Quick Thoughts: Adel Iskandar on Al Jazeera’s New Digital Channel

New Article Submission

Thank you for your interest in Jadaliyya. We welcome all submissions. The most significant requirement is for Jadaliyya submissions to be analytically compelling and offer a perspective or argument that has not been covered at length either on Jadaliyya or elsewhere. Because of the volume of submissions, well-written pieces are prioritized. Length is flexible, 1000 to 2500 words is the average range. However, we will accept longer pieces. Once submitted, several members of the editorial committee will review your piece and one of them will inform you of the decision.
Author Details
Article Details
Select Countries
Select Keywords
Select Topics
Only RTF, Word, and Pages documents accepted.

Recommended image size: 762x800 px

Location of each image should be indicated in the text of the article via a square bracket caption that includes: (1) a description of the image; (2) the photographer/designer and source of the image. Please note we only use images you as the author have the right to use, which usually means those of your own creation or those published under Creative Commons. Alternatively, you need specific permission from the copyright holder.
Please read the Release Form and provide an electronic signature [your full name] below to confirm that you accept its terms
Required
Hyperlink words in your article if they refer to links on the internet. We encourage more, rather than less, links (try to avoid footnotes—embed them as hyperlinks if possible)

Article added successfully.

Pages Menu BETA
Apr 20, 2021
Quick Thoughts: Adel Iskandar on Al Jazeera’s New Digital Channel

Quick Thoughts: Adel Iskandar on Al Jazeera’s New Digital Channel

By : Adel Iskandar

[On 23 February 2021, Politico broke the news that Al Jazeera was launching a right-leaning American digital news outlet called Rightly. The outlet’s first program “Right Now with Stephen Kent” is an opinion-led interview program reflecting libertarian perspectives on American politics. In response to the launch, over one hundred Al Jazeera staff members penned an open letter condemning the move as antithetical to Al Jazeera’s mission and values. Cat Haseman, MA Arab Studies candidate at Georgetown University and Jadaliyya copyeditor, interviewed Adel Iskandar, media professor at Simon Fraser University and author of Al-Jazeera: The Story Of The Network That Is Rattling Governments And Redefining Modern Journalism, to get a better understanding of recent developments and the debates about Rightly that have unfolded across social media in recent weeks.]

Cat Haseman (CH): Rightly brands itself as “a space for voices between the extremes to engage in thoughtful commentary.” Many of Al Jazeera’s staff members as well as readers and viewers believe launching Rightly contradicts the network’s commitment to journalistic professionalism. What are some of the key histories and characteristics of Al Jazeera that are important to understanding from where Rightly has emerged?

Adel Iskandar (AI): To best understand this move, one needs to historicize Al Jazeera’s global presence. Al Jazeera was launched in 1996 in Doha, Qatar on the initiative of then-Emir Sheikh Hamad bin Khalif. Just beforehand, a Saudi-funded collaboration with BBC briefly launched an Arabic-language broadcast news station from London. Due to disagreements over censorship with the Saudi parent company Orbit, this partnership failed before an early program about public executions in the kingdom even aired. With the abrupt and decisive shutdown of the network, the Emir of Qatar saw an opportunity and asked the suddenly unemployed team of journalists and producers to relocate to Doha and launch Al Jazeera, which aimed to become the first freewheeling, 24-hour news station in the Arab world without “direct” government intervention in broadcasting. 

Instead of adhering to the Ministry of Information-esque method of news reporting that dominated the Arab region, Al Jazeera projected an image of being a transnational, pan-Arab network, concerned with the lives and livelihoods of peoples from Mauritania to Oman. From the beginning, Al Jazeera ruffled the feathers of government officials in nearly every Arab country—with the exception of Qatar of course. With its unique coverage, Al Jazeera coalesced a popular base of viewers thirsty for a different kind of news coverage. So, I would argue that this idea of “having a new conversation,” which has been used by Rightly today, was the original motto of Al Jazeera. They did not use those exact terms, but the work of Al Jazeera, especially in the beginning, challenged the status quo and presented news in a way that had not been done before.

But, it has been a long time since 1996. Al Jazeera has become a behemoth, a massive media conglomerate. The network has invested huge amounts of money, tens of billions of dollars, toward crafting worldwide programming in both Arabic and English. While we do not have exact numbers—the network’s budget is a closely held secret—we do know, for example, that launching the short-lived Al Jazeera America project cost somewhere in the range of a billion US dollars. The important thing to understand here is that Al Jazeera is bankrolled by the Qatari government. It is not a profit-generating operation the way most private networks are. It does not depend on revenue from advertising. The Emir of Qatar himself along with a close coterie of advisors determine Al Jazeera’s budget. For all intents and purposes, Al Jazeera is a government broadcaster that appears to maintain an editorial firewall between itself and the state. Of course, there are instances in which that firewall comes down. 

CH: Where do you weigh in on this largely Twitter-based debate about how Rightly fits into Al Jazeera’s mission and current operations? 

AI: Many are arguing that Al Jazeera is an independent, journalistic entity that is not in the business of producing opinion-led or biased content. I would question that premise. Today, Al Jazeera, with its various global operations, is designed to cater to a range of different audiences. It is such a large operation that it has begun to segment its audiences and market shares. Al Jazeera Arabic and Al Jazeera English have their own distinct audiences, discourses, editorial policies, and red lines. Al Jazeera Arabic has long catered to right-wing communities in the Middle East, crafting specific messaging to a conservative market share. Meanwhile, Al Jazeera English speaks to a more diverse, cosmopolitan, and progressive audience. Even so, I would say that Al Jazeera as a whole has begun to venture right. This is an important factor that anglophone readers and viewers—and even Al Jazeera English’s staff to a certain extent—do not realize. 

CH: Rightly has already published six full episodes on YouTube as well as a variety of short video content across its social media platforms. What are your initial thoughts on the outlet’s content, style, and target audience?

AI: My first impression is that I am not sure “Right Now with Stephen Kent'' will successfully tap into the viewership it aims to reach, namely center-right folks who feel left out of mainstream media. These days, everyone in the media realm has realized that center-right constituencies in the United States constitute an untapped market. In the four years of the Trump presidency, viewership of far-right alternative news entities, like Infowars and Breitbart, skyrocketed. This kickstarted intense competition in the realm of right-leaning and far-right media production. Diving into this field as an investor or producer, however, is not a walk in the park. We are talking about an audience that is immensely skeptical of “the media,” and with that skepticism comes a desire for authenticity. There is a preference for zealous, homegrown content that resonates with their frustrations, anxieties, and acrimony toward Washington decision-makers. 

CH: How does Rightly fit into the conservative American media landscape you have just described? 

Comparatively, “Right Now with Stephen Kent” is quite boring. If I were a right-wing media consumer looking for an outlet that speaks to my convictions and worldview, I would see Rightly as a “diet” version of what I am craving. I have lived in the US rural Midwest, and my conservative friends and colleagues tend to consume and interact with media content that incorporates political punditry—the interpretation and translation of political events for viewers. “Right Now,” on the other hand, features cerebral conversations about the nature of American politics. Stephen Kent and his co-hosts seek a certain level of abstraction in the political conversation, but this pursuit situates them in a gray zone between average viewers and right-wing intellectuals. As it currently looks on the screen, “Right Now” resembles the kind of debates and conversations that happen between College Republicans at Ivy League universities—dry, high-brow, self-righteous, self-congratulatory, and heavily scripted. It is yet to be seen if there is a substantial enough audience within this gray zone. What’s more, the outlet’s current viewership is quite miniscule. To increase the amount of viewers, Rightly’s content will need to be shared by conservative influencers and personalities across the internet. But, for some reason, it seems that Rightly is being intentionally skipped over or ignored by the major voices in the conservative political space. This could be because, with funding stemming from a foreign country, Rightly does not have organic reach into its target communities. Or this could be because, like I said, the conservative media landscape is intensely competitive, noisy, and increasingly saturated. Either way, Rightly’s low viewership seems to indicate that the existing conditions of the American media landscape are not serving the outlet’s goals. 

CH: Al Jazeera’s executives decided to launch Rightly as a clearly marked subsidiary of the network, as opposed to a seemingly independent US-based outlet. You mentioned that this association with a foreign, specifically Arab Muslim, country could jeopardize Rightly’s authenticity amongst conservative American communities. If so, why would Rightly so openly declare its ties to Al Jazeera? 

AI: Al Jazeera and Rightly are quite clearly affiliated. Rightly’s social media handles are @rightlyAJ, and within the introductory monologue of the first episode of “Right Now,” Kent openly declares the show’s funding relationship with Al Jazeera. We must consider that Rightly may have been designed as an extension of Qatari foreign policy, an instrument of public diplomacy. Qatar does not care about profits in this context. Al Jazeera has always been about political influence and has unabashedly been a voice for Qatari foreign policy. By this, I mean that there is virtually no circumstance in which Al Jazeera’s coverage of regional and global events contradicts Qatari foreign policy. Taking this into account, we can see how Rightly may be meant to help Qatar gain political traction within a new constituency. But, this does not necessarily mean Qatar seeks to strengthen the Republican Party or Tea Party-like American political factions. Frankly, Qatar could not care less which political narrative wins out in the United States, as long as they bet on the right horse and stand to benefit. It is helpful to consider the case of beIN SPORTS. In 2012, Qatar launched and bankrolled the world’s largest sports network, which broadcasts various sports leagues all around the globe. For a long time, beIN SPORTS was kept at arm's length from Qatar. Yet, when the network became successful, amassing an enormous cultural footprint around the globe, Qatar openly took credit for it. This history of Qatar’s public diplomacy strategy is missing from ongoing debates about Rightly.

Moving forward, we should be wary of thinking about Rightly as a solitary media product. Rather, we should pan out and take stock of what is called in media studies “a political economy.” With this broader analytical frame, we can see the Qatari state-driven institutional impact of Al Jazeera launching Rightly.  
Jan 23, 2017 Lebanon
Khalid Albaih By :
Khalid Albaih

Quick Thoughts: Khalid Albaih on Sudan on the Eve of 2017

[This past year a growing number of strikes have been held across Sudan, which in late November developed into several rounds of civil disobedience, the most recent of which was held on 19 December. These events have received virtually no coverage in the regional or international media. To learn more about them Jadaliyya Co-Editor and Quick Thoughts series editor Mouin Rabbani interviewed Sudanese activist Khalid Albaih, one of the region’s leading political cartoonists currently based in Qatar. Albaih’s artistic output can be viewed via his Facebook and Twitter (@khalidalbaih) accounts. The Quick Thoughts series provides background, context, and detail to issues that are, or should be, currently in the news.]

Jadaliyya (J): What is the background to the current wave of civil unrest in Sudan?

Khalid Albaih (KA): The ongoing failure of the Sudanese state to provide for its people during the twenty-seven years of Omar al-Bashir’s tenure in office forms the background to the current wave of civil unrest. 

This failure began from the moment al-Bashir seized power in a 1989 military coup, and immediately launched a decades-long “Jihad” against Sudanese in the country’s south, which in 2011 resulted in it’s separation and independence as the Republic of South Sudan, and with it the departure of most of the country’s wealth. It continued with the failed economic, education and health care systems that Sudanese citizens suffer from. And it has of course also included the constant abuse, arrests and human rights violations by the Sudanese military, secret police and party members who enjoy impunity in their dealings with Sudan’s citizens, with no accountability for their actions on account of protection by the highest powers in the land.  

When hundreds were killed in an extreme show of power by the government during the last round of protests in 2013, activists started using strikes and civil disobedience as a comparatively safer weapon to demand change. This year there have been strikes by doctors, pharmacists and lawyers, until finally Sudan’s youth joined in after a social media appeal for three-days of civil disobedience from 27 to 29 November. This was, for at least the first day, highly successful even as the government resorted to its usual forceful measures and arrest of activists of all ages.

The latest appeal called for a new round of mass civil disobedience on 19 December. The government used every trick it has learned during its twenty-seven years in power to sabotage the mobilization and claim it has failed. This ranged from the usual media crackdowns to the arrest of activists and transmission of messages to public and private sector employees threating them with termination if they did not report for work on the appointed date.  

J: How has the government responded to these various campaigns?

KA: The government responded with arrests targeting activists of all ages (including a sixty-year old woman who supported the disobedience via a WhatsApp message), jailing of journalists, confiscation of newspapers, closure of television stations and the dissemination of false propaganda. With respect to the latter tactic, the government’s electronic jihadists—nicknamed e-chickens—distributed fake news and images via WhatsApp and other social media.

Yet calls for a further round of civil disobedience persisted and found an even greater response. This time al-Bashir conducted a series of twentieth-century public appearances, replete with school kids waving flags and over-sized posters bearing his poorly-photoshopped image in various military outfits. In his speeches he repeatedly referred to himself as the choice of the people, and at one point literally said that anyone who rejects him should “meet him outside”. His message is that no one can force him from power, least of all “those hiding behind keyboards”. The man is obviously in denial about the changes sweeping the Arab world.

I also received a tweet, from what appears to be a government account that has since been deleted. It repeats statements al-Bashir made in his speeches, insists al-Bashir is the choice of the people, and threatens that “the people” have been waiting for this day so they can meet opponents “in the streets” and cleanse Sudan of agents of the West like myself.

J: Do you think these events pose a serious challenge to the rule of Omar al-Bashir?

KA: He takes them very seriously, so they must be serious. 

The violent over-reaction of al-Bashir, his regime and his e-chickens demonstrates the existence of a serious fear of people uniting, particularly in the context of the current austerity measures and economic crisis. Government measures have included arrests of political leaders and human rights activists, the confiscations of daily newspapers by government forces, as well as the various methods they have used to track down decentralized social media groups that include local and diaspora activists.

The use of the Facebook Live feature is extremely visible this time. Activists use it to talk to the public and initiate discussions in real time. At least fifteen such videos went viral, with activists sharing their accounts of developments, their views and opinions on how to move forward, and sometimes even advising al-Bashir’s e-chickens on how to script their propaganda videos.

In one such video, posted on 27 November, an activist walking near his own home, broadcasting live footage of empty streets on Facebook to demonstrate popular participation in the strike, was chased and arrested by a security officer in civilian dress. He was later released because he holds a British passport. Chickens denounced him as a coward, though of course Sudanese with only Sudanese citizenship would be treated very differently.

Several days ago another video was widely shared of the same Sudanese-British activist being dragged to a police vehicle after distributing leaflets outside a busy mosque after Friday prayers, promoting the 19 December disobedience. This time the crowd went to the vehicle and extracted him from the hands of the police. The video ends with cheers and praises to Allah as the police drive away in shock.

J: What is your prognosis for the coming period in Sudan?

KA: I think people are fed up after twenty-seven years of going backwards. Sudan’s youth has proven its capacity for civil resistance and effective strikes, and also its ability to defy government propaganda that presents these disobedience campaigns as conspiracies against Islam, and plays on people’s fears of Sudan becoming another Syria or Libya in order to prevent change.

I can only hope these campaigns will act as a uniting factor and lead to more peaceful protests. This would be helped by more international media attention than Sudan normally receives, as people continue to confront a brainwashed military that fights primarily to protect those in power from those the government is supposed to serve.

I have in fact just returned from a trip to Sudan, and the continuing civil disobedience campaign is the main topic of discussion there. Whether people are for it or against, it is dominating conversation and debate. My prognosis is that it will continue and continue to grow. It deserves greater recognition and coverage.