The real reason Team Obama picked Al Arabiya over Al Jazeera

I guess it's nice to see that Americans are not alone in their fascination with celebrity and television. Check out this clip from Al Arabiya after its Washington bureau chief, Hisham Melhem, scored the first major TV interview with President Obama of any news outlet, English or Arabic, in the world.

"You deserve all this celebrity attention in light of your interview," gushed the news anchor. "How is the U.S. President? ... Did he joke around? How is he as a human being?"

"He's very humble and a gentleman," said Melhem. "He maintained a normal relationship with his assistants. ... He's very cool. It's like a mountain that can't be shaken by the wind."

Meanwhile, the Washington press corps was quick to dissect Melhem's journalistic coup. "The channel is seen as a prominent voice of moderation in the Middle East, preferring calm analysis to what many see as rival al-Jazeera's more sensational coverage," TIME noted, though it did point out Al Arabiya was not nearly as popular as Al Jazeera.

Marc Ambinder quoted CBS News bureau chief Chris Isham, who "reminded me that Al-Arabiya, among other networks in the region, is the pan-Arab voice of political and cultural reform. So it's an auspicious choice by whomever at the White House had the foresight to schedule this interview."

With all due respect, if Team Obama was really dumb enough to play one Arab media outlet off another so blatantly, then they've failed to learn one lesson of the previous administration. George Bush also favored Arabiya over Jazeera, granting it an interview in 2004, and that earned Arabiya the reputation of Western tool. (In fairness, top Bush cabinet officials often spoke to Jazeera.)

In this sense, I believe history is repeating itself: Obama's people went with Al Arabiya because it was not likely to subject the President to the tough interrogation he would've gotten on Al Jazeera.

First, though, let me say that as someone who actually watches one of the Al Jazeera channels -- albeit the rather more well-behaved English-language one -- this idea that Arabiya has a lock on "political and cultural reform" is the kind of self-assured nonsense that Washington insiders tell each other all the time. Al Jazeera has spoken truth to power in one Middle East country after another, voicing the anger of both clergy and lay people against their dictators. It has been thrown off the air and banned by far worse governments than George Bush's. I thought we already went through this when "Control Room" was working its way through movie theaters, but I guess not.

Nancy Snow argued that Jazeera's wall-to-wall coverage of Israel's siege on Gaza made it a bad choice for Obama to proclaim a message of forward progress and two-state solution to the Middle East. I would argue precisely the opposite: It's because Jazeera was so relentless in its Gaza reporting -- and its aggressive grilling of Israeli spokesmen, of which I captured a small sample here -- that made it a natural place for the new president to deliver his message that cooler heads will, someday, prevail.

But wouldn't the choice of Al Jazeera be seen as provocative here in the U.S.? Perhaps -- but Obama's advisers could simply tell Fox News that Al Jazeera reaches a much wider audience than Al Arabiya. (And its English-language channel is carried widely in Israel.) That might even be enough to shut up Bill O'Reilly, who gets really cheesed every time Keith Olbermann tries to claim a ratings victory over him, and whose supporters never fail to remind me that Billo's total reach runs laps around "Countdown's."

It's instructive that while Obama was talking to Al Arabiya, another president, one James Earl Carter, appeared with Riz Khan on Al Jazeera English (which streams for free at Livestation). Carter believes Obama should eventually sit down with Hamas, and Obama has ruled out that option.

Unfortunately, Al Arabiya's Washington bureau chief did not even raise the subject of Hamas with President Obama! Check the transcript if you don't believe me.

I'm not a Middle East expert, just a watcher of Middle East media -- Al Arabiya included, from its frequent appearances on Link TV's "Mosaic," from which I grabbed the above clip. But it seems to me that the choice of Al Arabiya signals, intentionally or not, that Obama is not willing to answer tough questioning about the role of Hamas in peace negotiations. (I've gotta think he was at least expecting to be asked, though!)

Obama surely would have gotten tough questioning about Hamas from Al Jazeera -- and I'm guessing whoever scored that interview almost certainly would not have been treated afterwards like a rock star on his own network.

Comments

[Aaron Barnhart]

A reader writes ... "As you may know, Arabiya is Saudi owned and was launched to be a counterweight to Jazeera, which the Saudis hate because it was the first channel to report in Arabic about the House of Saud's shenanigans. Jazeera also exposed Arabic language print media, the lion's share of which is owned by Saudis (even papers printed in London and Lebanon), as tame echo chambers for officially sanctioned thinking.

"Bush's favourite Arabic language media outlet was al Hurra, the channel you're paying for with your tax dollars, and is considered a joke in the Mideast.

So, given that kind of broadcast landscape, it's no surprise really that Obama's people went with Arabiya. It's somewhere between al Hurra and al Jazeera Arabic. That doesn't make it a great network, just an easier sell for Obama, who's a careful sort."

[Haitiana4)bama]

I'm sorry but I must respectfully disagree, I think it was very bright of President Obama to choose Al-Arabiya from a political aspect. He had way more control of the environment, and was familiar enough with the reporter to conduct an inderview which left little doubt that President Obama is in complete control of himself. Unlike his Bush before him, President Obama is a tactical politician, an intellect, and a visionary, please in future do not try to liken the two.

[Corey H.]

I also disagree. The important thing is that the new president granted his first interview to an Arab network at all. And the fact that he chose the more Western-friendly Arabiya was probably precisely for the reason you gave: they'd be easier on him. That was smart politically. I think he wanted to assure more than debate. Leave that for later and maybe to someone else. He’s skillful at appearing above the fray, instead focusing on universal themes like hope, health care and access to education. The interview was an attempt to start off on the right foot and extend an open hand to the moderate Muslim world.

And by going with Arabiya he avoided having to answer unhelpful questions like, “Where does America get the balls to tell anyone what’s moral? You’re the only country to incinerate 2 cities with atomic bombs,” as Bin Laudin did in his early interview with John Miller in 1998. He might well have spent all his time batting away stuff like that. The interview would have been a disaster and might have rallied the radicals rather than appeal to the rational.

If Arabiya came off later as obsequious, that’s unfortunate because it could color the message itself. But I still say it’s a net plus because it sent the message that he wants to start fresh.

[Mark Jeffries]

Not that it didn't stop Billo and the Manatee from attacking Obama and Arabiya anyway. After all, to their audience all Arabs are "Islamofascists."

[Kyle]

Your continued shilling for Al Jazeera is weird. You do realize that one of their lead anchor quit because management was slanting the news. Why you continue to defend their propaganda is beyond me - if you're going to sing the praises of a slanted "news" organization, couldn't you at least support one that is pro-American, rather than anti?

[I think that interpretation of events says more about you than it does about me. For people wishing to compare Kyle's self-serving spin with what really happened, see http://snipurl.com/marash ... Marash wasn't happy with the way AJE was viewing the USA but he certainly had no complaints with its reporting on Somalia, Gaza, Indonesia, Russia, Brazil, Malysia etc. etc. etc. --AB]

[ML]

I was going to say pretty much what Mark Jeffries said - what is it with you and Al Jazeera?

ML