With nearly 30 news, interview and documentaries uplodaed to Google, I've watched as the videos that focus on Lebanon have quickly risen to the top of the list of those watchged.
Here's the list in ranking of popularity so far:
1 - Beirut Lebanon before Israel's attack, a tour
2 - Ray Hanania Standup Arab-Jewish-Palestinian Comedy Demo Tape 2002
3 - A Brief Tour of Dubai, United Arab Emirates -- April 2006
4 - Palestinian-Arab American Comedy by Ray Hanania (2004)
5 - Occupied Palestine: Land of Sighs and Sorrows/Checkpoints and Walls
6 - A tour through Arab East Jerusalem's Souq (Market)
7 - A visit to Jenin, site of the 2002 massacre in Palestine
8 - Arabs of Chicagoland: Photographic Array & Interview
9 - Ray Hanania interview with Jordanian Legislator Toujan Faisal April 2006
10 - Eyes of the Beholder: The Orland Park Mosque Battle (Fahrenheit 60462) Part I
11 - Making Tabouli (Tabouleh) Arabian Salad
12 - Eyes of the Beholder: The Orland Park Mosque Battle (Fahrenheit 60462) Part II
13 - Crisis in Lebanon: Chicago's Lebanese Community leaders react 7-24-06
14 - Interview with Hummus Producer Wild Garden Sales VP Mark Smith
15 - CounterPoint with Ali Alarabi and Ray Hanania: May 18, 2006.
16- Aaron Freeman Interview: Controversy, Conflict and Comedy
17 - CounterPoint Episode 6: July 4, 2006 Interview FBI Chicago Dir. Grant
18 - CounterPoint June 5, 2006
19 - CounterPoint June 26, 2006 Palestinian Politics 101
20 - CounterPoint June 19, 2006
21 - Counter Point June 12, 2006 "Media Bias"
22 - CounterPoint Episode 7: Gaza Crisis/Christian Muslim Relations/Book Reviews
23 - Arabs of Chicagoland: A Historical Tour
24 - CounterPoint Episode 8(a): The rights of women in the Arab and Muslim World
Each video receives between 50 and 600 views every day but the speed at which the video documentating Lebanon before the Israeli nvasion has been an amazingly popular selection compared tot he rest. Keep in mind that rankings also reflect when they were placed onlin, with the CounterPoint series the newest addition.
Visit www.ArabAmericanTVOnline.com for more information.
Ray Hanania
Sunday, August 06, 2006
Saturday, August 05, 2006
Pentagon blocks soldiers from posting videos online
Pentagon declares war on internet combat videos
By Oliver Poole, Iraq Correspondent
Telegprah, UK
Ju;y 26, 2006)
The Pentagon is asking US soldiers in Iraq to stop posting private combat videos on to the internet amid fears that they could be regarded as anti-Arab.
Many of the digital clips feature explosions, gunfire and even dead bodies, with the images often set to a soundtrack of rock ballads, rap or heavy metal music.
Defence officials believe they could be interpreted as portraying the military as unsympathetic to Arabs and obsessed with barbarism.
Dozens of such clips can be found by searching for "Iraq" and "combat" on video-sharing sites such as YouTube.com and Ogrish.com, creating an unprecedented opportunity for the public to view servicemen's unedited perspective of the war.
One cultural commentator described them as "semi-pro snuff films". Such websites have become massively popular, with 70 million videos on YouTube alone.
The spread of the fad among US soldiers has alarmed the military. Soldiers are being instructed by their commanding officers to remove inappropriate footage even though it is technically not against the rules.
A number of the films have been uploaded from Iraq itself, where nearly all US bases have internet facilities.
Hundreds of hours of video shot by three National Guardsmen based near Baghdad were edited by documentary maker Deborah Scranton into a film called The War Tapes, which was shown at a major US arts film festival.
The footage - filmed by Sgt Steve Pink, Specialist Mike Moriarty and Sgt Zack Bazzi - includes a firefight with insurgents and a roadside bomb. It is billed as enabling viewers to get a unique understanding of the "essence" of fighting in Iraq.
The Pentagon was woken up to the potential negative impact of the phenomenon by film of a marine singing a song he had composed called Haji Girl, in which a US soldier falls in love with an Iraqi woman and is then ambushed by her family when he is taken to meet them.
It was criticised last month in the US by the Council on American-Islamic relations, which was outraged by its mocking of the Arabic language and its description of how the marine grabs his girlfriend's little sister when he is attacked.
"As the bullets began to fly, the blood sprayed from between her eyes, and I began to laugh maniacally," the lyrics said.
In Arabic, the word Haji refers to a Muslim who has made the religious pilgrimage to Mecca but it is often used by US troops as a pejorative term for Iraqis.
The song's composer, Cpl Joshua Belile, 23, was required to apologise.
An official investigation was launched, but the military discovered that his behaviour did not breach the marines' policy on internet posting, which is aimed only at ensuring confidentiality about planned combat operations and troop deployments.
The most severe action it could take was to require Cpl Belile to undergo informal counselling.
A new code of conduct on video postings is now being considered.
By Oliver Poole, Iraq Correspondent
Telegprah, UK
Ju;y 26, 2006)
The Pentagon is asking US soldiers in Iraq to stop posting private combat videos on to the internet amid fears that they could be regarded as anti-Arab.
Many of the digital clips feature explosions, gunfire and even dead bodies, with the images often set to a soundtrack of rock ballads, rap or heavy metal music.
Defence officials believe they could be interpreted as portraying the military as unsympathetic to Arabs and obsessed with barbarism.
Dozens of such clips can be found by searching for "Iraq" and "combat" on video-sharing sites such as YouTube.com and Ogrish.com, creating an unprecedented opportunity for the public to view servicemen's unedited perspective of the war.
One cultural commentator described them as "semi-pro snuff films". Such websites have become massively popular, with 70 million videos on YouTube alone.
The spread of the fad among US soldiers has alarmed the military. Soldiers are being instructed by their commanding officers to remove inappropriate footage even though it is technically not against the rules.
A number of the films have been uploaded from Iraq itself, where nearly all US bases have internet facilities.
Hundreds of hours of video shot by three National Guardsmen based near Baghdad were edited by documentary maker Deborah Scranton into a film called The War Tapes, which was shown at a major US arts film festival.
The footage - filmed by Sgt Steve Pink, Specialist Mike Moriarty and Sgt Zack Bazzi - includes a firefight with insurgents and a roadside bomb. It is billed as enabling viewers to get a unique understanding of the "essence" of fighting in Iraq.
The Pentagon was woken up to the potential negative impact of the phenomenon by film of a marine singing a song he had composed called Haji Girl, in which a US soldier falls in love with an Iraqi woman and is then ambushed by her family when he is taken to meet them.
It was criticised last month in the US by the Council on American-Islamic relations, which was outraged by its mocking of the Arabic language and its description of how the marine grabs his girlfriend's little sister when he is attacked.
"As the bullets began to fly, the blood sprayed from between her eyes, and I began to laugh maniacally," the lyrics said.
In Arabic, the word Haji refers to a Muslim who has made the religious pilgrimage to Mecca but it is often used by US troops as a pejorative term for Iraqis.
The song's composer, Cpl Joshua Belile, 23, was required to apologise.
An official investigation was launched, but the military discovered that his behaviour did not breach the marines' policy on internet posting, which is aimed only at ensuring confidentiality about planned combat operations and troop deployments.
The most severe action it could take was to require Cpl Belile to undergo informal counselling.
A new code of conduct on video postings is now being considered.
UAE blocks YouTube video postings
July 27, 2006
UAE state monopoly internet provider Etisalat has blocked YouTube, the world's leading online video site. The block comes despite the fact that YouTube bans all adult content and filters any videos that users flag as questionable. The UAE is increasingly blocking general entertainment websites under its remit of removing sites "inconsistent with the religious, cultural, political and moral values of the United Arab Emirates."
UAE state monopoly internet provider Etisalat has blocked YouTube, the world's leading online video site. The block comes despite the fact that YouTube bans all adult content and filters any videos that users flag as questionable. The UAE is increasingly blocking general entertainment websites under its remit of removing sites "inconsistent with the religious, cultural, political and moral values of the United Arab Emirates."
Sowing seeds of dissension against Arabs in American media
Sowing the seeds of dissension
By Khalid Almaeena, Special to Gulf News
August 5, 2006
The attacks on innocent civilians in Lebanon and Gaza continue. The US has freely supplied ammunition and bombs which have only whetted the appetite of the Zionists for more blood.
The world watches and many in the west hope, not very discreetly, for an Israeli victory.
As these events unfold and horrify much of the world, a very sinister campaign of disinformation is going on, aimed at sowing the seeds of disunity among Arabs. I am not a believer in conspiracy theories but I do firmly believe that certain elements in the western media are bent on creating mischief and worse than mischief.
Apart from trying to create dissension in the Arab world, certain sections of the media in America, whose ideological and political affiliations are known to many, are trying to create a bad image of both the Lebanese and the Palestinians.
They keep on repeating the same old words of "terror" and "terrorism". They paint Hamas and Hezbollah as embodiments of evil, denying the fact that both have political legitimacy and are part of the political processes. They use fissiparous tendencies to annihilate and obscure the truth.
Here is an illustration of what I am talking about. When the attacks on Lebanon began, an American journalist remarked to me, "I am sure you Saudis don't care because those people are Shiites."
"Of course, we care," I was quick to answer. "No one would side with the murderous Israelis and, besides, we support them not because they are Lebanese Arabs but because they are being unjustly attacked."
"Yes," he continued, "but your government issued a statement against Hezbollah".
"No, my government did not," I countered. "In fact, Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques King Abdullah was very clear in his statement a few days ago about the dangers of a war escalating in the region. Saudi Arabia has clearly condemned Israeli atrocities against innocent women and children."
Guarding ourselves
Many of us get excited and emotional for no reason. People with little knowledge and even fewer credentials make statements and the masses believe them to be true. However, we should guard ourselves against this tendency to create fitna (dissension) which often serves our enemies. The expressions "Shiite Muslim" and "Sunni Muslim" were first widely used by the American press in the early 1980s after the Iranian revolution.
The expressions appeared often during the Iran-Iraq war when Saddam Hussain attacked Iran, resulting in the needless deaths of over a million Muslims. While this carnage was going on, western countries were eagerly filling their coffers by selling arms to both sides.
Then of course to frighten and create dissension, the media in the west began to write at length about hostility between Shiite and Sunni. This is the same media which, after September 11, 2001, played on uninformed fears of "Wahhabism" among Muslims of the world! A Pakistani friend living in the US told me that an American friend of his once asked him, "Are you a Wahhabi Muslim or a Muslim?" My friend replied, "I am simply a Muslim."
Just take careful note of all these labels Shiite, Sunni, Wahhabi, Sufi, etc. These are divisions which we ourselves have created.
The Arabs themselves are also divided and this is the cause of many of the divisions in the Muslim world. The media now is trying to create more mischief in an Arab world that is shaken, weakened, feeling divided, helpless and almost in despair.
People are asking why the Bush-Blair-Olmert plan is not being exposed for what it is. Why are Arab countries silent? Why are Arab writers not attacking the planners and perpetrators of these crimes? Instead they are sermonising and saying this should have been done and that should have been avoided. These are mere words on paper. They are far from any reality.
What the Arabs must do is really review the situation and come to terms with the fact that the attack on Lebanon was well planned, much in advance.
Israel does not recognise any border nor will it. It is clearly and simply an expansionist state. It knows the Arabs are weak and it is slowly and inexorably implementing Benjamin Netanyahu's "one by one" plan. In other words, take the Arabs on one by one since, obviously, they cannot be confronted in groups.
My advice to all those who are critical of the current situation is to read very, very carefully what is being written by American and Israeli think-tanks about the new Middle East.
It will be a Middle East where there will be no equals only master and servant. There is no need to say who the plans envisage as master or who as servant. We must make a choice; it must not be imposed. The choice is ours.
Khalid Almaeena is editor-in-chief of the Jeddah-based Arab News.
By Khalid Almaeena, Special to Gulf News
August 5, 2006
The attacks on innocent civilians in Lebanon and Gaza continue. The US has freely supplied ammunition and bombs which have only whetted the appetite of the Zionists for more blood.
The world watches and many in the west hope, not very discreetly, for an Israeli victory.
As these events unfold and horrify much of the world, a very sinister campaign of disinformation is going on, aimed at sowing the seeds of disunity among Arabs. I am not a believer in conspiracy theories but I do firmly believe that certain elements in the western media are bent on creating mischief and worse than mischief.
Apart from trying to create dissension in the Arab world, certain sections of the media in America, whose ideological and political affiliations are known to many, are trying to create a bad image of both the Lebanese and the Palestinians.
They keep on repeating the same old words of "terror" and "terrorism". They paint Hamas and Hezbollah as embodiments of evil, denying the fact that both have political legitimacy and are part of the political processes. They use fissiparous tendencies to annihilate and obscure the truth.
Here is an illustration of what I am talking about. When the attacks on Lebanon began, an American journalist remarked to me, "I am sure you Saudis don't care because those people are Shiites."
"Of course, we care," I was quick to answer. "No one would side with the murderous Israelis and, besides, we support them not because they are Lebanese Arabs but because they are being unjustly attacked."
"Yes," he continued, "but your government issued a statement against Hezbollah".
"No, my government did not," I countered. "In fact, Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques King Abdullah was very clear in his statement a few days ago about the dangers of a war escalating in the region. Saudi Arabia has clearly condemned Israeli atrocities against innocent women and children."
Guarding ourselves
Many of us get excited and emotional for no reason. People with little knowledge and even fewer credentials make statements and the masses believe them to be true. However, we should guard ourselves against this tendency to create fitna (dissension) which often serves our enemies. The expressions "Shiite Muslim" and "Sunni Muslim" were first widely used by the American press in the early 1980s after the Iranian revolution.
The expressions appeared often during the Iran-Iraq war when Saddam Hussain attacked Iran, resulting in the needless deaths of over a million Muslims. While this carnage was going on, western countries were eagerly filling their coffers by selling arms to both sides.
Then of course to frighten and create dissension, the media in the west began to write at length about hostility between Shiite and Sunni. This is the same media which, after September 11, 2001, played on uninformed fears of "Wahhabism" among Muslims of the world! A Pakistani friend living in the US told me that an American friend of his once asked him, "Are you a Wahhabi Muslim or a Muslim?" My friend replied, "I am simply a Muslim."
Just take careful note of all these labels Shiite, Sunni, Wahhabi, Sufi, etc. These are divisions which we ourselves have created.
The Arabs themselves are also divided and this is the cause of many of the divisions in the Muslim world. The media now is trying to create more mischief in an Arab world that is shaken, weakened, feeling divided, helpless and almost in despair.
People are asking why the Bush-Blair-Olmert plan is not being exposed for what it is. Why are Arab countries silent? Why are Arab writers not attacking the planners and perpetrators of these crimes? Instead they are sermonising and saying this should have been done and that should have been avoided. These are mere words on paper. They are far from any reality.
What the Arabs must do is really review the situation and come to terms with the fact that the attack on Lebanon was well planned, much in advance.
Israel does not recognise any border nor will it. It is clearly and simply an expansionist state. It knows the Arabs are weak and it is slowly and inexorably implementing Benjamin Netanyahu's "one by one" plan. In other words, take the Arabs on one by one since, obviously, they cannot be confronted in groups.
My advice to all those who are critical of the current situation is to read very, very carefully what is being written by American and Israeli think-tanks about the new Middle East.
It will be a Middle East where there will be no equals only master and servant. There is no need to say who the plans envisage as master or who as servant. We must make a choice; it must not be imposed. The choice is ours.
Khalid Almaeena is editor-in-chief of the Jeddah-based Arab News.
India bans Arab satelite news channels .. critics blame Israeli lobby there
India Bans Arab TV Channels Under Pressure From Israel
By Shahid Raza Burney, Arab News
August 5, 2006
BOMBAY, 6 August 2006 — In a country widely referred to as the world’s largest democracy, the Indian government has succumbed to mounting Israeli pressure and ordered a nationwide ban on the broadcast of Arab television channels.
The Indian government’s ban on Arab television stations is in complete contrast to the friendship that Arab countries imagine exists with their neighbor across the Arabian Sea. It seems the ban is a move to ensure that Indians do not get to see the atrocities that are presently being committed by Israel in Lebanon and the occupied territories.
Nabila Al-Bassam, a Saudi businesswoman on a trip to Bombay, told Arab News how she became exasperated at not being able to watch Arab channels at Bombay’s leading five-star Oberoi Hotel. When she took up the issue with the hotel manager, she was told that Arab television channels had been banned across India.
A perplexed Al-Bassam then sent an SMS to Arab News Editor in Chief Khaled Almaeena to verify whether this was indeed the case. “Oberoi Hotel tells me that the government of India has banned all Arab TV channels. Why? I hate watching CNN and BBC,” she wrote to Almaeena.
Talking to Arab News, Oberoi Hotel Manager Mohit Nirula did allude to the fact that a ban was in place. “The Ministry of Information and Broadcasting has laid down certain rules. It is our duty to abide by and follow the rules of the country,” he told this correspondent.
Minister of Information and Broadcasting Priya Ranjan Dasmunshi was busy in Parliament and was unavailable for comment on the issue. However, a ministry official explained why the Indian government decided to enforce the ban. The official highlighted that India enjoys close and cordial relations with Israel and the US more than any of the Arab governments.
According to another source within the government, the ban is a clear sign to all governments in the Middle East that the Israeli, American and British governments carry far more influence in India than any of the Arab governments.
Several senior Indian journalists explained that the ban was an indication that India had succumbed to Israeli pressure rather than American.
“The whole exercise is to browbeat Arabs and show them as terrorists. The government is subscribing to the absurd argument that channels like Al-Jazeera and Al-Arabiya promote hatred and encourage terrorism,” they said.
Political analysts in India described the move as a game of double standard that India is playing. On the one hand India establishes friendship with the Arab world while simultaneously it joins with Israel and the US in defaming them. It seems that the pro-Israeli lobby wishes to drive a wedge between India and its time-tested Arab allies. The Indian government’s present stance is in stark contrast to the late Mrs. Indira Gandhi’s staunch support of the Palestinian cause.
The banning of Arabic channels is a federal government decision, done under what senior Indian journalists claim to be intense pressure from the Israeli, American and British governments.
The Indian government has been vocal in its condemnation of Israeli barbarity and has offered millions of rupees in aid to refugees in Lebanon. Arabs sympathetic to India have therefore met the news with surprise.
Many Arabs draw inspiration from India’s heroic struggle against British imperialism and the Indian independence struggle is seen by Palestinians as a brilliant example of throwing out the yoke of imperialism. It is sad that 50 years after independence the world’s largest democracy unfairly suppresses alternative opinion and allows itself to be dictated to by foreign powers.
The analysts believe the Indian government may have used a clause within the Cable TV Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995, that certain channels or programs that can potentially cause damage to India’s friendly relations with foreign countries can be banned, a clear violation of democratic ideals such as freedom of expression and freedom of speech.
The response to the ban by hotel administrations across Bombay has been dismal. Chad Alberico, JW Marriott’s customer care official in Washington, said: “We have reviewed your recent inquiries regarding the television offerings at our JW Marriott Bombay. We have phoned our colleagues at the hotel to discuss the matter at hand, but as it is the weekend, we will need additional time to form a complete response.”
“I’m on my way home, it’s the weekend and I will respond on Monday,” said Shehnaz Ankelsaria from the Taj President Hotel. Annan Udeshi from The Hilton was unavailable and asked for a message to be left on her recorder. Khushnooma Kapadia of Marriott Hotel said she would get back later. Rafat Kazi from the Grand Central Sheraton said that she would answer after consulting her general manager. Puja Guleria of Sheraton Maratta said she needed time to deal with the questions. Firuza Mistry of Grand Hyatt said that she was not aware of the facts and would check and respond, and Priya Mathias of Hyatt Regency said that she would also need to check with her senior officials to comment.
By Shahid Raza Burney, Arab News
August 5, 2006
BOMBAY, 6 August 2006 — In a country widely referred to as the world’s largest democracy, the Indian government has succumbed to mounting Israeli pressure and ordered a nationwide ban on the broadcast of Arab television channels.
The Indian government’s ban on Arab television stations is in complete contrast to the friendship that Arab countries imagine exists with their neighbor across the Arabian Sea. It seems the ban is a move to ensure that Indians do not get to see the atrocities that are presently being committed by Israel in Lebanon and the occupied territories.
Nabila Al-Bassam, a Saudi businesswoman on a trip to Bombay, told Arab News how she became exasperated at not being able to watch Arab channels at Bombay’s leading five-star Oberoi Hotel. When she took up the issue with the hotel manager, she was told that Arab television channels had been banned across India.
A perplexed Al-Bassam then sent an SMS to Arab News Editor in Chief Khaled Almaeena to verify whether this was indeed the case. “Oberoi Hotel tells me that the government of India has banned all Arab TV channels. Why? I hate watching CNN and BBC,” she wrote to Almaeena.
Talking to Arab News, Oberoi Hotel Manager Mohit Nirula did allude to the fact that a ban was in place. “The Ministry of Information and Broadcasting has laid down certain rules. It is our duty to abide by and follow the rules of the country,” he told this correspondent.
Minister of Information and Broadcasting Priya Ranjan Dasmunshi was busy in Parliament and was unavailable for comment on the issue. However, a ministry official explained why the Indian government decided to enforce the ban. The official highlighted that India enjoys close and cordial relations with Israel and the US more than any of the Arab governments.
According to another source within the government, the ban is a clear sign to all governments in the Middle East that the Israeli, American and British governments carry far more influence in India than any of the Arab governments.
Several senior Indian journalists explained that the ban was an indication that India had succumbed to Israeli pressure rather than American.
“The whole exercise is to browbeat Arabs and show them as terrorists. The government is subscribing to the absurd argument that channels like Al-Jazeera and Al-Arabiya promote hatred and encourage terrorism,” they said.
Political analysts in India described the move as a game of double standard that India is playing. On the one hand India establishes friendship with the Arab world while simultaneously it joins with Israel and the US in defaming them. It seems that the pro-Israeli lobby wishes to drive a wedge between India and its time-tested Arab allies. The Indian government’s present stance is in stark contrast to the late Mrs. Indira Gandhi’s staunch support of the Palestinian cause.
The banning of Arabic channels is a federal government decision, done under what senior Indian journalists claim to be intense pressure from the Israeli, American and British governments.
The Indian government has been vocal in its condemnation of Israeli barbarity and has offered millions of rupees in aid to refugees in Lebanon. Arabs sympathetic to India have therefore met the news with surprise.
Many Arabs draw inspiration from India’s heroic struggle against British imperialism and the Indian independence struggle is seen by Palestinians as a brilliant example of throwing out the yoke of imperialism. It is sad that 50 years after independence the world’s largest democracy unfairly suppresses alternative opinion and allows itself to be dictated to by foreign powers.
The analysts believe the Indian government may have used a clause within the Cable TV Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995, that certain channels or programs that can potentially cause damage to India’s friendly relations with foreign countries can be banned, a clear violation of democratic ideals such as freedom of expression and freedom of speech.
The response to the ban by hotel administrations across Bombay has been dismal. Chad Alberico, JW Marriott’s customer care official in Washington, said: “We have reviewed your recent inquiries regarding the television offerings at our JW Marriott Bombay. We have phoned our colleagues at the hotel to discuss the matter at hand, but as it is the weekend, we will need additional time to form a complete response.”
“I’m on my way home, it’s the weekend and I will respond on Monday,” said Shehnaz Ankelsaria from the Taj President Hotel. Annan Udeshi from The Hilton was unavailable and asked for a message to be left on her recorder. Khushnooma Kapadia of Marriott Hotel said she would get back later. Rafat Kazi from the Grand Central Sheraton said that she would answer after consulting her general manager. Puja Guleria of Sheraton Maratta said she needed time to deal with the questions. Firuza Mistry of Grand Hyatt said that she was not aware of the facts and would check and respond, and Priya Mathias of Hyatt Regency said that she would also need to check with her senior officials to comment.
Thursday, August 03, 2006
One sided reporting on the Middle East conflict
George Curry of New America Media writes about the bias in coverage of the conflict.
Read the story?
STORY:
One-Sided Reporting On The Middle East
-->
NNPA, News Analysis,
By George E. Curry, Aug 01, 2006
Until Sunday, when Israeli bombers leveled a three-story building in the tiny Lebanese village of Oana, killing at least 55 people, most of them children, the U.S. media has been anything but even-handed in covering Israel’s three-week assault on southern Lebanon, a stronghold of Hezbollah.
Israel initiated a 48-hour pause in the aerial attacks, in the face of international condemnation, and later resumed its effort to cripple the military capability of rebel groups intent on destroying Israel. If the past is any indicator, the U.S. media – after it’s Sunday pause – will return to its mission of blaming Hazbollah and Hamas for all the strife in the Middle East.
Of course, both groups have blood on their hands, but they are not alone.
Fair and Accuracy in Reporting, the media watchdog group, reported prior to Sunday’s fatal assault: “…The portrayal of Israel as the innocent victim in the Gaza conflict is hard to square with the death toll in the months leading up to the current crisis; between September 2005 and June 2006, 144 Palestinians in Gaza were killed by Israeli forces, according to a list compiled by the Israeli human rights group B’tselem; 29 of those killed were children. During the same period, no Israelis were killed as a result of violence from Gaza.”
But you’d never know it by reading U.S. newspapers.
“On July24, the day before Hamas’ cross-border raid, Israel made an incursion of its own, capturing two Palestinians that it said were members of Hamas (something Hamas denied – L.A. Times, 7/25/06). This incident received far less coverage in the U.S. media than the subsequent seizure of the Israeli solider; the few papers that covered it mostly dismissed it in a one-paragraph brief (e.g., Chicago Tribune, 7/25/06), while the Israeli taken prisoner got front-page headlines all over the world.”
The nation’s three leading dailies published one-side, overly simplistic comments on the Middle East violence.“In the wake of the most serious outbreak of Israeli/Arab violence in years, three U.S. papers – the Washington Post, New York Times and Los Angeles Times – have each strongly editorialized that Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon were solely responsible for sparking violence, and that the Israeli military response was predictable and unavoidable. These editorials ignored recent events that indicate a much more complicated situation,” FAIR observed.
Under the headline, “Hamas Provokes a Fight,” (6/29/06), the New York Times editorialized that “the responsibility for this latest escalation rests squarely with Hamas” and that “Israeli military response was inevitable.”
In another editorial two weeks later (7/15/06), the Times said: “It is important to be clear about not only who is responsible for the latest outbreak, but who stands to gain most from its continued escalation. Both questions have the same answer: Hamas and Hezbollah.”
The media monitoring group suggests that the fighting did not begin with the capture of two Israeli soldiers.
“A major incident fueling the latest cycle of violence was a May 26, 2006 car bombing in Sidon, Lebanon, that killed a senior official of Islamic Jihad, a Palestinian group allied with Hezbollah. Lebanon later arrested a suspect, Mahmoud Rafeh, whom Lebanese authorities claimed had confessed to carrying out the assassination on behalf of Mossad (London Times, 6/17/06). Israel denied involvement with the bombing, but even some Israelis are skeptical…”
But that wasn’t the only precursor to the current conflict. In a July 21 column, FAIR’s Alexander Cockburn pointed out:On June 20, an Israeli aircraft fired at least one missile at a car in an attempted extrajudicial assassination attempt. The missile missed the car and killed three Palestinian children and wounded 15; One June 13, 2005 Israeli aircraft fired missiles at a van in another extrajudicial assassination attempt; nine innocent Palestinians were killed and Israel shelled a beach in Beit Lahiya on June 9,2006, killing eight civilians and injuring 32.
FAIR says, “While Hezbollah’s capture of two Israeli soldiers may have reignited the smoldering conflict, the Israeli air campaign that followed was not a spontaneous reaction to aggression but a well-planned operation that was years in the making. 'Of all of Israel’s wars since 1984, this was the one for which Israel was most prepared,’ Gerald Steinberg, a political science professor at Israel’s Bar-Ilan University, told the San Francisco Chronicle (7/21/05). ‘By 2004, the military campaigned scheduled to last about three weeks that we’re seeing now had already been blocked out and, in the last year or two, it’s been simulated and rehearsed across the board.’”
FAIR posed a sobering question: If journalists have been told by Israel for more than a year that a war was coming, why are they all pretending that it all started on July 12? That’s a good question. I wish we had some good answers.
George E. Curry is editor-in-chief of the NNPA News Service and BlackPressUSA.com.
To contact Curry or to book him for a speaking engagement, go to his Web site, www.georgecurry.com.
END
Read the story?
STORY:
One-Sided Reporting On The Middle East
-->
NNPA, News Analysis,
By George E. Curry, Aug 01, 2006
Until Sunday, when Israeli bombers leveled a three-story building in the tiny Lebanese village of Oana, killing at least 55 people, most of them children, the U.S. media has been anything but even-handed in covering Israel’s three-week assault on southern Lebanon, a stronghold of Hezbollah.
Israel initiated a 48-hour pause in the aerial attacks, in the face of international condemnation, and later resumed its effort to cripple the military capability of rebel groups intent on destroying Israel. If the past is any indicator, the U.S. media – after it’s Sunday pause – will return to its mission of blaming Hazbollah and Hamas for all the strife in the Middle East.
Of course, both groups have blood on their hands, but they are not alone.
Fair and Accuracy in Reporting, the media watchdog group, reported prior to Sunday’s fatal assault: “…The portrayal of Israel as the innocent victim in the Gaza conflict is hard to square with the death toll in the months leading up to the current crisis; between September 2005 and June 2006, 144 Palestinians in Gaza were killed by Israeli forces, according to a list compiled by the Israeli human rights group B’tselem; 29 of those killed were children. During the same period, no Israelis were killed as a result of violence from Gaza.”
But you’d never know it by reading U.S. newspapers.
“On July24, the day before Hamas’ cross-border raid, Israel made an incursion of its own, capturing two Palestinians that it said were members of Hamas (something Hamas denied – L.A. Times, 7/25/06). This incident received far less coverage in the U.S. media than the subsequent seizure of the Israeli solider; the few papers that covered it mostly dismissed it in a one-paragraph brief (e.g., Chicago Tribune, 7/25/06), while the Israeli taken prisoner got front-page headlines all over the world.”
The nation’s three leading dailies published one-side, overly simplistic comments on the Middle East violence.“In the wake of the most serious outbreak of Israeli/Arab violence in years, three U.S. papers – the Washington Post, New York Times and Los Angeles Times – have each strongly editorialized that Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon were solely responsible for sparking violence, and that the Israeli military response was predictable and unavoidable. These editorials ignored recent events that indicate a much more complicated situation,” FAIR observed.
Under the headline, “Hamas Provokes a Fight,” (6/29/06), the New York Times editorialized that “the responsibility for this latest escalation rests squarely with Hamas” and that “Israeli military response was inevitable.”
In another editorial two weeks later (7/15/06), the Times said: “It is important to be clear about not only who is responsible for the latest outbreak, but who stands to gain most from its continued escalation. Both questions have the same answer: Hamas and Hezbollah.”
The media monitoring group suggests that the fighting did not begin with the capture of two Israeli soldiers.
“A major incident fueling the latest cycle of violence was a May 26, 2006 car bombing in Sidon, Lebanon, that killed a senior official of Islamic Jihad, a Palestinian group allied with Hezbollah. Lebanon later arrested a suspect, Mahmoud Rafeh, whom Lebanese authorities claimed had confessed to carrying out the assassination on behalf of Mossad (London Times, 6/17/06). Israel denied involvement with the bombing, but even some Israelis are skeptical…”
But that wasn’t the only precursor to the current conflict. In a July 21 column, FAIR’s Alexander Cockburn pointed out:On June 20, an Israeli aircraft fired at least one missile at a car in an attempted extrajudicial assassination attempt. The missile missed the car and killed three Palestinian children and wounded 15; One June 13, 2005 Israeli aircraft fired missiles at a van in another extrajudicial assassination attempt; nine innocent Palestinians were killed and Israel shelled a beach in Beit Lahiya on June 9,2006, killing eight civilians and injuring 32.
FAIR says, “While Hezbollah’s capture of two Israeli soldiers may have reignited the smoldering conflict, the Israeli air campaign that followed was not a spontaneous reaction to aggression but a well-planned operation that was years in the making. 'Of all of Israel’s wars since 1984, this was the one for which Israel was most prepared,’ Gerald Steinberg, a political science professor at Israel’s Bar-Ilan University, told the San Francisco Chronicle (7/21/05). ‘By 2004, the military campaigned scheduled to last about three weeks that we’re seeing now had already been blocked out and, in the last year or two, it’s been simulated and rehearsed across the board.’”
FAIR posed a sobering question: If journalists have been told by Israel for more than a year that a war was coming, why are they all pretending that it all started on July 12? That’s a good question. I wish we had some good answers.
George E. Curry is editor-in-chief of the NNPA News Service and BlackPressUSA.com.
To contact Curry or to book him for a speaking engagement, go to his Web site, www.georgecurry.com.
END
Wednesday, August 02, 2006
2004 Column on anti-Arab bias
War of words, Arlington Heights Daily Herald
Posted on: 06/12/2004 5:25:44 PM
Ray Hanania
Daily Herald
http://www.dailyherald.com/oped/col_hanania.asp?intID=3804794
War of words is often a battle for public opinion
Posted Monday, March 01, 2004
Nowhere do words mean more than in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Is it a "wall" or is it a "fence"? In some cases, it doesn't matter but the antagonists get caught up in that end result argument rather than addressing the causes.
The real issue is the purpose of this "immoral barrier." Is it intended to steal land or prevent violence?
Here's a list of war words compiled by Palestine Media Watch, one of the most respected media monitoring groups:
"Collective punishment measures" vs. "security measures;"
"deliberate expansion" vs. "natural growth."
"Ehud Barak's ungenerous ultimatum" vs. "Ehud Barak's generous offers."
"Extra-judicial murder" vs. "targeted killing."
"Invasion" vs. "incursion."
"Israeli colonizers" vs. "Israeli settlers."
"Israeli occupation forces" vs. "Israeli defense forces."
"The Israeli occupation of Palestine" vs. "the Palestinian-Israeli conflict."
"Israel's apartheid wall" vs. "security barrier," "fence," etc.
"Jewish-only colonies" vs. "settlements."
"Jewish-only roads" vs. "bypass roads."
"Jewish supremacy agenda" vs. "demographic concerns."
"Israeli assault against Palestinian civilians" vs. "military operation."
"Military checkpoints" vs. "checkpoints."
"Military town siege" vs. "curfew."
"Occupied Jerusalem" vs. just "Jerusalem."
Also, include "occupied Jerusalem" when talking about the OTs (we often say just West Bank and Gaza when referring to the OTs).
"Palestinian political prisoners" vs. "Palestinian prisoners."
"Palestinian armed resistance" vs. "Palestinian violence."
"Palestinian resistance fighters" vs. "Palestinian militants."
"Palestinian struggle for freedom" vs. "Intifada" or "uprising."
"Political assassinations" vs. "crackdown on militants."
"President Arafat" vs. "Arafat."
"Pro-occupation supporters" vs. "pro-Israel" or "pro-Israeli."
"Random mass detention" vs. "security sweep."
"Torture" vs. "physical pressure."
"U.S.-financed Israeli military" vs. "Israeli military."
Obviously, Palestine Media Watch makes a good point. The word "settlement" doesn't accurately express the real issue, for example. Settlements are Jewish only. You don't hear about Israel building settlements in the West Bank or Gaza Strip for Christians or Muslims.
These settlements are a forgotten cause of the conflict.
Extremist supporters of Israel call anyone using the term "Jewish" in any context, "anti-Semitic." It's an effective weapon when you don't want to deal with the truth.
There is no equivalent term to describe Israeli or Jewish hatred of Christian or Muslim Palestinians that is as powerful. Call someone anti-Semitic and they can lose their jobs, be ostracized or be targeted for "legitimate" retribution. Call someone "anti-Arab" and no one cares.
The media are the primary battlefield for this war of words, of course. If you are pro-Israeli and anti-Arab, you use the term "homicide bomber" instead of "suicide bomber." The idea is to turn the phrase into a bludgeon in a political war that fuels the hate that keeps the conflict going.
There are some things that are bigger than the battle of words, though. For example, the media often downplay Israeli terrorism as defensive acts.
In other words, when Israel murders a person accused (not convicted or charged) of terrorism, it's portrayed as "justified retaliation," even though the Israelis often end up killing scores of innocent civilians in the strikes.
Seeing past this battle of words won't end the conflict. But it can help you identify the bias in journalists and columnists who claim to be objective in their news reports.
Ray Hanania is a Palestinian-American author.
Reach him by e-mail at rayhanania@aol.com.
Posted on: 06/12/2004 5:25:44 PM
Ray Hanania
Daily Herald
http://www.dailyherald.com/oped/col_hanania.asp?intID=3804794
War of words is often a battle for public opinion
Posted Monday, March 01, 2004
Nowhere do words mean more than in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Is it a "wall" or is it a "fence"? In some cases, it doesn't matter but the antagonists get caught up in that end result argument rather than addressing the causes.
The real issue is the purpose of this "immoral barrier." Is it intended to steal land or prevent violence?
Here's a list of war words compiled by Palestine Media Watch, one of the most respected media monitoring groups:
"Collective punishment measures" vs. "security measures;"
"deliberate expansion" vs. "natural growth."
"Ehud Barak's ungenerous ultimatum" vs. "Ehud Barak's generous offers."
"Extra-judicial murder" vs. "targeted killing."
"Invasion" vs. "incursion."
"Israeli colonizers" vs. "Israeli settlers."
"Israeli occupation forces" vs. "Israeli defense forces."
"The Israeli occupation of Palestine" vs. "the Palestinian-Israeli conflict."
"Israel's apartheid wall" vs. "security barrier," "fence," etc.
"Jewish-only colonies" vs. "settlements."
"Jewish-only roads" vs. "bypass roads."
"Jewish supremacy agenda" vs. "demographic concerns."
"Israeli assault against Palestinian civilians" vs. "military operation."
"Military checkpoints" vs. "checkpoints."
"Military town siege" vs. "curfew."
"Occupied Jerusalem" vs. just "Jerusalem."
Also, include "occupied Jerusalem" when talking about the OTs (we often say just West Bank and Gaza when referring to the OTs).
"Palestinian political prisoners" vs. "Palestinian prisoners."
"Palestinian armed resistance" vs. "Palestinian violence."
"Palestinian resistance fighters" vs. "Palestinian militants."
"Palestinian struggle for freedom" vs. "Intifada" or "uprising."
"Political assassinations" vs. "crackdown on militants."
"President Arafat" vs. "Arafat."
"Pro-occupation supporters" vs. "pro-Israel" or "pro-Israeli."
"Random mass detention" vs. "security sweep."
"Torture" vs. "physical pressure."
"U.S.-financed Israeli military" vs. "Israeli military."
Obviously, Palestine Media Watch makes a good point. The word "settlement" doesn't accurately express the real issue, for example. Settlements are Jewish only. You don't hear about Israel building settlements in the West Bank or Gaza Strip for Christians or Muslims.
These settlements are a forgotten cause of the conflict.
Extremist supporters of Israel call anyone using the term "Jewish" in any context, "anti-Semitic." It's an effective weapon when you don't want to deal with the truth.
There is no equivalent term to describe Israeli or Jewish hatred of Christian or Muslim Palestinians that is as powerful. Call someone anti-Semitic and they can lose their jobs, be ostracized or be targeted for "legitimate" retribution. Call someone "anti-Arab" and no one cares.
The media are the primary battlefield for this war of words, of course. If you are pro-Israeli and anti-Arab, you use the term "homicide bomber" instead of "suicide bomber." The idea is to turn the phrase into a bludgeon in a political war that fuels the hate that keeps the conflict going.
There are some things that are bigger than the battle of words, though. For example, the media often downplay Israeli terrorism as defensive acts.
In other words, when Israel murders a person accused (not convicted or charged) of terrorism, it's portrayed as "justified retaliation," even though the Israelis often end up killing scores of innocent civilians in the strikes.
Seeing past this battle of words won't end the conflict. But it can help you identify the bias in journalists and columnists who claim to be objective in their news reports.
Ray Hanania is a Palestinian-American author.
Reach him by e-mail at rayhanania@aol.com.
The Anti-Arab bias of FOX Network News
Columnist Eric Boehlert of HuffingtonPost.com takes on the bias at the anti-Arab FOX Network.
Read the column?
Read the column?
Anti-Arab Media Bias -- February 2006
Anti-Arab Racism in US
By Michael Saba
Arab News, February 3, 2006
While listening to a local talk show host the other day, I was shocked at the intensity of the host’s Arab-bashing on the air. The host was a popular local African-American and his program was one of the few on a progressive radio station in our area. He proclaimed, “The Arabs are coming. The Arabs are coming,” and warned his listeners about the UAE port deal in the US. He claimed that United States national security would be severely threatened by “Arabs” controlling American ports and couldn’t have said more negative things about Arabs and the “threat” they pose to America. You would have thought he was right-wing conservative talk show host, Rush Limbaugh.
I politely telephoned the program and told the editor, who answered the phone, that I felt the host was way off base and he was making very defamatory and derogatory remarks about Arabs. The editor screamed at me and said that I was the one off base, but then proceeded to put me on the air with the host. When the host came on air with me, I stated that as an Arab-American, I took offense to his remarks about Arabs. He then started railing at me and stated that Arabs were a threat as they were in airplanes that crashed into the Twin Towers on 9/11 and that “Arab banks” had been used to finance Al-Qaeda activities.
I asked him if he had any specific evidence linking the UAE authority that was buying into port facilities in the US with terrorism. He said that he really didn’t need any more evidence than what he had stated to me earlier. “These Arabs are dangerous and security risks and I told you plenty of good reasons to prove that,” he stated. I said, “Normally, you are very fair when it comes to racial or ethnic issues, but in this case you are making statements that are bordering on being racist.” He hung up on me!
We are experiencing an incredible racist surge in the United States over the UAE port issue. Politicians from both the left and the right are rushing to see who can bash Arabs the most. President Bush appears to be a “lonely guy” in his quest to put this deal through. His battle on this issue is reminiscent of another that his father fought in September of 1991. President Bush Senior was quietly trying to postpone an Israeli request for a $10 billion housing loan for settlers. He didn’t want to disrupt the Madrid peace process. The resistance to his request came from both sides of the political aisle. President Bush was confronted with a lobbying storm to oppose his efforts on this issue. “President Bush stepped up to the microphones and said,’I heard today there were something like a thousand lobbyists on the Hill working the other side of the question. We’ve got one lonely guy doing it.’” He further stated about being “up against some powerful political forces.” Many say that this issue and the battle that ensued over it were the beginning of the end for the Bush1 presidency.
Leading the charge against the UAE port deal is Democratic New York Sen. Charles Schumer. Schumer has said, “Outsourcing the operation of our largest port to a country (read “Arab”) with a dubious record on terrorism is a homeland security and commerce accident waiting to happen.” Schumer is a notorious Arab/Saudi/Muslim basher. When the price of gasoline is high, Schumer often blames the Saudis and states that the Saudis are using their “obscene” profits from oil to further fund terrorism. When Saudi Arabia puts more oil on the market, Schumer states that Saudis are doing this to “buy an election.” Very seldom are these contradictions in his arguments ever pointed out by the media. His main point: Anything Arab/Muslim/Saudi is bad for the US.
Even when reason occasionally appears amongst major political leaders, it is tempered with implicit anti-Arab sentiments. 2008 presidential hopeful, Democratic Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware stated on Fox News this past Sunday, “The fact of the matter is that there are some people — I’m sure this is anti-Arab-bashing”, adding, “I’m sure this is true.” However in the next breath Biden said that Arab allies in the Mideast should be treated differently. “You don’t sell the same aircraft to Saudi Arabia — our great ally — that you do to England or to France or to a NATO country. So there’s always been a distinction.”
The media has set the pace for Arab-bashing in the United States. And they are joined by Hollywood, television and even the Christian Zionists. Arabs and Muslims are fair game for all of the above and very little is being done to change this equation.
We recall the highly publicized purchases by Arab investors of US corporations in the 1970s and 1980s creating hysterical cries from the media about the alleged danger of Arabs “buying up” America when actually Canada, Japan and European countries accounted for almost 90 percent of direct foreign investment in the US during the 1980s. The US Department of Commerce reported at that time that direct foreign investment from OPEC countries in the US accounted for less than one percent of that total.
In an article entitled “Methods of Media Manipulation,” Dr. Michael Parenti, an expert in media analysis, writes, “We are told by people in the media industry that news bias is unavoidable.
Whatever distortions and inaccuracies that are found in the news are caused by deadline pressures, human misjudgment, limited print space, scarce air time, budgetary restraints and the difficulty of reducing a complex story into a concise report.” Parenti continues, “I agree that these kinds of difficulties exist. Still, I would argue that the media’s misrepresentations are not merely the result of innocent error and everyday production problems.” And media misrepresentation about Arabs and Saudi Arabia is legend. A Frontpage.com article by Chris Weikopf, who also writes for the Los Angeles Daily News, began: “Saudi-bashing has become the new sport in Washington and with good reason.” In other words Weikopf was not only saying that it’s OK to “bash” a whole nation and an entire nationality/ethnic group, but it is also “good.” Put any other country or nationality/ethnic group in the “Saudi” word space and the writer would be accused of racism.
An incredible amount of work lies ahead for those of us who are fighting the battle against anti-Arab racism. We need to start at the grass roots level and we have done just that in my own area.
The African-American talk show host who ranted and raved that “the Arabs are coming” is being barraged with phone calls and e-mails calling for a change in attitude or for a subsequent firing if he continues making racist statements. As Congressman Tip O’Neill said, “All politics is local” and campaigns to enlighten the public about anti-Arab racism can and must be fought at the local level.
Michael Saba, sabamps@aol.com
By Michael Saba
Arab News, February 3, 2006
While listening to a local talk show host the other day, I was shocked at the intensity of the host’s Arab-bashing on the air. The host was a popular local African-American and his program was one of the few on a progressive radio station in our area. He proclaimed, “The Arabs are coming. The Arabs are coming,” and warned his listeners about the UAE port deal in the US. He claimed that United States national security would be severely threatened by “Arabs” controlling American ports and couldn’t have said more negative things about Arabs and the “threat” they pose to America. You would have thought he was right-wing conservative talk show host, Rush Limbaugh.
I politely telephoned the program and told the editor, who answered the phone, that I felt the host was way off base and he was making very defamatory and derogatory remarks about Arabs. The editor screamed at me and said that I was the one off base, but then proceeded to put me on the air with the host. When the host came on air with me, I stated that as an Arab-American, I took offense to his remarks about Arabs. He then started railing at me and stated that Arabs were a threat as they were in airplanes that crashed into the Twin Towers on 9/11 and that “Arab banks” had been used to finance Al-Qaeda activities.
I asked him if he had any specific evidence linking the UAE authority that was buying into port facilities in the US with terrorism. He said that he really didn’t need any more evidence than what he had stated to me earlier. “These Arabs are dangerous and security risks and I told you plenty of good reasons to prove that,” he stated. I said, “Normally, you are very fair when it comes to racial or ethnic issues, but in this case you are making statements that are bordering on being racist.” He hung up on me!
We are experiencing an incredible racist surge in the United States over the UAE port issue. Politicians from both the left and the right are rushing to see who can bash Arabs the most. President Bush appears to be a “lonely guy” in his quest to put this deal through. His battle on this issue is reminiscent of another that his father fought in September of 1991. President Bush Senior was quietly trying to postpone an Israeli request for a $10 billion housing loan for settlers. He didn’t want to disrupt the Madrid peace process. The resistance to his request came from both sides of the political aisle. President Bush was confronted with a lobbying storm to oppose his efforts on this issue. “President Bush stepped up to the microphones and said,’I heard today there were something like a thousand lobbyists on the Hill working the other side of the question. We’ve got one lonely guy doing it.’” He further stated about being “up against some powerful political forces.” Many say that this issue and the battle that ensued over it were the beginning of the end for the Bush1 presidency.
Leading the charge against the UAE port deal is Democratic New York Sen. Charles Schumer. Schumer has said, “Outsourcing the operation of our largest port to a country (read “Arab”) with a dubious record on terrorism is a homeland security and commerce accident waiting to happen.” Schumer is a notorious Arab/Saudi/Muslim basher. When the price of gasoline is high, Schumer often blames the Saudis and states that the Saudis are using their “obscene” profits from oil to further fund terrorism. When Saudi Arabia puts more oil on the market, Schumer states that Saudis are doing this to “buy an election.” Very seldom are these contradictions in his arguments ever pointed out by the media. His main point: Anything Arab/Muslim/Saudi is bad for the US.
Even when reason occasionally appears amongst major political leaders, it is tempered with implicit anti-Arab sentiments. 2008 presidential hopeful, Democratic Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware stated on Fox News this past Sunday, “The fact of the matter is that there are some people — I’m sure this is anti-Arab-bashing”, adding, “I’m sure this is true.” However in the next breath Biden said that Arab allies in the Mideast should be treated differently. “You don’t sell the same aircraft to Saudi Arabia — our great ally — that you do to England or to France or to a NATO country. So there’s always been a distinction.”
The media has set the pace for Arab-bashing in the United States. And they are joined by Hollywood, television and even the Christian Zionists. Arabs and Muslims are fair game for all of the above and very little is being done to change this equation.
We recall the highly publicized purchases by Arab investors of US corporations in the 1970s and 1980s creating hysterical cries from the media about the alleged danger of Arabs “buying up” America when actually Canada, Japan and European countries accounted for almost 90 percent of direct foreign investment in the US during the 1980s. The US Department of Commerce reported at that time that direct foreign investment from OPEC countries in the US accounted for less than one percent of that total.
In an article entitled “Methods of Media Manipulation,” Dr. Michael Parenti, an expert in media analysis, writes, “We are told by people in the media industry that news bias is unavoidable.
Whatever distortions and inaccuracies that are found in the news are caused by deadline pressures, human misjudgment, limited print space, scarce air time, budgetary restraints and the difficulty of reducing a complex story into a concise report.” Parenti continues, “I agree that these kinds of difficulties exist. Still, I would argue that the media’s misrepresentations are not merely the result of innocent error and everyday production problems.” And media misrepresentation about Arabs and Saudi Arabia is legend. A Frontpage.com article by Chris Weikopf, who also writes for the Los Angeles Daily News, began: “Saudi-bashing has become the new sport in Washington and with good reason.” In other words Weikopf was not only saying that it’s OK to “bash” a whole nation and an entire nationality/ethnic group, but it is also “good.” Put any other country or nationality/ethnic group in the “Saudi” word space and the writer would be accused of racism.
An incredible amount of work lies ahead for those of us who are fighting the battle against anti-Arab racism. We need to start at the grass roots level and we have done just that in my own area.
The African-American talk show host who ranted and raved that “the Arabs are coming” is being barraged with phone calls and e-mails calling for a change in attitude or for a subsequent firing if he continues making racist statements. As Congressman Tip O’Neill said, “All politics is local” and campaigns to enlighten the public about anti-Arab racism can and must be fought at the local level.
Michael Saba, sabamps@aol.com
Washington Post; Media no obligated to publish Arab Views to counter pro-Israel views
from the Village Voice, February 2001
Last fall, (Khalil) Jahshan met with Washington Post editorial-page editor Fred Hiatt to discuss that paper's "dismal" editorial coverage of the Middle East—and persuaded him to solicit op-eds by prominent Palestinians. "I don't think it's my job to match opposing political views column for column," says Hiatt, "but I do think that we should try to have other points of view represented on the page."
But to hear Jahshan tell it, the media's pro-Israeli bias is not restricted to newspaper editors. In the last few months, he believes, ad departments have treated his submissions to intense scrutiny, while giving pro-Israeli ads a free pass. "I see ads that are so irresponsible, that are published without any scrutiny at all," says Jahshan, "and I have asked friends in the Jewish community and in the media if they apply the same standards to both camps, and the answer is no." He attributes the bias to a desire on the part of media companies to avoid conflict with the Jewish community—and with advertisers who have strong pro-Israeli views of their own. He says the U.S. media has no such fear of offending Arab Americans.
Read full article?
Last fall, (Khalil) Jahshan met with Washington Post editorial-page editor Fred Hiatt to discuss that paper's "dismal" editorial coverage of the Middle East—and persuaded him to solicit op-eds by prominent Palestinians. "I don't think it's my job to match opposing political views column for column," says Hiatt, "but I do think that we should try to have other points of view represented on the page."
But to hear Jahshan tell it, the media's pro-Israeli bias is not restricted to newspaper editors. In the last few months, he believes, ad departments have treated his submissions to intense scrutiny, while giving pro-Israeli ads a free pass. "I see ads that are so irresponsible, that are published without any scrutiny at all," says Jahshan, "and I have asked friends in the Jewish community and in the media if they apply the same standards to both camps, and the answer is no." He attributes the bias to a desire on the part of media companies to avoid conflict with the Jewish community—and with advertisers who have strong pro-Israeli views of their own. He says the U.S. media has no such fear of offending Arab Americans.
Read full article?
Historical Article: Arab Americans on the Air (1992)
Arab-Americans on the Air
(ARAMCO MAGAZINE 1992)
Written and photographed by Brian Clark
At four in the afternoon, every Saturday, at the Said Al-Asha home in suburban Los Angeles, everything stops. That's when the Arab-American Television program airs on Channel 18.
Family members cluster around the set and soak up local and international news, a feature on an Algerian musician and a short segment on a Saudi-born student who has won a prestigious Southern California design honor.
"My family waits for it," says Al-Asha, a Lebanese businessman who has lived in Los Angeles for 21 years. "We plan our lives around it. I would go so far as to say that we would be lost without this program. It really is super."
The Al-Asha family isn't alone in its attraction to what is known locally as AATV. The program started 10 years ago, the brainchild of Wahid Boctor, a former Egyptian architecture student and documentary-film maker; today, in addition to the Saturday show, Boctor also produces a daily cable program that airs in more than 300 localities around the United States on the International Channel.
Around the country, many other Arabic-language and Arab-American radio and television programs are equally popular -especially with more recent immigrants, says Faris Bouhafa, public affairs director of the Arab-American Institute in Washington, D.C. In Detroit, promoters say "TV Orient" is watched by tens of thousands of Arab-Americans. Though different programs entirely, Chicago and Boston both have shows called "TV. Arabic Hour." And - in what is probably the most extensive Arabic-language programming in the United States - the Time-Warner Cable Network in the New York boroughs of Queens and Brooklyn broadcasts Arabic-language news, features and soap operas at least 10 hours a day on Channel 62. A number of smaller American cities with Arab-American populations also have their own local cable programming.
Bouhafa calls these programs "an important link for many people to their former homelands. Format and quality vary," he says, "but these shows satisfy an urgent need. The Arabic radio station here in Washington carries the BBC's Arabic-language news broadcasts, very extensive and in-depth. For immigrants here who are interested in politics, it is a must."
Norman Kiminaia, who founded Detroit's "TV Orient" five years ago, says he started the program "in response to a desperate need. We did a survey that showed that the Arab community needed a program that would cover everyone."
Kiminaia, who likes to interview local politicians, has a programming mix of news, features, educational offerings - and even some Egyptian soap operas - in a format that is 60 percent in Arabic and 40 percent in English, and that reaches out to a Detroit-area Arab-American population that he estimates at more than 250,000.
"Our philosophy is simple: We want to have good ethnic programming and keep our community informed. We have ties with some 20 Arab-American groups, from the Lebanese to the Yemenis to the Iraqi Chaldeans," explains Kiminaia, whose program is supported by memberships and advertising.
"We have viewers who are recent immigrants and people whose families have been in the US for generations. We appeal to all, and I think a majority of the Arab-American households in the Detroit area watch us," he says.
Though Kiminaia says "TV Orient" has the most air time in greater Detroit, that region, with its large Arab-American population, also has several other Arab-American television programs.
In Chicago, the program for Americans of Arab descent is the "TV Arabic Hour" on UHF Channel 13. According to Mufid Halawa, the program's Palestinian-born executive producer, the current program was started about six years ago after a previous effort failed.
"I was president of the Council of Arab Americans of Chicago at the time and we felt the loss," he says. "It seemed all the other ethnic groups had their programs, but we didn't."
Backed by advertising and shares sold to members of the local Arab community, the program was launched using a broad format of cultural, social, and political and entertainment news - and with an all-volunteer staff, says Palestinian-born Halawa, who earns his living as an importer.
Today, the program airs from 3:30 to 4:00 p.m. on Saturdays in Chicago, but it is also broadcast in the same time slot by Channel 69 in South Bend, Indiana, Milwaukee's Channel 65, and Channel 33 in Rockford, Illinois. The cities form a triangle more than 200 kilometers (125 miles) on a side.
"In our four-state area, we figure there are 200,000 Arab-Americans, with some 120,000 of them in Chicago," Halawa says. "So our news focus is regional. We also want to appeal to the whole family, so we have 30 percent of the program in English, for the younger people who might not speak Arabic.
"We are proud of our program. We have segments from lawyers and doctors from our community who give their time. We try to make it as interesting and useful as we can for our people," Halawa says.
In the Boston area, people with an interest in the Arab world tune in to Channel 27on Sundays from 9:30 to 10:00 a.m. to watch "TV Arabic Hour." It is run almost entirely by volunteers and has been on the air for more than a decade.
Rather than being directed exclusively at Boston's Arab-American community, this program is aimed at the general public too, says Evelyn Menconi, who does educational and cultural interviews.
"We have news from the Middle East, the Arab-American communities in our region and things that might affect people's lives - like immigration controversies. We try to give a balanced and fair picture. But we also have fun, and we entertain, with celebrity interviews, for example, and segments on Arab cooking," says Menconi, a Lebanese-American.
"Our show is almost entirely in English, since we think most Arab immigrants do speak English well enough to understand. And they love it, especially the music. But we want the broader public to be able to watch and learn from this program, too," she says.
John Zogby, president of a New York research group and an expert on Arab-American demographics, says Arab-American television programs "are most often an effort by members of the immigrant group to stay in contact with their original culture."
Zogby, who helped AATV's Boctor syndicate his program on cable television on the east coast, says most of the programming has a similar format of news, entertainment, and interviews with Arab figures of interest in the United States.
"The programming tends to be pan-Arab in its outlook. One day there could be an interview with a Maronite Christian leader from Lebanon, the next day with a director of the Palestine Liberation Organization," he says.
"These programs are a living link with Arab culture. And the most successful ones are those that are pan-Arab," he says. "I've found that even recent immigrants are willing to listen to most sides of an issue. And programs that represent the whole Arab community do the best business-wise, too," he says.
Zogby finds the pan-Arab approach encouraging. "Because the programs tend to open their doors to everyone, it makes it possible for diverse sides to be heard. So, besides being an excellent bridge for people in a new land, this acceptance of different ideas could give a little hope for Arab unity," he says.
Though there are many small newspapers around the country that are aimed at Arab-Americans, Zogby says that television is often the most direct connection to immigrants.
"This is partly because television is quite developed in the Arab world, and they are familiar with it. Also, you tend to find that the people running these programs in the US are often from those Arab countries where television is most developed. The video techniques and the production values are quite sophisticated. It can be impressive," he says.
For Al-Asha in Los Angeles, it is the news that he waits for. "I like to know what is going on in Southern California and the Arab world. This station gives me news that I want and that 1 don't think I could get anywhere else," he says.
"For my mom and my sisters, I think it is the music and the entertainers they like the best. I like the interviews with Arab officials, but the program has different things that appeal to all of us. For my mother, who doesn't speak English too well, AATV is her life-line to the outside world," says Al-Asha.
Though Al-Asha generally gives AATV high marks - especially for its coverage during the Gulf War - and calls its programming fair and impartial, he says that he sometimes thinks it is "too fair."
"During the war in Kuwait, AATV got news directly from Arab nations that wasn't broadcast anywhere else in the US. That coverage was fantastic and I think it earned the program a lot of respect. But sometimes I don't agree with the people on the programs."
For AATV founder Boctor, stirring up a little controversy now and then is part of his duty as a television producer and journalist. "I am independent and obliged to no one but the people who watch my program. I don't do propaganda. I want to give them news and features and advertising they can't get anywhere else," he says.
"Some people, especially the newer immigrants, are surprised that we can be so open and cover both sides of an issue. Sometimes they are shocked by the questions we ask. But that's okay," he says.
On a typical program, Boctor might have interviews with Saudi government officials visiting California, a film clip of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak addressing his country's People's Assembly, or news about a famous Lebanese singer who is to perform soon in Los Angeles. Many of the segments are filmed on location in that city or at the station's modest five-room studio in Hollywood.
When Boctor arrived in Los Angeles 15 years ago, he had no television plans. Rather, he was headed for the University of Southern California to get a doctorate in architecture. Soon, however, he grew bored and switched to Loyola Marymount University, where he eventually earned his master's degree in film and television.
"Don't you agree that film and television are more exciting than architecture? You can do so much more, no?" asks Boctor witha twinkle in his eye.
After receiving his degree, Boctor worked on the highly acclaimed film Being There, starring Peter Sellers. He also made several documentaries, including one on the Southern California way of life called California Dream III.
Around 1980, he got the bug to produce his own television program aimed at Arab-Americans, of whom he estimates there are more than 300,000 in Southern California alone. Nationally, according to the Arab American Institute, there are between 2.5 million and 3 million citizens who consider themselves to be Arab-Americans (See Aramco World, September-October 1986) - a figure that includes both the most recent immigrants and those whose families have been in the United States for generations.
"I wasn't always happy with what I saw on domestic television. In fact, I was frequently disappointed with the portrayal of Arabs," says Boctor. "Unfortunately, the American media still tend to stereotype Arabs as either rich shaykhs or terrorists. As an Egyptian, I knew that it wasn't true. I also saw that there were so many Arabs here in Southern California who were my potential market.
"I thought to myself, 'I can make a program for these people and represent them as they are - proud to be Algerian, Saudi, Lebanese or whatever' I figured that if I could represent all these different communities fairly, it would work," he says. "And I still have that same philosophy. If my program helps people to be proud of being Arab-Americans and proud of their heritage, than I am happy. I don't emphasize Palestinian or Jordanian or Moroccan. Though it is sometimes splintered by nationalities and religions, we are part of one large community." Boctor estimates that he reaches at least 200,000 of the Arab-Americans dispersed throughout Southern California.
"Through AATV, we bring Arab-Americans together. We don't try to change people - that would be expecting too much. But we can help newcomers adapt to what seems to many to be a strange land."
Boctor started his efforts in his own apartment with the help of a few volunteers. He had almost no overhead.
"We had to prove ourselves. We had to earn the respect of the community. We nearly closed down three or four times, for financial reasons, but we earned that all-important respect. Because of that, things have clicked," he says.
Eight years ago, a key donation helped keep the program afloat and made an expansion to a one-hour format possible. "For that help we are still extremely grateful," Boctor says.
One of the early AATV volunteers was Mona Ibrahim, another Egyptian emigre who saw one of the first programs when she was channel-cruising around the television dial.
"I heard Arabic and saw that this was a local program," says Ibrahim. "I called the station and told them I would do anything to help. I sold ads. At times, it was just stubbornness that kept us going."
Ibrahim, who is now an associate producer and program host, is one of a staff of 15, nearly half of whom are volunteers. All are Arab-Americans, and their homelands cover most of the map of the Arab world.
"Gaining the trust of the community took four years. People also came to see that the program increased business activity," says Ibrahim, who handles the station's finances. "The advertising gained credibility because it worked."
Support for community concerns was also important in establishing AATV's credibility, and it continues. Last month, for example, the program ran a four-hour telethon to raise funds for victims of Egypt's October earthquake. Film and television stars from Egypt took part, as did the country's Los Angeles consul-general.
Roughly 80 percent of AATV's program is produced in Arabic, with the remaining 20 percent in English. That language split causes some problems between the generations of Arab-Americans, Boctor says. "Those who have been here for several generations, and can't speak Arabic well, wish we had more English. And those who are new immigrants, well, they wish it were all in Arabic."
The program tried subtitles for the programming, but found they were too expensive, Boctor explains. Much of the advertising, especially commercials for restaurants and doctors, is in English.
Boctor, who says his job description is "making sure things get done right," also hosts political interviews on the program, usually with Arab diplomats and officials who come through the region. Some of them seek out the station beforehand, because they value the access it gives them to the Arab-American community.
The Gulf War was a particular test for AATV. Boctor worked hard to maintain the program's impartiality - harder, he feels, than mainstream television. "I think much of the US media's coverage was superficial and even inhumane toward Arabs. We were one of the few programs that gave Iraqi casualty figures, and showed the carnage of the war," he says.
"For our coverage, we interviewed the Kuwaiti ambassador and the Consul-General of Saudi Arabia. But we also talked to the Iraqi ambassador, and we interviewed people on the street about their feelings."
Says Ibrahim, "We go into the community to talk to people about their conflicts and problems. We sponsored conferences during the war about people's concerns, and we were one of the first stations to report harassment of Arab-Americans by the FBI, something which was later denounced by President Bush."
Certainly not all of the programming is hard news, however. The station also brings in entertainers from the Middle East for performances; the national days of 22 Arab lands are celebrated on the program; and during Ramadan, special music is played.
"Once a woman called me up and cried over the phone," says Boctor. "She said, 'You make me feel like I am back in the country of my birth - and I miss it so.'"
Amer Assoum, a Los Angeles waiter and business-administration student born in Lebanon, doesn't get emotional when he tells why he likes AATV.
"I just enjoy being able to watch an Arabic channel. I couldn't get this kind of information anywhere else. Not the news, not the ads and not the entertainment," says Assoum.
For Dikran Khanjian, a Los Angeles jeweler who was born in Syria and lived in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia before coming to the United States, one of the best things about AATV is "that it doesn't take sides.
"That neutrality is important. The program covers many aspects of life from the arts to politics to news from the Arab world. It is a tough job for [Boctor] and his crew, but I think what they produce is encouraging," says Khanjian.
Maha Akeel, a Saudi Arabian, says she enjoys the music and community services as much as the news. Her praise could apply in equal measure to Arab-American programming all over the United States.
"Not only does it keep us in touch with what is happening in the Arab world," she says, "but it also lets us know what is going on in our own community. That's quite an accomplishment."
Brian Clark, a frequent contributor toAramco World, free-lances from his base in Washington state.
This article appeared on pages 12-15 of the November/December 1992 print edition of Saudi Aramco World.
(ARAMCO MAGAZINE 1992)
Written and photographed by Brian Clark
At four in the afternoon, every Saturday, at the Said Al-Asha home in suburban Los Angeles, everything stops. That's when the Arab-American Television program airs on Channel 18.
Family members cluster around the set and soak up local and international news, a feature on an Algerian musician and a short segment on a Saudi-born student who has won a prestigious Southern California design honor.
"My family waits for it," says Al-Asha, a Lebanese businessman who has lived in Los Angeles for 21 years. "We plan our lives around it. I would go so far as to say that we would be lost without this program. It really is super."
The Al-Asha family isn't alone in its attraction to what is known locally as AATV. The program started 10 years ago, the brainchild of Wahid Boctor, a former Egyptian architecture student and documentary-film maker; today, in addition to the Saturday show, Boctor also produces a daily cable program that airs in more than 300 localities around the United States on the International Channel.
Around the country, many other Arabic-language and Arab-American radio and television programs are equally popular -especially with more recent immigrants, says Faris Bouhafa, public affairs director of the Arab-American Institute in Washington, D.C. In Detroit, promoters say "TV Orient" is watched by tens of thousands of Arab-Americans. Though different programs entirely, Chicago and Boston both have shows called "TV. Arabic Hour." And - in what is probably the most extensive Arabic-language programming in the United States - the Time-Warner Cable Network in the New York boroughs of Queens and Brooklyn broadcasts Arabic-language news, features and soap operas at least 10 hours a day on Channel 62. A number of smaller American cities with Arab-American populations also have their own local cable programming.
Bouhafa calls these programs "an important link for many people to their former homelands. Format and quality vary," he says, "but these shows satisfy an urgent need. The Arabic radio station here in Washington carries the BBC's Arabic-language news broadcasts, very extensive and in-depth. For immigrants here who are interested in politics, it is a must."
Norman Kiminaia, who founded Detroit's "TV Orient" five years ago, says he started the program "in response to a desperate need. We did a survey that showed that the Arab community needed a program that would cover everyone."
Kiminaia, who likes to interview local politicians, has a programming mix of news, features, educational offerings - and even some Egyptian soap operas - in a format that is 60 percent in Arabic and 40 percent in English, and that reaches out to a Detroit-area Arab-American population that he estimates at more than 250,000.
"Our philosophy is simple: We want to have good ethnic programming and keep our community informed. We have ties with some 20 Arab-American groups, from the Lebanese to the Yemenis to the Iraqi Chaldeans," explains Kiminaia, whose program is supported by memberships and advertising.
"We have viewers who are recent immigrants and people whose families have been in the US for generations. We appeal to all, and I think a majority of the Arab-American households in the Detroit area watch us," he says.
Though Kiminaia says "TV Orient" has the most air time in greater Detroit, that region, with its large Arab-American population, also has several other Arab-American television programs.
In Chicago, the program for Americans of Arab descent is the "TV Arabic Hour" on UHF Channel 13. According to Mufid Halawa, the program's Palestinian-born executive producer, the current program was started about six years ago after a previous effort failed.
"I was president of the Council of Arab Americans of Chicago at the time and we felt the loss," he says. "It seemed all the other ethnic groups had their programs, but we didn't."
Backed by advertising and shares sold to members of the local Arab community, the program was launched using a broad format of cultural, social, and political and entertainment news - and with an all-volunteer staff, says Palestinian-born Halawa, who earns his living as an importer.
Today, the program airs from 3:30 to 4:00 p.m. on Saturdays in Chicago, but it is also broadcast in the same time slot by Channel 69 in South Bend, Indiana, Milwaukee's Channel 65, and Channel 33 in Rockford, Illinois. The cities form a triangle more than 200 kilometers (125 miles) on a side.
"In our four-state area, we figure there are 200,000 Arab-Americans, with some 120,000 of them in Chicago," Halawa says. "So our news focus is regional. We also want to appeal to the whole family, so we have 30 percent of the program in English, for the younger people who might not speak Arabic.
"We are proud of our program. We have segments from lawyers and doctors from our community who give their time. We try to make it as interesting and useful as we can for our people," Halawa says.
In the Boston area, people with an interest in the Arab world tune in to Channel 27on Sundays from 9:30 to 10:00 a.m. to watch "TV Arabic Hour." It is run almost entirely by volunteers and has been on the air for more than a decade.
Rather than being directed exclusively at Boston's Arab-American community, this program is aimed at the general public too, says Evelyn Menconi, who does educational and cultural interviews.
"We have news from the Middle East, the Arab-American communities in our region and things that might affect people's lives - like immigration controversies. We try to give a balanced and fair picture. But we also have fun, and we entertain, with celebrity interviews, for example, and segments on Arab cooking," says Menconi, a Lebanese-American.
"Our show is almost entirely in English, since we think most Arab immigrants do speak English well enough to understand. And they love it, especially the music. But we want the broader public to be able to watch and learn from this program, too," she says.
John Zogby, president of a New York research group and an expert on Arab-American demographics, says Arab-American television programs "are most often an effort by members of the immigrant group to stay in contact with their original culture."
Zogby, who helped AATV's Boctor syndicate his program on cable television on the east coast, says most of the programming has a similar format of news, entertainment, and interviews with Arab figures of interest in the United States.
"The programming tends to be pan-Arab in its outlook. One day there could be an interview with a Maronite Christian leader from Lebanon, the next day with a director of the Palestine Liberation Organization," he says.
"These programs are a living link with Arab culture. And the most successful ones are those that are pan-Arab," he says. "I've found that even recent immigrants are willing to listen to most sides of an issue. And programs that represent the whole Arab community do the best business-wise, too," he says.
Zogby finds the pan-Arab approach encouraging. "Because the programs tend to open their doors to everyone, it makes it possible for diverse sides to be heard. So, besides being an excellent bridge for people in a new land, this acceptance of different ideas could give a little hope for Arab unity," he says.
Though there are many small newspapers around the country that are aimed at Arab-Americans, Zogby says that television is often the most direct connection to immigrants.
"This is partly because television is quite developed in the Arab world, and they are familiar with it. Also, you tend to find that the people running these programs in the US are often from those Arab countries where television is most developed. The video techniques and the production values are quite sophisticated. It can be impressive," he says.
For Al-Asha in Los Angeles, it is the news that he waits for. "I like to know what is going on in Southern California and the Arab world. This station gives me news that I want and that 1 don't think I could get anywhere else," he says.
"For my mom and my sisters, I think it is the music and the entertainers they like the best. I like the interviews with Arab officials, but the program has different things that appeal to all of us. For my mother, who doesn't speak English too well, AATV is her life-line to the outside world," says Al-Asha.
Though Al-Asha generally gives AATV high marks - especially for its coverage during the Gulf War - and calls its programming fair and impartial, he says that he sometimes thinks it is "too fair."
"During the war in Kuwait, AATV got news directly from Arab nations that wasn't broadcast anywhere else in the US. That coverage was fantastic and I think it earned the program a lot of respect. But sometimes I don't agree with the people on the programs."
For AATV founder Boctor, stirring up a little controversy now and then is part of his duty as a television producer and journalist. "I am independent and obliged to no one but the people who watch my program. I don't do propaganda. I want to give them news and features and advertising they can't get anywhere else," he says.
"Some people, especially the newer immigrants, are surprised that we can be so open and cover both sides of an issue. Sometimes they are shocked by the questions we ask. But that's okay," he says.
On a typical program, Boctor might have interviews with Saudi government officials visiting California, a film clip of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak addressing his country's People's Assembly, or news about a famous Lebanese singer who is to perform soon in Los Angeles. Many of the segments are filmed on location in that city or at the station's modest five-room studio in Hollywood.
When Boctor arrived in Los Angeles 15 years ago, he had no television plans. Rather, he was headed for the University of Southern California to get a doctorate in architecture. Soon, however, he grew bored and switched to Loyola Marymount University, where he eventually earned his master's degree in film and television.
"Don't you agree that film and television are more exciting than architecture? You can do so much more, no?" asks Boctor witha twinkle in his eye.
After receiving his degree, Boctor worked on the highly acclaimed film Being There, starring Peter Sellers. He also made several documentaries, including one on the Southern California way of life called California Dream III.
Around 1980, he got the bug to produce his own television program aimed at Arab-Americans, of whom he estimates there are more than 300,000 in Southern California alone. Nationally, according to the Arab American Institute, there are between 2.5 million and 3 million citizens who consider themselves to be Arab-Americans (See Aramco World, September-October 1986) - a figure that includes both the most recent immigrants and those whose families have been in the United States for generations.
"I wasn't always happy with what I saw on domestic television. In fact, I was frequently disappointed with the portrayal of Arabs," says Boctor. "Unfortunately, the American media still tend to stereotype Arabs as either rich shaykhs or terrorists. As an Egyptian, I knew that it wasn't true. I also saw that there were so many Arabs here in Southern California who were my potential market.
"I thought to myself, 'I can make a program for these people and represent them as they are - proud to be Algerian, Saudi, Lebanese or whatever' I figured that if I could represent all these different communities fairly, it would work," he says. "And I still have that same philosophy. If my program helps people to be proud of being Arab-Americans and proud of their heritage, than I am happy. I don't emphasize Palestinian or Jordanian or Moroccan. Though it is sometimes splintered by nationalities and religions, we are part of one large community." Boctor estimates that he reaches at least 200,000 of the Arab-Americans dispersed throughout Southern California.
"Through AATV, we bring Arab-Americans together. We don't try to change people - that would be expecting too much. But we can help newcomers adapt to what seems to many to be a strange land."
Boctor started his efforts in his own apartment with the help of a few volunteers. He had almost no overhead.
"We had to prove ourselves. We had to earn the respect of the community. We nearly closed down three or four times, for financial reasons, but we earned that all-important respect. Because of that, things have clicked," he says.
Eight years ago, a key donation helped keep the program afloat and made an expansion to a one-hour format possible. "For that help we are still extremely grateful," Boctor says.
One of the early AATV volunteers was Mona Ibrahim, another Egyptian emigre who saw one of the first programs when she was channel-cruising around the television dial.
"I heard Arabic and saw that this was a local program," says Ibrahim. "I called the station and told them I would do anything to help. I sold ads. At times, it was just stubbornness that kept us going."
Ibrahim, who is now an associate producer and program host, is one of a staff of 15, nearly half of whom are volunteers. All are Arab-Americans, and their homelands cover most of the map of the Arab world.
"Gaining the trust of the community took four years. People also came to see that the program increased business activity," says Ibrahim, who handles the station's finances. "The advertising gained credibility because it worked."
Support for community concerns was also important in establishing AATV's credibility, and it continues. Last month, for example, the program ran a four-hour telethon to raise funds for victims of Egypt's October earthquake. Film and television stars from Egypt took part, as did the country's Los Angeles consul-general.
Roughly 80 percent of AATV's program is produced in Arabic, with the remaining 20 percent in English. That language split causes some problems between the generations of Arab-Americans, Boctor says. "Those who have been here for several generations, and can't speak Arabic well, wish we had more English. And those who are new immigrants, well, they wish it were all in Arabic."
The program tried subtitles for the programming, but found they were too expensive, Boctor explains. Much of the advertising, especially commercials for restaurants and doctors, is in English.
Boctor, who says his job description is "making sure things get done right," also hosts political interviews on the program, usually with Arab diplomats and officials who come through the region. Some of them seek out the station beforehand, because they value the access it gives them to the Arab-American community.
The Gulf War was a particular test for AATV. Boctor worked hard to maintain the program's impartiality - harder, he feels, than mainstream television. "I think much of the US media's coverage was superficial and even inhumane toward Arabs. We were one of the few programs that gave Iraqi casualty figures, and showed the carnage of the war," he says.
"For our coverage, we interviewed the Kuwaiti ambassador and the Consul-General of Saudi Arabia. But we also talked to the Iraqi ambassador, and we interviewed people on the street about their feelings."
Says Ibrahim, "We go into the community to talk to people about their conflicts and problems. We sponsored conferences during the war about people's concerns, and we were one of the first stations to report harassment of Arab-Americans by the FBI, something which was later denounced by President Bush."
Certainly not all of the programming is hard news, however. The station also brings in entertainers from the Middle East for performances; the national days of 22 Arab lands are celebrated on the program; and during Ramadan, special music is played.
"Once a woman called me up and cried over the phone," says Boctor. "She said, 'You make me feel like I am back in the country of my birth - and I miss it so.'"
Amer Assoum, a Los Angeles waiter and business-administration student born in Lebanon, doesn't get emotional when he tells why he likes AATV.
"I just enjoy being able to watch an Arabic channel. I couldn't get this kind of information anywhere else. Not the news, not the ads and not the entertainment," says Assoum.
For Dikran Khanjian, a Los Angeles jeweler who was born in Syria and lived in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia before coming to the United States, one of the best things about AATV is "that it doesn't take sides.
"That neutrality is important. The program covers many aspects of life from the arts to politics to news from the Arab world. It is a tough job for [Boctor] and his crew, but I think what they produce is encouraging," says Khanjian.
Maha Akeel, a Saudi Arabian, says she enjoys the music and community services as much as the news. Her praise could apply in equal measure to Arab-American programming all over the United States.
"Not only does it keep us in touch with what is happening in the Arab world," she says, "but it also lets us know what is going on in our own community. That's quite an accomplishment."
Brian Clark, a frequent contributor toAramco World, free-lances from his base in Washington state.
This article appeared on pages 12-15 of the November/December 1992 print edition of Saudi Aramco World.
Bias in the American Media on Middle East topics CJR Article
Media bias on Middle East issues
by Lawrence Pintack, CJR Daily
Napa Valley, Calif. -- As someone who lives and breathes Middle East politics and media, I have had the bizarre -- and frustrating -- experience of watching the current conflict play out on U.S. cable television, and I am reminded once again why many Americans have such a limited -- and distorted -- view of the world.
I run a center for television and new media at The American University in Cairo, which puts me at the crossroads of journalism in the Arab world. For me, monitoring a crisis like this would normally mean the voracious consumption of Arab and U.S. media -- television, newspapers, Web sites and all the rest.
But for the first week of the war, I was on vacation in California with my family. That has meant catching glimpses of the conflict in bite-sized snatches on cable television between forays to Disneyland, trips to the beach and aquarium tours -- much, I suspect, like many other Americans this summer.
At times, the coverage has seemed as much a fantasy as Disney's Space Mountain, and the level of Middle East knowledge on the part of some television anchors only a few notches higher than that of the tattooed biker couple waiting in line for the Pirates of the Caribbean ride.
Take, for example, a CNN interview with an American high school student who had been visiting his father's relatives in Lebanon when the conflict broke out. With his tearful American mother in the studio, he was asked by phone whether he was frightened. No big deal, he replied, explaining that he was north of the Christian port of Jounieh, far from the fighting. Betraying her woeful ignorance of Lebanon's geography and politics, the anchor replied that he sounded like a typical "macho" young man who didn't want to worry his mother.
The anchor might have looked at a map before going on air.
Hype abounded. "This could be World War Three!" more than one reporter was heard to say. The same dramatic images were endlessly repeated, as if on a loop. Rumor was elevated to fact -- and the networks seemed proud of it. One CNN promo showed an unedited sequence in which a nameless photographer told Anderson Cooper, in northern Israel, that there was a rumor of rockets on the way. Cooper then turned to the camera and authoritatively reported, "The police say more rockets are coming."
So much for checking sources.
To be fair, there was also a fair share of solid, informed reporting. Yeoman's work has been done by Nic Robertson in Beirut, Matthew Chance in Gaza and Christiane Amanpour on the Israeli border, as well as CNN anchor and Beirut veteran Jim Clancy, NBC's Martin Fletcher on MSNBC and the handful of others who are based in, or spend significant time in, the region. The problem comes with those -- like Cooper -- who have parachuted into the Middle East with little grounding in the region, and the anchors back in the studios in London and the U.S. The errors of the uninitiated embeds in Iraq have been endlessly repeated.
One example: CBS refugee John Roberts, now CNN's senior corre
spondent, eruditely pointed to pro-Hezbollah demonstrations in Syria as evidence of a Sunni-Shiite split. The only weakness in that analysis is that Syria is a Sunni nation, so the demonstrations point to exactly the opposite -- Sunni-Shiite unity on the issue of Hezbollah's actions.
Over on Hardball, NBC correspondent Dawn Fratangelo's discussion of potential dangers to American evacuees quickly disintegrated into confused talk of Hezbollah rockets in northern Israel. That's the other direction, Dawn.
There was little effort to identify the politics of many of the pseudo-experts who were trotted into the studios. Right-wing Lebanese Christians and representatives of Israeli-backed think tanks -- both with axes to grind -- were offered up as independent analysts. Anchors and reporters, meanwhile, frequently wore their politics on their sleeve. When an American woman trapped in southern Lebanon decried Washington's failure to stop what she said was Israel's brutal killing of civilians, CNN anchor Tony Harris snapped back, "That's not the view over here," and cut her off, saying he didn't have time to debate the issue.
As is so often the case these days, celebrity reporters themselves frequently became the story. Anderson Cooper spent more time on-camera than the protagonists in the conflict, and MSNBC endlessly looped an outtake of Richard Engel repeatedly flubbing his on-camera standup as Israeli bombs fell behind him, much, I suspect, to his embarrassment. A failure to remain cool under fire is not something to be proud of.
NBC anchor Brian Williams made much of the fact that when he went on a helicopter flight with an Israeli officer to take a look at the fighting, "We got closer than we intended." Turns out that some shells landed in the distance. War is Hell, Brian.
Even more troubling was the fact that the Williams segment, along with reports by several other NBC correspondents, ran on Scarborough Country, an overtly politicized talk show, further blurring the line between news and opinion and muddying the waters of cable journalism.
Amid segments from such stalwart NBC correspondents as Martin Fletcher, there was Scarborough describing Hezbollah as an "Iran-backed terror group" and throwing former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak softballs like, "Why is it the more Israel is willing to give up to the Palestinians, the more your country comes under attack?" Meanwhile, conservative iconoclast Tucker Carlson, sans bowtie, has been out there "reporting" from the Israeli border, asking real NBC correspondents such leading questions as, "Do we have any idea whether this city was targeted by Hezbollah because of its Christian population?" (This isn't just about "good" Christians and "bad" Muslims, Tucker.)
There is plenty of room on cable television for politicized talk shows of all stripes. But in allowing -- or, rather, ordering -- its respected news correspondents to appear on such shows, the networks are trading credibility for ratings and cementing their transition from purveyors of news to citadels of infotainment.
Lost in the fog of hype and self-aggrandizement on the cable segments I saw was much of the subtle complexity of the conflict. Instead, it was too often reduced to the black-hat/white-hat characterization that has guided U.S. policy toward the region.
My view was one slice of the coverage. I did not see the main network evening newscasts or the morning shows. What I did was what so many Americans do these days -- I grazed cable news in fits and snatches. And I came up hungry.
Lawrence Pintak is the director of the Adham Center for Electronic Journalism at The American University in Cairo. A former CBS News Middle East correspondent, his most recent book is Reflections in a Bloodshot Lens: America, Islam & the War of Ideas. He can be reached at lpintak ~at~ aucegypt.edu.
Source URL:
http://www.cjrdaily.org/behind_the_news/the_fog_of_cable.php
by Lawrence Pintack, CJR Daily
Napa Valley, Calif. -- As someone who lives and breathes Middle East politics and media, I have had the bizarre -- and frustrating -- experience of watching the current conflict play out on U.S. cable television, and I am reminded once again why many Americans have such a limited -- and distorted -- view of the world.
I run a center for television and new media at The American University in Cairo, which puts me at the crossroads of journalism in the Arab world. For me, monitoring a crisis like this would normally mean the voracious consumption of Arab and U.S. media -- television, newspapers, Web sites and all the rest.
But for the first week of the war, I was on vacation in California with my family. That has meant catching glimpses of the conflict in bite-sized snatches on cable television between forays to Disneyland, trips to the beach and aquarium tours -- much, I suspect, like many other Americans this summer.
At times, the coverage has seemed as much a fantasy as Disney's Space Mountain, and the level of Middle East knowledge on the part of some television anchors only a few notches higher than that of the tattooed biker couple waiting in line for the Pirates of the Caribbean ride.
Take, for example, a CNN interview with an American high school student who had been visiting his father's relatives in Lebanon when the conflict broke out. With his tearful American mother in the studio, he was asked by phone whether he was frightened. No big deal, he replied, explaining that he was north of the Christian port of Jounieh, far from the fighting. Betraying her woeful ignorance of Lebanon's geography and politics, the anchor replied that he sounded like a typical "macho" young man who didn't want to worry his mother.
The anchor might have looked at a map before going on air.
Hype abounded. "This could be World War Three!" more than one reporter was heard to say. The same dramatic images were endlessly repeated, as if on a loop. Rumor was elevated to fact -- and the networks seemed proud of it. One CNN promo showed an unedited sequence in which a nameless photographer told Anderson Cooper, in northern Israel, that there was a rumor of rockets on the way. Cooper then turned to the camera and authoritatively reported, "The police say more rockets are coming."
So much for checking sources.
To be fair, there was also a fair share of solid, informed reporting. Yeoman's work has been done by Nic Robertson in Beirut, Matthew Chance in Gaza and Christiane Amanpour on the Israeli border, as well as CNN anchor and Beirut veteran Jim Clancy, NBC's Martin Fletcher on MSNBC and the handful of others who are based in, or spend significant time in, the region. The problem comes with those -- like Cooper -- who have parachuted into the Middle East with little grounding in the region, and the anchors back in the studios in London and the U.S. The errors of the uninitiated embeds in Iraq have been endlessly repeated.
One example: CBS refugee John Roberts, now CNN's senior corre
spondent, eruditely pointed to pro-Hezbollah demonstrations in Syria as evidence of a Sunni-Shiite split. The only weakness in that analysis is that Syria is a Sunni nation, so the demonstrations point to exactly the opposite -- Sunni-Shiite unity on the issue of Hezbollah's actions.
Over on Hardball, NBC correspondent Dawn Fratangelo's discussion of potential dangers to American evacuees quickly disintegrated into confused talk of Hezbollah rockets in northern Israel. That's the other direction, Dawn.
There was little effort to identify the politics of many of the pseudo-experts who were trotted into the studios. Right-wing Lebanese Christians and representatives of Israeli-backed think tanks -- both with axes to grind -- were offered up as independent analysts. Anchors and reporters, meanwhile, frequently wore their politics on their sleeve. When an American woman trapped in southern Lebanon decried Washington's failure to stop what she said was Israel's brutal killing of civilians, CNN anchor Tony Harris snapped back, "That's not the view over here," and cut her off, saying he didn't have time to debate the issue.
As is so often the case these days, celebrity reporters themselves frequently became the story. Anderson Cooper spent more time on-camera than the protagonists in the conflict, and MSNBC endlessly looped an outtake of Richard Engel repeatedly flubbing his on-camera standup as Israeli bombs fell behind him, much, I suspect, to his embarrassment. A failure to remain cool under fire is not something to be proud of.
NBC anchor Brian Williams made much of the fact that when he went on a helicopter flight with an Israeli officer to take a look at the fighting, "We got closer than we intended." Turns out that some shells landed in the distance. War is Hell, Brian.
Even more troubling was the fact that the Williams segment, along with reports by several other NBC correspondents, ran on Scarborough Country, an overtly politicized talk show, further blurring the line between news and opinion and muddying the waters of cable journalism.
Amid segments from such stalwart NBC correspondents as Martin Fletcher, there was Scarborough describing Hezbollah as an "Iran-backed terror group" and throwing former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak softballs like, "Why is it the more Israel is willing to give up to the Palestinians, the more your country comes under attack?" Meanwhile, conservative iconoclast Tucker Carlson, sans bowtie, has been out there "reporting" from the Israeli border, asking real NBC correspondents such leading questions as, "Do we have any idea whether this city was targeted by Hezbollah because of its Christian population?" (This isn't just about "good" Christians and "bad" Muslims, Tucker.)
There is plenty of room on cable television for politicized talk shows of all stripes. But in allowing -- or, rather, ordering -- its respected news correspondents to appear on such shows, the networks are trading credibility for ratings and cementing their transition from purveyors of news to citadels of infotainment.
Lost in the fog of hype and self-aggrandizement on the cable segments I saw was much of the subtle complexity of the conflict. Instead, it was too often reduced to the black-hat/white-hat characterization that has guided U.S. policy toward the region.
My view was one slice of the coverage. I did not see the main network evening newscasts or the morning shows. What I did was what so many Americans do these days -- I grazed cable news in fits and snatches. And I came up hungry.
Lawrence Pintak is the director of the Adham Center for Electronic Journalism at The American University in Cairo. A former CBS News Middle East correspondent, his most recent book is Reflections in a Bloodshot Lens: America, Islam & the War of Ideas. He can be reached at lpintak ~at~ aucegypt.edu.
Source URL:
http://www.cjrdaily.org/behind_the_news/the_fog_of_cable.php
Tuesday, August 01, 2006
Seeking viewpoints addressing the bias of mainstream media against Arabs/Muslims
The Society of Professional Journalists is hosting their annual convention here in Chicago Aug 24-26 at the Hyatt Regency ... the National Arab American Journalists will be hosting a booth at the entrance to protest bias and bigotry and discrimination against Arabs, Muslims and Arab issues in the mainstream media
We are encouraging any and all Arab American journalists to consider writing an essay that addresses any or all of the following topics
1) censorship of the Arab and Muslim viewpoint in the mainstream American media
2) the need to make "diversity" all inclusive and address the absence of Arabs and Muslims from mainstream media news rooms
3) the issue of the enormous imbalance that exists in the number of pro-Israel and anti-Arab/Anti-Muslim columns that appear on the Op-Ed pages of AMerican newspapers as compared to pro-Arab and pro-Muslims columns.
4) the absence full time Arab and Muslim columnists from the mainstream newsmedia and the nation's powerful syndications
You may also have other topics to address
We will have a special newspaper edition to be distributed at the convention ...
please email columns to
rayhanania@aol.com
or mail printed materials to
Ray Hanania
PO Box 2127
Orland Park, IL 60462
thanks
Ray Hanania
http://www.arabamericantvonline.com/
We are encouraging any and all Arab American journalists to consider writing an essay that addresses any or all of the following topics
1) censorship of the Arab and Muslim viewpoint in the mainstream American media
2) the need to make "diversity" all inclusive and address the absence of Arabs and Muslims from mainstream media news rooms
3) the issue of the enormous imbalance that exists in the number of pro-Israel and anti-Arab/Anti-Muslim columns that appear on the Op-Ed pages of AMerican newspapers as compared to pro-Arab and pro-Muslims columns.
4) the absence full time Arab and Muslim columnists from the mainstream newsmedia and the nation's powerful syndications
You may also have other topics to address
We will have a special newspaper edition to be distributed at the convention ...
please email columns to
rayhanania@aol.com
or mail printed materials to
Ray Hanania
PO Box 2127
Orland Park, IL 60462
thanks
Ray Hanania
http://www.arabamericantvonline.com/
Mainstream American media bias often ignored by American journalists
This month, the Quill, the official magazine of the Society of Professional Journalists, published and essay by Bruce Swafield, a professor of journalism at Regent University at Virgina Beach, VA which targeted the censorship of the media in the United Arab Emirates.
What the professor did not address, of course, is the more egregious censorship of Arab American and Muslim American journalists. While the UAE, according to Swafield, prohibits journalists from excessive criticism of the Royal Family and religious practices, in the United States, Arabs and Muslims are not only censored, theya re boycotted, banned and limited to the point of almost total exclusion from participation in the public discussions.
Journalists who are Arab or Muslim are often discouraged from covering or writing about the injustices that Israel heaps on Arabs and Muslims, while many Jewish Americans are free to explore their own religious and national identities and political views without any challenges.
Hi Mona and Mohammed
The Quill, which is the official magazine of the Society of Professional Journalists, published the following commentary below. I plan to write in response to the focus on the piece and the fact that while American mainstream journalists often tackle the "censorship" and "media restrictions" in the Arab World, they remain virtually silent when it comes to the more sinister practices of anti-Arab biases and bigotry here in the United States media.
The fact is that while the UAE openly prohibits excessive criticism of the Royal Family and the Government, in the United States, the mainstream media acts by an unspoken code of conduct to routinely deny (not 100 percent but almost 95 percent) the expressions of American Arab and Muslim challenges to American foreign policy, the news media bias towards Israel and even to challenge Jewish American writers who routinely violate principles of professional journalism by covering issues involving Israel and the Arab World as if they were objective.
Arab and Muslim Americans are routinely passed over for hiring to fill journalism positions -- there is token representation in the American news media. Arab and Muslims who criticize Israel excessively are pressured, boycotted and excluded.
Arab and Muslim AMerican newspapers are the target of anti-Arab and anti-Muslim boycotts that target mainstream American businesses forcing them to drop advertising in their publications.
And, companies that employ Arabs and Muslims who actively criticize Israel are often forced to fire or dismiss those employees.
The fact is that while the UAE may be criticized for not being a perfectly free society, the United States is not only not free it is oftentimes more restrictive than the UAE and the Arab World media.
While many Arabs and Muslims can easily view biased American based news programs like CNN and FOX News, Arab satellite statiosn have been branded "unpatriotic" and boycotts have been organized across the United States to prevent them from being offered to mainstream American audiences. In some cases, talkshows that focus too heavily on the Palestinian issue and criticism of Israel and also of the Jewish American community activism, are also forced to be removed from programming by the cable TV networks.
Recently, we watched as the mainstream American media barely covered the study of AIPAC, the powerful Israeli lobby that holds the United States Congress in a political headlock vise grip that targets any congress member who challenges pro-Israel American policy.
In contrast to the above discrimination and policies in the United States, the UAE offers greater media freedom to report on the majority of issues including criticism of policies toward Israel, the so-called AMerican defined "war on terrorism" which many believe is in fact a war on Islam.
Just some of my thoughts but I think the Dubai Press Club should respond to this writer below.
I also think that the Dubai Press Club should lead the way in working with Arab American journalists who continue to face a brutal struggle against discrimination and bias and censorship than anywhere else in the Middle East.
Here's the link to the Quill story.
Ray Hanania
What the professor did not address, of course, is the more egregious censorship of Arab American and Muslim American journalists. While the UAE, according to Swafield, prohibits journalists from excessive criticism of the Royal Family and religious practices, in the United States, Arabs and Muslims are not only censored, theya re boycotted, banned and limited to the point of almost total exclusion from participation in the public discussions.
Journalists who are Arab or Muslim are often discouraged from covering or writing about the injustices that Israel heaps on Arabs and Muslims, while many Jewish Americans are free to explore their own religious and national identities and political views without any challenges.
Hi Mona and Mohammed
The Quill, which is the official magazine of the Society of Professional Journalists, published the following commentary below. I plan to write in response to the focus on the piece and the fact that while American mainstream journalists often tackle the "censorship" and "media restrictions" in the Arab World, they remain virtually silent when it comes to the more sinister practices of anti-Arab biases and bigotry here in the United States media.
The fact is that while the UAE openly prohibits excessive criticism of the Royal Family and the Government, in the United States, the mainstream media acts by an unspoken code of conduct to routinely deny (not 100 percent but almost 95 percent) the expressions of American Arab and Muslim challenges to American foreign policy, the news media bias towards Israel and even to challenge Jewish American writers who routinely violate principles of professional journalism by covering issues involving Israel and the Arab World as if they were objective.
Arab and Muslim Americans are routinely passed over for hiring to fill journalism positions -- there is token representation in the American news media. Arab and Muslims who criticize Israel excessively are pressured, boycotted and excluded.
Arab and Muslim AMerican newspapers are the target of anti-Arab and anti-Muslim boycotts that target mainstream American businesses forcing them to drop advertising in their publications.
And, companies that employ Arabs and Muslims who actively criticize Israel are often forced to fire or dismiss those employees.
The fact is that while the UAE may be criticized for not being a perfectly free society, the United States is not only not free it is oftentimes more restrictive than the UAE and the Arab World media.
While many Arabs and Muslims can easily view biased American based news programs like CNN and FOX News, Arab satellite statiosn have been branded "unpatriotic" and boycotts have been organized across the United States to prevent them from being offered to mainstream American audiences. In some cases, talkshows that focus too heavily on the Palestinian issue and criticism of Israel and also of the Jewish American community activism, are also forced to be removed from programming by the cable TV networks.
Recently, we watched as the mainstream American media barely covered the study of AIPAC, the powerful Israeli lobby that holds the United States Congress in a political headlock vise grip that targets any congress member who challenges pro-Israel American policy.
In contrast to the above discrimination and policies in the United States, the UAE offers greater media freedom to report on the majority of issues including criticism of policies toward Israel, the so-called AMerican defined "war on terrorism" which many believe is in fact a war on Islam.
Just some of my thoughts but I think the Dubai Press Club should respond to this writer below.
I also think that the Dubai Press Club should lead the way in working with Arab American journalists who continue to face a brutal struggle against discrimination and bias and censorship than anywhere else in the Middle East.
Here's the link to the Quill story.
Ray Hanania
Thursday, July 27, 2006
Israel tank targets Palestine TV cameraman
Israel tank targets Palestine TV cameraman
Committee to Protect Journalists
330 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001 USA Phone: (212) 465‑1004 Fax: (212) 465‑9568 Web: www.cpj.org E-Mail: media@cpj.org
http://www.cpj.org
Contact: Abi Wright
e-mail: mideast@cpj.org
Telephone: (212) 465-1004 x-105
GAZA: Palestine TV alleges cameraman was targeted by Israeli tank
New York, July 27, 2006—The Committee to Protect Journalists is gravely concerned by the wounding of Palestine Television cameraman Ibrahim al-Atla by an Israeli tank shell while covering fighting in Gaza. Palestine Television head Mohammed al-Dahoudi alleged that the tank fired deliberately at al-Atla and other journalists with him.
Al-Atla was hit by shrapnel during a lull in shooting between Palestinian militants and Israeli forces in the densely-populated Shijaiyah neighborhood of Gaza City yesterday. Al-Dahoudi told CPJ that al-Atla was wearing a vest clearly indicating that he was press. He accused Israeli forces of firing directly at the journalist.
Al-Atla was moving with a Reuters cameraman and a cameraman from the Cairo-based Ramattan News Agency to film civilians who had been caught in the fighting, when a shell landed nearby. Atla was rushed to Gaza’s al-Shifa hospital with shrapnel in his lungs and spine. He was transferred to a Tel Aviv hospital today for surgery. He remains in critical condition. No one else was wounded.
“The Israelis saw us clearly, we were journalists wearing vests and TV helmets,” said Ramattan cameraman Anas Rehan. “The tank undoubtedly targeted us,” he told CPJ. He added that there were no Palestinian gunmen standing near the journalists.
An Israel Defense Forces (IDF) spokesman said the army would investigate the incident. “Israel doesn’t have a habit of hitting people not engaged in fighting,” he told CPJ. “Otherwise, we wouldn’t launch leaflets such as in southern Lebanon, to warn people of conflict areas.”
Palestine Television, along with the Palestinian News Agency (WAFA), Wafa Radio, and Voice of Palestine radio, which form the Palestinian Broadcast Cooperation, are under the control of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.
Around 50 Israeli tanks and bulldozers backed by missile-firing drone aircraft rolled into northern Gaza yesterday and engaged in intense combat, killing 24 Palestinians and wounding at least 70, according to international news agencies. Many civilians have been killed in a month-long offensive that started when Palestinian militants from Gaza crossed into Israel, killing two Israeli soldiers and capturing a third.
“We are extremely disturbed by the allegation that an Israeli tank fired directly at a group of journalists, severely wounding Ibrahim al-Atla,” said CPJ Executive Director Joel Simon. “We call on the Israeli authorities to launch an immediate investigation into this incident, one of several recent allegations of deliberate targeting of journalists covering fighting in Gaza and south Lebanon.”
CPJ is a New York–based, independent, nonprofit organization that works to safeguard press freedom worldwide. For more information, visit www.cpj.org.
END
Committee to Protect Journalists
330 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001 USA Phone: (212) 465‑1004 Fax: (212) 465‑9568 Web: www.cpj.org E-Mail: media@cpj.org
http://www.cpj.org
Contact: Abi Wright
e-mail: mideast@cpj.org
Telephone: (212) 465-1004 x-105
GAZA: Palestine TV alleges cameraman was targeted by Israeli tank
New York, July 27, 2006—The Committee to Protect Journalists is gravely concerned by the wounding of Palestine Television cameraman Ibrahim al-Atla by an Israeli tank shell while covering fighting in Gaza. Palestine Television head Mohammed al-Dahoudi alleged that the tank fired deliberately at al-Atla and other journalists with him.
Al-Atla was hit by shrapnel during a lull in shooting between Palestinian militants and Israeli forces in the densely-populated Shijaiyah neighborhood of Gaza City yesterday. Al-Dahoudi told CPJ that al-Atla was wearing a vest clearly indicating that he was press. He accused Israeli forces of firing directly at the journalist.
Al-Atla was moving with a Reuters cameraman and a cameraman from the Cairo-based Ramattan News Agency to film civilians who had been caught in the fighting, when a shell landed nearby. Atla was rushed to Gaza’s al-Shifa hospital with shrapnel in his lungs and spine. He was transferred to a Tel Aviv hospital today for surgery. He remains in critical condition. No one else was wounded.
“The Israelis saw us clearly, we were journalists wearing vests and TV helmets,” said Ramattan cameraman Anas Rehan. “The tank undoubtedly targeted us,” he told CPJ. He added that there were no Palestinian gunmen standing near the journalists.
An Israel Defense Forces (IDF) spokesman said the army would investigate the incident. “Israel doesn’t have a habit of hitting people not engaged in fighting,” he told CPJ. “Otherwise, we wouldn’t launch leaflets such as in southern Lebanon, to warn people of conflict areas.”
Palestine Television, along with the Palestinian News Agency (WAFA), Wafa Radio, and Voice of Palestine radio, which form the Palestinian Broadcast Cooperation, are under the control of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.
Around 50 Israeli tanks and bulldozers backed by missile-firing drone aircraft rolled into northern Gaza yesterday and engaged in intense combat, killing 24 Palestinians and wounding at least 70, according to international news agencies. Many civilians have been killed in a month-long offensive that started when Palestinian militants from Gaza crossed into Israel, killing two Israeli soldiers and capturing a third.
“We are extremely disturbed by the allegation that an Israeli tank fired directly at a group of journalists, severely wounding Ibrahim al-Atla,” said CPJ Executive Director Joel Simon. “We call on the Israeli authorities to launch an immediate investigation into this incident, one of several recent allegations of deliberate targeting of journalists covering fighting in Gaza and south Lebanon.”
CPJ is a New York–based, independent, nonprofit organization that works to safeguard press freedom worldwide. For more information, visit www.cpj.org.
END
Israeli target Arab journalists in attacks on Lebanon
LEBANON: TV crews allege targeting by Israeli warplanes in the south
Committee to Protect Journalists
330 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001 USA Phone: (212) 465‑1004 Fax: (212) 465‑9568 Web: www.cpj.org E-Mail: media@cpj.org
http://www.cpj.org
contact: Abi Wright
e-mail: mideast@cpj.org
Telephone: (212) 465-1004 x-105
LEBANON: TV crews allege targeting by Israeli warplanes in the south
New York, July 27, 2006—The Committee to Protect Journalists expressed concern today over allegations by several television crews that Israeli warplanes had attacked them, effectively shutting down live television coverage from southeast Lebanon.
Crews from four Arab television stations told CPJ that Israeli aircraft fired missiles within 80 yards (75 meters) of them on July 22 to prevent them from covering the effects of Israel’s bombardment of the area around the town of Khiam, in the eastern sector of the Israel-Lebanon border
“Israeli aircraft targeted in an air raid TV crews, especially Al-Jazeera, Al-Arabiya and Al-Manar,”said Ghassan Benjeddou, Al-Jazeera’s Lebanon bureau chief. “It’s a miracle that our crew survived the attack,” he told CPJ.
An Israel Defense Forces (IDF) spokesman denied that Israel was targeting journalists. “We are targeting the roads because Hezbollah uses those roads; under no circumstances do we target civilians, including the media,” Capt. Jacob Dallal told CPJ. “Journalists working in those areas are knowingly taking a risk,” he added.
Reuters reported at least 434 Lebanese and 51 Israelis have been killed in conflict. Israel launched an offensive in south Lebanon 16 days ago after a cross-border raid by the Lebanese Shiite group Hezbollah.
“We are disturbed by these allegations and request an immediate investigation,” said CPJ Executive Director Joel Simon. “Journalists have a right to work in conflict zones and are entitled to the same protection as all other civilians, meaning that they cannot be deliberately targeted.”
While journalists based in Israel have generally been able to cover IDF operations, live television pictures of the Israeli operation along the border from the Lebanese side is now virtually impossible, journalists said. Broadcasters said a few individual TV journalists and media support staff remained in some southern Lebanese towns and villages but getting TV footage out was extremely difficult.
Several international broadcasters and news organizations told CPJ that they had made the Mediterranean port of Tyre their base in the south. Journalists in the city, which is 55 miles (90 kilometers) south of Beirut, said any vehicles, including TV vehicles, traveling between towns and villages were targeted by Israeli planes if spotted on the road. One journalist who ventured into the area was Layal Najib, 23, a freelance photographer for the Lebanese magazine Al-Jaras and Agence France-Presse. She was killed July 23 by an Israeli missile while traveling in a taxi to cover Lebanese fleeing north. She was the first journalist fatality of the fighting.
By July 22, most TV crews with satellite uplink trucks had pulled out of the strategic southern town of Marjeyoun. Those that remained included the international satellite channels Al-Arabiya and Al-Jazeera, the Lebanese Broadcasting Corporation (LBC), and Al-Manar, the satellite channel affiliated with Hezbollah. Israel has acknowledged targeting Al-Manar installations, accusing the station of propaganda and incitement.
Three vehicles from LBC, which set out from Marjeyoun ahead of the other teams, reached the village of Hasb Bayah, were the Lebanese Red Cross had a presence. But a convoy of Al-Jazeera, Al-Arabiya and Al-Manar vehicles was chased by Israeli fighter aircraft which fired missiles on the road behind them as they approached an already bombed-out bridge. The journalists said they managed to get away on back roads but the planes followed and again trapped the vehicles by firing missiles at the road ahead of them and behind them.
The journalists and technicians abandoned their vehicles and walked to Hasb Bayah. The following day peacekeepers from the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon repaired the road and the crews were able to drive back to Beirut, the journalists said.
“Their cars were clearly marked ‘Press’ and ‘TV’,” Nabil Khatib, Executive Editor of Al Arabiya, told CPJ.
Radio broadcasts in Arabic accused several journalists of helping Hezbollah. The radio, Al-Mashraqiyeh, which the journalists believe broadcasts out of Israel, is affiliated with exiled members of the South Lebanon Army, Israel’s military ally during its occupation of south Lebanon in the 1980s and 1990s. The radio singled out Al-Jazeera correspondents Katia Nasser and Abbas Nasser, and Al-Arabiya correspondent Ali Noon. CPJ heard a recording of the broadcast against Katia Nasser and Abbas Nasser, in which they were accused of aiding Hezbollah. Abbas was accused of giving Hezbollah favorable coverage in order to secure a job with Al-Manar. The Al-Mashraqiyeh radio announcer said, “the noble Lebanese will hold those who supported Hezbollah in destroying Lebanon to account.”
CPJ is a New York–based, independent, nonprofit organization that works to safeguard press freedom worldwide. For more information, visit www.cpj.org.
Committee to Protect Journalists
330 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001 USA Phone: (212) 465‑1004 Fax: (212) 465‑9568 Web: www.cpj.org E-Mail: media@cpj.org
http://www.cpj.org
contact: Abi Wright
e-mail: mideast@cpj.org
Telephone: (212) 465-1004 x-105
LEBANON: TV crews allege targeting by Israeli warplanes in the south
New York, July 27, 2006—The Committee to Protect Journalists expressed concern today over allegations by several television crews that Israeli warplanes had attacked them, effectively shutting down live television coverage from southeast Lebanon.
Crews from four Arab television stations told CPJ that Israeli aircraft fired missiles within 80 yards (75 meters) of them on July 22 to prevent them from covering the effects of Israel’s bombardment of the area around the town of Khiam, in the eastern sector of the Israel-Lebanon border
“Israeli aircraft targeted in an air raid TV crews, especially Al-Jazeera, Al-Arabiya and Al-Manar,”said Ghassan Benjeddou, Al-Jazeera’s Lebanon bureau chief. “It’s a miracle that our crew survived the attack,” he told CPJ.
An Israel Defense Forces (IDF) spokesman denied that Israel was targeting journalists. “We are targeting the roads because Hezbollah uses those roads; under no circumstances do we target civilians, including the media,” Capt. Jacob Dallal told CPJ. “Journalists working in those areas are knowingly taking a risk,” he added.
Reuters reported at least 434 Lebanese and 51 Israelis have been killed in conflict. Israel launched an offensive in south Lebanon 16 days ago after a cross-border raid by the Lebanese Shiite group Hezbollah.
“We are disturbed by these allegations and request an immediate investigation,” said CPJ Executive Director Joel Simon. “Journalists have a right to work in conflict zones and are entitled to the same protection as all other civilians, meaning that they cannot be deliberately targeted.”
While journalists based in Israel have generally been able to cover IDF operations, live television pictures of the Israeli operation along the border from the Lebanese side is now virtually impossible, journalists said. Broadcasters said a few individual TV journalists and media support staff remained in some southern Lebanese towns and villages but getting TV footage out was extremely difficult.
Several international broadcasters and news organizations told CPJ that they had made the Mediterranean port of Tyre their base in the south. Journalists in the city, which is 55 miles (90 kilometers) south of Beirut, said any vehicles, including TV vehicles, traveling between towns and villages were targeted by Israeli planes if spotted on the road. One journalist who ventured into the area was Layal Najib, 23, a freelance photographer for the Lebanese magazine Al-Jaras and Agence France-Presse. She was killed July 23 by an Israeli missile while traveling in a taxi to cover Lebanese fleeing north. She was the first journalist fatality of the fighting.
By July 22, most TV crews with satellite uplink trucks had pulled out of the strategic southern town of Marjeyoun. Those that remained included the international satellite channels Al-Arabiya and Al-Jazeera, the Lebanese Broadcasting Corporation (LBC), and Al-Manar, the satellite channel affiliated with Hezbollah. Israel has acknowledged targeting Al-Manar installations, accusing the station of propaganda and incitement.
Three vehicles from LBC, which set out from Marjeyoun ahead of the other teams, reached the village of Hasb Bayah, were the Lebanese Red Cross had a presence. But a convoy of Al-Jazeera, Al-Arabiya and Al-Manar vehicles was chased by Israeli fighter aircraft which fired missiles on the road behind them as they approached an already bombed-out bridge. The journalists said they managed to get away on back roads but the planes followed and again trapped the vehicles by firing missiles at the road ahead of them and behind them.
The journalists and technicians abandoned their vehicles and walked to Hasb Bayah. The following day peacekeepers from the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon repaired the road and the crews were able to drive back to Beirut, the journalists said.
“Their cars were clearly marked ‘Press’ and ‘TV’,” Nabil Khatib, Executive Editor of Al Arabiya, told CPJ.
Radio broadcasts in Arabic accused several journalists of helping Hezbollah. The radio, Al-Mashraqiyeh, which the journalists believe broadcasts out of Israel, is affiliated with exiled members of the South Lebanon Army, Israel’s military ally during its occupation of south Lebanon in the 1980s and 1990s. The radio singled out Al-Jazeera correspondents Katia Nasser and Abbas Nasser, and Al-Arabiya correspondent Ali Noon. CPJ heard a recording of the broadcast against Katia Nasser and Abbas Nasser, in which they were accused of aiding Hezbollah. Abbas was accused of giving Hezbollah favorable coverage in order to secure a job with Al-Manar. The Al-Mashraqiyeh radio announcer said, “the noble Lebanese will hold those who supported Hezbollah in destroying Lebanon to account.”
CPJ is a New York–based, independent, nonprofit organization that works to safeguard press freedom worldwide. For more information, visit www.cpj.org.
Wednesday, July 26, 2006
Internet Video on-demand can side-step mainstream media bias
Online video offers Arab Americans chance to circumvent mainstream media biases
(with two sidebars: technology in layman's terms and examples of viode content online)
(Permission granted to republish.)
By Ray Hanania
From the very moment they first set foot on American soil in the mid-19th Century, Arab immigrants have engaged in a never-ending battle to force the mainstream news media to provide balanced and fair coverage of Middle East events and issues.
Most of the focus has been on changing the print media, which for years dominated the news media. Today, though, as Arab Americans make some advances in the print media, the battle has shifted to the electronic media, mainly television.
Surveys show most Americans get their understanding of the Middle East and the Arab and Muslim Worlds from television news and feature broadcasts. Mainstream American TV is filled with one-sided images and negative stereotypes of the Arab world that TV stations rarely allow to be challenged.
If there is a bias against Arabs in American newspapers, mainly on the Op-Ed pages that define American public opinion, the broadcast media is beyond "biased" and is almost exclusively one-sided.
But the Internet is helping to change that. Thanks to policy changes by the Internet's major portals, for the first time Arab Americans have the opportunity to produce broadcast quality programs at minimal costs that can easily be seen by average Americans.
An Internet video depicting the Palestinian cause accurately and with an unbiased perspective has the potential now to be seen by more Americans than those who watch the highest rated TV news programs that routinely censor news critical of Israel.
Earlier this year, online web portals implemented new policies to allow anyone to upload limited sized video files to its web servers at no cost. The only prohibition is on the theft of copyright materials and on pornography. Some of the more popular web hosts that started this are MySpace, YouTube and Google.
But Google went one step further by lifting the limit on the size of the video files. Yahoo, for example, imposes a limit of 100 MB on all video submissions, which means the largest a video on Google might be is about 2-5 minutes -- depending on compression techniques used. Limits also exist for YouTube.com and MySpace.com, other popular viewer created video sites.
But, as a result, independent journalists, filmmakers, and activists can now place their video reports on the Google Web Page without being charged for transfer size or bandwidth.
Google makes money on the principle of "traffic." The more people who visit Google to see your video the more that are also exposed to video content that Google offers on a pay-per-view basis. It's rising stock shows the plan is working.
Slowly, programs of substance offering lengthy reporting and video footage of actual events that present the Arab and Palestinian cause in a more accurate and favorable light are making their way to the Internet and to the mainstream American public.
While a picture may be worth a thousand words, a video has the power of a million pictures.For the first time, Americans who only see and hear one side of the story in biased and imbalanced news reporting and coverage on commercial and cable TV can now get "the other side of the story" simply by connecting to online video content using their home computers.
The bottom line is that Arab Americans who don't like what they see on television, can now buy an inexpensive, high quality camera (between $600 for a commercial SONY and $2,400 for movie-like digital video), and produce their own video shows using inexpensive editing software on your home computer.
Arab Americans can place their video programs online for free so that tens, hundreds, thousands and even maybe millions of Americans can view it for free.
There are many places now on the Internet where videotape of regional or obscure cable TV shows can be posted or viewed at no charge. One of the more popular is Google Video which lifted the size limit on video files earlier this year.
A search of Google Video listed 473 videos referencing "Palestine," 545 referencing "Palestinian" and 588 referencing "Arab." Most of the video selections offer content that is clearly more balanced than what one might watch on commercial or cable TV programs.
Some content offers raw footage of the harsh realities of living under the Israeli occupation such as the 48 minute video "Tobias - Life in Palestine" produced by an unnamed Palestinian living in the West bank who brought together everyday scenes of live in the occupation.
Another 5 minute video called "Before and After" seeks to show viewers how Israel has damaged and destroyed Arab localities during the 39 year occupation.
Other content includes less serious topics such as humor and music including "rap music" songs with no social message other than being entertainment.
Still more are the video programs of Arab Americans who have been struggling to get their voices heard through the limiting offering of local Cable TV and public access channels.
One of the most ambitious cable TV shows that is now available online is hosted by Palestinian American activist Hesham Tillawi. Tillawi's show "Current Issues" is broadcast in Lafayette, LA on Cox Cable. He soon began streaming the show live on the Internet - which means you could view the show as it was being taped. Since the beginning of the year, Tillawi has been placing completed shows on Google that can be viewed by anyone at any time.
Tillawi says the Internet has given him a freedom not just from the biases of the mainstream American media, but also from censorship in the Arab and Muslim community.
"Current Issues" was being broadcast on Bridges TV, the Muslim Cable TV Channel until Bridges TV officials said some mainstream Cable Companies and some viewers complained about his hard-hitting pro-Palestinian content. Bridges dropped the show last month and has refused to comment on the change or the reasons.
You will also find programs produced by LINK TV like Mosaic, and the Charlie Rose show. Others include long and short videos of pro-Palestinian protests in LA, a speech by Hanan Ashrawi in San Diego, and a six minute video produced by "Jews for Global Justice" that argues "The US Government Uses Your Tax dollars to kill Palestinian children."
Some online videos are available only if you pay a small fee and licensed in an arrangement with Google, including by Getty Images which offers a wide selection of stock video footage from Palestine and Arab East Jerusalem.
The fact that Google is one of the most popular Internet resources also makes this new trend significant. Hundreds of millions of Google users are now automatically exposed to the availability of these programs when they use search words that include Palestine, Arab, occupation and more
That kind of free market access is what will give the Arab and Palestinian voices, which are silenced in the mainstream American news media, a new power to reach the American public.
(Ray Hanania is a veteran journalist and author of the book "Arabs of Chicagoland." Hanania produces videos documentaries and shows that are available on the web page www.ArabAmericanTVOnline.com.)
SIDE BAR
Technology in layman's terms
Service providers assess costs in two ways. They charge you to store your files on your web page. The more important charge that for years limited the availability of video is based on transferring (downloading and uploading) a file. That movement from one computer to another is called "bandwidth."
Until recently, costs have been prohibitive. You are charged based on the "size" of files that move back and forth on the Internet. The smaller the file the less costly. The larger the file the more costly. Video files are the largest.
Internet content is measured in Kilobytes (KB) Megabytes (MB) and more recently in Gigabytes (GB). It is like weighing something in ounces, pounds and tons.
A text file, such as a Word document or an email message, may be a few kilobytes (KB). It can be transferred from a home computer through the Internet to someone else's computer at negligible cost.
Picture files and high quality images are larger, usually measured in Megabytes (MB). Video files, on the other hand, are measured in Gigabytes (GB). A 30-minute, high quality video can easily exceed several Gigabytes (GB).
If you have a web page, typically, you would get 5 to 10 Gigabytes of storage space, and 200 Gigabytes of free transfer (uploading and downloading.)
The meter runs Each time someone views your files. If you place a 30 minute video on your web page that is 1 Gigabyte (GB) in size, for example, only 200 people can view it before your web host starts charging you additional money.
SIDEBAR
More Video selections online:
"Stop Killing Peace" June 2006, speech by Cindy Corrie, Rachel Corrie's mother (13 Minutes).
"Palestine Cultural Center," 2002, by Dima Ramaha on a camp for Palestinian children (10 Minutes)
"Intifada Slideshow," June 17, 2006, by Hamam Farah. (5 minutes).
"Wall Protest at Bil'in," April 2006, video clip of the weekly protest there against the Apartheid Wall. (24 Seconds).
"Drive through Downtown Jericho," Nov. 24, 2005, (2 Minutes)
"Apartheid Wall," June 2006, near Abu Dis, (8 Minutes).
"Who's the Terrorist," June 13, 2006, Palestinian hip hop music by Meen Erhabe, (4 Minutes).
"Alison Weir with Hesham Tillawi," June 5, 2006, Current Issues Cable TV online, (56 Minutes).
"Life in the Promised Land of Palestine," protests and killings, March 2006, (43 Minutes).
"Ping Pong Revenge: Israel and Palestine Slapstick Comedy," humorous musical, Jan. 13, 2006, (3 Minutes).
"A visit to Jenin: Interview on Jenin Massacre," with Gov. Qadura Mousa, April 28, 2006, Cable TV Interview hosted by Ray Hanania, (32 Minutes).
# # #
END
(with two sidebars: technology in layman's terms and examples of viode content online)
(Permission granted to republish.)
By Ray Hanania
From the very moment they first set foot on American soil in the mid-19th Century, Arab immigrants have engaged in a never-ending battle to force the mainstream news media to provide balanced and fair coverage of Middle East events and issues.
Most of the focus has been on changing the print media, which for years dominated the news media. Today, though, as Arab Americans make some advances in the print media, the battle has shifted to the electronic media, mainly television.
Surveys show most Americans get their understanding of the Middle East and the Arab and Muslim Worlds from television news and feature broadcasts. Mainstream American TV is filled with one-sided images and negative stereotypes of the Arab world that TV stations rarely allow to be challenged.
If there is a bias against Arabs in American newspapers, mainly on the Op-Ed pages that define American public opinion, the broadcast media is beyond "biased" and is almost exclusively one-sided.
But the Internet is helping to change that. Thanks to policy changes by the Internet's major portals, for the first time Arab Americans have the opportunity to produce broadcast quality programs at minimal costs that can easily be seen by average Americans.
An Internet video depicting the Palestinian cause accurately and with an unbiased perspective has the potential now to be seen by more Americans than those who watch the highest rated TV news programs that routinely censor news critical of Israel.
Earlier this year, online web portals implemented new policies to allow anyone to upload limited sized video files to its web servers at no cost. The only prohibition is on the theft of copyright materials and on pornography. Some of the more popular web hosts that started this are MySpace, YouTube and Google.
But Google went one step further by lifting the limit on the size of the video files. Yahoo, for example, imposes a limit of 100 MB on all video submissions, which means the largest a video on Google might be is about 2-5 minutes -- depending on compression techniques used. Limits also exist for YouTube.com and MySpace.com, other popular viewer created video sites.
But, as a result, independent journalists, filmmakers, and activists can now place their video reports on the Google Web Page without being charged for transfer size or bandwidth.
Google makes money on the principle of "traffic." The more people who visit Google to see your video the more that are also exposed to video content that Google offers on a pay-per-view basis. It's rising stock shows the plan is working.
Slowly, programs of substance offering lengthy reporting and video footage of actual events that present the Arab and Palestinian cause in a more accurate and favorable light are making their way to the Internet and to the mainstream American public.
While a picture may be worth a thousand words, a video has the power of a million pictures.For the first time, Americans who only see and hear one side of the story in biased and imbalanced news reporting and coverage on commercial and cable TV can now get "the other side of the story" simply by connecting to online video content using their home computers.
The bottom line is that Arab Americans who don't like what they see on television, can now buy an inexpensive, high quality camera (between $600 for a commercial SONY and $2,400 for movie-like digital video), and produce their own video shows using inexpensive editing software on your home computer.
Arab Americans can place their video programs online for free so that tens, hundreds, thousands and even maybe millions of Americans can view it for free.
There are many places now on the Internet where videotape of regional or obscure cable TV shows can be posted or viewed at no charge. One of the more popular is Google Video which lifted the size limit on video files earlier this year.
A search of Google Video listed 473 videos referencing "Palestine," 545 referencing "Palestinian" and 588 referencing "Arab." Most of the video selections offer content that is clearly more balanced than what one might watch on commercial or cable TV programs.
Some content offers raw footage of the harsh realities of living under the Israeli occupation such as the 48 minute video "Tobias - Life in Palestine" produced by an unnamed Palestinian living in the West bank who brought together everyday scenes of live in the occupation.
Another 5 minute video called "Before and After" seeks to show viewers how Israel has damaged and destroyed Arab localities during the 39 year occupation.
Other content includes less serious topics such as humor and music including "rap music" songs with no social message other than being entertainment.
Still more are the video programs of Arab Americans who have been struggling to get their voices heard through the limiting offering of local Cable TV and public access channels.
One of the most ambitious cable TV shows that is now available online is hosted by Palestinian American activist Hesham Tillawi. Tillawi's show "Current Issues" is broadcast in Lafayette, LA on Cox Cable. He soon began streaming the show live on the Internet - which means you could view the show as it was being taped. Since the beginning of the year, Tillawi has been placing completed shows on Google that can be viewed by anyone at any time.
Tillawi says the Internet has given him a freedom not just from the biases of the mainstream American media, but also from censorship in the Arab and Muslim community.
"Current Issues" was being broadcast on Bridges TV, the Muslim Cable TV Channel until Bridges TV officials said some mainstream Cable Companies and some viewers complained about his hard-hitting pro-Palestinian content. Bridges dropped the show last month and has refused to comment on the change or the reasons.
You will also find programs produced by LINK TV like Mosaic, and the Charlie Rose show. Others include long and short videos of pro-Palestinian protests in LA, a speech by Hanan Ashrawi in San Diego, and a six minute video produced by "Jews for Global Justice" that argues "The US Government Uses Your Tax dollars to kill Palestinian children."
Some online videos are available only if you pay a small fee and licensed in an arrangement with Google, including by Getty Images which offers a wide selection of stock video footage from Palestine and Arab East Jerusalem.
The fact that Google is one of the most popular Internet resources also makes this new trend significant. Hundreds of millions of Google users are now automatically exposed to the availability of these programs when they use search words that include Palestine, Arab, occupation and more
That kind of free market access is what will give the Arab and Palestinian voices, which are silenced in the mainstream American news media, a new power to reach the American public.
(Ray Hanania is a veteran journalist and author of the book "Arabs of Chicagoland." Hanania produces videos documentaries and shows that are available on the web page www.ArabAmericanTVOnline.com.)
SIDE BAR
Technology in layman's terms
Service providers assess costs in two ways. They charge you to store your files on your web page. The more important charge that for years limited the availability of video is based on transferring (downloading and uploading) a file. That movement from one computer to another is called "bandwidth."
Until recently, costs have been prohibitive. You are charged based on the "size" of files that move back and forth on the Internet. The smaller the file the less costly. The larger the file the more costly. Video files are the largest.
Internet content is measured in Kilobytes (KB) Megabytes (MB) and more recently in Gigabytes (GB). It is like weighing something in ounces, pounds and tons.
A text file, such as a Word document or an email message, may be a few kilobytes (KB). It can be transferred from a home computer through the Internet to someone else's computer at negligible cost.
Picture files and high quality images are larger, usually measured in Megabytes (MB). Video files, on the other hand, are measured in Gigabytes (GB). A 30-minute, high quality video can easily exceed several Gigabytes (GB).
If you have a web page, typically, you would get 5 to 10 Gigabytes of storage space, and 200 Gigabytes of free transfer (uploading and downloading.)
The meter runs Each time someone views your files. If you place a 30 minute video on your web page that is 1 Gigabyte (GB) in size, for example, only 200 people can view it before your web host starts charging you additional money.
SIDEBAR
More Video selections online:
"Stop Killing Peace" June 2006, speech by Cindy Corrie, Rachel Corrie's mother (13 Minutes).
"Palestine Cultural Center," 2002, by Dima Ramaha on a camp for Palestinian children (10 Minutes)
"Intifada Slideshow," June 17, 2006, by Hamam Farah. (5 minutes).
"Wall Protest at Bil'in," April 2006, video clip of the weekly protest there against the Apartheid Wall. (24 Seconds).
"Drive through Downtown Jericho," Nov. 24, 2005, (2 Minutes)
"Apartheid Wall," June 2006, near Abu Dis, (8 Minutes).
"Who's the Terrorist," June 13, 2006, Palestinian hip hop music by Meen Erhabe, (4 Minutes).
"Alison Weir with Hesham Tillawi," June 5, 2006, Current Issues Cable TV online, (56 Minutes).
"Life in the Promised Land of Palestine," protests and killings, March 2006, (43 Minutes).
"Ping Pong Revenge: Israel and Palestine Slapstick Comedy," humorous musical, Jan. 13, 2006, (3 Minutes).
"A visit to Jenin: Interview on Jenin Massacre," with Gov. Qadura Mousa, April 28, 2006, Cable TV Interview hosted by Ray Hanania, (32 Minutes).
# # #
END
Citizen Journalism: circumventing the bias in the Western mainstream media
Citizen Journalism: Penetrating the Monopoly of Corporate Media
Ramzy Baroud, Aljazeera.net English.
I still vividly remember the anger in my father’s voice as our family of seven gathered to warm ourselves around a tin pan filled with burning coal in our house in a refugee camp in the Gaza Strip. That was nearly twenty years ago, and the camp was under a cruel Israeli military curfew. Outside, Israeli Army vehicles roamed the streets of the dreadfully crowded and impoverished camp. “Those who violate the army’s order and leave their homes will be killed,” blasted a voice from the loudspeakers positioned atop one of the Israeli vehicles. The soldier spoke in broken Arabic; his threats sounded ominously genuine.
Inside our humble dwelling, a refugee home that first started as a mud hut, we huddled with indescribable fear. Many people had died this way. Some of our neighbors were shot for looking out their windows. Others were killed inside their homes. Our house was riddled with bullets.
We had no reason to doubt the Israeli Army threats. My dad instructed us not to breath heavily, not to cough and not to move for any reason. Even this could drive a herd of soldiers into our house.
A few hours later when things quieted down, my dad, comforted by the fact that the jeeps seemed to have moved on to another part of the camp, turned on the radio. He never missed the BBC Arabic evening news broadcast, even now.
Palestinians have had a love-hate relationship with the media. Knowing that the name of our refugee camp was uttered on some radio station thousands of miles away, was in some way a recognition that our plight mattered, even if little. Hate, because this was hardly the case, and even if such reference was made, it hardly deviated from usual mantras that saw the Israeli occupiers as the ultimate source of information, the primary authority on what had indeed happened. This remains the case until today. What the Israeli Army acknowledges becomes fact, its narrative is the trusted narrative; what it dismisses, has simply never happened; at best, it’s a murky Palestinian allegation.
The BBC radio mentioned nothing of the Israeli curfew imposed on half of the Gaza Strip that day, nothing of the wanton killings of several people. One boy who died that day was a classmate of mine, shot earlier in the day as we protested against an armed Jewish settlers’ attack on our high school.
My father’s still silence was now coupled with anger. “No one gives a damn, whether we live or die, slaughtered like sheep and not even a mention on the news.” My father’s angry personal commentaries often followed disappointing news broadcasts like the one on the BBC. Out of this helpless, my insistence on “getting the word out”, was born. And like myself, many others who have become disheartened with the lack of ethics in the world of journalism have taken things into their own hands through “Citizen Journalism”.
“Getting the word out” or “just telling them the truth”, as Malcolm X often preached is not inborn, but it is necessitated by circumstances: Where a story is conveyed by one party and other parties are completely excluded. While such an assertion sounds academic and perhaps a bit redundant, this kind of neglect is injurious to most of the forgotten multitudes all around the globe, those whose “side of the story” is either deemed irrelevant, unimportant or inconsistent with the mainstream narrative which has its own intricate checks and balances.
2002 witnessed the Israeli reinvasion of major West Bank population centers, prompting thousands of peace activists from across the world, including Israel, to travel to the West Bank, most of whom hoped to convey the story beyond the headlines, the forgotten news segment that cannot be filled by a detached reporter based in a five-star hotel in Tel Aviv. Through the implementation of Citizen journalism, scores of activists were provided with a platform. The following is a case in point: Brian Wood — a US based activist who visited the West Bank during the Israeli invasion of Jenin in April 2002 — smuggled himself into the Palestinian refugee camp where hundreds of people were reportedly killed or wounded, would call a friend in Colorado and convey a report regarding what he saw there over a cell phone; the transcribed report would in turn be sent to me in Seattle; I would edit and post it, and also send it to mailing lists of thousands, and eventually to hundreds of thousands. Using the same style, and following the UN failure to investigate the Israeli killings in Jenin, citizen reporters worked together to produce what later became an Amazon.com best seller: Searching Jenin: Eyewitness Accounts of the Israeli Invasion. The book was the fruit of nearly 30 individuals; only two were professional journalists. It was the first, and still the most authoritative response to all the allegations made regarding the two-week long Jenin battle. The book was used as a source for Middle East studies programs in various US universities.
Citizen journalism is not stamp collecting; true, at times it can be a fun and financially rewarding hobby to those willing to hide behind the backyard bushes of Hollywood celebrities, ready to snap the million-dollar photo and sell it to some tabloid. But from my experience, it can be a very useful tool in confronting authority, revealing atrocities and holding those in power to account for their deeds.
If Citizen journalism, using the Internet and other media, succeeds in penetrating the monopoly of the corporate media on news, thus narratives and discourses, participatory democracy might finally recover some of its losses. To achieve that, Citizen journalism must thoroughly analyze what is going wrong in today’s mainstream media and remain focused on what the priorities are, what counts and what truly matters.
— Ramzy Baroud teaches journalism at Australia’s Curtin University of Technology, Malaysia Campus. He is the author of “Writings on the Second Palestinian Intifada: A Chronicle of a People’s Struggle” (Pluto Press, London), and editor in chief of the PalestineChronicle.com
Ramzy Baroud, Aljazeera.net English.
I still vividly remember the anger in my father’s voice as our family of seven gathered to warm ourselves around a tin pan filled with burning coal in our house in a refugee camp in the Gaza Strip. That was nearly twenty years ago, and the camp was under a cruel Israeli military curfew. Outside, Israeli Army vehicles roamed the streets of the dreadfully crowded and impoverished camp. “Those who violate the army’s order and leave their homes will be killed,” blasted a voice from the loudspeakers positioned atop one of the Israeli vehicles. The soldier spoke in broken Arabic; his threats sounded ominously genuine.
Inside our humble dwelling, a refugee home that first started as a mud hut, we huddled with indescribable fear. Many people had died this way. Some of our neighbors were shot for looking out their windows. Others were killed inside their homes. Our house was riddled with bullets.
We had no reason to doubt the Israeli Army threats. My dad instructed us not to breath heavily, not to cough and not to move for any reason. Even this could drive a herd of soldiers into our house.
A few hours later when things quieted down, my dad, comforted by the fact that the jeeps seemed to have moved on to another part of the camp, turned on the radio. He never missed the BBC Arabic evening news broadcast, even now.
Palestinians have had a love-hate relationship with the media. Knowing that the name of our refugee camp was uttered on some radio station thousands of miles away, was in some way a recognition that our plight mattered, even if little. Hate, because this was hardly the case, and even if such reference was made, it hardly deviated from usual mantras that saw the Israeli occupiers as the ultimate source of information, the primary authority on what had indeed happened. This remains the case until today. What the Israeli Army acknowledges becomes fact, its narrative is the trusted narrative; what it dismisses, has simply never happened; at best, it’s a murky Palestinian allegation.
The BBC radio mentioned nothing of the Israeli curfew imposed on half of the Gaza Strip that day, nothing of the wanton killings of several people. One boy who died that day was a classmate of mine, shot earlier in the day as we protested against an armed Jewish settlers’ attack on our high school.
My father’s still silence was now coupled with anger. “No one gives a damn, whether we live or die, slaughtered like sheep and not even a mention on the news.” My father’s angry personal commentaries often followed disappointing news broadcasts like the one on the BBC. Out of this helpless, my insistence on “getting the word out”, was born. And like myself, many others who have become disheartened with the lack of ethics in the world of journalism have taken things into their own hands through “Citizen Journalism”.
“Getting the word out” or “just telling them the truth”, as Malcolm X often preached is not inborn, but it is necessitated by circumstances: Where a story is conveyed by one party and other parties are completely excluded. While such an assertion sounds academic and perhaps a bit redundant, this kind of neglect is injurious to most of the forgotten multitudes all around the globe, those whose “side of the story” is either deemed irrelevant, unimportant or inconsistent with the mainstream narrative which has its own intricate checks and balances.
2002 witnessed the Israeli reinvasion of major West Bank population centers, prompting thousands of peace activists from across the world, including Israel, to travel to the West Bank, most of whom hoped to convey the story beyond the headlines, the forgotten news segment that cannot be filled by a detached reporter based in a five-star hotel in Tel Aviv. Through the implementation of Citizen journalism, scores of activists were provided with a platform. The following is a case in point: Brian Wood — a US based activist who visited the West Bank during the Israeli invasion of Jenin in April 2002 — smuggled himself into the Palestinian refugee camp where hundreds of people were reportedly killed or wounded, would call a friend in Colorado and convey a report regarding what he saw there over a cell phone; the transcribed report would in turn be sent to me in Seattle; I would edit and post it, and also send it to mailing lists of thousands, and eventually to hundreds of thousands. Using the same style, and following the UN failure to investigate the Israeli killings in Jenin, citizen reporters worked together to produce what later became an Amazon.com best seller: Searching Jenin: Eyewitness Accounts of the Israeli Invasion. The book was the fruit of nearly 30 individuals; only two were professional journalists. It was the first, and still the most authoritative response to all the allegations made regarding the two-week long Jenin battle. The book was used as a source for Middle East studies programs in various US universities.
Citizen journalism is not stamp collecting; true, at times it can be a fun and financially rewarding hobby to those willing to hide behind the backyard bushes of Hollywood celebrities, ready to snap the million-dollar photo and sell it to some tabloid. But from my experience, it can be a very useful tool in confronting authority, revealing atrocities and holding those in power to account for their deeds.
If Citizen journalism, using the Internet and other media, succeeds in penetrating the monopoly of the corporate media on news, thus narratives and discourses, participatory democracy might finally recover some of its losses. To achieve that, Citizen journalism must thoroughly analyze what is going wrong in today’s mainstream media and remain focused on what the priorities are, what counts and what truly matters.
— Ramzy Baroud teaches journalism at Australia’s Curtin University of Technology, Malaysia Campus. He is the author of “Writings on the Second Palestinian Intifada: A Chronicle of a People’s Struggle” (Pluto Press, London), and editor in chief of the PalestineChronicle.com
Monday, July 24, 2006
Israelis kill journalist in Lebanon
Lebanon: Lebanese journalist killed, TV transmitters hit
Committee to Protect Journalists
330 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001 USA Phone: (212) 465‑1004 Fax: (212) 465‑9568 Web: www.cpj.org E-Mail: media@cpj.org
http://www.cpj.org/
Contact: Abi Wright
e-mail: mideast@cpj.org
Telephone: (212) 465-1004 x-105
New York, July 24, 2006—The Committee to Protect Journalists is alarmed by the killing of a freelance photographer and a media technician during separate Israeli missile attacks in Lebanon.
Layal Najib, 23, a freelance photographer for the Lebanese magazine Al-Jaras and Agence France-Presse, became the first journalist to be killed since Israel began attacks on Lebanon in response to a cross-border raid by the Lebanese Shiite group Hezbollah. Najib was in a taxi yesterday trying to meet up with a convoy of villagers fleeing the Israeli bombardment of south Lebanon when she was hit by shrapnel from a missile on the road between the villages of Sadiqeen and Qana, local media reported. She died at the scene.
On July 22, Suleiman al-Chidiac, a technician for the Lebanese Broadcasting Corporation (LBC) was killed during Israeli air attacks on television transmitters and telephone towers in north Lebanon, well away from the fighting in the south, CPJ sources and The Associated Press reported. Al-Chidiac was the head of LBC’s transmission facility at Fatqa, 10 miles (16 kilometers) northeast of Beirut, which was destroyed.
On the same day, Israeli warplanes struck towers in Terbol, near Tripoli in north Lebanon, belonging to the state-run channel Tele-Liban, Future TV and Hezbollah’s own channel, Al-Manar TV, as well as cellular telephone network towers, The Associated Press and local media reported.
In al-Qura, also in the north, a technician for Tele-Liban, Khaled Eid, was seriously injured in an attack on a telecommunications tower belonging to the station. Terrestrial transmission by all these stations was interrupted but they remained on the air via satellite.
“We are gravely concerned by the killings of our colleagues Layal Najib and Suleiman al-Chidiac,” CPJ Executive Director Joel Simon said. “The aerial bombardment of Lebanon by Israel has caused tremendous hardship to civilians, including journalists who are covering the humanitarian crisis. We are alarmed by the air attacks on television transmission and telecommunication facilities. These strikes have already cost the life of one television technician and wounded another. We have seen no evidence that these media outlets are serving any military function and therefore call on Israel to cease targeting media facilities in Lebanon immediately.”
CPJ is a New York–based, independent, nonprofit organization that works to safeguard press freedom worldwide. For more information, visit www.cpj.org.
Committee to Protect Journalists
330 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001 USA Phone: (212) 465‑1004 Fax: (212) 465‑9568 Web: www.cpj.org E-Mail: media@cpj.org
http://www.cpj.org/
Contact: Abi Wright
e-mail: mideast@cpj.org
Telephone: (212) 465-1004 x-105
New York, July 24, 2006—The Committee to Protect Journalists is alarmed by the killing of a freelance photographer and a media technician during separate Israeli missile attacks in Lebanon.
Layal Najib, 23, a freelance photographer for the Lebanese magazine Al-Jaras and Agence France-Presse, became the first journalist to be killed since Israel began attacks on Lebanon in response to a cross-border raid by the Lebanese Shiite group Hezbollah. Najib was in a taxi yesterday trying to meet up with a convoy of villagers fleeing the Israeli bombardment of south Lebanon when she was hit by shrapnel from a missile on the road between the villages of Sadiqeen and Qana, local media reported. She died at the scene.
On July 22, Suleiman al-Chidiac, a technician for the Lebanese Broadcasting Corporation (LBC) was killed during Israeli air attacks on television transmitters and telephone towers in north Lebanon, well away from the fighting in the south, CPJ sources and The Associated Press reported. Al-Chidiac was the head of LBC’s transmission facility at Fatqa, 10 miles (16 kilometers) northeast of Beirut, which was destroyed.
On the same day, Israeli warplanes struck towers in Terbol, near Tripoli in north Lebanon, belonging to the state-run channel Tele-Liban, Future TV and Hezbollah’s own channel, Al-Manar TV, as well as cellular telephone network towers, The Associated Press and local media reported.
In al-Qura, also in the north, a technician for Tele-Liban, Khaled Eid, was seriously injured in an attack on a telecommunications tower belonging to the station. Terrestrial transmission by all these stations was interrupted but they remained on the air via satellite.
“We are gravely concerned by the killings of our colleagues Layal Najib and Suleiman al-Chidiac,” CPJ Executive Director Joel Simon said. “The aerial bombardment of Lebanon by Israel has caused tremendous hardship to civilians, including journalists who are covering the humanitarian crisis. We are alarmed by the air attacks on television transmission and telecommunication facilities. These strikes have already cost the life of one television technician and wounded another. We have seen no evidence that these media outlets are serving any military function and therefore call on Israel to cease targeting media facilities in Lebanon immediately.”
CPJ is a New York–based, independent, nonprofit organization that works to safeguard press freedom worldwide. For more information, visit www.cpj.org.
Thursday, July 20, 2006
Israelis shoot Arab journalists in West Bank
West Bank: TV crews hit by rubber bullets
New York, July 20, 2006—The Committee to Protect Journalists is deeply concerned that members of two Arab television crews were wounded by rubber bullets during an Israeli army operation in the West Bank city of Nablus on Wednesday.
Wael Tanous, a satellite technician with the Qatar-based channel Al-Jazeera, was hit in the left leg while standing near his uplink vehicle on a main road in Nablus around noon, Al-Jazeera reporter Guevara al-Budeiri told CPJ. She said Tanous, like all crew members, was wearing a vest labeled “TV.”
Walid al-Omary, Jerusalem-based bureau chief of Al-Jazeera, told CPJ, “It was clear when they shot him that they knew he was press.” Tanous was treated at a local hospital. Al-Budeiri said that before the shooting an Israeli army jeep had sped toward her and stopped only inches from her leg as she was preparing to broadcast live.
About 50 Israeli armored vehicles, including tanks and bulldozers, rolled into Nablus yesterday, and destroyed a Palestinian security compound and several other government buildings. Four Palestinians were killed in clashes with the army and 150 Palestinian policemen were detained for questioning, The Associated Press reported.
Later Wednesday afternoon, Faten Elwan, a correspondent for U.S.-funded Arabic television station Al-Hurra, was hit in the torso and left hand by rubber bullets, according to al-Budeiri, who witnessed the incident. She said Elwan was standing at what she considered a safe distance from the fighting at the time. Elwan was treated at a local hospital and returned to work.
An Israeli military spokeswoman told CPJ that the army was aware of the incidents but said “it is very hard to check” because no formal complaints had been filed.
“We are troubled by the shooting of our colleagues in Nablus,” CPJ Executive Director Joel Simon said. “The Israeli military must investigate both these incidents immediately and determine whether soldiers acted with deliberate intent.”
CPJ is a New York–based, independent, nonprofit organization that works to safeguard press freedom worldwide. For more information, visit www.cpj.org.
New York, July 20, 2006—The Committee to Protect Journalists is deeply concerned that members of two Arab television crews were wounded by rubber bullets during an Israeli army operation in the West Bank city of Nablus on Wednesday.
Wael Tanous, a satellite technician with the Qatar-based channel Al-Jazeera, was hit in the left leg while standing near his uplink vehicle on a main road in Nablus around noon, Al-Jazeera reporter Guevara al-Budeiri told CPJ. She said Tanous, like all crew members, was wearing a vest labeled “TV.”
Walid al-Omary, Jerusalem-based bureau chief of Al-Jazeera, told CPJ, “It was clear when they shot him that they knew he was press.” Tanous was treated at a local hospital. Al-Budeiri said that before the shooting an Israeli army jeep had sped toward her and stopped only inches from her leg as she was preparing to broadcast live.
About 50 Israeli armored vehicles, including tanks and bulldozers, rolled into Nablus yesterday, and destroyed a Palestinian security compound and several other government buildings. Four Palestinians were killed in clashes with the army and 150 Palestinian policemen were detained for questioning, The Associated Press reported.
Later Wednesday afternoon, Faten Elwan, a correspondent for U.S.-funded Arabic television station Al-Hurra, was hit in the torso and left hand by rubber bullets, according to al-Budeiri, who witnessed the incident. She said Elwan was standing at what she considered a safe distance from the fighting at the time. Elwan was treated at a local hospital and returned to work.
An Israeli military spokeswoman told CPJ that the army was aware of the incidents but said “it is very hard to check” because no formal complaints had been filed.
“We are troubled by the shooting of our colleagues in Nablus,” CPJ Executive Director Joel Simon said. “The Israeli military must investigate both these incidents immediately and determine whether soldiers acted with deliberate intent.”
CPJ is a New York–based, independent, nonprofit organization that works to safeguard press freedom worldwide. For more information, visit www.cpj.org.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)