Al-Jazeera Says It Tries to Cover Both Sides in Israeli-Palestinian Conflict by Shaazka Beyerle Covering a protracted and deadly conflictóin which each side has grievances against the other and is suffering at the hands of the otherócan be a journalistic minefield. What and how much is presented is examined closely by governments, partisan organizations and the public. Such is the case with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Since the latest eruption of violence, one news outlet that is receiving significant attention for its coverage is Al-Jazeera, the all-Arab news network based in Qatar. It seems that a lot of people who are in the media or talk about the media have an opinion about it, though not always based on direct experience. Founded five years ago, Al-Jazeera is an independent cable network unlike most government-controlled television and print media in the Middle East. It currently has 40 million viewers in the Arab and Muslim world and is broadcast (with subtitles) four hours a day in Malaysia, according to Hafez Al-Mirazi, its Washington, D.C., bureau chief. The most recent audience figu re for the United States is around 150,000, which was tallied last summer. Funded by the monarch of Qatar, Emir Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani, the network is modeled on the BBC, both in style and operationsóin that it receives government money but is not beholden to its funder. ìOur main motto is the view and the other view,î said Al-Mirazi. ìWe donít have red lines,î he added. That would explain such uncommon scenes on Arab television as women attacking polygamy, a Syrian scholar calling Islam ìbackward,î and discussions about corruption in Arab governments or womenís suffrage. Regular news programming, interviews, talk shows, political analysis programs, original documentaries and exposÈs fill the airwaves. ìThe Opposite Direction,î hosted by Faisal al Kasim, a Syrian who majored in English literature at Britainís Hull University, is a popular talk show similar to CNNís ìCrossfire.î However, ìThe Opposite Directionî tends to pit speakers who are ideologically opposed without including moderate views in between. Conflict Overload? ìCoverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is definitely a priority now, but it is also with Western networks,î reported Mohammed el-Nawawy, professor of journalism at the University of West Florida and co-author of the new book, ìAl-Jazeera: How the Free Arab News Network Scooped the World and Changed the Middle East.î His assessment of U.S. cable coverage of the conflict is echoed by Laird Anderson, professor emeritus of communication and former director of journalism programs at American University. ìI would say there is almost too much coverage of the so-called ëWar on Terrorismí in the Middle East. I am getting a little tired of it, and maybe the American public is too. We are inundated with stuff on Arafat and Sharon,î he asserted. He pointed to other stories being lost in the coverage, such as the Maoist rebellion in Nepal and Afghanistan, which he said has ìdisappeared from the map.î Attention to the conflict is driven by a penchant for breaking stories. Anderson, who is also a retired Army colonel of infantry and special forces, explained that the role of news is to cover what happens, and with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict of late, unfortunately much is going on. ìWhen something happens, for example, a suicide bombing, you get instant coverage because thatís news.î All in all, in comparison to its American counterparts, Al-Jazeera does devote more of its news coverage and programming to the conflict and, specifically, the Palestinian experience. For instance, on a random day, actually May 13, this writer viewed an hour-long news report called ìHarvest of the Day.î The first 30 minutes focused on the Palestinian territories, reporting on Yasser Arafatís visits to Nablus, Jenin and Bethlehem. Public anger with Arafat was in full display, particularly in Jenin where he had planned to stop and then simply drive through. It was reported that youths burned the podium where he was to speak, and residents interviewed at a refugee camp complained bitterly and demanded that he rebuild their destroyed houses. A Palestinian spokesman was interviewed, who denied that Arafat canceled the stopover because of security fears. A map of the region, which accompanied one story, clearly delineated Israel as well as the Palestinian territories. Among the experts interviewed during the newscast were Martin Indyk, former U.S. ambassador to Israel, who was asked about American policy on a Palestinian state, and Jack Mendelsohn, an armaments expert who discussed the U.S.-Russian arms pact. The second half of the program focused principally on world and business news. It is worth noting that both the main anchor and the business-economics anchor were women, as were two of the reporters in the West Bank. ëPro-Palestineí Some have accused Al-Jazeera of inciting the masses in the Arab world through its constant images of Palestinians suffering in the conflict. Al-Mirazi argued that the news network is doing its job of informing people of what is going on. ìWhen CNN carried pictures of U.S. soldiersí bodies dragged in the streets of the Somalian capital in October 1993, it resulted in the outrage of the American people and forced [President] Clinton to pull out the peacekeepers,î Al-Mirazi said. ìWhen CNN showed the carnage that resulted from Serbian shelling of the marketplace in Sarajevo, people were upset, and the Clinton administration had to intervene in the Balkan conflict. It was called the ëCNN effect.í Now we are witnessing the Al Jazeerization of the Arab world, if not the whole world,î he declared. El-Nawawy argued that there is not continuous coverage of Palestinian suffering. ìI donít think that Al-Jazeera will change peopleís minds about the occupation. They already know that the Israeli occupation is illegal and bad.î On the other hand, he was disapproving of what he called ìloaded terms,î saying, ìMy only criticism is theyíre using the term ëmartyrsí for suicide bombers.î ëPro-Israelí Al-Jazeera also devotes significant coverage to Palestinian suicide bombings in Israel. ìWe carry live footage from Israelís Channel 2, as well as from CNN, for up to two hours at a time. [During the news,] we devote the same time and length as CNN,î said Al-Mirazi. ìThe difference is that the next morning we show the bodies of the Palestinians killed afterward. In the U.S., you only see Israelis killed,î he added. El-Nawawy noted that in the aftermath of one of the terrible bombings in Tel Aviv, a female correspondent tried without success to speak with victims and eyewitnesses. Israelis are a regular feature on the Arab network. At the height of the recent Israeli incursions into the West Bank, Israeli officials were interviewed almost daily. Al-Mirazi reported that the network is trying to reschedule an interview with Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. ìWe interviewed Shimon Peres about four months ago, and the Israeli ambassador waited for him in the chair you are sitting in,î he added. ìAl-Jazeera is trying to reach out to Israelis. In some Arab circles, they are accused of being a pro-Israeli network, and even a Zionist network because they were the first Arab network to interview top Israeli officials,î reported el-Nawawy. One recent example comes from the kingdom of Bahrain. The Committee to Protect Journalists reported that on May 10, Information Minister Nabil al-Hamr announced that Al-Jazeeraís correspondents had been barred from Bahrain. Al-Hamr claimed that the station ìharms Bahrain and Bahrainís citizensî and ìwas a medium for Zionist infiltration in the Gulf region.î Free Speech, Free Cameras When asked for his comments about the coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict on Al-Jazeera, compared to American cable news channels, Mark Regev, the spokesman for the Israeli Embassy in Washington, D.C., honestly admitted that he is not an expert on the Arab network. However, he did offer some assessments of network coverage in general. ìIsraeli society is open, transparent and democratic, and Palestinian society is the opposite. So if a television journalist walks down the street in Israel, he or she will get different answers. In the Palestinian territories, he or she will get the party line. Palestinians will seldom, if ever, criticize Arafat on the record and, when questioned by a reporter, tend to echo the leadershipís positions. The same is of course true in any non-democratic regime, and I donít know if the press takes this into consideration enough with their reporting from the PA [Palestinian Authority].î Regev cited a specific examp le of U.S. cable news coverage of Arafatís release from his compound last month. People interviewed on the street were apparently celebrating. ìCan people with a camera in their face say what they think when they live in a repressive regime,î he asked. ìIs it not like asking an Iraqi on the street in Baghdad what he thinks of Saddam? What can he or she say?î However, Al-Jazeera claims it is able to get a wide range of views both from experts and ordinary people, including Palestinians on the ground. This may be due, in part, to the reality that Al-Jazeera is the only Arab cable network with reporters in the Palestinian territories, including Waleed el-Omari, who is a Palestinian from Israel who also speaks Hebrew. There is also the benefit of familiarity. As one Arab journalist explained, it is more difficult for Western journalists to get around the West Bank and Gaza than their Arab counterparts, who speak the language and know the people and their customs. While the U.S. print media has people posted in the Palestinian territories, according to this Arab journalist, most American television and cable newscasts have crews that are based in Israel and travel back and forth to the West Bank or Gaza. During the recent Israeli incursions, Israeli permission was required to enter towns, and crews were not allowed to move about freely. In fact, some journalists reported being shot at by soldiers, including Shaul Anderline, an Israeli citizen part of a TV France 2 team. Balance Versus Bias Are there biases, either overt or unconscious, influencing coverage of the conflict? In his book, el-Nawawy explained that there is a ìcontextual objectivityî to Al-Jazeeraís coverage. ìThey are sympathetic to the Palestinian cause, which they donít hide. But they also strive to present the Israeli side and the American sides and all sides to the storyófrom an Arab perspective.î Given Al-Jazeeraís Arab perspective on the conflict, is there such a thing as American ìcontextual objectivity?î Overall, according to Anderson, ìCNN and MSNBC are doing a fairly good job of trying to balance the coverage of the Palestinians and the Israelis.î At a Brookings Institution/Harvard University forum on April 24, Robin Wright, chief diplomatic correspondent for the Los Angeles Times, made a comment pertinent to the subject. She said, ìÖin terms of our foreign policy we have had for a half century a moral commitment to Israelís existence. That doesnít exist in Europe, and I think that begins to shape the kind of perceptions, in terms of our coverage, our attitude.... I remember at one point, I was born the same year Israel was, going out and having very strong pro-Israeli sentiments and thinking, oops, I got stuck in Beirut, and suddenly discovering, wait a minute, thereís another side to this story. Itís jolting,î Wright said. ìAnd particularly during that period to think that Israel was doing something that was questionable. Thereís no other part of the world that I think we as Americans or as American journalists go out and cover with kind of a set opinion or acceptance of a certain moral value and importance,î the diplomatic correspondent added. On the other hand, Glen Frankel, editor of the Washington Post Magazine and former Jerusalem bureau chief of The Washington Post, noted that ìthe TV cameras from every country tend to root for the underdog.î In this context, the reference was to the Palestinians. U.S. cable outlets were approached for their comments. Parisa Khosravi, senior vice president and managing editor of international news at CNN, said she could not speak without clearance from the Public Relations Department, which did not return a subsequent call. A message left with MSNBC was not answered. Hasan Abdel Rahman, the Palestinian spokesman in Washington, D.C., was also contacted but did not reply. Shaazka Beyerle is a freelance writer in Maryland.