The Role of the Media in Dialogue between the Arabs and the West

DIALOGUE IS POSSIBLE, AGAINST ALL ODDS

In the midst of the war in Iraq, the battle against ‘Al-Qaeda’ and the on-going Israeli-Palestinian crisis, the Al-Babtain Foundation for Dialogue Between Civilizations held a two-day seminar in Kuwait City, March 30-31st, entitled the ‘Role of the Media in Dialogue Between Arabs and the West’.

This seminar provided a forum for open discussion on a broad range of topics relating to cross-cultural dialogue.

A host of journalists from Western and Arab news networks attended the seminar. Speakers included prominent British journalist Michael Binyon of the Times, Adel Darwish and Roger Hardy, BBC. International media experts like Alain Gresh, Deputy Director of Le Monde Diplomatique and Christopher Dickie, Director of NewsWeek in Europe. Polititions like Per Stenback, former Foreign Minister of Finland and intellectuals such as Ghayth Armanazi, former director of the Arab League Mission in London and Paul Halloran Fleet street veteran.

The seminar provided an opportunity, within an Arab context, for western intellectuals, academics and journalists to present their experiences and perceptions of the events and issues currently fracturing the Arab world, and it's dialogue with the western counterpart. In turn, the seminar offered Kuwaiti’s and Arab intellectuals, an occasion to challenge western ideologies while better understanding how ‘news’ works in the West. They began to consider the inherent ‘responsibility’ of journalists’ to reflect a deeper cultural understanding in their presentation of the news. The practicality of the event was noticeable by the response and interest generated from the Kuwaiti and Arab participants, who displayed an eagerness and thirst to understand more totally why dialogue was so seemingly impossible within the context of the Western media that floods there TV screens daily with American and British TV shows. The underlying premise lay in the question: Why weren’t Arabs given a stronger presence and why were so many images and perceptions in print, more often than not, so damming?

Often, as Michael Binyon noted, ‘journalists make mistakes out of ignorance’ and not just to sell news or for other propaganda reasons. Another reason for misunderstanding, according to Binyon, is that reporters are being used as propaganda vehicles’ to transport the misconceptions of readers and viewers, who themselves lack the knowledge of events. This observation was countered by two others concerning journalists in the West. One of the seminar speakers, Paul Halloran, noted that ‘lawyers are the true enemy of the journalist in the West’ and are the equivalent of the repressive regimes that stereotypically dominate the Arab press. At the same time, Halloran added, ‘never has there been a time in journalistic history when so many journalists are being murdered, not just for what they write, but because of what they do, journalism.’ It was explained that Journalists may lack impartiality and neutrality, but those who strive to present the facts often pay the price with the suppression of their stories with their lives.

Ghayth Armanazi who insisted that the influence of negative media was comparable to a social enemy, further underlined that balanced dialogue was contingent upon a balance of power between East and West...How this balance was to be achieved required our being willing to ‘cut through the thick cobwebs of centuries of pre-fabricated misconceptions of each other [in order] to achieve a transition in the internal dynamics of cross-cultural dialogue.’

Armanazi’s point of view shares something in common with Christopher Dickey’s view that ‘the American-Bush language is for Americans, not Arabs.’ On the surface the statement seems facile. But the fundamental point is that each form of dialogue has its place; what is said should be understood within a context and not as a tool for propaganda. In the media, however, the tendency is to concentrate on the ‘what’ and the ‘who’ of the news rather than addressing the tough questions of ‘how’ and ‘why’. This point was clearly made when Peter Mechels said, ‘content is king, but context is the mistress.’ Sensationalism may sell newspapers but it does little to build cross-cultural trust. The seminar participants agreed that journalists have a duty to act as bridges in the building of cross-cultural dialogue but how this is to be achieved is still contested. The first step is to avoid misconception and misrepresentation by understanding the context in which ‘news’ happens.

This is not so easily achieved as pointed out by Per Stenback. He noted that we live in a golden age of technology, awaiting man’s next renaissance, where suddenly journalists are expected to resolve conflicts as well as deliver the daily news. In his view, the responsibility of the media is to increase knowledge of ‘conflicting dialogues’ not resolve them. Michael Binyon agreed and observed that, ‘the role of the journalist is not to ease conflict rather to simply report events.’ These two views reflect a certain solipsism evident in the West, with its roots in a failure to recognize that English is the new Latin. English language news is being read by people outside of the country of publication with different ideologies and beliefs systems. The implications in terms of English language journalistic responsibility are therefore enormous.

Does the media have a role to play in inter-cultural dialogue? If so, which form of media? The traditional mainstream, or the new renaissance of media technology, that will bring open innovation and communication to a level which had never been experienced in history, each user being able to communicate directly with the other in literally hundreds of ways, each having their own opinion and voice. The answer from seminar participants would be a cautiously optimistic ‘yes’.

Though positive as to the opportunity to learn more and profit from engagements like the Al-Babtain sponsored event, the political and cultural divide is still evident from negative media, global wars, political decisions and lack of education of one another. How best to support understanding despite the divide lies perhaps in a greater reflection, as Roger Hardy reflected, on ‘who we are’.

Video of the Seminar
Andrea's unique view point