Henry Kissinger once famously said: “An issue ignored is a crisis ensured”. Google should have picked up this lesson in dealing with the recent issue-turned-crisis over the Innocence of Muslims film. When the matter first erupted and violence broke out around the world, I wrote an article saying that we — as Muslims — were collectively responsible for allowing a sleazy YouTube video to intimidate us.
The point was that by reacting violently — as some of us did — we may have unintentionally served the purposes of the film’s dodgy producer, an ex-convict, by increasing awareness of this hateful, but yet otherwise not so widely circulated, video clip.
However, the real issue isn’t this particular film, a so-called preacher who decided to burn a copy of the Quran or even disgustingly-hateful posters put up in front of subway commuters in New York City; the real issue is that there is a serious global misunderstanding of Islam, and more worryingly, perhaps among us Muslims!
The same article mentioned above also emphasised that Muslims, of course, have a right to peaceful protest and to oppose insults to their religion or its icons; which is what around 10,000 Muslims outside Google’s London headquarters recently did as they demanded the removal of the film from YouTube.
I anticipated that this recent action might inspire my fellow editors at Newsweek to run a sequel to their ill-conceived Muslim Rage coverage; it would be great if next time around they focus on a more balanced and thoughtful approach so that such a reputable weekly isn’t seen as merely milking the hype.
After all, journalists need to do their jobs in a fair and balanced way. As such, one wonders if Newsweek, for example, covered the 2005 outrage at the British Broadcasting Corporation’s (BBC) White City headquarters as a result of a decision to air the TV version of Jerry Springer — The Opera on BBC 2?
At the time the taxpayer-sustained BBC received some 15,000 objections. On January 8, angry protesters gathered outside the corporation’s White City headquarters to oppose the decision to air the show which is said to contain serious blasphemous references to Jesus, questions about his sexual preferences and swear words. The crowd chanted, ‘What do we want? Springer banned! When do we want it? NOW!’ as they burnt copies of their TV licence bills in front of the building.
Coincidently, I was visiting the BBC on that day so I ended up covering the protest for the London-based newspaper I was working for at the time.
One lady, who chose not to mention her name, but said she represents “all Christians in Britain” told me: “If it was a normal matter, we wouldn’t have been angry and we would have been satisfied with simply not watching”.
When asked, a BBC spokesperson said that the show would be aired anyway (and it did) at a late hour and with plenty of pre-warning messages regarding the nature of its content.
Now there is a world of difference between the BBC and Google approach to a somewhat similar matter.
The BBC, renowned for its fierce ‘no fear, no favour’ policy still aired the show as it felt it did not conflict with its content guidelines. However, it did so with warning messages and at a time of night when it knew that the audience would be minimal. It was also happy to take questions and respond to them, again living up to its reputation.
On the other hand, you have Google, which only responded to individual requests to restrict the video in particular countries where YouTube is localised, but not a universal removal of any traces or copies.
The list of countries which demanded the restriction included Saudi Arabia, a particularly important market for the company as it is officially the world’s largest YouTube video-watching country, with an estimated 90 million views a day.
As basis for declining to completely remove the film, Google cited its pro-freedom of speech position and its claim that the video didn’t conflict with YouTube’s community guidelines which results in an immediate removal (such as pornographic material, for example).
However, upon ‘googling’ these guidelines, any web user would find a clause which reads: ‘We encourage free speech and defend everyone’s right to express unpopular points of view. But we do not permit hate speech (speech which attacks or demeans a group based on race or ethnic origin, religion, disability, gender, age, veteran status and sexual orientation/gender identity)’.
Based on this clause, it could be argued that the film DID contradict YouTube’s guidelines; which Google has reportedly said is a matter it investigated and didn’t find to be true.
Of course, I would have asked this question myself, had I been allowed to.
It is almost surreal that whilst Google is promoting its stance in the West as a victory for liberty and free speech; its head of communications and public affairs in the Middle East was issuing ultimatums to journalists at the recently-concluded Abu Dhabi Media Summit.
Indeed, my request to this usually super-professional lady to interview YouTube’s global head of content, Robert Kyncl, regarding the film was met with an aggressive tone and a finger pointed at me. “No, you can talk to him about anything else, but I won’t arrange the interview if are going to talk about the film,”
The interview never happened, nor did a promised ‘off the record’ talk. As such, all I can say to Google is that if it is going to champion freedom of expression, it should at least be consistent.
The question regarding its YouTube community guidelines remains unanswered.
Faisal J. Abbas is the editor-in-chief of Al Arabiya’s English website. He can be reached at @FaisalJAbbas on Twitter.
