martedì 6 ottobre 2009

Oriente.com a Roma il 13 ottobre per “Capitale digitale”

Il meglio del web 2.0 arabo si dà appuntamento a Roma la settimana prossima per “Oriente.com“, il secondo incontro del ciclo “Capitale digitale:idee per il futuro“, un progetto prodotto e curato da Telecom Italia, Wired Italia e la Fondazione Romaeuropa.

“Oriente.com” vuole aprire una finestra di discussione sul mondo arabo digitale. Dopo la recente acquisizione del portale arabo Maktoob da parte di Yahoo!, gli occhi dei venture capitalist del mondo intero sono puntati sulle start up arabe. La Giordania è stata ribattezzata “Silicon Valley araba”, con la sua popolazione giovane e sempre più impegnata a dare vita a nuove start up che operano sul versante dell’innovazione tecnologica e della creatività online. La Regina Rania è una dei “twitterati” più famosi del mondo, mentre la cultura dei 140 caratteri si impone anche in lingua araba, grazie a Watwet, il Twitter arabo. In tutto il mondo arabo i giovani –il 70% della popolazione araba è sotto i 25 anni- usano il web per costruire innovazione, aprire nuovi business, fare politica, mobilitare alla causa ambientale.

“Oriente.com” apre il dibattito su questo nuovo mondo arabo digitale, riflettendo sulle dinamiche del web 2.0 e sulle possibili collaborazioni all’interno del Mediterraneo con tre illustri ospiti provenienti dalla Regione:

- Laith M. Zraikat (Giordania) è co-fondatore e chief product officer di Jeeran.com, la più grande online community del mondo arabo, 1,5 milioni di utenti registrati e oltre 7 milioni di visitatori al mese. Jeeran è una sorta di “Facebook” all’araba, dove gli utenti si scambiano contenuti da loro prodotti, rigorosamente in lingua araba. Fondato da Laith con un gruppo di amici del college, Jeeran è il perfetto esempio di un modello di start up “alla Silicon Valley” che però si sviluppa tenendo conto del contesto arabo da cui proviene e opera.

- Nadine Toukan (Giordania) viene dal mondo della produzione di fiction, ha lavorato presso la Royal Film Commission giordana dove ha curato il programma “Emerging Arab filmmakers” insieme al Sundance Institute. Nadine sta sviluppando l’offerta di contenuti multimediali per la società giordana Arabtelemedia, vincitrice di un Emmy award per la sua fiction tv “L’invasione”. Blogger appassionata, è co-fondatrice e tribe-leader di UrdunMubdi3 (Creative Jordan), un social network dove le discussioni online diventano progetti operativi sul versante della creatività e dell’innovazione. Il suo prossimo progetto è uno show multipiattaforma sull’imprenditoria e le industrie creative in Giordania.

- Habib Haddad (Libano) è il co-fondatore di Yamli.com, una start up che fornisce strumenti per il potenziamento dell’uso della lingua araba su Internet. Il World Economic Forum ha recentemente insignito Habib dell’onorificenza di Young Global Leader 2009, e il suo nome compare fra i 30 più promettenti degli imprenditori arabi under 30, secondo la classifica di Arabian Business. Habib divide il suo tempo fra il Libano e Boston, dove Yamli.com ha sede.

Ho il piacere e l’onore di coordinare quest’incontro, la prima volta che a Roma si discute di questi argomenti. Devo ringraziare Salvo Mizzi per aver appoggiato il progetto e Gilda Morelli per aver fatto si che ci potessimo davvero incontrare tutti a Roma (non è mica facile far viaggiare gli arabi, anche se sono imprenditori di successo..). Sono orgogliosa che la mia città ospiti un meeting di questo livello e spero che sia occasione per porre le basi di un dialogo imprenditoriale, all’insegna della creatività e dell’innovazione nel Mediterraneo. Abbiamo più che mai bisogno di una nostra “via mediterranea al web 2.0″ che tenga conto delle specificità dell’imprenditoria mediterranea. Aprire un tavolo di confronto con il mondo arabo, che si sta dimostrando molto attivo sul versante delle start up tecnologiche, rappresenta un primo, concreto segnale.

Appuntamento all’Opificio Telecom, Via dei Magazzini generali 20/A, 13 ottobre dalle 18 alle 20.

http://mediaoriente.com/2009/10/05/oriente-com-a-roma-il-13-ottobre-per-capitale-digitale/

Radio Sawa: America's new adventure in radio broadcasting

Issue 2, Summer 2007

By Sam Hilmy
According to its founders, Radio Sawa was designed to report the news 'straight up' so listeners could 'decide for themselves'.

May, 2007. In April 2002, the U.S. Government launched an audacious new Arabic language radio station aimed at the countries of the Middle East and North Africa. The round-the-clock broadcasts, oddly dubbed Radio Sawa, replaced at a single stroke the respected brand name of the Voice of America's Arabic Service, which had for over a half century, in war and peace, provided the region with comprehensive full service programming.

A predominantly pop music service designed to appeal to youth, Sawa was established at the behest of American commercial media mogul Norman Pattiz who, until his resignation at the end of 2006, was a member of the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG), an independent U.S. federal agency. The BBG oversees all non-military U.S. Government-funded broadcast outlets. To run the new station, the BBG under Chairman Kenneth Tomlinson (a former chairman of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, editor of Reader's Digest and director of the VOA who also recently abandoned his government position under a cloud of criticism for mismanagement) founded and funded the Middle East Broadcasting Networks (MBN), a non-profit corporation. MBN also operates Sawa's younger twin Arabic TV satellite channel Alhurra.

Mr. Tomlinson has publicly described his friend and colleague Mr. Pattiz as "the father of Radio Sawa." After the station was launched, Mr. Pattiz described it in a public forum in ecstatic terms: "It sounded so different and it was so appealing—because it really sounds like a Western contemporary music station, a pop station."
Sawa's Mission

Like any successful big-time business executive, Mr. Pattiz commissioned a survey and "a lot of advance research" before embarking on the costly, large-scale project of a 24/7 Arabic language radio station. The Middle East survey results, according to him, showed three things: (a) "over 60 percent of the population ... is under the age of 30," (b) "the indigenous media, especially radio ... everything was pretty dull and pretty drab, and it sounded like government radio," and (c) "people were interested in something that didn't sound like government radio." Mr. Pattiz decided that this was what businessmen call "the hole in the marketplace." In order to fill this "hole" with his product, Radio Sawa, he needed ample sources of cash and the most modern broadcast facilities to reach the audience with a clear signal. The new station cost the American taxpayer $34 million in its first year. He secured clear FM transmission to most Arab countries and a powerful medium wave to the rest. The VOA's Arabic Service cost the U.S. Government less than $5 million annually and transmitted its programs on a limited medium wave and a few short waves at the time it was replaced by Sawa.

Mr. Pattiz described his new station's mission as "... reporting the news straight up and letting the listeners ...decide for themselves." He said that in addition to Sawa's journalistic mission, it aspires to be "an example of a free press in the American tradition." He added: "We generally play an Arabic pop song followed by a Western pop song. And then we'll have news, five to ten minutes in length, twice an hour, with headlines at the top and bottom of the hour."
Program Components[1]

Sawa's constant on-air slogan boasts about "the loveliest tunes and the latest news." It never identifies itself as an American station or where it broadcasts from. Its round-the-clock airtime is divided into roughly 20 percent news and 80 percent pop music. Everything the listener hears other than the music is called The World Now. This rubric encompasses the presentation of hard news, light news, bromide and topical features and interviews, sports and so forth. The only exception is a daily 30-minute news program called Iraq and the World, half of which is rerun an hour later. No news-related material ever interrupts, or is incorporated within, the music portion—no matter how urgent the breaking news. Sawa does not carry discrete, identifiable "programs" with distinct titles, individual star talent and performers, music themes and thematic focus. No news "bulletins" are heard alerting listeners to momentous world events.

Unlike its plethora of field reporters and stringers, the station's studio readers, anchor persons and host announcers are never identified by name. This anonymity applies to the readers of widely scattered promos outside the news portions, plugging for Sawa, its website and (since February 2004) its sister TV channel Alhurra.
News Content

Contrary to Mr. Pattiz's claim, Sawa never carries heads at the top and bottom of the hour. It provides news only twice every hour, usually five minutes every quarter after the hour and a minute or two of headlines every quarter before the hour. The five-minute segments are variously called "newscast" or "full newscast" or "detailed newscast." The headlines are always presented as "summary." The full-length news may occasionally run up to 10, 15 or even 30 minutes, as in the exceptional case of the daily "Iraq and the World." Therefore, I would estimate that the station provides between 7 and 17 minutes of world news per hour. A fair and generous average would then be 10 minutes per hour, which brings the total news time in a 24-hour cycle to 240 minutes. This is less than half the 600-minute daily claim made by Sawa officials in media interviews.

All "full newscasts" begin with three to four headlines, which sometimes pose a

A Radio Sawa presenter is put through his paces.

confusing problem for listeners: the first headline may not necessarily be a reference to the first item in the body of the newscast, or an opening head is interrogatively formulated in a misleading and tabloidish style that does not accurately or fully reflect the substance of the news item itself. Another news-related inconsistency has to do with repeating the main headlines or the lead head at the conclusion of newscasts, and how to close a news program. Sawa's newsreaders seem to follow their own whims in this regard. In fact, some readers do not even close before the studio engineer plays the usual taped lead-out, "We relay the event to you in sound so you can form a complete picture." The headline news always ends with a prerecorded exhortation: "Stay in touch with the world—(through) The World Now." At times even these lead-outs are skipped before moving on to the pop songs.

A more serious problem that plagues Sawa's news handling goes to the core of evaluating priorities and exercising professional judgment regarding the relative significance of world events. Most and sometimes all news stories in one newscast are jettisoned in favor of another set of items in the next news presentation an hour later. This is done with shocking disregard for news value or breaking news. Rarely does a listener hear major stories repeated from hour to hour after proper updating or rewriting to freshen up the next program. Such a cavalier approach to news material distorts the overall picture of world happenings for the vast majority of listeners who normally zero in on specific time slots instead of staying glued to a station all day. Sawa's practice also reflects ignorance of what should constitute a day's major news leads. There are always major news developments that require coverage in more than just one newscast.

Although on rare occasions a listener would hear a flawless, impeccable, rich and seamless newscast with a perfect lineup, ample voice actualities and anchor confidence, the more prevalent practice gives listeners a messy picture of thematic and topical chaos. Related items on one event can be separated by several unrelated items. Big news developments on tragic events can be used as closers and, conversely, a light routine item or a local insignificant item may be given a prominent place in a newscast. Almost any news development can be used by Sawa as a lead. On a day full of important news, Sawa leads one newscast with a Jordanian government announcement that Amman has not decided whether to resume commercial flights to Baghdad. The lead story of another newscast quotes the London Daily The Independent as saying that the Bush administration had advance knowledge of the 9/11 attack, but no official American response is provided to give the story balance and context. An hour later the station drops the item altogether.
Covering Iraq

Let's now turn our attention to a major news story of global significance that has preoccupied the world media for more than four years—the invasion and occupation of Iraq—and track Sawa's treatment of it.

When American and British forces launched their air and ground offensives in the spring of 2003, practically the whole world was calling this pre-emptive military action an “invasion” of a sovereign nation. Yet the word “invasion” disappeared from Sawa's lexicon. When Baghdad fell and the US-led coalition settled down to run the country, the entire world (including the United Nations, the media and even the Bush administration) admitted it was an “occupation”. Yet Sawa's broadcasts avoided the word “occupation” like the plague and rarely referred to Iraqi civilian victims of air raids and other military operations. When anarchy, lawlessness and looting engulfed Iraq after the regime change, the American station continued to beam its customary pop songs and perfunctory news that lacked in-depth coverage and responsible discussion. The looting and devastation prompted Dr. Robert Darnton, professor of European history at Princeton University, to tell The Washington Post: "As many have remarked, the Mongol invasion of A.D. 1258 resulted in less damage to Iraqi civilization than the American invasion of 2003." Sawa's news coverage, however, had no time for such views of events.

A few months into the occupation, America's first head of the postwar mission in Iraq, retired general Jay Garner was unceremoniously replaced with Ambassador Paul Bremer. The new top administrator quickly started running the vanquished country by decree: he disbanded the Iraqi army, banned the Baath party and fired all its members from government jobs, closed down most of the country's industries, and appointed his favorite Iraqis to the new Governing Council. These momentous developments and their dire consequences for both occupier and occupied received scant, superficial treatment from Sawa. The station was busy focusing on President Bush's rosy predictions and Defense Secretary Rumsfeld's unreal statements that "stuff happens" and America "will not impose a government on Iraq." In the meantime, former U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan's special envoy to Baghdad Lakhdar Brahimi publicly described Bremer as the new "dictator of Iraq... Nothing happens without his agreement." But Sawa was telling its listeners about the great help Brahimi was giving "the Coalition" to prepare Iraq for a democratic future. And the station's field reporters initially maintained complete silence about the torture and shocking abuses inside Abu Ghraib prison of which Iraqis were already aware (through word of mouth and complaints by international human rights organizations) long before the American TV program 60 Minutes broke the news.

Eventually, as the situation in Iraq deteriorated, Radio Sawa expanded its coverage with the inauguration of a 30-minute daily program called Iraq and the World at 10:15 PM Baghdad time, and a 15-minute version an hour later. This news and opinion roundup does neither Iraq nor the United States a favor, and should perhaps be called Iraq and Iraq, because the rest of the world is non-existent in it—except for a fleeting and parochial reference. It also suffers from the same shortcomings of all Sawa news programs. Quality control is very poor. The program airs dozens of voiced news pieces and long interviews from field reporters around the country without evaluating, auditing, double-checking and editing them in advance. The results: poor or contradictory sourcing, outdated information, unprofessional language and duplicated material. The show also suffers from lack of preplanning and a chaotic format, allowing airtime to become a platform for emotional, unrestrained views. Any major news story that is not Iraq-related is either completely ignored or marginalized. A good example is hurricane Katrina which devastated New Orleans and the Gulf coast of the U.S. in 2005. Even the Israel-Lebanese Hizbullah war in the summer of 2006 received only inadequate and indirect mention with no reportage about the intense fighting or world reaction.
Sound and Music

Sawa uses an impressive number of voices on the air, both male and female, as studio talent and field reporters. The professional quality of their delivery and their mastery of broadcast language, however, are very uneven, ranging from the highly effective and convincing to the very poor, from the smooth and natural to the awkward and halting, from the authoritative and pleasant to the pompous and pretentious. The impact of these voices on and receptivity by the listeners, therefore, vary widely and depend to a large extent on matching each to the reading assignment he or she is given. Aside from field reporters, performers are kept anonymous and the gifted stars among them are not optimally utilized as a tool to build up faithful fans of specific program features.

Music is used thematically by Sawa to identify the news. The theme for newscasts is satisfactory and utilitarian but somewhat pedestrian and, after a few weeks of listening, becomes tiresome to the ear. The theme for the summaries is annoying, distracting and overdramatic. It is held for the length of the summary and the level is brought up deafeningly between individual headlines. Some music stingers[2] are also used in a post-modern video game digital-age fashion to accompany echo chamber promos or sloganeering catch phrases. The latter include such things as, "You listen to us, we listen to you," or, "From the ocean to the gulf, we are Sawa (i.e., together)." At times the station mentions its website or a telephone number or a few sound bites from listeners in praise of Sawa or expressing opinions on some innocuous or provocative subject.

There is minimal use of the sophisticated craft of radio production to enhance program impact. Rarely does a listener feel truly moved by a smooth forward flow of broadcast material. Nor does one always feel comfortable with the timing and placement of recorded inserts and promos. The station seems to have difficulty matching style to substance, harmonizing sound with words, utilizing a production device to enhance the effect of a program on a target audience living in non-Anglo-Saxon cultural environment.
Pop Songs

This is a programming area that consumes about 80 percent of Sawa's airtime. It should logically deserve a commensurate level of attention, talent and resources. Yet after listening to endless hours of alternating Arabic and so-called "Western" pop songs, and trying to deduce some coherent, professional whole, we discover what a neglected, drifting wasteland all this airtime is. Some egregious weaknesses are: The music portions have no detectable character, personality or identity. The hourly segmentations cannot even be properly described as "programs" because they lack beginning and end that define the nature and flavor of the contents. Nobody is in charge, and there is no star quality talent who might act as a guide to the listeners through the various component parts. Almost none of the artists and songs are identified. No informative narrative is ever provided to enlighten us about the types of songs played, the dates of issuance, the extent of their popularity and other distinguishing facts. Talk interruptions come without artful, smooth transition flow or thematic unity. In the transition from one song to the next, there is more often than not a definite jarring clash in rhythm, melody, tone, lyrical connotation, voice quality and vocal range. Clocking groups of songs in any music period seems to receive little attention from producers and programmers. As a result, when time comes for The World Now and the last song has to be faded for the news introduction cartridge, the ending is frequently mishandled by cutting off in the middle of unfinished lyrics.
Illusion and Reality


The founders of Sawa were convinced from the outset that, in order for their new broadcasting project to accomplish a successful reach to Arab audiences by "marrying the mission to the market," they needed to separate the station from the Voice of America. The latter's mandate was too strict and broad for them. The VOA was required to adhere to its Charter, enacted into law decades earlier, whose operative paragraphs are:

(1) VOA will serve as a consistently reliable and authoritative source of news. VOA news will be accurate, objective and comprehensive.

(2) VOA will represent America, not any single segment of American society, and will therefore present a balanced and comprehensive projection of American thought and institutions.

(3) VOA will present the policies of the United States clearly and effectively, and will also present responsible discussion and opinions on those policies.

To be sure, Sawa officials continued in their promotional material to pay lip service to their commitment "to broadcasting accurate, timely and relevant news about the Middle East, the world and the United States, to the highest standards of journalism, as well as the free marketplace of ideas, respect for the intelligence and culture of its audiences, and a style that is upbeat, modern and forward-looking." But their real objective was to attract the Arab World's "youthful population" with pop songs and keep them tuned to the station. In terms of current affairs content, Sawa has never attempted to focus adequately on anything but parochial backyard Arab news which marginalizes major American and world developments.

Pop is a major successful commercial enterprise that targets a wide youthful common denominator, but it alone cannot present the picture of America which American public diplomacy is intended to present—that of a country with rich, multifaceted culture, revolutionary ideals, commercial vitality, history-making values of human rights and social justice, and standards of transparent government. Nor is pop music what young Arab needs today to form a more enlightened view of their societies and the world, or to build a more participatory society firmly rooted in human values. Pop does not attract potential future leaders or opinion makers. It does not build credibility.

News of the non-Arab world almost always plays second fiddle on Sawa's airtime. The station has literally scores of news reporters in Arab capitals, especially in Iraq, but only one part-time reporter in the United States who provides reportage from the State Department or at times from The White House (but never from Congress). Sure, Arab news is of utmost importance and a big draw, and must be accorded prominent play. However, significant events (economic, cultural, scientific as well as political) always take place in America and elsewhere in the world, and they must be covered.

The true nature of Radio Sawa's broadcast content and performance remains a mystery to the legislative and executive branches of government in Washington, because the station continues to resist any outside, independent review and probe of its programs. The station also refuses to accept the critical findings already reached by such investigative agencies as the Government Accountability Office (GAO) and the State Department Inspector General's office.

"The father of Radio Sawa," Mr. Norman Pattiz, years ago came to the conclusion that Arab hostility and dislike of America were caused by, in his words, "hate speak on radio and television. Incitement to violence. Disinformation, government censorship and journalistic self-censorship. And it was from within that kind of environment that the Arab street was getting its impressions, not only of U.S. policy, but of our people, of our culture, of our society." And he was going to set things right with his grand new broadcasting adventure.

Five years after a steady diet of Sawa pabulum, U.S. prestige and standing in the Arab World are at record low, and its image uglier than ever. Official U.S. poll results show that in Iraq, for example, 70 percent want the U.S. to withdraw from that country, and no less than 60 percent approve of killing Americans.

This is perhaps the best testimony to the abject failure of Mr. Pattiz's grand design.

Sam Hilmy is a veteran Middle East broadcasting Specialist and long-time observer of Arab-American affairs. He was for almost 35 years associated with the Voice of America (VOA) in various language, editorial and managerial capacities. He spent his last five years with the organization as director of the Near East, North Africa and South Asia Division.

http://arabmediasociety.sqgd.co.uk/topics/index.php?t_article=119

Voice of America versus Radio Sawa in the Middle East: A Personal Perspective

Issue 2, Summer 2007

By Laurie Kassman
The VOA has a long history of covering the Middle East both in English and in Arabic. Picture courtesy of the VOA.

Comparing Voice Of America (VOA) to Radio Sawa is like comparing apples to oranges. The US government funds both but that is about where the similarity stops. Radio Sawa is an Arabic-language pop music radio that broadcasts exclusively to the Middle East. The Voice of America has a more global reach with many language services sharing the funding. But since VOA English has mostly been silenced in the region and VOA Arabic has lost its voice altogether after Radio Sawa was created in 2002, it is important to show how American public diplomacy broadcasting to the region has changed. This article highlights the key differences in news approach and content between the channels, and argues that by scrapping VOA in the Middle East, the US has both undercut its own public diplomacy interests and the interests of listeners in the region itself.
Radio Sawa’s “hostile takeover”

In 2002, the VOA Director and two members of the Broadcasting Board of Governors—the board that oversees VOA, RFE-RL (Radio Free Europe-Radio Liberty) and several ‘surrogate’ radios—told the VOA staff of its decision to eliminate VOA’s Arabic service and create Radio Sawa. They said a new approach was needed to respond to the changing demographics of the Middle East, where more than half the population was under the age of 35. At the time, BBG member Norm Pattiz said the key to winning the hearts and minds of Arab youth was in winning their ears. One solution, he said, was to play the top hits from East and West to grab their attention and listening loyalty.

Before VOA Arabic was shut down, it broadcast a variety of cultural and educational programs with less emphasis on music. There was general agreement within the service that it was time to revamp programming to appeal to a more youthful listening audience. Reporters and broadcasters had started brainstorming about new programs. I remember the Arabic Service reporter in Jerusalem, for example, quickly scouted out potential recording studios in Ramallah for live call-in shows. Others looked at ways to liven the music. Much to the chagrin of VOA Arabic staffers, the brainstorming translated into thinking outside VOA and creating a separate radio station with a new cast of characters. One staffer described it as a “hostile takeover.”

A key argument for creating Radio Sawa was the dwindling audience for VOA Arabic broadcasts, which were distributed mostly via short wave. Data at the time showed that listeners were turning to medium wave and FM frequencies. VOA management had drawn up a $15-million plan in 2001 to expand transmission capabilities and lease FM frequencies to boost the VOA presence. But the Arabic service was eliminated before the plan became reality. Instead, the BBG negotiated for FM and medium wave frequencies to expand Radio Sawa’s reach in the region.

Radio Sawa is a non-VOA brand. For listeners in the Middle East, Radio Sawa was not clearly identified as a US government radio. Listeners were surprised that VOA Arabic was off the air. They couldn’t hear VOA English either because Radio Sawa had usurped the medium wave and FM frequencies VOA English was using to bolster its shortwave feeds to the region.

During my trips into Baghdad in 2003, Iraqi listeners complained to me they could no longer hear the informative VOA Arabic programs they had grown up with or the Special English programs that one teacher told me she had used for her college students. Others said they had switched to BBC and Radio Monte Carlo for their English and Arabic broadcasts, thus depriving the US of an effective public diplomacy tool.

The timing of the changeover from VOA Arabic to Radio Sawa could not have been worse for those of us in the field. It was April 2002 and I was temporarily assigned to the Jerusalem bureau to help cover the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian turmoil. Tensions were building. Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon had sent his troops into the West bank. PLO leader Yasser Arafat was a prisoner in his West Bank compound. The Palestinian broadcast facilities were knocked off the air and Palestinians were desperately seeking the latest news.

The phone calls began flooding into the VOA office. “Where’s VOA? We can’t get any news, just music. What’s going on?” At a time when we normally would have provided reliable, balanced news and analysis about events taking place on their doorsteps, we were feeding them the best of Britney Spears and Eminem 24 hours a day.
Sawa labeled a propaganda tool, not a trusted news source

Commentators and critics of Radio Sawa in the Middle East complained that the short newscasts, sandwiched between pop songs, were focused too heavily on pronouncements out of Washington. They labeled the station a US propaganda tool. That kind of label is hard to shake and only adds to the mistrust of US words and actions.

After Radio Sawa began broadcasting, I encountered some political leaders and analysts in the Middle East who were reluctant to be interviewed by me and other VOA correspondents. They assumed that Radio Sawa had replaced VOA. They told us they did not want to be tarnish their reputation by associating with a network they perceived to be trivial and biased.

From the start, Radio Sawa has boasted success based on how many were listening rather than who. The music format was novel and attractive but FM stations in Jordan, Egypt and elsewhere in the Middle East quickly imitated it. So what difference can Radio Sawa make if few are paying attention to it?

Radio Sawa’s management says the network has increased news and information programming to about seven hours a day, including live coverage of key speeches, news conferences and Congressional hearings from Washington. News Director Daniel Nassif says the formula is one third news and two-thirds music, with magazine or chat shows usually scheduled for evening hours. News reports average 35 seconds in length, features about three minutes. Radio Sawa says its discussion shows on the Iraqi stream include “The Free Zone”, which is billed as its “signature program on freedom and democracy issues” in the Middle East. Some Radio Sawa staffers who had worked for VOA Arabic before acknowledge the station is improving its content but they tell me it is hard to shake its image as a shallow rock ‘n roll station.

Radio Sawa considers itself a serious station, pointing to its dedicated staff in the region and around the world as evidence. It says it has more than 70 employees on its staff in the Springfield, VA headquarters and its Middle East Program Center in Dubai, UAE. In addition, the network says it contracts with 90 stringers based in 43 major Middle Eastern, European and international cities. US coverage is supported by stringers in Washington DC and Detroit, Michigan.

But the station has not fulfilled its own goals. When Radio Sawa was created five years ago, the goal was to broadcast in a pan-Arab stream with six dialect streams targeting different areas of the Middle East with more localized news (Egypt/Levant, the Gulf, Iraq Morocco, Jordan/Palestinian Territories, Lebanon, Sudan/Yemen). Radio Sawa management says only the Iraqi dialect stream is operational for now to supplement the pan-Arab broadcast, which is mostly music.
VOA: A very different broadcast outfit

In comparison, VOA is considered a much more authoritative news channel, which performs a valuable public diplomacy role in regions where news is often censored, as in the Arab World. VOA Managing Editor Alex Belida says Middle East stories account for about one third of the daily world news output of VOA’s newsroom. English reports by newsroom writers and correspondents in the field are translated by VOA’s other 44 language services for use in their own programs. When the Arabic Service existed it also drew on the valuable resources of the central newsroom.

There is no doubt the VOA approach to news is more thorough than Sawa. VOA news reports run from one to one and a half minutes in length compared to 35 seconds. Background writers offer a longer, in-depth look at breaking stories to put them into historical, political or social context that enrich the listeners’ understanding of the news event. Special half-hour discussion shows like Press Conference USA and Encounter often deal with Middle East issues in a concerted and robust way.

As mandated by Congress, VOA English also offers a mix of news and features that open a window on the American lifestyle and American values—something almost completely absent on Sawa. The reports and features are translated into the other language services for their use as well. VOA English also pioneered an international call-in show more than a decade ago that often highlights Middle East issues. It was quickly imitated by the BBC, reflecting how much VOA standards of broadcasting were valued around the world.

VOA has always taken the Middle East very seriously. Its dedicated staff in the region includes a correspondent in Cairo who covers a territory that stretches from Morocco to Iran. Another correspondent based in Jerusalem focuses on Israel and the Palestinians. A small number of correspondents shuttle in and out of Baghdad and a handful of stringers contribute to the daily report file. Correspondents from Washington, Europe or Asia are often called on to help cover crises in the region,
VOA: Absent from the Middle East when it is most needed

But despite VOA’s tried and tested news coverage, VOA’s English-language coverage of the Middle East is no longer heard in the heart of the Middle East. After VOA Arabic was shut down, I found it frustrating to report from Washington on Middle East issues that affected the region knowing my Middle East audience could no longer hear my reports in Arabic or English.

In fact, other than a few hours of English broadcast in Baghdad, Mosul and Kuwait, VOA is only audible in non-Arabic languages on the periphery. VOA Turkish runs for about six hours a week, Kurdish for four hours a day, Urdu for 12 hours a day, Dari and Pashto alternate on the half hour on a 12-hour program stream for a total of six hours a day, Pashto also runs another 24/7 stream and Persian broadcasts 24/7 jointly with RFE/RL.

The irony of all this cannot be underestimated. When the Middle East is a focal point of US policy, a key tool of public diplomacy is absent. By example, the Voice of America shows respect for First Amendment freedoms, for a free exchange of ideas and a diversity of opinions that US public diplomacy tries to promote.

When the lingua franca of business and politics is overwhelmingly English and more state radios—from BBC, France 24, Chinese and Russian government radios to Al Jazeera—are increasing their English broadcasts to the Middle East, why is VOA silent?

The Voice of America was established in 1942 with the mission to present the news, good or bad, to people who could not receive accurate, unbiased information. That mission has not changed. VOA reporters and editors adhere to the highest standards of the news industry to fairly present news about the world and, most important, about the US. That includes culture and politics. VOA has never shied away from presenting a balanced and critical view of both. It has been touted as a respected source of news and information around the world, targeting not only a general population but also policy makers and leaders of influence.

To borrow a cliché often used to describe public service broadcasting in the United States, VOA has cared more about quality than quantity—reaching the ‘grass tops’ as well as the ‘grass roots’ of society. Some critics say that makes VOA sound too stale and stodgy because for VOA, talk trumps music. But VOA English has sought a better balance in recent times in order to appeal to younger listeners while not forsaking a target audience of present and future leaders.

I agree with critics that VOA needs to adapt more quickly to its listeners’ changing habits, but it does not need to do this at the expense of the quality of its programs. Striking this balance is made all the harder by yearly budget cuts. VOA’s English service has been reduced from 24 hours to 14 hours a day, while the 2008 budget request to Congress would reduce English broadcasts by another 14 hours, effectively taking worldwide English off the air. That would leave only VOA English to Africa programs, which currently totals 41 hours a week.
TV, the Internet, and the future of VOA

As new media emerge and grow around the world, VOA is being asked to diversify its operations, but on falling budgets. For example VOA’s TV operation, recently added to the mix, lacks appropriate resources to compete well with regional outfits. The BBG has shifted its focus and funds to expand the TV component of the government’s broadcast operations but VOA staffers complain it is not enough to compete in the regional markets against better funded, better equipped networks. Twenty-five VOA language services have established a TV component. But the BBG went outside VOA again for Arabic, creating another separate entity outside VOA’s control—the public diplomacy disaster that is Alhurra—which further undermined VOA’s reputation in the Middle East.

In the age of new media, VOA risks becoming irrelevant if those who run it do not provide the resources and support necessary to adapt to the changing demographics and wishes of the populations of the Middle East. I believe there can be a productive blend of music and substance for VOA broadcasts that would appeal to those who wield influence within their societies. But even that is not enough.

The Internet has become a key source of information for all ages. The Internet is the future of news delivery, especially in countries where critical or dissenting views are still censored. Internet usage in the Middle East continues to expand both in English and Arabic. VOA and Radio Sawa have plunged into the market. They cannot afford to be left out.

VOA’s website’s audio links to correspondents’ reports is now the only avenue for VOA English to effectively penetrate the Middle East. VOA’s mix of news, features and analysis feeds a free-access website that can be read in English or in any of VOA’s 43 languages, a new and important way of bringing in an audience. Director of VOA Internet Michael Messinger says there are currently about one million visitors a week to VOA’s 24-hour website. Several million more in China and Iran access the site through proxy servers. By comparison, Radio Sawa’s Arabic website carries less complete news and information pages in addition to audio links to its radio broadcasts.

US public diplomacy needs a wide array of tools to be effective, including the Internet, radio and TV. VOA has managed for 65 years to offer a cost-effective tool for showing the multitude of voices, cultures and histories that are America. VOA also shows sensitivity to the cultures and histories of others, which could help bridge the gap of mistrust and misunderstandings. This is critical in the Muslim world today when opinion polls show US credibility at an all-time low. A poll conducted last year by Zogby International in six pro-US countries of the Middle East shows that only 12 percent of those responding to the survey have a favorable view of the United States.

Creating Radio Sawa outside VOA raised many an eyebrow about the true intention of the project. After its launch five years ago, commentators in the Arab world accused the US of trying to ‘dumb down’ to listeners in the Middle East or subvert its more conservative societies.

There was little disagreement that VOA Arabic needed an overhaul to adapt to the changing face of the Middle East. For me, the shame is that the BBG and its backers did not choose to work within VOA, whose charter mandates by law VOA’s objective approach to news coverage. They could have applied a creative touch to update the overall product. Many at VOA have called for resurrecting VOA Arabic and resuming serious programs to the region. I would argue for resurrecting English too. If we can find FM and medium wave frequencies in the Middle East to broadcast music, why not provide more quality programs too?

The US administration has thrown a lot of money and people at trying to reverse the downward slide of US credibility in the Middle East. In the race to do that, I fear it settled for a quick fix and disregarded time-tested tools that already exist and just need more support to do the job better.

Laurie Kassman is Director of Communications and Outreach for the Middle East Institute in Washington, DC. She served as a foreign correspondent for the Voice of America for 23 years, including a four year posting in Cairo, Egypt as Middle East Correspondent and several more years reporting in and about the Middle East from Paris, London and Washington, DC.

http://arabmediasociety.sqgd.co.uk/topics/index.php?t_article=116

America's Voice as it could have been

Issue 2, Summer 2007

By Myrna Whitworth
At a projected start-up cost of $15.5, the branded-VOA full Arabic network would have cost half of Radio Sawa. Picture courtesy of VOA.

At a projected start-up cost of $15.5, the branded-VOA full Arabic network would have cost half of Radio Sawa. Picture courtesy of VOA.

Since the first broadcasts of Radio Sawa in 2002 and Alhurra Television in 2004, much has been written to either justify or question their existence and their role in the mission of US international broadcasting. If one believes the literature of the Broadcasting Board of Governors, which oversees all US international broadcasting, the Middle East networks, with their bland programming and popular Arabic and Western music, have been an unqualified success and the major US public diplomacy accomplishment since 9/11. But Middle East pollsters and regional experts both in the United States and the Middle East question this assessment.

In fact, surveys from the region suggest that regard for the United States is at an all time low; even Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Ladin are held in higher regard than President George Bush. A survey conducted by Mohammed el-Nawawy and published in the August 2006 edition of Global Media and Communication found that Arab students’ perceptions of United States foreign policy declined after listening to broadcasts from Radio Sawa and Alhurra Television. And it is not only foreign policy, other recent polls, including the 2006 Zogby International survey on Arabic attitudes toward the United States, suggest that there is even concern American popular culture is threatening to overwhelm traditional values and ways of life.

Obviously something is not going right. Granted, we cannot lay all the blame on Radio Sawa and Alhurra Television. The main culprits are the Bush Administration’s ill conceived war in Iraq and its official outreach which many have called “arrogant, aggressive and bullying.” However, the inability of Sawa and Alhurra to speak with critical populations in the Middle East and their emphasis on the most trivial of American pop culture have marginalized the United States and prevented a reasoned and substantive conversation between the United States and the Arab world. The United States is capable of doing better.

While I cannot speak about the creation of Alhurra, as I had left international broadcasting before it was conceived, I was present for the planning of Radio Sawa first as Voice of America Program Director and then as VOA Acting Director. One element of the Sawa story that has not been written is that which deals with a concerted effort within the Voice of America to counter the FM pop music formula that the Broadcasting Board of Governors was proposing with a VOA branded, full service Arabic network. This is that story.
Two models for Middle East broadcasting

There were two models for broadcasting to the Middle East that were being assembled in early 2001: the Broadcasting Board of Governors’ (BBG) formula of music and ‘news light’ and a VOA 24 hour broadcast stream designed to engage all segments of the population with substantive news and information relevant to their lives within an entertaining, well presented, contemporary format. The BBG chose to ignore the VOA construct, in fact, I doubt if any member ever read the proposal.

The genesis for revamped and invigorated Arabic broadcasting was not the attack on the Pentagon and World Trade Center on September 11, 2001. The planning for a 24/7 Arabic network was nearly complete by then. It had begun over a year earlier with the collapse of the Camp David discussions among Ehud Barak, Bill Clinton and Yassir Arafat and the onset of the second Palestinian Intifada. These events were the impetus for the United States to begin an evaluation of its broadcasting to the Middle East. If the people of the Middle East gave up on peace, the argument went, the region would become a cauldron of violence and terrorism. The United States must play a role in shoring up the “peace process” and strengthening the forces of moderation and peaceful coexistence. It must also have a stronger voice in the growing media options in the region. In the words of one expert, the new electronic media had “reinvigorated a sense of common destiny in the Arab World and created a more engaged public opinion.”

At the time, the Voice of America with an Arabic language staff of 35, broadcast seven hours a day on antiquated shortwave and minimal range medium wave transmitters into the Middle East. Broadcasting in this manner to a part of the world in which FM radio and satellite television had become the dominant media resulted in very low audience numbers—by some accounts in the 2% range. VOA Arabic programming also had some responsibility for the low audience. While no one could question the substance, accuracy and quality of the news and information product, formats were dated and stodgy, many of the writers and on-air personalities—while qualified professional journalists—were aging, and there was a general malaise that was not conducive to dynamic, interesting programming.

Voice of America senior management, along with transmission engineers, began to take a hard look at revamping programming and delivery to the Middle East. We wanted to develop an easily accessible broadcast stream that would appeal to a broad audience: current leaders and those being groomed for tomorrow, as well as women, students and the discontented of the Arab

World. At the same time, the Board of Governors, under the guidance of Governor Norman Pattiz was formulating its own concept. As founder and chairman of the nation’s largest radio syndicator, Westwood One, Pattiz had become a very rich man creating mass programming for the American youth market that consisted of lots of music and very little news. If his formula had worked so well in the United States, he concluded, it was exactly what was needed to appeal to the younger generation in the Middle East. Although he and other members of the Board traveled to the region to evaluate the broadcasting climate, his main consultants were the same people who had helped him with Westwood One. They understood American media, listening habits and pop music, but had little grounding in international relations, diverse cultures or the history and concerns of the Middle East.

The Pattiz formula did away with the VOA brand, the VOA Central News Product and the comprehensive analysis that was the hallmark of the VOA Arabic Service for 55 years. The BBG, which receives all of its funding from the American taxpayer, also did not want to be constrained by federal regulations regarding personnel and contracting that were part of the VOA structure. And as many believe, the Board did not want to be held to the standards and requirements of the congressionally mandated Voice of America Charter. The Charter, signed into law in 1976, is the foundation of VOA’s credibility. The document requires VOA to provide accurate, objective and comprehensive news; a broad and balanced picture of American institutions, thought and values; and a thorough discussion of US policies on a broad range of issues. It provides a road map for US international broadcasting that is as relevant in today’s war on terrorism as it was in the Cold War.

The VOA plan, on the other hand, embraced the tenets of the Charter while invigorating programming and improving transmission strategies. We proposed reaching our target audiences by combining music, news and Americana in a vibrant 24 hour broadcast stream hosted by well informed and personable on-air personalities.

News would remain a priority. As the first principle of the congressionally mandated VOA Charter states, “VOA will serve as a consistently reliable and authoritative source of news.” That is the law. Carefully sourced, objective and accurate journalism was at the core of the VOA Arabic Middle East network proposal. In addition to news on the hour and headlines at the half hour, six prime time hours daily would be devoted to news and news related discussion and call-in programs. Written prior to 9/11, the proposal envisioned daily locally originated programs from Amman, Cairo and Jerusalem focusing on conflict resolution, peace and dialogue among the people of the Middle East. If adopted today, this type of program could offer an opportunity for dialogue among the various factions within Iraq. In addition, we set aside one hour during the mid-day for women’s programming combining child rearing, health and education with cooking and life style segments.

Disc jockeys knowledgeable of national and international issues, as well as pop music and entertainment, would host the music and interstitial program segments. Interstitial elements were designed to offer brief insights into American life, culture, education and thought. Programming material would be prepared and adapted by professional journalists based in Washington and New York, in major Arab-American communities such as Detroit, Houston and Los Angeles and throughout the Middle East.

Our program stream was not developed in a vacuum. VOA professionals in the Central Newsroom and language services supplied input, as did transmission engineers and marketing officers. Middle East experts at the State Department were consulted. We also turned to nine specialists knowledgeable of the Middle East and mass media issues including three former United States ambassadors to the region and Washington based Middle East academicians and journalists including Shibley Telhami, Hisham Milhem, Mamoun Fandy and Khalil Jahshan. They agreed that there was a demand in the Arab world for American news and information including social and cultural trends, lifestyle issues and political developments. They also told us what we already knew—that we must find ways to more effectively reach the younger successor audience in the Middle East. Contradicting the BBG model of one formula-one language, the group of experts was convinced that bilingual programming would appeal to the youth of the Middle East.

From these discussions came a number of program initiatives that were incorporated into VOA’s plan. These included an Americana program hosted by an Arab or Arab-American equivalent of Alistair Cook that would focus on the diversity, peculiarities and vibrancy of American life and culture. It would seek to look at the United States through Arab eyes and to offer perspectives more complex and subtle than those held by many people in the Middle East. Regular commentaries on current issues by a rotating series of Arab and Arab-American specialists would be offered to reinforce the perception that VOA programming is balanced, thus strengthening its credibility.

The $15.5 million Voice of America proposal called for $6.5 million in recurring costs and $9 million for one time program transmission upgrades and equipment. These included adding medium wave transmissions from Cyprus, Kuwait and/or Abu Dhabi, and obtaining FM frequencies in key Arab population centers. The Voice of America plan also recognized the importance of the new media to reach the younger successor generation, and provided for a 24 hour Internet news service in Arabic with text and streaming audio/video. While it did not envision a 24 hour satellite television service such as the BBG creation, Alhurra Television, the VOA plan did create a daily three-hour block of Arabic television programs for placement that included a call-in interactive program, and magazine and discussion shows of potential interest to the region. One can argue that the $15.5 million proposal offered both the Middle East audience and the United States greater bang for the buck than the $35million that it cost to get Radio Sawa up and running and its continuing operational costs of $22 million.

VOA senior management submitted the first draft of its Middle East Network to the Broadcasting Board of Governors on January 4, 2001 and continued to expand and refine the proposal until early summer when we were told that our services and ideas were not welcome. The Board was moving in a different direction.

Timing is everything. Would the BBG and Norman Pattiz, the driving force behind Radio Sawa, have been able to convince the White House and Congress to do away with VOA Arabic and create a new service if it had not been for three airplanes that crashed into New York’s World Trade Center and the Pentagon on September 11, 2001? We will never know. But in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, Washington officialdom was desperate for a public diplomacy outreach to the Middle East. Enter the Broadcasting Board of Governors and its initiative for a Middle East Radio Network. Although Pattiz, a Democrat and friend of Bill Clinton, and BBG Chairman Kenneth Tomlinson, a conservative Republican named to the Board by George W Bush, often found themselves at cross purposes, they did maintain a united front as they approached Congress and the Executive Branch with their sophisticated Power Point presentation and their assurances that the network could be operational in a matter of months. I doubt if anyone looked too closely at the specifics or questioned assumptions about staffing and programming. And no one on Capitol Hill or at the White House was ever aware of another plan that addressed not just the young people of the region, but all segments of the population; a plan that offered pop music but emphasized American news and public affairs programming.

The BBG got its funding for Radio Sawa, but there was a tradeoff. VOA’s full service Arabic service went silent in March 2002 after 55 years of informing audiences throughout the Middle East. Its professional staff of qualified and trained journalists were replaced by contract employees speedily recruited from abroad; some with questionable credentials and loyalties. Appeals to save some vestiges of the Arabic Service’s informational programming or to maintain a small news Internet service fell on deaf ears. The VOA brand in Arabic no longer exists. Even the region’s large English speaking population finds it difficult to tune in for information from the United States. Most of the frequencies that once carried VOA English news and information have been turned over to Radio Sawa’s youth oriented programming. And if the BBG has its way, even these few English hours will be eliminated in 2008.

The Bush Administration’s budget request for 2008 calls for a $20 million increase in funding for Radio Sawa and Alhurra Television. To offset the increase, a number of VOA services have been targeted for reduction or elimination, including Uzbek, Cantonese, Georgian, Hindi and Russian. And the VOA English flagship service, VOA News Now, at one time on the air 24/7, will become a thing of the past. English will be reserved for a few hours a day of targeted programming to Africa. Al Jazeera and the Chinese, French, Iranians and Russians understand the importance of English, the language understood or spoken by some 1.6 billion people worldwide. At the very time that the United States is planning to all but eliminate programming in its mother tongue, they have initiated 24-hour television and Internet services in English.

Today international broadcasting has a vital role to play in communicating and establishing dialogue with the people of the world. No where is that more important than the Middle East. Unfortunately, while we may be reaching some young people of the “Arab Street” with easily replicated music play-lists, the United States is doing little to engage those policy makers and professional and university elites that once tuned in to comprehensive news and information, in English and Arabic, on the Voice of America. As several recent studies have suggested, Radio Sawa and Alhurra Television give lip service to high journalistic standards, but have not followed them. As for the music, here are some lyrics I recently heard on Radio Sawa: “He’s nothing but a pimp,” and “I’m going to let you have your way with me.”

It is doubtful that these are the messages the United States wishes to communicate to the Arab world. However, there is some hope. Norman Pattiz is no longer a member of the Broadcasting Board of Governors and Chairman Kenneth Tomlinson has announced he will not seek re-nomination. Their replacements may be willing to take a more critical view of their creation and make much needed mid-course corrections. As for the Middle East Broadcasting Network (Radio Sawa and Alhurra Television), new management promises to improve the quality and quantity of substantive programming. On Capitol Hill, the new Democratic Congress plans to scrutinize the Bush Administration’s 2008 Budget request, and hopefully will take a fresh look at international broadcasting, especially to the Middle East. The Voice of America plan submitted in January 2001 could serve as a valuable starting point.

Myrna Whtiworth is a 28 year veteran of the Voice of America who served as acting director of the agency on three separate occasions, including in the fall of 2001. At the time of her retirement in 2002, she was VOA Program Director. Her early career was spent in VOA News where she served as Executive Producer of World Report—VOA’s flagship news program, English programs news editor, and special projects coordinator. Whitworth now teaches courses in Media and Politics at Mount St. Mary's University in Emmitsburg, Maryland and at American University's OLLI Institute in Washington, DC.

http://arabmediasociety.sqgd.co.uk/topics/index.php?t_article=118

Alhurra TV and Radio Sawa: Advancing freedom in the Arab World

Outgoing BBG Chairman Kenneth Y. Tomlinson says Alhurra and Sawa are advocating freedom in the Middle East. Courtesy of the BBG.

Outgoing BBG Chairman Kenneth Y. Tomlinson says Alhurra and Sawa are advocating freedom in the Middle East. Courtesy of the BBG.
Why does the United States government (using American taxpayer money) support journalism around the world through international broadcasting?

In no small part because we believe that truth arrived at through reporting and discussion and debate—as opposed to edicts by governments—have a hugely beneficial effect on societies.

It is no accident that at the time he was writing the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson said that if he had to choose between government and a free press, he would choose a free press. (After he had served two terms as President, he declared that those who don’t read the newspapers are better off than those who do…!)

The Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty and Radio Free Asia were created to serve information-deprived societies.

From Iran to China to Cuba a free press does not exist. It is a long-term aim of American-financed international broadcasting that our services effectively duplicate what would be happening in the media if a free press were serving the people.

It may be simplistic to describe every corner of the Arab world as information deprived. Government imposed censorship is not the only problem. The presence and acceptance of bad information is also a serious concern.

The United Nations 2003 Arab Human Development Report documents the shameful economic and political retardation of these societies that can be thwarted only by the expansion of education and opportunity.

In the case of Alhurra and Radio Sawa, they should serve as a model for the principles—of accuracy and free flow of information and a full intellectually honest debate of ideas—that account for the reason for a free press.

There is another basic reason for these services to the Middle East. Last year at the Arab Broadcast Forum in Abu Dhabi, Alhurra News Director Mouafac Harb was asked why his network was created. Without hesitation he replied, “To advance freedom and democracy.” During the same discussion, a BBC representative endorsed Harb’s reasoning so long as he would include “rule of law” which he did.

Again, we believe journalistic truth is key to the advancement of freedom.
Why curtail shortwave broadcasting in English?

Much has been made of our decision to curtail English radio broadcasting in order to finance indigenous language expansions to Arab countries and Iran.

First, it must be remembered that eliminating our shortwave English service does not involve any reductions in English to Africa. And it should make way for even greater expansion of our English Internet service as well as language teaching through Special English.

The first responsibility of international broadcasting is to serve our audiences. To do this, we have to face the fact that there would be no contest if we took a vote in Iran or Yemen as to whether the people would like to have television broadcasts in English or their native tongues. Obviously, they would vote for the language they understand.

One known former VOA Director wonders why we are curtailing English shortwave radio broadcasts at a time when Al Jazeera and other international broadcasters are expanding in English. The answer is because Al Jazeera is anxious to influence English-speaking people in America. America’s international broadcasting is designed to serve cultures that are not primarily English speaking.

Some argue that we are shirking our responsibility to broadcast around the world in English at a time when to name one, Radio Beijing, is increasing its Chinese broadcasts to Chinese speakers around the world.

But Congress has never funded VOA to serve Americans living abroad—and now this responsibility is increasingly irrelevant because Fox and CNN are available by satellite in English virtually everywhere.

So much of the criticism of American broadcasting has to do with the love affair VOA alumni have maintained with shortwave.

I have for many years, indeed since childhood, been a shortwave enthusiast. I would never work or travel abroad without a shortwave radio. I have not traveled abroad with a shortwave set in years because news and information is easily available everywhere in English through private satellite services. By overwhelming numbers, people anywhere say they prefer getting news through television. In addition, the Internet is becoming a fixture virtually everywhere.

I have said that for most societies—obviously China is a notable exception—efforts to preserve shortwave is about as relevant as efforts by buggy whip manufacturers to preserve their product in the 1920s.

Of course, I freely concede that if I were a VOA English broadcaster—and some of the most talented people I know are in these positions—I would not be pleased that someone was taking away a job that I performed with great talent and dedication. That is why the BBG must gather support for an English VOA website that is second to none. If members of Congress want to continue the tradition of English broadcasting, they can give us the funds to do it and we will be happy to continue. With existing budget limitations, we are faced with the issues of priorities.

Why was Alhurra created outside VOA’s Arabic Service?

Why did we create a Middle East Broadcasting service to create Alhurra satellite television? Why did we not do this through the Arabic Service of the Voice of America? As I have said a number of times to Congressional committees, under the VOA leadership of the past, it would have taken that organization years to build and run a 24/7 Arabic-language service. That’s just a fact.

It took VOA years to merge the old WorldNet service with VOA television. The very fact that past VOA leaders failed to understand the importance of replacing shortwave with television and the Internet illustrates why we had to have a new generation of leaders to meet this challenge.

When it came time to create a satellite television network to Iran, however, we decided to give new leaders in VOA the chance to make this work. And thanks to some very dedicated people, VOA Persian Service is doing four hours of original satellite television to Iran with repeats. And soon that will be expanded further.
Successes and challenges for U.S. broadcasting in the Middle East

Frankly, I agree with many of the criticisms of the structure and performance of the U.S. Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) during the period that I have served as its Chairman. The very notion that members of a board of directors should somehow serve as individual and/or collective CEO’s is a concept that most business executives would deem silly. Obviously, the law governing BBG should be changed accordingly.

But for the time being, my view of the BBG is not unlike Churchill’s attitude towards democracy, which he once said, was the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried. Would international broadcasting be better off at the State Department? Or in the Pentagon? As opposed to the BBG? I say unthinkable if our aim is to reflect something more intellectually profound than government policy.

Do not forget that it was U.S. government foreign service officers who blocked the use of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn in the early 1970’s—in a period when his popularity in the former Soviet Union was at its greatest—because his writings contradicted the then U.S. government policy of détente.

Why do I believe it is so important for us to pause and resolve our disagreements about what the United States should be doing in international broadcasting? Because the more I observe this debate, the more I understand that the views of dissenters have been overtaken by time.

What we should be focused on today—both in the United States and around the world—is the issue of whether what we do in the name of international broadcasting is of sufficient quality to serve the needs of our audience. Are our programs good enough? Are they fascinating and insightful? Do they enrich lives of our viewers—whether they are youthful techies or the intellectual elite?

How are we doing? Recently we received preliminary results of our first program review of Alhurra—and the results for those of us who believe in U.S. international broadcasting were encouraging. Panelists in Cairo, Kuwait City and Baghdad respected Alhurra for “accurate, impartial relevant news coverage and analysis.” (In a couple of months our pollsters will be surveying a broad sampling on the same issues.)

It is not surprising that some of our discussion programs are drawing more mixed reviews—but that should not surprise anyone because, in a discussion/debate format, Arabs viewers are hearing points of view they rarely before have encountered (i.e. the case for free markets and free speech and women’s rights.) To me, the weekly program Free Hour represents what the so-called war of ideas is all about.

Some viewers are not so enthusiastic. One Syrian man in Kuwait City declared he would never again watch Alhurra’s Equality that focuses on women’s rights. “The topic did not reflect consideration of our customs and traditions,” he said. “I do not want to see the day when my wife will ask for a divorce!”

That Arab viewers accept this U.S. government-funded station as credible is a great victory, especially after being on the air little more than three years. That some Arab viewers find the assertions of advocates for freedom jarring to their ears is a price we will gladly pay.

For all of our broadcasting—and not just Alhurra—our challenge is to make what we do better—and more interesting and more challenging to those who turn to us discover what’s going on.

These are the issues that deserve the focus of Americans who are interested in international broadcasting—and not for us but for the sake of those people we serve.

Kenneth Y. Tomlinson, former editor-in-chief of Reader’s Digest, has been Chairman of the U.S. Broadcasting Board of Governors since 2002.

http://www.arabmediasociety.com/index.php?article=185&p=1

Rate of Arabic language TV start-ups shows no sign of abating

Issue 2, Summer 2007

By Alan L. Heil Jr.
France 24 plans to broadcast 12 hours daily in Arabic.

France 24 plans to broadcast 12 hours daily in Arabic.

One expert calls it “an ocean of channels.”[1] Another says it’s “a paradox of plenty.”[2] And yet another laments that “a noisy marketplace makes it increasingly expensive to find, keep and grow a profitable market share.”[3] These are all accurate characterizations of a seemingly accelerating proliferation of Arabic language satellite TV channels in 2007. At last count, 280 of these outlets were vying for the attention of viewers in the Middle East and beyond. And more are on the way.

For some years, Arabic has been the language of choice of more international broadcasters in more countries than any other language except English. That was the case for radio even before the rise of television. The principal challenge to TV executives and producers shows no sign of letting up in this sixth year after 9/11. It is: how to make a dent in an already overcrowded market.

The latest competitors in the outside world for the eyes of the Arab Middle East include Russia TV Today, reported to be launching a 20-hour-a-day service in May, expanding this to 24/7 by the end of the year. France 24 inaugurated an Arabic television service on April 4 comprising four hours broadcast daily to the Maghreb, Levant and Europe with plans to grow in stages to six, then 12 hours daily. Deutsche Welle TV is expanding its current three hours a day in Arabic TV to eight hours. And BBC Arabic TV is due to go on the air next fall, restoring a service that previously existed between 1994 and 1996.

“All of the new entrants,” says Professor Marc Lynch of Williams College in the United States, “are indeed going to face two basic problems: an increasingly crowded satellite TV field and the association they have with a country’s national interest. That said, other countries won’t face the distinctive problem of anti-Americanism—and they might not repeat the mistakes of the American network Alhurra.”

Lynch, the author of Voices of the New Arab Public: Iraq, Al-Jazeera, and Middle East Politics Today, says: “BBC Arabic TV can draw on a long tradition of independent broadcasting and will likely have a grace period with Arab viewers to prove itself.” Lynch believes, on the other hand, that the French, Russian and German stations “are most likely to simply disappear into the ocean of other broadcasters.”

Lynch notes, however, that there is a tremendous variety among all the networks. Only about ten of them, he says, are primarily focused on news, although some of them have political programming mixed within largely entertainment formats. It may well be that market share will vary widely from one month to the next, depending on events. In times of crisis, more viewers turn to the all-news channels or those offering reportage as seen from their perspectives. In quieter times, more will tune in to the entertainment channels.

But in times of conflicts audiences do not necessarily turn to channels more likely to report in a balanced way. Lawrence Pintak, in the February edition of Arab Media & Society, observed that Al Manar’s coverage of last summer’s Israel-Hizbullah conflict “galvanized audiences across the Arab world—many of whom switched to Al Manar from Al Jazeera and Al Arabiya—generating widespread support for Shiite Hizbullah among all Arabs, Sunni and Shia alike.” An on-the-spot wartime survey estimated that Al Manar vaulted for the first time to among the top ten satellite TV stations. In 2003, a then new Arabic satellite TV network, Al Arabiya, garnered huge audiences within weeks, fuelled by the Iraq war. That was when the then dominant Al Jazeera faced its first serious competition.

Ambassador Bill Rugh, an American expert on Arab media,[4] maintains that international broadcast audiences are sophisticated enough to listen to radio or watch TV from other countries “even if they disagree with the editorial slant.” In times of crisis, he adds, viewers will look for fresh news, and they probably will try several sources to triangulate on a topic to see what several sources are saying, and in that way, put together a more balanced picture.

“So a balanced and varied program that serves different interests and different types of people,” Rugh concludes, “is likely to have a sustained audience. That is, by the way, what VOA and BBC have done traditionally, and what Radio Sawa and even Alhurra fail to do.”

All the new or relatively recent non-Middle East entrants into Arab satellite TV field are optimistic. Alhurra claims viewing audiences in excess of 20 million a week and takes pride in its three broadcast streams—one to Iraq, another to the Arab world as a whole, and a third to Europe inaugurated last August. The station had exclusive video of the recent bombing inside the Iraqi parliament in Baghdad, and that video was picked up by several American public and commercial broadcasters.

On the other hand, Ali Jaafar in Variety’s April 16 edition cites a “less than stellar performance of Alhurra” and says its relatively low influence has reflected the view of skeptics who doubt the ability of any new station to garner substantial viewerships in the months ahead. As a news source during the war in Lebanon last summer, according to Salameh Nematt, Al Hayat’s former Washington bureau chief, Alhurra was “virtually invisible.”[5]

“Al Jazeera has done a great job,” Variety quotes France 24 chief executive officer Alain De Pouzilhac as saying. “But essentially it’s offering the Arab perspective. We need something more. The role of France could be a special one thanks to its strong relationship with the Arab world in the last few decades, and because we weren’t involved in the Iraq war.”

“If Alhurra is anything to go by,” says former spokesman for Al Jazeera and Al Arabiya Jihad Ballout, “then there’s no chance for these new channels to steal audiences from the existing ones. The BBC is different. It has a name and a culture, which is an asset. If anyone has a chance, it’s them.”

In an interview with Arab Media & Society, head of the BBC Arabic Service Hosam El Sokkari, said late last year: “What is radically different is the fact that we are doing this as an integrated multimedia platform. We have a radio station, we have an Internet operation, and we will have a TV operation. And we have compelling interactive content. I don’t think there is anyone in the Middle East that is doing that.” Research indicates that 80-90 percent of those polled are likely to watch BBC Arabic TV.

Similarly, the director of France 24’s new Arabic TV service, Murielle Paradon, stressed the editorial integration of her operations with the network’s other program units. “The ranking of the news,” she said, “will be the same on the French, English and Arabic channels, which requires very closely argued discussions, as it were, between the editors in chief of the three languages on a daily basis to reach agreement on the treatment of the news.”

All the new stations, in fact, have stressed the importance of objectivity in reaching what for some, will likely be niche, rather than mass audiences. “Credibility,” Deutsche Welle director general Erik Bettermann told The Channel magazine in London, “is our most valuable asset, based and built on independent journalism practiced in our daily work. DW-TV is relevant as an alternative to the government-controlled media of the Middle East and to the Anglo-American channels.”

Why the international stampede to the video marketplace of ideas in the Arab world and to Arabic-speaking communities in Western Europe? There appear to be several motivating factors. One is to provide high quality independent programming content to a region in turmoil and to foster dialogue, as well, with isolated and sometimes angry Muslim communities within the EU where terrorism can and does take root. Another is to reflect the originating nation’s ideas, culture and policies. A third is to provide educated elites with interactive forums (call-in or discussion programs) for considering reforms or a wider exposure to ideas than many indigenous channels offer. TV is unquestionably the dominant medium in the new Arab public sphere.

“New communication technologies,” according to European media specialist Morand Fachot, “mean that the competitive environment is much tougher, domestic broadcasters becoming virtual international broadcasters thanks to the Internet or satellite broadcasts.”

There are no surefire formulas for success in this “ocean of channels.” Those networks that have built new multimedia (TV and websites) on existing platforms using seasoned expertise appear to stand the best chance of reaching audiences that count—the intelligentsia, the governmental and opposition leaders who yearn to make a difference.

On April 25, President Bush announced the nomination of a new chairman of the U.S. Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG), noted Washington publisher and columnist James K. Glassman. The new chairman-designate, whose confirmation by the U.S. Senate was pending at the time of writing, will have before him a recently complete BBG draft strategic plan. He will have to decide whether or not American overseas networks will continue to strive for mass audiences, or whether U.S. taxpayers will gain more value for their investment if the focus is shifted to producing in-depth programming targeted at elites and to preserving core information and English services. A conference of international broadcast professionals meeting near Chicago at the end of April at the invitation of the McCormick-Tribune Foundation and the Hudson Institute counseled a much greater focus on elites, and urged Congress to provide ample resources to pursue these goals.

“Plenty of information,” says Harvard’s Joseph S. Nye, “leads to a scarcity of attention.” In the words of a BBC study, “The way people get through it (this paradox of plenty) is by turning to people they trust.”[6] Credibility then, would seem to be the ultimate force multiplier of “smart power” in international broadcasting to the Middle East.

Alan L. Heil Jr. is a former deputy director of the VOA and author of Voice of America: A History, Columbia University Press, 2003/2006.

http://arabmediasociety.sqgd.co.uk/topics/index.php?t_article=113

BBC Arabic TV: A

Issue 1, Spring 2007

By Lawrence Pintak

We all know the story: A decade ago, the BBC pulled the plug on its ill-fated Arabic TV joint venture with the Saudis when it turned out they didn’t quite see eye-to-eye on news values. The out-of-work staff became the nucleus of Al Jazeera’s original news team.

Now the Brits are back, actively fielding resumes for a new Arabic-language channel, this one sans pesky partners. Arab Media & Society co-editor Lawrence Pintak caught up with Hosam El Sokkari, the head of the BBC’s Arabic Service and himself a veteran of both that first BBC joint venture and Al Jazeera, to discuss the BBC’s re-entry into an increasingly crowded media market.

Pintak: BBC Arabic television, it is almost BBC coming full circle in the Middle East, isn’t it?

El Sokkari: In a way yes. We realized back in 1994 that this is the medium of choice in the Middle East. And we wanted to be available in vision for our audiences there. However that experience was not sustainable for certain commercial reasons. And since the closure of the first BBC Arabic television we have been trying to get back into the market. Previously we did not have the money. Now we have the money. And we’re going ahead with it.

Pintak: Where did the money come from?

El Sokkari: Re-structuring. The BBC has been trying since the experiment in the 1990s to get back on television in the Middle East. But the BBC was not happy with the commercial model. The fact that this model did not last beyond two years made the BBC decide it had to be funded from public money. As the BBC could not get any extra funding overall, the decision was made to do some restructuring to re-organize BBC World Service resources. And Nigel Chapman decided that there are some parts of the world that do not need a BBC presence and that investing in the future of the organization means going into television is the way to go.

Pintak: This is a crowded landscape out here. Is there room?

El Sokkari: I am not sure it is crowded. I mean you have quite a number of TV channels that are video, music and entertainment channels. But the number of news and information channels is actually very limited. You can count up to 3 or 4. So in terms of numbers it is not a crowded market.

In terms of what we offer, we believe that it is unique, We also believe that there is a need. Our previous research indicates that at least 80 to 85 per cent of the sample of people that we surveyed from 7 or 8 different capitals would watch BBC TV often. And my own anecdotal evidence tells me that people are very interested in BBC Arabic TV. One of the first questions you always hear is when will there be an Arabic TV channel for the BBC? Or when will BBC Arabic television be back? So we do believe that there is a need.

We also believe that the market may not be as crowded as some people may suggest it is. There is a perception that the kind of audience we are addressing is the audience that is already watching some of the satellite news channels. We are different I think and we will be coming to the Middle East with something unique to offer. It is not just a TV station we are talking about but a multimedia platform in Arabic that will serve our audiences whatever they do wherever they are.

Pintak: Aren’t some of the Arab satellite channels going in that direction already? What is unique, what is radically different?

El Sokkari: What is radically different is the fact that we are doing this as an integrated multimedia platform. We have a radio station, we have an Internet operation, and we will have a TV operation. And we have compelling interactive content. I don’t think there is anyone in the Middle East that is doing that.

Pintak: Let’s talk content. How will that be different?

El Sokkari: The content is different because our angel is different. We do not take sides in debates. It is true that some of the Arab satellite TV channels introduced views that are not and were not common in the market, but it is the way these views are introduced that makes us different. I think that the plurality of views and perspectives that we offer is far more than anything that you can see in the Middle East.

And the way we handle these perspectives is very different. Our presenters do not join guests to attack other guests. We do not have a political message. Lots of channels do not hide the fact that they are there to advance what they believe is their audiences causes. And that in itself is a position. We do not take positions in debates. We are there to cover the issues. We are there to make it possible for people to contribute. We want to make people comfortable that their views have been understood the way they want them to be understood. We train our journalists to help people to express their views properly so even if they miss-represent themselves, they are comfortable that their views came across as they wanted them to be represented. So this is, I think, a radical difference. It is not something that you find very often in TV or media across the Middle East.

Pintak: You say do not have a political message yet the BBC is using Foreign Office funds to set up the new Arabic channel. Why does the British public want to spend its money on a channel in the Arab world?

El Sokkari: Back in the year 2000 Kofi Annan said that the BBC is Britain’s gift to the world in the twentieth century. He didn’t say that because the BBC is disseminating the British government’s views across the world but because the BBC has evolved as a unique media experience that uses public money to inform, educate and entertain. It is not a strange concept because there is a benefit that comes back to the British public form having this operation operating from London. There have been numerous occasions where the British government has not been very comfortable with what we do in the BBC and recent history clearly demonstrates that the BBC does not follow any political line or at least attempts not to do so. So we are there to serve the public and the funding is available to serve the public.

Pintak: Does it fall within the public diplomacy umbrella?

El Sokkari: The public diplomacy umbrella extends to it. But it depends what you mean by public diplomacy. We believe that furthering understanding will help people make their own minds about different issues. We do not believe that we have to get people to respond to different issues in a certain way. So if this is considered public diplomacy—fine, but we are not there to make a particular political message. We are there to let people have the chance to understand the different angles of any particular issue. Our message is professional; it is not political.

Pintak: Not Britain’s Al Hurra?

El Sokkari: We have experience of covering the Middle East for the people of the Middle East back to 1938. If people want to get a sense of what the TV station will be like they should listen to the BBC Arabic service radio, or they should go to www.BBCArabic.com. Our editorial values are going to be retained and enhanced. There are bound to be lots of questions as to how we are going to format and to pack our information. But there is no question as to whether we are going to adhere to BBC values that our audience in the Middle East has known since 1938.

Pintak: Talk about the practicalities who what when where?

El Sokkari: 2007 certainly, but probably not the first two quarters. We will be operating from London. Initially we were looking into different buildings from which we could operate. Bush House and TV Centre did not seem appropriate. So we are likely to start broadcasting from a broadcasting house where the whole service is located. We will expand on our presence in the region in Cairo, maybe Baghdad, maybe Beirut. And we are considering our news-gathering strategy and are planning for the next few years.

Pintak: How many staff?

El Sokkari: Not less than one hundred.

Pintak: Total staff?

El Sokkari: Well, the whole service will probably be between 250 and 300. But that is radio, online, interactive, and television.

Pintak: Are your television reporters going to be reporting for the web and the radio as well?

El Sokkari: We are still studying the issue and are trying to come up with solutions. It is practically impossible for one person to cover all platforms. He might be able to do different things for different platforms at different times. But we are still discussing how practical and how possible it will be to get people to contribute to different platforms.

Pintak: Given the number of journalists moving from channel to channel, you could say that the pool of qualified Arab journalists who know how to do television is relatively small. For example, Ibrahim Helal is heading back to the BBC from Al Jazeera; a variety of BBC veterans have turned up at the new Al Jazzera International…

El Sokkari: And there is Salah Negm [another veteran of the original BBC venture who set up the newsroom at Al Jazeera and is the new director of news for BBC Arabic] coming from MBC [where he was general manager, and formerly head of news at Al Arabiya] to the BBC. It is a healthy sort of dynamic equilibrium in a way. But I am not too sure that we really need a vast number of people who understand how to do television. When we launched in 1994 there were a very limited number of journalists who had experience in television and those who had, had been working in state television which was incomparable to what we wanted to do. So if you provide people with the right training within the right environment I think they will be able to expand their experience and work with it. We will need a core group of people who have had experience with satellite television but it does not have to be a large number of people.

Pintak: My point is that if you have journalists moving between these various channels how much difference at the end of the day is there between the channels?

El Sokkari: Well, BBC Arabic television was the mother of all channels, because from that channel came all the experienced staff who built Al Jazeera, Al Arabeya and all the other channels afterwards. Certainly, having people who have been trained and who have had experience in different channels would be an asset to our station. But the BBC has a lot to offer journalists in terms of expertise across the whole organization. And that is what we are going to build on if these experienced staff come back from other stations.

Pintak: Is it a matter of them being able to report without redlines?

El Sokkari: It is not just that. I think the core issue of professional journalism in the BBC is already established in the guidelines. This is something which attracts journalists to us, but it is not the only thing. It is also the system within which we work, the kind of respect that we have for everybody who works with us, the consultative approach that we have when it comes to exploring editorial issues. Of course, we take decisions here and there but we also give people a chance to contribute their views and to offer alternative treatments for stories within the boundaries of our editorial guidelines. I think this is an attractive place to work—people feel safe when they work in the BBC. They know that they are not going to wake up in the morning and find that they have been dismissed. You know there is a certain degree of stability that relates to the kind of system that we work within. And I think this is an attraction for lots of people. I have been flooded with applications even before we started recruiting and even before the announcement itself. So I am convinced that lots of people want to join the BBC, lots of people want to join BBC Arabic television, and I am sure it is going to be a unique experience.

Pintak: Hosam El Sokkari, thank you very much.

http://arabmediasociety.sqgd.co.uk/topics/index.php?t_article=78