Blogversation with a Conservative Blogger

I recently exchanged views with a conservative blogger by the name of Dread Pundit Bluto. Our topic was anti-western bias in Aljazeera. It was spread over several days, so here it is put together. Either of us would be curious to get your comments.

Hello Bluto,
I once heard an interesting defense of bias in Al Jazeera. Al Jazeera just has the bias of it's audience, like Fox News Channel. That might not be so bad if we were to substitute "American media" for "Fox News Channel". American media had a definitive US bias, so it might be silly to expect Al Jazeera not to have an Arab bias. Of course, it bias leads American media to get things wrong, we call them on it. We expect professional journalists to try to be objective, get their facts straight, make corrections they get something wrong. If Al Jazeera wants to be taken seriously as a news organization, they have to meet those standards too, and expect to called criticized when they don't. If in fact they are a real news organization, then comparing them to FNC is an insult, though if FNC is the standard they meet, then they certainly deserve all the opprobrium hurled at them. However, the Arab countries have plenty of government propaganda already, their own versions of FNC. If all Al Jazeera accomplished was to be a multinational propaganda channel, it's hard to believe they could have built an audience, let alone inspired a competing independent news channel in Arabic. Whatever their faults, at least Al Jazeera offered viewers an independent channel, which right there was an improvement. As a news outlet outside their control, Al Jazeera constitutes a threat to Arab dictatorships, so even if Americans don't like their take on the war in Iraq, we should be glad they're there.

Bluto's reply:

Hi Eric,
It's tempting for folks like me, when progressives complain about Fox News, to just say, "now you know how we've felt for the past forty years watching ABC, NBC, and CBS," but I'll just stick to your comparison of Fox to al-Jazeera. I monitor al-Jazeera's website regularly. For my money, al-Jazeera compares more closely to the old Soviet Union "news" organs TASS and Pravda. Al-Jazeera's journalistic fig leaf is about the same size as that of those former propaganda sources.

Al-Jazeera's story selection and slant is relentlessly anti-Western. You won't find a story on their site that portrays the US in a positive light. And, if they're forced to report a story about an American success, you can bet it will be updated in a few hours once they discover or invent a negative nuance to exploit. That's not journalism, it's propaganda. You can't honestly say the same about Fox. They're in competition with the other networks, and they can't simply ignore stories negative to the Bush administration - and they don't.

You call al-Jazeera's bias an "Arab" one, but is it? Look at their coverage of the Rafiq Hariri assassination and its "People Power" aftermath. Al-Jazeera's reporting was designed to downplay any connection to Syrian intelligence involvement, and under-report the spontaneous demonstrations that shook the pro-Syrian Lebanese government. For contrast, see the coverage of Dar al-Hayat - they fronted a cartoon depicting Hariri's "martyred" body for a week. Al-Jazeera was more concerned with trying to maintain the position of Hamas, which has aligned itself strongly with Syria. I thought that was quite telling. Al-jazeera is not the voice of the Arab street; it is the propaganda arm of terrorists.

My reply to Bluto:

I didn't see Aljazeera's coverage while the demonstrations were in progress. I did a search on their site for "Hariri" and found a bunch of articles. I looked at their article from March 14th about the demonstration that followed the pro-Syria demonstration, and it looked like the coverage in the western media. That's not to naysay your characterization of their coverage, but I just can't confirm it. In general, looking at the English version of their web site, I'm not seeing an apparent bias, except for a lot more stories about the Middle East than on an American news site, which is pretty much what I'd expect from a Middle Eastern news site. Tonight the top story was about the death of John Paul II. It was very brief compared to American media, but the facts were right and they emphasized the same things.

To get into that infamous liberal nuance, I naturally wonder if the Arabic site is the same as the English one, and I don't know what they broadcast beyond what I've heard second hand, which doesn't always sound good, but those sources might have had biases. There are a couple things you mentioned that seem odd, like the idea they're an outlet for terrorists. Aljazeera is based in Qatar and got started with money form the emir of Qatar, which puts their independence from the Qatari government in doubt but also argues against their loyalty to terrorists. Qatar is one of those secular regimes Al Qaida wants to overthrow. I've also seen pictures of Aljazeera female staff dressed western with their heads uncovered. This doesn't seem like an Islamist news channel.

The other thing that jumps at me is your assertion they don't show the US in a positive light. From an Arab point of view, there isn't much positive about the US, especially not the most salient aspects like we invaded them and killed a lot of people. More to the point, a journalist isn't supposed be concerned with showing a subject positively or negatively. That's a propagandist's job. A journalist should just get the facts right. If the facts make the US, or anything else, look bad, that's not the journalist's fault. Now, I've heard enough about Aljazeera to be skeptical of the claim all their reporting is objective, but a lack of stories the Bush administration would like hardly makes them propaganda. In fact, according to Hannah Allam, Baghdad bureau chief for Knight Ridder (scroll to "Reporting from a War Zone"), Aljazeera had earned the respect of other foreign journalists in Iraq, and their expulsion was seen as just politics. I guess my question is just what is the form of their bias --- which stories they follow, facts they get wrong, corrections they refuse to make, etc.?

Bluto's reply to me:

As you said, al-Jazeera never shows the US in a positive light. Liberals often accuse Fox of bias, yet Fox routinely reports stories that reflect badly on the US and/or the Bush administration. That's because they're bonafide journalists. The fact that al-Jazeera prints only negative stories means that they're either unbelievably bad journalists; or their motivation is not simply reporting, but pushing an agenda. Hell, Eric, even CBS has something positive to say about the US and the Bush administration occasionally.

You mention that the al-Jazeera coverage of the Hariri assassination looked like the Western media coverage. You're right. That's because the Western media completely missed the significance of the Hariri assassination until the sheer mass of anti-Syrian protesters shocked them into awareness (I wrote about this in February here: http://dreadpundit.blogspot.com/2005/02/msm-screw-pooch-again.html). Al-Jazeera didn't miss the significance; they chose to downplay it, and to emphasize signs of support for Hezbollah and Syria.

"But we know for a fact that other times the terrorists have told journalists and I use the word inadvisedly, quote-unquote journalists, they've told journalists where they are going to be and what they are going to do.

"And the journalists have been there. And over and over and over again we've see that Middle Eastern television station Al-Jazeera that seems to have a wonderful way of being Johnny-on-the-spot a little too often for my taste," - Donald Rumsfeld

He's got a point. Al-Jazeera does know when terrorist events are going to take place, just as they are the outlet of choice for terrorist groups shopping videos around. You might also note that al-Jazeera chose to replay the Kevin Sites Fallujah Marine video, uncut. over and over and over again, while calling the video depicting the Islamist murder of Margaret Hassan "too graphic". And just by the way, the videotape was given to al-Jazeera by the murderers, or, as al-Jazeera calls them "fighters" or "captors". Iraqi suspicion of al-Jazeera was so strong that the interim government banned them from Iraq, an extraordinary step. Even Il Manifesto is still allowed in Iraq. That tells me that the Iraqis didn't expel al-Jazeera for what they wrote, Il Manifesto has written much worse, but because they believe al-Jazeera is actively aiding the insurgency.

Run the word "terrorist" through the al-Jazeera search engine. This word is always printed by al-Jazeera with quotation marks around it when referring to groups like Hezbollah, but, oddly, they don't feel the need for quotes when some lunatic accuses the US of being a "terrorist state". They also refer to the Iraqi insurgency as "the resistance" or "fighters", even when reporting on the targeting of civilians for murder.

Bluto,
Just to be clear, I didn't see their coverage of the Hariri's assassination. I saw their coverage of the anti-Syrian rally held right after Hezbollah's rally, and that's what looked like the western media. I also did as you suggested and searched for "terrorist". I looked over the first seven or eight articles in the search result, and I just didn't see what you described. Everywhere some word starting with "terror" was in quotes, someone was being quoted. I'm not saying you didn't see what you said you saw. Maybe they used to do that and stopped. All I can say is they don't seem to be doing it now. I should clarify too that I didn't assert they never say anything positive about the US. I just said they're not obligated to. If they want to be regarded as real journalists, they should stick to the facts. There's no guarantee those facts will make anyone look good.

I discovered something else interesting. Ours isn't the only government that doesn't like Aljazeera. They've also gotten into the ill graces of Jordan, the Palestinian Authority, Egypt, and Kuwait. Don't know about you, but those aren't my favorite governments. What appears to have gotten Aljazeera in trouble is they cover dissent in Arab countries, none of which are democratic. If they have a bias, it appears the have an anti-establishment bent. On yesterday's home page, they had a story about the shootout with insurgents in Saudi Arabia, which I doubt the Saudi government wanted them to run, and a story about a demonstration in Egypt which I didn't see covered elsewhere. Given my opinion of the Bush administration, and that the Arab dictators are, well, dictators, an application of the rule that you can judge someone by their enemies makes Aljazeera look pretty good. In fact, quoting Rumsfeld seems like an odd choice because you must have guessed that on this side of the blogosphere, he's not exactly respected. You might as well quote an Arab dictator knocking Aljazeera to make the point.

You cited as evidence of their support for terrorism that the Iraqi interim government kicked them out of Iraq, which they did immediately upon taking power, while Il Manifesto got to stay. It seems you're jumping to a conclusion. Remember that there's a war going on: every journalist covers the insurgency what they can. If Aljazeera gets more access than other foreign press, that may indicate support for the insurgents, or that they are regarded as more objective. Maybe being Arabs themselves allows them to move with more safety and get more stories. After all, every western journalist I've seen write or speak about their experience talks about how incredibly dangerous it is to leave their well secured hotel. That Il Manifesto stayed could mean they're perceived as less of a threat by the Iraqi government. After all, everyone with a TV sees Aljazeera, but the Iraqi readership for Italian newspapers is probably too small to care about. The web site is only in Italian, so I doubt the print edition is available in Arabic.

To wrap up, I'm not completely denying Aljazeera has a bias against the US or against Bush. I'm saying it hasn't shown itself while I've been looking at their web site. Maybe they have sympathy with terrorist groups, and I can't conclusively say they don't, but I doubt it. First, I didn't see the evidence of it and second, much about Aljazeera argues against it, like their start up funding by the Qatari Emir (we have a base in Qatar, and can figure Qatar among the US-friendly regimes), their dependence on advertising for most revenue, and their use of western-style journalism. For any anti-western bias, they seem to be trying to modernize the Arab world, at least in terms of TV news, and frankly, this will do more to democratize the Arab world than any number of bombs.

We rather got off the comparison to Fox, but that can be a subject for another time.

Bluto's response to me:

Eric,
A search for "terrorist" on al-Jazeera yields the results below. Quotes are generally missing when they can use qualifiers like "suspect" or "so-called". Why are quotes missing in number 10?

2 - Guantanamo interrogations ineffectual (3/23/2005) Aggressive interrogation of terrorist suspects at Guantanamo Bay yields information that is suspect at best, a new FBI document says.

3 - EU move disappoints Hizb Allah (3/12/2005) The Lebanese resistance group Hizb Allah has expressed disappointment over the European Union parliament's decision to back measures against it if it is found to engage in so-called terrorist activities.

4 - US denies shift on Hizb Allah (3/12/2005) The United States has said it was not softening its stance on Hizb Allah, despite its strong political influence in Lebanon, and still considers it a "terrorist" group.

5 - Canada urged to scrap terror law (3/8/2005) Canada's government is facing criticism over emergency measures which allow it to hold foreign terrorist suspects indefinitely without trial.

10 - Chavez: US is a terrorist state (2/14/2005) Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has branded the United States a terrorist state while rejecting Washington's criticism of Caracas for its arms purchase from Russia.

And here's a couple where the use of the "rabbit ears" seems gratuitous to me:

31 - US 'considering' postponed elections? (7/14/2004) US officials are looking at ways to postpone the 2 November presidential poll should "terrorists" attack the United States near election time, a US magazine is reporting.

32 - SE Asia of warned of chemical attack (7/10/2004) Links between Southeast Asian "terrorist" groups and al-Qaida combined with a burgeoning chemical industry raise the risk of a chemical attack in the region, a Japanese security official has said.

You mentioned several Middle Eastern governments that don't like al-Jazeera: "...Jordan, the Palestinian Authority, Egypt, and Kuwait. Don't know about you, but those aren't my favorite governments."

These are all governments that are vulnerable to the people al-Jazeera champions (jihadi terrorists), hardly surprising that they don't appreciate al-Jazeera complicating their security and diplomacy. Jordan is, of course, a small country in close proximity to Israel, Syria, and Iraq. They've been accused of allowing Islamist fanatics to travel freely through Jordan en route to Syria and, eventually, Iraq. The Palestinian Authority is trying to negotiate with Israel. To do so, they must step back from terrorist acts perpetrated by Hamas and Hezbollah. Al-Jazeera's support of these vermin complicates that task immeasurably. Egypt has recently suffered terrorist bombings. Refusing to call them terrorists doesn't exactly endear al-Jazeera to Mubarak. Kuwait? Kuwait has suffered more than any other Middle Eastern country from the Ba'athists that al-Jazeera loves so dearly.

Since the original comparison of al-Jazeera to Fox turned, not so much on Fox's actual news reporting, but its opinion shows, let's look at some of the Westerners al-Jazeera has chosen to editorialize for them. We have Scott Ritter, who can always be relied upon to spout anti-American propaganda (and who predicted that the US couldn't take Baghdad from Saddam), but also has a taste for underage girls met in internet chat rooms (who unfortunately turned out to be police decoys). Canadian Scott Taylor also writes propaganda for al-Jazeera from time to time, but his story of being abducted near Mosul seems like an obvious bid for self-promotion. Even his own government refused to confirm the details of Scott's tale. And the third propagandist (three examples indicate a statistical trend) is Mounzer Sleiman, who calls himself "doctor" and claims to be a "Washington-based expert" on Middle eastern affairs. Sleiman obtained his "doctorate" from Rushmore University, and unaccredited institution that reportedly often doesn't require a bachelor's degree for admission to higher degree programs. Damaged goods, all three, yet al-Jazeera is happy to offer them a pulpit because they are Westerners who preach that America is the Great Satan.

Following up the "blogversation" (his word, and a clever one I must say) with Dread Pundit Bluto, his last paragraph mentioned three Aljazeera contributors in an unflattering light, and I wanted to give readers some context.

"We have Scott Ritter, who can always be relied upon to spout anti-American propaganda (and who predicted that the US couldn't take Baghdad from Saddam), but also has a taste for underage girls met in internet chat rooms (who unfortunately turned out to be police decoys)."

Ritter is probably the most familiar of the three, being a prominent opponent of Bush's war plans before the invasion. He was arrested in June 2001, and the case subsequently dismissed. It was leaked to the press in January 2003 during the heat of the debate over invading Iraq. Ritter was asked about the arrest at length by Aaron Brown. Here's the transcript. I haven't found where he said the US couldn't take Baghdad from Saddam. He did say, "The United States is going to leave Iraq with its tail between its legs, defeated. It is a war we can not win," and "We do not have the military means to take over Baghdad and for this reason I believe the defeat of the United States in this war is inevitable." He made it plain he predicted a Vietnam situation where we win the battles but can't defeat the enemy. It's too soon to know if he was right since US troops haven't left, but control over Baghdad has never been fully established. It's more a situation where US troops can go anywhere, but the insurgents often move right back in. He was however completely right in his assertions that there was no evidence to support Bush's accusations about Al Qaida ties and WMD. In Ritter's case, I thought Bluto went further than the facts support.

"Canadian Scott Taylor also writes propaganda for al-Jazeera from time to time, but his story of being abducted near Mosul seems like an obvious bid for self-promotion. Even his own government refused to confirm the details of Scott's tale." Taylor was kidnapped last September along with Turkish journalist Zeynep Tugrul, who was also serving as his translator. Taylor was interviewed on NPR. More important is that they told the same story in separate interviews with the Associated Press. A Canadian government spokesman said, "We won't comment, deny, endorse, do anything due to that no Canadian official was witness to the events he said he went through in northern Iraq." That same paragraph mentions that the Turkish embassy in Iraq helped secure their release and the government believes their story. It's also worth noting there have been more similar kidnappings, and journalists based in Iraq are unanimous in describing how dangerous it is. My take on it is there's plenty of reason to believe his story and none to disbelieve it.

"And the third propagandist (three examples indicate a statistical trend) is Mounzer Sleiman, who calls himself "doctor" and claims to be a "Washington-based expert" on Middle eastern affairs. Sleiman obtained his "doctorate" from Rushmore University, and unaccredited institution that reportedly often doesn't require a bachelor's degree for admission to higher degree programs."

Rushmore University is a small distance learning school. I found information about the school and it's MBA program in Business Week. I don't know how much vetting Business Week does. I don't know how common it is for graduate programs to accept students without a bachelors degree, but it's not unknown for graduate schools to admit students who make up the difference with real life experience. I didn't find anything about the school's accreditation. Maybe I'm too traditional, but I'm unimpressed that they don't have required courses or exams. So I don't know if a Ph.D. from there means anything or not. I did find Slieman as a featured speaker at Arab-American events, and he was described as a"Lebanese specialist in Arab security and military issues" on the BBC web site when he was a guest on Talking Point. There's a link to a recording of the program. Slieman is originally from Lebanon and left during the civil war.

UPDATE 1/8/2006
I received a response from Mounzer Sleiman to the remarks made above by Bluto. It an be confusing with two and now three people writing the same piece, so just to be plain, the remarks below are by Sleiman. I haven't posted his e-mail to save him from spammers, so send responses through my contact page and I'll pass them on to him. Likewise if you want to contact Bluto through me.

Bluto is not able to offer any argument to respond to my views and analysis so he resorted to character assassination and personal attacks questioning my education and expertise. He reminds me of [George] Galloway's response to Christopher Hitchens in their debate: Galloway: "What you are... What you have witnessed since, is something unique in natural history. The first ever metamorphosis from a butterfly back into a slug. ... I mention, I mention slug purposely, because the one thing a slug does leave behind it, is a trail of slime. Now, I was brought up by my father on the principle never to wrestle with a chimney sweep, because whatever you do, you can't come out clean. But you, Mr. Hitchens,( BLUTO) are no chimney sweep. That's not coal dust in which you are covered. You are covered in the stuff you like to smear on to others. Not just me, with your Goebbelian leaflets, full of selective quotation, half-truth, mis-truth, and downright untruth." [Raven's note: There is this article on The Guardian referring to that debate.]

Bluto is trying hard to imply that I earned my degree sheepishly from Rushmore University as if I did not have to work hard for it. I recommend to him and to any interested party to refer to my testimony after finishing my studies (still posted on the University website) in which I stated the following:

Finishing this project is the crowning of a delayed dream of obtaining a Ph.D. The work was laborious and the seemingly evasive end will be a collectively sweet celebration to my aging parents, my wife and two sons.

The challenges of my life seemed momentous, from leaving a wounded Lebanon shattered by civil war, separating from my family, moving to the United States, to learning English, to the attempt of maintaining a delicate balance between family obligations, earning a living and continuing my education. The adjustments to a dual culture meant having the confusion and enrichment of a dual brain and language.

Discovering Rushmore University was a divine gift and a catalyst in the fulfillment of my educational goal at the tender age of fifty. Although my specific area of interest, US national security studies, was not covered by the courses offered at Rushmore, Dr. Cox and I were able to devise a framework and select the best advisor available from the diverse talents of professors at Rushmore.

I was fortunate to be guided by Dr. Cox and my first advisor, the late Dr. Gellerman who encouraged me to consult and benefit from the structure and programs already established at two other universities (University of MD and George Washington University), as such; the room for flexibility and creativity at Rushmore were instrumental in crystallizing the road map for my studies.

Over the past two years the challenges seemed insurmountable, from the very sad and sudden passing of my first advisor, which left me disheartened, to the unusual workload of frequent trips abroad and the demands of my immediate and extended family.

It took me a while to adjust to the sad loss of Dr. Gellerman and overcome the state of confusion as to where we go from here to find an advisor that can restart where we left off. Again with the assistance of Dr. Cox we were able to select my current advisor Dr. Brody. Finding this outstanding professor is another testimony of the diverse talents and expertise Rushmore had at its disposal. This project wouldn't be a reality without Dr. Brody's guidance, encouragement, constructive criticism, patience, generous spirit, and unmatched communication skills. The associate director of editing services at Rushmore, the ever ready and prompt Ms. Laurel Barley was phenomenal. She endured my many imperfections and messy drafts. Her editorial skills, sharp common sense and logic made my papers look neater and my final product better.

This project couldn't be done without the relentless support and encouragement of my wife. She allowed me the time, space and disruption of our life to make it happen. She believed in me in doubtful times. Her understanding and patience gave me the courage to keep going. She was my critic, my sounding board and my cheerleader. My loving children were there to provide emotional support and at times necessary distractions.

Finally, after immense amount of reading and research on US national security I discovered how little has been written about this important subject in comparison to other less critical issues. I hope when my work is published after careful review and updating, will help stimulate a needed debate on how to best reform the US National Security apparatus.

I'm also contemplating the idea of producing a documentary on the subject in which this project serves as a guiding road map. In doing this project I wish to return some of the good will afforded to me by my newly adopted country, the United States.

Bluto of course did not bother to know that I earned two B. S. ( in education from Lebanese University and Political Science from University of Maryland) in addition to post graduate courses from George Washington University. But the issue with him is not my education, it is my sharp critical analysis to this administration policy who proved to be a disaster for America and the world.