It is a fundamental of media strategy that when a client has a problem with media coverage, one solution is to create and control your own media.
That only works, of course, if the problem is really the media coverage rather than with the policies being criticized by that media.
It’s an issue the Bush administration continues to tackle. Soon after the invasion of Iraq, President Bush launched a well-funded PR campaign to soften Arab and Muslim world criticism of American foreign policy.
The theory was that the Arab and Muslim media is responsible for fanning the flames of anger by promoting “distorted” images and understandings of American foreign policies.
Bush appointed a PR czar. He authorized production of an Arab language magazine, Hi, targeting “youth” in July 2003. In February 2004, Bush launched an American-controlled TV station, Al-Hurra. Two years earlier, the US replaced its Voice of America Radio broadcasts to the Arab world with Radio Sawa.
Apparently, the problems continue. Hi Magazine was suspended in December 2005, although it remains online. Recent public opinion polls in the Arab and Muslim world show that few watch Al-Hurra TV.
The real issue may not be anti-American media coverage, but the intelligence of the Arab and Muslim world itself which has analyzed and rejected Bush administration and American foreign policies as flawed, imbalanced and unfair.
In that case, the only answer to bad media coverage is to change bad policies.
But the Bush administrations problems don’t just exist across the Atlantic Ocean. In fact, Arab and Muslim Americans also have a problem with Bush policies, and they are influenced more by mainstream American media than Arab and Muslim world media.
There are only about 100 Arab and Muslim American newspapers and magazines, and even fewer Arab and Muslim TV or radio stations. Their audiences are also primarily Arab and Muslim. They share the same problems that all ethnic media experience. They are cash-starved and many survive on a publication-to-publication basis. Advertising revenues are weak. But as a part of the strategy to launch American-controlled media in the Arab and Muslim world, Bush also authorized federal agencies such as the US military, the FBI and the Justice Department to also purchase advertising in Arab and Muslim American publications.
Over the past two years, ads from these agencies have been appearing regularly in some Arab and Muslim American publications.
One publication that the US Army approached to purchase advertising was InFocus Newspaper, a monthly publication that distributes 22,000 copies to the more than 600,000 Arabs and Muslims who are estimated to be living in Southern California, and offered to purchase a year-long advertising contract. It would have been a substantial commitment of money, something any specialty or ethnic newspaper might jump at accepting.
But rather than accept the advertising buy, the editors at InFocusm, which began publication in February 2005, did something the mainstream American media rarely does. They put conscience and principles above financial need. They present the issue to their readers.
“We have received a request from the US Army to publish a yearlong series of ads promoting the army as a career. We feel honored that even as a relatively new publication we have received the trust of such a large institution to convey its recruitment message to the community. We, however, feel obliged to hear from our readers before making a commitment to publish the ads. After all, our publication was initiated by community activists to serve the community. Obviously publishing the ads will be of financial benefit to InFocus, but this is not the main factor in our decision on this issue. We have and continue to exercise the right to refuse an advertisement whenever we believe it clearly violates our moral values.”
The newspaper acknowledged the army ad “raises serious moral questions” and cited as examples including “the illegal and immoral invasion and continued occupation of Iraq, the sadistic torture and killing of Muslim prisoners (e.g., in Abu Ghraib, Baghram Airbase, and Gitmo), the framing of Muslim servicemen (e.g., Captain Yee and Airman Halabi) and the alleged desecration of the Qur’an as a torture tool (in Gitmo).” InFocus said “the US Army has created enduring wounds in the minds of American Muslims as well as the majority of Americans.”
They acknowledged not publishing the ad “may indicate a lack of respect” for an American institution, which they said was not their intent. Clearly, the editors at InFocus did not take the issue lightly. And neither did their readers.
The following month, InFocus published the results: More than 78 percent of respondents urged rejecting the army’s ads. Many readers who supported the buy said they opposed some American foreign policies but felt it important for Muslims to be engaged in American society.
In the end, InFocus Newspaper used democratic principles advocated by the United States to decide an important social issue. As we have seen in the Israeli-occupied territories, Americans love to advocate democracy, they just don’t always like the results of democracy.
For the Bush administration, however, it might help them better understand the real challenges driving America’s negative images abroad.
Clearly, the problem isn’t the messenger (the media coverage). Rather, the real problem just might be the fundamental message of America’s foreign policy. It’s just bad and needs to be changed
— Ray Hanania is an award winning Palestinian American journalist and author. He can be reached at www.hanania.com.
