Global Arab Network | Partially biased: The Western media & the Arab world

Translate this article to your language:

GANPublications

e-Publications

Add Site to Favorites

Add Page to Favorites

Make Homepage

Share This Page

RSS Feed

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |

Partially biased: The Western media & the Arab world

Arab Media Watch

Monday, 07 September 2009 10:56

Writing recently in Britain's Guardian newspaper, Egyptian novelist and writer Alaa al-Aswany described the Western media as "mostly biased against Arabs and Muslims." When al-Aswany says it is "mostly" biased, he is also suggesting, therefore, that part of it is not, or that its bias is inconsistent.

This article will focus on this part of the media because it holds some important insights into its functions and limitations, which can then inform what is often perceived as the hostility of all Western news organisations.

It is interesting (and heartening) to read the travel pages of, say, British newspapers when they visit the Middle East. There is scarcely a bad word to be said of the trips that the writers make in Arab countries increasingly popular with tourists, such as Egypt, Morocco or Syria.

In fact, I can think of a number of senior British journalists who have been regular visitors to Syria for a number of years and cannot speak highly enough of their visits - for the quality of the sights, the friendliness of the people they meet, and the welcome they receive.

However, contrast this to political reporting of Syria, and the dominant narrative changes dramatically. Syria fits into a broader framework which views the Middle East - and in particular what some term the 'Shia Crescent' (Iran, Iraq, Syria, Hezbollah) - with some suspicion.

In particular, it is common for some media commentators to ask questions of Syria about Iran, Hezbollah or Rafiq Hariri, for example. Potential sympathy that might be generated about the Golan Heights may well be tempered by stonewalling on other issues that journalists want to write about.

Thus, in practice, the two representations frequently remain separate; the appreciation of Syria in the travel pages rarely meets the political identity of the country in the foreign news pages, and this encapsulates a great failing of the media that is almost impossible to remedy: the conflation of politics and ordinary people.

The political identity of a country is more frequently expressed in the media, and so almost by default the identity of ordinary people going about their daily lives is subsumed into the grander, overarching and more suspicious narrative. Because space is at such a premium in the media, the available room is used for the story of the day, and individual identities are lost.

Some would argue that, in a way, this reflects the political makeup of many Middle Eastern countries - popular participation in politics is limited, so why would political reporting attempt to reflect ordinary identities? However, journalists have a duty to convey the truth and scope of a story, and of course ordinary lives are impacted by politics, no matter what the level of popular participation in the political process.

It is worth adding that sometimes the best intentions of foreign correspondents are frustrated by factors beyond their control. Given that paying readerships tend to prefer news from their own country, the general appetite for foreign news is limited.

As a result, so is the space given over to it, meaning that what are often complex stories are reduced to simple caricatures to convey what the report feels is the essence of the story as concisely as possible. Lack of context has long been a complaint aimed at the media.

For example, the conflict in Darfur has for a long time predominantly been characterised as Arabs vs black Africans, which in reality is far too simplified to convey the complicated reality.

The conflict in the Democratic Republic of Congo has claimed far more lives, but has received a fraction of the coverage that Darfur has. One is tempted to surmise that this is because the DRC cannot be explained as neatly as 'Arab vs African.'

However, this is not to say that the fault lies with the media alone - the editors and the journalists who it could be said are unwilling to write about truer and more representative aspects of a country.

Access for Western journalists is a problem, particularly for those who have written in the past on issues sensitive to the authorities. Denying visas or accreditation are forms of censorship, which is generally interpreted to mean that there is something to hide - which in media terms often means the makings of a good story.

In the final analysis, it is also important to ask what is expected of the media? What is a 'non-biased' media - one that reports in favour of a particular group or viewpoint, or objective, one that calls things as it sees them? A media that cannot see the faults of a story and shies away from asking the difficult questions is of no use, and no subject should be considered beyond criticism.

Although accusations of bias (no matter how accurate or not) will always be a staple characteristic of the media industry, there still are countless examples of good, insightful and - above all - fair journalism which neatly tells a story to the approval of many no matter what their origin, and also brave journalism that asks difficult, legitimate questions of authority.

Given difficulties faced when dealing with the pressures of media as an industry, this is to be celebrated; there should be no easy rides for authority, only just evaluation.

Although they may find themselves restricted by time, resources or access, there are experienced Western journalists of integrity with genuine empathy for the Middle East who would hate to be unfairly labelled 'biased' in their reporting; objectivity is the goal for many, and in some areas of the media this is clear (in fact, very few journalists would like to be described as anything other than 'objective').

For this to be met with preconceived ideas of 'bias' and 'hostility' - which are themselves generalisations - is to miss out on real opportunities for dialogue. Of course there is biased and hostile journalism, and of course some Western readers and journalists are frequently guilty of prejudice and assuming the moral high-ground, but this is not always the case, as al-Aswany inadvertently suggested.

Global Arab Network

By Guy Gabriel, Arab Media Watch adviser

Add comment

The opinions of the authors in articles published are theirs alone and do not necessarily reflect the views of Global Arab Network
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Published comments are the opinions of private individuals and do not reflect the views of Global Arab Network