Russia Today Obama's 1st 100 Days Round-Up

RT decided to enter the fray of Presidential report cards by providing its own opinions on President Obama.  Here are some highlights of their recent stories:

• (4.29) "Obama is a would be dictator."  Or at least so says Alex Jones in an interview with Russia Today.  Who is Alex Jones?  He is a radio personality, runs infowars.com and is a leading proponent of the 9/11 truth movement.  Yep. 
  
• (4.29) "Is Obama's presidential honeymoon over?"  For insight, RT once again turns to Alex Jones.  Here is the first argument uttered by Jones: "Obama is setting up a Nazi, Soviet or Maoist style state in the country to make us wake up one day in the novel 1984."  Specific, accurate and useful analysis.
• (4.29) "America is no longer ruled by law."  The Father of Reaganomics, Paul Craig Roberts, lambasts Obama's spending.  Once a highly respected economist and journalist, Roberts now spends his some of his time debunking the myths of 9/11.  Yep.  Again.
• (4.29) "Obama talks about spending less - and spent a lot more."  RT interviews Dan Gainor of the Business and Media Institute.  Gainor is a regular on FoxNews and he says what you would expect.  I am shocked that no frequent MSNBC contributors made it onto RT.

That's all for now folks.

The Black Gorbachev

From the recent article, "Barak Obama's 100 days of denial":

Barack Obama, who is already being lightly derided as a ‘Black Gorbachev’ in Russian circles . . .

What does that even mean?  Seriously?  In fact the entire article is tainted by an immature tone that is more reminiscent of Perez Hilton than any form of respectable journalism.  

New Business As Usual?

This week’s coverage of Obama on Al Manar continued to cast a hopeful image of Obama and emphasize potential source of friction between the US and Israel.

Al Manar’s coverage of Obama’s actions vis-à-vis Latin America seemed to give Obama the benefit of the doubt and said that Obama attempting to build a new cooperative relationship with Latin American states. Another article mentioned changes to the American stance on Cuba and quoted Obama’s comments on these changes: "I think it's a signal of our good faith that we wanted to move beyond the Cold War mentality that's existed over the last 50 years. And hopefully we'll see some signs that Cuba wants to reciprocate.” The article provided viewers with extensive quotes from Obama explaining his stance on Cuba: “I don't expect Cuba to beg. No one is asking for anyone to beg. What we're looking for is some signal that there are going to be changes in how Cuba operates."


Al Manar also covered sources of disagreement and future tensions between the U.S. and Israel. One article mentioned that the Obama administration is reconsidering its planned boycott of the Durban II Anti-Racism Summit held at the UN. The article pointed out that the Racism Summit is deeply opposed by Israel and that this US action is likely to upset Israel. Al Manar also reported on US envoy George Mitchell’s trip to Israel, saying that Mitchell “pressed the two-state solution” in his meetings with Israeli officials. The article also included Mitchell’s remarks during his time in Morocco, which were described in the following manner “Washington considered the 'creation' of a Palestinian state as the only way forward.” After mentioning Mitchell’s statement the article mentioned that Mitchell’s remarks “could set Israel on a collision course” with the US.

Listening Post: AJE's weekly show covering highlights in the global press

Al Jazeera English's daily program 'Listening Post' is an intriguing overview of the week's international news headlines. The segments are multi-dimensional and cover various aspects of different international news events and broadcasters' coverage:

For example, this week, the main coverage is of President Obama's Europe trip, including an overview on how the French, Turkish, Arab and American press covered his trip. There are interviews with various experts and journalists who comment on how his trip was received in the public, including both praise and skepticism. There is also commentary highlighting Obama not giving interviews to the press during the trip, briefly noting how his first interview as a President was with an Arab broadcaster. Following was 'Global Village Voices', which shows several commentaries submitted by viewers via web video.

The second segment of the show detailed several controversial topics happening throughout the world, including the beating of a 17 year old girl accused of adultery in Pakistan and a story about several Orthodox Jewish newspapers photoshoping out the two women in the Israeli cabinet.

The third segment highlighted the life and press coverage of Jane Goody, the British reality television star who generated mounds of press through her time on the show Big Brother, to her public diagnosis with cancer and up to her funeral. Listening Post thoroughly went through her story, the controversies and skepticism of her fame, Britain's fascination with her life and the debate on how she will be remembered.

Finally, Listening Post wrapped up this week's overview with a YouTube-esque video about Obama and his new Cadillac.

Al Manar: Warming Up To Obama

While Al Manar's collection of op-ed stories writen by Western sources still include sharp critiques of American policy, Al Manar’s coverage of Obama’s recent actions indicate that Al Manar's approves of the changing direction of American foreign policy. The current links to op-eds on Al Manar’s news homepage include a story from Amnesty International criticizing American arms shipments to Israel as well as a sharp critique of America’s hypocrisy on nuclear capabilities, contrasting America’s stances on the nuclear capabilities of North Korea and Israel.However, Al Manar’s own coverage of the Obama administration indicates a thaw in Al Manar’s stance on the US. Al Manar’s coverage of Obama was favorable and at the same time, indicated that the Obama administration relations with Israel are deteriorating while its relations Middle Eastern nations improve.

On Television, Al Manar’s coverage of Obama’s visit to Iraq reported on Obama’s commitment to withdraw US forces as well as Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki’s gratitude at Obama’s readiness to help Iraq. Online, Al Manar's coverage of Obama's visit to Turkey also had a positive tone, mentioning Obama's statements about improving relations with Muslim nations such as "we will listen carefully, bridge misunderstanding... We will be respectful, even when we do not agree." The article also mentioned Obama's strong support of Turkey's bid to join the EU as well as Obama's dedication to a two-state solution.

In addition to covering Obama's travels to Middle Eastern nations and suggesting improved relations with Muslim nations, Al Manar tried to emphasize the differences between Obama and the new Israeli government. Al Manar reported that the Obama administration is ready for a possible confrontation with Israeli leadership. While mentioning Obama’s commitment to the security of Israel, the article also reported that Obama has made it clear that his administration is dedicated to a two-state solution, despite statements made by Israeli officials. The article hinted that relations between the US and Israel are deteriorating by using words that evoke conflict: the title of the article is “Obama Team Readying for Clash with Netanyahu, Lieberman,” and the article also says that the “US hits back at Lieberman: the goal is two states.” Additionally, the article mentions that that neither Obama nor Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu have made plans to visit one another.

Another article on Al Manar’s website reported on US Vice President Biden’s warning to Israel not to attack Iran, which featured Biden’s statement that Israel would be “ill-advised” to attack Iran and also mentioned the Obama administration’s willingness to launch a new dialogue with Iran. The stance of the Obama administration was contrasted with that of the Israeli government, as the article mentions that Biden’s warning to Israel was in response to Netanyahu referring to the Iranian government as "sophisticated and devious" in their ability to hide their nuclear program from the world. I believe that Al Manar's coverage emphasizes conflict and declining US-Israeli relations because this is important prerequisite to improved perceptions of Obama for Al Manar's audience.

Al Manar Responds to Obama's Plan for Afghanistan

Today, coinciding with Obama’s announcement about his new plan for Afghanistan, Al Manar added a number of opinion pieces highly critical of the United States to its news homepage. These articles are both critical of US involvement in Afghanistan thus far as well as critical of US past actions and treatment of Muslim communities. All of these critical articles are written by Western authors, predominantly American liberals.

Among the new articles is a call to indict Dick Cheney for war crimes by Matthew Rothschild, who is the editor of American political magazine The Progressive as well as an article about Obama’s manipulative control over Afghan President Karzai by Ron Jacobs from the website antiwar.com. Additionally, there is an article by Canadian research institute Global Research detailing how the Western presence in Afghanistan is both failing and expanding, and a piece from the Christian Science Monitor about deteriorating relations between the FBI and American Muslim communities.


As for Al Manar’s own coverage of Obama’s plan for Afghanistan is less notable. The stories provide quotes from Obama as well as American officials and note that the governments in Pakistan and Afghanistan have welcomed Obama’s plan to root out extremists.It is interesting that Al Manar has thus far refrained from criticizing Obama’s strategy regarding Afghanistan but instead allowed proxy communicators to provide critical information. This critical information is not directly addressing Obama’s new plan but instead looks at America’s past efforts in the Middle East, as well as the Bush administration’s legacy of human rights abuses and tensions with Muslims. I believe that the op-ed articles are consistent with Al Manar's spirit of resistence to Western dominance and attempt to cast American presence in the Middle East in a negative light. Al Manar is trying to shape audience response to Obama's plan indirectly by providing the audience with stories reminding readers of American misteps in the Middle East and mistreatment of Muslims on American soil.

Khamenei Responds to Obama's Nowrooz Overture

The Nowrooz ("New Day") message President Obama directed to Iran for the Persian New Year has not been shown on IRINN or IRIB. Many international broadcasters and outlets are waiting to see whether or not IRIB or IRINN will show Obama's message. It seems that it will not be shown. Instead Iranians in Iran will have to look up the message online or on Persian-language satellite programming from abroad, as The Washington Post reported:

Iranian woman Marzieh Masaebi watches a TV video showing US President Barack Obama's new video message addressed to the Iranian people, and broadcast from the Tapesh Farsi-language satellite TV beamed in from the United States, at her home in Tehran, Iran, Friday, March 20, 2009. Obama released the video to coincide with the major Iranian festival of Nowruz, a 12-day holiday that marks the arrival of spring and the beginning of the new year in Iran. Iran authorities played down Obama's video message saying it welcomed the overtures while warning that decades of mistrust can't easily be erased. (AP Photo/Vahid Salemi) (Vahid Salemi - AP)

Today, however, Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei responded to Obama's message. IRINN reported that thousands of people gathered in Mashaad, Iran today to listen to Khamenei. The Iranian leader said that U.S. policy towards Iran has remained the same as it has been in the last 30 years and "as long as these policies do not change, then Iran will not change its policies." IRIB reported Khamenei as saying: "Has your enmity with the Iranian nation ended? Have you released the Iranian assets or cut the sanctions? Have you quit negative propaganda against Iran? Have you ended your absolute support to the Zionist regime?" 

So far, CNN, BBC, and other sources have reported on the Iranian response, citing the upcoming elections in Iran as an important element effecting rhetoric. 

PressTV: Obama scores points with Iran message

In a video released today, President Obama sent a message to Iranians wishing them "Eideh shoma mobarak" or happy Persian new year. Friday marked Nowruz which is the Persian New Year.

"I would like to speak directly to the people and leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Nowruz is just one part of your great and celebrated culture. Over many centuries your art, your music, literature and innovation have made the world a better and more beautiful place," he said.

Calling Nowruz a time of 'new beginnings', President Obama charged Iran with a new beginning of its own, revamping the relationship between it and Iran. Obama said his administration was committed to 'diplomacy' with Iran, promising to pursue 'constructive ties' with the Islamic Republic. He mentioned that the US policy 'will not be advanced by threats', insisting Washington seeks 'engagement that is honest and grounded in mutual respect'.

PressTV's report on the message stated that "Obama's direct message to Iran, however, reverberated with the rhetoric of the Bush era." Citing Obamas statement;

"You too have a choice. The United States wants the Islamic Republic of Iran to take its rightful place in the community of nations. You have that right -- but it comes with real responsibilities, and that place cannot be reached through terror or arms, but rather through peaceful actions that demonstrate the true greatness of the Iranian people and civilization."

According to Press TV, "Iranian officials say they welcome the idea of talks based on 'mutual respect', urging a 'real' shift of policy in the US administration and not a change in tactics." Then the story mentions that "last week, President Obama extended for another year sanctions imposed against Iran under Bill Clinton in 1995."

Another front page story announces that Obama's remarks are "a significant departure from the tone of the previous administration, were well-received around the globe."

"European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana said he hoped the Obama initiative would "open a new chapter in relations with Iran." France and Germany both welcomed the offer of an olive branch.
'We have been waiting for years for the Americans to re-engage in the Iranian issue,' French President Nicolas Sarkozy said. German Chancellor Angela Merkel said the message 'reflects exactly the message the Europeans have been trying to send to Iran. 'Russia also welcomed Obama's decision to renew dialogue with Tehran. "

"Although Iranian leaders are yet to respond to the message, an aide to President Ahmadinejad welcomed 'the wish of the president of the United States to put away the past differences. If Mr. Obama takes concrete action and makes fundamental changes in US foreign policy towards other nations, including Iran, the Iranian government and people won't turn their back on him,' Ali-Akbar Javanfekr told Press TV."

All you need to know.... PressTV

Apparently PressTV feels that Obama picked an anti-Iran man for Iran post. Veteran US diplomat's Dennis Ross was appointed as special advisor on the Persian Gulf and southwest Asia.

"In light of its supposed "policy U-turn" toward Iran, the Obama administration has managed to raise eyebrows by giving the post to Ross as he seeks a tough anti-Iran approach.In the heat of the presidential race, Ross co-chaired a group called United Against Nuclear Iran -- an organization working to 'stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons'."

Ross also supported further sanctions against the country for its nuclear program.

"The report by think tanks [is] believed to be an integral part of the so-called Israel Lobby in the US. 'Only if Israeli policymakers believe that US and European policymakers will ensure that the Islamic Republic does not gain nuclear weapons will the Israelis be unlikely to strike Iran independently,' added the report."

Among the reader comments, most of which were angry and not constructive, "Morteza" showed what seemed to sum up the reader sentiment:

"As this person is a zionist and his loyality is first to the zionist entity, there will be no good coming out of meeting with him. The Supreme Leader should publicly ban our gov to deal with him and openly say to the whole world that he is a zionist terrorist and Irn welcomes talking to USA but not with this man."

In other important PressTV news.... a riveting story about nail care hits the pages of PressTV.

"If the eyes are the windows to the soul, the nails hold clues to one's health and even personality."

Seems even PressTV wants to show its readers that it is one-stop shopping for everything you need to know: Updates about Iran's nuclear program and how to grow strong, healthy nails.

Iran's PressTV plays up the threat of Israel

Last week, PressTV.com visitors saw a line up of headlines discussing Israel's supposedly eminent attack on Iran. One headline even stated that Israeli warlord vows face-off with Iran: meaning Israeli PM candidate, Benjamin Netanyahu who stated that "[Iran] will not be armed with a nuclear weapon… It includes everything that is necessary to make this statement come true." PressTV states that Netanyahu "is currently facing war crime charges in Gaza," citing Israel's use of white phosphorous and also Netanyahu's promise to spread Israeli settlements. The story is sure to mention Iran's party line that it is not trying to obtain nuke's:

"Israel, the sole nuclear power in the Middle East, accuses Tehran of seeking nuclear weaponry while the UN nuclear watchdog, in its Sept. 15 report on Iran, declared that it could not find any 'components of a nuclear weapon' or 'related nuclear physics studies' in the country. Western powers accuse Iran, a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), of attempting to develop nuclear weaponry. Iran, however, says its nuclear program is for peaceful energy purposes and that it has the right to the technology already in the hands of many other nations including Israel - which is not a signatory NPT and yet houses the Middle East's sole nuclear arsenal."

Another related article that week quotes Aaron David Miller, the US State Department's top analyst in the 1980s, in saying that "Israel's Benjamin Netanyahu will be able to convince President Barack Obama that a military attack is the only solution to the Iranian nuclear issue."

"The Israelis will be pushing [Washington] to ensure that Iran never gets to that point and failing that, they will consider a military strike. It need not be conclusive or threatening, but it will be very serious and ... scare the daylights out of the president that unless the international community mobilizes to address the situation, the Israelis will," says Miller.

And yet another article entitled New Obama challenge: Rise of Israeli hawks threatens that a Netanyahu victory could hinder Obama's Middle East plans;

"Analysts fear that a possible power shift in the Israeli government in favor of hawks would foil US plans for the Middle East peace."

All these articles attempt to persuade American readers that a Netanyahu victory would be detrimental to Obama's mid-east peace plan. In fact, PressTV posted an article on Saturday that a Gallup poll released on Friday shows that 56% of Americans are of the opinion that the United States should engage in direct diplomacy with Iran. It seems that PressTV is trying to play to the opinions of this 56% and persude them that Israel is not acting in their best interest. A definite agenda can be seen in the headlines of the week.

Where's Obama?

Compared to other networks there are surprisingly few images (photos or video) of Barack Obama broadcast on Telesur, and very limited coverage of Obama’s administration so far, both on the website and live channel. Telesur makes clear that its mission is to focus on issues of significance to Latin America and to skew away from U.S.-centric reporting. Still, for a station as conscious of image and personality as Telesur, it seems like part of an overall editorial policy. The policy could be a response to Obama’s popularity in Latin America, which is extremely high according to a BBC world service poll taken around the time of the inauguration.

In comparison, pictures of Bush and key members of his administration appeared often on Telesur, especially on the website, in articles critical of his policies. Ironically, Bush’s unpopularity may have been good for business for the Chavez administration, while, based on the cold shoulder he’s gotten so far in coverage, Obama may be bad for business.

While Obama has been nowhere to be found recently on the Telesur site, CNN en Espanol has kept a running story called “The First 100 Days of Obama” on its website. Other international broadcasters like Press TV, Russia Today and Al Jazeera English also seem to show Obama more frequently, so this may be unique to Telesur for the moment.

Ahmadinejad: 'Obama unlikely to succeed with his changes'

From Iran's PressTV:

"Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says it is unlikely that US President Barack Obama will be allowed to bring change to the US." In a telephone conversation with his Venezuelan counterpart Hugo Chavez on Wednesday, Ahmadinejad said 'change' has been the motto of the new US President but it is unlikely that Zionist leaders and the main players in the world power structure would allow Obama to bring any change to the United States.

Does this mean PressTV does not think Obama is a main player in the world power structure?

UPDATING the UPDATED: Press TV Warms up to President Obama?

'Nother UPDATE (1:24 PST Feb 11): CBS news is reporting that President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad "has officially asked for an interview with President Barack Obama as a direct response to Mr. Obama's call for opportunities to engage" via the Islamic Republic News Agency (IRNA). Turns out Press TV's coverage was an accurate and early barometer of Iran's intentions. Who knew?

UPDATE (4:30 PST Feb 10): AJE's coverage of President Ahmadinejad's call for dialogue adds an interesting layer of depth to the story. Apparently Ahmadinejad "said Iran is ready for dialogue with the US provided the talks were based on mutual respect" in front of a crowd of "thousands of Iranians chanting anti-US slogans," with "many in the crowd carrying placards reading "Death to America" and set alight US flags." Interesting that Press Tv left out the part about the crowd burning American flags, no?
-----------------


Similar to Press TV's coverage of last week's elections in Iraq (see previous post here), today's coverage of the Obama administration is, well, kind of like watching MSNBC. In response to President Obama's repeated overtures to engage in dialogue with President Ahmadinejad, Press TV reported:

The new US president had earlier told the Arabic-language television station Al Arabiya that, "if countries like Iran are willing to unclench their fist, they will find an extended hand from us." President Obama's new tone for trying to engage Tehran has drawn a sharp line between his foreign policies regarding Iran and that of his predecessor George W. Bush.

Sharp line? This is the same broadcaster that was, as of last week, proclaiming that the Obama administration's policies would be no different from those of President Bush. I can't help but think that Pres. Ahmadinejad, via Press Tv, is hedging his bets in the run up to Iran's elections in June. It is also helpful to note that Islamic Revolution resolution for 2009 (published today on Press TV) reiterates that the United States is indeed "great satan," mocks the concept of "change," and suggests that dialogue can only occur "if occupation and tyranny come to an end in the world and the rights of the people of Iran including their nuclear rights are recognized, its assets are unfreezed, all sanctions are lifted and political pressure eased." Ouch. Those seem like preconditions, which, Iran has repeatedly said were bad for negotiations.

My guess is that the Islamic Revolution resolution for 2009 was written mostly for domestic audiences, while the "Iran ready for talks with 'changed' US" article was written more for foreign readers. Oh, the dilemmas of controlling the flow of information in a world of the WWW and google translate!

Barack Hussein Obama uses his Muslim roots to reach out to the Muslim world

During the U.S presidential campaign, Barack Obama’s "handlers" constantly pointed out his Christian faith and stressed that he was not a Muslim. “Once elected, however, he personally insisted on his middle name being spoken at his swearing-in ceremony.” And then, when on Al Arabiya, he proudly goes on about his Muslim ties.

"I have Muslim members of my family. I have lived in Muslim countries."

In the same interview, when asked about Bush’s use of terms such as "war on terror" and "Islamic fascism" that demonizes Muslims, President Barack Hussein Obama replied, "I think you’re making a very important point, and that is the language we use matters …"

It seems names matter as well- Obama isn't the only one playing up his Muslim roots. PressTV refers to the US President as "Barack Hussein Obama" in just about every article that he is mentioned. Not something you see played up in US media even now. Is PressTV trying to make Obama seem more akin to the Muslim world? As Shakespeare's Juliet pondered, what's in a name?

Obama marks end of policy dictation?

PressTV picks up, as one of their lead headlines, the story that US President Barack Obama says his administration will focus on "listening more" rather than "dictating" policies in the Middle East. Discussing his Al-Arabiya interview, the article focuses on President Obama's use of the word "listen."

"And so what I told [former Sen. George J. Mitchell, his envoy to the Middle East] is start by listening, because all too often the United States starts by dictating ...and we don't always know all the factors that are involved. So let's listen," Obama said on Monday.

PressTV explained that the envoy would be visiting "Israel, the West Bank, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, London and Paris would focus on talking to 'all the parties involved' in the conflict between the Palestinians and Israelis." but pointed out that "Mitchell will not be traveling to the Hamas-run Gaza Strip. Once again delaying his response to the Israeli carnage on the Gaza Strip."

"Israel launched Operation Cast Lead on the impoverished Palestinian strip to allegedly stop Hamas rockets from reaching Israel. Officials later upgraded their objective, affirming that they attacked the slither to destroy the democratically-elected ruler of the sliver of land, namely Hamas.After failing to achieve their objectives, however, echelons in Tel Aviv backtracked on the issue, suggesting that they did not seek their previously announced goals and that they only wanted to weaken Hamas. The Israeli military operations claimed more than 1300 lives on the Palestinian side and killed at least 13 Israelis."

I have noticed that PressTV's stories lag a bit behind actual US events however, this article shows the dissatisfaction "Iran" has with Obama's response to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict which I am sure reflects that of others throughout the region.

Between the Headlines

Iran's PressTV program "Between the Headlines" goes through a few major headlines from around the world to give an Iranian response to the topics. Today's program singled out four major stories including the The New Statesman article All of Us Live by the Logic of Finance and the Economist's, That Curious Relationship about a British resident and Ethiopian citizen, Binyam Mohamed, who alleges that he was tortured by American agents. According to the Economist, British courts decided they could not publish a summery of these events publicly because "America would retaliate by withholding vital intelligence in future, thereby placing Britain at risk." The anchors discussed in full, America's use of torture in Guantanimo Bay and whether the media will pressure stories like this to come out so that such circumstances could never happen again. Interesting that such human rights topics comes up and the correspondents seemed so concerned about the truth coming out about the U.S.'s torture allegations when Iran itself isn't exactly a poster child for human rights. One of the guests did feel it necessary to note that this torture happened during the Bush administration, not the Obama administration, "and we all know what the Bush administration was about." I would have loved for him to elaborate.

A Letter to Obama

From the MIT Center for International Studies' Advice to President Obama, Peter Krause writes

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.