Obama's New Public Diplomacy Paradigm

President Obama's vision for US public diplomacy vis-à-vis the Muslim world is to shift from the policies of his predecessors to a new paradigm where common interests are emphasized, reports Robert Satloff for the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. Satloff notes that one of the most memorable parts of the president's inaugural address was repeated in the Al-Arabiya interview. "To the Muslim world, we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect," remarked the president.

President Obama also put an emphasis on economic partnership and aid rather than focusing on the promotion of democracy. Nevertheless, Satloff suggests that the president may have made a mistake in his speeches by referring to the 'Muslim world.'

"Radical Islamists believe humanity is divided between 'the Muslim world' and the non-Muslim world," argues Satloff. This unintentional denomination creates a rift that purports the Manichean vision of extremists and deepens ideological rifts.

"The repeated use of the phrase has the effect of emboldening our adversaries," notes Satloff, "because it suggests we are competing on their ideological playing field instead of compelling them to compete on ours."

Satloff points out that the president's comments have been setting the new tone for America's engagement with the Arab world. Nevertheless, it remains to be seen how policies will develop and who will be the next Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy.

The president's vision of America's engagement with the Arab world is also being reformulated at a lexicological level as he shies away from the famously coined expression of the previous administration, the "War on Terror," according to the Associated Press.

The phrase "became [inadvertently] associated in the minds of many people outside the Unites States and particularly in places where the countries are largely Islamic and Arab, as being anti-Islam and anti-Arab," said Anthony Cordesman, a national security analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington think tank.

Cordesman added that there is sense today that America needs to be more specific in its denomination of extremists groups and target militants that are a danger to US interests but also to the Arab population of the countries in which they operate.

According to the White House, President Obama is intent on repairing America's image in the Islamic world and addressing issues such as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, unrest in Pakistan and India, Arab-Israeli peace talks and tensions with Iran.

Using language is one way to help effect that change, said Wayne Fields, professor of English and American culture studies at Washington University in St. Louis. "One of the contrasts between the two administrations is the care with which Obama uses language. He thinks about the subtle implications," said Fields.

White House officials have claimed there has been no deliberate intention to ban the expression and that the president is merely remaining consistent with the message put forth in his inauguration speech. The expression "the War on Terror" has also been questioned by other members of the administration, specifically by employees at Homeland Security, according to Michael Isikoff and Mark Hosenball for Newsweek.

A year ago, Homeland's Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties prepared a nine-page memo, "Terminology to Define the Terrorists," which explained how the government had solicited recommendations from a "wide variety" of American Muslim leaders. The report suggested that US officials be more careful in their use of language describing counterterrorism efforts. Although the memo did not directly recommend curtailing the use of this expression, it did convey that it contributed to "inflating extremists' ideologies."

Eventually, Isikoff and Hosenball point out that the memo was ridiculed by right-wing journalists and analysts who accused Homeland Security of being too politically correct.

Page up

The US government-funded Arabic television channel Al-Hurra is planning to launch a news program focused on events in the Middle East, reports The National. The program will be launched from the channel's bureaus in Dubai, Beirut, Morocco, Jerusalem and its US headquarters in Virginia.

This decision comes at a time when the future of the channel is uncertain under the new administration. The channel was launched during the Bush administration to counter the effects of Al-Jazeera's depiction of American efforts in the Middle East. According to ProPublica, after spending $500 million the channel failed to deliver on what it was supposed to achieve.

Deirdre Kline, director of communications at the Middle East Broadcasting Network, declined to comment on the new programs or the prospects of the channel under the new administration. "Al-Hurra is always looking for new and exciting programs," she said.

The president's decision to deliver his first interview with Al-Arabiya, the Dubai-based news channel of the Saudi-backed satellite broadcaster MBC, was perceived as a blow to the US government's own Arabic-language channel. Journalists and analysts interpreted this as a signal that the administration is abandoning Al-Hurra.

According to Ender Wimbush for the Weekly Standard, the president's choice was not surprising. Wimbush posits that appearing on Al-Hurra could have also affected the president's credibility in the Arab world, before reiterating that Al-Hurra should be "a niche station, offering a distinctly American take that underlines American culture, values and objectives."

In addition to accusations of lacking credibility, the station has received complaints that US views have not been accurately presented. Nevertheless, Wimbush argues that getting rid of Al-Hurra would be a mistake.

A team of researchers at the Hudson Institute of Washington DC found that American TV presence in the Middle East is still important and that a series of powerful recommendations could turn Al-Hurra into a hard-hitting niche station. There is a genuine desire in the region to have Al-Hurra present more provocative programming. "Al-Hurra would quickly become a potent transformative instrument."

Wimbush concludes that Al-Hurra a positive tool for US foreign policy but warns that its issues should be addressed sooner than later.

Page up

While the Department of State (DoS) is working on reorganizing its strategic communication leadership, the Department of Defense (DoD) is helping to coordinate efforts between the two departments, notes Steven Corman for COMOPS Journal. DoD has significant capabilities and resources to support strategic communication priorities, particularly to counter ideological support of terrorism in Iraq and Afghanistan.

DoD declared that is was committed "to using our (DoS) operational and informational activities and strategic communication processes in support of the Department of State's broader public diplomacy efforts." This cooperation will better enable the US government to engage foreign audiences holistically and with unity of effort, according to Corsman.

Furthermore, it seems that both the DoS and DoD plan to coordinate their strategic communication planning in support of the global War on Terror, building partnership capacity, and regional issues. However, Matt Armstrong states in his blog Mountain Runner that the important role of Congress should not be set aside.

"State must gain the confidence of Congress before money and responsibility is transferred from Defense to State," he explains. Armstrong stresses that above all the State Department must gain the confidence of other agencies to convince them of what it can achieve.

Meanwhile, the Pentagon is boosting its spending on public relations in an effort to increase its role in the battle for the hearts and minds at home and abroad, reports the Associated Press. In doing so, concerns have been raised that this constitutes spreading propaganda at home in violation of federal law.

According to the news site, the Pentagon has spent "at least $4.7 billion this year, according to DoD budgets and other documents." This year alone, the Pentagon is planning to employ 27,000 people just for recruitment, advertising and public relations - almost as many as the total 30,000-person work force in the State Department.

According to the DoD, at a time when extremists use websites, videos and modern technology to recruit and carry out their missions, money spent on media and outreach is essential.

"We have got to be involved in getting our case out there, telling our side of the story, because believe me, Al-Qaeda and all of those folks ... that's what they are doing on the internet and everywhere else," says Rep. Adam Smith (D-WA), who chairs the Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee.

The Pentagon's rapidly expanding media empire, which is now bigger in size, money and power than many media companies, is influencing, educating and informing the public in the US and abroad. Glowing stories of US efforts are written by Pentagon staff through the Hometown News Service, according to the Associated Press.

According to the news site, the largest chunk of funds, about $1.6 billion, goes into recruitment and advertising. Another $547 million go towards public affairs, which reaches American audiences. An approximate $489 million more go towards what is known as psychological operations, which target foreign audiences. "Staffing across all these areas costs about $2.1 billion, as calculated by the number of full-time employees and the military's average cost per service member," adds the AP.

"It's not up to the Pentagon to sell policy to the American people," says Rep. Paul Hodes (D-NH), who sponsored legislation in Congress last year reinforcing the ban. According to Robert Hastings, acting Secretary of Defense, the growth also reflects the change of attitude towards information.

"The role of public affairs is to provide you the information so that you can make an informed decision yourself," Hastings says. "There is no place for spin at the Department of Defense."

Page up

The silence of President Barack Obama regarding the next Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy is puzzling, although many expect it to be Judith McHale, according to the blog Eureka Déjà vu. The author recognizes that traditionally "the better leaders of US public diplomacy were people who were either very close to the President or were strong journalists with a fundamental understanding of the ethics and art of communication."

Citing Edward Murrow as an example, the author hails Murrow as the father of both US public diplomacy for his work directing the US Information Agency under President Kennedy and modern US journalism for his World War II reporting.

The possible appointment of Judith McHale is generating both negative and positive reactions. Her opponents consider her to be too much of a media executive rather than a journalist, while on the other end of the spectrum her supporters believe she is a savvy media corporate leader with good connections.

The blog points out that McHale does not fit the Murrow model and offers alternative choices by promoting Bill Moyers, a veteran journalist with unquestionable "democratic credentials," and Lawrence Pintak, a professor of journalism at the American University in Cairo and former correspondent for the Middle East.

Matt Armstrong points out on his blog Mountain Runner that public diplomacy is about engaging global audiences irrespective of geography. In order to effectively promote public diplomacy, the Under Secretary "must be the leader of the government's 'influence enterprise' and must work closely with the Secretary of State to restructure and refocus the State Department to educate, empower, equip and encourage the abilities of what amounts to a 'Department of Non-State' within the Department of State."

According to Armstrong, the State Department must also adapt to modern challenges while being able to interface with everyone, from heads of state to citizens. The Under Secretary must be an able manager who can fix public diplomacy and convince Congress to empower State through increased funding, including diverting Defense Department funding to the State Department, argues Armstrong.

"We need an Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs who is a leader, manager and facilitator that can hit the ground running with the full support of the President and the Secretary of State," he continues.

Marc Lynch concurs on his blog for Foreign Policy Magazine that the position should go to someone with experience in and a vision for public diplomacy, and who will be in a position to effectively integrate public diplomacy concerns into the policy-making process.

Considering Judith McHale to be an inadequate choice because of her lack of experience in public diplomacy, Lynch argues that the results could be similar to those yielded during the tenure of Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy Charlotte Beers. Beers focused on "'branding' America through television advertising showing happy Muslim-Americans, and [it] is generally considered to be an utter failure," comments Lynch.

Criticizing the growing influence of the military in public diplomacy and the underfunding of the State Department, Lynch asserts that whoever is appointed needs to be in a position to quickly reestablish inter-agency balance.

Page up

Numerous media outlets criticized the BBC for bias during the Gaza conflict. They cited BBC's failure to echo calls for aid to civilians in the Gaza Strip during the Israeli attacks.

Kevin Sullivan for the Washington Post reports that, in addition to a series of recent gaffes unrelated to the region, "Rage at the BBC reached a new level this week after the network decided not to air a humanitarian appeal for victims of the recent violence in Gaza." The Post notes that the uproar includes sit-ins at the network's offices, a protest letter from 162 members of Parliament, hundreds of cancellations of television licenses by viewers, and individual complaints from over 22,000 people.

BBC's director general, Mark Thompson, excused the decision not to air the humanitarian appeal as their only option to avoid biased reporting. Writing on a BBC blog, Thompson explains, "We concluded that we could not broadcast a free-standing appeal, no matter how carefully constructed, without running the risk of reducing public confidence in the BBC's impartiality in its wider coverage of the story."

Thompson insists that, "Inevitably an appeal would use pictures which are the same or similar to those we would be using in our news program but would do so with the objective of encouraging public donations." He feels that overall, "The danger for the BBC is that this could be interpreted as taking a political stance on an ongoing story."

The Post says that the BBC's decision incited exactly what Thompson was trying to avoid: the appearance of political bias in its news service. "Virtually every news organization that covers any aspect of the conflict is bombarded by complaints accusing it of bias," reporter Kevin Sullivan writes. "Often, both sides complain that the same story or broadcast is slanted against them. In this case, many accused the BBC of favoring Israel."

Sullivan describes an editorial in The Times newspaper, which pointed out the very reason the news media exists: not for those telling the story, but for those about whom stories are told. The editorial reads, "The BBC is evidently concerned that to show pictures of the suffering, and plead for assistance, is to take sides, presumably against Israel [...]Giving aid to Gaza is something that can and should be done, whoever you think is to blame for the conflict."

According to the editorial, Sullivan writes, the BBC "seemed more preoccupied with avoiding another embarrassing dent in its image than with helping people." He adds that other critics pointed out that "showing clips of suffering children and asking for food and medical assistance in an offensive that killed 1,300 people in Gaza and reduced many buildings to rubble does not bias the BBC's news reporting toward either Israel or Hamas, the Palestinian Islamist movement that governs Gaza."

Diana Mukkaled of Asharq AlAwsat observes that the British press aired calls for the international community to help in the Darfur crisis and the Burma cyclone.

Terry Lacey, an Indonesia-based economist who writes about the Muslim world, condemned the BBC's decision not to broadcast calls for aid. Writing in outlets like the Palestine Chronicle and the Pakistan Times, Lacey declares, "The decision of the BBC to refuse to broadcast a humanitarian appeal for the Disasters Emergency Committee (DEC) made of up British NGOs working in the Gaza Strip to help the wounded and homeless of Gaza is one of the most craven acts of political and legal cowardice in the history of British television broadcasting."

Lacey points out BBC Director General Mark Thompson's as so detrimental to the network's credibility as to risk "cumulative and global" to the corporation, continues Palestine Chronicle.

The DEC includes humanitarian agencies such as the Red Cross, Save the Children, Oxfam, and Christian Aid. Regardless of the politics at play, Lacey writes, the issue is an overwhelming humanitarian concern. Part of the appeal, broadcast by Britain's Channel 4, ITV, and Channel 5, included a voice-over saying, "Today this is not about the rights and wrongs of the conflict. These people simply need your help".

Lacey calls for a boycott of the BBC, and questions why the network such an "implicitly anti-Muslim and anti-Arab decision" noting that conflicts in Southern Africa and Central America received full attention.

Abu Dhabi's The National explores the broader concern of the BBC's decision not to air the charity appeal. Muhammad Ayish, professor of communications at the University of Sharjah, writes that the decision was "wrong", and sparked major disappointment regionally. "For many of us in the Arab world who have grown up with a positive view of the BBC Arabic radio service as a balanced and human voice of the region, the decision not to air the Gaza charity appeal has been particularly unpalatable."

For seventy years, Ayish observes, especially during the 1970s and 1980s, BBC's Arabic reporting was widely acclaimed in the Middle East for listeners who, "disenchanted with their national broadcasting services, found the Arabic Service a promising source of information about their own communities."

Ayish adds, "The BBC's concern that broadcasting the appeal could compromise its impartiality is not only untenable, but also provokes the question of how better to define the grey areas of morality and professionalism in the media." He writes that the media ethics at play here are "an individual management view that may not be shared by BBC managers in the future."

Yet Asharq AlAwsat's Mukkaled observes that, while the BBC's longstanding reporting history is favorable in the region, BBC Arabic's performance as a year-old news channel has "yet to become part of the Arab viewer's daily life," largely because of decisions like this one. She notes that, while the station has doubled its daily on-air time from 12 to 24 hours, "BBC Arabic didn't seem to have one exclusive story about the events in Gaza. Nor did it have any exclusives on the events in Iraq or Lebanon."

In response to the network's decision, the Washington Post points out that the network lost its interview with Mohamed El-Baradei, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency. Privately-owned British outlets, like ITV and Channel 5, along with Channel 4 and Welsh S4C, aired the appeal.

Tit for Tat Politics Between Israelis and Palestinians

Arab Media Watch reports that the BBC's recent decision, which critics have condemned as biased, is the norm for the British media at large.

Shipra Dingare, an advisor with Arab Media Watch (AMW) is the author of a new report entitled, The British Media & 'Retaliation' in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict. According to her article for ABC News, the decision by the BBC not to air the aid appeal for Gazan civilians, 56% of whom are children, according to the U.N. Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, only reflects the larger media bias as a whole.

The report asserts that Israel is portrayed most of the time as acting in "self-defense" while attacks by terrorist groups in Palestinian territory are reported as nationally-based Palestinian offensives.

AMW's report is the first to examine the use of how "retaliation" and related language is reported in the British press. She writes that AMW's research of British press coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict during the last half of 2008 "reveals that when the British press represents one party as retaliating, that party is Israel almost three-quarters of the time" and 100% of the time in Britain's tabloid press.

Dingare adds that, "While violent actions by Israel -- including airstrikes, raids, assassinations and the Gaza offensive of February 2008 -- were portrayed both as 'retaliations' by Israel and as "provocations" to Palestinians, Israeli violence tended to be portrayed as 'retaliation' three times more often than it was portrayed as 'provocation.' [...] The blockade of Gaza, described by U.N. special reporter Richard Falk as a 'crime against humanity,' was given comparatively little coverage as a 'provocation' to Palestinians."

She cites an Israeli raid on November 4, 2008, which prompted a Hamas rocket attack in response. Such attacks by Hamas had "almost completely ceased by October 2008 (when only one mortar and one rocket were fired." Yet even instances such as these were portrayed as Israeli self-defense, rather than first-strikes.

Dingare also mentioned Robert Fisk's report in The Independent eight years ago, which described this phenomenon. He noted the verb choice in reports suggesting that Palestinians are the only parties that can be held accountable for violence in the region. They are "responsible for the violence, in which Palestinians 'die' in 'clashes' while Israelis are 'killed' by Palestinian gunmen. Ten years on, the double standards endure, perpetuating the conflict."

Muhammad Ayish, writing in The National, argues that Arab media is transitioning from "centralized, politically-conscious and state-controlled planning to market-inspired management," becoming "a viable communications industry."

Ayish adds that "media can be an instrument of national integration and cultural development in addition to having a market-orientated role...The underlying value of media industries is not financial or technological, but intrinsically social." As such, Ayish judges the Arab Media Outlook 2008-2012 to be "outstanding" but overtly financial in its analysis.

The eighth annual Arab Journalism Award has received a record 3,113 entries for the 13 award categories, a rise of 19% over the previous year according to a press release on AMEInfo. Maryam Bin Fahad, Executive Director of the Dubai Press Club, said that the increase was a "major milestone."

Of the entries, which will be trimmed down to a shortlist by April, 32% were from Egypt, followed by Saudi Arabia with 10%, Kuwait with 7%, the UAE with 6%, and Lebanon with 4%. The categories with the most entries were investigative journalism and press interviews.

In Saudi Arabia, two developments will help to enrich television coverage and expand the impact of programming. Al-Insaniya, claiming to be the world's first satellite channel focused on issues of deprivation and poverty, has recently been launched in Riyadh, reports Shalid Ali Khan for the Saudi Gazette.

Dr. Hassan Alwan Oudha, Al-Insaniya's General Manager, claims that the channel "is the first such channel launched from Saudi Arabia, the Kingdom of Humanity, aimed at serving underprivileged people in the Arab World." The channel's studios, based in Cairo, Riyadh and Jeddah, have already recruited a staff of 200 people.

Saudi Arabia's Ministry of Culture Information (MOCI) has also announced, via a PR Newswire press release, an effort to transform and modernize the kingdom's broadcasting.

MOCI has purchased 21 AM radio transmitters, 40 FM radio transmitters, and 36 TV transmitters from Harris Corporation, "to allow for the broadcast of audio and TV programs terrestrially throughout the kingdom." The TV transmitters will also serve as a "critical element" of Saudi Arabia's upgrade of its television infrastructure.

MOCI currently owns four TV channels (operating both terrestrially and via satellite) and four radio channels (operating in both FM and AM frequency bands).

Despite these developments, the Arab media landscape has also suffered recently as the global economic downturn starts to bite, writes Al-Arabiya's Courtney Radsch. The Arabic daily Assawt has published its last edition, and is "a victim of the financial crisis that has battered the local economy," according to editor-in-chief Yussef al-Sumait.

Assawt's demise follows the temporary shutdown of Lebanon's English-language Daily Star, which was saved after a settlement with Standard Chartered Bank.

Dr. Nabil Dajani, professor of communications at the American University of Beirut concludes, "The newspapers in the Arab world are facing a serious crisis, circulation is going down badly, you don't have many people reading newspapers, and limited advertising."

Dajani added that the lack of computers and internet access in the Arab world also poses a problem for publishers who may want to follow the financial models of their Western counterparts.

Page up

Al-Jazeera's English-language news channel is continuing to gain popularity, writes Sean Blanda of BNET Media. The network's coverage of the Gaza conflict, where it benefited from unrivalled access to the territory, was responsible for a 600% increase in viewership. Additionally, 60% of new viewers were from the United States.

Reporting for Arab News, Tariq Al-Maeena polled 148 people about their views and preferences regarding news coverage of the Gaza conflict. 72% of the respondents named Al-Jazeera as their "channel of choice for news."

Many respondents of Al-Maeena's survey complained of "politicking." One respondent from Oman replied, "Forget CNN! ... that channel has been a Zionist organ...Al-Arabiya is no better. Sometimes I think they are competing with Al-Hurra...For me it is and will be Al-Jazeera."

Al-Jazeera's impartiality and reporting style was also praised. Rana from Dhahran argued that Al-Jazeera "presented the events from all angles." Meanwhile, Umm Omar in Riyadh spoke of Al-Jazeera's "amazing footage and compelling groundwork." He added, "They don't try to hide the truth."

Al-Jazeera has also taken considerable steps towards making Arab media contemporary, progressive and more relevant, reports Marten Youssef in The National. Youssef quoted Adel Iskandar, co-author of Al-Jazeera: How the Free Arab News Network Scooped the World and Changed the Middle East, as saying, "Finally, the Arab media is reaching out to tell their own story in their own way and the world is listening."

Youssef notes that in the past, "the West's perception of the Middle East was cast by how its own media portrayed the region." However, since the news service Al-Jazeera English launched in November 2006, "the use of western reporters or western-trained Arabs based in the Middle East to tell their own story became a hit," and "Al-Jazeera's slogan became: 'Everyone watches CNN, but who is CNN watching? Al-Jazeera.'"

Adel Iskandar adds, "Until recently, there was a great deal of antagonism towards Arab media, at least in America, because it was perceived to be biased towards the region. Things like Osama bin Laden's video messages to Al-Jazeera are an easy target for criticism of the Arab media. It gave the perception of radicalism."

Al-Jazeera is intent on covering "what some at the station have called the 'south,' or underreported part of the world," reports Kim Andrew Elliot on his website. Al-Jazeera's decision to field a permanent news team in Gaza and their introduction of numerous online initiatives, including "a [Gaza] citizen journalism portal that [encourages] viewers to submit photos and eyewitness accounts" and creating a Twitter page for instant Gaza updates, demonstrates a significant dedication to reaching this objective.

Al-Jazeera's efforts are garnering the network massive popularity, as "the Arabic Al-Jazeera channel [now] rivals the BBC in worldwide audiences with an estimated 40 to 50 million viewers" while "Al-Jazeera English has an estimated reach of around 100 million households."

Additionally, Al-Jazeera's decision to publish news footage online under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 license has also brought in viewers. Dave Lee, a blogger writing for Journalism, said that Al-Jazeera's move means that "you can do what you like with this, just so long as you tell everyone you got it from us."

According to Lee, Al-Jazeera's decision is "a very brave experiment." Moreover, Lee concludes that "this scheme has the potential to make Al-Jazeera news the most watched in the world...It's a marketing and brand identity masterstroke."

Page up

In a conversation with Amy Harder of the Lost in Transition blog about the skills the next Under Secretary should have, outgoing Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy James Glassman reaffirmed his ideas about what the position entails.

"What I dread, what I'm really worried about, is appointing somebody who essentially sees his or her job as an image-maker. That would be a huge mistake." Glassman argued that his successor should have "an orientation toward national security, not an orientation toward public relations. That's an imperative." Glassman also criticized the delay in naming his successor, labeling it a "mistake."

Glassman did praise President Barack Obama for his interview screened on Al-Arabiya, saying his words were sure to "resonate" with the Arab world, though he did remind Harder that former President George W. Bush had also appeared on Al-Arabiya several times.

Nevertheless, Glassman characterized Obama as "the best public diplomat America has." He concluded by reaffirming, "his deeds - that is to say his policy...is a lot more [important] than the president doing interviews."

However, early indications show that public diplomacy might not assume the high priority that Glassman had envisaged. Carolyn O'Hara, writing for Foreign Policy, details an office space issue on the 7th floor of the State Department's Foggy Bottom headquarters.

O'Hara reports that Bill Burns, a career diplomat and the highest ranking Foreign Service Officer in the country, has been moved from his office closest to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, due to the arrival of the Secretary's two new deputies.

As a result, the offices of the Undersecretary of Public Diplomacy and the rest of the public diplomacy staff could be moved to "the far-from-coveted 6th floor - hardly a good message about the importance of public diplomacy." According to O'Hara, diplomats have responded with the cynical "oh, so THAT's how they're going to treat us."

However, O'Hara's claim of "bigger egos" in the State Department may be offset by reports that Clinton has agreed to "bury the hatchet" with Samantha Power, according to Matthew Lee at the Associated Press.

Power was the former Obama aide who was forced to resign after she called Clinton a "monster" while working to elect Barack Obama president. Reports suggest Power could be set to become senior director for multilateral affairs at the National Security Council, a job that would require close coordination with Clinton.

The reorganization of the State Department is also still being debated. Christopher Bronk's idea to create "an entity to engage in digital public diplomacy" within the State Department is supported by the Tech Daily Dose.

In an article for the Washington Times, Michael O'Hanlon calls for a modest increase in the State Department budget.

To correct what O'Hanlon sees as long-term "neglect" of the DoS budget, $7 billion a year of additional funding would be required. Of the $7 billion, an expansion of diplomatic capabilities costing $1 billion, and increased public diplomacy efforts costing $800 million could be achieved. This would increase total staff numbers of core diplomats and allow for additional training.

However, writing for Foreign Policy, Christian Brose warns that "pouring more money into the State Department and USAID as they are currently constituted will not create better outcomes."

Brose sees the securing of extra funding as "the easy part." But, "real change requires institutionalizing the thinking behind "smart power," which Brose argues "requires creating an entirely new set of assumptions and expectations about what life today as a diplomat will be (hint: more dangerous, more lonely, and less glamorous)."

Brose concludes that only "fundamentally [changing] the incentives structure" of the State Department will improve outcomes. For Brose, this means creating a structure where "Foreign Service officers who had served their time stamping visas in Botswana or someplace," can progress professionally.

Page up

One Size Did Not Fit All

One day after it was unveiled, a sculpture of a shoe erected in the Iraqi city of Tikrit honoring Muntadhir al-Zaidi was taken down on the orders of the local Salaheddin Provincial Joint Coordination Centre. Muntadhir al-Zaidi famously threw his show at President George W. Bush last year at a press conference.

According to the New York Times, "the artwork arrived and was removed during a period of political anxiety, with elections in Iraq set for [that] Saturday."

Hundreds of people had gathered to see the monument unveiled just a day earlier in the gardens of the Tikrit Orphanage, an Iraqi foundation that cares for children whose parents died following the invasion of Iraq in 2003. The statue was a brown shoe on a white pedestal, 10 ft high, with a poem praising Al-Zaidi at its base, said the BBC. At the base of the shoe was a bush.

The sofa-sized sculpture, insists artist Laith al-Amari, was not a political work, but a "source of pride for all Iraqis," according to the BBC.

Orphanage Director Faten Abdulqader al-Naseri told CNN, "The orphans helped Al-Amiri build the $5,000 structure in 15 days. Those orphans who helped the sculptor in building this monument were the victims of Bush's war. The shoe monument is a gift to the next generation to remember the heroic action by the journalist."

Al-Zaidi became famous after calling out to Mr. Bush, who was on his final visit to Iraq as president, "This is from the widows, the orphans, and those who were killed in Iraq." Upon throwing the shoe he shouted, "This is a farewell kiss, you dog." While Mr. Bush dodged the shoe and responded amicably following the incident, Al-Zaidi was arrested and awaits trial.

After removing the sculpture, Shahah Daham, head of the charity that runs the orphanage, told Deutche Presse-Agentur (DPA), "I did take the shoe down immediately and destroyed it; and I did not ask why."

Salaheddin's deputy governor, Abdullah Jabara, told DPA that "children should be put away from any political-related issues. Since this is an orphanage, this monument can instill in children's hearts things for which the time is not now."

According to Alissa Rubin, the New York Times' Baghdad bureau chief, "Hitting someone with a shoe is considered the supreme insult in Iraq. It means that the target is even lower than the shoe, which is always on the ground and dirty."

Gary Sick, senior research scholar at the School of International and Public Affairs at Columbia University, told the New York Times, "I think it is symbolic of something very real. Whatever one thinks about the results of the Bush administration policies, they've been profoundly unpopular in the region." He referred to the show-throwing as "a gesture by one disgruntled individual. He was taking advantage of his being within range and using the weapons he had in hand. A lot of people in the Arab world felt this was appropriate. They found it amusing."

Page up

Israel Spurns Al-Jazeera

Israel's relationship with Qatar-based Al-Jazeera is moving from "frosty" to a "deep freeze" according to Dion Nissenbaum, writing for McClatchy.

Six months ago, Israel temporarily terminated the approval of work visas and press cards for Al-Jazeera after one of the station's anchors held a birthday celebration for Samir Kuntar, "the Lebanese killer freed in a prisoner exchange with Israel."

Following Al-Jazeera's coverage of the recent Israeli invasion of Gaza, Israel has decided to take new steps to restrict the network's ability to work freely in Israel and in territories controlled by the Palestinian Authority. The BBC notes Israeli officials have been vehemently critical of Al-Jazeera's Gaza coverage, accusing the station of being "a mouthpiece for the militant Islamist movement, Hamas."

As AFP reports, Qatar's decision to close the Israeli trade office, based in Doha and operated by two Israeli diplomats, also served to hasten Israel's decision to clamp down on Al-Jazeera.

An Israeli official told AFP, "Qatar itself has set up obstacles by breaking relations with Israel. There is no reason to help clear the problems this emirate which controls Al-Jazeera created for itself."

Barak Ravid writing for Haaretz reports that the Israeli Foreign Ministry, in conjunction with the newly-created national information directorate in the Prime Minister's Office, attempted to declare Al-Jazeera a "hostile entity," in response to the closure of the Israeli trade office.

However, after legal review, concerns emerged that the High Court of Justice would not allow the "hostile entity" declaration, and so the idea was dropped in favor of a three-step strategy. The strategy was described by an Israeli Foreign Ministry official as "a rearrangement of relations between Israel and the Al-Jazeera network in light of the present situation."

Ghassan Bannoura, writing for the International Middle East Media Center, outlines Israel's three-step strategy. First, Israel will cease renewing the visas of Al-Jazeera staff who do not hold Israeli documents. Second, Al-Jazeera staff will no longer be permitted to interview Israeli MPs, and will only be allowed to speak to a spokesman from each of the Israeli Prime Minister's office, the Israeli Defense Force and the Foreign Ministry. Third, Al-Jazeera reporters will be prevented from attending briefings or press conferences.

The Doha Centre for Media Freedom labeled the Israeli actions as "unacceptable," reports The Peninsula, a Qatari daily. The Centre continued, "After keeping the international media away from the tragic events in Gaza, Israel is now planning to punish foreign media on its territory according to the diplomatic choices of their countries of origin."

However, Jerusalem Post Editor-in-Chief David Horovitz supports the Israeli decision, emphasizing the importance of success on the "second battlefield" of media and public diplomacy.

Horovitz adds that Al-Jazeera's Gaza coverage has helped fuel a delegitimization of Israel in Europe and the United States, complaining, "It is hard to articulate the wider narrative [that explains context and root-causes of conflict] over film of bloodied Palestinian children."

Horovitz argues that the lack of an Israeli satellite TV station, in English or Arabic, renders Israel unable to counter Al-Jazeera's coverage. This issue has been brought into focus, writes The Times's Richard Kerbaj, by an incident on Al-Jazeera's English-language channel in which the sermons of Sheikh al-Qaradawi celebrating the Holocaust and praying for the killing of all Jews were broadcast.

The incident caused John Whittingdale, chairman of the UK House of Commons Media Select Committee, to demand an apology - a request refused by Al-Jazeera.

In response to Horovitz's claims, Isaac Herzog, Minister of welfare and social services, said that Israel has considered a "Jewish Al-Jazeera," but it was "torpedoed by the Finance Ministry, which refused to pay for it."

Israel's three-step strategy began almost immediately, as two Al-Jazeera journalists, Ahmad Mansour and Ghassan Bin Jido, were prevented from entering the Gaza Strip through the Rafah border by Egyptian authorities, reports Yoav Stern of Haaretz. Both Mansour and Bin Jido are known for their "favorable attitude toward the Palestinian 'resistance movement.'"

Page up

According to The Gulf Times, the Arab media played a vital role in bringing the recent conflict in the Gaza Strip to an end, creating a truce in the region. The Gulf Times argues that the media is a powerful tool in influencing the outcomes of events around the world.

Hamdi Qandil, a veteran Egyptian anchor, claims that the Arab media coverage of the assault on Gaza was "'effective' in bringing the Israeli offensive against the territory to a halt" by putting pressure on Arab forces. Qandil stated on Dubai TV that "the media successfully created a real Arab public opinion against the Israeli aggression," ultimately resulting in a ceasefire which left Hamas still in power.

Ryan Rougeau, a guest columnist for The Reflector, writes that the media served to encourage Hamas. He says that Hamas understands that "the pen is mightier than the sword," and that in order to come out victorious in any battle against Israel, they have to gain international sympathy for their cause.

For example, throughout the conflict Hamas utilized television to show photographs of child casualties, as opposed to "the dead terrorists who launched thousands of rockets into Israel in the past few years." As a result, the international community became angry at Israel, not at the terrorists, and Hamas "won." Rougeau claims that this is a prime example of the media showing only one side of a story without accurately portraying the entire situation.

According to China View, since the Hamas-run Al-Aqsa TV station in Gaza was completely destroyed by Israeli troops, it will now broadcast from Beirut for one hour each day. This will enable Hamas to "develop its capabilities outside Gaza."

As reported in The Washington Institute for Near East Policy, Hamas leader Khaled Mashal took advantage of the opportunity to speak in Qatar, thanking the country for its support during the conflict. In his speech, Mashal announced, "Palestinian fighters had 'won the war...by defeating Israeli plans.'"

This not only enabled Hamas to publicly declare that it succeeded in the Gaza strip, but made government officials in Washington wary that Qatar may be moving away from an Arab consensus and towards an alliance with countries such as Syria and Iran.

However, as Khaled Abu Toameh reports for the Jerusalem Post, not all supporters of Hamas are able to relay their stories through the media. In the West Bank, a crackdown on journalists, university professors, students and preachers who support Hamas has increased. The Palestinian Authority in the West Bank has become alarmed by those who support Hamas; therefore, Mahmoud Abbas and his prime minister, Salaam Fayad, "have instructed their various security forces to step up their crackdown on the Islamic movement in the West Bank."

Consequently, "more than 135 Hamas supporters and members have been rounded up" in the past three weeks. Reporters and critics have been either intimidated or arrested. A number of Fatah operatives in the region say that the United States and Israel have been putting increasing pressure on the Palestinian Authority to take action against supporters of Hamas, culminating in this "clampdown."

For The National, Sultan Al-Qassemi writes that the internet, an increasingly important instrument for the media, not only facilitates the spread of information but also contains it online ad infinitum. He states that the internet "never forgets" and because of this, "technology doesn't always work in one's favor" because when something controversial is posted on the internet, it remains there indefinitely.

Al-Qassemi, however, views this as something that may prove to be "very positive for governance in the Arab world" because it "may keep officials in check when they finally realize that their actions, intentional or not, are recorded forever and can't be undone." He hopes that this will one day help diminish corruption in the Middle East and forbid it to be, as it is now, "practiced in broad daylight."

Page up

The Dubai Press Club released Arab Media Outlook 2008-2012, the second edition of the "ground-breaking report" on the current state of Arab media, notes Business 24-7. Based on extensive research on media in twelve Arab countries, the report focuses on "a number of significant developments that impacted substantially on the media sector."

According to AME Info, "developments in digital media and the emergence of broadband access and TV delivered directly to mobile devices present exciting growth opportunities for media companies across the Arabic speaking world."

The "most promising opportunity," adds AME Info, is the delivery of digital content to mobile internet-connected devices. Because of the lack of affordable and high-quality broadband access in most of the region's markets, mobile technology will play an "important role...with mobile phones rapidly emerging as a rival means of broadband access to internet content."

Another article from Business 24-7 points out that mobile phones enjoy "very high market penetration" in the region, "particularly in the higher income GCC countries." The popularity of mobile devices has fostered the emergence of user-generated content - another focus of the Arab Media Outlook.

User-generated content, particularly citizen journalism, has taken off in the region, according to the report. "The growth in mobile technology has seen the emergence of news and current affairs websites that rely on input from citizen journalists who directly upload information from their mobile cameraphones," explains AME Info.

"The surge of citizen journalism that we see today will compliment 'mainstream journalism' and add to the depth and breadth of media content," comments Mona Al-Marri, Chairwoman of the Dubai Press Club. "Digital technology is transforming large sections of people from passive consumers into active creators of media content," she adds.

Additionally, the Arab Media Outlook report highlighted the important role that the "Net Generation" plays in the Middle East's media landscape. The Net Generation, "whose members lie in the 15 to 25 age group, is particularly important because of the high proportion of young people in the region," explains Marri.

The emerging generation of media consumers known as the Net Generation has grown up using internet and mobile phones, clarifies Business 24-7.

More than 50% of the population of Yemen, Oman, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Morocco and Egypt are estimated to be younger than 25, while in the remaining countries "the under-25 Net Generation makes up between 35-47% of total population," adds the news site.

Given these demographics, the report argues that "the Arab media sector must move fast to accommodate the Net Generation and its technology must evolve with global media trends," according to Gulf News.

Marcel Fenez of PricewaterhouseCoopers optimistically suggests in Business 24-7 that "digital media will thrive in the Arab market because the market has a large, technologically accomplished demographic group - its youth - who are comfortable with it and will customize it to their own requirements."

Given the emphasis on mobile technology and user-generated content, many media sources have examined the future role that traditional media, particularly newspapers, will play in the region. The report recommends that traditional media develop strategies for online and mobile content production and distribution, notes Gulf News.

"These developments present tremendous opportunities and some challenges for traditional print and broadcast media," suggests Business 24-7. Despite the global economic downturn, newspapers "will survive and remain a significant source of news," adds Gulf News.

Meanwhile, the popular social networking site Facebook celebrated its five-year anniversary, according to EfluxMedia. The popularity of social networking sites has been constantly increasing with an average growth rate of 25%. Specifically, "countries in the Middle East-Africa region grew a whopping 66%," notes the site.

Page up

[1]Baldor, Lolita, January 31, 2009, "Under Obama, 'War on Terror' Catchphrase Fading." Washington: Associated Press.
Isikoff, Michael and Hosenball, Mark, February 04, 2009, "War on Words." Washington: Newsweek.
Satloff, Robert, January 29, 2009, "Obama's Personal 'Public Diplomacy': A Very Preliminary Assessment." USA: The Washington Institute.
[2]Hagey, Keach, January 26, 2009, "US-Backed Arab TV News Show Mooted." UAE: The National.
Wimbush, Enders, February 06, 2009, "Must See TV." Weekly Standard.
[3]Armstrong, Matt, February 05, 2009, "Defense Changing to Better Coordinate with State, but..." US: Mountain Runner.
Corman, Sten R., February 05, 2009, "DoD to Better Coordinate Strategic Communication with State." US: COMOPS.
Tomlinson, Chris, February 06, 2009, "Pentagon Boost Spending PR." Washington: Associated Press.
[4]Armstrong, Matt, January 28, 2009, "Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy."US: Mountain Runner.
Fouts, Joshua, February 06, 2009, "Finding the Next Murrow." US: Eureka Déjà vu.
Lynch, Mark, February 23, 2009, "Why Judith McHale Would Be A Bad Public Diplomacy Choice." US: Foreign Policy Magazine.
[5]Ayish, Muhammad, February 2, 2009. "Why the BBC is wrong not to show the charity appeal."Abu Dhabi: The National.
Dingare, Shipra, January 30, 2009. "Are the U.K. Media Partial Toward Israel?" ABC News.
Lacey, Terry, January 29, 2009. "Boycott the BBC." Palestine Chronicle.
Mukkaled, Diana, January 29, 2009. "BBC Arabic: An Evaluation." Asharq Al-Awsat.
Sullivan, Kevin, January 30, 2009. "BBC Draws Protests With Decision Not to Air Aid Appeal for Gazans." Washington Post.
[6]Al-Lawati, Abbas, February 08, 2009, "Media Governed by Code of Ethics Crucial to Progress, Official Says." UAE: Gulf News.
Al-Lawati, Abbas, February 07, 2009, "Journalists Ethics Initiative to be Launched." UAE: Gulf News.
Reinl, James, February 12, 2009, "Watchdog Slams Arab Media Rules." UAE: The National.
[7]January 29, 2009, "Saudi Arabia Ministry of Culture and Information Modernizes Broadcasting Network with Harris Corporation Radio and TV Transmitters." UAE: PR Newswire.
February 1, 2009, "Number of entries for Arab Journalism Award exceeds 3000, representing 19 Arab countries." UAE: AMEInfo.
Ayish, Muhammad, February 9, 2009, "A media outlook that's pioneering but incomplete." UAE: The National.
Blanda, Sean, January 28, 2009, "Media Roundup: Internet Ads Down at New York Times, Congressional Quarterly For Sale and More." USA: BNET Media.
Ali Khan, Shalid, February 7, 2009, "TV channel for underprivileged launched." Saudi Arabia: Saudi Gazette.
Radsch, Courtney, February 2, 2009, "Arab press feels the strains of economic crisis." UAE: Al-Arabiya.
[8]Al-Maeena, Tariq, January 31, 2009, "Al Jazeera network leads the pack." Saudi Arabia: Arab News.
Andrew Elliott, Kim, January 29, 2009, "Al-Jazeera Calling the World." US: Kim Andrew Elliott.
Lee, Dave, January 29, 2009, "Journalism schools: embrace Al Jazeera's Creative Commons deal." UK: Journalism.
Youssef, Martin, January 29, 2009, "Arab media Build Bridges to the West." UAE: The National.
[9] January 29, 2009, "Clinton Science Czar Offers Ideas To Obama." USA: Tech Daily Dose.
Brose, Christian, January 29, 2009, "Is the military invading the State Department?" USA: Foreign Policy.
Harder, Amy, February 4, 2009, "Q&A: Outgoing State Dept. Official Offers Diplomatic Advice." USA: Lost in Transition.
Lee, Matthew, January 29, 2009, "Professor who slammed Clinton will be Obama aide." USA: Associated Press.
O'Hanlon, Michael, February 2, 2009, "'Hard power budget' for State?" USA: Washington Times.
O'Hara, Carolyn, January 29, 2009, "Office space snafu at State." USA: Foreign Policy.
[10]January 29, 2009, "Bush Shoe Attack Spawns Artwork." BBC.
January 29, 2009, "A Shoe Monument Shines at Iraqi Orphanage." CNN.
January 30, 2009, "Shoe Monument in Iraq Demolished." IOL.
Robbins, Liz, February 12, 2009, "The Shoe Didn't Fit." New York Times.
[11] February 3, 2009, "Israel restrictions on al-Jazeera." United Kingdom: BBC.
February 3, 2009, "Israel to make life harder for Al-Jazeera." Israel: AFP.
February 5, 2009, "Israeli threats to Al Jazeera unacceptable: Media Centre." Qatar: The Peninsula.
Bannoura, Ghassan, February 3, 2009, "Israel to place restrictions on Al Jazeera Channel." International Middle East Media Center.
Kerbaj, Richard, February 7, 2009, "MPs condemn hate sermons on Arabic TV station al-Jazeera." UK: The Times.
Nissenbaum, Dion, February 4, 2009, "Israel considers declaring Al Jazeera 'hostile enemy'." Israel: McClatchy.
Ravid, Barak, February 3, 2009, "Government to impose sanctions on Al Jazeera's Israel operations." Israel: Haaretz.
Rettig Gur, Haviv, February 4, 2009, "Treasury blocked plan for Jewish al-Jazeera." Israel: Jerusalem Post.
Stern, Yoav, February 4, 2009, "Egypt prevents Al-Jazeera journalists from entering Gaza." Israel: Haaretz.
[12]Abu Toameh, Khaled, January 29, 2009, "Palestinian Affairs: Clamping Down on Critics." Israel: The Jerusalem Post.
Al Qassemi, Sultan, February 1, 2009, "Of Arabs, Jews and an Internet that Never Forgets." UAE: The National.
Elshamy, Anwar, February 7, 2009, "Arab Media Coverage 'Effective' in Gaza Truce." Qatar: Gulf Times.
Henderson, Simon and Matthew Levitt, February 2, 2009, "Qatar Challenges Washington on Hamas." USA: The Washington Institute for Near East Policy.
January 31, 2009, "Palestinian Hamas-Al-Aqsa TV to Broadcast from Beirut. Beirut: China View.
Rougeau, Ryan, January 30, 2009, "Media Emboldens Hamas." USA: The Reflector.
[13]February 01, 2009, "Second Arab Media Outlook Report to be Released this Week." UAE: Business 24/7.
February 03, 2009, "Second Arab Media Outlook Sees Digital Content and Mobile Broadband as New Growth." UAE: AME Info.
Al-Lawati, Abbas, February 03, 2009, "Media Must Move to Embrace New Generation." UAE: Gulf News.
Chisamera, Dee, February 05, 2009, "Facebook, Five Years and 150 Million Users Later." USA: Eflux Media.
Davidson, Sean, February 06, 2009, "Talkin' About the Next Generation." UAE: Business 27/7.

Page up

Subscribe