al-Sahafiyeen

Jordanian King declares the local media "the enemy within."

I am still trying to sort through the typically confused and muddled mess over the facts of a recent controversy in the Arab World that involves an Arab government and the Arab media. These things are so rare and are refreshing.

It's not surprising that controversies in the Arab World are so confused and muddled because the media there is mostly controlled and those that are not are mostly pressured, intimidated and threatened with both political punishment, imprisonment and the more frequent pressuring of advertisers to stop buying ads to keep the newspapers afloat.

Yet, in reading both sides of the most recent squabble, it seems that something is wrong and needs more coverage, not less as Jordan's King Abdullah insists. But, on the otherhand, we shouldn't blame everything on the King, because it is true that rumors and lies spread through the Arab orld media far faster than truth, especially when they involve "Israel," as this controversy does. Here's one account of the battle:

It all started with one columnist at a small independent newspaper called Al Arab Al Yawm ("Today's Arab"), Salameh Daraawi, who wrote a column based on an interview with some offiicials in the Jordanian Government that an agency used by Israel to promote the country's 60th Anniversary Celebrations -- an event Arabs justifiably look at in a different perspective, as their "catastrophe (al-Nakba) -- was also hired to help organize the country's national cultural festival.

When word broke, many of the performers said they planned to back out. King Abdullah intervened and in a rare public address insisted it was not true, although somewhere between the accusation and the denial is the real truth.

But it wasn't just about Israel, whose government works hard with its oppressive hypocritical policies and to earn its status as the Arab World's whipping boy. It also had to do with the sale of a major chunck of Jordanian land.

Now, some people look at this issue and say the concern is "the truth," as King Abdullah insists. Others in the media, who are now being harassed and intimidated, say it is also about "the truth," which the Arab World public rarely really gets.

I say this is a good development. What we need is more conflict between the Arab World media and the Arab World governments because in that conflict the public actually benefits. When the media and the public go at it, as they are now doing, they are forced to retreat from their early confident arrogance where they can say whatever they want, to defensive damage control, which usually involves, pulling back, correcting lies, adjusting claims and being more accurate.

Sure, there is going to be siome public relations "spin." But in conflicts like this, the media and the governments are forced to be "accountable." And accountability is more important than the "truth." Because the truth can be spun, distorted, analyzed in conflicting ways, seen in different lights and presented in contrasting context, far more than accountability which is the simple act of making those in power address the issues that concern the public.

The public is not stupid. They are very educated, be it in the Arab World or the West where there is just as much absence of government accountability than in the Arab World. They can tell who is telling the truth, but only when government leaders, and the media, are forced to openly discuss and explain and even squirem a bit by conflicts like this.

The battle in Amman Jordan between King Abdullah and the Jordanian and Arab World media is not a bad thing. It is a good thing.

Ray Hanania
www.TheMediaOasis.com

If you can't break into the mainstream media, the Internet offers guerrilla journalism

One of the ways I help cover my costs as a freelancer (it's not easy to earn enough money on a consistent basis to pay your bills if you are a freelancer, unless you are wealthy, of course) is to gives speeches, present workshops and offer training on "Guerrilla Journalism." (I have a new book coming out in a few weeks just on that topic, coincidentally.)

Journalism has changed since when I first entered the profession in 1976, although the strategy for minority and ethnic journalists and writers like myself have not changed much. In 1975, after finishing two years active duty during the Vietnam War in the U.S. Air Force, I took my GI Bill (back when the GI Bill had real value, of course) and used it to fund my first Guerrilla Journalism project. I published my own newspaper.

It only cost about $500 a month, coincidentally about what the government was paying me over the course of four years to go to school -- I did go back to school by the way, but the money spent on school that I saved was redirected to publishing my own newspaper. I published a 12-to 24 page newspaper called "The Middle Eastern Voice." In English, every month, and featuring stories that you could not find in the mainstream media. I published it for two years, until I was hired first as a stringer and then later as a reporter for a small community newspaper in the Chicago suburbs, which led me to a 16 year stint at City Hall covering Daley to Daley.

The paper had impact, not only in my community -- which had absiolutely no voice (and still don't) in the Chicago Tribune, Sun-Times and local TV and radio stations, but also in the mainstream coommunity. It was in English, with some Arabic. Easy to read. It helps to be a great writer (I'm just polishing a spot on my chest right now.)

In the old days, I wrote the copy on a typewriter and brought it to a typesetter who converted it to type. Gave them my photographs and they laid it all out. It wa svery time consuming. I had little control over design, although I supplied photos and graphics.

Today, I sit at a computer, load up a $600 software program (QuarkXpress) and not only write but place the stories. I then upload the file via FTP (the Internet) to the printing plant and they print it! Cost: About $1,200 for 10,000 copies of a 12 page paper, with four pages of color.

Whenever there was some violence in the Middle East, the mainstream media would call to get my opinions. Of course, the FBI also assigned two agents to follow me around for two years and keep a file -- which I later obtained through the Freedom of Information Act.

By the way, an agent later told me if you asked for your file and you didn't have one, they would open one on you. Makes sense to me, more so than profiling. My file was already 45 pages long, filled with a lot of black magic marker lines covering the names of people they interviewed and sources who, for money I am sure, told them I was a "potential terrorist" as documented in the introduction of my report. It ended concluding I was just an American concerned with bettering the status of my Arab American community in this country."

And by the way, and here is where the power of the media comes into play: There was a paragraph that said the FBI agents were instructed not to confront me or speak with me directly as they feared I would write about such an encounter in my newspaper, The Middle Eastern Voice. Which I would have done, of course. (As I did when Jay McMullen called me in the City Hall Press Room in 1979 and threatened to punch me in the nose when I wrote a column suggesting his wife, Mayor Jane M. Byrne, fought his battles for him -- male ego always feeds the hungry news animal. He said if I ever wroite about him again, he would come to the press room and punch me in the nose. I wrote about the threat int he next column.)

But publishing a newspaper is not the only way to go. There are others and I am dabbling in all of them:

Brokered radio programs: It cost between $150 and $300 per hour to host your own radio show live in Chicago.

Column writing: You can write your columns and self-syndicate them directly to newspapers. The pay ranges from $50 to $300 per Op-Ed.

Feature writing: there are many magazines that will purchase your features and payment ranges from $3009 to $2,000 depending on the publication. Generally, here, the less political, the more you will sell. So, you really don't achieve your goal of educating the public unless it is a feature on something that needs educating, like who are the Arab Americans?

Blogs: Blogs are a great way to get out there. Once indexed on Google and Yahoo the world is your oyster, which is what most newspaper editors really look like anyway on a typical, hectic day. The nice thing about Blogs, of course, is you don't need to know how to program web sites or write HTML or XHTML code.

Design and post your own web site. (Mine is www.TheMediaOasis.com.) There is a big debate between writers and artists over which is more effective eye candy or mind candy. Personally, I think content drives repeat and quality visits. Great graphics and heavy Flash may impress the big fish, but if you want to reach the masses, "trash the flash" and replace it with low resolution, small sized, graphics that offer just enough visual to meet the principle a picture is worth a "thousand words" Don't make a picture worth a "thousand MegaBytes."

People in today's work don't want to wait for anything.

Comic strips: If you have the gift of writing and satire, it is nothing these days to put it to a caricature. I do one called "Ray Hanania's World" (after experimenting with a lot of other titles -- this one covered all the wide range of topics, Middle East and domestic and international mainstream politics.) Comics have power. If you can say it in a few words with a decent graphic, you can really make an impact on the audience. Images combined with humor that carry a message can be powerful! PCs and MACs have software that will help you design those cute little "bubbles" and text, the hardest part of a comic strip in my opinion. Practice drawing caricatures. I start with a nose then add the eyes then hair and then mouth. Design the strip on the computer, add the bubbles and the text, title, etc., and then print it out. Hand drawn the images. Scan it in,. save it in a low-resolution format -- you don't want the file to be more th 65 KB because as you add comics, they add up. Place them on a Blog to archive them. (Blogger gives you 500 MB of graphic image space).

Standup comedy, of course. I lampoon the Middle East conflict on stages across America and in Israel and Palestine. (Of course, some Arab activist rgoups have blacklisted me because I "crossed the line" and perform not just with "Jewish" comedians -- which is acceptable -- but I appear with "Israeli" comedians, which apparently is not that acceptable to some activists in the Arab American community. (It's called "haram," or "normalization." Pathetic if you ask me. Activists love this, of course, but when it comes to educating through journalism and professional communications, it gets in the way. But it is great for the "choir" I guess.)

Podcasting -- phenomenal. Video and audio. I tape all kinds of audio and video programs.

Video podcasting:  I use a SONY VX2100 TV quality camera ($1,800). I broadcast on Cable TV, but reach hundreds of thousands of people through the Internet using Google and YouTube video. YouTube has a 100 MB or 10 minute (when the file is compressed) limit. But Google has no file limit. Still, you want to compress a 30 minute program from 1.5 GigaBytes down to 225 MegaBytes, using a compression software once it has been edited (using an editing software program like Vegas for PC, or another).

Audio Podcasting: Easiest. Use SkypeOut (you can call anywhere in the US from your computer and then record the conversation using a veriety of software programs which then save the file to your computer. You can edit it down to the 20 minute ideal limit and then post on a podcasting site that feeds into the behemouth of podcasting sites, iTunes. I use LibSyn.com, which costs me $10 a month to post up to 250 MB of files (about 20-25 files every month. It was great when I was on brokered radio at WCEV 1450 AM -- I'm moving to a new station soon.)

Publishing your own books: CafePress.com is the best place to go to publish your own books. You can publish one (they charge a basic fee based on size and page length) and you add your profit to it. They take orders, print and ship the books to the buyers and send you your commission. Color front and back cover, black and white interior. A 250 page book will cost about $12 to print, add $8 and you are doing far better than a standard book publisher (15 percent after costs). And chances are your book will do just as good through your own efforts as they will through publishers, who don't promote your books unless they anticipate making a fortune off you. So you end up promoting your own books anyway. But in the network of webs and blogs I've just outlined (and using the various strategies to promote your works) you can reach probably more. To publish more than one book, you would need to pay $5 a month of $50 a year. Process payments through PayPal.

Create an online newsletter to keep your fans and followers up-to-date on what you are producing. I use Yahoo. People enter their emails into my little entry boxes (which you can grab in HTML from Yahoo and place on your own web site designs) or just click the email address: mine is eTelevision-subscribe@yahoogroups.com. Click it and get-it!

Finally, network everything together. It's amazing that a group of web sitres you manage can network together and build and promote your presence on the Internet exponentially. I use Technorati.com to measure the power of my blogs and web sites. Amazing reach.

Hope this all helps!

Ray Hanania
www.TheMediaOasis.com

Illinois Open Meetings Act Loophole?

It's tough enough being recognized by the mainstream news media as an Arab American -- most ignore us and most refuse to publish our columns, features and news stories (only covering us when we are "bad Arabs.")

It's even more discouraging when you happen to be Arab American and local governments ignore you because you are not considered "mainstream," even when you walk with one foot in the mainstream base and the other foot in the ethnic media base.

Recently, I came across a posting for a special board meeting by the Village of Orland Park to discuss budget issues. For months, the officials in the village said the municipal finances were in great shape. Suddenly, a few weeks ago on June 27, 2008, on a Friday, the village posted a notice, as required by the Illinois Open Meetings Act, to announce that a Special Village Board meeting would be held on Monday, June 30, 2008 at 6 PM at the village hall.

I cover Middle East and international issues for the Arab American Writers Syndicate and the National Arab American Times Newspaper, but also write about local, regional and national politics for several regional newspapers including the Southwest News-Herald Newspaper. (But for some reason, journalists who happen to be Arab American are pegged as "Arab Journalists." Why keep fighting it? is my sighing motto.)

The notice of the special meeting announced that the topic would be the budget. But, at the very top of the notice was the caution from the village, "NOT FOR PUBLICATION."

Hmmm! What's the point of an Open Meetings Act notice if the government agency issuing the notice tells you not to publicize it.

Apparently, the media that did cover the meeting that Monday night did not pre-publicize the information that there would be a special meeting to discuss the budget. A notice in and of itself about a special meeting being called to discuss the village budget WOULD BE A NEWS STORY, even before the meeting. But, who would publicize it and risk being alienated by the village if they violated the village's caution, "NOT FOR PUBLICATION."

Here's the link to the notice.

Here's the link to my column on the issue.

Turns out that at the meeting, which no one from the public attended, the village officials announced they had a $4.8 million shortfall. In a $127 million budget, that 4 percent shortfall would be the equivalent of a $150 million budget shortfall in the City of Chicago, for example, which is huge and has a budget of $3 billion.

But, who cares and who is listening? Right?

Ray Hanania
http://professivecomicstrips.blogspot.com/

Barack Obama isn't just running from "Muslims," he's running from Arabs, too

In a profession where the term "dumb down" ranks next to the phrase "if it bleeds it leads," one might be expected to better understand the reality of Barack Obama's so-called "Muslim problem." But the problem and the issue is way larger than just whether Obama is a Muslim. It reaches into the depths of the hypocrisies not only of mainstream Americans but also the discriminatory practices of some Muslim organizations against Christian Arab activists and journalists and leaders. It's very complicated, and that by itself explains why it is so much easier to address the entire matter as "Obama's Muslim Problem."

In addressing the issue, many are ignoring the fundamental problem. It is NOT a Muslim issue. It is an issue of stereotyping. Americans can't tell the difference betweenb Muslims and Christian Arabs, but the media can. So we're all lumped into the problem (discrimination against Muslims and Christian Arabs is rampant), BUT, we are separated in the solution. The media only addresses the problems facing Muslims.

America has an "Arab Problem" but Americans don't seem to distinguish between Muslim and Christian Arabs, and many Muslim organizations discriminate against Christian Arabs who don't embrace their agendas or who speak out too forcefully against the extremists in our community. In fact, speaking out against the extremists is more of a crime for many Muslim activists and organizations than media criticizing a Muslim's religion.

In preparation for a Detroit speech recently, volunteers asked a woman in a Hijab to step down from the stage where Obama was to speak -- she would have been visible behind in (this new thing candidates do to show they are "close" to the "people).

Obama apologized, as you would expect a candidate to do even if he didn't want to do it.

Now, the media is filled with stories about the "controversy" surrounding Obama and his "Muslim problem." It was sparked in part by a slip of the tongue by Chris Matthews who reportedly referred to Obama as "Osama."

GOP Jihadists -- extremist Republicans in politics and the talking-head circus that passes itself off as journalist -- are helping to spread false email messages that Obama is a Muslim, has a Muslim agenda, plans to convert Americans to Islam, will be sworn in using the Qu'ran (Muslim holy book). It goes on endlessly.

But it's the media that is perpetuating the myth. Obama isn;'t afraid of Muslims. He is afraid of "Arabs." Had the woman in the Hijab in Detroit been an Arab American -- they come in many varieties but mainly Christian and Arab -- who wore a kaffiyeh on his or her head, the volunteers would have asked that person to stay off the stage.

So when reporters ask, as they are now doing, is Obama's denial that he is a "Muslim" a form of racism, they are contributing to the problem. The real question is this, is the news media married to the better story that Obama is a "Muslim" and ignoring the real issue that they can't seem to tell the difference, like most Americans by the way, between a "Muslim" and an "Arab?"

Even ADC (the American Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee) criticized the notion in a letter to the New York Times that Obama is afraid of associating with Muslims. The letter started out by noting the fear of "Arabs and Muslims" but quickly funneled down to the real focus, Muslims.

There are about 7 million Muslims in America and the majority are non-Arab. Only about 22 percent are Arab. There are about 4.5 million Arabs in America, and the vast majority are Christian Arabs (Orthodox, Catholic, Protestant, Baptist and more).

Muslim leaders like Salam al-Marayati are questioning Obama as a "self-hating Muslim," a loathsome term for anyone's religion. Yet, al-Marayati heads up an organization that sometimes is criticized for marginalizing Arabs by focusing on Muslim issues only even though it embraces Arab World issues that include many non-Muslims. Many Muslim groups pander to Arab American issues under the Islamic umbrella, and as a result Christian Arabs are excluded from the dialogues, unless they embrace their political agenda and strategy.

Muslim Americans complain about discrimination, but some,e specially the leaders, are engaged in a campaign of ostracizing, isolating and intimidating Christian Arabs and secular Muslims who, for example, speak out against the wearing of a Hijab. (A Hijab is not a berqa, and only covers the head. But, it is not mandated in the Islamic religion, but rather has become 1) a symbol of Muslim women's pride, 2) a political statement of defiance and 3) a symbol of devotion. All three. But 15 years on the streets of America, you NEVER saw a Muslim woman wearing a Hijab, only the grandmothers and the elderly women wore it.

Many point out accurately that Obama "seems" to be avoiding speaking at Mosques. He has spoken at many Christian Churches and even synagogues. But no Mosques.

Well, guess what? He hasn't spoken at a Christian Arab Church, either. Well, who cares about that? Right? Because "Obama" doesn't rhyme with "Jesus." It rhymes with "Osama." And Osama is NOT a "Muslim" name. "Osama" means "lion Like" in Arabic and while it is most often used by Muslims, some Christian Arabs also use the name.

So why am I asking that Christian Arabs not be excluded from the anti-Muslim hatred in this country?

HEY! CHRISTIAN ARABS HAVE RIGHTS TOO!

Ray Hanania
www.TheMediaOasis.com

When the media/journalist cross the line and disrespect an audience: ESPN raises the bar demonstrating professionalism

UPDATE: The National Arab American Journalists Association (NAAJA-US.com) has accepted Bonnie Bernstein's apology, and the apology of the producers of the Mike & Mike show and ESPN, who all acknowledged that the reference to the Palestinian suicide bombers was out of context and inappropriate. In fairness to Ms. Bernstein, while she referenced the stereotype, we are satisfied she was not advocating it. Her error was to use the stereotype to make another, unrelated point. We recognize that as an example of "innocent construction" and believe that Ms. Bernstein did not intend to defame all Palestinians. She did not hesitate to acknowledge the inappropriateness of the comparison. NAAJA

Overview of issue below

What is racism? Someone's mean comment that embraces a stereotype? A slip of the tongue? An innocent comment that an audiences takes as racist? Intent? Of all those, "intent" must be the most difficult to assess. But response in the face of controversy can sometimes define intent better than anything.

Take the Don Imus incident -- again. He makes what audiences took to be racially insensitive remarks about African Americans -- he was the one who injected race into the most recent controversy regarding suspended Dallas Cowboy's cornerback Adam Jones' run-ins with the law. When Imus' team was discussing Jones' problems, Imus asked, "What color is he?" Sports announcer Warner Wolf said Jones -- known as Pacman -- is "African-American." Imus responded: "There you go. Now we know."

Imus, under siege for his clearly racist remarks before about the women's Rutger's Basketball team, wiggled out of the controversy later asserting that his comments were misconstrued. "What people should be outraged about is that they arrest blacks for no reason." Imus said Tuesday.

Well, those were words Imus could have said had he really meant that when the issue came up. He didn't.

I don't trust Imus' intent in this latest incident. He has a history of making racist remarks and a radio staff that joins in when it suits them and when they can get away with it.

Now, turn to ESPN and its Chicago affiliate radio show "Mike and Mike' Hosted by Mike Golic and Mike Greenberg who were talking with veteran sports reporter Bonnie Bernstein about how NBA hopefuls are taught to pursue the NBA as their goal, and then compared that to how Palestinians teach their children to become suicide bombers. Let's skip the politics, for now.

Many mostly Arab, Muslim and Palestinians who heard the broadcast Wednesday morning reacted with anger believing Bernstein had slandered Palestinians. Bernstein was cautious in making the remark saying she didn't mean to imply that NBA hopefuls were Palestinian suicide bombers. She also cited the New York Times -- not the most objective media when it comes to the Middle East. They're notorious for one-sided, often anti-Arab media reports.

Anyway, people were offended. They were hurt by the comparison. The National Arab American Journalists Association received some 30 emails and several calls complaining about the comments made on the nationally syndicated show in Chicago.

The comments had the three aspects of a typically racist commentary: it depicted an entire people in a heinous and negative manner or stereotype; it did so in a passing manner which often is the most hurtful form of racism, when it is presented so casually and innocently; and there was no one from the agrieved community on the program to challenge the comment.

We turned it over to NAAJA Media Watch and we asked that ESPN and Bernstein clarify their remarks and apologize.

Within hours that is exactly what they did. They did it genuinely and with sincerity. They didn't try to make excuses or to engage in a political debate about whether or not the comment was or wasn't offensive.

They apologized immediately recognizing that whether it was or wasn't the intent of racism, that a segment of the audience -- one that has been the target of much mainstream American animosity -- was offended.

I wish all media acted that responsibly. In fact, Bernstein took the added step of recording an apology that was distributed to NAAJA and then distributed to its members.

Here's Bernstein's audio link:

http://sports.espn.go.com/espnradio/player?context=audio&id=3460824

I give ESPN, the Mike and Mike show and Bernstein credit for recognizing that comments they made entered a highly volatile public arena of debate and racism that caused harm to a large group of people. They responded the way all journalists should respond and acknowledged that the context was not intended. They showed professionalism. They received our grief and complaints when the comments were made. And now, they desevre our respect.

I sure wish Don Imus could learn a few of these very simply basic lessons. Maybe he should hire Bernstein as a consultant to tell him how to act like a dignified member of the human race. Don Imus really needs that.

Ray Hanania
www.NAAJA-US.com

www.TheMediaOasis.com

Here's the link to the emails and notes that went back and forth:

http://arabjournalists.blogspot.com/2008/06/arab-american-protests-espn-chicago.html

# # #

Here's the transcript for the ProPublica/60 Minutes "report" on al-Hurra TV

If you did not see the broadcast Sunday night, here is a transcript of the report. The only real criticism of al-Hurra was that it reported "anti-Israel" news. The fact that it is a government-controlled, propaganda outlet posing as a journalism site was of secondary importance, and as far as I am concerned, a professional journalist, that report is pathetic and should never have been allowed to be broadcast by 60 Minutes.

Criticism of Israel is NOT unprofessional journalism. The fact that criticism of Israel is a story, is unprofessional journalism.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/media/jan-june08/alhurra_06-23.html

I am saddened that mainstream American journalism continues to sink further down each day.

But even if I didn;t have the Pro-Publica report to disturb my senses, there is always Don Imus.

Ray Hanania
www.TheMediaOasis.com

Investigative group falls short of exemplary journalism and panders to partisan bias

ProPublica describes itself as "an independent, non-profit newsroom that will produce investigative journalism in the public interest. Our work will focus exclusively on truly important stories, stories with 'moral force.' We will do this by producing journalism that shines a light on exploitation of the weak by the strong and on the failures of those with power to vindicate the trust placed in them."

So one of their first big "exposes," produced in conjunction with the powerful investigative journalism broadcast media, CBS 60 Minutes, is about how a television station designed to promote pro-American propaganda (at the expense of truth and honesty) that is funded by the U.S. Government is "biased" because ... (aghast!) ... it criticized Israel.

Yes. This could be the first real evidence that American journalism is driven by one very important priority: "to protect Israel."

ProPublica discovered, with the backing of CBS 60 Minutes, that al-Hurra TV, the American government funded satellite TV station created in the wake of allegations by President Bush (an icon of investigative journalism) that the Arab World media is "anti-American" and a purveyor of "propaganda that “just isn’t right, it isn’t fair, and it doesn’t give people the impression of what we’re about.”

So, that's the job of al-Hurra TV. Funded by American taxpayers, controlled by the U.S. Government. And the biggest problem it has according to an exhaustive investigation into al-Hurra's programming by ProPublica's esteemed investigative journalists, is that they discovered "one extremist" Palestinian, Hani el-Masri, who, on a program on al-Hurra TV, called Israel some names. The exact quote from the "investigation" is: "[Israel] is the occupying and racist state that imposes the stifling and deadly blockade and perpetrates a holocaust against 1.5 million Palestinians in Gaza."

And worse, according to ProPublica, is, el-Masri's comments (in Arabic to a mainly Arabic audience) went "unchallenged."

Now, I don't like Israel's policies in the Gaza Strip or for that matter in the West Bank where my relatives live and are often treated like animals. But I wouldn't call it "racist" or even compare its brutal policies against the Palestinians to the "Holocaust."

The program that al-Masri made his comments is, ironically called, "The Free Hour." The name of the station in Arabic, al-Hurra, means "the free one." (Or, one that is free.) I guess it ain't so free at all, is it?

Al-Hurra, which is supposed to help educate the people of the Arab World by showing them how real Democracy and Freedom work (let me take a deep breath here), even broadcast a speech by Hezbollah Leader Hassan Nasrallah, presumably during the war between Hezbollah and Israel last summer.

ProPublica also discovered as evidence, "A few weeks later, an Al Hurra reporter named Ahmed Amin delivered a biased report from the Holocaust Denier’s Conference in Tehran. He said that while some participants were sure that millions of Jews died in Germany, 'the group did not reinforce their statements with scientific evidence, but instead they were content to tell stories passed on to them by their ancestors'." (Congress demanded Amin be fired even though the report suggested that the reporter accurately described the ridiculous nature of the conference's content. The news director, Larry Register, was fired.)

ProPublica asserts that "Investigative journalism is at risk. Many news organizations have increasingly come to see it as a luxury. Today’s investigative reporters lack resources: Time and budget constraints are curbing the ability of journalists not specifically designated “investigative” to do this kind of reporting in addition to their regular beats. This is therefore a moment when new models are necessary to carry forward some of the great work of journalism in the public interest that is such an integral part of self-government, and thus an important bulwark of our democracy."

This is ProPublica's model. Let's defend Israel against the angry, emotion-filled rhetoric of a Palestinian who probably has seen many of his friends and colleagues killed -- over the past year in the Gaza Strip, according to a news report on CBS I heard, Palestinian killed 7 Israelis with rocket fire. During the same period, Israel killed 40 Palestinians. 

The issue for me isn't about whether Israel is or isn't racist, or even whether al-Masri is or isn't an extremist. The issue to me is that the report from ProPublica reflects not professional journalism, but rather a crystal clear reflection of the biased, unprofessional, hypocritical, no-talent, bigotry that passes as "journalism" in the mainstream American media that is important only because it defends Israel and silences any Arab, Muslim or Palestinian who dares to even criticize Israel's government policies.

I am not criticizing Israelis. I criticize the Israeli "government," the same way I criticize the American government AND the same way I criticize the Arab governments. That is principled journalism, and apparently in the United States, courageous journalism, too. 

What is really pathetic is that in America, a place where "all men are created equal" (apparently some are just more equal than others, I guess), no one has the courage to accurately depict the real challenge in the Middle East. It's not about Palestinians and Arabs and Muslims versus Israelis and Jews. IT IS about separating the "moderates" from the "extremists" and recognizing that this complex conflict that has a direct impact on the American people. Our interests as a nation are served not by pandering to partisan politics, or censoring a news media, but rather fighting to insure an open and unrestrained public debate where even the extremists have a voice. (Moderation IS moderation only because it is placed next to extremism.)

ProPublica is led by Paul Steiger, the former managing editor of The Wall Street Journal, a newspaper that many Middle East professionals would acknowledge has been about as far as a newspaper can be from balance and objectivity on Middle East issues as one can be.

Here's the link to the ProPublica report:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/06/19/60minutes/main4196477.shtml

In this country of more than 4,500 newspapers, thousands of radio stations and many thousands of television stations, only a handful of Arab American professional journalists have been hired as columnists. There are some newspapers -- usually the biggest -- that will publish columns that can be characterized as "pro-Arab," but for the most part, very few newspapers will run a pro-Arab column of any kind. In fact, when the media does include the Arab viewpoint, and especially the Palestinian viewpoint, it is oftentimes "partnered" with the pro-Israel viewpoint. (Ironically, when a pro-Israel column is published, that is not the case.)

Al-Hurra is a government sponsored propaganda outlet, not a professional journalism medium, as much as they claim they are, and no disrepect to the journalism talent hired to work there. But, they live under government funding and censorship. The real issue should be how public dollars are being spent to spread propaganda rather than truth, to oppress free speech rather than encourage it, and that is sending a message the Arab audience is intelligent enought o see that "freedom" has two meanings in America, one for Americans and one for Arabs.

ProPublica could investigate those issues. But then, if they did, no one in the United States would fund ProPublica, no major television station would partner with it to give it credibility, and all but only a very few courageous voices in the mainstream American media would denounce it "as unchallenged pro-Arab propaganda" and demand that they be put out of business.

Ray Hanania
www.TheMediaOasis.com

Are minorities, race and ethnicity that big a factor in how we cover issues?

There's a story this morning in several newspapers about how campaign volunteers in Detroit to Barack Obama asked one Muslim Arab woman who was wearing a Hijab (head scarf) not to be on the stage when the candidate was to speak, and another was told she could appear ont he stage if she removed her Hijab.

Obama's camp quickly said they did not instruct the volunteers to engage in that discrimination. And the incident got some media coverage. Nobody seemed angry and everyone seems to have accepted Obama's campaign's explanation.

But I wonder how different it might have been covered had this happened to John McCain? I think there is a double standard.If I were McCain, I would be screaming. But then, how many in the news media owuld be listening?

Now, in addition to what I think would be the clear difference between how it would be treated between McCain and Obama, imagine if the person's removed were not Arab Muslim women wearing Hijabs, but Jewish supporters wearing Yamulkes, or a Christian priest. "Listen, you can be on stage, but do you mind removing your collar."

Here's one of the news stories:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-obama19jun19,0,887788.story

And here's my column on the Arab American Writers Syndicate:
http://arabwritersgroup.wordpress.com/

Ray Hanania
www.TheMediaOasis.com

The State of the Arab American Ethnic Media

I was privileged to participate in the Chicago Community Media Workshop Thursday June 12, at Columbia College on a panel discussing the challenges facing ethnic media in this country.

My presentation is posted online. Here is the link:

http://arabjournalists.blogspot.com/2008/06/state-of-arab-american-journalism.html

My prepared remarks included an overview of the State of the Arab American news media as well as some background on the challenges we face as an ethnic American media.

Issues included:

• Advertising
• Circulation
• Content
• Arabic language versus English language
• Distribution
• Professionalism (journalists versus activists)

And, the ongoing push by Arab American journalists to push UNITY: Journalists of Color to truly be unified and represent ALL Journalists of collor, including Arab American journalists. The sad fact is that after several years of lobbying UNITY, we have been ignored, either as a result of the disconnected bureaucracy that "manages" UNITY -- I say that because several of the UNITY people I met and spoke with are great and sincere people. But when nothing happens and the issue is only addressed, informally and never formally, weeks before the quadrennial convention coming up in July, that is a tragedy that reflects badly on UNITY as an organization.

This is difficult to address because on one hand, we want to work with UNITY, but on the other hand we want respect. Arab American journalists face the exact same challenges facing Black, Hispanic, Asian and Native American journalists, and maybe in recent years more challenging, in a different way.

We need the help of UNITY, but we are getting nothing.

It's sad to say, but it is true.

Ray Hanania
www.TheMediaOasis.com

Survey of Arab World journalists offers ups and downs

A recent survey of 601 Arab World Journalists by three academics, one in media, one in pyschology and one in graphics, concludes that the United States has "failed to make use of what is potentially one of its most powerful weapons in the war of ideas against terrorism."

That's right, the demonized, slandered and quite frequently defamed Arab World Media could help the United State achieve its goals. Seems like most Arab journalists, according to the study, believe that their primary goal in life is to serve as "agents of political and social change." They "believe it is their mission to reform the antidemocratic regimes they live under," according to the study's authors.

When asked "to name the top 10 missions of Arab journalism, the journalists, who are from 13 Arab countries in North Africa, the Levant and the Arabian Peninsula, cited political reform, human rights, poverty and education as the most important issues facing the region, trumping Palestinian statehood and the war in Iraq."

I thought my job as a journalist was to report the truth, even when the people who read my articles don't like it.

When I reviewed the Society of Professional Journalists Ethics Guidelines, the benchmark for professional journalists everywhere, nowhere did I find the goals of reforming society, overturn governments or prioritize issues. Now, in fairness to the Arab journalists, they were merely responding to a survey.

The survey authors are an esteemed group. Lawrence Pintak, the only media professional, is director of the Kamal Adham Center for Journalism Training and Research at the American University in Cairo. He is the author of “Reflections in a Bloodshot Lens: America, Islam and the War of Ideas.” Jeremy Ginges is assistant professor of psychology at the New School for Social Research. And Nicholas Felton is a graphic designer in Brooklyn.

I think the study is fascinating. It reflects the core problems that journalists in the Arab world face. They have become politicized by the tyranny of the region where they live. The Arab World has never really allowed freediom of expression or free speech, which are the cornerstones of a truly professional journalism industry. Instead, journalism in the Middle East is being mid-wifed by oppression, lef by dictators, monarchs, tyrants and demagogues, and several who believe they are the descendants of God's messengers. Until the rise of satellite TV, most were pretty much hacks for the political powers.

That's why it was okay to bash Israel, attack the United States and condemn the West -- as long as they didn't question their bosses.

Now, that isn't to say that Arab World Journalism is any different than mainstream American journalism. The fact is the United States is more subtle in its censorship of professional journalism. American journalists are free to report on many things, within reason. There are limits. God forbid any journalists were to ask in 2001 the questions now being debated, like, to what extent was Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein creations of American Foreign policy? I'm not talking about American support for Israel. I'm talking about our foreign policy was has been driven by control of oil, something we have recently lost control of. Wildly lost control of, I might add.

We armed the Mujahadeen in a fight with the Soviet Union. We armed Saddam Hussein in a fight with Iran. And we did it because we wanted to protect our interests in the Oil rich Middle East. And mainstream American journalism, for all their Pulitzers awarded for coverage of issues, few of them have really told the truth about the Middle East at all.

So, all journalists, as it turns out, have bosses who tell them what to write and what not to write. Tragically, mainstream American journalism is falling into the few sleazy hands of corporate robber barons. 

But mainstream American journalists are too smart to openly admit that their goals as writers is to advance a political agenda. They do it while tearing in their eyes about their dedication to telling the truth. The truth? Turns out there are many sides to "the truth."

The study will be released in July, published by the The International Journal of Press/Politics.

Why July? Maybe it will coincide with the gathering in Chicago of "UNITY: Journalists of Color" -- certain Colors, that is. Black. Brown. Yellow. Red. But not Olive! I will at least commend the Asian American Journalists Association (where I serve on the media watch committee as a volunteer). At least they continue to try to advocate for the rights of Arab American journalists. (I'm thinking of starting a group called DIS-UNITY: Journalists from the Rest of the Rainbow.)

Still,I guess I should be happy when three academics argue that Americans shouldn't be so angry at journalists in the Arab World. (Remember when President Bush angrily blamed the Arab media for the problems in Iraq, calling them biased, unfair, unprofessional, and purveyors of propaganda?) They're just trying to do our American bidding. And would, if we would just let them.

I don't think that's called journalism, though.

Ray Hanania
www.TheMediaOasis.com

Here is a link to the Pintak, Ginges and Felton story (in the New York Times, published May 25, 2008) about the upcoming release of the survey:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/25/opinion/25pintak.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=Arab+journalists+see+themselves+as+agents&st=nyt.&oref=slogin

end

What does it mean to be an Arab-American Journalist?

As a student, just stepping into the world of reporting, I have to ask myself the question: "What does it mean to be an Arab-American Journalist?" 

So I came up with an answer.

I define myself as an Arab-American Muslim. So what does this have to do with journalism?

To me, in a place and time where Arabs and Muslims were thrown into the spotlight and completely misunderstood, it has everything to do with journalism. At this time, I've started to truly realize how much Arabs and Muslims are needed in Journalism.

Being a history major, I look at history first in order to understand today's events in context. 

Since I am connected with my identity as an Arab-American, the history of Arabs in America becomes increasingly relevant to my daily life. There are lessons to be learned from both aspects.

When minorities first come to the US, they are discriminated against - any minorities and all minorities.

Take, for example, African Americans.  There were young African American youth that were doing everything they could to be like White Americans - to the point of changing their hair or trying to lighten their skin. Before groups like Marcus Garvey and the Nation of Islam (NOI) as well as other groups which helped shape the identity of African Americans in this country, many African Americans were not proud of their skin color because of pressure from society.

One example is the movie of Malcolm X: there's a scene where the young Malcolm X goes and does a "conk", where he straightens out his hair.

This, to me, is the ultimate form of denying your culture and degrading yourself.

When African Americans at the time were not proud of themselves, they were looked down upon. When African Americans started to unite and be proud of their culture and heritage, they were respected and the level of their status in society started to rise. Not to say that they are where they want to be... it's still a long way to, but at least the key way to get there was found to be to "respect yourself."

This lesson teaches us that people who are proud of who they are and their culture, and don't try to water it down, forces others to respect you for who you are.

So learning Arabic if I don't know it, understanding Arab music, art, and the Arab mentality is important before I walk around and claim myself to be an Arab.

Too often, I see Arabs who have grown up in a neighborhood and went to school their whole lives without seeing any other Arabs, forgetting their language, not know anything about where they or their parents and grandparents came from and still claim to be the example for all Arabs because occasionally they eat hummos.

I'm not saying those whose parents didn't teach them Arabic or Arab culture are to blame, my point is don't water down or claim that being American is better than being Arab or vice versa.

Being Arab and American are two identities intertwined.  I cannot be one without the other.  As a journalist, when I am proud of who I am, I educate myself about Arab history, American history, and history of Arabs in America.

Once someone at least realizes that understanding the history and background of their identity, they can report on Arab-American stories much better and within context.

Words and phrases in coverage of Arab Americans, Arab World and Middle East

When critics of Barack Obama tried to ramp up their attacks by pointing to his upbringing in the Muslim World, one phrase they used often was "madrassa."

"Madrassa" sounds so sinister, especially when you put it int he context of today's Islamic extremism, post-Sept. 11, 2001 terrorism and the "War on Terrorism."

Obama attended a "Madrassa," is usually the reference. That's true. He did attend a "Madrassa." That's because anyone who goes to school goes to a "Madrassa" which is in fact little more than the Arabic Word for "School." Every school in the Arab World, and the Islamic World (the majority of which is non-Arab) is called a "Madrassa."

The term has gotten an extended definition in the mainstream media in part because the media has found itself incabable of discerning the diversity in the Arab and Islamic World or understanding the real context in which many of today's headlines originate.

Indonesian schools are called "Madrassas" when they are Islamic. All Islamic schools, without exception. Doesn't matter whether the school teaches poilitics, general curriculum or "hate" as is the insinuation when the term is used in today's mainstream media vernacular.

You wan tto make a case about someone learning "hate," I think the media needs to do more research into the "school" to see what kind of school it was. Who ran it and what did it teach?

In New York City, an Arab Muslim woman wanted to teach Arabic as a major language -- it's a funny thing about the so-called "War on Terrorism," it has sparked a huge interest in learning Arabic. But when critics saw that she had a political background -- she allegedly wore a t-shirt (which she didn't, but that fact doesn't matter) that seemed to champion Palestinian rights, she was lambasted by media fanatics there and she was dropped as director. They even said she would turn the "school" into a "School" -- or "Madrassa."

It sounds so sinister, and sinister sounding words are placeholders for criticisam which is not based on fact.

They then appointed someone who had more of a political agenda behind her and who was not Arab to run the school.

One pattern we see in the mainstream newsmedia is the translation of all the words in a quote except the sinister-sounding words with the political meanings. Mainstream media will translate all of the words except the ones that have a political meaning in order to really juice up their point.

Here are some words that have common meaning that are often taken out of context because they play so well into the agendas of the writers, either intentionally or unintentionally:

Jihad -- means "noble struggle" and has been hijacked by the Islamic extremists and the mainstream "media" extremists, too, to exascerbate the hate dialogue.

Allah -- some people actually think this refers to a Muslim God, but in fact it is just the Arabic translation of the word "God." (My mother who was Christian and attended the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem where Jesus was born used the word "Allah" as all Christian Arabs and anyone who speaks Arabic does.)

Shaheed -- is another one of those explosive words -- no pun intended, refering to an individual who commits an act of suicide bombing. Yet the word Shaheed simply means someone who sacrifices for justice. Now certainly, I am sure the brainwashed and the crazy suicide bomber fanatics describe themselves as shaheeds, but the fact is they are not.

Hijab -- this word is commonly used to describe women who are accused of being oppressed in the Arab and Islamic World. In fact, a Hijab is basically a head covering, or, as I might have called in in the 1960s and 1970s growing up on Chicago's ethnically rich Southeast Side, a "babushka." A Hijab is not a berqa, which, in my opinion, is a symbol of the oppression of women in the Arab and Islamic World -- but then again, women are oppressed everywhere, aren't they? Including here in the United States where they recently got the right to vote in the 1920s when the Congress had to pass a special Constitutional Amendment to enforce it! Three Islamic countries have elected Muslim women as heads of state. We're still working on it.

Insha'allah -- is not a declaration of terrorist intent by a Muslim. In fact, again, it is merely a phrase that is both religious and secular. Muslims AND Christians use the term which means "God Willing." Sure when I was a kid, my mom would always respond to my intentions by saying, "Insha'allah honey." Meaning if God wills it, it will happen. There was a time when believing in God was considered noble in America.

Why do we surrender these words to the fanatics? Why not translate them, put them in context and then address the real problem. You cannot defeat the terrorist, you cannot understand terrorism, and you cannot report on terrorism if you can't see past the "ethnic face" of a people or their language.

But we know the ability to blur meanings makes it easier to do our jobs. It doesn't make doing our jobs more successful.

I recently attended an FBI seminar where FBI and Justice officials spoke of the threat of terrorism against the United States, by including Hamas and Hezbollah, two organizations that you can legitimately argue are terrrists but that do not intentionally target Americans. (Intention is a distinction in Middle East coverage isn't it? Or only when it is convenient?)

We lump them all together because it makes for a better presentation, when in fact Hamas and Hezbollah have nothing to do with al-Qaeda in a real world sense, just in a politically-driven agenda.

There is an issue involving the spelling of words from Arabic to English that causes all kinds of headaches. But that's a topic for another post later.

Ray Hanania
www.hanania.com
rayhanania@comcast.net

PS ... if you have other words or phrases to add to the above list, let me know.

NAAJA also has posted a Resource Guide to help journalists navigate through the complexities of the Arab and Islamic World. It is linked at:

http://www.hanania.com/NAAJA-US/resourceguide.doc

Arab World media attacked as political from all sides

When President Bush attacked the Arab World news media in 2003, mainly targeting Arab satellite television, it was a part of a political strategy that we now know is filled with lies and deceit. Bush knew little about the Arab World media, but enough to know they would be more skeptical of his invasion of Iraq than the American news media, which lapped it up and eagerly accepted the journalism straightjacket of embedding.

Yet, Bush wasn't too far off. The Arab World news media is biased. But then again, what media isn't?

When I watch the FOX New Network, I know I am not getting "news." It's opinion-entertainment with an emphasis on entertainment dollars. But when I read the New York Times, I also know I am not getting all the news that is fit to print, just most of it and some of it isn't fit to print at all.

The American news media is biased, too. In fact, bias comes with journalism. This idea that the Arab World media is worse than the American news media is really ridiculous. American newspapers just simply do not include all sides of every story. Some stories are considered "safe" and the journalists rip into it with no bounds. But some stories are considered sacred cows, and we see a bias of exclusion, especially and including stories about the Middle East and the Arabs. In fact, some of the bias is just plain ignorance. Newspapers like the Chicago Tribune simply can't seem to distinguish between "Arabs" and "Muslims." It's an ongoing problem. I don't blame the reporters, just the editors who give them the mis-direction.

But let's talk about a less arrogant media. The mainstream American media is simply uneducated about the facts of the Middle East. It seems that journalists who write about the Middle East on both sides, though, both go to the extreme. There's no middle ground in coverage and there should be more. Reporters and journalists are all passioned about the topics they cover, otherwise they wouldn't be reporters.

One of the most biased places to be was the Chicago City Hall press room where I spent some 16 years as a reporter. But the biases stayed in the press room, and only rarely made its way into print or broadcast journalism. Nobody accused the City Hall press room of bias -- well, except for the late Mayor Harold Washington who said that White reporters couldn't possibly cover his administration accurately. He was right.

The same can be said about the mainstream American news media. They can't possibly cover the Middle East and the Arab World fairly. But my guess is that's not their real goal anyway.

Ray Hanania
www.hanania.com

Tensions in Lebanon aggravated by partisan media coverage from all sides

Just as every minority in Lebanon has its own militia, every political aspect has its own media. Lebanon, which supposedly has the most "free" media in the Middle East, is really a place where media manipulation is driven by the politics of the editorial board. And that is not just restricted to internal politics. The United States, Israel, and many of the neighboring Arab countries project their politics through supposedly "free media."

I'm no expert on Lebanon, which is the great religious experiment gone wrong. I only sent 10 days there, before the Hezbollah militia started a war with Israel and then won through fearless refusal to backdown. Hezbollah and Israel wne at it, each attacking the other's military and civilian targets, but it was Israel that eventually backed down first and Hezbollah declared a "divine victory," even though the conflict left thousands of Lebanese civilians dead and large civilian areas devastated worse than any destruction caused by the frequent political bombing assassinations like the one that took the life of Rafiq Hariri, a popular Lebanese figure with his followers who managed a multi-billion media empire.

Today, every major political force has its own media spinning their own stories and slandering the leaders of the other parties, including from the United States which has declared Hezbollah's Manal TV to be a "terrorist" organization. Of course, many in the Arab World have declared the American media to be a "terrorist" organization, too. But such are the war of words.

There are no independent media voices in Lebanon, despite the politically charged assertions. If you like the spin from one media publication, you declare it "free and objective." If you don't, they are the puppets of a "terrorist" organization.

Even the media here plays that game. They champion and applaud certain publications for being fearless dedicated to "free speech" and "professional journalism" when in fact those same publications are playing partisan political games with the news.

That explains whyt he headlines ont he competing newspapers in Beirut are often so different, championing their cause and leader over the truth.

I got a chance to meet the staff of one Lebanese leader during my 10-day stay. I was surprised to learn that he was nothing like the portrayal found in the American media. They said he was "pro-Syrian" and pro-Hezbollah, but in fact he was trying to disarm Hezbollah, oust foreign intervention and replace Lebanon's out-dated "confessional system" with Democracy. But because he (whose name shall remain anonymous -- although I am sure some of you can guess) was working with Hezbollah, the United States refused to discuss his proposals. And the American media continued to slander him, distorting his words, challenging his proposals and constantly painting him using the partisan colors of the media lexicon as being "pro-Syrian."

The Confessional system is based on a survey of Lebanon's religious population back in the 1930s. In the 1940s, using it, government power sharing was established with the Maronite Christians, then the largest of the various groups, were given the office of president; Sunnis the office of prime minister; Shi'ites (Shia) speaker of the house. And of course, the religious numbers have changed dramatically and today the Shi'ites led by Hasan Nasrallah are the largest religious group in Lebanon.

The guy the United States refused to work with was Maronite Christian, and that they backed was a Sunni who had ties to -- guess who -- the Saudis.

Although to simple-mided presidents, the world is divided between "us" and "them," the real world is a mosaic and complex. But you expect partisan and even simple-minded politics from politicians. But you do expect more from the news media that continues to shill for the agenda of the "home" team.

Until the media starts to act professional and other media hold the media covering Lebanon accountable, don't expect the conflict to end. It's the media stoking the flames of hatred from every direction. No one is blameless.

Ray Hanania
www.ArabWritersGroup.com

Arab American journalists need to do more to support freedoms in Arab World

Arab American journalists often speak out about the unending bias and discrimination against them here in the United States, but do we do and write enough about the discrimination that exists in the Arab World against Arab journalists.

Last December, Fouad al-Farhan was imprisoned by the government of Saudi Arabia, allegedly for expressing anti-government views. He was finally released this past week but only after journalists in the Arab World came to his aid. There were some voices in the United States, the vanguard of professional journalism, but not enough. Most silent were Arab American journalists themselves.

Although NAAJA issued a very strong statement condemning the Saudi Governments actions in arrestinf al-Farhan, few Arab American journalists picked up the call. There are more than 82 Arab American publications in the United States and very few even bothered to write about the story.

Most Arab American journalists focus on the Palestine-Israel conflict, and rightly so. As we approach the 60th Anniversary of Israel, the Palestinian side of the story, of course, is getting pushed to the side. Conservative pundits are inaccurately interpretting that the Arabic term of the 1948 conflict, "al-Nakba" means that Israel's creation was a "catastrophe." In fact, the word "al-Nakba" does mean "catastrophe," but it refers mainly to the failure of the Arab World to defend the rights of Palestinians and the failure to create one secular, Democratic state in 1948. Instead, Palestine was divided into two "states," based on a crisscrossing checkberboard of six regions (3 Jewish and 3 Arab) that was impossible to succeed. As a consequence, both sides broke out into a conflict that has yet to be resolved.

The Palestine-Israel conflict is important and impacts ever aspect of the rising conflicts in the Middle East. You can't really bring Democracy to Iraq without resolving the Palestine Questions. Arabs are not monolithic, but they do share the same important causes.

Still, Arab Americans must broaden their issues. We are fighting on several fronts. We're demanding parity on UNITY: Journalists of Color. We are demanding fairness in coverage of the 60th Anniversary not just of Israel, but of the 1948 conflict. And, we must also demand Democracy and freedoms in the Arab and Islamic Worlds. We can't sitr back silent on issues involving Arab journalists in the Middle East and then wonder why mainstream American media do not treat us fairly. If we want respect, we have to show respect to the issues in our own backyards.

Two Kurdish journalists were arrested by the Iranians and two weeks ago were sentenced to death. One of the few sites that championed the release of al-Farhan was www.MidEastYouth.com., one of the Internet most popular news/blogs on Middle East and Arab issues. And, this week, they also launched a campaign to pressure the Iranian government to suspended the death sentences of Hiwa Butimar and Adnan Hasanpoor.

Ray Hanania
www.ArabWritersGroup.com