Abdullah F. Alrebh, Saudi Arabia in the Anglo-American Press: Covering the Kingdom during the 20th Century (Routledge, 2025).
Jadaliyya (J): What made you write this book?
Abdullah Alrebh (AA): The book emerged out of my PhD dissertation, which I submitted to the department of Sociology at Michigan State University in 2014.
J: What particular topics, issues, and literatures does the book address?
AA: The book analyzes how Western media has framed narratives about Saudi Arabia, exploring the political, economic, and cultural dimensions of this portrayal. It delves into the biases, stereotypes, and shifts in coverage that have been influenced by major global events, such as oil discoveries, geopolitical alliances, and conflicts. The analysis uses Max Weber’s framework of authority—traditional, charismatic, and rational-legal—to interpret Saudi Arabia’s political evolution. This includes key historical moments like Ibn Saud’s unification and the declaration of the Kingdom in 1932, King Faisal’s assassination in 1975, and other pivotal events that have shaped Saudi governance.
The narrative covers significant twentieth-century developments, including the rise of the Saudi state, the economic transformation brought on by oil, and the country’s role in global politics. It highlights how Western perceptions have been shaped by events such as the Arab Revolt, the Cold War, and US-Saudi relations. The text compares and contrasts British and American media narratives, reflecting their respective national interests and cultural lenses, and addresses how economic ties and political alliances influenced reporting. Furthermore, it investigates the depictions of Saudi culture, Wahhabism, and societal changes, including the tensions between modernization and tradition. It also explores how Western media has framed the Saudi monarchy, tribal structures, and gender dynamics.
To create this multidisciplinary analysis, the text draws on several key literatures. With regards to media studies, it uses theories of media framing and agenda-setting to analyze how news outlets shaped public perceptions. It also engages with scholarship on Orientalism, particularly Edward Said’s work, to critique Western portrayals of the Middle East. With regards to political socoiology, the analysis is anchored in Max Weber’s typology of authority and applied to Saudi Arabia’s political system and its media representation. It also references works on state formation and governance in the Middle East. Middle Eastern history is also central to the analysis, as the narrative builds on historical accounts of Saudi Arabia’s twentieth-century development, including studies on Ibn Saud and the Al Saud dynasty. This is supported by archival sources from The London Times and The New York Times, supplemented by secondary sources on Saudi history. Finally, with regards to international relations, the work incorporates literature on US-Saudi and UK-Saudi relations, focusing on how geopolitical strategies influenced media narratives; it also references works on the global oil economy. By blending media studies, political sociology, and historical inquiry, the text unpacks the complex interplay between Saudi Arabia’s internal developments and its external portrayal in Western media.
J: How does this book connect to and/or depart from your previous work?
AA: The book connects to my prior work through its focus on Saudi Arabia’s socio-political dynamics and Western media portrayals. My previous articles—like “Covering the Building of a Kingdom” (2015) and “Covering the Birth of a Nation” (2014)—also analyzed The London Times and The New York Times’ coverage of Saudi state-building between 1901 and1937, using Weber’s authority framework, a method central to the book as well. My 2017 article on Wahhabism and 2018 work on Islamic states explore religious-political authority, linking to the book’s examination of media reflections of Saudi governance. The critique of Orientalist narratives, evident in earlier media studies, continues in the book’s analysis of Western biases.
However, the book expands to a century-long scope (1901-2005), covering events like King Faisal’s assassination, unlike the narrower periods of my prior articles. It shifts from article-length analyses to a comprehensive monograph, integrating media studies, sociology, and history more deeply. While my earlier works focused on internal Saudi dynamics or comparative religion (for example, Saudi Arabia versus Iran), the book emphasizes global media framing, engaging with theories of agenda-setting and postcolonialism. Unlike my 2025 chapter on social media’s societal impact in the Gulf, which addresses contemporary issues, the book prioritizes historical Western journalism. This interdisciplinary, globalized approach marks a broader, more ambitious synthesis compared to my earlier, sociologically focused or period-specific studies.
J: Who do you hope will read this book, and what sort of impact would you like it to have?
AA: Sociologists and political scientists will find its exploration of Saudi governance and religion insightful. Journalists and policymakers will gain perspective on how media shapes US-Saudi and UK-Saudi relations. General readers will understand Saudi Arabia’s global image better. I also hope that the book’s impact includes advancing academic discourse in media and Middle Eastern studies, inspiring further research on media portrayals. It challenges stereotypes, promoting critical media literacy, and informs policy by highlighting media’s role in shaping geopolitical narratives. It fosters cultural awareness, countering simplistic views of Saudi Arabia and encouraging nuanced cross-cultural dialogue.
J: What other projects are you working on now?
AA: I am currently engaged in several significant projects centered on the future of countering radicalization and transnational terrorism, with a particular focus on the Middle East and the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries. These initiatives go beyond traditional, security-centric approaches, delving into the evolving nature of the threat landscape and the innovative strategies required to address it. My work examines how states in the region are adapting their counter-terrorism frameworks to a new era of digital radicalization, where extremist ideologies are disseminated and amplified through social media and encrypted platforms. This involves analyzing the effectiveness of national-level "whole-of-government" strategies, which integrate security, education, economic development, and social inclusion to build community resilience against extremist narratives.
Furthermore, my projects investigate the transnational dimensions of this threat, including the movement of foreign fighters, the financing of extremist groups through illicit networks, and the weaponization of new technologies. In the GCC, this means exploring how countries are enhancing their border security mechanisms, strengthening anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing legislation, and fostering international cooperation to disrupt these networks. A key area of focus is also the development of rehabilitation and reintegration programs for former extremists and the role of civil society and religious leaders in these efforts. The research aims to provide a comprehensive, multi-layered analysis of the challenges and opportunities for a more sustainable and forward-looking approach to preventing radicalization and combating terrorism in a region that remains a critical front in the global fight against extremism. This includes examining the geopolitical factors, such as regional conflicts and great power competition, that continue to shape the threat and the policy responses to it.
J: What is one of the major issues limiting understanding of the Middle East in the western world?
AA: Academic institutions and think tanks grappling with the Middle East must urgently prioritize the inclusion of indigenous researchers from the countries being studied. It is not only ineffective but profoundly unjust that these critical institutions are often dominated by individuals who have never visited the region or have only done so briefly, and lack familiarity with its diverse societies and languages, yet still serve as the primary gatekeepers of analysis. This practice perpetuates a flawed and often Orientalist perspective, where complex local dynamics are filtered through a Western lens, leading to significant misinterpretations and policy failures.
The issue stems from a systemic problem where non-native scholars, despite their academic rigor, are limited by a lack of deep, lived experience. They frequently rely on secondary sources or brief field visits, which inevitably leads to a superficial understanding of cultural nuances, social complexities, and the unspoken political realities of the region. This is where the injustice becomes clear: the voices of those who live and breathe these issues—the indigenous scholars with generational knowledge and linguistic fluency—are marginalized. They are the ones best equipped to provide authentic, context-rich analysis, yet their perspectives are often relegated to footnotes or excluded entirely from the mainstream discourse. For these institutions to truly serve their purpose, they must dismantle these exclusionary structures and actively recruit and empower indigenous researchers. This shift would not only rectify a historical injustice but also fundamentally enrich the quality and accuracy of research, moving beyond the superficial and toward a genuine understanding of the Middle East on its own terms.
Excerpts from the book
[from Chapter 5, page 72]
Some articles reported that the internal conferences Ibn Saud put together for his allied chiefs were a sign of his willingness to consider their opinions, including his offer to resign and allow the other chiefs to select another King—a decision he said he would obey only if the new ruler was a Najdi man—but the chiefs urged him to stay ( NYT : January 2 and 20, 1929). This “election by fiat” by the tribal chiefs strengthened his executive authority in these conferences, as it provided a pseudo rational-legal background to his position as Saudi Arabia’s political leader.
[from Chapter 8, pages 130 to 131]
The most serious crisis between Saudi Arabia and the U.S. in this Fourth Era was in 1988, when Americans discovered that Saudi Arabia bought medium-range ballistic missiles from China. The American ambassador, Hume Horan, delivered a strong demarche of his government to King Fahd regarding this deal. Horan felt King Fahd’s wrath when he was expelled from Saudi. NYT published, “The United States recalled its ambassador to Saudi Arabia two weeks ago following indicators that the Saudi royal family would no longer deal with him” (April 15, 1988).
Such serious attitudes toward what Saudi royal family considered as a sovereign matter negate most pressures that might be brought against the Saudi government regarding such matters as democracy and human rights. On May 7, 1986, NYT reported that “Americans would prefer it [Saudi Arabia] to be more demonstrative and more democratic ally, we rely on the Kingdom, its oil and strategic value.” Such tendencies have little to do with the Saudi interior policy dominated by the traditional government headed by the King. In this regard, NYT reported, “America’s unquestioning support for some of the region’s least democratic, most conservative regimes, like Saudi Arabia [would continue]” (April 26, 1998).