al hurra

as far as i can tell almost no one watches al-hurra, so i guess this is a bit of a moot point. but the channel is really in an impossible situation. created by the u.s. as part of its campaign to win over the arab public, it was intended to counter the perceived anti-americanism of al-jazeera, al-arabiyya and local arab news channels. al-hurra is a paradox. it claims not to be an american propaganda channel, but its entire purpose is, in effect, propaganda.

on top of that, the channel's masters in washington have dictated that the channel not air the views of people that that u.s. have deemed to be terrorists. because the u.s. government is very quick to label virtually anyone perceived to be against u.s. policies in the middle east as "terrorists" or "terrorist sympathizers", that cuts out coverage of important figures in most, if not all, major news stories. thus al-hurra is forced to do little more than present the american version of events--again, becoming nothing more than a propaganda outlet even as it tries to establish credibility as an independent news source.

to get around the problem al-hurra has apparently ignored its "no airing the views of anyone the u.s. considers to be terrorists" mandate. for example, it broadcast hassan nasrallah's speech last september about hezbollah's conflict with israel and it broadcast hamas leader ismail haniya discussing the palestinian unity government. both events were clearly newsworthy, and arguably nasrallah's and haniya's viewpoints were necessary to thoroughly cover each issue. but that got al-hurra's governors hauled before a congressional oversight committee.

there's no way to resolve the paradox. if al-hurra is going to be a credible news channel, it has to at least address sides of the issue that the u.s. government doesn't like. it can't edit out the views of hamas and credibly report about the brewing palestinian civil war. and on a more basic level, it can't counter the appeal of al qaeda unless it addresses what al qaeda says. like it or not, what bad people say is relevant and even important.

but if al-hurra goes the other way, and airs speeches of people that the u.s. government doesn't like, then it's doing the very things that al jazeera did to get the bush administration upset at it in the first place. and if al-hurra is just like al-jazeera, what is al-hurra for?

---------------
just an aside: this bit from the congressional testimony is hilarious:

But the station’s executives admitted Wednesday that they could not be completely sure that Al Hurra was doing so, because none of the top executives speak Arabic.

...

Joaquin F. Blaya, a Hurra executive, testified that network officials made sure to question the Arabic-speaking staff about what went on the air.

maybe they should call someone else to testify about what al-hurra broadcasts? you know, like someone who knows what the channel is actually saying.