|
Presentation |
Role of Media in
shaping a ‘New World Civilization’
We Are What We Watch?
In a climate of
heightened global anxiety and conflict, the objectivity and
balance of the media are at risk. The line between
information and opinion is becoming blurred. But balanced
coverage of global events is crucial to stabilizing an
unstable world
Since the media
play an important role in shaping pubic opinion, they have
great potential to facilitate the dialogue among
civilizations by expanding the public’s knowledge about the
belief systems and the practices of other cultural,
religious, ethnic, and social groups.
Media
professionals are aware of the vital role that the media
play in informing the public and its potential to foster
justice, peace and mutual respect among different cultural,
religious, ethnic and social groups, nationally and
internationally.
Similar to
conventional media, the so-called new media and new
information and communication technologies embody a huge
potential in facilitating dialogue among civilizations and
in shaping our contemporary world.
Internet, in
particular, offers the opportunity to easily communicate
with members of other cultural and social groups
irrespective of national or other borders. These new forms
of media contribute greatly to increased, diversified and
decentralized information flows.
New technological
developments have made it possible to establish connections
among mobile telephones, televisions, personal computers,
and other electronic devices. This wireless and satellite
technology can be used to partly substitute for – but not
fully replace - conventional communication infrastructure,
allowing developing countries to “leapfrog” technological
developments.
Although
face-to-face communication will remain of primary
significance in fostering greater mutual understanding among
different cultures and civilizations, new information
technologies can be used as a tool to promote more direct
forms of interchange, as it offers opportunities for direct
communication between individuals in widely dispersed
locations.
However, it needs
to be clearly stated that access to new information and
communication technology is not evenly spread around the
world. Most internet users, and hosts, are located in
western developed capitalist industrialized countries. ]
Language also
constitutes an obstacle to the full realization of the
potential of new communication technologies for an improved
dialogue among civilizations. The dominant language on the
internet is English, which represents the native language of
only a small proportion of the world population. More
linguistic variety in terms of internet content, better,
cheaper and possibly automated translation services, along
with a greater emphasis on foreign language education, will
help to lower the language barrier and to foster a
successful dialogue among civilizations.
Multicultural society and the media
Historical observation proves that, in the past,
the media have contributed to a better understanding among
various cultures, as can be seen, for example, in the role
the media played in the establishment of international
humanitarian organizations such as the International
Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC).
On the other hand,
the media have also contributed to conflicts among and
within countries and peoples by serving as instruments of
propaganda or acting as elements of incitement and hatred
for parties to the conflict. History also reveals that media
coverage of a particular culture occasionally tends to move
in a pendular type of movement, varying between
stereotypical and sensational coverage, and a style or
reporting that pays more attention to the “normal” and
“ordinary” than the “exceptional” and “extraordinary”.
History highlights
the importance for newsmakers to report and analyze the
similarities among different cultures and civilizations
along with the dissimilarities, in order to promote a better
mutual understanding, and with it, the basis for fruitful
dialogue..
Examples from
various parts of the world show that the media can both
facilitate and obstruct intercultural dialogue in
multicultural societies. In some cases, the media have
played an important role in enabling a better understanding
among local groups belonging to different identities,
ideological frames of reference and value systems by giving
them room to report on specific ethnic, linguistic, cultural
and/or religious matters while simultaneously disclosing
what they share in common. In other cases, however, media
catering to specific ethnic, cultural, linguistic or
religious groups have created or reinforced an “image of
categorization”, according to which individuals develop a
strong identification with their own ethnicity, culture,
language or religion and an antagonism towards the “other”.
This process can lead, as it has done in the recent past and
continues to do, to violent clashes between members
belonging to different ethnic, cultural, linguistic or
religious groups.
Reporting on
cultural diversity within a single country is best served by
media pluralism, giving room to the expression of the
diversity of viewpoints that co-exist within this society.
Multicultural countries which currently lack a sufficiently
diversified and transparent media network are entitled, if
their governments deem it necessary, to request and
consequently receive assistance from the international
community in order to increase the number of news sources,
including, but not limited to, public service broadcasting.
Apart from national television stations, newspapers and
other media catering to the whole country, local news
providers can also play a positive role in fostering
tolerance among different ethnic, cultural, linguistic and
religious groups in one region within this country.
Local multi-media
centers, where citizens can have equal access to information
and work together on equal footing to found media programs
irrespective of their cultural group affiliation, are
another positive element in promoting intercivilizational
dialogue.
Regulatory bodies,
which set and monitor minimum standards of fair and just
broadcasting, should particularly exist in developed
countries which control the bulk of news providers and
networks.
Globalization of the media and
cultural diversity
Over the past decades, a worldwide process of
consolidation among the media has taken place. One of the
results of this process has been the establishment of news
services operating on a global scale, with their news
programs available in a similar format in almost every
corner of the world. On the other hand, however, the
consolidation of media enterprises has been characterized by
value loaded biases, mostly against cultures and
civilizations of less developed countries. The main reason
of such adverse development has been the fact that this
consolidation process predominantly took place in the
developed Western countries.
The globalization
of media does not, therefore, necessarily have to be
interpreted as a vehicle for the globalization of value
systems, i.e. an increasingly common perception of reality
among members of all cultures. Some media certainly try to
do just that. Some do it out of internationalist or
humanitarian considerations, while others do it out of plans
os achieving hegemony by one culture or civilization, which
they believe, or claim, to be superior to others as they
believe in a pyramidical hierarchy of civilizations and
cultures Other media, on the contrary, perceive their role
as promoters of particular cultural values, which are
frequently identified with specific territorial boundaries.
Among the latter, there are those that give no room to
viewpoints other than those of the culture they want to
promote, while some may be open at least to a search for
solutions to similar problems on a global level.
More conducive to
the dialogue among civilizations are media which through
their coverage of news events involving members of other
cultural groups try to emphasize the existence of some
common ground, of basic ideas shared by members of all
civilizations within the cultural diversity and pluralism
which characterize humanity today. This type of news
coverage and feature articles or programs would encourage
readers and audience to comprehend, respect and appreciate
the particularities of different cultures in their locality,
country, region and the world, by presenting such cultures
with close reference to the respective “native” value
systems and cultural parameters. At the same time, they
would give room to showing the commonalities, shared values,
customs, ways of life that exist across cultural boundaries,
thereby eventually enabling the establishment of some common
frames of reference in some areas – as opposed to universal
values – among the members of different civilizations.
To play this role
of a facilitator of inter-civilizational dialogue
effectively, the media will have to cooperate more closely
among themselves, at the local, national, regional and
international levels. Such cooperation may include:
- exchange programs among journalists. These would not only
give journalists a chance to broaden their personal
perspectives by experiencing different styles of journalism
while reporting back to their home institutions, but will
involve them actively in the work of their hosts;
- an exchange of media content (television programs,
newspaper and magazine articles, website content … etc) to
encourage direct exposure of readers and audience to other
cultural perspectives;
- the consideration of the possibilities and feasibilities
of joint production of media content, which will foster the
identification of common denominators among different
cultures and civilizations.
Sub-regional, regional, inter-regional and international
organizations should render support in all forms to the
development and implementation of such cooperation.
AL JAZEERA: the response to the
Western news monopoly?
Until the 1990s almost all television channels in the Arab
countries were government owned and rigidly controlled.
These channels still exist but the situation began to change
in the 1990s with the spread of satellite television.
Privately owned and non-governmental channels introduced
livelier programmes aimed at a pan-Arab audience and also
adopted a more professional approach to news and current
affairs.
The pioneer in this field was the news channel, al-Jazeera,
which is financed by the government of Qatar but enjoys a
large measure of independence.
Al-Jazeera, many
of whose staff originally came from the BBC, has become the
first Arabic channel to provide extensive live news
coverage, even sending reporters to previously unthinkable
places, such as Israel.
Al-Jazeera has
become perhaps the most popular television station in all of
the Middle East, more so that daily soap operas or sitcoms.
Most Arab viewers are obsessive about domestic, regional and
international news, and Al-Jazeera has risen to meet this
demand in a satisfying way. Most Arabs viewed traditional
news programs with skepticism, understanding clearly that
the concepts and images were controlled and limited.
Interestingly, Al-Jazeera has managed to develop an identity
that most Arabs can relate to due to the staff of Arabs from
different countries, and also the intention to address
issues that have universal appeal to Arab audiences.
Although Al-Jazeera is by far the preferred news and program
channel in the Arab world, this does not mean that the
audience believes Al-Jazeera is completely objective.
Eighty-five percent of those surveyed believe that
Al-Jazeera is not entirely independent from the Qatar
government, and that it still needs to establish more
independence. However, it is still seen as the best
broadcast organization to present live events, a pro-Arab
perspective, controversial events and content, which is all
revolutionary to an Arab audience. While its audience may
see that the station contains bias and could be more
objective, the station has caused harsh criticism from Arab
governments who are “infuriated” by much of its content.
During the Algerian civil war, for example, Al-Jazeera
covered the Algerian opposition party and the Islamic
fundamentalists’ role in the conflict in that state, much to
the dismay of the Algerian government. Such various
perspectives would not be aired on traditional Arabic
television even though Arabs discuss such things privately.
Publishing the type of content as found on the Al-Jazeera
station violates long-standing Arab customs.
.But what are the
potential contributions of Arab satellite television to
regional transformation? Before the satellite television
revolution, most Arab viewers depended on terrestrial state
television, and perhaps on foreign radio broadcasts. Neither
gave direct, immediate visual access to political
developments abroad, in other Arab countries, or even in
their own countries. When Egyptians protested in one part of
Cairo, for example, other Egyptians outside that
neighborhood would have heard about it only via word of
mouth, since Egyptian television would not have covered it.
Now, virtually any
protest or election or political event is immediately
covered by Al Jazeera and its many competitors.
Talk shows on Al
Jazeera and other Arab television stations have contributed
enormously to building the underpinnings of a more pluralist
political culture, one which welcomes and thrives on open
and contentious political debate. News coverage of political
protests and struggles has opened up the realm of
possibility across the Arab world, inspiring political
activists and shifting the real balance of power on the
ground. But satellite television alone will not suffice to
overcome entrenched authoritarian regimes. Nor are its
political effects always constructive. Satellite television
has had a vital role in driving underlying, structural
change in the Arab world, but expectations that it alone can
bring about democratic transformations should not be
exaggerated.
Al Jazeera’s
programs famously revolutionized political discourse in the
Arab world, fearlessly tackling taboos of all stripes. Open,
frank discussions of social issues (AIDS, education, women’s
rights), economic issues, and especially political issues
brought those subjects which had previously been discussed
only in private salons or in limited circulation, elite
newspapers into everyone’s living rooms. That Faisal Al
Qassem’s provocative program The Opposite Direction became
one of the most watched and discussed television shows in
the Arab world virtually overnight in the late 1990s attests
to the ravenous hunger for such frank political debate.
Perhaps too much
has been made of the transgressive nature of these programs,
what Mamoun Fandy calls their “political pornography.”
Smashing taboos is exciting, and wins market share for a
time (until fatigue sets in, and audiences start to crave
more extreme pleasures), but is not in and of itself
politically transformative. As Jon Alterman has argued, the
framing of political discourse around a confrontation
between two radical extremes actually strengthens existing
governments by leaving the status quo as the only seemingly
sensible, viable alternative. Pairing the Islamist Yusuf
al-Qaradawi against “terrorism expert” Steven Emerson to
discuss the possibility of a “dialogue of civilizations,” or
inviting Daniel Pipes to debate old-school Arab nationalists
about the implications of Bush’s re-election, does little to
bridge gaps or seek common ground. And allowing angry talk
can be a mechanism for allowing people to blow off steam
without taking any real action.
The talk shows
have had two long-term and profound transformative effects.
First, they have contributed to building the foundations for
a pluralistic political culture by affirming and
demonstrating the legitimacy of disagreement. In a political
culture otherwise dominated by authoritarian states with a
mobilizational, monolithic nationalist discourse in which
dissent equals treason, or else by an emergent Islamist
trend seeking to impose a religious uniformity upon society,
the centrality of argument and disagreement to the satellite
television talk shows can not be over-stated. They
demonstrated in the most direct way possible not only that
Arabs disagreed about the great issues of the day, but that
one could disagree publicly without compromising one’s
authenticity or credibility.
Second, the talk
shows have contributed to the evisceration of the political
legitimacy of the Arab status quo. Relentless criticism of
all aspects of social, economic, and political life has
exposed the cruel failings of the Arab order for all Arabs
to see. The cumulative effect of program after program in
which Arab leaders are savaged for their failures, where the
Arab street is ridiculed for its impotence, where the Arabs
are held up as “the joke of the world,” where sham elections
and cults of personality are mocked is to generate an
urgency for change and impatience with traditional excuses.
The talk shows may not have caused any of the current
upheavals, but they prepared the ground for them by
legitimizing dissent and exposing the regimes
A second level of
transformation comes from the direct political impact of
straightforward news coverage. Al jazeera has established a
common, core Arab narrative which in the past had existed
only in a more abstract sense. When Al Jazeera covers events
in Algeria, in Bahrain, in Egypt, in Jordan, it does not
cover them as isolated events. It insistently places them
within a single Arab story, drawing connections by
implication (in the news) and explicitly (in the talk show
discussions). This can lead to political outcomes which some
might find disturbing: for example, the rise in
anti-Americanism in the region since 2002 might well be
partially explained not simply by the appearance of graphic,
bloody images from Palestine or Iraq, but also by the common
narrative linking America as the common denominator for each
of these otherwise distinct issues.
But it has also
been essential to outcomes which many see as vital positive
developments. The current wave of reformist enthusiasm in
the region may or may not have been sparked by the overthrow
of Saddam Hussein — whether by emboldening opponents or
increasing pressure on dictators — but there is no doubt
that the Arab satellite television stations have been
necessary. For the Iraqi elections to have had an impact on
Arabs elsewhere, they needed to see the images of jubilant
Iraqis voting — and they needed to see them on Al Jazeera,
not on stations seen as vehicles for American propaganda,
such as the American Alhurra.
The Kifaya
(“Enough”) movement in Egypt, protesting the possibility of
President Mubarak’s running for a fifth term, was
well-served by Al Jazeera, and to a lesser extent by other
Arab satellites, which gave its early demonstrations both
prominence and some protection through their coverage.
Satellite television coverage of the arrest of opposition
leader Ayman Nour kept the issue alive, where scores of
previous Egyptian arrests of dissidents had passed with
little notice. In Jordan, the authorities made a point of
barring the satellite television cameras from the area
before riot police cracked down on an Amman protest on
behalf of the professional associations. For democratic
dominoes to fall, people need to see them falling.
The demonstration
effects in recent protests have been fascinating to observe.
In Jordan, protestors self-consciously imitated the Lebanese
decision to use the national flag exclusively rather than
Islamist or party symbols. In Lebanon, protestors imitated
the symbols of Egypt’s Kifaya. In many Arab — and non-Arab —
countries, the Lebanese protests have been inspirational.
Watching this popular activism on television suggests new
political possibilities, new openings, and gives new
confidence. One Al Jazeera cameraman may be worth many
thousands of protestors when it comes to generating
political power.
As with the talk
shows, this alone will not be enough. Arab regimes are
resilient and tough, and will not easily surrender their
prerogatives. They will no doubt look to weather the storm
with token concessions while blocking further reaching
changes, as is arguably the case with Egypt’s move to
presidential elections. As Egypt’s forceful blocking of a
Muslim Brotherhood protest on March 29 reminds us, these
states hold great repressive power against which the
publicity of satellite television offers only weak
protection. Street demonstrations do not necessarily
translate into sustained political mobilization,
particularly where a moment of enthusiasm conceals real
differences in political agendas and interests. And the
television broadcasts will show the frustrations and the
failures as well as the dizzying moments of success: not
only the triumphant Iraqi elections, but also the months of
political stalemate and continuing violence which followed.
Arab television
alone can not overthrow governments, nor can it create
democracies (two very different propositions). But satellite
television has transformed what the political scientist
Sidney Tarrow called the “repertoire of contention,”
expanding the realm of political possibility for Arab
citizens. Rather than view the impact of satellite
television in terms of single moments of change, or pin
great hopes for revolutionary change on its broadcasts, we
should focus on these deeper, less obvious but more profound
ways in which it is refashioning the political terrain. |
