عربي
 
FranÇais
 
Testiments

Papers' Summaries

First day, Sunday
First ٍSession: “September 11th and the Western Media.. and Cross - Cultural Misunderstanding”
Christopher Dickey
 
Director of NewsWeek Office in Europe, U.S.A

It is tempting to say nothing has changed in the Western press. But of course that wouldn’t be entirely true. And what certainly has changed is the world of Arab and Muslim media. Today, of course, Arabs have countless newspapers, as well as Web sites and satellite networks, a few of them among the most technologically sophisticated in the world. And, to be sure, at some of them the editors are “even worse than the poets, whether in their animosity or their exaltation.”
            The fact that the Arabs and the West – and Latin Americans and Africans and Asians -- all have modern media with global reach ought to be a wonderful opportunity for dialogue and mutual understanding, but I am sorry to say that so far this proliferation of news has been mostly noise that produces a dialogue of the deaf.
             
            One great failing of the American media in the 1970s and early 1980s was its obliviousness to Muslim perspectives. The scholar Jack Shaheen has catalogued in excruciating detail the way Arabs were portrayed on American television and in American movies. But there was at least some hope in those days that if you won over the news editors in the major publications and broadcast networks, you could have a powerful impact on public opinion. If persuaded, the media would take it on themselves to depict and indeed to teach readers and viewers about the Arab perspective on the Middle East conflict.
I feel strongly that was the direction coverage was taking by the mid-1980s, however painful and slow the process was. After the American humiliation at the hands of the Iranian revolution, then the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982 and its lingering repercussions there was a consensus among the major American media – and especially among the correspondents in the field -- that events and attitudes in the Middle East had to be looked at much more closely and critically than ever before. Certainly that was the current of thinking when I first went to the region as a reporter in 1985.
Six years later the Arab and Western alliance pulled together to liberate Kuwait marked an extraordinary turning point. In the immediate aftermath the dialogue between Arabs and the West achieved what seemed astounding breakthroughs: the Madrid conference, the Oslo accords. By the mid 1990s peace seemed to be breaking out all over the place and the voices of violent extremism were, quite literally, crying in the wilderness. Osama bin Laden had to flee from Khartoum all the way to Kandahar.
And then it all just crumbled. The collapse of that dialogue for peace can be traced in part to a few acts of terror: the slaughter of Muslims at the mosque in Hebron by a crazed settler named Baruch Goldstein in 1994, then the Hamas suicide bombing campaign inside Israel and finally the murder of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin by a Jewish terrorist in 1996. It is not clear that Yasir Arafat ever really had the inclination or ability to build a lasting peace. It is certain, however, that when the Israelis elected Bibi Netanyahu prime minister, the dialogue at the core of the Middle East’s most intractable problem was doomed.
But something else had changed, too, and any and all efforts to promote dialogue now have to take this into account. In the late 1990s, Arab satellite news channels and the Internet transformed the whole universe of information in the Middle East: the way it was gathered, the way it was disseminated and the way it was received.
Many of us welcomed these developments as ways for Arabs to break free at last from the pervasive and oppressive control of information by dictatorial regimes. The latter-day potentates, unlike the Ottoman sultans, would have to give way to this new Gutenberg revolution. And so, however grudgingly, they did.
But our hope that all this would immediately foster greater dialogue between the Arabs and the West proved, I think, naïve – not because of political conspiracies, but because at the same time the power of the media to teach, as opposed to simply marketing information, all but disappeared.
Terrorism as it was used in inter-Arab conflicts was not about humiliation. It was about communication. The violence used by the Israelis against the Arabs in response to terrorism was all about humiliation. That was, indeed, the explicit message: “We are strong, you are weak, and you are not going to be allowed to forget that.”
These patterns of communication, provocation and humiliation continued into the 1990s until, eventually, the language and syntax of violence, including the terribly cynical vocabulary of terrorism, were well understood by all the governments and intelligence services operating in the region.
            What was not very well understood by any of them, however, was the organization that came to be called Al Qaeda.
            Throughout the 1990s, you could see both Western and Arab governments trying to fit Osama bin Laden and his acolytes into the old framework of states using terrorist proxies to communicate with each other.
            The communication strategy that the Bush administration did have, such as it was, ignored the Arab and Muslim worlds. It was all directed at the American people. It was about convincing them to go to war, and then making them think of victory, not victims.
            What an irony. Because in fact, by early March 2003, before the bombing of Baghdad began and the tanks start rolling across the border into Iraq, the United States actually had won the war against the people who attacked it on 9/11. All the major figures had been arrested or killed.

            At the level of media institutions, the Arabs in fact have made more of an effort to reach out than the Europeans or Americans. Certainly there are some newspapers and magazines, including Newsweek, which publish in Arabic. There should be more. The BBC is starting an Arabic television service and the United States government has sponsored one as well. But the boldest initiative is coming from Al Jazeera’s ambitious English language network trying to open the eyes of Europeans and Americans to stories from developing societies in all corners of the globe. This is ironic, to some extent, since Al Jazeera’s Arabic service on many occasions helped harden the communications battle-lines. But it’s true nonetheless, and as Al Jazeers in English slowly breaks down the resistance shown by American cable operators who refuse to carry it, I think it will open many eyes in the United States.
            The Internet can be tremendously destructive by helping to reinforce existing prejudices and sometimes it carries ridiculous urban legends or pure propaganda. But on several noteworthy occasions, such as during the Lebanon war of 2006, bloggers have been able to provide tremendously human and convincing pictures of the destruction and suffering that war causes on all sides.
            There is also some amazingly creative thinking that exploits very conventional media in extremely positive ways. An organization called Search for Common Ground with offices in Washington, Europe, the Middle East and Africa, helps create, write and sponsor radio and television soap operas that show people not only living out the passions and predicaments of their love lives, but resolving the problems of, as it were, their hate lives.

 

Michael Binyon
 
Journalist, “The Times”Newspaper

All journalists, whether they work for newspapers, television or radio programmes, are bound by their professional ethics to be fair, truthful and accurate. Unfortunately, very few media outlets can boast that everything they put out is all of these.
Good foreign reporters — in the Middle East or in any part of the world — must try to avoid being used by governments to voice propaganda. Of course, this is not always easy. Take the violence in Gaza, for example. I was asked only recently by the publisher of a Middle Eastern newspaper why the BBC gave so much coverage to the rockets being aimed by Hamas at Israeli towns but gave so little coverage to the Israeli airstrikes in Gaza. There is a very simple answer: there are no BBC correspondents based in Gaza. The reason is, that it is too dangerous. The BBC had a permanent correspondent there until last year, Alan Johnson. He was, in fact, the only Western TV reporter. He sent many reports detailing the suffering of the people. And what happened? He was kidnapped by an extremist group that threatened to execute him. He was held for months before, after long negotiations, he was released. The BBC, understandably, did not replace him. The Israelis, by contrast, undertand the propaganda value of showing what is going on. They make every effort to take television cameras to the front line. They will arrange interviews with Army spokesmen and politicians within minutes. No wonder their point of view is often given prominence. The best answer to this is freedom of information. And suddenly there is an answer to hand for millions of people. It is called the Internet. Much of the stuff you find there is rubbish. Some is extremist, some is untrue, and some is genuinely thoughtful. But there is masses and masses of information. No one can talk any more about "the media" as though this was a single powerful force. It is up to each person to make his or her judgment. In politics, this is democracy. In the press, this is also democracy. And for this reason, I'm pretty optimistic that media outlets will do their best if they want to survive in a competitive world. If journalists are bad, they will not be read any more - in print or on the internet. We need good reporting. On the whole, I think we get it.

Virginie Sandrock
 
Media Expert and Internation Relations Expert, France

Changes in western media after September 11th.

What changes went through the western media?
 How did this affect cross cultural dialogue?

After the 9/11 attacks, the media have undoubtedly contributed to clarifying the discrepancies between the eastern and western cultures. 
An erroneous reading of the reality between the East and West and a blurred vocabulary amalgamating the political, religious and cultural dimensions have arisen out of the fear and insecurity generated by the terrorism. In parallel, the border between the political power and the media has vanished.
Paradoxically, the access to the real information becomes more and more difficult to the journalists particularly in the zones of conflict.
In the face of those « predesigned-beliefs » delivered to the public opinion by an important number of media, only the plurality of sources allows the public to have its own free judgment when reading the events.

I. The media’s couverage of 9/11

The  media : First response to the terrorism

The 9/11 attacks have shaped the public opinion’s vision of the East and has exacerbated the tensions. The terrorism faced the United States by its inability to guarantee the security to its citizens.  The terrorist groups have integrated communication in their strategy of action. Since then, the media have become one of the principal instruments of the American governmental strategy which aims at convincing the public opinion that the terrorist act is an act of war.  The journalist’s mission is obtaining a social consensus about the government decisions and the war against the terrorism. 

            Lexical drift: From terror to fear of the other
This information processing related to 9/11 by the American press has had many repercussions on the media worldwide resulting in a uniform discourse, and a joint support to the vision of the American administration to the world through filtering of the images sent to the newspapers around the world.
An ethnocentrism based on a differentiation which can be summarized in two words: « we » and « they » took hold of the media. Subjectivity became the key of reading everything different from “we”. Besides; the weak level of specialization of the written press in terrorism reinforces this subjectivity. This double-edged strategy has created reciprocal misunderstandings.

  1. An increasingly thin frontier between journalism and the political discourse

9/11 has had as direct effect on the relationship between French politicians and journalists, which became tighter. Every political act is considered in terms of media-related impact.
Thus, the analysis regresses and the choice and the coverage of subjects have become tightly linked to the economic engagements of the papers. Consequently, the press loses its credibility because of biased opinions, lack of objectivity, lies, and manipulations. The scarcity of information sources results in the distortion of reality especially that of the Arab World.

 

III. The media in the war: from Information to Communication 
Restriction of the freedom of press

One of the direct results of 9/11 attacks has been the restriction of the freedom of the press. Internet has been in the fire line of the anti-terrorism campaign. 
In the United States, the security services have installed a surveillance system in the main computer of the internet services providers based in the American territory. In France also, a law has been voted to legalize the conservation of internet services providers of the access to connection data of internet users.
 In the war of images, terrorists have made a run since 9/11.  In the face of this offensive communication strategy, the American government has developed new tools of communication the goals of which are making the military operations less alarming and justifying the war for the public opinion.
The American administration believes that it’s necessary to convince the journalist, of whatever nationality, that the American intervention is not an invasion or an aggression but a war. It has adopted three measures: restricting the freedom of the press; limiting the journalists’ access to information and overloading them with information.

 

Propaganda and getting out of the crisis : failure of psychological operations strategy

In all the zones of war, recourse to propaganda is one of the favorite weapons and a tool of military strategy.

History proved that to win a war gaining the support of the local population is necessary. In Afghanistan the psychological operation of NATO has put in place series of media related vectors which aims at a double objective: obtaining the support of the local population to presence of soldiers assigned to support the government of Hamed Karazai and making the Talibans surrender. These goals are being served at the expense of the local population problems led to discrediting the international forces, their assimilation to an occupation force as well as to rejecting everything related to the west.
Conclusion :
Despite the fact that France has not participated in the was against Iraq, its engagement in the military plan of the operation “Enduring Freedom” to fight terrorism and its solidarity with American positions towards Lebanon and Iran has contributed in low popularity of France in the Arab World.

The media confined in their semantic universe have certainly participated in creating this situation. But the misunderstanding is not a fatality. Internet allows nuances of approaches and modification of the perceptions of the other. The new challenge is not is not that of information but of communication which can be summarized in the concept of coexistence with individuals or groups different from oneself.

Are we really ready for this coexistence?
Second Session: “Perceptions of Islam in the West and the West in Islam”
Roger Hardy
 
BBC - UK
How did the media change in the United States and Britain post-9/11? 1 Introduction: The drama of 9/11 highlighted and dramatised themes that had preoccupied the Western media for at least two decades – the perceived danger of radical Islamism, the polarisation between Islam and the West, and suspicion of the new Muslim communities living in the West.2 The Impact of 9/11: Politicians and media commentators alike responded with a set of broadly shared perceptions:
  • the global jihad was seen as an existential threat to the West;
  • this justified a robust response articulated by President Bush as the “war on terror”;
  • Muslims living in the West were viewed with a new suspicion as a potential fifth column.
3 The US Context: These themes have been played out in the US media, not just in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, but in the six years since the event itself.
  • The perceived threat to the American homeland itself has receded – but the global challenges posed by Al-Qaida and its allies are a continuing media preoccupation.
  • When the focus shifted from Afghanistan to Iraq, an essentially patriotic tone prevailed. The media largely failed to hold politicians to account.
  • American Muslims responded with mounting concern to new legislation (e.g. the Patriot Act) as well as to a foreign-policy issue (Iraq) on which they had strongly-held views.
4 The British Context: In the immediate aftermath of 9/11, British opinion and the British media exhibited a marked solidarity with the United States. But once it became clear there was to be war in Iraq, European and American opinion diverged sharply. The war in Iraq was deeply unpopular in Britain, and has remained so to this day. There have of course been pro-war voices in the media, but they have represented a minority view.The London bombings of July 2005 were a turning-point of a different kind, producing a flood of media reporting and comment on the phenomenon of global jihad and also a great deal of soul-searching about the radicalisation of Muslim youth and the question of whether British-style “multiculturalism” has failed.

 
Chris Doyle
 
Director of Arab British Understanding Council, UK

One of the biggest challenges is ignorance, ignorance, ignorance. Perhaps, the answer is education, education, education. Islam of course is very clear on this.  The first words revealed to Muhammad in the Qu’ran by Jibril, were read, read and read.

CAABU (The Council for Arab-British Understanding) found in 1967 after an opinion poll showed that 98% of the British public claimed to know little of anything about the Arab World.   In one post 9/11 survey, 78% claimed they knew little or nothing about Islam.

We found this ignorance everywhere, not least at schools where we send speakers around the country in probably the most important aspect of our work. Here we have found confusion not just between Arab and Muslim but also lumping them together with Sikh and Hindu. In one class, the most popularly associated term with Arab was curry. We only have the resources to deal with 100 schools, so this is only the tip of the iceberg.

I should emphasise though that it is not only schoolchildren who show this confusion.

On the other hand, there is far more awareness of Islam and all its nuances amongst non-Islamic journalists than ever before, because of the focus of these issues in a post 9/11 world. I cheekily wonder how many reporters could have given a half baked attempt at telling their Shias from their Sunnis.

At a public level there has been a huge increase in book reading on Islam and related issues in the US and UK; and also in documentaries on such issues.

General relations: what can be done:

  • Be prepared to recognise that neither the ‘West’ nor Muslim world is perfect, and that first, perhaps, we should look at out own weaknesses before criticising others.
  • Importance of events, and the need to reduce extremism and acts of terrorism. Progress can be totally set back with one act of violence.
  • Need to resolve decades old crises, above all in the Middle East
  • “Western countries” need also to exert greater efforts to learn about the Muslim world, and challenge stereotypes. Forget trying to impose, and asserting that the ‘West’ is superior.  Greater attention should be paid to legitimate grievances many Muslims have about US, UK and other major states’ policies and actions.
  • Actions speak louder than words – workshops for media.
  • More efforts in the Islamic world to establish an organised orthodoxy.

 

The Media

  • In the Arab and Muslim worlds, there needs to be a greater more effective, Public relations effort. 
  • The non-Muslim media could make greater efforts to find more diverse voices from the Muslim world.
  • More Arabs and ‘westerners’ appearing in the others’ media.
  • Youth. 40% of all Muslims are children. It is their future that we are talking about.

 

But the media can play a vital role in bridging a gap in understanding and as a forum for debating for challenging some of the most vital and pressing issues of the day. But sadly so far, I feel that overall on this issue, despite the many exceptions, it has shown itself to be more incendiary than helpful, more destructive than constructive.

 

 

Jihad Al-Khazen
 
Writer and Media Expert, Al-Hayat Newspaper, Lebanon

Islam is better than today’s Muslims. Words may be used to the point of being abused and remain true: Islam is a moderate religion. There is, however, an extreme minority that has hijacked the faith, with the vast majority of Muslims silent, disinterested, or in a state of denial.

Every religion has traditions of tolerance and prejudice. The Koran say of itself: In it are verses basic or fundamental (of established meaning); they are the foundation of the Book: others are not of well-established meaning. But those in whose hearts is perversity follow the part thereof that is not of well-established meaning … (Surah 3, Al Imran, verse 7) .

It is unfortunate that in the case of verses of no well-established meaning, the most restrictive, or narrow, interpretation is almost always adopted. As examples, I will talk about three of the most talked about subjects.

The Veil

There is no hijab in the Koran, certainly no niqab. The hijab is a tradition, not a duty, like prayer. Still there are those who admit that the Koran carries no clear order for women to wear veil but support it nevertheless under the principal of avoiding temptation. This is an insult to men and women, seeing them like animals in heat who cannot restrain their basic instincts.

Alcohol

There are many verses on drinking alcohol throughout the Koran. The most important of which, and one of the latest, says: O ye believe! Intoxicants and gambling, (dedication of) stones, and (divination by) arrows, are an abomination of Satan’s handiwork; eschew such (abomination), that ye may prosper (Surah 5, Al Ma’idah, verse 90).

The verse clearly says “avoid him”, or Satan, where it could have said “avoid it” and thus refer to alcohol and gambling.

Polygamy

The Koran says: If ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly with the orphans, marry women of your choice, two, or three, or four; but if ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one, or (a captive) that your right hands possess. That will be more suitable, to prevent you from doing injustice (Surah 4, Al Nisa, verse 3).

It also says: Ye are never able to be fair and just as between women even if it is your ardent desire…( Surah 4, Al Nisa, verse 129).

I understand this as a ban on taking more than one wife as the condition for two or more is fairness and God says man can never be fair and just to more than one wife. (Also, it is not a wife and a slave, but rather either or, not the two together).

I am not opposing the veil or polygamy, and I am not advocating drinking alcohol. All I am doing is reading Koranic text, mostly verses of not well-established meaning. If the Sheikh of Al-Azhar and the Mufti of Saudi Arabia say a veil is required of a Muslim woman, they know better.

The Koran says: None of Our revelations do we abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but we substitute something better or similar: knowest thou not that Allah hath power over all things? (Surah 2, Al Baqarah, verse 106).

 Abrogating certain verses was explained by the changing general interest of the Muslims. Restrictions on alcohol were gradual, as drinking was very wide-spread. The second Orthodox Caliph Omar understood that conditions change, and acted in a bold and decisive manner.

 

Miscellany

The problem of a verse allowing for several interpretations is not limited to the Holy Koran, but to be found as well in the Talmud which is a massive compilation of writing that forms the basic body of Jewish laws and traditions, the equivalent of Sharia, or Islamic Jurisprudence.

A Muslim does not have to be paranoid to think that people are out to get him. There are many enemies of Islam and Muslims, the most dangerous, and by far the worst, being Islamic terrorists. Al Qaeda and all such organizations are the real threat to Islam. They kill Muslims and at the same time justify actions by enemies of Islam that punish all Muslims, while scaring away people of good intentions who seek coexistence among peoples of all faith, or no faith. Muslims need to defeat the so-called Islamic terrorists.

I tried to write a paper on women in the Koran and Islamic tradition, to show that Islam gave women their rights but in the end had to conclude that women were not made equal to men in the Koran.  It says: Men are protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other... (Surah 4, Al Nisa, verse 34)

Still, Islam did not make women equal to men. That paper unexpected result. In the New Testament, the role of the Virgin Mary is very limited. After delivering Jesus she all but disappears. As she was married to Joseph, the Gospel according to Mark tells us that she gave Jesus half brothers: “Is not this the carpenter, son of Mary, the brother of James and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? And are not his sisters here with us?” (6:3) Mathew simply refers to “Jesus and his brothers.” In the Koran Mary has a whole sura, or chapter, named after her, and she is mentioned in other suras, by name or as in Issa (Jesus) and his mother. The Koran has her speaking to Archangel Gabriel who in Islamic traditions speaks only to prophets. As a result, Andalusian ulema, like Ibn Hazm, considered her a prophet, a position never accorded her in the Holy Book.

The laws of Islam and Judaism are similar and at times identical, both in the Koran and the Old Testament, and also in Sharia and Talmud. Tithe is like Zakat. Kosher is the equivalent of Halal. Minyan is a quorum of ten men required for a Jewish prayer and is similar to the prayer of “Jama’a” for Muslims. While Muslims are required to pray five times a day Orthodox Jews pray three to four times a day, a practice called Shema Yisrael. Their women cover their hair after marriage, and a few are seen in a veil, or even niqab. In the five Books of Moses, Leviticus presents the laws in detail and Deuteronomy is a late edition of the law, probably written about 500 BC. Laws are taken from Deuteronomy chapters 12-26

The insolence against Islam and Muslims was unknown before the wave of terrorism in the name of Islam. There are serious efforts to heal the rift between Islam and the West. I have just attended a conference in London on “Islamic Communities in Europe.” In early March at the Vatican plans were set for a Catholic-Muslim Forum in November. Muslims and Anglicans plan a conference in Britain in October. Yale University will host a global conference in July to include Christians, Muslims and Jews. Georgetown University will Also host a similar conference in March 2009. Jordan is planning to host a conference in April, 2009, at the traditional site where Jesus was baptized in the Jordan River.

Many Muslim countries hold annual competitions for learning the Koran by heart, mostly among pre-teen or teenage children. I would rather see competitions for understanding the Koran. Children can learn less but must understand more so that when they grow up they don’t fall victim to extremist.

(All translations from the Koran in this paper are taken from The Meaning of the Holy Qur’an, by ‘Abdullah Yusuf ‘Ali, published by Amana corporation. It is used in Islamic studies at Oxford University).

 

 
Second Day
First Session:“Responsibility of Media… the Role of Dialogue in Solving International Crisis”
H.E. Mr. Par Stenback
 
(Former Foreign Minister / Writer), Finland

MEDIA COVERING CONFLICTS IN A GLOBAL WORLD
The concept of a global world is now generally accepted as the starting point for any discussion of temporary problems. Whether globalization is a good or bad thing, opinions differ. Also, the definition of conflict has transformed during the last decade, actually this change has been gradual since the Second World War. The full-scale war between two national states is slowly, and hopefully, moving into the darkness of history. But, there is only one remaining, unresolved conflict, which has local, regional and international dimensions and that is the Israeli-Palestinian one.

In the conflicts of today, the number of victims is sometimes extremely difficult to count and define. There are a numerous examples of how conflicts uproot populations, cause hunger and deprivation, and change the course of history by destabilizing a region, resulting in failed states. It is common knowledge that war is a major factor for spreading diseases and causing epidemics. Aids in Africa is one example of this.

All conflicts are man-made, even if their roots are deep in problems that are not easy to handle for our societies, such as, draughts, over-population, fight for natural resources..etc. We should therefore be able to prevent or mitigate them by acts and deeds by other human beings. There are many ways of conflict prevention. Some conflicts are solved the brutal way, other conflicts are solved through negotiations or mediation, but the best way is to prevent the conflict to break out altogether.

We have produced hundreds of reports highlighting the roots of conflicts, offering solutions, which could pre-empt the outbreak of hostilities or stop already ongoing ones. But we have learned that without the help of the media, far fewer results would have been achieved. Therefore, it has become necessary for our staff and our trustees to engage in large-scale efforts to disseminate our recommendations. This can only be done through the major media channels, newspapers and the TV channels.

Can such publicity actually influence the outcome of a potential conflict? I would discern between two different target groups. These are the general public and decision-makers

Media sometime are the instigator of a bloody killing. There are many cases of media misuse for slander, instigation or propaganda leading to war. Historically speaking, Europe has seen it during the last century when dictators like Hitler, Mussolini and Stalin were able to brain-wash whole nations, leading them into destructive wars with the help of media used as propaganda machines.

A lot of research is being done and has been published. I can quote a summary from such work done (Media and Conflict Working Group, US Institute of Peace 2004). One finding is that there is no correlation between the number of people at risk of dying and media attention. The international media seem a very haphazard bellwether of conflict and even a more cursory method by which to set international policy agendas. Another recommendation is that those interested in conflict prevention should support local media. They can build trust and hope in the future of a war-thorn society.

The dialogue between cultures and continents can be promoted or disturbed by the media Better knowledge about another civilization, culture or religion means better understanding and acceptance of foreigners and their values. Knowledge, acceptance and tolerance are the oil needed to smooth the relations in a complex but global community like our world today.
 
The roots to conflicts can also be found in bias, mistrust and religious prejudice. Fairness and objectivity in reporting can dispel wrong and harmful beliefs but the spreading of hatred and libel can aggravate these beliefs. The global community is also a communication community where both negative and positive news circulate around the globe in a matter of seconds.

I believe that free speech is a prerequisite for democracy and the best medicine against corruption and misuse of power. it is very disappointing and distasteful when the free press uses religious symbols as a provocation to demonstrate freedom of speech. We also must accept that our societies are built on different principles, some are secular and in others religion is more interwoven with the social and political fabric.

Media can play its most constructive role by reporting accurately about the roots and the real factors behind conflict situations. It is more demanding to be objective and going to the sources of real knowledge. Laws must be enforced which forbid the spreading of racial or ethnic hatred and instigating violence against minorities, be it done by individuals or by media.The media can also further dialogue in a concrete way, by highlighting the complexity of our societies.

I would conclude by saying that pictures of “the other” are often too monolithic and thereby a threat to peace and stability.

Here media has a great challenge.

 

 
Alain Gresh
 
Deputy Director of Le Monde Diplomatique, France

Revolutions media and the new responsibilities of journalists
The media space has known two major revolutions: that of the digital and live broadcasting, on the one hand; and that of the end of the western monopole on information on the other hand. It’s important to understand the meaning of those revolutions in order to be able to think about the role of journalists in the multiplying crisis.
This revolution has changed the “power relationship” between the written press and TV. It was accompanied by an illusion, that of the triumph of the objectivity of the image which supposedly is incapable of lying. However the limits of this revolution have quickly become clear for the following reasons:

  • It illustrated the triumph of emotion over analysis because the images act in priority on emotions at the expense of analysis
  • Everything can’t be showed by images; many events can’t be seen such as a financial crisis or repression…
  • Images lie, and can be manipulated also

The second revolution is the end of the western monopole on information. So far the big News Agencies such as Reuters and Agence France Press (AFP) have been controlled by the North. But this has changed with the emergence and development of Arab then Chinese, Russian, Latino – American, satellite channels. There’s no longer one “story” of what’s going on around the world and this allows noticing that objectivity is not easy to determine. We can note at least two major differences that of the hierarchy of information and that of the analysis and interpretation framework.
This evolution of the media field corresponds to another fundamental one in geopolitics. The world has become multipolar marked by the end of western domination and the emergence of new economic and political powers which have their own way to see the world.
This double revolution has positive aspects and carries also some dangers. It puts our journalistic responsibilities under tough tests. The fact that images are spreading instantly and immediately could become a factor of tension.
The world war launched by the American administration against terrorism has taken the aspect of an anti-Islamic campaign. To mirror this vision Al-Qaida has announced a war opposing the Muslim world to whole West.
This basis for analysis digs into opinions and transforms political conflicts to religious ones which affects analysis and impedes understanding favoring simplifications.
There is however some ways which will not enable us not to solve these problems but at least to try to calm down the tensions, among which:

  • To avoid presenting the Other in simplistic unified and caricatural way
  • To avoid emotional judgments
  • To try to understand the positions defended by the Other

In conclusion, we should never forget that we belong to the same humanity and there is nothing more dangerous than dehumanizing the other. 

 

 
Ghayth Armanazi 
 
Former Director of Arab Countries Mission in London, Syria

INTER- MEDIA DIALOGUE: SEPARATING HOPE FROM REALITY

There is a commonly-held view that we live in an age where media is not only perceived as the 4th ‘power’ (after the traditional three powers namely the Legislative, the Judicial ,and the Executive) exercising authority in a given polity, but as a resurgent hegemon overshadowing and intimidating all other centres of leadership. This outbreak of media muscle is especially evident in Western societies where the exercise of ‘freedom of the press’ is historically deeply-enshrined and increasingly seen as a license to constantly push at the boundaries of what used to be called ‘responsible  journalism’. Further, the phenomenon of the globalised and multi-media driven concentration of power in the hands of media ‘emperors’has meant that ‘national’ policies are often at the mercy of agendas ingrained in the minds and egos of the new international power brokers that answer to no parliament, or judiciary or the ‘democratic’ expression of the popular will.

Can, in these circumstances, the media play a role in finding a solution to the ‘Clash of Civilisations’? We all know that fomenting and fuelling that ‘clash’ comes as much from the media (on both sides) as it does from the utterances of politicians, religious zealots, and cultural and racist bigots, not to mention acts of violence and terror that deliberately or indirectly highlight the sharp and bloodstained edge of that clash. Indeed, at its brutal essence, ‘good’ press and broadcast material from the perspective of any editor seeking to maximise ‘sales’ is nurtured by evidence of the Clash of Civilisations being alive and well and producing the necessary ‘bang’ here and there.

To get the media, especially in the highly competitive, commercially driven , and almost arrogantly independent, self-centered and power-hungry world of Western media to sign up to the ‘cause’ of inter-cultural dialogue, is a Herculean task. The asymmetry between the political , cultural, and professional environments that govern the latitudes and behaviour patterns of the two media ‘camps’ (Western on one side and Arab/Muslim on the other) also complicates the dynamics and mechanics of the desired dialogue.
However, steps and processes can be put in place, within the context of incremental progress, in order to recruit the great influence of the media and direct it towards a more positive approach to one of the greatest existential challenges of our time.

 

 
Bernadette De Visser
 
(Journalist, Netherlands

The theme of this part of the seminar is based on the question of how the media can play a role in furthering the dialogue and fermenting a solution to the clash of civilizations.

I would firstly like to state that naming the differences between East and West the ‘clash of civilizations’ is a rather unfortunate choice of words. It defines a situation that I believe is very much still in flux. I don’t think it should be referred to as a clash, lest we fall into the trap created by that same ‘adrenaline driven media format’ open to discussion here.
This forum asks what the role of the media can be in bridging the gap between the East and West, but it would also be interesting to look at if it should.
The first question is a much more easy question to answer then the second is.

Can media play a positive role?
Certainly it can
Should it, is it its task?
Well...
I come from a journalist family and was raised with a traditional idea about what a journalist is, or should be. Journalism, as my father would teach me, is a serving profession. A journalist gathers information and reworks it into something comprehendible for a larger audience and redistributes it in the most neutral way possible. Neutrality was key in the tradition I was raised with. And so is being factual. As I matured as a journalist and worked in a conflict area and wrote about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict I quickly learned that complete objectivity is an impossible task. But to aim for it an absolute must. Nowhere do you learn so well what media can do and the forces trying to influence it as in a conflict area. Both sides try to have the story told from their perspective and then you realize you are a party to the conflict too. Or rather, your part of the world is. Within that complicated reality the bare facts are the only truly reliable information and a list of facts is not a story. So unavoidably one resorts to interpreting those facts, in all integrity, but not always dealing with full disclosure from the parties involved. As a journalist one tries. Besides the facts there is another, much more difficult human trait to leave behind when doing your job. That is your cultural background. As much as you would like to see the world ‘as it is’, reality is to a large extend personal and perspectives are greatly defined by backgrounds and experiences. In other words it is extremely difficult for a Western born and raised mind to understand and see the world from an Eastern born and raised perspective, and vice-versa. It takes a lot of study, interest and experience. It is however not impossible. And this I where we come back to the topic before us today.
In answering the first topic with regards of the role of the media in the dialogue between the East and West, I believe one can state that with understanding and much knowledge a lot of miss-information or controversy can be avoided or remedied. One has to, however, understand that there might be deeply ingrained intrinsic differences in the approach to the world on both sides and one should have a mutual respect for that cultural difference. There should be no efforts to try to change the ‘other’, and one also does not have to adopt the ‘others’ behaviour, one should simply try to understand the difference and accept that difference as it is. If that knowledge is incorporated in the media, if it becomes an integral part of news giving, many problems might be resolved by themselves.
It begins with accepting that there is not just one, universally accepted way of the world that everyone should bow to. In the postcolonial West there is still a tendency to think that ‘our’ way of the world is the best way of the world. Also in the Eastern world there is a tendency to think along similar lines, often based on religious ideas.
In other words, we all have much responsibility and a great tendency to forget it, or opportunely ignore it.     
The media too has its responsibility. It should not emphasize or stimulate the schism in the world, at least not if you go by the tradition that I was raised with. Not even if that story sells better. It goes against the very essence of what I was taught good journalism is.           

 
Second Session:: “Dialogue…..Role of Journalists… New Media”
 
Peter Mechels
 
Media Expert, Belgium

Open media innovation as compass for dialogue among cultures and civilizations
What made the artists of the ancient Arab world unique is that they showed us that water is better when drunk out of a beautiful glass, and that light is more beautiful when it comes from a richly decorated chandelier. The Arab culture has historically attached immense importance to the art of writing and storytelling in a rich & beautiful way —in form as well as in content. The way to express in calligraphic forms lies at the very heart of Arab art, since the act of writing is a way of entering into contact with the divine.
We came a long way since that tremendous influence of illustration and illumination of the Arab culture via the use of paper and the spread of books. We could wonder about how the world would look like without these influences, since art has never been considered as an end itself in the Arab culture and in that perspective affected everything in its surroundings. Not only think about language, literature or poetry, but architecture, mathematics, astronomy, medicine, physics, chemistry and even philosophy.
Today, there’s already been a good amount of buzz in the media about some of the less traditional, and ever more popular, ways of telling stories and finding coverage concerning the Middle East conflict. YouTube video clips, for example, which carries footage from news reports from various Arab, Israeli, European and American outlets, are all the rage. Of course, many of those outlets aren’t shy about promoting their agendas; but the existence of a breadth of different options is in itself an advantage for viewers (users as well as producers). In an article, published by CBS News’ Public Eye, Jamal Dajani, the director of Middle East programming at LinkTV, stated the following: “... there is a major difference between the coverage on what we see here on American TV and the amount of time that has been spent —camera time to the superstar anchormen there on the ground rather than the story itself, where the Arab networks (RED: think “offline” as well as “online”) focus on the story itself, and the damage that is caused by the war, and the stories of the individuals affected by that.”
In my views, the urgent need for differentiation and exploration can be seen as a key driver in innovation, whereby this evolution progresses the dialogue between cultures and civilizations. Cultures as well as civilizations evolve along with the media’s evolution as long as they are open to do so. Economical as well as humanistic reasons guided that process through history since the very beginning of mankind. One can only wonder why we should not be able to transform these reasons for common sense in a way that we can all experience peace and welfare in its most beautiful illustrated and illuminated forms, as the ancient Arab culture showed us.

 
 
Andrea Feczko
 
Journalist, U.S.A

NEW MEDIA MEANS AND FREEDOM OF SPEECH
“FREEDOM OF SPEECH, DIALOGUE, AND DIFFERENCES IN CULTURE PRESENTED BY THE EVOLUTION OF THE MEDIA PLATFORM.”
BLOGS, WEB FORUMS, CHAT ROOMS, THE INTERNET ARE ALL SIGNS OF THE PROGRESSION OF THE MEDIA MODEL FROM PRINT TO AN INTERACTIVE MODEL. HOW DOES THIS EFFECT DIALOGUE BETWEEN CULTURES, WILL CULTURES EVOLVE WITH THE MEDIA EVOLUTION?

Overview of Online Media in America
As the American on this panel I think a good place to start is by providing an overview of new media in America.
The Internet is a massive component of American society to a degree I have yet to see in another country. Chat rooms and forums are not really used, but blogs and networking sites like YouTube and MySpace are incredibly prevalent.  Blogs and bloggers have gained legitimacy with the mainstream media as sources of breaking news and with many reporters becoming bloggers. 
To focus on journalism, the news model has been completely obliterated by the Internet, blogs, and citizen journalists.  The topic of this discussions says how the media model is shifting from print to interactive media, but in America it has almost gone full circle where websites now have their own television shows (i.e. TMZ) and bloggers are the pace makers for print (i.e. Drudge Report, Politico). It’s not an 8 hour print cycle or a 24 hour television news cycle, it is a minute by minute, even second by second updating of news driven by online contributors. In this way you could say that American culture is really making the evolution from mass media, broadcast news to a more grassroots discussion and citizen news.

Dialogue- or Lack Thereof- Between Cultures Online
The most prevalent way the Middle East is brought up in American culture is through hard news and politics, especially with politics dominating the American mainstream news.  Therefore I will focus on the dialogue between American and Middle East internet users through the political discussion.
My opinion is that although the internet is opening forms of communication and allowing users to interact directly with other cultures in a way that has never occurred in the past, I think it is an optimistic, and far stretch, to say there is a direct dialogue that is happening between the American and Arab world.
 
I believe that the Internet is moving more towards entertainment than information.
For all righteous and positive we want to be about the internet, the articles and posts that get the blogosphere going are those that are based in entertainment. For the most part the cultural “dialogue” is rather limited. Blogs are probably the best at bringing traffic and awareness to international and cultural stories, but do a horrible job at promoting intellectual and serious conversation. Blogs are, after all, heavily opinionated and enforce extreme opinions instead of moderate ones.  On the optimistic side, politically neutral forums like YouTube and social networking websites are where “progress” can be seen: people are actually discussing and changing their opinions in the comments section. Social networking sites are the future of American online media and, I think, they are also the best place for a direct dialogue between cultures in the future.

 

 
Paul Halloran
 
Journalist, UK

Ethics and survival –the journalists dilemma.

 

Working journalists live in very hard times, we are targeted not because of what we write or might write but simply because we are journalists.
Now the reasons for these attacks and murders are simple and are planned with a cruel cynicism, if you silence the journalist the media behind them takes notice.  This is most evident as a ploy today in Iraq.

Now it is fair to say and indeed stating the obvious that journalists are governed by the laws of the countries they live in-and sometimes by the laws of those they do not.
What is acceptable in one country is banned in another.  Governments control the press for a very simple reason, it gives additional leverage over the population and freezes out the voice of opposition.

This leads onto the question of ethics in journalism and its role is reporting conflict fairly.

As I mentioned earlier, every country and regime has its own set of media laws and journalists will usually be forced to comply with them.

I am a member of the National Union of Journalists in the U.K.  Many of my colleagues at this seminar are also members of this Union. It is by far the largest media organisation in the country and has a set of rules in which ethics play a major part.  Racism, religious bigotry, homophobia, sexism are some of the areas that the Union says must be avoided when reporting. To back this up there is a disciplinary procedure where recalcitrant members can be deal with and if necessary expelled. But his is as far as it goes.
For newspapers there is the Press Council which can censor and reprimand a newspaper but do little else. It is a mixture of editors, owners and public appointees and is run by a former diplomat.

So where does this leave a journalist who want to explore dialogue in the media to advance or explain Islam to the West and vice versa ?

There has in my opinion always been a bias against the Arab world in the western media built not on real experience but by imperialism, greed and uneducated feelings of superiority.

Breaking down barriers is never easy but there are ways.  All forms of cultural exchanges should be encouraged, Universities now take more Arab students than ever and this is a very good thing in those institutions that freely exchange ideas.

Finding common denominators that crosses culture is most important and the Foundation that is hosting this seminar has through its library done this.
The depth and wealth of understanding that has come down through the ages is expressed in the poetry held in this library and must surely have an appeal to all men and women with an openness to engage and a willingness to learn.

For this reason amongst others I look forward to the library being made available in English and French and online in the very near future.
I commend and salute Mr Al Babtain for having the vision and determination to have set up the Foundation and for helping to preserve this great Arab stream of poetic genious.

 
 
     

E-mail: kw@albabtainprize.org   Tel: +965 2406816 - Fax: +965 2455039

Copyright ©2008 www.albabtainprize.org