U.S. media outlets like Al-Hurra should be reconfigured to engage viewers using a C-Span-type model . . . Obama must realize that the U.S. government is often not the most effective actor to lead a dialogue of ideas, particularly concerning debates over Islam. Intelligent engagement is as much about listening, learning, and picking the right battles as it is about resources, and an increase in the latter must not obscure the importance of the former in America’s efforts.Krause's remarks echo a 2004 NYT op-ed by Steven Cook. Arguing for a C-Span format, Cook expands on Krause's brief letter:
One of the most effective ways in which the United States can pursue this goal is to transform Washington's Arab satellite news channel, Al Hurra, into a kind of C-Span for the Arab world . . . It could begin, however, with programming that has already proved its attraction to Middle Eastern audiences: the workings of the United States government. On May 7, after revelations about torture at Abu Ghraib prison, Al Hurra broadcast Donald Rumsfeld's testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee to the Arab world. The spectacle of the secretary of defense of the United States answering questions from elected legislators about the conduct of American soldiers transfixed many Arabs. After all, many leaders in the Middle East are unelected and unaccountable, and most Arabs have never seen a senior government official called to account. If America's Arab satellite news channel broadcast Arabic translations of United States government hearings, as well as other aspects of the American political system, it would go a long way toward promoting democratic principles in the Middle East.
Obama's decision to go on Al Arabiya instead of Al Hurra casts further doubt as to the future of Al Hurra. Krause's leter is a welcome reminder that now is the time to reconsider the potential of existing American broadcasting infrastructure instead of calling for brand new institutions. Re-programming Al Hurra is a frugal and innovative way to change the direction of U.S. public diplomacy.
Further Reading:
Madeline Albright and Vin Weber, "The Right Path to Arab Democracy," Washington Post, June, 8 2005.
John Brown, "Fixing Al Hurra: Some Small Steps," AmericanDiplomacy, June 2, 2005.
Posts
Great post. I've given some thought to the C-Span format and am curious what some readers think. As someone who himself has never once actually tuned into C-Span, I'm a bit dubious as to how many people in the Arab world would tune in. I know that attracting a huge audience isn't the point, but still. That said, it certainly would be a lot cheaper than the $60-70 million a year and may attract about the same audience!
ReplyDeleteFYI -- interesting fun fact: Average age of a US senator is 64. Viewers would think that the US is OLD! Also, the US Congress doesn't come close to representing the diversity of the US or its rich civil society, something that international broadcasters are often effective at (or at least think they are).
But let's play with this idea a bit further. Rather than translate US governmental hearings into Arabic, why not restructure Alhurra to be a C-span meets investigative reporting organization for the Arab world, focusing almost exclusively on issues of good governance in the region. The broadcaster's goal could be to increase transparency of governance in the region, reporting changes in government policy and scrutinizing policy from the perspective of what's best for the Arab citizenry. Given Al-Jazeera's recent softening of its coverage of Saudi Arabia (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/04/world/middleeast/04jazeera.html), there seems to be a need for some heavy-handed, neutral journalism tasked with holding Arab governments accountable to their respective citizens.
Unless it is the Anita Hill/Clarence Thomas or the Monica Lewinsky/Bill Clinton hearings, not a single soul will tune in to watch a C-Span format. Arabs have a very short attention span and even less patience. Subtitles of course is impossible, simultaneous translation is annoying and distracting, not to mention that according to U-N standards, interpreters are not expected to simultaneously translate more than 70% or 80% of a live event AT BEST. That's why the U-N has a "Verbatim" department where a staff of translators listen to recordings of sessions, fill in the dropped parts before the official document gets released. That's not to mention that those sessions will include references to certain laws, procedures, expression, etc. that are common knowledge to an American audience, but "Greek" to an Arab audience. Those hearings drag on and are boring. Any viewer can easily miss the main points. THAT'S why God created "Journalists": To report, highlight, explain, and summarize events.
ReplyDeleteAs for Obama going to Al-Arabia, as all political analysts remarked & concluded, this was a calculated diplomatic move. When you want to "respectfully" approach an Arab, you go to him in HIS house. You do not summon him to yours. If the gesture was to address more audience, he would have gone to Al-Jazeera which is ranked No.1. It is the "ownership" and not the "language" of the station that is the meaning of the diplomatic gesture. Savvy journalists should not have missed this point.
Dear Mr. Powers, your suggestion is and has always been the function of international broadcasting. However, IB walks a very fine line while trying to inform, explain, & highlight without being regarded as supercilious or tendentious. During the cold war, IB concentrated on explaining the concepts & workings of the free market system. Now, the focus should be on democracy and rule of law. Therefore, as you suggested, IB is supposed to do "investigative reporting" BUT in the country it originates from (not the target area), so as to "teach by example", to put the world into perspective, to explain the function, benefits and/or the shortcomings of democracy; to show by example how civilized democratic societies deal with the good and the bad. Straight forward information, without pointing the finger to anyone accusing them of being behind the times, hence turning them off. There must be an honest analysis of whatever it is that IB is trying to promote. That has always been how IB works. So, Al-Hurra DOES need a restructuring, that's true. However, it doesn't need to "invent" some new form of journalism, rather revert back to what VOA has been doing for over 60 years & what BBC has been doing from time immemorial, and drop this nonsense idea of competing with local news in local markets. :-)
ReplyDelete