Week 12 Readings
Sakr’s article, ‘Challenger or Lackey? The Politics of News on Al-Jazeera” discussed the Qatar-based news channel Al-Jazeera and how it is perceived as a source of “counter-hegemonic contra-flow.” Sakr discusses three contradictory theses that both support and refute this perception in an attempt to question how this news source has been framed, used as a tool in political agendas, and how it is reflective of both regional and global status quo. Al-Jazeera is often credited for offering coverage alternative to dominate news sources, challenging the news media monopoly held by the global north. It’s aim is to show both “opinion and counter-opinion,” but it is clear that this goal has led to conflicting interpretations of whether or not it’s unique footage and coverage of Middle Eastern countries is an assistance or a hindrance to Western dominance. The first thesis argues that Al-Jazeera in fact challenges the west, publishing footage that is perceived as anti-American because of their ethical code requiring them to publish all viewpoints, even terrorists. The second thesis suggests the opposite: that because of the United States close relationship with the Qatar government, the hegemony of the United States is maintained through the Arabic government’s reliance on the U.S. military and preserving political relations. The final thesis argues that Al-Jazeera is an Arab force in Arab politics, and that it serves as a political actor for the Arabic government. This article was edifying in that it demonstrates how the media has the power to frame the perception of the media itself. Reading this reminded me of the prejudices surrounding news stations in America, for example Fox News, and how viewers choose to tune into particular channels based on the content expected. It is also telling that much of the media cannot be understood outside of its involvement in global politics, although it is not surprising to me that here is yet another sphere where Western culture is projected and magnified through power relations (albeit one that I had not taken the time to consider).
Kaufer and Al-Malki’s article “The War on Terror through Arab-American Eyes: The Arab-American Press as a Rhetorical Counterpublic” centered around the idea of the American Arab media serving as a counterpublic, particularly in the wake of 9/11, and how this discourse was shaped largely by the prejudices surrounding Muslim people. They analyze news articles published by Arab American News in order to understand the ways the publications worked to create this secondary narrative. They use Squire’s definition of a counterpublic and the three distinctive types, namely, the ability to become enclaved, where discourse is created to serve as a safe space for the marginalized, a satellite, where there is a minimalist relationship with dominant discourse and they seek to maintain the separation, and resistant, where dominant discourse is challenged and confronted. They show how the Arab American News served as both enclaved and satellite counterpublic, but refrained from too much resistance because of the unsolicited animosity that already existed in the wake of 9/11. This news served as the Arab American perspective not often heard on mainstream media, and gave insight to the ways in which Arab Americans were scrutinized for their religious identity. I found this article complemented Sakr’s article nicely and identified an implicit issue of racism against Muslim Americans existing in the U.S. since 9/11. It was interesting to hear how Arabs were deemed either “good Arabs” or “bad Arabs” depending on the extent to which they demonstrated their patriotism and complied with increased surveillance. I found it representative of what we have previously read about how our status as citizens depends largely on our support of American ideals, and how oppressive this demand can become for those who are already part of a minority.
Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk is a fictional story from the perspective of American soldier Billy Lynn. Billy and his squad, called Bravo, performed exceptionally during one battle overseas in Iraq that was caught on camera, deeming them heroes among the eyes of the American public and causing them to be taken on a short hiatus to embark on a victory tour. The plot focuses mainly on one of the last days of the tour where they are the guests of honor at the Dallas Cowboy’s stadium for the Thanksgiving football game, in addition to a long flashback of two days when Billy returned home to see his family for a brief visit. The troop is accompanied by a movie producer who is in the process of trying to secure a movie deal based on the heroic actions of Bravo’s soldiers. The reader is exposed to Billy’s increasingly disappointed, confused, and disenchanted thoughts as he interacts with his troop members, fans at the game, his family, and a Cowboys cheerleader. Billy is at a loss with the current state of his life, and he often thinks of his friend Shroom who died during their infamous battle. His pessimism is reflected in how he weighs his past choices with the anticipation of the unknown future, and a distinct disconnect is evident in the way he thinks and interacts with even his closest friends and family. I thought this book was demonstrative of how the U.S. glorifies war, especially by taking one person’s horrible and scarring experience and turning it into grand demonstrations of heroism, like victory tours or movies. It seems as though Billy’s narrative could be representative of the feeling of disenchantment soldiers must experience upon returning from war, and to me it’s encouraging that this is becoming a movie. Perhaps showing a more realistic version of a soldier’s experience will help shift how war continues to be represented in mainstream media.
The readings for this week both addressed media coverage of the War on Terror largely in relation to furthering political agendas. “The War on Terror through Arab-American Eyes: The Arab-American Press as a Rhetorical Counterpublic”, by David Kaufer and Amal Mohammed Al-Malki, analyzes the counter publics to the war on terror in Arab American News. I found this article to be particularly interesting as I thought the study design was very innovative. Particularly, I found the “us versus them” rhetoric to be a key part of the argument. In number of Bush’s presidential speeches, there are explicit tones of “us” against “them.” This kind of reading of his speeches never really stood out to me until this class, particularly pointed out in this article. This same kind of rhetoric was also present in the mainstream media following 9/11. Kaufer references CBS’ “60 Minutes” as a prime example of using the rhetoric. The implications, he states, are that, “World media used 9/11 to promote a “clash of civilization” reporting (Lewis; Huntington), pitting an enlightened “us” of the West against the “they” of “anti-modernist” Islam (Volkmer). Mainstream American journalism rallied Americans around the flag, questioned the patriotism of skeptics of US foreign policy (McChesney), and through its jingoism encouraged those already prejudiced against Arabs (Navasky; Waisbord).“ This kind of media creates a dominant “clash” between “us” and Arab Americans, without even understanding their background. After 9/11 the mainstream media highly encouraged and promoted the stereotyping of Arab Americans which, as this article states, effected foreign policy and the rhetoric surrounding the war.
I definitely agree with you in that most Presidential speeches addressing 9/11 never really stood out to me as anything other than a proportionate response, calling everyone to come together, especially because it seemingly included all citizens in the name of patriotism. It is interesting how it actually worked not to include everyone, but instead only those that complied, isolating those who did not adhere to the rallying around the flag, as you said. It’s important to realize that the Patriot Act and the Bush administration targeted everyone who did not agree with their administrative response, and if Arab Americans did not actively demonstrate their willingness to cooperate they were stereotyped and isolated even further.
I think that Kaufer and Al-Malki’s article “The War on Terror through Arab-American Eyes” is such an important article. I think we get so caught up in this American patriot ideology that we’ve discussed so much in class, so it is important that we address and acknowledge that to be American doesn’t necessarily connote the stereotypes, middle-class white nuclear American family. I also like that the authors point out that “the content of a message predictably varies with the identities of the speakers producing it, the places in which it is produced, and the topics addressed.” I think sometimes the public takes a lot of our news sources at face value, not recognizing this very important fact. Alyssa’s connection about the “good arabs” and “bad arabs” in relationship to a patriotic American vs a non patriotic American really resonated with me, as I feel as though there is a sentiment to not be proud of their religion in the United States.
When thinking about Kaufer and Al-Malki’s quote about how discourse is perceived very different depending on who creates it and who receives it, Sakr’s article about Al-Jazeera is very interesting. As Alyssa says, it was really clarifying to me as to how much the media affects our perceptions of war and what is going on around the globe. This article was eye-opening to me in that I didn’t realize how something like a news source could potentially be that threatening to the West and our ideals. This reminds me of the recurring idea of manifest destiny that we’ve discussed a little bit in class, the thought that America basically has this divine right to be the leaders of the world and have more power than anyone else. As an entire human race, we need to be a little bit more critical of what we are taking in.
One thing I’m finding as I continue to read Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk is the discombobulation of his narrative. Fountain writes as though we’ve just step into Billy’s mind, as opposed to getting the full story of what was going on since the beginning. The characters aren’t necessarily introduced, just dropped into the story along with his thoughts that tend to be a little all over the place. The reader feels the idea of the soldier being exposed and on display right away. His thoughts about the people that he meets and who fawn all over him really makes me think of the discussion that we’ve had about soldiers giving their whole lives to the country when they decide to serve. Is that really true? Do they deserve to feel as if they have absolutely no privacy or sense of personal space? These questions keep coming up for me as I continue to read.
I like your point about how in the United States there is no encouragement for Arab Americans to celebrate their religion. The more I think about it the more I realize that more often than not, the only time we really hear about Islam in America is in relation to terrorism or some sort of skepticism—otherwise, it hardly is a topic at all. I also thought of Manifest Destiny when I was reading these two articles, because I started to wonder how much of our hegemonic ideology can actually just be attributed to normalcy or habit…how many other perspectives have we failed to consider simply because we are used to Americanization?
I also like the questions you raised about Billy Lynn and I think those are the sort of questions that need to be asked when reading this book. I looked into it and it seems that the author has never been a part of any war, so it makes me wonder about the authenticity of the book and how real the feeling of being on display is for soldiers who have been dubbed “heroes”.
Sakr’s article “Challenger or lackey” brings up multiple interesting points and perspectives that Alyssa mentions in her post. The three theses discussed allow the reader to gain an encompassing account about how the Al-Jazeera satellite channel is viewed by different sources within our global society. One part of the article that I found particularly noteworthy was the section under “Thesis Three: an Arab force in Arab politics” that spoke about the difference between how that media works and what level of control it has in different governmental structures. Sakr states that in classic models of representative democracy the media, government and public form a triangular model implying that, theoretically, all three have the means to set the political agenda. In the media’s case this can be seen through investigative journalism and the inclusion of underrepresented sources, though in practice these may not occur as commonly as the theoretical model poses. Even still, Sakr contrasts this model to the model of a non-democratic system in which media holds a subordinate role under the ruling elites; the form that typically occurs in Arab political systems. While Sakr does not make a definitive claim, she does pose the possibility that Al-Jazeera helped form the beginnings of a political system more similar to the three way system and shifting away from the one-way system that long characterized the Arab politics.
In Kaufer and Al-Malki’s article “The War on Terror through Arab-America Eyes: The Arab-American Press as a Rhetorical Counterpublic” they provide a unique rhetorical study on the Arab-American press and the war on terror. They accomplish this by analyzing stories both pre and post 9/11 in the Arab-American press, looking specifically for the occurrence of three categorizes of counterpublics: assimilative enclaves, satellites, and resistant counterpublics. This article provided a thorough review of what in fact constitutes a counterpublic, clarifying that this notion cannot be reduced to a person, place, or topic but rather exists within discursive arguments. This means that someone who may mark themselves as a part of a dominant body can still express alliance with alternative counterpublics through their discourse. In describing Arab-Americans post 9/11 experience this article touches on a variety of ways this subset of the American population was affected by the attacks on the World Trade Center. I found the idea that the Bush administration silenced dissent amongst Arab-Americans by sympathetically including them in the American narrative as particularly interesting. We have spoken in class about how the general sense in America, post 9/11, was that being anti-government was seen as pro-terrorism and therefore openly criticized but this article demonstrates how this notion was amplified so much more so for Arab-Americans as they were already viewed suspiciously.
The triangular model of the political agenda was illuminating for me as well, and it helped me better understand the forces at work as described in the other two theses. Seeing that Al-Jazeera was working to shift to this kind of democratic representation, one that included the government and the public, almost made it even more confusing when trying to understand which theses was the correct one. Al-Jazeera was definitely working to speak on behalf of the Islamic public, but if the government involved was the Qatar government working to benefit the United States (like the second thesis suggested), then it is difficult to decipher Al-Jazeera’s ultimate goal. Also, if Al-Jazeera is working toward a more democracy-oriented form of reporting, does that reflect Americanization, or is that simply a better, more well-rounded way to represent the alternative discourses?
In class we have not extensively discussed the impact of 9/11 on Arab Americans. In readings these articles, this makes sense, since it is not a dominant discourse. Kaufer’s article states that 9/11 was an event that roused Bush to certitude and a narrative Bravado about America’s role in the world (48). I think at times we only think about how 9/11 changed American’s lives, and we are quick to dismiss that anyone else could have been as impacted by it as we were. The Arab American News formed a counterpublic to the dominate version of reality on the war on terror propagated by Bush and Clinton. In this article we again see the controls and frames that are placed on news that skew our understanding of events.
The term “Habermas” was not one that I was familiar with before this article. But it is an information-centric formulation of the public sphere and it is constituted through free-flowing information and the ability to transform this access into a raised consciousness and identity. Kaufer describes it as a space where members of marginalized groups can invent and articulate counter discourses. The need for this space is very needed as these groups are not able to put their discourse out there. This article highlighted the ‘ignorant American’ persona that we often have when it comes to foreign policies and issues. I saw it in myself as I had never heard of the Arab American News, which reinforces that it is not a dominant discourse, and that these voices are still not being heard in mainstream discourse.
I had not previously heard of “habermas” either, and I think it is definitely an important term to recognize during the discussion of Arab American life post-9/11. The use of couterpublics as not just a source of secondary discourse, but also as an outlet for their grievances and a safe environment to speak out was significant as well. People deserve a right to speak as they wish and as they feel without backlash or scrutinization, something that was extremely rare specifically after 9/11 if the speech itself involved anything challenging Americans or its politicians. I think the lack of recognition of Arab American counterpublic that you acknowledged serves as an example of a commonality that I’ve read about elsewhere: people tend to only seek out information to read and watch that aligns with their own beliefs or interests. It seems as though this is an extremely relevant problem for Americans, and its possible that it’s been fostered by only one type of media reporting.
As Alyssa states, the article “Al-Jazeera: Challenger or Lackey” examines the media empire and it’s contra-flow premise. The article looks at if the power of the channel and it’s effect on the western hegemony, stating “theories of hegemony safest that counter-hegemonic media practices are liable either to be incorporated into dominant structures or marginalized in a way that neutralizes the pose they threat the status quo.” What interested me most about Al-Jazeera’s approach that involves a sort of transparent reporting that allows both sides of a war, two opinions to be shown instead of one. This is stark contrast to the clean war media that the networks emphasize in the United States. Video clips of Osama Bin Laden and advocates of western violence were broadcasted but balanced by responses from US officials.Different perspectives are shown instead of one overarching narrative.
I think “The War on Terror Through Arab-American Eyes” perfectly compliments the Al Jazeera article. The two remind of the existence of an opposing narrative to our own. Our very homogenous class, whom have all been affected in some ways by 9/1, has not often talked about how it affects others. In the “us” vs. “them” rhetorical division that was perpetuated after 9/11 we don’t talk about the effect on them. The article discusses our need to categorize Arab Americans into assimilative counterpublic, enclave counterpublic and resistant counterpublics in order to decipher our feelings and rhetoric towards them.
The quote you cited stood out to me too and I underlined it while I was reading; I think it perfectly summarizes Americanization in the media. When other viewpoints or counter-arguments are addressed, the framework behind the inclusion is still tactical and strategic so that it benefits the mainstream ideology. It’s interesting to me that the article mentioned a large demand for Al-Jazeera in the U.S. after 9/11, because it shows that at a certain point Americans actually did try and seek out the oppositional sources. However, I feel as though this actually showed a need among U.S. citizens for reaffirmation of Islamic evils rather than an attempt to understand the other argument. I also think its a very fair to point out that as a class we have not addressed anything outside of the American perspective. I think this is probably because while we are seeking to expand our views in a rhetoric class, we cannot ignore that we have still previously been socialized along with everyone else in the U.S.. We have been taught to see 9/11 as something utterly American, something that anyone who does not identify as American could not possibly understand or be as affected by.
In Sakr’s article, ‘Challenger or Lackey?”, it talks about how Al-Jazeera was turned into a household name after broadcasting and receiving strong reactions from its streamed media. As Alyssa said in her article, this type of media had the power to frame the media itself, making it an extremely powerful news source. I thought it was interesting how the article talks about after 9/11, when Al-Jazeera soared into a promising and prominent news source when the United States bombed Afghanistan. In Sakr’s first thesis, she talks about the notion of Al-Jazeera ‘taking on the west’, which became a highly wide spread phrase throughout these countries. The war on terror through media has especially been a predominant source for people to get their news in relation to what is going on around the world, however, it gets framed in a certain perspective, as most see through different news sources.
In Kaufer and Al-Malki’s article, “The War on Terror through Arab American Eyes: The Arab American Press as a Rhetorical Counterpublic”, talks about the before and after effects of 9/11 through Arab American press and the discourse about the world on terror. I found this article to be particularly interesting because I’m focusing on 9/11 for my research project and Kaufer and Al-Malki arise Bush’s narrative when talking about his reaction to 9/11 and how we will not stand for that as Americans. As Alyssa had said in her blog post, I also thought it was representative in showing the American ideals against Arab and Muslim Americans and the extent of surveillance we put on them because of the acclaimed look of what a terrorist is supposed to look like. The discourse through the Bush and the media is representative of influence people to think that.
Bush’s speeches and policies were definitely notable in the framing of Arab Americans, and it does make you question how many people were subject to this rhetoric without ever questioning the way it was working. It also made me wonder about how Trump’s rhetoric is much more explicit, particularly in his calling for a ban on Muslims entering the United States, and yet people still are still influenced heavily by this form of discrimination. The encouragement from Trump to question all Arabs and their intentions is disconcerting for me, and I wonder how his presidency will affect or even exacerbate the preexisting racism (more than it already has).
What Alyssa notes about how Americans experience similarly biased media sources as do Arab media is crucial. We often consider American media (and media in general) to be objective, unbiased, and trustworthy, but similar to Al-Jazeera, American media also has an agenda. Because of this, being critical of our news media sources is important in order to maintain a more well-rounded perspective and to acknowledge that not all media are created equal.
I think Kaufer’s article perfectly demonstrates some of the ways in which America and American media has come to adopt such a skewed perspective on Muslims and Arab-Americans. I found their explanation of the “protective” versus “aggressive” counter public functions to be interesting when considering the spaces and discourses used for Arab-Americans. In the wake of 9/11, it seemed impossible for the media and public to attribute anything “American” to an Arab or Muslim individual because of the link that was immediately made between terrorism and Arabs. Similar to what the article discusses about the “good” versus “bad” Muslim, we still want Muslims to adapt to American ideologies and social norms to show their loyalty and love for this country. However, I think there is now a push more towards highlighting how there is no single American identity, yet I would still argue that we are much more inclusive of identities that are not Muslim and not Middle-Eastern.
The idea that we accept the news as trustworthy is a good word to use, and until this class I had never really questioned anything that I was exposed to on a daily basis. It is slightly worrisome that it takes a high-level, in-depth rhetoric class to cause us to really analyze the biases present in our surroundings and forms of consumption. This can easily connect to the common prejudicial beliefs surrounding Arab Americans that you mention, because what we think about and how we think about them is shaped mostly by exposure. If we are only exposed to one set of framework, as we have been through the media, then we are relatively incapacitated to take on new perspectives, and we hardly consider the other options and opinions available.
This weeks readings focus on an Eastern and Arab-American perspective on the “US War on Terror.” The Kaufer and Al-Malki reading titled, “The War on Terror through Arab-American Eyes: The Arab-American Press as a Rhetorical Counterpublic.” They investigate how counterpublics can take on three different roles within the larger community and see if the Arab-American press constituted any of these categories. I had never really heard of the theory of counterpublics so this article was an interesting insight into a new way to categorize enclaves. The three different types of categories was insightful because although I had never heard of counterpublics, when the authors explained them in the paper I immediately thought that they made sense. I thought it was really interesting to see quantitatively how the Arab-American press changed and adapted to a post-9/11 America.
I really enjoyed the Al-Jazeera reading by Sakr because I often find that Al-Jazeera is brought up as an example of a counter-hegemonic news source and I have sometimes questioned it. Hearing the different perspectives about Al-Jazeera and its intentions and biases provided an interesting counterargument. The article mentioned examining American nightly newscasts and included both liberal and conservative news casts and found that “they were dominated by official voices that were also pro-war.” As a sidenote, this was an interesting challenge to the notion that the liberal media is more dedicated to fair and unbiased reporting. I had never even really considered how people from the East viewed Al-Jazeera. The article discussed how Al-Jazeera has more recently been hiring a lot of Westerners to play important roles in the company. “Arab staff” (p. 126) believed that this changed the context of the type of reporting that happened at Al-Jazeera, but others defended it by saying that many Westerners had become disillusioned with Western reporting and wanted a more innovative environment. This raises the argument of what kind of background does a journalist need to have in order to maintain accurate and ethical reporting?
I am glad that you brought up the concept of bias, because depending on our socialization everyone is biased in some way. And even in the case of seeking out new perspectives, we still form opinions about these perspectives based on our value system and the way we have been taught to see the world. I think in the case of Al-Jazeera journalists, placing Western minds in charge of conceptualizing Eastern experiences could be troublesome, but it also could arguably allow them to better understand both sides and offer a more wholistic view. I think this goes to show how complex of a situation is presented here, and probably why Sakr did not assert a conclusive argument.