Frontline has recently broadcast a documentary titled “Saudi Arabia uncovered,” which claims to present a picture of the “invisible” side of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Watching the program at first glance is shocking.
There are three key points in the film: The wrong comparison drawn between Saudi Arabia and “Daesh” by talking about how the state deals with women and executions.
The second point highlights the western support, especially the British, as a means to criticize British politicians. Finally, Saudi Arabia is accused of financing terrorism, with the claim that Saudi Arabia is an “enemy of the West,” while the western countries are accused of ignoring this hostility as a means to get oil.
In an attempt to create a link between Saudi Arabia and terrorism, producers strangely talk about the Saudi support for Muslims in Sarajevo.
I have already discussed how Saudi Arabia has placed checks and balances on donations after receiving reports about those funds reaching terrorist organizations. There was a broad international cooperation to deal with this matter, and Saudi Arabia played a pivotal role in the increased control over civil charities, semi-government, and government funds. Once again, the information is shown in the film through secret video recordings, making it into some sort of conspiracy when it isn’t.
Another key point is the claim that any criticism of the Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice (Haia), or the “religious police,” will lead to imprisonment — showing an atmosphere of “persecution and terror” in the Kingdom. This idea of government-controlled media is completely wrong. The actions of this government body has been criticized in the media in Saudi Arabia, and in official newspapers, to the extent that conservatives in Saudi Arabia believe there is a liberal conspiracy to target Haia.
In many cases, the government has taken action against the excesses of the Haia, for example, in the case of woman known as a media incident “Palm Mall Girl” a few months ago.
Generally in Saudi public and social media, healthy criticism of the Haia is widespread. People criticize some actions of the Haia without fear, contrary to what the film is trying to promote.
The film wrongly blames the religious curriculum in Saudi Arabia for extremism. What isn’t discussed is the work of the King Abdul Aziz Center for National Dialogue, which is currently making changes to the curriculum, the religious ones especially to remove even the slightest possibility of extremism.
This film sells itself as an expose, “revealing” all about Saudi Arabia. It is made for the western viewers; it wanted to satisfy the western imagination. That is demonstrated through “hype;” rapid cuts, movie-style voiceovers, showing difficulties faced by the cameraman, still images depicted trembling. This style-over-substance technique becomes the focus of the film.
The film sells itself as a new and innovative look at the actions of the Kingdom, and yet despite this, only discusses the “golden list” of issues chosen by western human rights organizations. It has raised these issues in an exhibitionist way, unlike the human rights organizations, which raise them in a more sedate and less biased way. By choosing stylistic and thematic elements in the way the filmmakers have, the work loses credibility. Frontline came to show aspects of Saudi Arabia and while it did, it chose what was pleasing to the western imagination and bought into the western rhetoric about Saudi Arabia. The film lacks credibility due to the inaccuracy of the information presented, the unnecessary air of excitement, suspense and risk to gain access to information, which is in fact already widespread and well-known. By portraying a sense of adventure to market the film, the film does not in fact reflect the reality on the ground.
