 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
Senate Committee on Foreign Relations Hearing:
WITNESSES PANEL II: JESS T. FORD, DIRECTOR, INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS AND TRADE, GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE; DR. SHIBLEY TELHAMI, ANWAR SADAT PROFESSOR OF PEACE, UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND; WILLIAM A. RUGH, ASSOCIATE, INSTITUTE FOR THE STUDY OF DIPLOMACY, GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY; DR. EDMUND GHAREEB, ADJUNCT PROFESSOR OF MIDDLE EAST HISTORY AND POLITICS, SCHOOL OF INTERNATIONAL SERVICE, AMERICAN UNIVERSITY LOCATION: 419 DIRKSEN SENATE OFFICE BUILDING, WASHINGTON, D.C. BODY: The second panel is Jess Ford from the General Accounting Office, Dr. Shibley Telhami of the University of Maryland, the Honorable William Rugh of Georgetown University, and Dr. Edmund Ghareeb of American University here in Washington. We'll begin with Mr. Rugh. Welcome. MR. WILLIAM A. RUGH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I'm honored to be invited to testify on this very important subject. I was a public diplomacy official with the U.S. Information Agency for 30 years and I have followed public diplomacy ever since. This is a vital issue, especially today in light of the tension between America and the Arab world. I would like, Mr. Chairman, to report on some Arab reaction that I have heard to the broadcasts by Radio Sawa and Alhurra Television. But first, if I may, I'd like to put that in context by talking about the competitive marketplace that currently exists in Arab broadcasting. The context is this, in my view, briefly: a revolution in Arab television has taken place over the past decade. Prior to 1991 nearly all Arab radio and television was owned and controlled by Arab governments in each country. The content of the broadcast was supportive of the government completely. It was unimaginative and boring. Media laws prohibited any criticism of the head of state of religion or of anything undermining public order and self censorship added to that. But during the 1990s several private Arab satellite channels were established, based in Europe and they broadcast all over the Arab world. They brought a new approach to Arab television. Their news coverage was much broader, bringing live reports from Israel, Afghanistan and elsewhere for the first time. They introduced lively discussion programs that broke taboos. Their talk shows brought together religious fundamentalists and extremists, discussed the role of women, criticized governments. For example, I watched Al Jazeera with a call-in show that featured a Saudi prince who was asked by a person on the other end of the phone line in Riyadh about Saudi corruption. That was on Al Jazeera. It was getting into a political discussion by Al Jazeera which had never been done before by Arab television. Al Jazeera broke so many taboos that virtually every Arab government protested and took action against it. But others followed. Hezbollah's Al-Manar was stridently anti- Israel and pro-Palestinian, but it was very popular. Americans tend to regard Al Jazeera as anti-American, as you've heard in the previous panel and to some extent that's true, but some of the anti-American content that we see as Americans in Al Jazeera is really following the street. It's a market driven medium, as are many and most of the new satellite stations, and Al Jazeera is not the only one, and also we have to be aware that there's a cultural bias that is found in every country. For example, American television will give priority in its news broadcasts to Americans dying in Iraq while Arab television will give priority to Arabs dying in Iraq. Today Arab audiences, Mr. Chairman, can choose from dozens of television channels. Typically viewers in any country only watch about six or seven of them regularly. And so Arab viewers today might typically watch Al Jazeera or Al Arabia, for example, for all news. They might turn to Middle East Broadcasting and Orbit for entertainment -- and I might emphasize that the entertainment includes a lot of American content. They buy Hollywood films, they buy American television serials and programs. They might watch Al Manar if they want to watch a pro- Palestinian, strongly pro-Palestinian reporting, and they probably watch their own government television channel for local news. So the market in the Arab world for television is very tight and the choices are broad for every Arab television viewer. Let me now turn briefly, Mr. Chairman, to Radio Sawa and Alhurra, and what I want to report to you is not a scientific quantitative survey but reaction that I have heard from many Arabs that I have talked to who watch Alhurra regularly and who listen to Radio Sawa regularly. I am not going to quote any of the commentary from Arabs who are normally hostile to America. The quotes that I will give you, or the comments that I will give you are all from Arabs who are basically friendly to America and want the United States to do well. First of all, Radio Sawa. I have to emphasize in the beginning of this analysis that Radio Sawa and Alhurra are considered U.S. government broadcasting stations. The so-called firewall that the Broadcasting Board of Governors talks about is not recognized and not appreciated. So that's the basis from which we operate. Now, Radio Sawa's selection of news reinforces this impression that it is a U.S. government station. I must say that Radio Sawa -- I was a skeptic at the beginning of its launch last year, but it seems to be popular with many young people, the young people who can hear it. They like its music. But the Arab adults that I have spoken with, and I have just recently returned from two trips to the Middle East, tell me that they prefer to listen to BBC Arabic and that they miss the Voice of America's Arabic program because it was better news, better coverage and a broader program. Another issue for Radio Sawa is audibility. The Voice of America had a problem with its signal, it had problem of audibility because it was primarily on short-wave and on medium wave from roads, and Radio Sawa has done a bit better because it's more audible in more places, but it is still not being heard in many parts of the Arab world. In conclusion, Radio Sawa has had some impact but its impact with the important policy maker audiences, that is adults, is very limited. Alhurra Television, however, has had a much more difficult time penetrating the Arab broadcast market because it's so highly saturated with Arab satellite television channels that Arab viewers find very interesting. Like Radio Sawa, it's considered a government broadcaster. First impressions important and the inaugural interview with President Bush on Alhurra made it look from the start like any of the old-time old-style Arab government owned channels because that is what they do. Moreover, the choice of news and features seemed to Arab viewers to be dictated by U.S. government preferences. Viewers see a great deal of emphasis on Israel, on terrorism, rather than on the plight of the Palestinians and the Iraqi people. The promo that Mr. Pattiz mentioned in the previous panel focusing on other issues are exactly what the market wants, and this is what they are not seeing from Alhurra and therefore it is not appealing. Moreover, regular viewers have told me that the channel seems to lack a Pan-Arab character because most of the presenters, and this is impressions again, most of the presenters seem to be viewers to be Lebanese Christians. They would like to see more presenters from the Gulf and elsewhere. Arab viewers, Mr. Chairman, who are pro-American tell me they have been disappointed in the programming because they expected a lot more. They say it is not as effective in newsgathering in the Middle East as they thought it would be. For example, Al Jazeera is reporting from inside Fallujah and Alhurra is not, even though the United States is the occupying power in Iraq, and they expected Alhurra to have an advantage. That may be unfair, but that was the expectation. They say Alhurra is disappointing because it is not aggressively reporting on Arab corruption and lack of democracy, which they expected it to do because President Bush has focused publicly on these issues. And he has named specific Arab countries and shortcomings in those countries in public statements. But Arab viewers of Alhurra say that when Alhurra, for example, interviewed the Tunisian foreign minister recently, the Alhurra reporter complied with the Tunisian demand that human rights violations in Tunisia not be raised. So they understand and the word is getting out that Alhurra is just like any other government broadcasting station in the Middle East, it stays away from internal Arab problems. They also say they are disappointed that Alhurra, and this is surprising, has not done better than Al Jazeera and other Arab channels in reporting news about the United States. For example, in one case Al Jazeera reported on President Bush live, while Alhurra did not. So with the friends of ours in the Arab world, Alhurra has been a disappointment, has not met their expectations. Mr. Chairman, I'll conclude by making some recommendations if I may? I would say that Radio Sawa needs to improve its reach and its audibility and it needs to focus more on what important adult audiences want to hear from a U.S. government radio station. If we want to support American public diplomacy, we need to reach movers and shakers, we need to reach policy makers, not just youth. It would do well to broaden its offerings along the lines of the old VOA Arabic service, which had a good program but unfortunately had signal problems.
Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that since the 9/11 terrorists used American planes to kill Americans, we should be able to use Arab media to inform and educate Arab audiences. Thank you. SEN. SUNUNU: Dr. Telhami, welcome. MR. SHIBLEY TELHAMI: Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I'm honored to testify before this committee again. I will focus only on satellite television in my testimony, I'll make five short points. And what I hope to do with these points is really put this in a broader perspective. And I think we've focused so much on Alhurra and what it can do, we're sort of losing sight of the bigger picture. The first point I want to make is that the prevalent resentment of American foreign policy, whether it's in the Middle East or elsewhere around the world, is of course influenced by the media, the media plays a role but by and large it is not shaped by this media. Frankly, there is no Al Jazeera television in Europe, in Latin America, in Africa, in Asia, we have strong anti-Americanism. There are many people in the Middle East that don't have satellite television, they express just as much anti-Americanism as those who do. We've seen resentment toward America go down very rapidly in four or five years, and frankly even before this administration came to office, largely in relation to events on Arab-Israeli issue, not to media coverage. Just in the spring of 2000 when people were optimistic about peace in the Middle East, over 60 percent of Saudis according to the State Department expressed confidence in the United States of America. That dropped rapidly in the fall before our elections, as soon as the negotiations collapsed, and continued to drop into the spring and certainly accelerated after 9/11 and the war on terrorism, reaching the single digits in the past year. So I think we have to put this first of all in perspective. This is not a media-driven phenomenon. The media certainly is a player that we have to take seriously, but in the end at the heart of it is something bigger that we've got to address, and we can't ignore that and sort of pin the responsibility on the media as if that's the answer to all our problems in the region and around the world. Second, I think what Ambassador Rugh pointed out very eloquently is that to the extent that there's a change in the Middle Eastern media in the past decade, it is that we have this market-driven phenomenon. By market-driven phenomenon we don't mean necessarily that these stations not owned by government, as in the case of Al Jazeera, but that they have a different logic because of the technological reach. Because of the commonality of Arabic as a language across the Arab world, the market now is defined as the 300 million Arabs. The prototype for these stations is the Arab, not the Qatari or the Yemeni or the Algerian, but they're trying to reach the largest possible market share among all Arabs, and therefore the prototype consumer is the Arab. And therefore by definition they're trying to appeal to the tastes and passions of that consumer. And we see that actually very interestingly, in the case of Al Jazeera and how its reporting changed. People forget, for example, that in the late 1990s, only five years ago, Al Jazeera was being accused in the Arab world of being pro-American, pro-Israeli, even some accused it, quote, being, "a Zionist agent." The reason why they were doing that was that Al Jazeera was a pioneer in putting on the screen Israeli representatives on a regular basis, the Israeli point of view, somebody in the Knesset, sometimes even putting live the debate in the Knesset. And Arabs were watching. And the reason they were watching is they believed Arab-Israeli peace was coming. It's around the corner. Most of them knew little about Israelis. They didn't know what the Israelis were like. Al Jazeera was bringing Israel to the homes in Riyadh and Rabat in ways that no one else could dare do, and for that reason they were accused of being pro-Israeli. Well, what happened is the negotiations collapsed, you have a lot of bloodshed, the story was blood and war and people wanted to see it. In fact, when Al Jazeera came under pressure before the war last year to tone down its coverage of the Palestinian areas, my surveys in the Middle East show that Al-Manar gained on it and became number one on news on the Arab-Israeli issue. Al-Manar is Hezbollah's television in places like Jordan. So clearly it's a market-driven phenomena. We have to understand that they're trying to cater to the market. Third, I think if you -- I'm an observer of this media as a scholar. I've been watching it for a long time. I also appear on it. And if I look at it in a historical perspective, I don't think we've ever seen, frankly, a foreign media that has given more direct and live coverage of American officials than the Arab satellite media, perhaps in history. And, Mr. Rugh, I think you certainly played a role in the media before historically. You probably could put a perspective on it. But I have never seen it on this scale, in part because people are obsessed certainly with the U.S. There are always policies related to Iraq, the Arab-Israeli issue. News conferences live translated live in Arabic, by the president, by the secretary of State, secretary of Defense, news conferences by generals in the region, clearly there is that coverage. Now, you can say the commentary isn't that good, and that's probably true. But the coverage is there -- but the coverage itself is undermined less by the discussion afterwards and more by the fact that appearance by American officials often reinforces people's biases, because American officials speak with our own paradigm, our own world view, and often with the back of our minds we're speaking to our own constituency at home, to Congress, to our media, how we're going to be covered. And in that sense, in a way, reinforce the fears of people in the region, rather than alter the perception. And I think we have to become aware of that more often. Fourth. I think that it is fair to say that in times of tragedy and war, in times of pain, people speak, people listen and watch with their hearts much more than they do with their minds. I think we've -- certainly if you look at our own coverage in our own media and our own public attention to the media, immediately after the tragedy of 9/11 or throughout the war, it is clear that we watch with our hearts and certainly the media response to that. The public, our public, when we are in pain is not neutral. It can't be. You're in the middle of the pain. You are not going to make an objective assessment. And the media is not neutral, because its audience is not neutral. And in that sense, I think we have to put in perspective that in the Middle East there is a time of pain. There has been a time of pain over the past few years. The war, the bloodshed in Iraq and the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, the terrorism in Saudi Arabia, Morocco, everywhere, it is a continuous time of pain. And in those times of pain, people are watching
with their hearts, and those stations that speak to the heart
and the ones that will get the market share. And frankly, I think,
Alhurra's biggest problem -- I think biggest challenge, I should
say -- and it's being done professionally, but is see that as
a major challenge is that the notion of neutrality -- Ambassador
Rugh spoke about the criticism, or doesn't speak with a Pan-Arab
voice. Let me make my final point, which goes to another issue. I served recently on the Advisory Committee on Public Diplomacy that Congress mandated. It was a bipartisan committee that presented the report to the administration. Clearly we understood that public diplomacy is important. But in that report we also said that most of anti-Americanism probably is related to policies that cannot be addressed through public diplomacy. We put it in perspective. Still, we thought there are many things that public diplomacy could address and we believe that the media plays a modest role within public diplomacy, but not even a central role. In fact, we addressed largely the sort of issues on exchanges, educational exchanges, media exchanges, civil society exchanges, communication through language and culture, as well as the media. And in that sense I think we have to ask the question about the bang for the dollar that we're going to get out of Alhurra. I happen to think that in absolute terms, the budget is not huge. And when you take into account that Alhurra's annual budget is only one-third of what we spend daily in the war on Iraq, and when you consider that this is an important part of the fight, I think it isn't a huge budget. But when you compare it to the rest of the public diplomacy budget, which many of us think is extremely important, I think then you have to ask questions about the rest of the budget, because there we've found that only $150 million is allocated to the entire public diplomacy program towards 1.2 billion Muslims around the world, of which only $25 million a year is allocated to public diplomacy outreach programs. And I think that is the question. I think as long as we do not increase the public diplomacy budget on those other programs that are really, really badly needed, the proportion of allocation will look less justified. I think in absolute terms, the budget is small. I think Alhurra should be there. I think there should be an American voice. That American voice may not succeed in the short term, but there is no reason why you can't build trust over time and wait until such time when you experiment and, in fact, can reach a broad audience. In the short term I think it's an uphill battle. Thank you. SEN. SUNUNU: Thank you, Doctor. Mr. Ford. MR. JESS T. FORD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate being invited here today. I'm going to focus a little bit more on management issues with U.S. international broadcasting, which is based on several reports we recently issued on international broadcasting and public diplomacy. Our reports over the last several years have examined the number of organizational, marketing, resource and performance management challenges facing U.S.-international broadcasting overall. Our two most recent reports have addressed the board's principal response to these challenges: the development of a new five-year strategic approach to international broadcasting, which emphasizes the reach of large audiences and applying modern broadcast techniques and strategically allocating resources to high priority broadcast markets. Early implementation of this strategy has focused on markets relevant to the war on terrorism, and in particular, the Middle East and Central Asia. The Broadcasting Board of Governors faces a number of challenges. Key among them is how to achieve large audiences in priority markets while dealing with a disparate organizational structure consisting of five broadcast entities and a mix of federal and grantee organizations managed by a part-time board, and a collection of outdated and noncompetitive language services that have failed to respond to current market conditions. The disparate structure of U.S. international broadcasting has led to overlapping language services, duplication of program content, redundant news gathering and support services, and difficulties in coordinating broadcast efforts. Marketing challenges include the use of outmoded program formats and styles, the general lack of target audiences within broadcast markets, poor signal delivery in many areas, and low audience awareness in several major markets. The board's new strategic approach is designed to address these problems. The board has developed a so-called single system, which it hopes to use to consolidate and modernize its broadcast operations. Recent broad initiatives, such as Radio Sawa, broadcast in the Middle East, and Radio Farda, broadcast to Iran, illustrates the board's willingness to serve as a content manage for U.S. international broadcasting and to adopt market-based approaches in designing large -- designed to attract large listening audiences. Triggered by desire to better manage its limited resources, the board has used its annual language service review process to identify and reallocate cost savings to higher priority needs. The process is used to address such complex resource issues as how funds should be allocated among the language services, based on their priority and impact, how major broadcast services should be carried in total, what degree of overlap and content duplication should exist among the services, and whether services should be eliminated because they've fulfilled their broadcast mission. Since 1999, the board has identified more than $50 million in actual or potential savings through this process. For example, if language review process from 1999 to 2000 resulted in about $20 million being reallocated from low priority impact services to help fund Radio Sawa and Radio Farda. Most recently, the board has used the language service process as a vehicle for identifying language services that should be eliminated. For example, based on its review process, the board's Fiscal Year 2004 budget request to Congress recommended the elimination of 17 Central and Eastern European language services managed by the Voice of America, Radio Free Europe, saving an approximately $21 million. These decisions will be critical to the board's ability to channel resources to the higher priority markets, such as broadcast in the Middle East and Central Asia. In response to a number of our recommendations, the board has revised its strategic planning approach with the goal of reaching large markets as a centerpiece for performance reporting, and has identified broadcast credibility and audience awareness as key performance measures. These steps will help the board answer questions about the effectiveness of such efforts as Radio Sawa and TV Alhurra in reaching mass audiences and elites in the Middle East. Whether foreign publics perceive U.S. broadcasts as being independent of American foreign policy and whether VOA is effectively promoting the image of the United States and educating foreign audiences about U.S. practices and policies. In conclusion, our work shows that the board has taken a number of important steps over the last several years to improve strategic planning and develop a review process to allocate funds to the highest priority needs. The board must continue to look for ways to streamline and modernize broadcasting operations and ensure that resources it receives are effectively meeting the goals, especially in priority markets. I'd be happy to answer any questions you might have. SEN. SUNUNU: Thank you, Mr. Ford. Dr. Ghareeb. MR. EDMUND GHAREEB: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's an honor to be here. Let me say that right now there is a -- SEN. SUNUNU: Please turn on your microphone. MR. GHAREEB: I'm sorry. SEN. SUNUNU: Thank you very much. MR. GHAREEB: Let me say right now that there is a credibility gap between the United States and the Middle East, and we have heard about this quite a bit today in the media. And due to recent events, this disparity is increasing at a startling pace. Many in the region judge, as we have heard, that the U.S., mainly on its foreign policy, and how it effects the people in the region. The U.S. needs to reach out to the people of the area and to try to close that widening gap. There have been many outreach projects in the past. The USIA and the Voice of America have been there. Alhurra and Radio Sawa are the latest media endeavors by Congress and the Broadcasting Board of Governors, and they are the most comprehensive initiatives so far to try to reach the people of the area. And while radio and satellite ownership has exploded in recent years, reaching people is by no means an easy task. Even before Alhurra was on the air, many people in the area and in the region said that it would be a mouthpiece for the U.S. government. In the months ahead, Alhurra would prove itself over and over again by providing credible and objective news coverage and analysis, by interviewing people who do not always agree with the current administration and its policies. Effective communication also requires taking your audience's views, values, feelings and sense of identity into account. It's not enough to tell people what's on your mind. You have to listen to them, you have to find out what's on their mind. If Alhurra and Radio Sawa are able to prove that their news is reliable and free of government influence, they will have a unique opportunity to cover stories that put U.S. policies in context and debate them freely. It bears repeating, however, that there should be no interference from the U.S. government. As you know, most Arab media outlets are state run. Governments influence what's covered and how to cover it. Consequently, people in the region are quite suspicious of all official media. Furthermore, there's a great deal of competition, as we have heard today, from Ambassador Rugh and Professor Telhami. There is saturation of the media environment in the Middle East. The information technology revolution, the CNN factor, dissatisfaction with their own media, and dissatisfaction with the way the Western media covered the Gulf War of 1991 contributed to the rise of a new and more independent print and TV media in the Arab world. And today, in addition to the BBC and Radio Monte Carlo, many people are getting their news and entertainment from Al Jazeera, Al-Arabiyah, Al-Hayat, LBC, Abu Dhabi, Dubai, ANN, Future, Radio Orient, NBC, Al-Manar and many others. There have been several references in the news recently to the allegations that media outlets such as Al Jazeera and Al-Arabiyah are speaking -- are supporting the recent uprisings and encouraging people to take a stand against the coalition forces. I think it's important to remember that the media in the region mirror the feelings and the attitudes of their audiences. They place as much emphasis on reflecting the emotions and the attitudes in the region as they do on the events of the day. They may influence people, but the sentiment is already they, they are not creating the problem. That's where Alhurra and Radio Sawa have the opportunity and the potential to play a big role. They have the opportunity to provide the region with a straightforward approach to the news, free of emotional coloration and innuendo. When Alhurra started, an American journalist interviewed a Jordanian, what he thought of the program he had just watched, and the man said it was all right, that he had heard different people who represented a spectrum of views on the program. But when told that Alhurra was financed by the U.S. government, he decided the program was terrible. The change in attitude was perceptible. A serious problem likely to face media coverage, that is that the same events mean different things to different audiences. Presenting events only as they are seen through American eyes may alienate Arabs and Muslims. To many Americans the fighters in Al-Fallujah or Najaf are insurgents and terrorists. For many Iraqis and Muslims they are resistance fighters. When American forces in Iraq attack the insurgents in Fallujah, it's perceived by many Arabs and Muslims, because of collateral damage, the death of innocent bystanders, as though the U.S. is attacking the city and its inhabitants. When mosques in the city broadcast prayers appealing to God, under fire, it looks like the U.S. is attacking Islam. These are emotionally charged situations, and emotions differ depending on one's identity. The challenge facing U.S. officials and U.S. media today is that messages are being broadcast from one side to the other, not just through the media but by the unspoken messages conveyed by symbols and pictures. There are -- and the Palestinian question, as we have also heard earlier, are very important issues for many Arabs and Muslims. Public diplomacy accompanied by a very credible media performance by Radio Sawa and Alhurra will not, by themselves, sway the majority of Arab and Muslim public opinion unless they, Muslims and Arabs, come to believe that U.S. policies are taking their concerns and aspirations into account. I also think it is important to point out that, yes, the sentiment against American policies is very strong right now. However, feelings towards the U.S. and the American people are not all negative. When you talk to people in the Middle East about personal freedom, about democracy, about values that Americans enjoy and advocate, it's something they admire and are intrigued by. American technological, scientific and educational achievements, as well as American products are widely admired. Another thing, of course, is American culture. Music, movies, television and books, you name it, people in the region are watching, listening and reading. And from the popularity of Radio Sawa, I think the same can be said for music. Several young people that I talked to in the Middle East said that Radio Sawa has really neat songs and music, so they turn the volume up when the songs are on, but sometimes some of them turn it down when the news comes on because they feel that the news is slanted, although some continue -- many continue to listen. Overall, the U.S. needs to foster positive images of itself and of its motives abroad, and use them to help rebuild relations with the people of the Middle East. Right now, positive American values and images are not getting exported nearly enough. The airwaves and newspapers in the Middle East are full of stories of the United States trying to dominate the region and to dictate its views upon the people of the Middle East. They look at Iraq and ask if this is a war for freedom and democracy or a fight for oil and hegemony? They wonder about American commitment to freedom of speech when the CPA closes a very small newspaper or seeks to constrain popular satellite channels. The U.S. needs a voice. They need many voices, voices of moderation, voices that speak clearly and objectively about the events in the Middle East and around the world. There is not a panacea or a quick fix that will change sentiments all at once. It will be a long process. I am not saying that you will be able to reach everyone. However, I would like to applaud your efforts, whether it is through Alhurra and Radio Sawa, or by reaching out to speak to Middle East media or through other fora, to bridge the gap between the between the people of the region and the American people. Thank you again for allowing me to appear before you today. SEN. SUNUNU: Thank you. Unfortunately, the length of today's presentations have not left us with a great deal of time for questions, but I would like to ask just a few. First, Ambassador Rugh, you talked about the difficulty -- your perception of difficulty in penetrating Arab markets with Alhurra. Our previous panel presented information, a recent survey as to the number of satellite viewers that had watched Alhurra programming in the past week, and at least in a number of countries, Jordan, Lebanon and Kuwait, that it was over 35 percent. In several other countries, Syria, UAE and Saudi Arabia it was 20 percent or even a little higher. Are those good numbers? We'd obviously like those to be better, but is that a pleasant surprise to you after only two months of broadcasting, and what do you think we should be hoping for at this point in the process? MR. RUGH: Mr. Chairman, I think those are good numbers, as far as they go. It's early in the history of Alhurra. We don't know what the long term will be. The numbers may be high possibly because of curiosity for a new medium. And as I tried to emphasize, it's considered a U.S. government broadcasting instrument, and Americans' policy is the focus of everybody's attention in the Middle East now. They want to know what it is. They want to understand it. They're puzzled. Everybody I talked to in the region says explain to me why our policy is what it is. So, you know, there is interest and there's enormous potential, but the potential has to be capitalized on if we're going to maintain the market. And we have to do quality programming, we have to meet the expectations of the audience, or it's going to disappear. MR. TELHAMI: May I follow up on this briefly? SEN. SUNUNU: Well, yes, you may. But I would like actually each of our panelists to address the following question. And, Doctor, you're welcome to talk about the perception as well. The second question is, to what extent have those of you that have watched satellite TV broadcast, especially those broadcasts of government- owned stations in the region -- how have you seen or noticed those stations changing over the last several years? First with the advent of Al Jazeera, which was certainly a different format, even though it was a government funded. And second, with Alhurra. And we'll certainly begin with you, Dr. Telhami. MR. TELHAMI: Thank you. Well, let me just say on the previous question, because I'm doing surveys actually about people watching media -- I've done one a year ago. I'm doing that now and I'll probably have some very good data on Alhurra, compared with others. Mr. Pattiz was extremely careful to say these are preliminary numbers, because they were not systematic yet. And, for example, the question may have been, have you ever watched Alhurra, which is a very different question from do you consistently watch it for the news. My suspicion is the numbers for Al Jazeera and Alhurra probably are 80 to 90 percent. And the question that we usually ask when we do a survey go get at whether a station has an impact or not, we say, well, which is your first choice for news? Which is your second choice? Which is your third choice? We look at three choices. And then we have, do you watch it once a week, twice a week, five times a week? And we find the intensity, of course, is all that matters. So it's early to tell obviously, and I hope, you know, they're strong, but these numbers really can't tell you yet the story. Now, if you look at Al Jazeera -- and, you know, I have been watching it for a long time and I participate in some of these debates -- in my judgment, by and large, if you compare the media now, the satellite phenomenon, with what existed in the Arab world a decade ago, there is no question that it is far better than it was. And you get far more varieties of views than you had before, and that it is far more accurate than it was a decade age. It's flawed and there are a lot of problems and they're learning through it, but there is no question in my mind that it is far better than it was. And there are some programs that are absolutely superior. There are some programs that we would be proud to put on our own TV, including news programs. Al-Arabiyah has an excellent discussion show with one of their leading journalists here that has a variety of views, that is a high-quality discussion that we would be impressed with on our own television. And they have others that we wouldn't want to put on our high-quality television. So overall I think it's been better but it's certainly not perfect. SEN. SUNUNU: Ambassador Rugh. MR. RUGH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If I could add something on the polls, because you asked a very good question. I haven't seen the polls that have been referred to, but I think the best poll that would give us good information about the effectiveness of Alhurra and Radio Sawa as well would be to take a poll at the time of a major event. For example, the capture of Saddam Hussein or a speech by President Bush, and see what channel the audiences select. It's not enough to say, did you watch Alhurra this week. As Professor Telhami says, you want to know what their choice was on a crucial issue like a major political event, particularly in the Middle East. Are they watching Alhurra for coverage of Fallujah? Are they watching it for coverage of the West Bank and Gaza? On the question of change over time, I agree completely with Professor Telhami. It's been a dramatic change and the pioneering role of Al Jazeera, which is way out ahead of the others, has forced other broadcasting stations, even directly government controlled ones, like Abu Dhabi Television, to improve the quality of their programming, the quality of their reporting. And we often, in America, focus on the discussion programs and the commentaries, but the news reporting of Al Jazeera and Al-Arabiyah is outstanding. And unless Alhurra can match that, nobody's going to watch. SEN. SUNUNU: Ambassador Rugh, I think in some previous testimony you talked about producing programs for placement on other stations, local stations throughout the Arab world. If that approach were pursued, do you think it likely that the governments would give us access on stations for the kind of programming, either balanced programming or even programming that might be critical of these governments. Is it realistic to expect that we would get placement? MR. RUGH: I think yes, Mr. Chairman. I think particularly those satellite stations that are competing for market share, like Al Jazeera and Al-Arabiyah, we can get access to them. Professor Telhami has been on them, Professor Ghareeb has been on them, I have been on them. They don't ban American comments, and the more Americans to participate, the better. And they welcome them. I know that for a fact. American officials ought to speak more on television. And as far as placement goes, as a public affairs officer in Egypt and Saudi Arabia and other places, I've found it fairly to place good material on local programs. Now, if it were a program that directly criticized the local -- the host government for corruption, they might not take it. But if it's a well-produced program, yes, they'll take it. You know, this is a hungry medium that needs material, and they'll take our material too. SEN. SUNUNU: Dr. Ghareeb, what do you think about the value or the efficacy of taking privately produced media broadcasts, whether it's on a major station like CNN or MSNBC, FOX, et cetera, and translating that? Is Arab translations of American programming of value of interest in the channels of the outlets we've been speaking of? MR. GHAREEB: First of all, I think that -- let me comment briefly on the role of the new media and the Arab world, I think has revolutionized the way people receive the information and their news, and they have forced government media to lift the ceiling on debate and discussion. We are seeing discussion of issues that have been taboo as Ambassador Rugh said earlier, issues with -- to do with the Arab-Israeli conflict, that have to do with sex, that have to do with religion, secularism, Kurdish nationalism and numerous other issues. There is no double that their record is mixed, on the one hand they have raised this debate, on the other hand they have not brought about the changes that a lot of people thought that they were going to do, that they were going to create increased democratization and political participation because while -- because the government still owns some of these channels and we don't see real demand for accountability and when it comes to issues dealing with domestic problems, domestic corruption, questions of the budget for example, these are not focused on enough, and in fact some people think that the media have transformed the audiences, there's now an audience lethargy. People sort of participate vicariously through the media, instead of trying to bring about changes of the government. As to the types of programs, American programs which could be translated, they could be translated well, some of them could perhaps find an audience among -- in the Arab world. For example, I would think something like the News Hour, perhaps, the Lehrer News Hour might be an excellent program, and I think that program would also have an audience in the Arab world. But at the same time I don't think you can use all programs because the values here are very important, the way you communicate with people in the Middle East is a little different from communicating with people in the United States and this is in part, part of the problem of U.S. officials because if you take a look at Al Jazeera or Al-Arabiyah others, you'll find that American officials often appear on these channels regularly. Sometimes I've seen President Bush speaking on Al Jazeera or Al- Arabiyah. They were airing a speech live while it was not being aired on American television. But the problem sometimes is the message is not well understood over there. The values are different and that's something that has to be taken into account. SEN. SUNUNU: Mr. Ford, from your testimony I get the impression that the BBG has been somewhat responsive in dealing with recommendations, having to do an overlap and revisiting the format or the structure of its language services. Are there any areas or any recommendations that the GAO has made where the BBG response has been lacking or has been slower than you would hope? MR. FORD: I wouldn't say that they've responded negatively to our recommendations, I think it's -- some of them are issues related to whether they have resources to implement more surveys, to have a better understanding of whether or not they are actually meeting their goals, whether the audience they're trying to meet is actually getting the message across, and some of that's a resource issue. Some of it is a case of because as I mentioned earlier they're trying to manage all -- many other broadcast operations. It's a challenge for them to try to cobble an efficient approach to optimize their resources. So those kind of issues are the ones where they generally agree that they need to do that, but the process of them implementing those things is taking some time. SEN. SUNUNU: Thank you. |
||
 |
 |