Let’s think about the Pentagon-funded propaganda channel Al-Hurra. Originally conceived in 2004, it was meant to be an Arabic-language counterpart to the supposed anti-Americanism of other Middle Eastern-focused news channels, notably al-Jazeera. Ever since, especially given its dismal ratings, the channel has faced criticisms from all angles, whether Congress insisting it was still insufficiently pro-America and pro-Israel, the GAO noting unacceptable management and editorial practices, or, most recently, an investigation by the State Department’s Investigator General. In short, the channel has been a failure at almost every level.
It was a major reason why skepticism ran high about the Pentagon’s Special Operations Command’s Trans Regional Web Initiative, an attempt to create and run regionally-oriented news sites in Russian, Chinese, and the major Caucasian languages (Georgian, Armenian, Azeri). As EurasiaNet correspondent Deirdre Tynan notes, skepticism runs high about the initiative:
Experts and observers believe the initiative hypothetically has merit. But they are questioning whether the Pentagon, its contractors and subcontractors have the expertise and deft touch needed to make information inroads in areas where there are deep reserves of hostility and suspicion toward the use of American military power. Many experts believe that existing US government-funded mass media outlets, specifically Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFERL), have the capabilities and experience needed to achieve the desired objectives.
“The initiative is not a bad idea in a general sense. But, given the epic fail of the Pentagon’s previous attempts to do this, I just assume it will be clumsy,” said Joshua Foust, military analyst and blogger. “It’s doubtful the Pentagon would allow these news outlets [websites] to have editorial freedom and highlight US missteps.”
Not to belabor the point, but the real strength of RFE/RL and VOA is that they criticize American actions. Even though they are not truly independent journalist organizations, that kind of editorial freedom gives them a lot more credibility than, say, the Pentagon Channel.
SOCOM’s ownership of these websites does not bode well—even if they wind to be capable news organizations, the fact that their funding comes from the fracking special forces means they’ll never attain the kind of reputation and independence they’d need to fulfill their stated purpose. Hell, VOA and RFE/RL still are viewed with tremendous skepticism, especially inside Russia, and they’ve been at this for literally decades. It’s tough to know if they’re effective, and they have much more freedom to operate. How does SOCOM expect TRWI to be effective? We don’t really know. Don’t hold your breath.
This post was written by...
Joshua Foust – author of 1771 posts on Registan.net.
Joshua Foust is a Fellow at the American Security Project and the author of Afghanistan Journal: Selections from Registan.net. His research focuses primarily on Central and South Asia. Joshua is a correspondent for The Atlantic and a columnist for PBS Need to Know. Joshua appears regularly on the BBC World News, Aljazeera, and international public radio. Joshua is also a regular contributor to Foreign Policy’s AfPak Channel, and his writing has appeared in the New York Times, Reuters, and the Christian Science Monitor.
{ 6 comments }
[...] the real strength of RFE/RL and VOA is that they criticize American actions. Even though they are not truly independent journalist organizations [...]
In RFE/RL’s case, you’re off. Although funded by the USG, the BBG – which acts as the firewall between RFE and State, as well as the grant maker – has absolutely no say in programming.
In Afghanistan, Radio Azadi has a 52% market share, for example. It’s a local station, with local programming – just like in Kyrygyzstan, Kazakhstan and others.
Its not just that it won’t work. It will be actively counterproductive. These people should all repeat to themselves every morning the only sensible idea in Petraeus’s COIN strategy – ‘sometimes doing nothing is the best reaction’. But unfortunately they are incapable of doing nothing: there always has to be another program, another project, another tactic…. but no policy, of course, and no strategy.
al-Hurra confronts a cultural and religious clash that Voice of America never did for East Europeans because we saw the US as the great Paradise of Freedom and Voice of America as a wonderful cultural message that was worth risking arrest to hear. But the Iraq War was put forward as a Christian Crusade, as an anti-Muslim and pro-Israel “World War IV” bellowed forward by Likudnik neocons, and Globalism’s war for “US Security”– which DNI Mike MacConnell categorically defined as ACCESS to Middle East oil. According to an Arab working with al-Hurra people there are so afraid of getting labeled that they do nothing more than parrot Midwestern ignorance of the Middle East. And the scandal over Bush’s demands that the US Air Force bomb Al-Jazzirah’s headquarters is an over-lay on anything that al-Hurra has to say. It is seen in Middle East as the voice of counter-terror terrorism according to many university students in the Mideast. That Mr. Faust brings this up now as we ask ourselves if we can really save the messes America’s post 9/11 “Crusades” is a most important contribution to our nation’s sad sate. It is second only to his most constructive critique of how McChrystal hopes to interact his COIN operation with Afghans when, once again, eight years later, we are still intel blind, language deaf and culture dumb per McChrystal’s August report to President Obama.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/22/opinion/22foust.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print
http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/documents/Assessment_Redacted_092109.pdf
Radical Islam is a rational factor responding to contemporary realities. It rises and declines whenever Muslims feel themselves under severe attack. We often forget that 9/11 was REACTIVE rather than proactive. Modest retraction now from our “kinetics” a la McChrystal to a more reactive posture against those who would do us harm– focusing on better domestic security through improvement of the Homeland Security bureaucratic boondoggle– may well bring into abeyance our status as the preeminent “far” enemy. Perhaps if we continue on Osama’s path of modesty, the Arabs might forget the Texas beef the Bush Administration sent as our female rep to the Middle East as propaganda spokesman. Our actions, it should be remembered speak louder than our words and do give us more room to come to terms with Islam’s defenders than our insulting propaganda. Thank you Mr. Foust; people like you help us understand our limits now that our military is almost all volunteer moms and dads that McChrystal doesn’t mind making their families widows and orphans per his report.
The Thunder Run has linked to this post in the blog post From the Front: 10/05/2009 News and Personal dispatches from the front and the home front.
Joshua,
While there is some merit to your arguments, you have several major factual errors. First, Al Hurra is not Pentagon funded. Second, Al Hurra is being inspected, not investigated. Dafna, the ProPublica reporter you linked to, does not make this distinction so this error is understandable. An inspection may lead to an investigation as it is a fishing expedition, but it is in and of itself not unusual.
Also, the ratings issue has been overblown. I think the US television network NBC would love to have the audience Al Hurra has. This is not to defend Al Hurra but using US marketshare analysis in a market that is very different doesn’t work. Plus, when the goal is to inject other information, Al Hurra does have an impact, not just through sheer numbers (again the audience is still quite large even if marketshare is low), in that topics discussed on AH do get attention on the other networks, either through viewers phoning in or talk shows raising the topics themselves.
I don’t write this to say that Al Hurra is giving the US taxpayer the best or even good bang for the buck. Al Hurra definitely has definiciences and arguments that it should be disestablished have merit, but these discussions must be based on facts lest the debate over them is no different than the environment they are operating in: one confused with misinformation and disinformation.
-Matt Armstrong
There are some factual errors in this posting, the first being the premise that Alhurra is funded and operated by the Pentagon. I am sure you will be pleased to note that the Broadcasting Board of Governors provides Alhurra with oversight and serves as a firewall to protect the professional independence and integrity of Alhurra, just as they do to VOA and RFE/RL. Alhurra has no affiliation with the Pentagon, other than reporting on it as part of its comprehensive news coverage.
Another point the posting makes is that Alhurra is being investigated by the OIG. Actually, last month the OIG notified Alhurra that they are conducted a routine inspection; not an investigation. This is one of the countless inspections the OIG conducts each year.
The posting also comment that Alhurra “a failure.” That statement fails to take into account the more than 26 million people who tune into Alhurra each week according to international research firms such as ACNielsen. A majority of those people surveyed find the news to be credible. It also fails to take into account the numerous articles in the Arabic and Western media that cite Alhurra as a source of information within their articles.
It is not just the audience numbers that define Alhurra, there is also the programming. Alhurra has programs dedicated to the rights of women, human rights and freedom of speech. These programs are not found on other Arabic-language channels. Alhurra covers America and the American people, reports on stories of religious tolerance and cultural understanding. That is not to say that Alhurra skips out on coverage of U.S. foreign policy. Alhurra is the only Arabic-language channel to have dedicated correspondents to the White House, Congress, State Department and Pentagon. Through its daily discussion programs Alhurra includes all voices, especially the all important voice of moderation.