Challenger or lackey? The politics of news on Al-Jazeera and Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk

Words to know

Hegemonic: The authority and influence that the ruling classes have over others in a political or social context

Counter-hegemonic: the attempt to dismantle hegemonic power

Contra-Flow: When a developing country’s news organization is attempting to establish a foothold in the worlds core media market

Challenger or lackey?

This chapter starts by mentioning how Al-Jazeera, a news network in Qatar, quickly became known after 9/11.They had unique access to footage of the US’s bombings in Afghanistan. Al-Jazeera is said to fit the theory of contra-flow as it applies to a reversal of the old imperialist imbalances in Qatar. It is the “textbook example of the empire ‘striking back’.” Contra-flow also refers to a change in power relations. This means that Al-Jazeera also acts as counter-hegemonic. Sakr gives the example of US media during the invasion of Iraq. 97% of the newscasts were pro-war, while 27% of the polled American population was anti-war. Counter-hegemonic contra-flow outlets like Al-Jazeera reject this unfair practice of opinion. They are credited with offering both the dominant and alternative news agendas.

Thesis One: challenging ‘the West’

This thesis focuses on Al-Jazeera’s ambition to compete with networks such as CNN, by following a news agenda, not found in big media in the US and UK. Al-Jazeera’s agenda stresses accuracy, transparency, the avoidance of propaganda, and more. Their motto is to give ‘the opinion and the other opinion’. They also stress the two-way media flow between the East and the West. This thesis is pro Al-Jazeera as it continues to praise the network in inviting American officials to view tapes (of Bin Laden) before broadcasting them. The thesis also states that Al-Jazeera justifies their decision to show gruesome images. They have continued to spread by creating an English site and by giving the public a voice by holding live phone-in programs.
The Following is a short history of Al-Jazeera:

http://www.allied-media.com/aljazeera/jazeera_history.html

The thesis bashes the US by mentioning bombings and military attacks on Al-Jazeera offices. There was an estimated 21 staff-members arrested following the Iraq invasion. Al-Jazeera was presented in the west as a partisan news report, as well as being anti-American. Their reporters were unable to get embedded with troops in Iraq, because of restrictions and biases towards their reporters. The English Al-Jazeera website was kept from being launched for six months by hackers, and two hosts ended up canceling their contracts for ‘unknown reasons’.

This CNN article talks about Al-Jazeera employees protesting the US’s alleged plan to bomb the networks headquarters

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/11/24/jazeera.protest/index.html

Thesis Two: serving ‘the West’

This thesis states that Al-Jazeera does not challenge Western media, but instead extends their power. This is the belief that Al-Jazeera is actually hegemonic by giving a false impression that political reform is on the way. It mentions the belief that Al-Jazeera is to blame in sabotaging Israeli-Palestinian peace talks by showing images of dead Palestinians and Iraqis. This reinforces the idea that it serves American interests because it weakens the Arab region and keeps any large force from taking the US’s oil.

This article from 2006 posted on Al-Jazeera mentions how Israeli artillery killed many civilians at a beach. Reading this would have caused anger and likely contributed to sabotaging the peace talks.

http://www.aljazeera.com/archive/2006/06/200849164341741607.html

The thesis notes that Al-Jazeera originated from a model created by BBC. After 2005 many English-speaking employees joined Al-Jazeera after being fed up with “old media” and eager for an innovative new agenda. President Bush believed that Al-Jazeera took new media too far and wanted them to censor their output of information. This resulted in Al-Jazeera creating a code of ethics to deflect US pressure. However, the US did not stop there stating, “Qatar’s funding of Al-Jazeera constituted ‘state sponsorship of terrorism’.”

Al-Jazeera’s journalists’ code of ethics:

http://america.aljazeera.com/tools/code-of-ethics.html

Thesis Three: an Arab force in Arab Politics

This thesis states that Al-Jazeera could be a credible source of counter-hegemonic contra-flow, because the creation of Al-Hurra by the US. This competing television station is evidence of their success. The thesis also states that Al-Jazeera has gone from being a transparent media outlet to a possible political actor. The addition of Al-Jazeera may have created what the thesis calls a triangle relationship, which exists in a democracy. The triangle exists when the media, the government, or the public is able to set their own political agenda. Many in the Arab World see Al-Jazeera as a political party. It gives Qatar more power than they would have otherwise, due to their small size. However, this idea is weakened because it is unlikely such a small state next to larger ones would risk it.

This article discusses the idea that Al-Jazeera is instead another way the wealthy in Qatar can push their political agenda:

https://www.thoughtco.com/al-jazeera-has-become-a-propaganda-mouthpiece-2074024

Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk

Billy and the Bravo squad participate in the halftime show. It is full of chaotic lights, sounds, and movements and causes many members of the Bravo squad to have PTSD moment. He even goes so far as to wanting to be back in Iraq, where he at least knew what he was doing. Afterwards the Bravo squad gets in a fight with the ‘roadies’, because they are not sure where to go when the roadies are yelling at them to get off the stage. However, cheerleaders comfort the soldiers and Billy has a chance to talk with Faison.

Billy calls his family. His sister says she has a plan to keep Billy from going back to war, but he refuses to let his brother go back without him. After talking with his mom he is determined to return home. While watching the game in bad weather Billy gets a call from an unknown number, but lets it go to voicemail. It is the people Billy’s sister hired that are coming to extract Billy. Dime and Billy instead go to a meeting about the movie with Norm, who attempts to sign them for much less money that originally offered. The Bravo squad denies and leaves the game soon after. Outside the Roadies come after the Bravo Squad for a real fight, but it is broken up with a gunshot into the air. Billy finds Faison and kisses her goodbye.

Works Cited

Aljazeera + Agencies. “Israeli Artillery Fire Kills Palestinians.” Israeli Artillery Fire Kills Palestinians – Al Jazeera English. Aljazeera, 9 June 2006. Web. 31 Mar. 2017. <http://www.aljazeera.com/archive/2006/06/200849164341741607.html>.

“AL JAZEERA TV: The History of the Controversial Middle East News Station Arabic News Satellite Channel History of the Controversial Station.” AL JAZEERA TV: The History of the Controversial Middle East News Station Arabic News Satellite Channel History of the Controversial Station. Allied Media Corp., n.d. Web. 31 Mar. 2017. <http://www.allied-media.com/aljazeera/jazeera_history.html>.

“Code of Ethics.” Al Jazeera America. Aljazeera America, 2016. Web. 31 Mar. 2017. <http://america.aljazeera.com/tools/code-of-ethics.html>.

Fountain, Ben. Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk. S.l.: Canongate, 2017. Print.
Nasr, Octavia. “Jazeera Fury over ‘U.S. Bomb’ Memo.” CNN. Cable News Network, 24 Nov. 2005. Web. 31 Mar. 2017. <http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/11/24/jazeera.protest/index.html>.
Rogers, Tony. “Has Al-Jazeera Become a Propaganda Mouthpiece for the Emir of Qatar?” ThoughtCo. N.p., 30 Oct. 2015. Web. 31 Mar. 2017. <https://www.thoughtco.com/al-jazeera-has-become-a-propaganda-mouthpiece-2074024>.

Sakr, Naomi. “Challenger or Lackey?” The Politics of News on Al-Jazeera. 117-27.

15 Responses to "Challenger or lackey? The politics of news on Al-Jazeera and Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk"

Isaiah Duplessis says:

April 1, 2017 at 8:13 pm

In regard to the article on Al-Jazeera, the news organization finds itself in a largely unique position. The press, worldwide has largely been consumed by the resourceful western world, and at this time the influence of politics within the news has led to a largely similar news front in the western world.
Presenting itself as an Arab based news media, it decidedly wanted to appeal to the west and the east. Controversy however exists because in presenting news unbiasedly, both sides were felt targeted. The United States found terrorists being portrayed on Al-Jazeera as alarming, and pro-Israeli news offended most of the Muslim middle east. Gathering opinions and information to support each side, the article to me shows the news arena as a decidedly as an interpretive process. Those who receive the news decide how to interpret it, and therefore I would like to discuss how America has abused the news service.
Freedom of press has experienced tons of government influence within the united states, and outside those borders, America has sought to control the new, news source. By limiting their access to American troops, and similarly detaining their reporters the United States is putting a stance against anti-American news outlets. Of course, Al-Jezeera refused to cave entirely and negotiations were made, but in the thick of the war on terror, America sought to maintain its public image by abusing these journalists and can certainly be trusted to do the same in the future.
Caroline Zerkle says:

April 2, 2017 at 1:51 pm

It is important to have a news outlet like Al-Jazeera in the middle east that can present information largely independent of government influences. Of course at Al-Jezeera is owned by the Qatar government, its influence and association with the government must be questioned. The news station gives a counter-view to people around the world. It gives the Arab world’s view of current events. Al-Jezeera has been criticized as being anti-western and anti-american which has prompted a negative image of Al-Jezeera for Americans. The article also mentions how the news outlet posted pictures of dead Palestinians and Iraqis and how this has been criticized as being troublesome for Israel- Palestine peace negotiations. Additionally one thing the article does not mention is the anti-Israel sentiment from various shows on the channel such as “Shariah and Life” whose host, Muslim preacher Yusuf al-Qawadari, stated that Jewish corruption justifies hostile treatment such as that by Adolf Hitler. Additionally, he stated that Allah and their religion permits the use of nuclear weapons against Israel and the Jewish people. Rhetoric like this should have also been highlighted in the article to give the reader an objective view on Al-Jezeera. For the best news and the best argued articles also recognize wrongdoings and biases.
1. Caroline Zerkle says:
  
  April 2, 2017 at 1:56 pm
  
  https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/02/sheikh-qaradawi-seeks-total-war/71626/
  
  Here is an Atlantic Article on the popular Al-Jezeera host,Yusuf al-Qawadari’s, beliefs regarding Israel and Jewish people.
Michael Paul says:

April 2, 2017 at 10:56 pm

The relationship Al-Jazeera has with the both the west and the east is quite interesting. It seems like today, everybody wants a transparent news source. People constantly feel like media never says the full truth, yet when Al-Jazeera acts as a bipartisan news source between the west and the east, people on both sides feel targeted. It appears as if people focus on the bad parts of news that single out a specific group or nation, so when Al-Jazeera discusses both America and Qatar in a bad light, people see this as threatening and condemn the news source. It’s quite paradoxical that in following strongly to a code of ethics without giving “priority to commercial or political considerations of professional responsibilities,” Al-Jazeera is actually viewed as less credible by many, even though the opposite is likely true.

On the other side of the argument, many would call Al-Jazeera into question about its journalistic ethics. While the news source claims to be not influenced by any outside sources, many other news sources do as well, yet are still slightly skewed. The fact that Al-Jazeera is owned by the Qatar government puts its credibility in doubt. By stating all sides of the argument, Sakr made it difficult to discern whether Al-Jazeera is biased or not. As Sakr said, “some strands of Arab opinion… have accused [Al-Jazeera] as serving the western agenda,” while at the same time supporting the argument that it is a hegemonic supporting news source. Even though all of Sakr’s arguments are convincing, if I had to decide, I would side with Al-Jazeera being more of a counter-hegemonic source that is largely unbiased, but that is not without question.
Helen Spiller says:

April 3, 2017 at 12:11 am

Al-Jazeera poses an interesting dilemma to many westerners in the world. For me, at least, Al-Jazeera pushes me out of my comfort zone to hear news and understand its validity. I think the three different theories that Sakr talked about provided and unbiased way to understand both sides of the argument regarding Al-Jazeera. I, personally, struggle with giving Al-Jazeera my attention and respect. For my government class in high school we had to read the news every night then are questioned on current news in class. My teacher recommended that we read CNN, BBC, Al-Jazeera, New York Times, and many others. One kid then responded, “Al-Jazeera? Isn’t that like based out of the middle east? Why would we read that?” The teacher then had to try explain that just because it was based out of Qatar does not mean it isn’t valid. But, still I have never found myself reading Al-Jazeera over CNN. I think that this is because, post 9/11, many Americans are extremely uncomfortable with anything that has to do with arabic or the middle east. In addition, Americans don’t want to read articles that go against America and naming all the horrible stuff we have done. Overall, I think, as other students have noted, some Americas are desperate for unbiased media; however, I think finding that will always be a struggle for people. For CNN, it’s a western bias. For Al-Jazeera, perhaps it’s an eastern focus. All in all, I think it is crucial that Americans and all westerners open up their minds to news that isn’t western based in order to get one step closer to unbiased media. As hard and scary as it is, myself included, I think it is extremely important for westerners to step out of the bubble we live in and expose ourselves to all news.
Corey Beutel says:

April 3, 2017 at 12:31 am

The point you made about Billy wanting to be back in Iraq carries a lot of weight. Often times soldiers who come home have issues adapting back to civilian life. A life without a true, regimented mission. Military life has a very obvious goal and the soldiers are told to carry out a specific objective. Billy is not alone feeling like life in Iraq is easier. He wants to go back because he can understand it, not just what he is doing but who he is. Overseas he is confident in his role as a soldier, but at home Billy feels out of place. He is one of many veterans who suffers from emotional trauma, yet still receives adoration and praise from civilians. While all of this may seem abstract and hard to understand from a civilians point of view think back to when we had “The Mighty Pen Project” come to class. I know at least one of the speakers said they went back to fighting overseas because they felt so out of place at home. They felt lost without any true goal in their life. Billy is suffering from those emotional issues when he feels like he wants to go back overseas.
Steven Zhang says:

April 3, 2017 at 1:04 am

The article Challenger or Lackey mainly discusses three different thesis of to judge the Al-Jazeera, challenging the west, serving the west, and an Arab force in Arab politics. I think is very natural that the attitude towards Al-Jazeera was divided into parts. From the very beginning of becoming an influential channel, Al-Jazeera had to serve as roles different from “take on the west” or “send information from east to west”. It’s relatively lot more easy for a normal person to have an original point to judge the politics and present it with arguments and facts which are in his favor. But a public organization had to balance from many factors such as politics, reputation, and commerce. There were counter-hegemonic oriented contents in Al-Jazeera; at the same time, there might be some real and cruel facts that it chose not to cover. It’s important for the viewer to open their minds to it.

To me, the article Challenger or Lackey also reflects the fact that U.S.’s role in the global relationship was more dominating than it appeared to be. The faculties of Al-Jazeera faced many difficulties including the threat of their lives. They might be imprisoned or attacked all the time from native government and the United States. And Al-Jazeera itself cannot overtly or completely standing opposed to the western world. Since it’s incredibly hard in Al-Jazeera’s job of gathering information, I feel like it’s credibility will not be shaken easily.
Colin O'Donnell says:

April 3, 2017 at 1:24 am

I found this chapter on Al-Jazeera to be very interesting. I think of the three thesis’s none of them is completely correct but rather the truth is found in a mold of each one of these thesis’s. For example one thing I think the first thesis got correct was how Al-Jazeera is good because it provides a dominant news source from the middle east. Right now almost all major news stations are from western countries. To be able to have a news source from the middle east which provides a different viewpoint would be hugely beneficial. However I do not think this thesis is right to not criticize Al-Jazeera at all and this where I see the correctness of the third thesis. For Al-Jazeera is owned by Qatar and things such as the event which Caroline posted about do take place on this network. The network is entirely full of bad content like this but it is important to remember it is a state owned media and like anything which is owned by the state they will try to use it for their benefit. This also segways into the 2nd thesis as this thesis talk about the very ways which the Qatar government as used Al-Jazeera to sabotage Israeli and Palestinian peace talks. Also I think this thesis stresses the importance of not seeing Al-Jazeera as some house on the hill savior of media. Even if it does accurately provide a viewpoint from the middle east it will still struggle with many of the things which western media still struggles with today like trying to show two sides of every story.
Nicolas Delvalle says:

April 3, 2017 at 1:36 am

There is no such thing as an unbiased news source, and credit to Al-Jazeera, it did not attempt to represent itself as such. I believe that the issue stems from a public desire to find a news source that is completely unbiased. By searching for an outlet that provides nothing but the truth, people will inevitably line themselves up with their version of the truth, eventually leading to a news station having the power to produce “the truth” to its listeners. Al-Jazeera is no different, but it found difficulty in many western spheres due to its contradictory nature and anti-American sentiment. If I were a staunch patriot, the truth certainly is not going to be found in a news source that paints my country in a poor light.

While it is not unreasonable to expect Al-Jazeera to stay true to its founding principles, it is important to remember that it is chiefly a business just like Fox or CNN. By expanding its audience overseas, it exploded in popularity and while I don’t have hard numbers, I would guess profits as well. Hence why an effort to capture western audiences was important to the outlets as well as other international ones as well. Another bit to remember is that without appealing to American audiences at all, only a very niche audience would tune in, thus defeating the goal. To broadcast “their side of the story” they must have an audience who is willing to listen.

Final Note: Billy Lynn was wonderful, very enjoyable book that will illuminating just as much about the human condition as it was about war vets.
Emily Wu says:

April 3, 2017 at 10:46 am

The article made two interesting points in describing the contra flow concept. First, it maintained that contra flow must “refer to changing power relations in the production and dissemination of media messages and not just superficial changes in the geography of media flows”. The direction of the contra flow is important but so are the actors and audiences. The content of the programming is important too. The article explains “contra-flow in its full sense would seem to imply not just reverse or alternative media flows, but a flow that is also counter-hegemonic.” Presenting a counter hegemonic view is difficult because it can be suppressed by the dominant view. The multiple and conflicting thesis about the role and extent of Al-Jazeera as a counter-hegemonic source of contra flow a reveal a complex confluence of factors and interpretations at play. I was surprised to read about the Bush administrations possible actions or intentions to physically attack Al-Jazeera’s offices. I also thought it was interesting how as part of their training, AL-Jazeera journalists were encouraged to choose a new vocabulary when “reporting suicide bombings, Palestinian casualties and hostilities in Iraq.” This seems innocent under the guise of a helpful, developmental training but the language used to convey a news story, not just the facts of the news story itself, has tremendous significance and consequences. The article underscores the power of media to influence public opinion, thinking and behavior and the struggle to influence media. The article concludes that Al-Jazeera had an image problem.
Madeline Tolsdorf says:

April 3, 2017 at 10:57 am

Al-Jazeera is very good to the Middle East in many ways. Primarily, it represents itself as a news source meant to provide the truth, and nothing but, to the residents of the Middle East in order to try to convey and elaborate on actual events that may be hidden by the government’s news sources. The first thesis interested me the most because I feel it is the one most represented in American news sources. By also stressing the two-way media flow between the East and the West, Al-Jazeera provides as much transparency as possible wherein CNN and FOX may not. The second thesis, that Al-Jazeera provides ways for the US to continue its reach into the Middle East is interesting, but in my opinion less plausible than the previous thesis. The final thesis, stating Al-Jazeera as a political body with its own agenda, is also fairly plausible and will be interesting to see how it develops in the upcoming years as tensions continue to mount across the Middle East.

Billy Lynn was a very good book and really helped me develop my comprehension of war from the POV of a soldier. It was very unforgiving in its portrayal of American citizens in contrast with soldiers who have returned from war.
Sean Foley says:

April 3, 2017 at 11:11 am

Al-Jazeera attempted to pander to no one in an attempt to pander to everyone. Al-Jazeera truly had a bold system of broadcasting news. Their motto “the opinion and the other opinion” was the basis for all of their reporting. In a media world dominated by news stations that are experts at only showing what their political audience would approve of, Al-Jazeera was something different. I do not agree with the second thesis that Al-Jazeera was serving the west. Al-Jazeera, in theory, was serving solely a single interest. They attracted western attention by showing more detailed war photography and reported on stories no other station would cover. Did some of their reports promote western ideas and feelings towards the war. Yes. However, they also posted stories that challenged the west. The idea to be counter-hegemonic was needed in such a heavily covered and controversial war. Al-Jazeera being an Arab station also gave Arab news sources credibility even if it was controversial credibility. Yet, as Al-Jazeera has evolved as seen in the article on its history it has had to conform to more mainstream news. In order to expand its audience it was necessary.
Michael Horan says:

April 3, 2017 at 11:26 am

I had never heard of Al-Jazeera before this reading, so it was very interesting to how their press approached news without being one-sided, even though they are from the Middle East and were not necessarily treated neutrally by the US. It is naturally a unique dynamic because for once, America must accept news from them because they have access to more important and direct news about them and the enemy. Considering Americans want to hear the pro-American rhetoric from their news sources such as Fox, it came as a surprise that terrorists would often be featured on Al-Jazeera’s news.
To me, it seems rather paradoxical that Americans generally claim to want unbiased, transparent news, but also aren’t receptive of Al-Jazeera’s news. Bush even went so far as to say that countries funding Al-Jazeera was state sponsorship of terrorism. Therefore, besides simply talking about American news companies themselves, I think this has a more overarching cause that starts with the US government. As described in the chapter, the US asserts itself of hegemonic, which means authority and political/ social power. It only makes sense that the US would be so easily shaken up by a lone thriving foreign news source such as Al-Jazeera.
Claire Brown says:

April 3, 2017 at 11:29 am

The article examined Al-Jazeera in a very interesting and thought provoking way. Each thesis presented is certainly credible, however, the first thesis seems to do the news network the most merit. American mainstream news networks exist in a one-sided world. While there are networks for various perspectives, identifying each specific network with an agenda is not out of the question. Fox News, for example, is notably conservative, while CNN is a more liberal network. Al-Jazeera accomplishes the task of existing as a network publishing a wide variety of opinions that is not seen in American and most western media outlets. This may not necessarily by “taking on the west” per se, but through existence in this double-sided media, it places itself in a place of opposition to the west. This leads to a more complete and factual representation of world news, although certainly problematic for American news networks. While more uncomfortable for the western world, this type of reporting might be able to promote a more accurate understanding of the world and world events.

In Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk, the Bravo squad faces numerous ordeals that really strike me as a civilian. The encounters with gamegoers throughout the novel and these along with Billy’s sister’s emotional interactions with his brother add layers of hard-hitting reality. After finishing the novel, the clear disconnect between veterans returning from combat and regular civilians is so stark, and the notion that these veterans can never return to “normal” life no matter how hard they might want to is difficult for me to think about.
Virginia Thornton says:

April 22, 2017 at 4:43 pm

I found the Al Jazeera article very interesting. I think a lot of the controversy and discussion about the news station is rooted in the fact that is the first of its kind. That is, it is the first Arab-centered news platform to gain global recognition. People are always skeptical of anything new, especially when it is claiming to better what we already have. I think it is very interesting that people in the West dismiss Al Jazeera because they believe it is bias, when, as the article discusses, major western news sources show bias material themselves. I think many Americans are simply uncomfortable with the fact that this station could broadcast anti-American stories to a group of people many American’s already have their apprehensions about. If a news station rose to fame but it was based in Western Europe, Americans would not think anything about it. It is the fact that the station is based in a region of the world that they are scared of that Americans find Al Jazeera as problematic. Americans had apprehensions with the channel already, and when they broadcasted anything that wasn’t pro-America or pro-West Americans took it offensively, even though it was a true and newsworthy story. Their idea of reporting both sides of the story will never gain them any support from Americans who see this reporting as anti-American propaganda. Humans want their ideas and opinions to be affirmed not challenged, and Al Jazeera challenges many of the ideas Americans have about the Arab world.

Comments are closed.