Is U.S.-funded TV in the Arab world a misguided idea?
At the core of the U.S. government campaign to spread democracy in the Middle East is an Arabic language television network called Al-Hurra (“The Free One”). Since its initiation four years ago, the station has struggled to attract viewers and is “widely regarded as a flop,” the Washington Post recently reported.
According to Jordanian journalist Salameh Nematt, Al-Hurra’s dismal ratings are due not to the fact that the channel is American-owned, but because it is boring and has ignored controversial issues. “If it's an American station that does a good job, everybody will watch it," he told the Post.
Do you agree with Nematt that “everybody” would watch an American-funded station? Or is it possible the initiative has failed to attract viewers exactly because it is American-funded? Can a station designed to spread democratic ideals in a developing democracy ever be credible? Furthermore, should initiatives to develop media throughout the world exist in the West at all?
IJNet would like to hear your opinion. Join the discussion by clicking on "Add a Comment" below. Please identify your country if possible. Thanks.


any news is better than
any news is better than none,amongst even propaganda there is real information. i agree with the english poster who says repackage the content and that it has to be something people want to read. as for american owned we canadians are up against the huge american networks everyday. i certainly wish any news outlet luck. bob brouse water.ca
Not necessarily
Not necessarily as long as the station provides a diverse menu of programmes that do not insult the viewers intelligence.In Zimbabwe, people have the experience of a state funded public broadcaster which is agonising to watch. People have opted to buy free-to air decorders for satelite television stations such as the South African Broadcasting Corporation (SABC) which is state-funded but shows reasonable obejectivity in its news coverage. State or foreign funded TV stations are not a misguided ideas. It it the type of programming and content that is misguided
I think the U.S
I think the U.S-funded Al-Hurra has failed because it has not designed its programs to attract viewers. Its management should go back to the drawing board and redesign its program contents and broaden it to touch on controversial issues. It is not because Al-Hurra is US-funded: many Arabs are known to watch CNN and I think many US citizens watch Al-Jazeera.
Dear, I thin
Dear,
I think the question here is not America's funding of Al-Hura, but objectivity in course of covering of Arab world related issues. How serious is the TV when covering Arab issues as opposed to American content.Or is Al-Hura using Arab language as a bite catch more viewers in the Arab would who would then find themsels captives of American junk news contents just as CNN does?
Al-Jazeera operates in the Arab world. Though we do not who really funds it, whether it is Osama bin Laden of Geroge Bush, but as to why it has attracted huge segment of viewers in the Arab World as well as elsewhere in the world is their objectivity in commands in handling news content.
Media Consultant, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania
No! it is not "
No! it is not "a misguided idea" at all; and I agree intoto with Nemath. Any idea that is for the benefit of humanity can be justiably pursued with vugour and funds. If the station has failed to yield the desired reult, the managers should repackage the programmes. In modern journalism, you can only achieve your main thrust, if you give the reader/viewer what he or she primarily desires. The station must take Arab sentiment into consideration to be able to give them a sense of democracy.
Post new comment