How The Arab Press Sees Bush Trip

If Beauty Is In The Eye Of The Beholder, So Is News In The Expanding Universe Of Middle East Media

(CBS)  This morning's headline from President Bush's trip to the Middle East: In a speech in Abu Dhabi, the President charged that Iran is threatening world security, and the United States and its Arab allies must join together to confront the danger. That's OUR headline from the president's address. How was it covered by the media over there? Mark Phillips has been looking at the world through their eyes.

---

The President of the United States arrives in the Middle East saying he's trying to make peace one more time. At home, in a week of big political news, the story fights for airtime.

But in the Middle East, on the growing galaxy of state and independent television channels, it was "all Bush, all the time." And, depending what you were watching, you could have been forgiven for wondering if what you were seeing was the same event.

If beauty is in the eye of the beholder, so is news.

In Israel, the President's visit was portrayed as a belated effort to shore up the tentative peace-making efforts of two weak leaders - Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.

Within the Palestinian Territories, it was reported either as a push for statehood ... or a cover-up for oppression.

And if you were watching Syrian TV as President Bush arrived in Israel, you could even have been confused as to where exactly he was.

"George Bush visits the Palestinian Occupied Territories," they announced, where they said, "He ignored the daily aggression and terrorism of the occupying forces."

Hisham Melhem works in the new growing world Arab media.

"The media landscape has changed radically in a revolutionary way," he said. "Today we have more than 250 satellite television stations, we have 19 new radio stations in the last few years.

"We have a different media reality that is taking shape in the Arab world, and the powers-that-be cannot ignore it."

In an office in Beirut, Lebanese analysts track the content of the editorial riot that media outlets in the Middle East have become. And there's little mystery, Jihad Bitar says, where those conflicting voices are coming from.

"It really depends on the channel's political backing. You know, in the Arab world, the main news channels, you have Al Jazeera, which is owned by the Qatari government. You have Al Arabiya, which is owned by Saudi interests. Big, big differences."

Differences reflected from the moment the president touched down.

"Al Jazeera, to give you an example, when George Bush arrived, they had a split-screen, divided in two," Bitar explained. "George Bush was on the right, and on the left you had protesters in Gaza, people protesting George Bush's visit. They were trying to show that people don't want this. Arabyia tried to be more, sort of ambiguous coverage, which basically reflects Saudi Arabia's official position. They were saying, 'Okay, Bush probably is serious about peace. Before he leaves office he wants a peace agreement to be signed between the Israelis and the Arabs.'"

If the politics of the Middle East have never been simple, the portrayal of them, at least, used to be predictable. TV stations, newspapers and commentators toed their government's line. But now, as the market has fragmented, so has the coverage.

Abdul Bari-Atwan edits an Arabic newspaper in London that is read throughout the Middle East.

"If you look at previous trips of American leaders to the region and compare to this trip, you will find a huge difference," Bari-Atwan said. "Before, it used to be one-sided media, the governmental media. But now you can there are independent media outlets there. You have Hamas which has its satellite channel, you have Hezbollah which has Al Manar satellite channel, you have Syrian satellite channels, you have also independent opposition channels in Egypt, you have independent voices in Lebanon. It's a jungle out there."

And the law of the jungle takes the form of conflict by TV proxy. Palestinian President Abbas' meetings with President Bush were covered like an encounter between heads of state on Abbas' Fatah faction-controlled TV.

But Abbas' blood enemies in the Hamas movement in Gaza had a very different take: There was no hopeful talk on their channel of a two-state solution with an Israeli partner. Instead, this headline at the top of their coverage:

"ON THE FIRST DAY OF BUSH'S VISIT TO THE REGION, 3 PALESTINIANS MARTYRS IN GAZA, INCLUDING A WOMAN AND A CHILD … KILLED IN ISRAELI SHELLING OF NORTHERN GAZA."

Hannan Ashrawi has long been a major player in Palestinian politics.

"The Hamas coverage, it's extremely hostile, and negative," Ashrawi said. "The official news media is trying very hard to present this as a new era in Pal-American relations, as a period of promise, so you have very selective, often quite biased coverage in this part of the world."

The coverage may be biased and linked to broader agendas, but it does often share a common perspective. There are givens.

Marc Lynch teaches political science at George Washington University and writes a blog on the Arab media.

"President Bush is swimming upstream against a very deep reservoir of suspicion, hosility and mistrust," he said.

"The dominant narrative, the dominant frame in the Arab media, is still about the huge gap between what the president says and what's actually happening on the ground," Lynch said. "And so you get much more coverage in the Arab media of the expansion of settlements, and a lot more coverage of the Hamas/Fatah ongoing political standoff."

The Israeli media are similarly pessimistic about the President's mission, says Israeli journalist Avi Shavit.

"There is almost a tragic feeling to it, "Shavit said. "Both because of the failure of President Bush in transforming the region he wanted so much to transform, and because the result of that failed attempt is a growing feeling that America is losing its old mettle, or strong power over the region, and this is a concern shared by all."

And then - Iran. During a week that saw conflicting versions released in Washington and Tehran of the encounter between Iranian gunboats and U.S. warships in the Gulf, the Iranians were also giving a different spin to President Bush's trip.

Tehran's Arabic channel, beamed throughout the Middle East, was on the streets of Ramallah while the President was in town, focusing on dissent.

And that's what its viewers saw. Iran's view of the U.S. President, says CBS News analyst Reza Aslan, is a lot like the U.S. view of President Ahmadinejad.

"The Iranian media sees the president of the United States as an out-of-control religious fanatic, pretty much the same way that the American press sees the president of Iran," Aslan said.

Peace may be as elusive as ever in the Middle East but a new discordant chorus of voices has grown up to join the debate. That may make things more confusing … but it may offer opportunities as well.

"I think the most remarkable aspect of this renaissance taking place within the Arab press is that now the United States has a multiplicity of voices and multiplicity of views to turn to really understand not what the Arab regimes want or think but what people on the Arab street think or want," Aslan said.

[grumpas]

So the Iranian''s see Bush as an ''out of control religious fanatic''! So do a growing number of we American''s! I have thought for a long time there isn''t much difference between him and the Iranian President to bother mentioning!

[klifton2-2009]

...it is NOT what they (Republicans, Bush etc) consider themselves to be, it is what YOU allow them to believing and acting out their consideration that matters. The fact that Bush is in office twice means you, the American voters, are complicit in his range of misdeeds. He, Cheney, and the gang should have been kicked out office and held accountable a long time ago. Whining about it without taking action is just what it is, whining and more whining.

[hillaryin08]

So the Clintons played the race card. Who didnt see that coming?

[searingtruth]

A Grand Challenge (Part 1 of 3)

My friends, the simple truth is that we are wasting our precious time, resources, intellect, and passion. As a species we are just as aimless today as when our primitive ancestors first ventured out upon this earth.

Today I am proposing that for the first time in human history, we change that.

Radically.

More than any time in history, humanity needs a grand challenge. Not only to avert its extinction, but also to indelibly etch the common bond of mutual reliance and cooperation on current and future generations.

Fortunately, all of the forces that now seem to conspire against us can quickly be turned to our advantage.

For the first time in human history we actually possess technologies so advanced that any physical problem can potentially be solved.

And yet, I wonder, do we possess the will and wisdom to utilize them for our salvation instead of our destruction?

I propose that we find out.

So today I offer you a radical and stark choice between two future realities.


Excerpt from A Future of the Brave - www.searingtruth.com

[searingtruth]

A Grand Challenge (Part 2 of 3)

An aimless future of continued war and conflict, with all its accompanying suffering and death; or a limitless future dedicated to defeating suffering and death itself, with all its accompanying technological advancement and social evolution.

Yes indeed, I have a new plan, for all of you. A plan of hope. A plan of adventure. A plan of such extraordinary magnitude as to take the breath, and challenge the senses, of all who would consider it. A plan to bind our common people in hope, and finally free our conscience for noble purpose.

I propose that in the next three decades we at last end the scourge of human disease upon this earth, and begin the inevitable adventure of humanity%u2019s migration beyond it.

We shall at last unlock the fundamental secrets of our biology so we may conquer any illness or defect at will, and we shall free ourselves from the bonds of our native home so we may evade global calamities, and begin the expansion of our species beyond this world.

No longer shall our survival be dependent upon the random and dispassionate forces of nature. No longer shall we quiver in anguish as we helplessly watch those we love suffer and die in agony from an endless list of human disease and dysfunction. No longer shall our globe be divided in constant turmoil and conflict while the hammer of fate hangs precariously balanced over all we know and love.

Excerpt from A Future of the Brave - www.searingtruth.com

[searingtruth]

A Grand Challenge (Part 3 of 3)

We shall at last take control of our future, our fate, and ourselves.

No other endeavor ever attempted by humankind will require more genius, dedication, compassion, and sacrifice.

And no other endeavor ever attempted by humankind will be more vital to the continued existence of our species.

I understand that for many this may initially seem like pure science fiction. This is to be expected since the scales of the threats we face reside within the scope of what we have always considered to be science fiction. However, in reality, all of these goals are well within our technological reach. They are the quickest, and I believe only, way for our species to battle both the physical and societal threats that will continue to confront us.

Excerpt from A Future of the Brave - www.searingtruth.com

[closethippy1]

I just read an article in the Arab press strongly criticizing American democracy. I wonder what any of you thinks of it. Here is the link:

http://www.jordantimes.com/?news=4980

[hungry1968]

My take is that there are many major areas at home that require Presidential attention. His remaining time would be better served by attending to these.

Posted by ramos937 at 08:08 AM : Jan 14, 2008



His entire term on office has been focused on attacking Iraq, rebuilding Iraq, installing a new government in Iraq, and dishing out hundreds of billions of dollars in foreign aid.



His only four domestic accomplishments were:

Signing pork filled spending bills that set records for the total number of earmarks in them.

Creating "no child left behind" and then he didn''t provide any federal funding for.

Creating the new Medicare prescription drug program which includes a donut hole that leaves MORE people uncovered than before the bill was passed.

Signing into law, the bills required to give the wealthiest 10% of Americans several different tax breaks, through several new loop holes.

[searingtruth]

Mirror

My friends, sometimes the most difficult thing about fighting evil is realizing that it actually exists, and then unambiguously and forcefully calling it what it is.

History shows time and time again that one of evils greatest strengths is its ability to disguise itself as good, or at least a temporary necessity, until that last fatal moment when its revelation becomes clear, indisputable, and inescapable.

So today let us take a clear and unadulterated look into the mirror at ourselves.

Just six years ago we were one of the most respected and admired defenders of democracy and human rights in history. Respected not only by our friends, but even begrudgingly by most of our enemies. In fact, even the fantastic power of our military paled in comparison to the overwhelming might of our moral authority.

Today we are a nation that operates secret prisons occupied by anonymous inmates, illegally abducted and held indefinitely without charge or representation. We are guilty of torture. We are guilty of murder. We are guilty of preemptive war of conquest. We are guilty of the wholesale surveillance of our population, suppressing all hope of privacy and free dissent. And we are guilty of disgracing our nation through the abandonment of even our most basic precepts of morality.

If this is not evil, then nothing we have ever fought against is evil, and nothing we have ever fought for is good.


Excerpt from A Future of the Brave - www.searingtruth.com

[ramos937]

President Bush has 13 more months in office. During this period he cannot effectively make major new committments either overseas or at home. Even the ones he is making during this trip are DOA. Why? Because they require Congressional approval/funding. The Arabs are not stupid. They know of this important fact and are dealing with it accordingly.

My take is that there are many major areas at home that require Presidential attention. His remaining time would be better served by attending to these.

[brianbwb-2009]

Posted by lastdance7

Now it is only common sense when dealing with a culture that has strong religious beliefs, not to go in proselytizing another faith, in essence insulting them by inferring they have the wrong religion.

Now Graham proposes to send his people in, (he won''t be going by the way) to set them up as the next "victims of atrocities".

If they are kidnapped by those who object to their actions, should we then wring our hands in anxiety, and then support Bush''s "crusade"? Nope, they should expect serious anger, especially after all the death and misery Bush and his klan have caused.

Too bad Franklin won''t leave his mansion and limo to be with them.

[closethippy1]

Reading this article one can easily miss the anger and dissapointment in the Arab world towards the US, in particular the Bush administration.
Be it the state-run or independently owned media the feeling is pretty much the same.
But after expressing this anger for so long many in the Arab press feel they need to take a step back and try to be hopeful about things. And this is what confuses an American media outlet like CBS.
But let there be no doubt that Bush is looked upon as the bafoon that he is. And, frankly, he more than anyone else has shown the Arabs how useless a democracy can be. Or at least how it can''t prevent a warmonger from getting his way.
Make up any excuses, argue about the process but in the end Bush got his way, and Israeli supporters keep on playing the US Congress like a violin.
So, really, there''s not much to be impressed with and a lot to be fuming about.

[brianbwb-2009]

Posted by lastdance7

I think you can trust me on this one, lastdance, Bush cannot even understand politics, he doesn''t have the mental capacity. You can also forget religion, no one who claims religion would order an illegal invasion, killing hundreds of thousands of innocents. Nuclear capability? Nope, he can''t even pronounce the word correctly, Bush is simply stealing the economic future of America by selling debt to pay marked up prices for his illegal war, and pocketing the money.

[searingtruth]

"A brutal hand is despised by all it touches."
SearingTruth

A Future of the Brave - www.searingtruth.com

[brianbwb-2009]

"The Arabs use Bush as a threat to their religion, because it is the only cause they can rally their people around, as the poor are not threatened with deprivations, as they already have that, and there are plenty of religious intolerants who publish their views, and provide ample evidence to be cited."
Posted by brianbwb

And the same goes for our side, except the threat is to the vague concept of "freedom", which thanks to Georgie girl, we are losing more of everyday...

[brianbwb-2009]

I wonder where jowand went? I was just starting to have fun with him.

[brianbwb-2009]

"...based on what cbs is reporting about the arab world''''s portrayal of bush, i think more americans would buy into their view. george w bush is a religious radical who uses his military every chance he gets,.."
Posted by bigsk8fan

The reason they would be incorrect is that Bush is causing all the misery for one purpose only, profit. No one who claims religion should delight in the numbers of dead, wounded, and destitute innocents he has caused to suffer.

The Arabs use Bush as a threat to their religion, because it is the only cause they can rally their people around, as the poor are not threatened with deprivations, as they already have that, and there are plenty of religious intolerants who publish their views, and provide ample evidence to be cited.

[bigsk8fan]

the conservative and pro-white house american newspapers may be portraying george w bush as a man attempting to bring peace to the middle east. but to the average american, bush is a hypocrite when he has military forces in several countries in the region and threatens the ones he doesn''t have troops in. based on what cbs is reporting about the arab world''s portrayal of bush, i think more americans would buy into their view. george w bush is a religious radical who uses his military every chance he gets,

[searingtruth]

"If only we could once again stand as a nation and unequivocally proclaim that torture and murder is wrong."
SearingTruth


"Justice is simple. Beware of those who declare it is not."
SearingTruth

A Future of the Brave - www.searingtruth.com

[brianbwb-2009]

to jowand

"By the way, what did you do for the Rwandan refugees?"

We''re still waiting for the answer to that one also...