Executive Summary for The State of Broadcasting in The Middle East:
Conference Conclusions
The key difference between the established media and the blogosphere is that established media are accountable. This difference will develop as time passes because it maintains a raison d’être for the establishment as opposed to the radical internet citizen journalist. In the Middle East:
● Objective coverage Subjective reporting is not a problem peculiar to the Middle East. It is very difficult to find a truly objective channel, since all journalists operate within a cultural milieu. Fact-checking is essential in the West as well as the Middle East and whatever the source of information. What may appear to be a fair story for one group may appear intolerable to another. The job of the news editor is to try and balance the news report by, for example, the studio presenter interviewing people with differing opinions. Opinion and analysis is a separate branch of news, but the basic rules of good journalism still apply.
● While press laws are ostensibly designed to protect journalists, they can actually be used to hinder their work or even jeopardise their personal safety. This is particularly the case for local journalists who are not protected by large international media bodies.
● Political Interference is an ever greater problem. The two major satellites in the Middle East are Nilesat and Arabsat. Nilesat now carries around 540 channels. These providers are commercial businesses, which prefer not to control content, despite international pressure to stop the broadcast of extremist channels such as al-Zawra’. There is currently some discussion about creating a semi-judicial committee of satellite operators to oversee content and identify programmes inciting violence or racism. There has also been a decision in the League of Arab States under the terms of which the Arab Ministers of Information are to impose a set of ethical standards on broadcasters.
● The consequences of jamming. There is currently no cooperation between satellite companies to address the problem of signal interference. There is also no precedent on how to resolve signal interference carried out by a sovereign government. The major satellite providers should be encouraged to work together to establish similar codes of conduct and responsibility with regard to the stations they are carrying and oppose efforts by governments to limit broadcasts. As commercial enterprises, many of these companies are hesitant to sanction those few countries which jam broadcasts or otherwise attempt to prevent free transmission of programmes.
● The way forward for a freer press. An initial step in the development of this process would be the convening of an international meeting to expose the problems and advance common ground as a means of addressing them. This meeting would be held at a neutral site, so as not to prejudice its legitimacy.
● Media Credibility Index The conference recommends the creation of an audience driven Media Credibility Index. The Index would index media (in all formats) on the basis of: 1. Accuracy (with particular attention to un-sourced material) 2. Incitement 3. Balance 4. Sensitivity e.g. women’s rights, civil rights, children’s rights (the latter with regard to exposure to violent imagery) 5. Transparency (no hidden agenda)
● International Organisation. International efforts to defend journalistic freedom necessitate the creation of a new international body, an International Media Ethics Institute which would become a point of reference and research into media ethics and journalistic freedom. Member states of the United Nations would be encouraged to adopt measures to protect journalistic freedom, and in some instances to protect journalists physically. These might include offering asylum to journalists in their embassies.
● The Individual Broadcaster - Ensuring ethics in journalism are not compromised Disinformation and xenophobia are both worldwide phenomena hindering progress in broadcasting. An effective media ethics code is one way to tackle this problem. The workshop suggested the following elements should form part of such a code: 1. Write the facts as you see them 2. A story without a source is a source of trouble 3. A source is not a source when the story is based on rumour 4. When in doubt, cut it out 5. Prejudge no one 6. Be objective 7. Divorce comment from news and label it as such 8. Commentators are not exempt from the duty to be accurate 9. Never incite racial or religious division 10. Enlighten, lest we fail to understand one another
● Desensitisation Controversy over the desensitisation of children to sex and violence is not new. However, some satellite television channels in the Middle East repeatedly broadcast graphic real-life violence as a form of propaganda. A causal link between real life violence and repeated viewing of television violence has never been statistically proved
● Terrorist exploitation Satellite television can have the effect of exaggerating the reach of even a minor terrorist group, enabling it to spread its message to a much larger audience than previously possible. Following the December 2009 failed Detroit bombing, for instance, Internet footage from Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula was widely used by broadcast news networks, inadvertently dramatically exaggerated the group’s strength in the region.
The State of Broadcasting in the Middle East
The main objective of this conference, which was held to mark the first twenty years of Arab satellite television, was to draw together experts from the field of Middle East broadcasting in order to gain insights into the challenges and key trends in broadcasting in the region. The one-day conference was followed by a second day of workshops which tackled themes of objectivity, political interference, technical interference and disinformation. These were identified prior to the conference as the key areas of concern for those operating in this sphere.
Part 1: Summary of Conference proceedings
Session One Middle East Satellite Television: Objective coverage or media myopia? Chair William Morris Next Century Foundation. Panel: Jim Muir - BBC, Beirut Falah Al Thabhi, Al Hurra TV Iraq Jeena Al Ammo – Oman TV, formerly Al Hurra Ben Wedeman CNN
Session Two Political Interference - censorship, intimidation and assassination Chair Robin Williamson - International Communications Forum. Panel: Bahielden HZ Elibrachy – Ibrachy & Dermarkar, Cairo. Soran Aziz APTN (Alirqiya TV). Itai Anghel – Channel 2 Jihad Ali Ballout, Communications Manager, BBC Arabic
Session Three The consequences of jamming and of the deportation of journalists Chair Louisa Brooke - Senior World Affairs Analyst, the BBC. Panel: Salah Hamza – Chief Technical Officer, Nilesat. Adel Darwish – Broadcaster
Session Four Ethics of Broadcasting – the impact of xenophobia and disinformation
Chair Russell Twisk – Editor at Large, The Reader’s Digest. Panel: Maysa Baransi-siniora and Mossi Raz - Peace Radio Israel Abdalrahman Dheyab Abdullah- Al Sharqiyah Issam Abdullah – formerly MBC and BBC Arabic
• Session One: Middle East Satellite Television: Objective coverage or media myopia?
The main point emphasised by speakers in this session was that subjective reporting is not a problem peculiar to the Middle East and that it is very difficult to find a truly objective channel, since all journalists operate within a cultural milieu. If this is born in mind when viewing or using the raw data provided by media outlets in the Middle East then they will operate as crucial sources of information and primary data. Speakers agreed fact-checking is essential in the West as well as the Middle East and whatever the source of information.
There are also a number of other pressures that impact on the objectivity of any channel. These include commercial interests and political or ideological agendas. Funding is one way of influencing media. Falah al-Thabhi of Al Hurra said Iran, Saudi Arabia and Syria use money to influence media in Iraq and thereby sway public opinion, He contrasted this with his own US government-funded station and said he had not encountered official pressure to conform to any specific agenda. Al-Thabhi highlighted further difficulties. Even while he felt no ideological or political pressure, he experienced suspicion among Iraqis of collaboration with foreign-linked media. This was the primary reason why the channel has been unable to give more comprehensive coverage of Iraqi Sunni issues. Before 2007, it was hard to make contact with Sunni figures and some of those who did appear on the channel were later assassinated. The Iraq case illustrates the challenge of maintaining objectivity and giving a platform to all sides in the midst of violent conflict. It also illustrates the personal risk taken by journalists in trying to ensure this objective coverage.
A further point raised was that while press laws are ostensibly designed to protect journalists, they can actually be used to hinder their work or even jeopardise their personal safety. In cases such as the United Arab Emirates and Egypt, the press laws tend to restrict rather than protect. In Egypt, the position of journalists is further undermined by the ongoing use of emergency laws. Ben Wedeman of CNN said that Egypt’s press laws are clearly severe, there is a tendency to use the wide-ranging powers accorded the police and government by the emergency laws to intimidate and legitimise intimidation, physical bullying and fining of journalists. This creates a climate of fear from which emerges a culture of self-censorship that hinders objective and honest reporting. This is particularly the case for local journalists who are not protected by large international media bodies.
• Session Two: Political Interference – censorship, intimidation and assassination
The first session identified the two main problems in objective broadcasting as foreign interference and censorship/intimidation. This was developed in the second session which addressed the degree to which the work of journalists is at risk of censorship and the journalists themselves are often the direct target of violence. Examples were given of the deliberate targeting of journalists in Serbia and Iraq. Beyond personal safety, the lack of freedom of speech and the tendency for television channels and newspapers to be owned or aligned to political blocs means that media are often used to influence the public rather than to simply inform.
Speakers identified a major new form of censorship - direct interference with satellite broadcasts though jamming. There has been massive growth in the number of satellite channels and there is increasing recognition of the potential of such channels, in combination with the spread of Internet technology, to reach more people. One result is the at least partial loss of government monopolies over media. A further result is the large number of extremist channels now being broadcast. The two major satellites in the Middle East are Nilesat and Arabsat. Nilesat now carries around 540 channels. These providers are commercial businesses, which prefer not to control content, despite international pressure to stop the broadcast of extremist channels such as al-Zawra’.
However, it has become increasingly clear that it is in their interest to adapt to new rules to maintain their profitability. Both regional and western governments are now pressuring satellite companies to play a role in controlling content. In the past standards of regulation have been weak and there is currently some discussion about creating a semi-judicial committee of satellite operators to oversee content and identify programmes inciting violence or racism. There has also been a decision in the League of Arab States under the terms of which the Arab Ministers of Information are to impose a set of ethical standards on broadcasters.
Despite these challenges, speakers argued that satellite television has had an impact on the social/cultural taboos that contribute to self-censorship and has challenged some political red lines. In some respects it has also had a negative impact - encouraging a quantity of channels of dubious quality, each of which is owned by someone who often has an agenda and is also concerned with being commercially successful. This pressure encourages channels to appeal to popular discourse. In Israel, there is a chauvinistic tendency among a portion of the media that runs counter to efforts for achieving a peaceful solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.
• Session Three: The consequences of jamming and of the deportation of journalists
Speakers in this session highlighted the need to tackle jamming of satellite channels if broadcasters are to overcome political interference. Salah Hamza of Nilesat pointed out that a signal cannot be blocked, but can be distorted by overlaying it with a signal at the same frequency. This means it is impossible to distort an individual channel, but only the signal of a whole bouquet of channels. So when BBC Persian was targeted on Eutelsat, fourteen channels in total were affected. One hour after BBC Persian was taken off air, the interference stopped. There is currently no cooperation between satellite companies to address the problem of signal interference. There is also no precedent on how to resolve signal interference carried out by a sovereign government. There are commercial reasons why a satellite provider would not want to prosecute a government and furthermore a government cannot be sued except in its national courts, Hamza pointed out. There is some pressure for satellite providers to boycott channels but generally there is reluctance on the part of the providers to act as a political entity.
On the question of the deportation of journalists, Adel Darwish noted that governments will often deport foreign journalists or correspondents, but also use subtler methods: not renewing visas; refusal to grant visas in the first place; or granting visas deliberately too late to allow a specific news even to be covered.
• Session Four: Ethics of Broadcasting – the impact of xenophobia and disinformation
The main focus of this session was the hindering effect of disinformation and xenophobia on achieving an Israeli Palestinian peace settlement. Maysa Baransi-siniora and Mossi Raz established the joint Israeli-Arab station “All For Peace Radio”. The channel, funded mainly by America, Germany and the Netherlands, currently has tens of thousands of listeners online. However, the impact is hard to measure. A decision was taken to split the frequencies – one for Arabic and one for Hebrew – and to tailor content to both sides.
Abdalrahman Dheyab, correspondent for the pan-Arab station Al Sharqiyah, also stood as a candidate in this year’s parliamentary elections in Iraq. He argues that since 2003, the new media system in Iraq often has made journalists victims and the media is being exploited for political reasons. Its prime objective is not to serve people but to influence them, he said.
Part 2: Outcomes of the Workshops
1. Government and Broadcasting: The way forward for a freer press. Led by Hon. Mark Hambley - Former Ambassador to Lebanon former US Spokesman for the Middle East: How do broadcasters respond to censorship, jamming, intimidation and deportation?
2. Broadcasting Organisations in a safer world: Mechanisms to foster balanced press coverage. Led by Adel Darwish - Broadcaster: How do broadcasting organisations maintain integrity around disinformation and political bias?
3. The Individual Broadcaster: Ensuring ethics in journalism are not compromised. Led by William Morris - The Next Century Foundation: How do broadcasting organisations reinforce peace and not hatred?
4. The Mission of Satellite Television: Governments have been challenged by satellite TV. Is that its purpose or is the BBC approach of attacking social taboos more pertinent? Led by David Powell – Deputy Head of the Media Outreach Center, US State Department
• Session One: Government and Broadcasting: The way forward for a freer press
The working group concluded that process to increase media freedom in the Middle East would be served by using an institutional model to promote journalistic freedom and integrity and to enshrine universally accepted principles concerning the safety and ability of the media to report freely, whilst undermining hostile state intervention in the media. An initial step in the development of this process would be the convening of an international meeting to expose the problems and advance common ground as a means of addressing them. This meeting would be held at a neutral site, such as the Initiatives of Change in Switzerland, so as not to prejudice its legitimacy in the eyes of foreign governments. The meeting or conference would then operate on the Davos model , and would include a wide-ranging variety of stakeholders:
• Columnists, journalists and other media practitioners, including bloggers, Internet news agencies, and other non-orthodox elements
• Commercial media groups
• Satellite broadcasters
• Print media
• Representatives of government,
• Representatives of civil society
• Technical experts
Improving the Media Environment
An improvement in the media environment in the Middle East would be facilitated by a concerted international effort, perhaps using the aforementioned conference or international meeting as a starting point, to combat the most overt form of negative state interference with the media. Such behaviour consists of, but is not limited to:
• Assassination
• Jamming
• Harassment and Intimidation
• Deportation
Media Credibility Index
One outcome of the conference would be the creation of a Media Credibility Index. The Index would index media (in all formats) on the basis of:
• Transparency
• Resourcefulness
• Ethical Code
• Accuracy of facts
A media credibility index would act as incentive for national governments to uphold journalistic freedom through both reward and censure. The process of censure and reward would impact upon the international standing of Middle Eastern countries, as most Middle Eastern countries do seek to develop and encourage a positive reputation within the broader international community.
International Organisation
International efforts to defend journalistic freedom within an officiated framework might necessitate the creation of a new international body, possible working under the auspices of the United Nations. One idea put forward was the creation of an International Media Ethics Institute which would become a point of reference and research into media ethics and journalistic freedom. Such a body would be able to compile a Media Creditability Index and act as bridge between non-governmental civil society and international government.
The International Media Ethics Institute would also produce research papers and engage members in sector-specific initiatives. The International Media Ethics Institute would also hold periodic (most likely annual) conferences covering media issues. The output of these conferences would be disseminated and live-streamed through satellite television the internet and social media.
By making maximum use of new media for propagation of conference output, the findings, conclusions and reports of the conference would further evade governmental censorship. Furthermore, if senior governmental figures from around the world were to attend such a conference, it would become increasingly difficult for individual governments to justify its censorship.
Member states of the United Nations would be encouraged to adopt measures to protect journalistic freedom, and in some instances to protect journalists physically. These might include offering asylum to journalists in their embassies.
In addition, governments should be encouraged to implement laws, rules and regulations concerning press freedoms and the sanctity of journalism as a profession. Many Middle Eastern governments, for example, have ample laws on the books which address these issues but which have not been brought into force.
Similarly, the major satellite providers should be encouraged to work together to establish similar codes of conduct and responsibility with regard to the stations they are carrying and oppose efforts by governments to limit broadcasts. As commercial enterprises, many of these companies are hesitant to sanction those few countries which jam broadcasts or otherwise attempt to prevent free transmission of programmes.
• Session Two: Broadcasting Organisations in a Safer World – Mechanisms to foster Balanced Press Coverage
This working group debated the question of whether news can ever be neutral or balanced? They concluded it is possible for news treatment to be neutral, but it cannot be guaranteed to be balanced, because everyone always has a “side” to take.
TV/ Radio:
Whilst it is preferable to make each news item balanced, this goal is often unrealistic and laden with many inherent difficulties: What may appear to be a fair story for one group may appear intolerable to another. The job of the news editor is to try and balance the news report by, for example, the studio presenter interviewing people with differing opinions on the subject in a report. Opinion and analysis is a separate branch of news, but the basic rules of good journalism still apply.
Training of Journalists:
A fund should be created to invest in the training of journalists. A committee should be established to ensure that this fund is administered correctly. In the UK, the fund would be administered by the journalists unions, NGO’s and other similar organisations. Some of the BBC licence fee could be apportioned to this fund. There could also be a membership fee for the fund. The fund would also enable journalists to conduct research.
The training of the journalists will be undertaken by a separate committee established under the umbrella of the fund. The journalists will be trained by experienced members of the International Media Council, the British media and NGO’s. Journalists should be brought over from the Arab world and trained in the UK for about one year. Apprenticeships should be set up to train foreign-based journalists and those within the UK,
• Session Three: The Individual Broadcaster - Ensuring ethics in journalism are not compromised
Disinformation and xenophobia are both worldwide phenomena hindering progress in broadcasting. An effective media ethics code is one way to tackle this problem. The workshop suggested the following elements should form part of such a code:
The Media Ethics Code:
1. Write the facts as you see them
2. A story without a source is a source of trouble
3. A source is not a source when the story is based on rumour
4. When in doubt, cut it out
5. Prejudge no one
6. Be objective
7. Divorce comment from news and label it as such
8. Commentators are not exempt from the duty to be accurate
9. Never incite racial or religious division
10. Enlighten, lest we fail to understand one another
It was strongly felt that an audience-driven Media Credibility Index might facilitate the development and implementation of such a code. Two indices were discussed as possible ways to facilitate this end.
The Media Credibility Index - Criteria:
1. Accuracy (with particular attention to un-sourced material)
2. Incitement
3. Balance
4. Sensitivity e.g. women’s rights, civil rights, children’s rights (the latter with regard to exposure to violent imagery)
5. Transparency (no hidden agenda)
The Iraqis in the group felt that a Media Credibility Index was of little value without a corresponding Media Freedom Index which focuses on the working environment. This should not be merely censorship focussed like that attempted by Freedom House, nor should it be merely press freedom focussed like that initiated by Journalists without Borders. This should be journalist driven. Thus:
The Press Intimidation Index - Criteria:
1. Assassination and violence
2. Legal repression
3. Denial (or delay) of visa rights
4. Loss of job (closure of bureau)
5. Denial of access to sources of Information
An independent, international body was suggested to take these ideas forward. Existing structures could implement it. Governments should be solicited to come on board in tangible ways (e.g. by agreeing to grant asylum in their embassies to journalists who become severely persecuted and whose lives may be in danger).
• Session Four: The Mission of Satellite Television - Governments have been challenged by satellite TV. Is that its purpose or is the BBC approach of attacking social taboos more pertinent?
This working group discussed the problem that many television channels in the Middle East exist only to further the political agenda of certain governments, groupings (religious, ethnic or political) or powerful individuals. These channels may propagate views from across the political spectrum. However, as the basic function of these channels is agitation and propaganda, the news content is often marred by disinformation, incitement and lack of balance.
Private enterprise
The group also identified the problem that private, profit-driven satellite television networks which have no national public service remit lack original content. The reason is that Western television programmes, often with much higher production values, can be licensed by a regional satellite broadcaster at a much lower cost than creating original content locally.
Furthermore, locally-produced content will either be made cheaply or be based on easy-to-export Western formulae, The “X Factor” format, for example, stimulated other pan-regional Arab talent shows. But local cultural development on television may be hindered by this lack of original programming. For the time being, local content is still predominantly produced by the established terrestrial TV stations.
Effects of foreign TV
The working group discussed the effect of satellite television in exposing the Middle East to Western culture and lifestyles, often in exaggerated or distorted forms. This cultural disparity between the domestic social order and imported western culture can cause frustration in certain segments of society. It can also give a warped view of Western culture, for instance leading many in the Middle East to consider Western women to have loose morals because of the way they are depicted.
Debate and Education
Exploration of social issues on satellite television has sparked more public debate in Middle Eastern countries of issues such as terrorism, female emancipation and religious freedom. Satellite television also has the capacity to educate: unbiased news coverage can educate the general public constructively, and socially-aware soap operas can educate the public about social issues in a less overt way. This means of debate can educate the young on subjects they are unable to discuss in the traditional family environment. However, the educational value of television stations dedicated to agitation and propaganda can be extremely detrimental to social development.
Desensitisation
Controversy over the desensitisation of children to sex and violence is not new. In fact, Plato proposed the banning of poets from the ideal republic, due to their ability to corrupt young minds. However, it is certain that television, particularly in multi channel format, can broadcast disturbing imagery at a vastly inflated volume and to ever expanding global audiences.
Some satellite television channels in the Middle East will repeatedly broadcast graphic real-life violence as a form of propaganda, incitement of value reinforcement, for example the broadcast of victims of Israeli aggression on the Hamas-controlled Al Aqsa TV. A causal link between real life violence and repeated viewing of television violence has never been statistically proved. But the working group discussed the use of such violence as a means of incitement, perhaps in conjunction with parental and societal influences.
Terrorist exploitation
Satellite television can have the effect of exaggerating the reach of even a minor terrorist group, enabling it to spread its message to a much larger audience than previously possible. Following the December 2009 failed Detroit bombing, for instance, Internet footage from Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula was widely used by broadcast news networks, inadvertently dramatically exaggerated the group’s strength in the region.
The Future for Middle Eastern Satellite television
The working group concluded that satellite television in the Middle East will likely continue to develop its local and pan-regional platforms. These two are not mutually exclusive and do not necessarily compete for the same broadcast space. Another likely variant to Middle Eastern broadcasting will be the growth in international partnerships between local and global communications providers such as BBC World or News International (which has not had significant market penetration in the region as yet)
Multi-platform broadcasting
In the future Middle Eastern broadcasting is likely to follow the pattern that has been set by Western media outlets in diversifying their output onto the Internet, digital radio, mobile phone and other forms of new media. Multi-platform broadcasting is likely the increase loyalty towards particular networks as consumers are likely to become attached to particular online formats. Both Al Jazeera and BBC Arabic now have substantial online presences and loyal consumer bases. Multiplatform news consumption has the effect of increasing the number of times content is accessed, but dramatically decreasing each individual viewing as consumers tailor and customise their media viewing to their own habits.
The growth in multi-platform broadcasting will force the advertising industry in the Middle East to adapt and possibly force the pan-regional satellite broadcasters into the ownership of individual wealthy investors. This will take place as the advertising industry in the Middle East adapts to the general state of uncertainty in which it finds itself during the transfer period form old to new media.
Humour and Satire
The satire and humour in Middle Eastern societies is notably absent from the air waves. The working group concluded that after many decades of authoritarianism, broadcasters are reluctant to engage to risk censure by satirical programming. Even when Middle Eastern stations are not subject to strict censorship or controls, the staff are still reluctant to engage in mockery of public figures and political humour.
This state of affairs is gradually changing, however, as the group heard. Palestine TV has introduced a satirical programme, which has become very popular. Kuwait’s recent banning of a political comedy programme, however, illustrates the long way to go before authoritarian culture allows space for satire.
Inward or outward looking?
Many in the region believe modern media will make the population more open to the outside world, since modern media works together with the process of globalisation. But the group concluded that the question of whether it will make the Middle East more outward looking or more insular is still open.
