Abu Hatem أبو حاتم

In my trip to the Arab world this summer, I fell in love with a strange show - a Turkish soap opera dubbed into Syrian colloquial Arabic, which was being watched by over 80% of the population of my small town.  A 150-episode drama, which airs for one hour nightly, I decided to give it a shot and in a few days I was hooked.However, the show has created a huge ruckus from a few conservatives in the Arab world, and the Western media has treated the show as some sort of engine to liberalized oppressed Arab women who long for romance.There have been a lot of stories on Noor in the English press.  Case-in-point: Canada’s Globe and Mail, The U.K.’s Financial Times, Turkey’s Hurriyet, the newswire AFP, France 24, MSNBC, and Lebanon’s Menasat.The Western media’s reports all have one thing in common: Noor is popular because of the oppression of Arab men:

Financial Times: ”What’s scary is that people have confused fiction with reality - if so much noise is created because a man treats a woman well, what does that say about our society?” says one television executive.  According to a report on the MBC website, a man recently left his wife after she said she had contacted the lead actor of Noor and was planning to meet him. Saudi Arabia, meanwhile, is apparently threatening fines for cars with pictures of Muhanad on their windows.

The Globe and Mail:That may be because Muhannad is an almost impossible character to live up to, said the mother of the Al-Qadi family on the fourth floor. “Our society does not allow men to be romantic like Muhannad,” said Um Sanad.  ”In our environment, with all the stress, it is very difficult to be romantic.”At the same time, her tall, dark-haired 16-year-old son, Sanad, sees the handsome Turkish actor as a role model.”I want to be romantic like him,” said the dark-haired Sanad, smiling softly.

AFP:”Such series reflect how the lives of Arab people are torn between modern life and their traditions,” said Lebanese sociologist Melhem Shaul, who specialises in the media.”Somehow these shows help ease the anguish that grips us,” Shaul added.

This is all excessive exaggeration and media commentary.  However, these newspapers do report that Noor had higher ratings than the Beijing Olympics in the Arab world and millions of Arabs watch daily.  This I can attest to being true, I believe this is the most popular show in the history of Arab television.There was even a fatwa by the Mufti of Saudi Arabia condemning the program.  Saudi Arabia is known to support a very fundamentalist (and arguably, to more orthodox Sunni Musims, heretical) sect of Islam called Wahhabism.  Now I will not argue behind the Mufti’s motives or fatwa.  This is a blog on politics, and I am no religious authority.  But all of these “anti-Noor” groups, as the AFP calls them, how many have actually sat down and seen an entire two episdoes - or even one - of the series?  Before anything is condemned people should know what they are condemning, this is a principle self-evident to the logical mind.

Noor is your typical soap opera.  Yet, the reason it is popular in the Arabic world is not only because girls have crushes on its main character, romantic Muhanad, or because they are oppressed by their husbands.  Of all of the female relatives I know in Syria, and they are many, all of them love their husbands, and none claim to be oppressed by their husbands, yet they all watch Noor.  When I asked one woman - who wanted to remain anonymous - what she thought of allegations that this soap opera was only popular because of a feeling of oppression amongst Arab women she replied (bear in mind she is a Syrian and not a Saudi, where oppression against women does indeed exist)  (translation mine):

“That is ridiculous, and a lie.  In fact, I would say no other woman is cared for more than the Arab woman.  Our husbands may not show their romance publicly, but they care for us.  They spoil us.  They always elevate us through their respect for women.  They also buy us flowers, they also buy us jewelry, and they also respect us.  Unlike American men, they don’t divorce us in extremely high rates, they don’t beat us like the American movies on TV, and they don’t see only our beauty in us.  It is true that we Arab women care for our houses, that even if we work we find it our duty and role to do housework, cook, and family work but these traditional gender roles do not mean we require liberation - no no, I would much rather be an Arab woman than an American woman and these newspapers saying this is why people watch Noor are being stupid.”

The main objection with Noor by “conservatives” in the Arab world are that it contains elements of Westernized culture.  Yet, Arabs see such elements in their everyday lives; moreover American movies have been popular in the Arab world since the late 1960s - and in fact the vast majority of Arabs have seen many American movies.  People object to Noor because the Muslims in the show sin - there is an abortion in the series, there is occasional drinking, and there is extra-marital sex.  As a religious Muslim, and political conservative, I oppose all of these things myself.  However people see them in their everyday lives, and what’s more sins such as jealousy, idolatry, hatred of other human beings, or starting fighting amongst people are very horrid vices in Islam yet if such things were to be banned in movies or literature there would be no movies or literature. Much of the criticism leveled against Noor is in fact unfounded.  Much of the show has very conservative and pro-family themes, much more than any American soap opera ever would.  A few examples:

•  Noor, the main character of the show, is the poor cousin of the rich aristocratic main character of the story Muhanad.  When Muhanad begins to fall into the vices of youth - gambling, drinking, and women - his grandfather Fikri decides to calm him down and structure his life, seeing in him potential.  Thus Fikri arranges a marriage between Noor and Muhanad and they marry immediately (a very non-western concept!).  Muhanad at first absolutely abhors Noor due to his attachment at a previous girlfriend, but in time falls deeply in love with her and then becomes what the newspaper articles describe as so loving and attached and romantic.  This is a traditionalist theme - that arranged marriages give more happiness than girlfriends, and that love can be learned.
• The grandfather in the show, Fikri, is extremely virtuous.  He only cares for his family and keeping his family together.  He gives generously, and cares not for money.  Whenever people in his family get in fights he attempts to solve them immediately.  He tells his family members “know the real meaning of brotherhood, brotherhood means that you always protect each other and that you never hurt each other.”  When Noor and Muhanad get in a fight and wish to divorce, Fikri attempts to pacify both and stop them from fighting each other.  He is such a good person that he is naive about other people and thus gullible, many see kindness as a way to use him.
• The mother of the show, Sherefe, is extremely controlling and overpowering.  She expects respect from her children - she asks her children and relatives to only call to her with respectful titles such as the Arab world khanom meaning madam, and she expects a kiss on the hand upon greeting.  Yet, with all of her controlling and all of her perceived “meanness” she has an extremely big heart and truly loves her children and only wants the best for them.  She is always looking after her married son Muhanad, and is extremely overprotective with him, but although she may annoy she teaches that respect, civilness, and obedience to parents is not a relic of the past but something loving and important to family and society.
• Muhanad’s wife Noor, the main character, is extremely forgiving.  She forgives Muhanad for cheating on her, albeit after a very long time.  She does not judge and always sees into people’s hearts attempting to help people fighting get along and be friendly again.  She is extremely sympathetic and forgiving.  These are Islamic values at their apex.  When she finds out that a family member attempted to kill her husband and in fact destroyed his kidney, she asks her husband to forgive him and tries to keep the family together.  When she finds out that someone attempted to steal millions of dollars in her name, she forgives that person at well.  She is always understanding and forgiving, and for this people love her.  She is an obedient wife, and for all of those who say this show opposes traditional gender roles, it does not do so in a American or European sense - it does so in a Turkish sense.  Although Noor works full time (something completely normal in the Arab world by the way), she obeys everything her husband tells her and even asks his permission for simple things such as taking a class or leaving the house.
• The show’s dialogues have many traditionalist, and/or Islamic themes.  For instance, the show portrays the many good parts of life - romance, marriage, enjoying one’s time with family, enjoying one’s work, having the blessings of food, clothes, and wealth - but also shows the many bad parts of life - death, divorce, illness, betrayal, and sneakiness.  Muhanad and Noor’s marriage is not hunky dory, they fight a lot like every wife and husband, almost every episode.
• A main theme of the show is that many hard things happen in life but one should not give up hope, that one should do good to others and forgive (like Noor, Muhanad, Fikri, and the other characters), instead of fight and keeping hard feelings.  ”People are nothing without their family” Noor says in numerous episodes.  The family sticks together - through thick and thin - and helps each other out in hard times.  Even when things get rough, they always have hope.  They realize the major calamities that come down are tests from God.  ”This world is nothing but good and bad surprises right after each other,” says one of the main characters.  This is a very traditionalist anti-utopian theme, for both secular traditionalists and religious ones.
• The show also teaches women not to be slaves.  Noor is not afraid to tell her husband that he is wrong on things, although she respects his decision if he won’t listen.  She isn’t afraid to reason with him if it will help him.  I support traditional gender roles, but slavery isn’t a traditional gender role!  The show teaches women that they can be smart, they can be strong, and they can disagree with their husbands and have personalities without being slave drones or their opposite - rebels without a cause.
• Abortion is bad.  One character gets an abortion, without notifying her husband, and is not allowed because it is late-term.  She then gets a back alley abortion.  For the next 20 episodes the girl goes insane, must check-in to a mental hospital, and becomes horrendously sick and regretful of her move.  Yet her family cares for her through the process, and her husband forgives her and moves on.

Yes, some have become Noor-obsessed.  There are reports of divorce cases because of the “dreamy” main character Muhanad.  Some also left their jobs to concentrate on the soap opera.  Others have done other oddball things.  Yet, there are people obsessed with many things.  Surely, we can ignore this ridiculous minority and concentrate on the vast majority of viewers. I do give these newspapers some credit however for highlighting some positive aspects of the show as well:

MSNBC: Bakiza, the matriarch of a large household in Jerusalem’s Old City, surrounds herself every night with her children, grandchildren, nieces, and nephews. They each take something different from the show. “I admire the story of Mohannad and Noor because of what it shows about how a family should be,” said Bakiza. “The grandfather, Fikhry, is the one who takes care of the whole family, decides everything, and solves all the problems. Everyone respects him.”

To some young women, the aspiring fashion designer Noor, provides a positive female role model and encourages them to raise the bar not only on future spouses but on themselves.

AFP: ”They are a bit like us,” said Lebanese Christian housewife Ibtissam Issa. “I really like their belief in tradition and their loyalty to the family.”

The main theme of this show is the importance of family.  Romance and love are only one component of this show, and they aren’t a bad component either.  While tales of Arab oppression of women are exaggerated, it is true that many in the Arab world do treat their wives as slaves or chattel.  This is not because they are “spiritual” in any way - indeed, many don’t pray or fast or do things of a religious nature - but simply because of the backwards societies of the Middle East.  Romance and love of one’s wife is a good thing, caring for one’s family and forgiving and forgetting is a good thing, respect for the elderly and obedience of them is a good thing.  And in this soap opera, every single member of the family except one lives in the exact same mansion and thus the family is strongly connected.

The soap opera has also done something phenomenal.  It has united the Arab world behind Turkey.  This is no exaggeration.   The Associated Press reports that Saudi visits to Turkey are up 300%.  The Turkish ambassador to Saudi Arabia said this was because of Turkish soap operas in the Arab world.  In Syria, the connection has been even more present.  Turkey and Syria are historical neighbors.  To highlight this, I went to the Turkish-Syrian border this summer, and we saw an ancient Armenian Christian town (Kessab), with a large portion of the population which speaks Turkish. Turkish-Syrian relations are stronger than ever now.  Historical similarities between Syria and Turkey are becoming rediscovered and are rekindling a love for Turkey, a fellow Muslim country, in the Syrian Arab ethos.  Noor character Ayca Varlier described this as “incredible” and hailed the beginning of a new cultural connection. To illustrate why this is so - let me just inform some of you as to what Turkey and Syria have in common.  Historically, Ottoman Turkish, a language no longer spoken (thrown out in the 1930s by revolutionary Kemal Attaturk) shared many words with Syrian colloquial Arabic.  Turkish cuisine has always been extremely close to Syrian cuisine, with the same types of foods.  Even Turkish music with its extensive use of maqam is extremely similar to music in northern Syria.  Turkish Islam regards Sufi movements with high regard, and so does Syrian Islam.  This new cultural attachment to Turkey (illustrated in the number of trips to Turkey made by Arabs, as well as the number of Turkish television series planned for Arab television - MBC, the channel airing Noor has purchased twelve more of them) is an extremely positive development for an Arab world that has been scarred by its extreme nationalism in the 1960s, and its current apathy for the greater Muslim populace.

People should watch things before they criticize them.  Arabs were wasting their time with much worse soap operas than Noor for many, many years.  In societies were unemployment is high, and with lots of free time, television series will be popular.  It is inevitable.  I am personally a newsjunkie myself and don’t watch much television series at all - I couldn’t name many other Arab television series, nor could I name any of the major television sitcoms on the major U.S. networks - but this soap opera really wasn’t that bad and there is much good coming out of it. I think if I, as conservative as I am and as traditionalist as I am, can find much praise for this soap opera, then that is saying a whole lot.

Share This

The blogs are lit up in discourse concerning who should replace Tim Russert as moderator of NBC’s Sunday morning talk show Meet the Press. Names being floated around are pretty much everyone employed with NBC news, the typical list of Chris Mathews, David Gregory, Andrea Mitchell, or even to some Tom Brockow, Rachel Maddow, Joe Scarborough, or Keith Olbermann. Non-NBC choices have been Katie Couric or George Stephanopolis. Those are all silly choices, and I don’t think NBC News execs will consider any of them other than Gregory or Mitchell. I will bet that Gregory takes MTP in the end.

Anyways, I have two suggestions on who should replace Tim as a humble TV news viewer. There are only two candidates, one from NBC News and another outside.

If you want someone to replace Tim Russert you need a someone who has a combination of three things: (1) a deep knowledge of politics, (2) a strong interview style, and (3) ability to bring in high ratings.

Candidate 1: Now at NBC News, the only one with a deep knowledge of politics comparable to Tim Russert is their political director Chuck Todd.

Todd, before his NBC fame, was an integral part of the real political journalism at the real sources of PBS, CSPAN, and the non-partisan National Journal where he edited the Hotline for 15 years. Todd is very familiar with Washington, non-partisan, a professor of political communication, and a graduate of George Washington University. Viewers know Todd for his number crunching during this campaign season wherein he outlined scenarios for Clinton and Obama victories.

There is no doubt Todd knows his stuff. Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post did a story on him in May. Russert was quoted in the piece:

 

Tim Russert, NBC’s Washington bureau chief, hired him from the Hotline, the online political digest, telling Todd that beyond his office duties he would get a tryout on “Meet the Press.” Apparently Todd passed the audition. “The secret to his success is he understands politics and can explain it,” Russert says. “Our platforms are 24/7, and someone has to man the platforms.”

The flaws of Todd are that he is too young (36) and that although he is a political junkie it is still unknown how well his interviews would go. I hope however that NBC gives him a chance, it would take a few years but Todd’s talent would shine. He has already covered all of the elections from ‘92 on for the National Journal, so we hope he makes it.

Candidate 2: John King.

The only person with a combination of a knowledge of politics, although not matching that of Todd or Russert, the ability to anchor, and the prospects of bringing in high ratings is CNN’s John King. John King is professional and non-partisan. Before his days at CNN he was at the Associated Press (the real news as well) since 1985 in fact, and was the head of their political coverage since 1991. At CNN he has become particularly political savvy as the chief White House correspondent from 1999-2005, a role shared by his NBC counterpart David Gregory. King is the designated substitute anchor for Wolf Blitzer, Anderson Cooper, and even Larry King, and has even moderated a few debates.

The downfalls of King are that he is still contracted with CNN, he is not as politically savvy as expert Tim Russert was, and that his interview style is not hard hitting.

Whatever happens and whoever replaces Tim Russert, the man is irreplaceable. Nobody watched Stephanapolis, Scheifer, Chris Wallace or Wolfe on Sunday mornings because their shows all sucked. All of those other shows were preparation for Meet the Press, the only real politics show that mattered because of Russert’s personality, charm, knowledge, and hard hitting interviews. NBC News’ political team other than Russert, Todd, and a few other journalists is a complete joke. Without Russert, NBC is the political gossipy talk show network. When Gregory or the disgusting Chris Matthews takes over we will see the further degeneration of journalism!

UPDATE: The NYTimes tomorrow has a piece on replacing Russert. Names which are mentioned:

But the list of potential names to assume the moderator role on “Meet the Press” is already well known. From inside NBC, the potential candidates include the evening news anchor, Brian Williams, who would be doing double duty (as Mr. Schieffer did for a time at CBS), correspondents David Gregory and Andrea Mitchell and MSNBC hosts like Chris Matthews, Joe Scarborough and Keith Olbermann. Several of those names are already lightning rods for critics, however.

NBC could smooth the transition by offering the post on a temporary basis to Mr. Brokaw, who stepped down as the network’s anchor in 2004. Because of past associations both with NBC and Mr. Zucker, Katie Couric will also very likely be mentioned as a possibility, with her tenure as the anchor of the “CBS Evening News” widely expected to end sometime in the next year.

In planning election coverage without Mr. Russert, NBC has him to thank. He was widely regarded as a good judge of talent and a good mentor at the network, and the list of successors includes many people, including Ms. Couric and Gwen Ifill of PBS, whom he recruited or encouraged.

Share This

As all of you already know, today died one of the only remainders of true journalism left on television - veteran NBC newsman Tim Russert, moderator of Meet the Press. As an avid TV news viewer, I was shocked and saddened at the news which I read from an AP wire on the New York Times website first at 3:19 PM EST.

I have been watching the Russert coverage all day on MSNBC and CNN as well as NBC’s special about his life tonight. What a great guy, but I already knew that. I have been watching Meet the Press weekly, before my Sunday trip to the masjid for afternoon prayers, for many, many years. In fact, only two weeks ago when my local TV affiliate canceled Meet the Press one week for storm warnings, I contemplated writing an angry letter in protest.

Tim is really a testament about what is great about America. He is a reason why I am so happy and glad and thankful to God that I was born in this country. Former NBC News correspondent and current CNN anchor Campbell Brown tearfully reflected today that Tim had written a letter to her new born son on the day of his birth telling him how lucky he had been to be born into such a great world. A man of faith, Tim believed in God’s greatness like the true faithful optimist. He knew of the virtue of hope, or as Muslims would say to see God’s jamal or beauty in everything in life even hardship. The true believer is an optimist.

Tim believed in God, family, and his good ‘ol town of Buffalo which he reverberated constantly throughout his broadcasts. He always was a fighter for the common man, he knew the follies of arrogance and hubris, and stayed down to earth. He was genuinely kind which was apparent both on air and by those who knew him in the business. And he always reached out to help other people, knowing that this was such a great country with opportunity to all that sought it. He said once that every time he contemplated missing a test for Law School he remembered his father picking up heavy trash as a garbage truck man and how his dad’s sacrifice paled in comparison to his. And Lord knows, Russert did work hard, on TV news he did his job especially well working as hard as he could to present the most excellent Sunday morning broadcast. As the Prophet Muhammad (saw) said, “Verily, God loves that when one do a task he does it excellently.”

Big Russ and Me, Tim’s 2004 book was a bestseller and truly reflected the strong value of family. The traditional natural order, the good ‘ol family man, taking care of others around you and seeing optimism in all that you do. Tim did what he loved and loved what he did. He truly is the example of happiness in life, of how we can spread goodness in this world, and how the traditional values of the natural and transcendent moral order yield far more benefits even in our worldly existence than the nihilistic essence of postmodernism.

It seems like common sense, and it is, to love and be loved, to give and you shall receive, to lift up others and stay humble, to do what one is good at and do it well, to care for and serve your fellow man especially your family, and to be an optimist in seeing God’s grace throughout life. Common sense keys to happiness in a confused world. Russert was a smarter cookie than you think, a devout Catholic and intellectual he did not have to rhetorically expound upon these self-evident truths of the wisdom of the ages, he lived them. The great grandson of the Prophet Muhammad (saw), the great Imam Ja’faar as-Sadiq used to say “Call people to the Lord in secret, through your own example.”

An example of Russert’s wisdom can be seen in the final pages of his book Big Russ and Me wherein he pens a letter to his own son Luke advising him on what to do in life. Russert, in such a common-sense way devoid of the abstract theories of moral philosophes, proudly and graciously provides the common man’s insight to the good life:

But remember, while you are always, always loved, you are never, never entitled. As grandpa likes to say, the world doesn’t owe you a favor. You do, however, owe the world this something, to live a good and decent and meaningful life, and would be the ultimate affirmation of grandpa’s lessons and values. The wisest commencement speech I ever heard was all of 15 words; the best exercise of the human heart is reaching down and picking someone else up. I’m so proud to be your father. Pursue every one of your dreams. They really are reachable. As Big Russ would say, what a country. Love dad.

I’ll take Tim Russert any day before the mumblings of the coffee house intellectual crew. If its Sunday, its Meet the Press… Russert, you will be severely missed.

Share This

Bill Moyers, a former adviser to President Lyndon Johnson, and the author of the documentary Buying the War which exposed the media for the run up to war in Iraq, sat down with media analyst and journalist Greg Mitchell last night on the new Scott McClellan book and the media “propaganda campaign” as the former Bush press secretary put it, involved in the run up to war.

Here is a preview:

Mitchell is funny:

GREG MITCHELL: Yeah, what Charles Gibson said. We wouldn’t — I don’t think we would ask any different questions. I mean, it’s shocking-

Yes! In the words of an 8 year old “no duh.” Moyers’ program last night was some of the best TV in a very long time. Good for him in continually raising the bar and challenging people. He has a very far left bias, but Moyers is much more intelligent and a better journalist than the entire cast of ideologues at Fox News and Al-Jazeera English combined. They also debunk the radical conspiracy theory that TV news is false, or that all TV media is controlled by a government or lobby or group or that it is not free:

JOHN WALCOTT: Yeah, but there are some terrific reporters in television — you know, at the Defense Department in particular. Jim Miklashevski at NBC, David Martin at CBS. What I think happened in part was another problem, which is they have sources. Believe me. I wish I had some of the same sources they have. But whatever information came from those unnamed anonymous sources is trumped by Donald Rumsfeld at the podium or Dick Cheney and Condoleezza Rice saying, “We can’t allow the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.”

Mitchell will be answering questions on Bill Moyers’ blog next week, so put in a word.

Here is Dan Rather, who spoke, along with Moyers I may add, at the National Confrence for Media Reform which is a left-wing progressive group working against media bias.  Rather just lambasted the press during the run up to the Iraq war, and does a good job I may add.  Dan, we miss you on TV:

Share This

Blogger Western Confucian responding to my Iraq and the media posts writes a very good comment:

Our friends on the left would likely blame the “corporate media” for failing to inform the public. They are right about the influence of big business in big media, but this critique misses something. In most cases, journalists reported fear of going against the grain as their motivation for failing to question the administration’s line. Alexis de Tocqueville (1805 - 1859) would likely blame what he identified as the Tyranny of the Majority. In Democracy in America, he wrote, “I know no country, in which, generally speaking, there is less independence of mind and true freedom of discussion than in America.”

My response to him:

Yes, I am very glad you write that we should not necessarily blame the “corporate” media.

A corporation is simply a form of commerce (which is formed primarily for protection from unlimited and separate legal liability). When people blame the “corporate” media they are implicitly and latently blaming commerce and thus private property and enterprise itself.

It is not commerce which is inherently disliked! Instead we as traditional conservatives understand that commerce is the basis of a free, prosperous and cooperative society and civilization. Instead what we on the Right go after is dishonest commerce which is in bed with government.

The Military-Industrial complex is one example of this, as well as what Dr. Ron Paul called the “media-industrial complex” wherein big media and big government are in bed and hence a big problem.

I am all for for-profit media. Just because media is for-profit does not mean it is dishonest, propaganda, or unethical. This is what our friends on the left don’t understand. Its that the media, like all groups in a democracy (as Bastiat makes clear in “the law”) attempts to use government to achieve special advantages and privileges.

And it is certainly not all “media.” William Safire (yes, the crazy neocon William Safire) recently said that when people say “the” before “media” it implicitly affirms some sort of conspiracy theory which simply does not exist. There are multiple medium, some are more corrupt than others, but thankfully in the United States many more objective outlets do exist (McClatchy newspapers for instance dug up things against the war, the Christian Science Monitor did as well, there were websites on the internet who did as well, and foreign media on our shores available through Dish such as BBC America did too, I remember I watched the news often during the time and still do).

When the left uses conspiracy theories it simply discredits the partial truth that they do have.

And I found a very interesting exchange between journalist Michael Massing who has written a book on the failures of the pre-Iraq war media and other journalists at the extremely left-wing NY Review of Books. One interesting part of the exchange which affirms the media’s complacency but does not step into conspiracy theory about a controlled media, hidden anti-Islam agendas, or an anti-corporation rant (as many unfortunately go through) (brackets added by me):

Ken Auletta did manage to speak to [the Washington Post’s left-leaning journalist Dana] Milbank for his January 19, 2004, article in The New Yorker about the White House press corps (”Fortress Bush”). According to Auletta, Milbank’s article had in fact “enraged” the White House, and several top Bush officials had complained to Post national editor Maralee Schwartz about Milbank, suggesting that he “might be the wrong person for the job.” Milbank himself told Auletta that the White House tried to freeze him out and for a while stopped returning his calls. Auletta goes on to note that in subsequent months, as the administration pressed its claims about the Iraqi threat, there were “increasing complaints that the press was not being rigorous in its examination of such claims.” Auletta’s description of a White House exercising tight control over the flow of information, and of White House reporters making strenuous efforts to cultivate sources, dovetails with my own analysis of why the press became so docile in the months from late October until the start of the war.

Kaiser skips over virtually this entire period. Instead, he mentions a “package” of articles the Post ran on March 16, 2003, a few days before the start of the war. These articles did offer a sharp look at the potential consequences of the impending conflict. It’s almost as if the Post, waking from a long slumber, was finally grappling with the enormity of the events about to unfold. Significantly, none of these articles (aside from Pincus’s) sought to evaluate the administration’s case for going to war—the point on which I argued the coverage was most lacking.

Share This

As you probably have noticed I have posted pretty much every single article to do with the media’s abysmal coverage of the Iraq war on the Abu Hatem News sidebar feed. This includes the recent remarks by CBS’ Katie Couric and Harry Smith, CNN’s Jessica Yellin and (disagreeing) Wolf Blitzer, NBC’s (disagreeing) Tom Brockow, Brian Williams, Tim Russert (both found in aforementioned the Katie Couric link), and (agreeing) Chris Matthews who called MSNBC bosses as “basically pro-war,” and the older remarks of MSNBC’s Phil Donnahue, PBS’ Bill Moyers, CNN’s Christiane Amanpour, CBS’ Dan Rather and Walter Cronkite, and the blog musings of Harvard’s Neiman Foundation, the Huffington Post, Salon.com’s Glen Greenwald (who interviewed a former Donnahue producer yesterday) the Project for Excellence in Journalism, and the American Journalism Review. As well as Scott McClellan’s recent admissions to MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann that Fox News was an administration propaganda tool where Cheney had “a lot of allies.” Not to mention newspapers such as the New York Times who this week decided to cover this story.

This should be enough of a preponderance of evidence for the average joe to make up his mind that the patriotic ferver that resulted from the crisis consequent to the 9/11 terrorist attacks destroyed the quality of media coverage and squashed most questioning of the Iraq war on most networks, although there were many notable exceptions (not limited to McClatchy - Donnahue and Pat Buchannan on MSNBC, Bob Novak on CNN, former National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft in the WSJ) in our free press (and in the foreign press - the BBC, the Gaurdian, Al-Jazeera, CBC, and the Independent were all against the war as well as France’s Le Monde).

Share This

Just a few days after the Project for Excellence in Journalism released a study on cable news coverage of the Iraq war, as well as the American Journalism Review report, Scott McClellan has written a book criticizing the “propaganda campaign” of the Bush administration and the media’s horrible coverage of the Iraq war. Two big news anchors - CBS’ Katie Couric, and CNN’s Jessica Yellin criticized the absolutely dismal coverage before the run up to war in Iraq.

To be sure, both are not the first. Walter Cronkite who called it “shameful,” Dan Rather, and others have criticized the pre-war coverage. Phil Donnahue’s show was canceled, and PBS’ Bill Moyers did an entire documentary special about the case for war called “Buying the War” which can be seen here.

We absolutely have a free press, (semi)-free markets, and thus not all the media is to blame. The “news” part of the war was not false, the Associated Press, Reuters, AFP, United Press International, and Knight Ridder (now McClatchy) and other news wire services were providing true news. Reporting blatantly false and fabricated news will eventually get you in trouble from competitors and consumers in the market. It was not the news or newswires which were offbase, it was primarily the TV networks’ opinion talk shows and the journalism in some newspapers (such as the leftist NYTimes’ Judith Miller who did fabricate stories and did get in trouble).

Only two newspapers - The Christian Science Monitor and Knight Ridder Newspapers were continually printing material against the administration’s claims. CSPAN and PBS’ NewsHour were not 100% on board with the war. And the McLaughlin Group’s Pat Buchanan was a strong critic of the war (which he called “the war for Israel”). But for the most part, times of crisis increase government power, and the government pressured journalists to cover the war their way. When Bob Novak wrote column after column opposing the war, the President forbade him access. This was the punishment to those who didn’t toe the government line.

Years later, with the war unpopular and a disaster, the media has generally been much more critical of the administration’s claims. Yet Scott McClellan was right, the media in the run up to war was less than critical.

Jessica Yellin said, according to the Politico:

“And my own experience at the White House was that the higher the president’s approval ratings, the more pressure I had from news executives — and I was not at this network at the time — but the more pressure I had from news executives to put on positive stories about the president, I think over time….”

But then a shocked Cooper jumped in, asking, “You had pressure from news executives to put on positive stories about the president?”

“Not in that exact…. They wouldn’t say it in that way, but they would edit my pieces,” Yellin said.

Katie Couric called it the media’s “most embarrassing” time and described “corporate pressure” as the source.

To be sure, CNN’s Wolf Blitzer, NBC’s David Gregory, and many others dismissed the remarks saying they think they did a good job although it could have been a lot better.

Being an avid TV news viewer during the Iraq war, I can only say that Fox News (which goes without question) and MSNBC’s coverage truly was the most biased. Phil Donnahue, Katie Couric, and Jessica Yellin who all worked at MSNBC strongly have criticized the network’s Iraq coverage. Now with MSNBC moving closer and closer to being a liberal left-wing alternative to Fox, things have only changed slightly, but with Chris Matthews’ random stupid remarks during the presidential race it is obvious that MSNBC is the least professional of all the cable networks.

CNN did a much better job both in coverage and in bias. CNN had some “hard news” reporters on such as Aaron Brown’s NewsNight, Christiane Amanpour and Nic Robertson who were a little more balanced. Yet they too failed.

I am very glad that McClellan has let the cat out of the bag and begun this self-realization by the media of their big blunders. If anything, it has without doubt improved the medias coverage especially in 2007-2008 from the strong biases that existed back in early 2002-2003. As an avid TV news and newspaper fan, I am glad the medium of the internet has come in and challenged the TV networks formerly shallow coverage. The Associated Press piece reports:

“It’s a great day for the American public that finally, after five years of such well-documented criticisms of the media’s failure … to see them finally having to come clean and do a self-examination,” Cohen said.

“The irony is that it’s one of the Bush prevaricators that is forcing it,” he said.

Five years later, Donahue’s former time slot is filled by Keith Olbermann, who has drawn attention for his sharp commentaries against the Bush administration.

From the other side of the podium, McClellan offered criticism of the media’s performance. He said reporters were “complicit enablers” by covering the preparations for war instead of more aggressively questioning the need for it.

Share This

Rupert Murdoch’s right-wing neoconservative media empire expanded greatly when he took over the Wall Street Journal earlier this year. However, of all of Murdoch’s outlets (Fox News, Newsday, SKYNews, Fox Radio) the only two which are actually decently run by decent directors are the Times of London (the British can’t go without hard news) and the Wall Street Journal.

The Project for Excellence in Journalism, an excellent media watchdog, did a study on the changing coverage of the WSJ. I have noticed the WSJ’s coverage go more political including commentary by political hack (but genius strategist) Karl Rove biweekly. PEJ discusses how the WSJ is changing the tone of its coverage, cutting down on the business side, to provide a strong alternative to the New York Times and be competitive.

In the free market, especially the dying market of newspapers, this competition may broaden the base and thus give Murdoch’s neocon views more of an outlet as well as make money. Hopefully, WSJ doesn’t do to the Times (which is already far from perfect) what Fox did for CNN. CNN is finally making its comeback and has almost beat Fox without copying the Fox model, yet the Times at least retains some hard news and it would be very sad for them to lessen their standards to compete with the WSJ.

Here is a PEJ found concerning the WSJ’s shift in coverage vis-a-vis The Times:

Share This

Parsley’s story was the top story on Countdown with Keith Olbermann tonight which usually gets ratings of about one million people (350,000 or so in the 25-54 demographic). It was also the top story on Campbell Brown’s Election Headquarters on CNN which usually gets about a net rating of 600,000 (250,000 in the 25-54 demo), and on Anderson Cooper who gets about 700,000 (250,000 in the 25-54 demo).

Thus the networks did a good job covering it after Brian Ross broke it this morning on Good Morning America. The GMA break probably had the highest net viewers overall. It was also big news on the ABC News on network news tonight.

Kudos to the media for covering the story.

UPDATE (05/25/08 3:10 AM): The Columbia Journalism Review has a piece on the media covering Parsley which is available here. The CJR writes:

Good for ABC News and Brian Ross, who are finally giving Pastor Rod Parsley, an important Christian conservative ally of John McCain, the kind of scrutiny he deserves.

On the one hand, Wright was Obama’s long-time pastor and spiritual mentor who officiated at the candidate’s wedding and helped bring him to God. Parsley, by contrast, is not personally close with McCain. Aside from appearing with McCain at an event in February to announce his endorsement, Parsley has had little direct contact with the candidate before or since. It’s true that McCain referred to Parsley as a “spiritual guide,” but there’s no reason to think that McCain’s religious or spiritual views have been meaningfully shaped by Parsley.

We can understand the press concluding that Wright deserves more attention than Parsley, thanks to his closer relationship to the candidate. But given the weeks of coverage that the cable news outlets, which do so much to shape perceptions, lavished on that story, a few skeptical reports about McCain and Parsley don’t seem like too much to ask. But so far, those same outlets have been remarkably uninterested. We hope the ABC News report starts a trend.

Share This

Brian Ross, the same one who broke Reverend Wright, is now breaking the story on Rod Parsley. Muslims have been making up conspiracy theories about how this proves the media hates Islam, that they refuse to cover Parsley. I have defended Rev. Wright before, and also criticized him, but Obama’s pastor was Wright while Parsley was just asked to endorse McCain. There is a big difference in media coverage, no offense.

Nevertheless, the fact ABC is covering this is a good thing. Anyone running for president cannot be around such people, and the very presence of a friendship between the two men serves as a recruiting tool for Muslim radicals.

Ross reports:

Al Moheet, a regional Arabic Web site operating in Egypt, carries the story with a picture of McCain and the headline: “McCain’s Spiritual Adviser Calls for the Destruction of Islam.”

“If there is a McCain presidency, he will start with a serious handicap in the Arab world,” said former CIA intelligence officer John Kiriakou. “And the handicap is that it is already assumed in Muslim countries that they will not get a fair shake from a McCain administration,” said Kiriakou.

Share This