How reporting in Arab states is eerily similar to reporting on evanglical Christian campuses

Review: The Doha Debates

I know this sounds far-fetched. But similarities are striking between the struggles a journalism student faces on an evangelical Christian campus and a working journalist faces in the Arab media. The "ah-ha" moment came during a viewing of the Jan 31 2006 episode of the Doha Debates, "This House believes that Arab media needs no lessons in journalism from the West."

Arab media expert and academic Marc Lynch noted in the debate that Arab media in the last few years had improved leaps and bounds. And said that while the Arab media in a given state can't cover their own state, they're remarkably good at covering neighboring states. The host, Tim Sebastian took him to task:

TIM SEBASTIAN: They do the easy things, they criticise other people. You'll never get an Arab station criticising its own leadership on its doorstep, do you?

MARC LYNCH: That's true but if you look at the range that's out there, if you want to find someone criticising Qatar , just go to Abdallah's station, it's easy enough to do.

TIM SEBASTIAN: That's the point, you have to go somewhere else. It's easy to throw stones over the wall and then escape, isn't it?

MARC LYNCH: The difference is that in the past, nobody could criticize Saudi Arabia because there was no place to do so. Now there is, and if anyone wants to criticise Qatar , there's a place to do it.

TIM SEBASTIAN: But it's neither in Qatar nor in Saudi Arabia.

MARC LYNCH: Does it matter? These are pan-Arab debates for pan-Arab audiences. Does it really matter where the studio is located?

TIM SEBASTIAN: But isn't the point of journalism to act as watchdogs on your own turf?

MARC LYNCH: I think that's the next step. The next step has to be local media, local media which takes on the hard problems and holds local leaders accountable. Al Jazeera cannot do that, Al Arabiya cannot do that (Doha Debates).

Let me list some of the similarities:

(1) In Arab Media, you can criticize other countries, but it gets more dicey when it comes to criticizing your own government. In Christian schools, you can talk about scandals on other schools no problem, but when it comes time to report on your own Christian school, it also becomes problematic. This becomes especially true if the Arab state/Christian school helps fund the news outlet.

The difference here of course is quality of response. The stakes are higher in Arab media, where you can be detained, or in some cases assaulted and killed (Doha Debates). In the meantime, Christian Schools face prior restraint, news outlet closing or expulsion at worst.

(2) In Arab Media, it's perceived as easier to write an opinion piece critiquing something in government than a news story because in a news story, people either don't want to be quoted or you'll find yourself perpetuating governmental spin. In Christian schools, many of which are private institutions that can fire on the spot, professors don't want to be quoted. Because they don't want to get fired. So it's easier to write an opinion piece critiquing the school.

(3) In Arab Media, journalists at times practice self-censorship for their own safety, and oftentimes because they don't want to be perceived as "hurting" their country (Rugh; Ayalon). In Christian schools, journalists at times also practice self censorship because they don't want to make waves with their professors/other students or perceived as hurting a "Christian brother."

I'm sure I'll find more...