Customer Reviews

Al Jazeera: The Inside Story of the Arab News Channel That is Challenging the West

5 star:		(5)
4 star:		(6)
3 star:		(4)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

Having been born in Qatar where my father worked for 25 years I am astonished by the emergence of Al-Jazeera and Hugh Miles' account of it. I do not feel that he is a cheer leader for Al Jazeera but objective. CNN's success is not through it's quality of news, personnel, or perspective, but due to its ability to market itself and garner huge advertisers into its fold and to make strategic business alliances. Al-jazzera's success is the opposite. It is financially disasterous, yet it's news is trusted by more viewers in the middle east than any other news organization.

Miles correctly points out that almost every country in the region has had its dirty laundry examined by Al-jazeera and in return has put pressure on Hamid Al -Thani to close down the organization or modify it. As has the US and Britain. Both nations have tried to dismiss Al-Jazeera as a mouth piece for Bin Laden. But I would argue that without Al Jazeera the other side of the coin would never see the light of day. CNN dutifully acts as a Washington sternographer and the BBC in its quest for ratings has also dumbed its news down and been very conservative, yet to its credit it has challenged the government on the legitimacy of the war and became embroiled in a battle with the government over it's "sexing" up of the weapons of mass destruction.

But both organizations have been left looking like "also ran's" by Al Jazeera which has shown the realities of war, the impact upon the civilians and the propoganda and misconduct propogated by the allies. So powerful was their news that the Bush administration arrogantly decided that the truth had to be obliterated and for the second time an Al-Jazeera bureau was struck by a US missile and a journalist was murdered.

Miles sense of outrage is quite tepid and with the benefit of hindsight and the recently disclosed knowledge that Bush was openly discussing attacking Al-Jazeera with Blair, his tameness on this issue is understood.

He examines the issue of tainted reporters and naively gives them the benefit of the doubt. There is often very little difference between a reporter and a spy. Reporters are ardently recruited by governments and the CIA has boasted of its highly successful recruitment of thousands of journalists and even editors. It is likely that Al-Jazeera has been penetrated by factions that have an agenda or even governments, but as a youthful organization they are far less tainted than their Western counterparts.

It was good to see Miles demonstrating the hypocricy of CNN and other news organizations whereby they demonize the network and then use its news pictures on their own network.

Miles doesn't really look at the long term future of Al-Jazeera. Which is probably wise. The West and Middle East governments have tried to create competitive news services in the area with very limited success. The survival of the organization is probably dovetailed to the longevity or whims of hamid Al-Thani, it's benefactor.

One thing for certain it offers as Miles says a far better diet than it's predecessors which showed endless coverage of the drollest minutiae in the local leaders affairs of state, usually greeting another local head of state, kissing him on both cheeks and then another stream of film of the the pair seated in a majlis sipping tea, followed by the signing of some obscure bipartisan treaty or trade agreement. This was usually followed by an enebriated ex-patriate reading the English news and then the drama of the days weather report. I would recommend this book to anyone who is intrested in fairness and accuracy in reporting or the media. I would not recommend it to anyone who watches CNN as their attention span may be too compromised to absorb waht lies between the covers.

A TV channel that offends EVERYBODY must be doing something right. Since its quiet appearance in 1996, Al-Jazeera has continuously added viewers. It wasn't long before TVs in Europe and North America were tuning in to the one station that seemed to speak with a plausible Arab voice. What immediately distinguished this from other Arabic news and discussion programmes was its willingness to broadcast everybody's views. Although funded by the Emir of Qatar, Al-Jazerra was not a voice of its host government. It kept its news strictly factual and offered air time to voices dissenting from government policies. Anything going on the Arab world was discussed. Consequently, many contrasting views were aired, some of which criticised various governments in the region. But opinions and news were, and are, kept separate.

Discovering the phenomenon of Al-Jazeera had been discussed but had never been given an overview, Hugh Miles set out to rectify that lack. This son of a diplomat had solid credentials for researching the history of the new news channel. Fluent in Arabic, Miles was able to talk to station management, reporters and viewers in various places. His summation is an excellent example of investigative reporting, well presented. By the time Miles began his project, the subject had already undergone both amazing growth and intemperate vilification. He explains how Arab governments find Al-Jazeera a fomenter of sedition and rebellion. Some see it as a tool of the Isreali government seeking to destabilise Arab rulers, while others are certain it's an arm of the CIA. Americans, especially the Bush regime, view it as a mouthpiece for terrorist societies and probably anti-Isreal. Viewers, Miles finds, all have their own opinions about Al-Jazeera's political orientation, but still make it their first choice for Middle East news.

The key event in Al-Jazeera's progress was, of course, the 9/11 attacks on the WTC and Pentagon. Any news from the Arab world suddenly became of great importance and Al-Jazeera was clearly the leading voice. That situation probably led Al-Queda to use it as a conveyance for pronouncements to the world. Al-Queda tapes broadcast on Al-Jazeera immediately led to the branding of the station as a "voice of terrorism". Station management laughs at that, particularly when the western news channels are breaking down the doors to use Al-Jazeera news clips they cannot obtain elsewhere. The competition at one point was stiff enough to lead CNN to write a contract giving it Al-Jazeera video clips six hours ahead of the other broadcasters. The invasion of Afghanistan intensified the situation, since Al-Jazeera was the only news source on the ground when attacks began.

There's a risk being at the forefront of a battle to report events. Americans, certain that Al-Jazeera was "the mouthpiece of Al-Queda", "accidently" destroyed the Kabul office. Later, in Baghdad, more "accidents" occurred, this time killing one reporter. Al-Jazeera was the sole occupier of the Palestine Hotel, which was also attacked. No "accidents" happened to other news agencies. And the attacks occurred after Al-Jazeera had informed the Defence Department of their locations in the city. Correspondents are supposed to be immune from assault by military forces. Iraqis themselves avoided being interviewed because the station was presumed to be a target of American military forces.

It says much that the United States has demanded the Emir "tone down" the station's material. He has rejected these admonishments, both because they're self-defeating and because he funds the station without managing it. Meanwhile, the viewers increase daily and the addition of an English-language channel will broaden it further. Viewers now look for the "golden plum" logo on one corner of the screen to ensure they're watching an authentic news source. Subscription to Al-Jazeera is a minimal cost, considering you'll see news unavailable elsewhere. The Opposite Direction, a talk show airing a multitude of outlooks, may not be as valuable for facts, but it will likely give you information you wouldn't find elsewhere. Read Hugh Miles and learn why this new station is so important and so admired. And vilified. [stephen a. haines - Ottawa, Canada]

Parts of the book definitely have a "puff piece" quality, but it's probably the closest thing to a neutral look at the subject that we have so far.

The book serves up only what the blurb promises - a detailed account of how Al-Jazeera was set-up and its turbulent growth - and nothing more. But I suspect that most people who pick this one would look for more than that, as otherwise its just a sequence of events that anyone would forget after the last page is turned. Hugh Miles is a journalist and as befits his profession, he just reports on the events and leaves out in-depth analysis that would have made this book much more enjoyable.

As for the judgement on if Al-Jazeera is biased, it is obvious where the authors sympathies are. But one thing is for sure - given the nature of the news Al-Jazeera handles, it is a case of damned if they do and damned if they don't. Beyond this, what you will make out of it is entirely based on your political view.

Given the nature of the middle-east politics, the channel is truly a pioneer in the media world and for that alone, the book deserves to be read.

For those fortunate enough to have seen Jehane Noujaim's fascinating 2004 documentary, "Control Room", Saudi-born British journalist Hugh Miles provides an intriguing if sometimes biased complement that delves deeper into the history of the renowned Arab news channel and its rise to global prominence. Launched just a decade ago in late 1996, the station has never turned a profit and continues to be subsidized by the Qatari government. Yet, the author shows that many Arabs seem indifferent to this fact and do not view al-Jazeera as a biased news source for the current regime. In fact, Miles shows how the station displays more objectivity than many of its American counterparts such as the Fox News Network. Miles shares this perspective with vigor throughout the book and describes an organization that elicits opposing viewpoints to their coverage.

There is a great deal of credence to Miles' opinion as he shows how the station went to great lengths to cultivate intractable relationships with the Taliban and the Bin Laden organizations. This strategy turned out to be invaluable after 9/11 when al-Jazeera was the only one able to provide taped communiqués from Bin Laden and conduct a clandestine interview with two planners of the 9/11 attacks in Karachi in 2002. Miles also shows how critical al-Jazeera's role was in reporting the start of the second Palestinian intifada in 2000 and the U.S. response to 9/11 with the Afghani invasion where the station has the only bureau in Kabul. After initially expressing condemnation, the Western media giants have begrudgingly embraced the intelligence uncovered by al-Jazeera in central Iraq where embedded journalists have otherwise faced escalating degrees of risk. This level of dedication and exclusive access has brought the station a great deal of loyalty among its viewers, and the U.S.-sponsored al-Hurra network has done little to tarnish al-Jazeera's hold on the public.

Even with the praise he heaps upon the station, Miles does make it clear by the end of the book that al-Jazeera does maintain a viewpoint in their coverage that is less than objective. For example, Osama bin Laden is seen not so much as a terrorist mastermind but as a revolutionary with a commitment to face down Western imperialism and pro-Israel support. In fact, he knows he is seen legitimately by al-Jazeera and exploits the pervasive sense of rage and helplessness in the Arab world in light of what the public sees as Western-based oppression. While fascinating from a journalistic standpoint, this line of thought is compromised somewhat by Miles' own disdain for the Bush administration. The author is unable to be completely fair-minded in highlighting the network's significant lapse in not promoting greater responsibility in their coverage and reporting more on bin Laden's weaknesses.

Miles also does not heavily criticize al-Jazeera's deliberate use of gory images from Iraq, the West Bank and Gaza that add fire to the Arab world's anger and resentment. In a move that would make Charles Foster Kane proud, al-Jazeera does not initiate the rage but rather manipulates the visuals that bolster such feelings. The author reserves his vitiol for the U.S. attacks on al-Jazeera offices, first in Kabul on November 12 2001 and then on April 8 2003 in Baghdad, where their journalist Tareq Ayyoubi was killed. He ends his narrative prematurely in late 2003 before the onslaught of masked kidnappers and their cowering captors dominated the airwaves. Such images could have allowed a stronger sense of introspection and balance to Miles' account. However, it is perhaps best to look at his take on al-Jazeera as a reflection of the Arab people who view honor above all else. Consequently, it is not the spread of democracy that the station is espousing but rather a stronger sense of nationalism. Within this context, Miles shows how a discriminating use of propaganda can be tolerated toward that end.

Hugh Miles, a Saudi-born British journalist, analyzes the twenty-four-hour Arab television news channel Al-Jazeera. Observing the Qatar agency, Miles concludes that "the story of this news network is, in fact, the story of the upheavals that have taken place in that troubles region in recent years." He discusses terrorism, Iraq, Afghanistan, and free speech.

This is written as you would expect of a journalist and not a novelist. A narrative of its history since its inception. I learned a lot from this report and enjoyed it, even though Miles bias can be seen in the book. But anyone reading this book had to know that before picking it up. There is no other way to get the access Miles did in order to write this.

This book was written in 2003-4, and covers the time from Al Jazeera's beginnings in the 1990s to 2004, so it is very up-to-date. Miles' writing is clear and lucid, and I highly recommend this book.

There were many things here that I didn't know about Al Jazeera. I didn't know it was still running at a loss, that 120 of its initial staff came from the short-lived BBC Arabic service, that it had such a grassroots network of volunteer contacts among its viewers, that its staff had been killed by American forces, that it was banned from several Arab countries (and, for a while, by the Palestinian Authority) for criticizing their governments, that it almost interviewed Ariel Sharon, or that several of its loyal Arab viewers think it is American/Israeli-backed.

Given the impressive speed at which Mr Miles wrote this book, it is unsurprising that it has gaps. Questions could have been asked that were not. For example, I would have liked him to have asked whether al Jazeera would be in the black even without the Saudi advertising embargo, as the figures he provides indicate that it would not be. And there are much larger issues, such as why they decided not to show beheadings of Western-oriented hostages when they show horrific footage of nonArab-on-Arab violence from Israel, why they had to interview US Army Spokesman Josh Rushing outdoors rather than indoors, and so on. But time, pages, and one person's perspective (however broad), are finite.

Mr Miles is an Arabic-speaking British journalist who treats Al Jazeera like any other news organization. Of course, for any American who watches Fox (which includes other reviewers of this book), this is very biased. They should go to the English Al-Jazeera website, which I shall now visit more often. As one reviewer here has said, "a TV channel that offends EVERYBODY must be doing something right".

I noticed a striking contradiction in said review . Hugh Miles in fact grew up in Saudi Arabia and Jordon only to leave for Oxford as a young adult and study Arabic Literature . The statement that he is biased because the Al Jazeera website advertizes anti-Sematic thoughts , is clearly contradictory . The book is not a summary of the content of the material Al Jazeera broadcasts , moreover this book is a look into the reaction of the people by its frankness . Western and Eastern response could not have been more misunderstood than it was on the case of Al Jazeera . In a sense , Al Jazeera has quasi-introduced the fifth ammendment to its audience , and not in theory , for it (Al Jazeera) is not promoting freedom of expression , rather living it out . I believe this is the core argument of what Miles has tried to articulate in his book .

If you are looking for a good, solid intro to this channel by someone who knows Arabic and has knowledge of the region, this is the book. But it relies too heavily on information already in the public domain, in the form of news features in major US newspapers, and buys into the whole "Palestine is the heart of the Arab despair" far too uncritically. You also want to know more about the more controversial episodes -- like the sacking of British Muslim convert Yvonne Ridley -- than is offered. I've read elsewhere she was sacked for writing anti-US articles, and that there was some fuss about her complaining when Al-Jazeera English language website pulled two cartoons after the US objected to them. You keep getting the feeling that there is more to all the anacdotes/events Hugh Miles so captivatingly relates. His comment that Israel is beyond criticism in the US media is simply ridiculous. I think the author is still very young -- in his early 30s -- which might explain why these kind of comments come across as naive...

The author starts the book off by establishing interesting, relative facts about Al-jazeera and the Arab news network's home, Qatar. Cultural, political, social, and religious information shared on the ruling family and the citizens of Qatar is clearly reported, and provides the readers with an unambiguous understanding of how the Arab country is viewed by neighbors and across the globe. Unfortunately, the book goes down-hill from here. It becomes apparent rather quickly that the author, when faced with two versions of an incident - one reported through western media, the other Al-jazeera - definitely sympathises towards the latter. Miles belittles western networks and newspapers when comparing them with Al-jazeera's reporting on 9-11, Afghanistan and Iraq, working to convince us that only Al-jazeera offered unbiased and factual reporting of events. The author's open condemnation of American and British administrations is disappointing, and contributes to the books lack of journalistic balance, destroying the very credibility it seeks so hard to establish. More facts and less opinion would have made this attempt a challenging piece of journalistic revelation.