Collateral victim
AlAlam undeservedly suffers the regional competition between Iran and the Egypt-Saudi Arabia alliance. By Alireza Amir Hajebi
Who can doubt the role of news networks at this day and age? Even if unaware, the 9/11 terrorist attacks, U.S. occupation of Afghanistan and Iran and regional tensions urged Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Egypt and Iran to establish their own broadcasting channels to counter BBC and CNN.
Aljazeera, AlArabiyya and AlAlam have dramatically challenged Anglo-Saxons’ media hegemony and stolen their audience, but national, ethnic or political partialities have always been their Achilles heel. The latest controversy which has troubled the Iranian state-backed AlAlam is indeed the most unprecedented.
It was around two weeks ago when AlAlam’s website, AFP and Reuters reported that Saudi-sponsored Arabsat and Egypt-sponsored Nilesat have abruptly moved AlAlam’s programs off the air. The International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) was prompt to denounce the cut-off and IFJ Secretary General Aidan White warned about impeding free flow of information to the Arab speaking public.
Few observers may regard the move anything but imposition of censorship. IFJ Secretary General also added that: “his is intolerable censorship of a news channel based on political considerations…The satellite operators must respect AlAlam’s editorial independence and allow pluralism in public information.” No Egyptian or Saudi officials have so far justified the decision. However, Nilesat Chief Executive Ahmed Anis claims that AlAlam has been dropped due to a breach in the contract; a breach that has remained unrevealed. Anis could provide better excuses for this unprofessional measure.
At this point, it would do no harm to examine the interesting responses of two high-profile Iranian officials, Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki and Ahmadinejad’s media advisor Ali Akbar Javanfekr.
During inauguration ceremony of his new spokesman, Mottaki said that Iran will follow the issue via legal channels. Mottaki added that: “If they are seeking people who jeopardize the unity and interests of the Islamic ummah and the Arab World, we can easily introduce them networks running the Arab title but totally at the service of Zionism and the enemies of Islam.”
Quite harsh and threatening. But when will our diplomatic apparatus stop using that self-proclaimed intimidating tone? Accusing ‘Zionist circles’ and extraregional forces has become too much of a corny excuse, hasn’t it? Has it ended in our favorite result? Why haven’t our diplomatic functionaries named those Zionists-serving enemies of Islam for once?
AlAlam’s intensive coverage of the recent battles between Shiite Houthis and Yemen’s central government, and repeated accusations against Iran –believed to be supporting the Houthi insurgents- seems to be the reason AlAlam was taken off the air by Nilesat and Arabsat. The battle has now crossed into the Saudi borders. Saudi leaders’ worries with Shiite insurgents infiltrating into its territory and Iran’s increasing regional influence have expedited removal of a popular channel from Arabs’ favorite list.
Not Zionists’ instigation but the (partial?) coverage of the war in Yemen, unprofessional reaction of Nilesat and Arabsat and Iran’s inefficient legal diplomacy have inconvenienced Iran’s Arabic-language channel. Our diplomatic apparatus may customarily be unaware of the significance of such moves. But what would it reaction be if one of its European embassies was shut down? Don’t they know that a news network is much more powerful and important than an embassy?
And about our Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki. Whatever he remarks carry legal implications. Mr. Mottaki definitely knows the distinction between “could be prosecuted” and “will be prosecuted” when he says Nilesat and Arabsat’s measure was illegal and “could be prosecuted”. Ahmadinejad’s Media Advisor Ali Akbar Javanfekr has also reacted, saying that “Arabsat and Nilesat’s measure is standing against the free flow of information.”Javanfekr adds that “we believe that there is a kind of opposition the free flow of information and Arabsat and Nilesat executives should consider the worrisome consequences of their measure.” Javanfekr also remarks “you cannot deprive the global public opinion from the free flow of information. This is the information age and we are in a new atmosphere where there is no means to… block public opinion’s access to information.”
No sole that loves freedom denies a single word of Javanfekr’s remarks. But does the Islamic Republic follow what he says? Indiscriminate blocking of tens of quality websites, threatening and constricting foreign and Iranian journalists, shutting down newspapers… Are these in line with Javanfekr’s ideal ‘free flow of information? How about the jamming foreign satellite channels? Does that conform to the free flow?
We believe that to counter the media battle we need interaction and dialogue not noise waves which even jeopardize Iranian citizens’ health. Javanfekr is right. There is no way to block information.
Back to AlAlam. During its six-year activity, the channel was quite successful in attracting the Arabic-speaking audience. What is done to this powerful Iranian media tool, with its exemplary promptness, is not justifiable with any measures. The cut-off will severely damage our national interests. The first step to be taken by the channel and the state-run TV foreign affairs deputyship is to start face-to-face contacts with Arabsat and Nilesat executives, while having an eye on alternatives such as Eutelsat and Turksat. AlAlam may also want to be more prudent on its media coverage and guests.
Aljazeera, AlArabiyya and AlAlam have dramatically challenged Anglo-Saxons’ media hegemony and stolen their audience, but national, ethnic or political partialities have always been their Achilles heel. The latest controversy which has troubled the Iranian state-backed AlAlam is indeed the most unprecedented.
It was around two weeks ago when AlAlam’s website, AFP and Reuters reported that Saudi-sponsored Arabsat and Egypt-sponsored Nilesat have abruptly moved AlAlam’s programs off the air. The International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) was prompt to denounce the cut-off and IFJ Secretary General Aidan White warned about impeding free flow of information to the Arab speaking public.
Few observers may regard the move anything but imposition of censorship. IFJ Secretary General also added that: “his is intolerable censorship of a news channel based on political considerations…The satellite operators must respect AlAlam’s editorial independence and allow pluralism in public information.” No Egyptian or Saudi officials have so far justified the decision. However, Nilesat Chief Executive Ahmed Anis claims that AlAlam has been dropped due to a breach in the contract; a breach that has remained unrevealed. Anis could provide better excuses for this unprofessional measure.
At this point, it would do no harm to examine the interesting responses of two high-profile Iranian officials, Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki and Ahmadinejad’s media advisor Ali Akbar Javanfekr.
During inauguration ceremony of his new spokesman, Mottaki said that Iran will follow the issue via legal channels. Mottaki added that: “If they are seeking people who jeopardize the unity and interests of the Islamic ummah and the Arab World, we can easily introduce them networks running the Arab title but totally at the service of Zionism and the enemies of Islam.”
Quite harsh and threatening. But when will our diplomatic apparatus stop using that self-proclaimed intimidating tone? Accusing ‘Zionist circles’ and extraregional forces has become too much of a corny excuse, hasn’t it? Has it ended in our favorite result? Why haven’t our diplomatic functionaries named those Zionists-serving enemies of Islam for once?
AlAlam’s intensive coverage of the recent battles between Shiite Houthis and Yemen’s central government, and repeated accusations against Iran –believed to be supporting the Houthi insurgents- seems to be the reason AlAlam was taken off the air by Nilesat and Arabsat. The battle has now crossed into the Saudi borders. Saudi leaders’ worries with Shiite insurgents infiltrating into its territory and Iran’s increasing regional influence have expedited removal of a popular channel from Arabs’ favorite list.
Not Zionists’ instigation but the (partial?) coverage of the war in Yemen, unprofessional reaction of Nilesat and Arabsat and Iran’s inefficient legal diplomacy have inconvenienced Iran’s Arabic-language channel. Our diplomatic apparatus may customarily be unaware of the significance of such moves. But what would it reaction be if one of its European embassies was shut down? Don’t they know that a news network is much more powerful and important than an embassy?
And about our Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki. Whatever he remarks carry legal implications. Mr. Mottaki definitely knows the distinction between “could be prosecuted” and “will be prosecuted” when he says Nilesat and Arabsat’s measure was illegal and “could be prosecuted”. Ahmadinejad’s Media Advisor Ali Akbar Javanfekr has also reacted, saying that “Arabsat and Nilesat’s measure is standing against the free flow of information.”Javanfekr adds that “we believe that there is a kind of opposition the free flow of information and Arabsat and Nilesat executives should consider the worrisome consequences of their measure.” Javanfekr also remarks “you cannot deprive the global public opinion from the free flow of information. This is the information age and we are in a new atmosphere where there is no means to… block public opinion’s access to information.”
No sole that loves freedom denies a single word of Javanfekr’s remarks. But does the Islamic Republic follow what he says? Indiscriminate blocking of tens of quality websites, threatening and constricting foreign and Iranian journalists, shutting down newspapers… Are these in line with Javanfekr’s ideal ‘free flow of information? How about the jamming foreign satellite channels? Does that conform to the free flow?
We believe that to counter the media battle we need interaction and dialogue not noise waves which even jeopardize Iranian citizens’ health. Javanfekr is right. There is no way to block information.
Back to AlAlam. During its six-year activity, the channel was quite successful in attracting the Arabic-speaking audience. What is done to this powerful Iranian media tool, with its exemplary promptness, is not justifiable with any measures. The cut-off will severely damage our national interests. The first step to be taken by the channel and the state-run TV foreign affairs deputyship is to start face-to-face contacts with Arabsat and Nilesat executives, while having an eye on alternatives such as Eutelsat and Turksat. AlAlam may also want to be more prudent on its media coverage and guests.