Arab Media Bypass State Restrictions Via Iraq War

by N Janardhan

When Iraq invaded Kuwait in August 1990, it was days before some of the Saudi Arabian newspapers reported the event, which they referred to evasively as "tension" in the region.

In contrast, since day one of the present crisis, Gulf newspapers have splashed reports on their front pages, as was the case with the U.S. bombings in Afghanistan in late 2001.

Independent political analyst Inad Khairallah said the change was a result of the shift in the way the governments in the region have been handling the press in recent years.

"There is a sort of freedom that the press didn't have before. Nobody tells editors 'don't publish this' anymore. This is partly because the governments are caught in their own 'trap' -- neither can they allow a free rein nor can they check news flow in absolute terms," Khairallah said.

Moreover, he added, "it is difficult to hide anything by controlling the media because of the technological advancement made by local television stations and the increase in the availability of Western channels. Add to it the advent, access and reach of the Internet, and you have a situation where news can't be restrained."

On the ground, the press in the region is fashioned in a style that suits non-democratic governments, which do not appreciate evaluation or criticism of their policies and performance. While the media largely adheres to government diktats in the domestic context, there is a perceptible difference in the way it approaches international issues or events pertaining to local interest in the international arena.

The Palestinian resistance movement against Israeli occupation, for example, was the main news item in both the electronic and print media prior to the war on Iraq. The content was largely anti-U.S. and the local governments saw little benefit in trying to curtail a sentiment that the people identified with as an issue of Arab cause and solidarity.

Same is the case with the war on Iraq.

The governments would prefer to see the war over in quick time without many Iraqi casualties or much criticism of the United States, on whom the rulers depend for security. But the press views it differently. While many newspapers have criticized Saddam Hussein for his "brutal dictatorship," there is a no-holds barred approach in terming the U.S. action as "an invasion and illegal aggression against fellow Arabs."

The criticism is all the more bitter because "Washington has remained a mute spectator to Israeli brutality in the occupied territories."

"The media has heightened the sense of nationalism among the Arabs. "From the news we see, hear and read, I feel that, like many of us, the Iraqis are also beginning to make the distinction between Saddam's regime and their love for their land," university student Abdullah Qattan said. "How else can we explain the resistance offered by the Iraqis in the 10 days since the war began? Wasn't it supposed to have been half over by now?"

Much of the credit for heralding "improvement" in media coverage and "liberating" the press is attributed to the "CNN of the Arab World" -- the Al Jazeera network. The Qatar-based TV network now boasts of 40 million viewers, having recorded an increase of 10 percent since the war began.

The hard-hitting network had in the past been criticized by the United States for giving too much coverage to Islamists and by even Arab governments for "exceeding limits." It is now under fire from Washington for its coverage of the war -- broadcasting interviews of American prisoners of war and gory images of Iraqi casualties.

Noora Fatima, who works at the Dubai Media City, said: "It gives you both the truth and the gossip. The hottest news is on Jazeera."

Following the Al Jazeera formula are two U.A.E.-based channels. Al Arabiya and Abu Dhabi TV, both broadcasting an Iraqi perspective of the war by having reporters interview Iraqi military personnel and war-hit Iraqi people.

Turning the tables, some Arab journalists question the Western notion of press freedom citing the information flow or the lack of it in the state-of-the-art media centre set up by the U.S. Central Command at Camp As Sayliyah in Qatar.

Set up at a cost of $1.5 million, the facility was meant to provide war details to 600 journalists from all over the world. But a U.A.E.-based newspaper reporter said: "I have been at the Qatar centre for more than 10 days, but if you ask me it is as good as staying in my hotel room and watching television."

"Nobody talks to us," he complained on the condition of anonymity. "When the officers have something to say, they prefer to give it first to their media persons -- Americans, Britons and Australians."

Before the briefing by General Tommy Franks, the commander of the U.S. forces, 60 hours after the war began, "not one person bothered to tell us what was going on. Information flow has improved since then but there's nothing exclusive here that media persons elsewhere are not getting," he said.

Khusru Shariff, reporting for an Indian-based newspaper, said information dissemination was much better in Kuwait than in Qatar. "Since the Kuwaiti government is more directly involved in the war than the Qatari officials, they have been able to provide more details of the proceedings. Even though operational details are not forthcoming, there are fairly regular briefings from military officers, and the official news agency frequently carries government statements," he said.

At another level, Shariff added: "Since Kuwait is also hosting a number of aid agencies, there is lot of information flow on the humanitarian crisis and the efforts or impediments towards alleviating it. This, at times, makes up for lack of news on military activities."