For the past ten years, and especially since 9/11, viewers who don't speak Arabic have only been able to watch clips of Al-Jazeera, selected by journalists at other TV stations, and usually when the station has just broadcast a statement by Al-Qaeda or some other extremist group. On that basis many people, especially in the United States, have wrongly concluded that Al-Jazeera supports these extremists.
I remember the period when members of the Irish Republican Army were banned from the airwaves in the UK. At that time, the IRA was classified as a terrorist organisation, so Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher decided to "deny terrorists the oxygen of publicity" and banned them. However, the idiotic thing was that their words weren't banned, only their actual voices. So for years, radio and TV news bulletins were punctuated with the phrase "his words are spoken by an actor". I suspect this made people listen more intently to the actual words than if they had been spoken by Adams himself. It certainly did in my case.
The ban was eventually lifted, despite the IRA continuing to be regarded by many in the UK establishment as a terrorist organisation. When Adams was allowed to be heard again on the BBC, I do not recall many people in the US protesting that the BBC was now supporting terrorism. But, a quarter century later, that seems to be the line taken by many Americans against Al-Jazeera. And this in a country where people routinely quote the First Amendment whenever you suggest that something they said should have remained unsaid.
Simplistic diplomacy
The Bush Administration seems to have a simplistic attitude to international diplomacy, famously encapsulated in the phrase "You're either with us, or you're against us", uttered by George W Bush in a moment of frustration. Another term used by Bush is "the axis of evil". So everyone is pre-judged according to whether or not they fit into a framework that Bush and his advisers find acceptable. Thus, Al Jazeera, because it comes from an Arab country, is on the "wrong" side of the fence, and clearly unwelcome in the US. Of course, the cable companies cite "technical" reasons for non-distribution, rather than admitting that they're concerned about the financial and legal consequences of doing business with "the enemy".
Building bridges
I believe the launch of Al-Jazeera in English has the potential to build bridges between the West and the Arab World. One thing that has been missing from international radio broadcasting for as long as I can remember is a strong voice in English from the Arab World. Even those countries that have an external service in English, such as Egypt and Syria, have poor technical quality and frequency management, so their efforts are largely wasted. They also don't provide Internet feeds of their English programmes.
Al-Jazeera English is a breath of fresh air to those of us who want to learn more about what's happening in the Arab World, and to better understand Arab attitudes to current events. That's surely a positive development. The idea that experienced English-language journalists, who have until recently worked for respected news organisations in the West, will suddenly start delivering extremist propaganda is just plain silly. I wish our colleagues at Al-Jazeera every success in demonstrating that in the months and years to come.
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are the personal views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Radio Netherlands.
Tags: al jazeera, arab, news, satellite, tv