Western media loses its advantage in the Arab world

Two decad-es ago, an ordinary citizen in Cairo would tune to BBC Arabic Service, or Radio London as it became popularly known, to listen to news about Egypt that he could not hear on the local radio because the government did not like him to know about it.

The situation has changed since then, with huge developments in the global and regional media in recent years, with satellite news channels defying bureaucracies. Now we watch Al Jazeera, Abu Dhabi or Al Arabyia to get the news, leave alone the CNN. Nevertheless, the BBC (or the Beeb) is still the most impartial, in-depth news provider. This fact seems not well tolerated by the Labour government of British Prime Minister Tony Blair. The pressure exerted by the government on the Beeb in the past few days has been unprecedented, as Richard Sambrook, director of BBC News, put it.

The current exchange between the broadcaster and the government is a culmination of a trend started by Blair's government since September 11, 2001, that reached its height just before the Iraq war. The British government wants to follow the American administration's harsh hosing of media outlets, on illusive patriotic grounds. When Condoleezza Rice called up the American networks after September 11 and asked them to exercise restraint in airing Osama bin Laden tapes filled with propaganda and possibly coded messages, they agreed all too readily.

But when Tony Blair's British government tried to pressure British TV into doing exactly the same thing, the answer was 'no'. Summoned to No 10 Downing Street, news executives were urged to consult British government officials before airing any bin Laden tapes, and were asked not to quote any Islamic extremists. One BBC source told The Times afterwards: "Government interference will be resisted."

But during the war on Iraq, the British government almost did the same by calling on popular "patriotism out of fear" to avoid any media questioning of the logic of war. Tony Blair seemed as if he had acquired ultimate wisdom, and whoever is not with him is a traitor and against the country's national interest: the same arrogant position of the U.S. President and his hawkish aides.

American superficiality can work in the U.S., but the British media won't swallow it easily. That's why the Daily Mail didn't back down from its anti-war stance and ignored the accusation of not supporting national forces in the field, and kept on questioning, from the beginning, the political decision of sending them.

Now, ministers in the British government are increasing pressure on the BBC to apologise for claiming officials doctored intelligence information to justify war with Iraq. The feud between Blair's government and the public broadcaster began with Blair's communications chief, Alastair Campbell, accusing the BBC and its defence correspondent, Andrew Gilligan, of lying. Gilligan reported last month the government exaggerated the scale of the Iraqi weapons threat to persuade sceptical members of parliament of the need for war.

In a BBC report, he said Blair aides re-drafted an intelligence dossier to include claims that Iraq could launch chemical and biological weapons at 45 minutes' notice. Campbell and ministers insist they did not doctor the dossier and said the BBC should not have run the story, which cited an unidentified intelligence official. The BBC said the Ministry of Defence had been told of the report before it was broadcast and was offered a chance to respond.

But Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon said no such chance had been offered and asked the BBC to apologise. Of course, one would believe that politicians decline chances to answer media questions to balance a story, and then turn the case against the press.

In any case, Campbell was questioned by a parliament committee and seems to be still worthy of receiving government support to stop MPs from forcing his departure, which means that the BBC will have to endure more pressure.

Ironically, this coincided with an Israeli attack on the BBC for similar reasons. No wonder Israeli national security is the same as the British! The Israeli government protested vehemently against the BBC for publicising an insight into the extent of Israel's undeclared nuclear, biological and chemical weapons in violation of international conventions.

BBC sanctions

According to The Times newspaper, Israel has broken all contact with Britain's public service in protest at its repeated "demonisation" of the country and the planned showing of a critical documentary on BBC World. The sanctions imposed on the BBC were said to include refusing to put up official Israeli spokesmen for interviews and visa restrictions on the corporation's journalists. Earlier this year, Israel punished CNN by blocking its signal, accusing the world's leading network of bias towards Palestinians.

If the Blair government manages to turn the BBC into a British Pravda, this would be the hardest blow to all the best western ethics and values we longed to embrace. The government cannot be expected to back down, and some of the British media - the Daily Telegraph for example - are already against the BBC as it is not conservative and reactionary like them. The British public is becoming more and more Americanised, more than the French and German, to accept the worst of this row between government and media.

The oldest democracy in the form of the UK, the castle of liberty in the form of the U.S., and the so-called only democracy in the Middle East are cracking down on their own media and suppressing free speech. This leaves the newly emerging quasi-independent media outlets in our region to lead in providing objective and un-biased news.

People in Algeria, Damascus or Manama will be turning to Arabic satellite channels to get what they, years ago, got only from the BBC.


Ahmed Mustafa is an Arab writer based in Qatar.