The Arab Spring has been Al Jazeera's defining moment

The Arab Spring has forced the fall of dictators and a rise in calls for meritocracy. The old guard has been sent a clear message - it's time to move on. And the broadcaster carrying that message to the world has been Al Jazeera Arabic and Al Jazeera English.

But transgressing the old premise of, "don't shoot the messenger" Al Jazeera has come under intense pressure, not for the first time, to soften its coverage. Most recently security officers raided the offices of Al Jazeera in Egypt and detained some staff. It was an attempt to drive the channel off the air. The State news agency MENA said it had shut down a company that provided facilities to the channel Al Jazeera Mubasher (Live), which broadcasts live international events. MENA accused Al Jazeera of not having a proper license.

Since it was launched in 1996, Al Jazeera has become the highest-profile satellite news broadcaster in the Middle East. We have frequently had difficulties with governments in a region where media have traditionally been tightly controlled. Al Jazeera offices have been ransacked from Cairo to Sana, while staff reporters have been harassed, detained, abducted or worse - as when one cameraman was killed by regime forces in Libya. Meanwhile, the channel's online viewership has soared. People want the channel content even if they can't yet get the full TV coverage.

In Syria too we are banned. Our senior reporter covering the protests Omar AlSalah is camped on the Jordanian side of the border at Ramtha. Omar, is an experienced Middle-East journalist who is constantly feeding the latest and most reliable information to my news-desk and to the anchor in the chair. The kind of information which helps me write scripts and ask pertinent questions to clarify what is often a complex situation. It's the sort of journalism we want to be known for.

Our reporters and producers haven't been "parachuted "in. Most were there already. They know the local politics and cultures. And that is one of the defining differences which has characterised our reporting of the crises. When NATO led the attack in Libya backed by Special Forces on the ground, Al Jazeera had four dedicated teams working around the clock.

In the late 1990s Al Jazeera's Arabic channel emerged as a transformational force in the Middle East.
We gave voice to the Arab street: intellectuals and marginalized political opposition and their voices were heard, in many cases for the first time. A free press may be a familiar reality in the West but in the Middle East the concept of an independent news channel has been truly revolutionary.

The early enemy though was America. As it waged wars in Iraq and Afghanistan it also sought to filter the information flowing to the world. America didn't like Al jazeera's stories and messages. Washington's "with us or against us " mentality regrettably quickly demonized Al Jazeera for daring to provide alternative viewpoints on wars that had, to put it bluntly been sanitized for American audiences.

We were already famous in the Middle East for telling both sides of the story, Al Jazeera was not about to compromise our professional standards and ignore the human realties of war on the ground. Today there is still a "healthy tension" with the US Government. But at the same time some Americans have begun to wake up to see how Al Jazeera has helped break state monopolies. Multiple meetings with US officials have smoothed the relationship. Hilary Clinton came to Doha to see us and had a very frank discussion. That seemed to clear the air. We are now very much the channel of reference on the Arab Spring and for a number of other stories too that have happened in our short history. So this is in a way the turning point for us and we have, every day, increasing evidence of a growing appetite for our coverage from a new range of countries including Scandinavia.

The demand is exponential as we're increasingly recognised for what we do. Both Al Jazeera channels have received plaudits already. The compliments are welcome but a long way from our early days when viewers, often without watching us, considered Al Jazeera to be an offshoot of Al Qaeda. In some ways it was similar to the time in the 1970s and 1980s when the BBC in London was sent taped warnings and messages from the terrorist group the IRA. Al Qaeda knew we are the main Middle-East broadcaster and sent us tapes too. Other channels often rang us to share them. But this was exclusive material.

The criticism of the time has mostly disappeared and now we are available in 250 million homes around the world. We are especially proud of the progress we have made across Africa where we are increasingly the first channel of choice for millions of viewers.

The Arab Spring has been Al Jazeera's defining moment; much like CNNs was in the first Gulf War. Up to then CNN had stood for Chicken Noodle News. Afterwards it was considered a channel of record.
For Al Jazeera it has been six months of constant 24-hour coverage both in news and programmes.
No leave has been granted. Staff have been working extra-hours. The adrenaline has given us the necessary momentum.

One of the drivers behind the success of Al Jazeera - now recognised by the White House in Moscow and in Washington too - is its very reputation as a maverick - a sort of broadcasting outsider. But its Al Jazeera's journalistic reputation that is most important to us.

Recently in testimony before a Senate Relations Committee Secretary of State Hillary Clinton attacked the US Media crediting Al Jazeera as being the one channel offering "real news".

"You may not agree with it. But you feel like you're getting real news around the clock instead of a million commercials and arguments about talking heads and the kind of stuff we do on our news, which is not particularly informative to us, let alone foreigners ", she told Congress.

The Secretary of State made it clear that the Obama administration, "regarded Al Jazeera as part of the Middle East solution ".

Unlike CNN and BBC World we aren't part of any establishment. We want to hear what the street has to say and then report the conversation - worldwide.

Trackback URL: http://www.newsmill.se/trackback/39441

13 kommentarer Logga in för att kommentera
I kommentarsfältet har kommentatorn juridiskt ansvar för sina inlägg.

Agree. I wrote about this a while ago, and how the use of Social Media was not as important as cable TV (http://www.newsmill.se/artikel/2011/07/10/the-role-of-social-media-durin...)

Permalänk | Anmäl #2 Lotta Westerberg, 2011-09-14, 18:09

Aljazeera is a media revolution of its own. Well done Aljazeera and keep up the good work!

Permalänk | Anmäl #3 G.Maxwell, 2011-09-14, 20:17

Al-Jazeera är uppenbart helt korrumperat och driver enbart frågor i impeialismens syfte och deras hemland Quatar får väl betraktas som en ren konolialststat som sänder cricketmatcher och liknande.

Direkt när de tagit makten i Libyen med styrkor från till stor del Quatar så började all olja från Libyen skeppas till Quatars raffenaderier.

Nästa steg blev att Al-Jazeera började sända propaganda mot Syrien och imperialisternas bankkarteller konfiskerar tillgångarna även i det landet.

Al-Jazeera är inget annat än imperialisternas kriminella propagandakanal.

Permalänk | Anmäl #4 Mikael Forsberg, 2011-09-15, 06:11

#4 Mikael Forsberg är diktaturkramare, så blir det när man låter sitt hat för det fria världen löpa amok utan kontroll, då står man där beundrar dessa stora män, Gaddafi, Pol-Pot, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Bashar al-Assad, Stalin, Kim Il Sung, Chavez...nej Chavez är bara en clown, eller som de säger i Latinamerika "El Mono Feo" (The ugly monkey). Det är så skönt att se detta svart på vitt, nu när flera folk upptäcker demokratin och våga utmana tyrannerna genom en fri press. Jag njuter att se dessa diktaturkramare som Mikael Forsberg som håller samma nivå som invandrarhatare och fascister. Att det kom fram till slut.

Permalänk | Anmäl #5 G.Maxwell, 2011-09-15, 08:10

#4 Mikael Forsberg: Är det propaganda att rapportera om hur den syriska regimen skjuter ihjäl obeväpnade människor på gatorna? I så fall är det i stort sätt bara de statliga kinesiska medierna som kommer undan dina anklagelser.

Permalänk | Anmäl #6 ÄRRHÅ, 2011-09-15, 09:27

#5

Du måste se skillnaderna här, Pol Pot stöddes av Henry Kissinger och det gjordes även Gaddafi tills han började inse att Bilderbergarnas globala bankkartell är till enbart skada och därför ville Gaddafi frigöra arabvärlden, men inte minst Afrika från dessa intressen.

Bilderberggruppen med deras olja/drog/bankkartell har *aldrig* förespråkat demokrati, de vill ha eget världsherravälde, inget annat.

Gaddafi skulle utan vidare vunnit ett demokratiskt val utan Bilderberggruppens invasion och det vet de mycket väl.

Permalänk | Anmäl #7 Mikael Forsberg, 2011-09-15, 10:25

#6

Det är inte propaganda att relevant rapportera övergrepp som begås, men att invadera Syrien beslutades vid Bilderberggruppens möte i S:t Morittz tidigare i år liksom invasionen av Libyen och Al-Jazeera har inte gjort annat än matat ut propaganda för detta sedan dess.

Det går väl också att starkt ifrågasätta det faktum att NATO:s chef Anders Fogh Rasmussen i hemlighet är med på detta möte i Schweiz, vad har han att dölja när han liksom för övrigt även Angela Merkel inte vill stå med på gästlistan?

Permalänk | Anmäl #8 Mikael Forsberg, 2011-09-15, 10:40

#8 Mikael Forsberg, Du gillar visst inte väst ser jag...
http://svtplay.se/v/2534775/intervju_med_birgitta_almgren

Permalänk | Anmäl #10 G.Maxwell, 2011-09-15, 11:30

#10

Vad är det du ser för positivt västligt med Quatar och dess Al-Jazeera?

I övrigt tycker jag varken om cricket eller folkmord och plundring av andra länder så där.

Permalänk | Anmäl #11 Mikael Forsberg, 2011-09-15, 13:28

Lustigt hur de som klagar mest på Al Jazeera är de som vet minst om Al Jazeera och Mellanöstern.

Samma sak gällde de som stödde Irakkriget. 73% av USA:s befolkning stödde invasionen av Irak. 90% av dem kan inte ens peka ut Mellanöstern på en karta. Trots det så visste de att de ville ”bomba skiten”.

Som Bertrand Russell uttryckte det: ”Hela problemet med världen är att dårar och fanatiker alltid är så säkra på sig själva, men klokare människor så fulla av tvivel.”

Efter den 11 september fick vi höra från Bush och andra högermän hur araberna/muslimerna hatar ”oss”, och med ”oss” menar de framför allt USA.

Hur hatat är USA på riktigt i Mellanöstern?

8% av befolkningen i Mellanöstern hatar USA.
35% älskar USA.
Resten varken hatar eller älskar USA. De befinner sig mittemellan, som de borde.

Vem kunde tro att araber/muslimer är som folk är mest?

Permalänk | Anmäl #12 u_3826, 2011-09-15, 19:38

#12 Peter H

"araber/muslimer "!?

Man talar om "Teokratiska terrorrister" INTE om folkslag, trodde att man det var underförstått och att man hade kommit längre om sina kunskaper om världen och människor utanför Sverige (man häpnar). Själv har jag släktingar som är araber och kan nyanserna, kan du? Vad är USA, hur tycker USA?, hur är Sverige, hur tycker Sverige?

Permalänk | Anmäl #13 G.Maxwell, 2011-09-16, 09:42

"We were already famous in the Middle East for telling both sides of the story, Al Jazeera was not about to compromise our professional standards and ignore the human realties of war on the ground."

During the war on Iraq I wanted to take part of more information than what was fed to me by Swedish news. I, therefore, asked two colleagues/friends from Iran and Iraq regarding their views on Al-Jazeera. The first colleague (from Iraq) smiled and answered that "Al-Jazeera is OK I guess. You just have to take the related news with a dose of salts."
The other colleague (from Iran) said "If you want news from Al-Jazeera you listen to the reported numbers and divide by four. Personally I always go to BBC for correct information".

So, am I to understand that people, who have some means of verifying or validating the news, think that the channel is constantly exaggerating?

Permalänk | Anmäl #14 Jonas Karlsson, 2011-09-16, 11:42

#13 Georg Maxwell, det borde vara uppenbart från mitt inlägg att jag gör skillnad mellan islam och araber. Galningarna som stödde invasionen av Irak gjorde ingen sån distinktion. För dem var det DE. ”DE hatar vår frihet”.

Permalänk | Anmäl #15 u_3826, 2011-09-16, 18:51