Eastern Approaches
The London-based Saudi Al-Sharq al-Awsat newspaper has just opened an English-language site, and it looks competently done. The opinion page is particularly interesting. Alas, as I noted in an earlier post, among the by-products of Arab journalism are those frequent attack jobs done on individuals who, for some reason or another, are disliked by the author, the author's paymaster, the author's paymaster's sovereign, or any permutations of the previous.
Particularly irritating in this regard is the commentary by Syrian columnist Ghassan al-Imam on "the fate of journalists addicted to a single subject matter." The target of the hit, after many circumlocutions, is the departed Samir Kassir, killed over two weeks ago by a bomb placed under his car.
The article merits being highlighted only for its sheer venality. The gist of the argument is that Kassir only focused his attentions on Syria, and must have done so for dark reasons Imam will not otherwise go into: "Did he receive encouragement to harass the Syrian regime? … Opposition to authorities in any country is no shame. However, a journalist's credibility diminishes when his dedication to slandering a certain government turns into an obsession, to the degree where he loses his objectivity."
Of course Kassir wrote about very much more than Syria, and no he was not on anyone's payroll, other than that of his newspaper; had he been, he would almost certainly, like Imam, have still been alive, since that kind of journalist is far too versatile to get killed. But then again, what's easier than kicking a dead man?
That said, Imam, in his byzantine way, also seems to point to a Syrian motive for killing Kassir, even if it comes across as something of a justification:
Let us ask ourselves another question: for whose benefit was Qassir's continuous political criticism which was replete with malice and provocation? Had the murdered journalist become too close to some in the anti-Syrian camp that he endangered the security of the regime in Damascus?
Now you can read all this splendid cravenness in English (and next year Al-Jazeera will be following suit, with an English-language station). The Arab world lies before you.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
"among the by-products of Arab journalism are those frequent attack jobs done on individuals who, for some reason or another, are disliked by the author, the author's paymaster, the author's paymaster's sovereign, or any permutations of the previous."
For examples of said byproducts, see Mr. Young's blog posts on Flynt Leverett and Patrick Seale, below.
http://www.reason.com/links/links061605.shtml
Or Joe's posts on said Mr. Young... And Joe doesn't even have to be Arab! We all wish he could actually read, however.
Sounds like the Arabic language version of FOX News Network!
So when will Hit and Run start their Arabic blog?
Joe,
"Let me start off by saying that, of course, we are the most splendiferously moralotastic branch of the human race ever to grace the earth with our angelic presence, and of course it would be wrong, libelous, and unsupportive of The Troops to suggest that our motives are sullied by ignoble concerns, or that our political leadership allows it foreign and military policy decisions to be influenced by the type of worldly quest for power that motivated the nasty, non-American Romans"
Awesome, Awesome. I don't know if you really responded to what RC Dean was talking about, but that rebuttal was hilarious.
I mean you are wrong, but it was very funny.
Pat Mathews,
There again I hear a criticism of Fox news. I watch it and it really doesn't seem that right wing. It does seem to me to be fairly 'fair and balanced'
One of the National Review guys said something to the effect of "watching CNN is like watching a right wing parody of a left wing news station"
Really watch it. Way back when where I used to eat there was Fox news on one side and CNN on the other side. CNN was revolting, in their bias, they would go hours on without a republican (or libertarian for that matter). Fox always has a Dem to give a rebuttle, and I bet there are at leat 10 times as many libertarians on Fox.
I mean Fox sucks in a lot of ways, I can't watch Hannity and Colmes most the time and O'Reilly can be tiresom. But really, in comparison, Fox news is awesome.
"Let us ask ourselves another question: for whose benefit was Qassir's continuous political criticism which was replete with malice and provocation?"
So he must have been working for shadowy forces that were against the Syrian government, otherwise, he wouldn't have criticized the Syrian government so?
...Every conspiracy theory takes the form, "A benefited directly from X, hence A must have orchestrated X", does it not? If only everyone knew what was in their interest, and then did that! ...If only there were no unintended consequences!
Surely there must be nuts claiming that because Hariri's death led directly to a Syrian pullout, he must have been killed by anti-Syrian forces? ...maybe even the Americans!
I'm glad you appreciated it, kwais.
Come back safe.
So true! " The Arab world lies before us"...and lies...and lies... and lies.
kwais writes: I can't watch Hannity and Colmes most the time and O'Reilly can be tiresom. But really, in comparison, Fox news is awesome.
Agreed. And I sort of respect Colmes; it is Hannity that drives me batshit. As for Bill, I only tune in when he has a guest he and I both agree with (becasue he is not going to interrupt and demagogue), and even then, he annoys me. The way he treats Reason staff who endure his abuse when invited to discuss drug policy is appalling.
I almost completely stopped watching Fox during the Schiavo hysteria, until that passed. (Not that CNN was much better in defusing the baseless propaganda coming from the Save Terri! camp.)
But, I very much respect Brit Hume and others at Fox, and have found it to be a sanity-preserving alternative to CNN. The ratings difference between the two networks would suggest I'm not alone.
I haven't seen O'Reilly's show in a long time; I can't even make myself watch him when Reason staff is on. ...I don't think it's the unfairness with which he treats his guests that bothers me as much as the always on righteous indignation.
...That switch is often stuck in the "on" position in my own head, and, I guess, it's just hard for righteously indignant loud mouths to appreciate each another.
As for Fox News being so much better than CNN, I don't see it. I catch the BBC take just about every day and I watch The News Hour if it's on and I'm home. Other than that, I think I've retreated from broadcast news completely, live events (SOTU, etc.) excluded.
I skim a couple of papers every day, and I read about five periodicals of various stripes every week, but nothin' beats the depth I can get on the web. If I want to look at the source documents, check out the historical context, etc. it's all at my fingertips. Neither broadcast journalism nor the guys in print can compete with that.