In the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks in the United States, there has been a great deal of misunderstanding about the mutual importance of the relationship between Saudi Arabia and Western nations.
Many Westerners have misguidedly accused the Kingdom of financing terror, preaching hatred and maintaining fundamentalism. Saudi society has been pained by these accusations. Saudis did not like the way Western media characterized them and they reacted angrily. Unfortunately that response produced even uglier reports in the Western media.
Disturbed by the stories appearing in Western publications, Saudis began looking for reasons for the phenomenon. Some began subscribing to conspiracy theories of Western hatred of the cradle of Islam. Others went further and examined the characteristics, motives for and production of this campaign.
One of the most useful reports on the subject is, “The depiction of Saudi Arabia in the British Sunday Newspapers,” a research study done by Bader bin Saud Al-Saud, for his master’s thesis in the field of international journalism at London’s University of Westminster. This study examined the bias of some British newspapers and their negative attitude toward the Kingdom since Sept. 11, 2001.
In his research, Bader bin Saud explored the change in the content of British Sunday newspaper articles regarding Saudi Arabia since the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington by analyzing four major newspapers: The Observer; The Sunday Times, The News of the World and The Sunday Mirror. The study aimed to understand the source of information in British newspapers. The research also examined to what degree British newspapers output is influenced by foreign business interests plus how far the British government influences these newspapers’ contents and their political leaning.
It was discovered that in The Sunday Mirror and News of the World, the majority of the stories mentioning Saudi Arabia centered on Bin Laden. The study mentions, “This is perhaps a result of the increased tabloidization of British Sunday newspapers where serious issues are trivialized. Furthermore, the media’s desire to concentrate on small media stories and key problems explains why hate figures like Bin Laden are readily employed.”
The study comments that this not only satisfies readers’ expectations that Islam is “evil,” but simultaneously reinforces this idea. “That is why,” the study concludes, “the portrayal of Saudi Arabia in both tabloids is largely negative.”
The study gave several explanations for the demonizing of Saudi Arabia and the distortion of Islam’s image in Sunday newspapers in Britain. The research theorized that the overall negative image was the result of three interrelated causes: The strength of the right-wing in the US (much of the news gathered by Murdoch’s media empire comes from American news agencies), Prime Minister Tony Blair’s political and military support for America and Murdoch’s backing of Blair. These factors, Bader bin Saud argues, helped create the perfect scenario to attack Islam and Saudi Arabia. The overwhelming negativity of the articles about Saudi Arabia in The Sunday Times showed how the concentration of media ownership could be a powerful tool to support government agendas.
The tactics employed by various newspapers to demean Saudi Arabia and Islam varied. While articles in The Observer were less in the language of hate, that newspaper always tries to flatter its readers into thinking British society is overly enlightened and the West is the pinnacle of liberality, defending human rights and ethical codes. The end result of that policy was often substantial negativity toward Saudi Arabia and Islam.
The study found that right-wing publications had an agenda when reporting about Saudi Arabia and Islam. Extensive use of sleaze and sex to rubbish Islamic terrorists and Saudis without distinction was noted. Even the secular approaches in some articles that tended to tackle serious issues while avoiding sensationalism and subjectivity were often at odds with Saudi Arabia’s conservative society.
The study did emphasize though that the many of the articles focusing on Saudi Arabia, especially those in The Sunday Times, were often mere “vehicles” to profile Bin Laden. Also, some of the newspapers lacked ethics — repackaging old news and passing it off as current reporting. The study came to the conclusion that the four newspapers — whether intentionally or unintentionally — promoted Islamophobia in the West in one way or another.
This study is one of the few that has academically addressed the hatred campaign some of the Western newspapers are promoting in regards to the Kingdom and Islam. However, it is not ideal. One concern about Bader bin Saud’s thesis is its contention that the lack of in-depth articles about Saudi Arabia is evidence of tabloidization. This is dangerous and misleading. The study lacks enough academic research to conclude whether there has recently been an increased degree of sensationalism and tabloidization in the four publications studied. Additionally, the study does not go deep enough in answering the question “Why?” This is very frustrating. Furthermore, the author failed to go to the targeted newspapers in an attempt to seek answers to the question of negativity different from the ones he proposes.
Nevertheless, Bader bin Saud’s research is worth reading. It sheds some light on the reasons for hatred removed from all sentimental motives. The greatest credit, which can be given to the study in general, is that readers will not feel that the research is written by a Saudi, who is driven by anger and anxiety. Academically, it is a well-written research. This is the kind of academic inquiry that encourages us to probe the secret corridors of the media industry even further looking for answers to the question “Why do they hate us?” For Saudis and Saudi Arabia perhaps that is the most significant question since Sept. 11, 2001.
