Survey of Arab World journalists offers ups and downs
A recent survey of 601 Arab World Journalists by three academics, one in media, one in pyschology and one in graphics, concludes that the United States has "failed to make use of what is potentially one of its most powerful weapons in the war of ideas against terrorism."
That's right, the demonized, slandered and quite frequently defamed Arab World Media could help the United State achieve its goals. Seems like most Arab journalists, according to the study, believe that their primary goal in life is to serve as "agents of political and social change." They "believe it is their mission to reform the antidemocratic regimes they live under," according to the study's authors.
When asked "to name the top 10 missions of Arab journalism, the journalists, who are from 13 Arab countries in North Africa, the Levant and the Arabian Peninsula, cited political reform, human rights, poverty and education as the most important issues facing the region, trumping Palestinian statehood and the war in Iraq."
I thought my job as a journalist was to report the truth, even when the people who read my articles don't like it.
When I reviewed the Society of Professional Journalists Ethics Guidelines, the benchmark for professional journalists everywhere, nowhere did I find the goals of reforming society, overturn governments or prioritize issues. Now, in fairness to the Arab journalists, they were merely responding to a survey.
The survey authors are an esteemed group. Lawrence Pintak, the only media professional, is director of the Kamal Adham Center for Journalism Training and Research at the American University in Cairo. He is the author of “Reflections in a Bloodshot Lens: America, Islam and the War of Ideas.” Jeremy Ginges is assistant professor of psychology at the New School for Social Research. And Nicholas Felton is a graphic designer in Brooklyn.
I think the study is fascinating. It reflects the core problems that journalists in the Arab world face. They have become politicized by the tyranny of the region where they live. The Arab World has never really allowed freediom of expression or free speech, which are the cornerstones of a truly professional journalism industry. Instead, journalism in the Middle East is being mid-wifed by oppression, lef by dictators, monarchs, tyrants and demagogues, and several who believe they are the descendants of God's messengers. Until the rise of satellite TV, most were pretty much hacks for the political powers.
That's why it was okay to bash Israel, attack the United States and condemn the West -- as long as they didn't question their bosses.
Now, that isn't to say that Arab World Journalism is any different than mainstream American journalism. The fact is the United States is more subtle in its censorship of professional journalism. American journalists are free to report on many things, within reason. There are limits. God forbid any journalists were to ask in 2001 the questions now being debated, like, to what extent was Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein creations of American Foreign policy? I'm not talking about American support for Israel. I'm talking about our foreign policy was has been driven by control of oil, something we have recently lost control of. Wildly lost control of, I might add.
We armed the Mujahadeen in a fight with the Soviet Union. We armed Saddam Hussein in a fight with Iran. And we did it because we wanted to protect our interests in the Oil rich Middle East. And mainstream American journalism, for all their Pulitzers awarded for coverage of issues, few of them have really told the truth about the Middle East at all.
So, all journalists, as it turns out, have bosses who tell them what to write and what not to write. Tragically, mainstream American journalism is falling into the few sleazy hands of corporate robber barons.
But mainstream American journalists are too smart to openly admit that their goals as writers is to advance a political agenda. They do it while tearing in their eyes about their dedication to telling the truth. The truth? Turns out there are many sides to "the truth."
The study will be released in July, published by the The International Journal of Press/Politics.
Why July? Maybe it will coincide with the gathering in Chicago of "UNITY: Journalists of Color" -- certain Colors, that is. Black. Brown. Yellow. Red. But not Olive! I will at least commend the Asian American Journalists Association (where I serve on the media watch committee as a volunteer). At least they continue to try to advocate for the rights of Arab American journalists. (I'm thinking of starting a group called DIS-UNITY: Journalists from the Rest of the Rainbow.)
Still,I guess I should be happy when three academics argue that Americans shouldn't be so angry at journalists in the Arab World. (Remember when President Bush angrily blamed the Arab media for the problems in Iraq, calling them biased, unfair, unprofessional, and purveyors of propaganda?) They're just trying to do our American bidding. And would, if we would just let them.
I don't think that's called journalism, though.
Ray Hanania
www.TheMediaOasis.com
Here is a link to the Pintak, Ginges and Felton story (in the New York Times, published May 25, 2008) about the upcoming release of the survey:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/25/opinion/25pintak.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=Arab+journalists+see+themselves+as+agents&st=nyt.&oref=slogin
end