk to, what they can do, and even in some instances, what they are allowed to report. With all of these safeguards, it is very reasonable to believe that the government has the ability to shape and emphasize any story they like, while at the same time repressing anything they don't.
Compounding this issue is the question of the psychological effects of embedding on a reporter. It is reasonable to believe that embedding with a troop of soldiers that is fighting for your freedom and constantly protecting your very life would, over time, change your opinion of them. It would be very hard to come out of that situation without a deep-seated sense of respect for those men you had shared so much with. This experience could very well affect your writing and possibly bias you towards putting their actions in a favorable light.
Although there are many positive aspects to embedding journalists, the possible downsides are hard to ignore. Despite the fact that we have one of the freest presses in the world, this loophole has potentially made us just as susceptible to censorship as anyone else.
From reading the Al-Ahram on a regular basis I have come to understand that much of its reporting, especially on sensitive subjects such as the Arab-Israeli conflict, is admittedly biased, and from a Western perspective it is at times shocking. But that is not to say that all of their reporting should be discredited. There are shocking facts on both sides of every conflict and I am inclined to believe that the reporting of the Al-Ahram is still dutiful and that many of their facts about the conflict that could be easily proven are true.
The article I found entitled “Covering Gaza” reports that in Israel's struggle in Gaza they are following suit with the Americans in Iraq and requiring all reporters covering the conflict to embed with the military. This works to control the flow of information in two ways; they keep unaccredited and freelance journalists out of the area while they can apply pressure and restrictions on those let in. To get in to Gaza a reporter must obtain a press card from the Government Press Office. To be eligible for a card an applicant must have accreditation with “a recognised media organisation”, these are traditionally very large Western/sympathetic mainstream news outlets, and if a news organization has had a history of being critical of Israel in the past, they could easily be denied any access to the action. Reporters that do receive a GPO card must sign an agreement stating any reports dealing with defense and security will be turned over to Israel's military censor.
When the facts are laid bare these are shocking blockades to press freedom, but I don't Israel's embedding process all that different from any other, including our own. The government controls who is allowed to embed, where they are embedded, what they can see, who they can talk to, what they can do, and even in some instances, what they are allowed to report. With all of these safeguards, it is very reasonable to believe that the government has the ability to shape and emphasize any story they like, while at the same time repressing anything they don't.
Compounding this issue is the question of the psychological effects of embedding on a reporter. It is reasonable to believe that embedding with a troop of soldiers that is fighting for your freedom and constantly protecting your very life would, over time, change your opinion of them. It would be very hard to come out of that situation without a deep-seated sense of respect for those men you had shared so much with. This experience could very well affect your writing and possibly bias you towards putting their actions in a favorable light.
Although there are many positive aspects to embedding journalists, the possible downsides are hard to ignore. Despite the fact that we have one of the freest presses in the world, this loophole has potentially made us just as susceptible to censorship as anyone else.
Monday, March 15, 2010
Women's Rights in Egypt
March 8th was International Women's Day and with the celebrations came renewed interest in getting the rights of women on par with those of men in Egypt. Egypt has traditionally lagged behind the Western world with affording women rights, their laws more closely resembling that of their Islamic neighbors. Egyptian women were granted full political rights in 1956, but the social and cultural climate of Egypt has hindered women from taking full advantage of these rights and being treated as equals. But very recently women have been making more and more advances, although they have not come quickly and not without a struggle. Much of their gain can be accredited to the National Council for Women, recently celebrating their 10th anniversary. The NCW is celebrating Women's Day by holding conferences across the country to discuss women's achievements and the problems they still face ahead. The series of conferences will commence with the NCW's headquarter's conference that will be held after the governorates have finished their celebrations.
NCW Secretary General Farkhonda Hassan spoke with the Al-Ahram about the work of the NCW, the progress they've made and the steps that lie ahead. Hassan believes that the advancement of women has grown hand in hand with the country's social, economic, and cultural development. Recent victories for the NCW include:
- The 2003 appointment of Tahini El-Gebali as Egypt's first female judge.
- A 2004 Law which allows Egyptian women to pass down their citizenship to their children regardless of the nationality of their spouse.
- A 2007 mass swearing-in of female judges.
- The 2008 appointment of the first female omda (mayor) and maazoun (religious registrar).
The NCW organizes workshops that are aimed at training Egyptian women to build their own political careers. The women are taught about legislative institutions, the election process, and leadership skills, and they are also informed about the economic and social issues facing women in Egypt.
The NCW has developed a detailed national development plan that spans the years of 2007 to 2012. The plan outlines several strategies that will be key to the future advancement of women that include meeting with political parties and working together to improve the status of women, participatory planning, and on-the-job capacity building with partners from national agencies.
However, one of the most pressing goals of the NCW lies ahead in the next week. The State Council is currently deliberating the issue on whether or not it will allow female law school graduates on to the council's administrative judiciary. The problem arose when law student graduates of 2008 and 2009 began applying for judicial posts. After completing initial tests and interviews the review process was stopped and a special committee was created to discuss the issue of appointing female graduates to the council, and the question was then referred to the general assembly. All of this occurred back in mid-January and there have been countless protests by over 150 women's rights groups in front of both the State Council and the National Democratic Party since then. The protesters see the issue as a very cut and dry case because denying women equal power to serve would be unconstitutional, but to the Supreme Constitutional Court it is not that simple. Last Tuesday they voted once again to postpone their decision to an undetermined later date. Although women have come a long way in recent years in Egypt they still have a long way to go. It seems however that things are trending in their favor, as women continue to achieve better representation in the skilled job market as well as many levels of government.
NCW Secretary General Farkhonda Hassan spoke with the Al-Ahram about the work of the NCW, the progress they've made and the steps that lie ahead. Hassan believes that the advancement of women has grown hand in hand with the country's social, economic, and cultural development. Recent victories for the NCW include:
- The 2003 appointment of Tahini El-Gebali as Egypt's first female judge.
- A 2004 Law which allows Egyptian women to pass down their citizenship to their children regardless of the nationality of their spouse.
- A 2007 mass swearing-in of female judges.
- The 2008 appointment of the first female omda (mayor) and maazoun (religious registrar).
The NCW organizes workshops that are aimed at training Egyptian women to build their own political careers. The women are taught about legislative institutions, the election process, and leadership skills, and they are also informed about the economic and social issues facing women in Egypt.
The NCW has developed a detailed national development plan that spans the years of 2007 to 2012. The plan outlines several strategies that will be key to the future advancement of women that include meeting with political parties and working together to improve the status of women, participatory planning, and on-the-job capacity building with partners from national agencies.
However, one of the most pressing goals of the NCW lies ahead in the next week. The State Council is currently deliberating the issue on whether or not it will allow female law school graduates on to the council's administrative judiciary. The problem arose when law student graduates of 2008 and 2009 began applying for judicial posts. After completing initial tests and interviews the review process was stopped and a special committee was created to discuss the issue of appointing female graduates to the council, and the question was then referred to the general assembly. All of this occurred back in mid-January and there have been countless protests by over 150 women's rights groups in front of both the State Council and the National Democratic Party since then. The protesters see the issue as a very cut and dry case because denying women equal power to serve would be unconstitutional, but to the Supreme Constitutional Court it is not that simple. Last Tuesday they voted once again to postpone their decision to an undetermined later date. Although women have come a long way in recent years in Egypt they still have a long way to go. It seems however that things are trending in their favor, as women continue to achieve better representation in the skilled job market as well as many levels of government.
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
However, this particular photo is marred in controversy. Before it won the prize and then much more afterward it was greatly questioned by conservative bloggers. They wanted to know what the photographer was doing there. Being so close as he obviously is to the action, why did he apparently have no fear of the terrorists and why were the terrorists apparently unconcerned with being photographed in the midst of an execution? Did the photographer have advanced knowledge of the crime and was he possibly accompanying the terrorists? Not much has been disclosed or discovered in the time since this photo came out. The AP chose not to reveal the photographers name, sourcing him only as “AP stringer”, citing “safety concerns”. A source at the Associated Press did comment to Salon that claims of foreknowledge of a public execution were “ridiculous” and that the photographer was most likely "tipped off to a demonstration that was supposed to take place on Haifa Street".
I think that claims that an AP photographer was working with terrorists and not reporting possible murders simply to get the exclusive photos are absurd. I think the bigger ethical dilemma is how much do you comply with a radical group's requests to document their activity and what are the possible implications of that? In this instance the photographer captured an extremely important moment on film, but he also gave the terrorists exactly what they wanted. The reason they took election workers out of their car and publicly executed them in broad daylight was to strike fear into others working on elections and in the government. Publishing the photographs has increased their audience for this message exponentially. It's an extremely difficult ethical question to answer, do you sit on important and vivid photos that tell a story readers need to hear, or do you publish the photos giving the terrorist organization the soap box they desire?
It's an extremely difficult question and one that I am not sure can be answered indiscriminately every time. What I am sure of is the power of photography and the power of the truth. Photos have a crucial role to play in the press; nothing has the power to inform and move someone so simply and immediately. Photos such as the AP series from Iraq tell a story that words never could, and that makes momentous photos such as the one above invaluable.
Monday, February 15, 2010
The Munich Security Conference
The 46th annual Munich Security Conference was held the other week from February 5th through February 7th. The conference meets once a year and invites influential members and high ranking officials from many of the world's leading countries, as well as members of the media, to take part in talks aimed at finding lasting strategies to secure peace and affect policy change.
To read about the conference through domestic news one would get the idea that the talks were solely about the American dream of nonproliferation. This article from the New York Times seems to paint the conference as a platform for the United States to carry out Obama's commitment to nuclear proliferation with the help of Russia and few others. Looking at an article from Egyptian periodical the Al-Ahram weekly understandably told a different story. The story, entitled “Nukes and handshakes” was all about Middle Eastern issues that were touched on throughout the conference.
This article was obviously aimed at a readership far more informed on current affairs than a typical American audience. I constantly find it refreshing to read about these foreign affairs and not feel as if I'm being patronized. The focus of the article's Middle East discussion was entirely on Israel. My U.S. media upbringing always makes reading these numerous articles critical of Israel shocking but I must admit that I am starting to understand the Palestinian plight more and more. These articles often speculate as to cruel and unknowable motives behind certain actions, and I am always cautious of this, but they also often have legitimate points. For example, the article points out Israel has been holding up peace talks as of late, unwilling to discuss a two-state solution, and continuing settlement building in the West Bank despite pressures from the U.S to stop. Also, following up on my last blog entry about a possible Israeli attack against Hamas, there was no interest in the state of security for other Middle Eastern countries from Israel at the conference; “as for Hamas and Hizbullah, Middle East and European MSC sources agreed that there was no assurance against Israeli attacks. The general feel in Munich was 'if it happens, it happens.'” This seems to be an interesting double standard where the bigger accredited power can freely carry out an attack on a smaller organization (who has declined to retaliate outside of Palestine) because that organization has no validation or backing. But I do not feel qualified in the least to start a discussion on the topic.
A significant moment that the article pointed out, and is alluded to in the title of the piece as well, occurred on the second day of the MSC. “In the wake of a verbal attack” Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister Daniel Aylon extended his hand and it was shook by former Saudi intelligence chief Prince Torki Al-Faisal. To many uninformed people, myself and most members of the American press included, this action would not hold any significance. But to the keen and enlightened individuals of the Middle East this gesture meant everything, the article goes so far as to speculate it was the “highlight of the event”. Directly following a heated argument on the role of Riyadh in the Arab-Israeli conflict, Aylon offered his hand and, in the words of the article, “the Israeli official managed to secure for his country an unprecedented gesture of recognition from a direct relative of the Saudi monarch”. It's insights such as this one about the slightest glimmers of hope that make studying the press outside of the U.S. rewarding.
To read about the conference through domestic news one would get the idea that the talks were solely about the American dream of nonproliferation. This article from the New York Times seems to paint the conference as a platform for the United States to carry out Obama's commitment to nuclear proliferation with the help of Russia and few others. Looking at an article from Egyptian periodical the Al-Ahram weekly understandably told a different story. The story, entitled “Nukes and handshakes” was all about Middle Eastern issues that were touched on throughout the conference.
This article was obviously aimed at a readership far more informed on current affairs than a typical American audience. I constantly find it refreshing to read about these foreign affairs and not feel as if I'm being patronized. The focus of the article's Middle East discussion was entirely on Israel. My U.S. media upbringing always makes reading these numerous articles critical of Israel shocking but I must admit that I am starting to understand the Palestinian plight more and more. These articles often speculate as to cruel and unknowable motives behind certain actions, and I am always cautious of this, but they also often have legitimate points. For example, the article points out Israel has been holding up peace talks as of late, unwilling to discuss a two-state solution, and continuing settlement building in the West Bank despite pressures from the U.S to stop. Also, following up on my last blog entry about a possible Israeli attack against Hamas, there was no interest in the state of security for other Middle Eastern countries from Israel at the conference; “as for Hamas and Hizbullah, Middle East and European MSC sources agreed that there was no assurance against Israeli attacks. The general feel in Munich was 'if it happens, it happens.'” This seems to be an interesting double standard where the bigger accredited power can freely carry out an attack on a smaller organization (who has declined to retaliate outside of Palestine) because that organization has no validation or backing. But I do not feel qualified in the least to start a discussion on the topic.
A significant moment that the article pointed out, and is alluded to in the title of the piece as well, occurred on the second day of the MSC. “In the wake of a verbal attack” Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister Daniel Aylon extended his hand and it was shook by former Saudi intelligence chief Prince Torki Al-Faisal. To many uninformed people, myself and most members of the American press included, this action would not hold any significance. But to the keen and enlightened individuals of the Middle East this gesture meant everything, the article goes so far as to speculate it was the “highlight of the event”. Directly following a heated argument on the role of Riyadh in the Arab-Israeli conflict, Aylon offered his hand and, in the words of the article, “the Israeli official managed to secure for his country an unprecedented gesture of recognition from a direct relative of the Saudi monarch”. It's insights such as this one about the slightest glimmers of hope that make studying the press outside of the U.S. rewarding.
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
Egyptian Press Jumping to Conclusions
It was hard to find an article that wasn't talking about Egypt's national football team winning the Africa Cup of Nations this week; a team that failed to qualify for the World Cup but then failed to lose a single match following this for a record 19 games, beating 4 World Cup bound teams, clinching their seventh Cup, and becoming the first team in history to win three consecutive Nations Cups.
What I did end up finding was an article titled “Several birds, one stone” about a senior Hamas leader who was assassinated in his Dubai hotel room on January 20th. This shocked me as the article seemed like an important story and yet I had heard nothing about it in the several weeks that followed through mainstream U.S. news. I did some searching to see if I had simply not been paying attention and I managed to find one lone article reporting the incident in the New York Times. Apparently the American press didn't deem this story newsworthy which surprises me as it seems to have the makings of a very compelling piece; Arab-Israeli conflict, an assassination plot, hit squads, foreign political intrigue, what more does American media feel it needs to interest viewers in international news?
The story is about Mahmoud Al-Mabhouh, a senior leader of Hamas, a Palestinian organization deemed by many western countries as a terrorist organization. Al-Mabhouh was assassinated in his hotel room shortly after checking in on January 20th in Dubai. It is suspected that 7 assassins were tracking Al-Mabhouh and injected him with a poison that mimics the effects of a heart attack so that the true nature of the death was not discovered until some time after. After the truth came out Hamas immediately officially announced that Israeli agents had killed Mahmoud. Israel has yet to release an official comment on the matter.
What amazes me after this part in the story is the way that the Egyptian paper handles the matter given these facts. Their article treats the issue as if it was proven fact that Israel committed the attack. Even the story's byline reads, “Israel's assassination of a top Hamas official is clearly aimed at forcing the resistance group into a military response”. They offer little bits of evidence that point to Israel, saying “Israeli cabinet members were strongly hinting that Israel was in fact behind the killing,” and offering a few quotes from said members that did not confirm Israel's involvement in any way. Later on the article explains away this lack of concrete evidence with the statement “the assassination in Dubai is categorised by the Israeli Mossad as a 'silent mission' -- meaning it leaves no evidence leading to Israel”.
The fact that the article believes Israel to be responsible without tangible and verifiable evidence is not what surprises me. In all likelihood it was Mossad that carried out this assassination; they had the motive, training, and resources for such an operation. What is surprising is the disparity between the tenets of journalism in Egypt and the United States. I can't imagine the American press ever stating something to be fact without one single shred of evidence to back it up. A quick glance at the New York Times' article confirms that they do not go anywhere near affirming Israel's involvement in the incident. Their article simply reports what can be proven; that Hamas has accused Israel of the killing and that Israel has declined to comment thus far. Despite this they are still able to get across all of the information the other article does, although with decidedly less speculation as to the implications. Interestingly enough the NY Times appears to be preparing for Israel's admittance to the attack, as they go to great lengths to seemingly explain why Israel would be justified in carrying out this attack.
I feel like I am already getting a better understanding of how the international press covers the same events differently from our press. I can see the advantages and disadvantages of the varying choices both countries make, but neither country's coverage can give you the same understanding and perspective as comparing them will.
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
State of the Union Address
President Obama made much publicized news domestically and abroad last Wednesday when he delivered his first State of the Union Address. Understandably, the speech has been much discussed and it seems every little remark and mannerism has been picked over and commented on by pundits representing both sides of the aisle. Although the focus of the night was on health care and economic reform there were still brief mentions of foreign policy and I was intrigued as to how the foreign press was evaluating the specific issues that might affect them.
I found an article in my media of choice; the Al-Ahram Weekly, that I feel represents an Egyptian view of the speech quite well. The article, entitled “Obama's disappointment” and written by Hassan Nafaa, covers the entirety of the speech and, similar to all the press I've heard about the speech so far, goes over every detail with a fine-toothed comb, reading into vocabulary and even reasons why certain topics weren't mentioned.
One of the first points of contention the article has with the speech is something that I noticed as well, that President Obama devoted a vast majority of the speech to domestic affairs and very little to issues abroad. The author finds this very odd considering, “the US is mired in two wars that are draining it materially and morally, and… these wars and other problems overseas have a direct impact on domestic security and daily life in the US”. Here I feel the author is making a questionable assumption when he asserts this focus to Obama's fear that the U.S. has lost influence and has irreversibly lost its world power status. Nafaa claims that underneath Obama's confidence and posturing lay a sense of foreboding and “an inescapable note of concern between every line”.
The article's other big issue with the speech was that it never once mentioned issues related to the Arab world, and more specifically the Arab-Israeli conflict and the U.S.'s obligation to broker a peaceful settlement. The fact that Nafaa took such issue with this I found to be extremely interesting. Of course it makes perfect sense that an Egyptian article would be looking over the speech for any issues that concern them, and the most likely candidate for such an issue would be the Arab-Israeli conflict. What is surprising is that upon hearing no mention of the conflict whatsoever Nafaa took offense to this and felt Obama had failed in some way. He cites a time when, “for years virtually every State of the Union address included at least a short paragraph reaffirming America's commitment to the security of Israel and its determination to reach a peaceful solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict.” Nafaa did not see this snub as an abandonment to the commitment this administration has made to settling peace in the region, but rather a response to Israel's unwillingness to cooperate with the administration's pressures toward slowing settlement development and negotiation tactics.
The article ends with this interpretation; “Obama's State of the Union address revealed both his helplessness and his confusion at this juncture. Sometimes a sense of weakness makes people put on a display of might. Therefore, we might wake up one day to the renewed sound of war drums and, once again, the Middle East will be the battle theatre.” It is an eye-opening experience being able to examine a news event that one is so close to through the lens of another country and another world view. The levels that this article reads into what Obama did not discuss and the conclusions drawn were surprising to me but completely understandable; although they seem far fetched to me these media blogs are allowing me to understand where they are coming from. My media consumption and political leanings lead me to interpret Obama's speech entirely differently, but that isn't to say that I think the conclusions drawn in this article are completely out of the question.
I found an article in my media of choice; the Al-Ahram Weekly, that I feel represents an Egyptian view of the speech quite well. The article, entitled “Obama's disappointment” and written by Hassan Nafaa, covers the entirety of the speech and, similar to all the press I've heard about the speech so far, goes over every detail with a fine-toothed comb, reading into vocabulary and even reasons why certain topics weren't mentioned.
One of the first points of contention the article has with the speech is something that I noticed as well, that President Obama devoted a vast majority of the speech to domestic affairs and very little to issues abroad. The author finds this very odd considering, “the US is mired in two wars that are draining it materially and morally, and… these wars and other problems overseas have a direct impact on domestic security and daily life in the US”. Here I feel the author is making a questionable assumption when he asserts this focus to Obama's fear that the U.S. has lost influence and has irreversibly lost its world power status. Nafaa claims that underneath Obama's confidence and posturing lay a sense of foreboding and “an inescapable note of concern between every line”.
The article's other big issue with the speech was that it never once mentioned issues related to the Arab world, and more specifically the Arab-Israeli conflict and the U.S.'s obligation to broker a peaceful settlement. The fact that Nafaa took such issue with this I found to be extremely interesting. Of course it makes perfect sense that an Egyptian article would be looking over the speech for any issues that concern them, and the most likely candidate for such an issue would be the Arab-Israeli conflict. What is surprising is that upon hearing no mention of the conflict whatsoever Nafaa took offense to this and felt Obama had failed in some way. He cites a time when, “for years virtually every State of the Union address included at least a short paragraph reaffirming America's commitment to the security of Israel and its determination to reach a peaceful solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict.” Nafaa did not see this snub as an abandonment to the commitment this administration has made to settling peace in the region, but rather a response to Israel's unwillingness to cooperate with the administration's pressures toward slowing settlement development and negotiation tactics.
The article ends with this interpretation; “Obama's State of the Union address revealed both his helplessness and his confusion at this juncture. Sometimes a sense of weakness makes people put on a display of might. Therefore, we might wake up one day to the renewed sound of war drums and, once again, the Middle East will be the battle theatre.” It is an eye-opening experience being able to examine a news event that one is so close to through the lens of another country and another world view. The levels that this article reads into what Obama did not discuss and the conclusions drawn were surprising to me but completely understandable; although they seem far fetched to me these media blogs are allowing me to understand where they are coming from. My media consumption and political leanings lead me to interpret Obama's speech entirely differently, but that isn't to say that I think the conclusions drawn in this article are completely out of the question.
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Haiti in the Media
For my media blog I picked Egypt because I thought that a country in the Middle East would offer an extremely interesting and contrasting point of view to the American media. As for the specific media outlet, I chose to follow the Al-Ahram Weekly, a weekly English language version of the Al-Ahram newspaper. I thought that this paper would be one of the most interesting to follow because it is the most widely circulated Egyptian paper and is also mostly owned by the Egyptian government who appoints its editors. Although this might potentially bias some of the reporting, it also offers views that could never be found in a more “western” paper.
The first article I found about Haiti was a scathing critique of U.S. military intervention in Haiti titled “Making the most of disaster”. The article sets the tone quickly with the first line reading, “The militarisation of emergency relief by the Western powers, and in particular the United States of America, is scandalous, disgraceful and unscrupulous.” The accusations were similar to those made by others in the foreign press but this article took it much further. In only the fourth paragraph the writer claims, “Haitians had hopes in redemption by an African-American president in the venerable tradition of their own legendary Toussaint Louverture. He has failed them.” The article continues on to list the U.S.'s history of neocolonialism in Haiti and blame us for Haiti's current economic state. It then criticizes America's economic bailout as well as the administrations of Obama, Bush, and Clinton.
Another article I found by the same author was a strange, brief recap of the situation in Haiti. Titled “Horror in Haiti”, the article gives a very quick summary of the recent events as well as several unfortunate incidents Haiti has suffered in the last few years. Then the article poses a rather odd question, “Could this misfortune be because Haiti in April 2003 declared Voodoo the official religion of the country on par with other recognised faiths?” Although the writer does not seem to be suggesting this to be the case, he does go on to explain why this is unsettling to the Christian population, as well as a brief history of voodoo in Haiti, at which point the article abruptly ends.
The articles from Al-Ahram were drastically different from stories about Haiti from CNN and the New York Times. The articles from Al-Ahram completely downplayed the relief efforts of the American people; an outpouring of support that I see as deeply moving and generous. The two news sources represented both ends of a spectrum to me; from what I read the American media never mentioned the concerns of foreign nations toward American imperialism, while the Al-Ahram never mentioned the tremendous efforts of American aid. The other glaring difference I saw was that the Al-Ahram seemed to make no effort to present the news objectively. The first article in particular was filled with terribly weighted words and opinions that could not be substantiated. It was extremely surprising to read a report from a newspaper written in this way, as it is a far cry from the tenets of American journalism and will take some getting used to.
The first article I found about Haiti was a scathing critique of U.S. military intervention in Haiti titled “Making the most of disaster”. The article sets the tone quickly with the first line reading, “The militarisation of emergency relief by the Western powers, and in particular the United States of America, is scandalous, disgraceful and unscrupulous.” The accusations were similar to those made by others in the foreign press but this article took it much further. In only the fourth paragraph the writer claims, “Haitians had hopes in redemption by an African-American president in the venerable tradition of their own legendary Toussaint Louverture. He has failed them.” The article continues on to list the U.S.'s history of neocolonialism in Haiti and blame us for Haiti's current economic state. It then criticizes America's economic bailout as well as the administrations of Obama, Bush, and Clinton.
Another article I found by the same author was a strange, brief recap of the situation in Haiti. Titled “Horror in Haiti”, the article gives a very quick summary of the recent events as well as several unfortunate incidents Haiti has suffered in the last few years. Then the article poses a rather odd question, “Could this misfortune be because Haiti in April 2003 declared Voodoo the official religion of the country on par with other recognised faiths?” Although the writer does not seem to be suggesting this to be the case, he does go on to explain why this is unsettling to the Christian population, as well as a brief history of voodoo in Haiti, at which point the article abruptly ends.
The articles from Al-Ahram were drastically different from stories about Haiti from CNN and the New York Times. The articles from Al-Ahram completely downplayed the relief efforts of the American people; an outpouring of support that I see as deeply moving and generous. The two news sources represented both ends of a spectrum to me; from what I read the American media never mentioned the concerns of foreign nations toward American imperialism, while the Al-Ahram never mentioned the tremendous efforts of American aid. The other glaring difference I saw was that the Al-Ahram seemed to make no effort to present the news objectively. The first article in particular was filled with terribly weighted words and opinions that could not be substantiated. It was extremely surprising to read a report from a newspaper written in this way, as it is a far cry from the tenets of American journalism and will take some getting used to.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)