This paper was presented at the Association for Education in Journalism and
Mass Communication in San Antonio, Texas August 2005.
If you have questions about this paper, please contact the author
directly. If you have questions about the archives, email
rakyat [ at ] eparker.org. For an explanation of the subject line,
send email to
[log in to unmask] with just the four words, "get help info aejmc," in the
body (drop the "").
(Feb 2006)
Thank you.
Elliott Parker
====================================================================
Democracy Delivery: How do the New York Times and the Arab News frame
American policy of promoting democracy in the Middle East?
by
Smeeta Mishra
Doctoral Student, Journalism
University of Texas at Austin
F-162, 600 W. 26th Street
Austin, TX 78705
s
512-659-4380
Presented to:
International Communication Division
AEJMC Annual Convention
San Antonio, Texas
August 2005
Abstract: This study compares framing of the American policy of
promoting democracy in the Middle East in the New York Times and the
Arab News, the oldest English language daily of Saudi Arabia. Results
show that the New York Times framed the issue assuming the intrinsic
rightness of American declarations of democracy promotion and often
limited its debate to strategies and feasibility of the project. The
Arab News resisted democratic reforms introduced under foreign
pressure and referred to hidden agendas of the American administration.
Democracy Delivery: How do the New York Times and the Arab News frame
American policy of promoting democracy in the Middle East?
Presented to:
International Communication Division
AEJMC Annual Convention
San Antonio, Texas
August 2005
Abstract: This study compares framing of the American policy of
promoting democracy in the Middle East in the New York Times and the
Arab News, the oldest English language daily of Saudi Arabia. Results
show that the New York Times framed the issue assuming the intrinsic
rightness of American declarations of democracy promotion and often
limited its debate to strategies and feasibility of the project. The
Arab News resisted democratic reforms introduced under foreign
pressure and referred to hidden agendas of the American administration.
Democracy Delivery: How do the New York Times and the Arab News frame
American policy of promoting democracy in the Middle East?
This paper seeks to examine post-9/11 framing of the American foreign
policy objective of promoting democracy in the Middle East in the
American and Saudi press to determine how each country's press frames
the issue. One of the best ways to understand framing is by comparing
coverage of the same events or issues by the media in different
countries (Rusciano, 2003). This study, which was conducted in early
2004, emulates such an approach and compares coverage of the American
foreign policy goal of promoting democracy in the Middle East in The
New York Times with the coverage in the Arab News from September 11,
2001 to March 31, 2004. The importance of comparing news coverage
emanating from two different regions was emphasized by Jasperson and
El-Kikhia in their analysis of CNN and al Jazeera's coverage of
America's war in Afghanistan between September 11, 2001 and July
2002. Such a comparison may highlight the "range of ideas present
across cultures," different perspectives on the same policy debate,
and the "similarities and differences in how these media influenced
perceptions" (Jasperson & El-Kikhia, 2003, p.113).
The Saudi press was chosen for comparison with the American press as
the kingdom of Saudi Arabia is ruled by a monarch and the House of
Saud represents one of the most conservative regimes in the Middle
East. An important section within the Saudi royalty opposes changes
that may adversely affect relations with the religious establishment
(Kechichian, 2003). Saudi Arabia's ruler is the custodian of the two
holy mosques and "Islamic purity" remains an important ideological
foundation of the kingdom (Pollack, 2003). Post 9/11, Saudi-US
relations have come under severe strain even as the focus has changed
from oil and security politics alone to domestic politics and reforms
as the latter are considered to have an impact on international
security (Chanin & Gause, 2003). Thus, a comparison between the Saudi
press and the American press on the American foreign policy objective
of promoting democracy may yield striking results. Determining
whether democracy is right or wrong for the Middle East is beyond the
purview of this study. Further, this paper analyzes reaction of the
Arab press to their perceived perceptions of the American
declarations of promoting democracy in the Middle East. This study
does not accept the American political announcements as accomplished
reality. Instead, the scope of this study is focused on determining
whether the press covers the issue differently in different cultural,
ideological, political contexts. Herman and Chomsky (1988) argue that
the media frame issues in keeping with the dominant ideology and
"regime interests" of their own country. Making a similar argument,
Rusciano (2003) points out that "while the newspapers national origin
does not determine its discourse, it does provide clues to how
certain issues are discussed and framed" (p.161).
It is important to examine the press coverage of American
democracy promotion in the Middle East considering the ongoing "war
on terrorism" and the existing volatile conditions in the Middle
East. After 9/11, the Bush government has portrayed promotion of
democracy in the Middle East as vital to national security
(Hawthorne, 2003). Prior to 9/11, promoting democracy in the Middle
East was not an important element of American policy in the region.
Instead, American governments have focused on ensuring stability in
the region by maintaining status quo, access to oil supplies and
containing radical movements (Hawthorne, 2003). After 9/11, the lack
of democracy in the Arab world was considered an important
contributing factor to anti-Americanism and terrorism (Hawthorne,
2003). Thus, in December 2002, Secretary of State Colin Powell
announced the Middle East Partnership Initiative "asking for a new
effort to spread democracy and political reforms in the Middle East,
including a campaign for more rights for women" (Weisman, 2002). In
his speech, Powell also announced an aid of $29 million to implement
the first part of the initiative. MEPI has four pillars: political,
economic, education and women. According to the U.S. State
Department, its three political goals are strengthening democracy, an
independent media and good governance (MEPI).
Bush affirmed his commitment to MEPI at his commencement speech at
the University of South Carolina on May 9, 2003, declaring America's
commitment to promoting democracy in the Middle East as an important
element of the "war on terrorism": "We support the advance of freedom
in the Middle East, because it is our founding principle and because
it is in our national interest" (President Bush, 2003). Further, the
U.S. National Security Strategy states "...In the war against
terrorism, we will never forget that we are ultimately fighting for
our democratic values and way of life..." Furthermore, the American
administration started circulating a draft titled "Greater Middle
East Initiative" aimed at democratization of the Middle East early
this year (Weisman & MacFarquhar, 2004). The draft was meant to be
presented at the (G-8) summit meeting of eight leading industrial
nations in June. Though the draft had not been officially released,
a copy was published in February 2004, in the Al Hayat, a
London-based Arabic newspaper, and an English language version was
posted on its web site. This document elicited angry responses from
Arab leaders.
A New York Times report on the Initiative commented that the report
drew "harsh criticism from Arab leaders and European officials, who
say the Bush administration did not consult the countries it seeks to
transform" (Weisman & MacFarquhar, 2004). Further, the New York Times
report mentioned the response of Egypt's "three semiofficial
dailies": Al Ahram, Al Akhbar and Al Gumhuriya. Their reports
included a statement that the "Bush administration was behaving 'as
if the region and its states do not exist, as if they have no people
or societies, as if they have no sovereignty over their land, no
ownership"' (Wesiman & MacFarquhar, 2004). The Initiative did not
include any significant increase in financial aid to the region
(Weisman & MacFarquhar, 2004). According to Weisman and MacFarquhar
(2004), "the centerpiece of the administration's aid program to the
region, the Middle East Partnership Initiative, is providing $120
million in financial assistance this year to encourage democratic
reforms. American foreign aid totals nearly $18 billion annually."
Zanoyan (2003) attributes the new foreign policy goal to the
neo-conservatives in Washington who believe that the U.S. should
maintain enormous military superiority, pursue a pro-active foreign
policy and encourage regime change in countries that pose a potential
threat to the U.S. He argues that such policy goals often get coated
in idealistic rhetoric: "The U.S. invades in order to 'liberate'
countries, not 'occupy' them; the U.S. leads the world into a freer,
more democratic, more peaceful place; the U.S. has a responsibility
to defend its citizens from 'evil'" This paper seeks to find out how
the press reports such rhetoric. What positions do the American and
Saudi press take regarding such an objective? Do they contest and
foster public debate on American re-shaping of political realities in
the Middle East? Furthermore, does the American press give an account
of the political economy and political culture of the region while
reporting on the government's goal of promoting democracy in the
Middle East? Does it take into account the political and historical
realities of the 22 countries that comprise the Arab world?
Saudi Arabia
As this paper will analyze articles in the Saudi Arabian English
daily, Arab News, it may be pertinent to take account of the
political and economic realities in the kingdom. Saudi Arabia faces
political challenges even as the House of Saud is criticized for
being pro-American and being inept at resolving the Palestinian
crisis (Kechichian, 2003). Saudi Arabia's monarch is the considered
the guardian of the two holy mosques and important sections within
the Saudi royalty are reluctant to implement social and political
reforms that may create a conflict of interest with the religious
establishment (Kechichian, 2003). Further, the House of Saud also
faces succession dilemmas. Though Saudi Arabia owns the world's
largest oil reserves, it faces several cconomic challenges including
a foreign-labor dependent economy, a high population growth rate of
3.3 percent per year and an estimated 30 percent unemployment rate
(Kechichian, 2003). Saudi Arabia is also plagued by "military
unpreparedness" even as it depends on foreign technical assistance to
operate its sophisticated military hardware (Kechichian, 2003). The
kingdom witnessed terrorist attacks on May 12, 2003. The rulers now
have to fight "radical Islamists" at home (Kechichian,
2003). Meanwhile, the religious establishment has demanded that the
Saudi government distance itself from the West and specifically, the
United States. The Saudi Heir Apparent Abdallah bin Abd al-Aziz faces
the challenge of ensuring that anti-Americanism in the kingdom does
not lead to anti-House of Saud actions. Most of the Saudi press is
government-controlled in the kingdom. Saudi Research and Marketing
Company, a firm owned by members of the Saudi royal family, publish
the Arab News (Rampal, 1994).
A literature review yielded few studies that compared coverage of
American foreign policy between American and Middle Eastern media.
Ottaway (2003) conducted a study on the reaction of the Arab press to
the American democracy promotion initiative in the Middle East. Her
study titled "Promoting democracy in the Middle East: The Problem of
U.S. credibility" highlights the "strong negative reaction" of the
Arab press to US plans for promoting democracy in the Middle East.
She found that three basic arguments characterized the response of
the Arab press to the US initiative: "First, the U.S. call for
democracy is a smoke screen to distract international public opinion
from the read, hidden U.S. agendas in the region; second, the United
States has no credibility when it talks about democracy promotion,
because of its past record in the region and even domestically; and
third, the United States has no right to interfere in the internal
affairs of the Arab countries" (Ottaway, 2003, p.8). Ottaway's study
is based on analysis of articles in two influential dailies, the
Cairo-based Al-Ahram and the London-based Al Hayat, summaries of
articles from the rest of the Arab World by the Foreign Broadcast
Information Service, and on the reviews of the Arab press in the
Foreign Media Reaction reports prepared by the U.S. State
Department's International Information program.
An important study that compared coverage in the Western and Middle
Eastern media was done by Jasperson and El-Kikhia (2003) who analyzed
CNN and al Jazeera's coverage of America's war in Afghanistan from
September 11, 2001 through July 2002. The study showed an important
difference in media framing of the war. While al Jazeera focused on
the "humanistic portrayal of the consequences of war," CNN focused on
"strategy, technical precision, and an euphemistic description of
events" (Jasperson and El-Kikhia , 2003, p.129). Further, while CNN
framed stories in terms of how the US conducted war against the
Taliban and Al Qaeda, al Jazeera focused on the impact of war on
ordinary Afghan men and women and the ineffectiveness of Arab regimes
in influencing the course of events. However, Jasperson and
El-Kikhia, also point out that al Jazeera performed a function
similar to CNN of rallying viewers by emphasizing Arab unity.
Most other studies on media coverage of foreign policy or
international crises focus on how the American or the British media
cover their nation's foreign policy and/or how the western media
covered international crises such as the Gulf War in 1990-91. Several
studies that examined media coverage of US foreign policy during the
1990-91 Gulf War highlight the media's heavy reliance on military and
administrative sources which contributes to a pro-administration
framing of foreign policy (Hackett, 1993; Muscati, 2002, Lee &
Devitt, 1991; Barber & Weir, 2002). These studies highlight the
importance of having diverse and independent sources in the news.
Said (1997) argues that American journalists often use the framework
of US national interest in covering international events. He writes:
"American media coverage of foreign countries not only creates itself
but also intensifies interests 'we' already have" (p.52).
Berry (1990) studied The New York Times coverage of US foreign
policy, and came up with the argument that the press is neither
independent nor completely manipulated by the government. Instead, he
makes a distinction between press coverage in the early and later
stages of foreign policy coverage. He argues that it is the routines
of news reporting that make it "report facts" in the early stages and
assume a more critical position in the late stages when the outcome
of the foreign policy is visible. Berry cites routines of news
reporting and unfamiliarity with foreign affairs as reasons for the
lack of criticism in the early stages. Another study that highlights
how routines of news gathering influence the media framing of a news
story was done by Reese and Buckalew (1995) on the coverage of
dissent by a local TV network station during the 1990-91 Gulf War.
Like Berry, they also take the stand that the press is not "passive,
easily duped, or even conspiratorial." Instead, Reese and Buckalew
argue that the "routine, structured workings of the media system"
gave stories a pro-administration, pro-policy frame. Reese and
Buckalew draw upon Stuart Hall's thesis that those who hold
institutional power become the "primary definers" of news and set the
limits of the debate on government's policies. Hall, Critcher,
Jefferson, Clarke, and Roberts (1978) argue that "the media stand in
a position of structured subordination to the primary definers" (p. 59).
Based on the literature review, the characteristics of US foreign
policy in the Middle East and the global political climate, the
following research questions were formulated:
RQ1: How does the New York Times frame the American foreign policy
goal of promoting democracy in the Middle East?
RQ2: How does the Arab News frame the American foreign policy goal of
promoting democracy in the Middle East?
Method/Theoretical framework
The articles in the New York Times were selected based on a
LexisNexis search of the words "Middle East" and "democracy" from
9/11 till March 31, 2004. The articles in the Arab News were selected
from the Arab News search engine as LexisNexis does not have
up-to-date editions of the newspaper. Due to the incredibly large
number of stories generated by the search in both the New York Times
and the Arab News, three days of the week were randomly selected and
stories published on only those three days of the week, Tuesday,
Wednesday and Sunday, were included. Thus, 234 articles from the New
York Times and 150 articles from the Arab News were analyzed in this
study. This study is not limited to analysis of news articles alone
but also includes editorials and op-ed pieces because both contribute
to salience of an issue. Also, it was difficult to do a separate
study of editorials and news articles as the Arab News search engine
does not clearly categorize the same. Further, as editorials are
opinionated, framing devices used in these pieces may be more
pronounced that those used in news articles. This study seeks to
identify frames used in the news coverage of the American policy of
promoting democracy in the Middle East.
The New York Times was chosen because it is an eminent American
newspaper that has a wide international audience. The Times also sets
an agenda for other news media, both print and broadcast (Lule,
2002). Arab News is Saudi Arabia's oldest English language daily. It
was selected for this study to represent a newspaper from the Middle
East and to examine how one of the region's newspapers frames
American policy of promoting democracy in the Middle East. Saudi
Arabia, which owns the world's largest oil reserves, has been an
important ally of the United States for decades with oil and security
politics being the primary focus of US-Saudi relations (Chanin &
Gause, 2003). However, 9/11 attacks and the ongoing "war on
terrorism" have changed the traditional relations between the two
countries. As many as 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi citizens.
American intelligence is currently investigating whether and which
Saudi charities fund fundamentalist activities. Further, the US has
also begun pressing for domestic political reforms in the kingdom.
After 9/11, US-Saudi relations have come under severe strain for the
first time in the post-cold war period (Zanoyan, 2003). Therefore, it
may be interesting to examine how Arab News frames the American
policy of promoting democracy in the region during such a critical
period. Furthermore, it may be important to remember that unlike the
western elite newspapers, most of the Saudi press is owned by members
of the royal family. Saudi Research and Marketing Company, a firm
owned by members of the Saudi royal family, publish the Arab News
(Rampal, 1994). As the Arab News functions under restrictive laws
regulating the press, it may be assumed that the newspaper does not
radically confront the government's stand on issues. Further, the
World Press Review, a renowned international news magazine,
categorizes the Arab News as a pro-government newspaper. However, as
the results of this study will show, articles in the Arab News,
particularly those critical of US policy on the Middle East and
expressing anti-American sentiments, also reflect the popular mood of
widespread distrust of the United States across the Middle East.
International poll findings, the most recent being a Pew Research
Center survey conducted this year, shows the rise of anti-American
sentiment in the region.
The period for the analysis of press coverage was chosen taking into
account the changes in U.S. foreign policy after 9/11. The study was
conducted in early 2004 and includes reports published till March 31,
2004. September 11 is an important landmark in terms of policy
announcements. Carothers (2003) points out that when Bush took
office, he declared that "great power realism" would take precedence
over idealistic projects such as promotion of democracy. But 9/11
changed everything and made promotion of democracy central to the
foreign policy pronouncements on the Middle East. Both Hawthorne
(2003) and Zanoyan (2003) also offer similar arguments. Hawthorne
(2003) points out that the 9/11 attacks "jolted the American foreign
policy establishment out of its complacency" regarding maintaining
status quo of autocratic regimes in the Middle East. Zanoyan (2003)
argues that 9/11 empowered neo-conservatives and the Christian Right:
"The super-hawks have a bold, new vision for the Middle East in which
old taboos are broken and old priorities discarded" (p.106).
Further, this study will involve analysis of frames used in reporting
American foreign policy objective of promoting democracy in the
Middle East. Tankard, Hendrickson, Silberman, Bliss and Ghanem (1991)
define a frame as a "central organizing idea for news content that
supplies a context and suggests what the issue is through the use of
selection, emphasis, exclusion and elaboration" (p.11). Reese (2001)
defines frames as "organizing principles that are socially shared and
persistent over time, that work symbolically to meaningfully
structure the social world" (p.11). Selected articles will be
textually analyzed to identify frames. Hertog and McLeod (2001) argue
that qualitative study of frames is in some ways inevitable:
"Researchers must apply their cultural expertise to induce the
meaning of texts. Human judgment is necessary to approach the
essential question about what could have been in the content but was
not" (p.153). While quantitative research is important to identify
the relative prominence of specific concepts and language in a text,
this study follows an interpretive, inductive approach based on a
deep reading of the texts.
This paper will examine whether different cultural and ideological
contexts lead to differences in media framing of the same policy.
Hertog and McLeod (2001) point out that some of the most powerful
frames are "myths, narratives and metaphors that resonate within the
culture" (p.141). They argue that cultural frames depict the "shared
meaning" among members of a community. Hence, frames have tremendous
"symbolic power," are widely recognized and carry "excess meaning"
(Hertog & McLeod, 2001). That is, cultural frames activate a series
of "related ideas, social history, policy choices, heroes and
villains." Hall et al (1978) make a similar argument. They point out
that the media locate news about external events within the realm of
the audience's "cultural knowledge" so that it makes sense to that
specific society: "The media define for the majority of the
population what significant events are taking place, but also, they
offer powerful interpretations of how to understand those events"
(Hall et al. 1978, p.57).
This study will also draws upon Edward Said's critique of Orientalism
and Stuart Hall's analysis of meaning making by the media to analyze
the framing of American policy on the Middle East. Said (1994)
describes Orientalism as the "corporate institution for dealing with
the Orient – dealing with it by making statements about it,
authorizing views of it, describing it, by teaching it, settling it,
ruling over it: in short, Orientalism as a western style for
dominating, restructuring and having authority over the Orient"
(p.3). This paper will analyze whether framing of American policy on
the Middle East includes Orientalist imageries and stereotypes. Do
the frames give credibility to a certain image of the Middle East?
Hall (1982) argues that language and symbolization produce meaning.
He points out that different meanings could be attributed to the same
events by giving legitimacy to certain accounts and marginalizing
alternative or oppositional viewpoints: "…. the power involved here
is an ideological power: the power to signify events in a particular
way" (p.69).
Results
New York Times coverage:
The New York Times coverage of the American policy of promoting
democracy in the Middle East included stories with the following
frames: Teach Arabs democracy, Democracy impediments,
Israel-Palestine conflict, and Arab resentment against American
policy. All the four frames assume the intrinsic rightness of the US
declarations of promoting democracy in the Middle East. None of the
frames question US intervention in the region. In fact, New York
Times' framing justifies U.S. intervention by showing faith in the
American intention to promote democracy. Both news articles and
editorials are framed around the common belief in the noble intention
of the United States government. The only difference between the news
articles and editorials is the degree and nature of support for the
goals of the administration. The articles only debate the strategies
and feasibility of the project of democracy promotion.
The New York Times does not question some of the fundamental
elements of Bush's policy on the Middle East. According to Jervis
(2003), some of the basis elements of what he calls the "Bush
doctrine" include a strong belief that this is the opportune moment
for the U.S. to transform international politics, the U.S. should act
unilaterally when necessary, and an overwhelming belief that
international peace and stability can only be maintained if the U.S.
asserts its supremacy in world politics (p.365). The New York Times
does not challenge the U.S. role of re-making the Middle East. It
takes the administration's declared goal of promoting democracy in
the Middle East at face value. While the articles embedded with Teach
Arabs Democracy frames establish the honorable democracy promotion
intention of the US administration, the articles with Democracy
Impediments mention hurdles, especially those posed by Arabs, in
achieving this objective. Further, the New York Times does not
question the universal application of American ideals and the
meanings and implications of such ideals. Finally, as very few
articles critically question US foreign policy from a historical
perspective or come up with alternative definitions, they are unable
to contest the dominant framing.
Teach Arabs democracy frame: This frame deals with America's role as
harbinger of democracy in the Middle East, discussions on how to
teach democratic ideals to Arabs, and how to make Iraq a model for
democracy in the region. Articles embedded with such frames include
advice for Iraqis on writing a democratic constitution, discussions
on how big an army Iraq should have, how Iraq's oil wealth should be
distributed, what role US businesses should play in "re-building"
Iraq. This frame also includes stories that assert that the U.S. has
to help the Iraqis and cannot leave Iraq yet to ensure the well-being
of Iraqis and democratic governance in Baghdad. For instance, an
article makes the following argument: "If we don't help transform
these Arab states …we will never begin to see the political,
educational and religious reformations they need to shrink their
output of undeterrables" (Friedman, 2003b). Another article makes the
point that "getting rid of the Osamas, Saddams, and Arafats is
necessary to change this situation, but it's hardly sufficient. We
also need to roll up our sleeves and help the Arabs address all the
problems outback" (Friedman, 2002a). These articles reinforce the
white man's burden of civilizing the non-Western world. The New York
Times frames American intervention in the region in the context of
America helping Arabs in the region learn democracy. Thus, another
article states: "It is our responsibility to not walk away. It is our
responsibility to recognize the dark realities of human nature, while
still preserving our idealistic faith in a better Middle East"
(Brooks, 2003a). Several articles exhibited a sense of Western
superiority and did not hesitate at making derogatory remarks about
the Arabs. For instance, referring to setting up of a new
constitution in Iraq, an article states: "As Noah Feldman, a law
professor who served as an independent consultant in the process,
observes, people in the Middle East, don't always act rationally. But
in this case they are" (Brooks, 2003b).
However, the editorials were not the only ones that made the case
for American mission of teaching democracy to the Arabs. News
articles made the same arguments, though in a more subtle way, often,
by quoting sources who believed and supported American democracy
promotion in the Middle East. A news article written from Najaf,
Iraq, celebrates American effort at spreading democratic ideals among
Iraqis by giving an example of a "busboy" who now wants to run for
mayor. He is quoted saying, "I will run for mayor…because we have
freedom" (Rohde, 2003). The same article further states: "Just as
neoconservatives in Washington had hoped, the concept of demokratiya
has taken hold in the Iraqi imagination, raising the possibility that
it will inspire change through out the Middle East." Here, it may be
pertinent to point out that Najaf, along with Fallujah, have provided
stiff resistance to American troops.
Stories embedded with "Teach Arabs Democracy" frame also highlight
how the U.S. can be successful in promoting democracy in the Middle
East, specifically, in Iraq. Many news articles written from Iraq
mention Iraqis loving the "freedom" that Americans had delivered to
them. An article written from Baghdad mentioned "Iraqi journalists
savoring their newfound freedom" (Banerjee, 2003). Thus, articles
were framed in a way that they rarely questioned the American
administration's intentions in Iraq, or in the Middle East. Further,
the New York Times also framed the American policy of promoting
democracy in the Middle East in the context of American historical
role as democracy promoter in the world. Such a framing of US policy
on the Middle East gave it legitimacy and established the honorable
intentions of the American government. Thus, an article claimed
"…Since World War II, the U.S. has been the primary force behind a
number of astonishing transformations in the international order –
everything from, rebuilding, to the defeat of the Soviet Union and
reintegration of Eastern Europe and even of Russia into the
democratic fold. Could democratizing the Middle East fit into the
same tradition?" (Bernstein, 2003). Thus, the media cheered the
government's democracy promotion efforts not just in Iraq and
Afghanistan but also hoped that "the democracy thing" would spread to
other countries of the Middle East such as Egypt, Iran, Syria and
Saudi Arabia. In response to the resentment of many Arab countries to
Bush's Greater Middle East Initiative, a few articles asserted that
the United States will take account of Iraqi traditions while
establishing democratic governance in the country.
The assumption that the spread of American ideals will be welcomed by
people worldwide is also not debated. Media framing supports Bush's
National Security Strategy, which states: "The great struggles of the
twentieth century between liberty and totalitarianism ended with a
decisive victory for the forces of freedom – and a single sustainable
model for national success: freedom, democracy, and free enterprise"
(White House, 2002). Thus, Jervis (2003) remarks that the absence of
any competing model for organizing societies partly explains the
optimism that U.S. can remake world politics.
Democracy Impediments frame: This frame primarily includes references
to impediments to democracy posed by Arabs such as strong family
bonds among them, low level of industrialization in Arab countries,
Islamic fundamentalism, presence of Baathists and foreign fighters in
Iraq, terrible human rights situation in the Middle East, illiteracy
of Arabs about Jeffersonian ideals, non-cooperation of Arab countries
with America, chaos and ethnic strife in the region, political
culture of the Arab world, Arab perceptions of American policy etc.
Few articles also mentioned impediments such as great financial costs
of the democracy promotion project and many referred to it as a time
consuming one.
An article written from Alemiya in Iraq states: "The extraordinarily
strong family bonds complicate virtually everything Americans are
trying to do here, from finding Saddam Hussein to changing women's
status to creating a liberal democracy" (Tierney, 2003b). The same
article points out that democracy requires a society of autonomous
individuals committed to public good, whereas Arab society is divided
into kin and strangers. It points out that nearly half of the
marriages are between first or second cousins and that nepotism is
considered a moral duty. While family bonds may be strong in the
Middle East, the New York Times portrayal of the Arab family makes it
appear homogenous and gives it a timeless and stagnating quality
while the Arab family is a dynamic institution. Further, the articles
embedded with Democracy Impediments frames are grounded in
Orientalist discourse, which depicts Iraqis as primitive people who
have stagnated in time until the American troops invaded their
country and "liberated" them.
The articles also blame the political culture of the Arab world: "The
political system in the Arab world – where family and tribal
identities have always trumped the notion of the citizen – is
resistant to democracy" (Freidman, 2003c). Pointing out other
impediments to democracy, an article makes the following observation:
"As many Saudis will tell you, theirs is not a society accustomed to
self-reflection" (Rubin, 2004). The frames emphasize the peculiarity
of Arabs in contrast with the West. Another article, with a headline
"The world: Iraq navigates between Islam and democracy" points out
the tension between what is Islamic and what may be preferred by the
majority (Sachs, 2004). Yet another article points out problems in
Iraqi work culture: "After the majestic handoff of democracy to the
25 member Iraqi governing council, it seems the puppets don't even
want to work late, much less govern. As one aide told The Times, 'On
the council, someone makes a suggestion, then it goes around the
room, with everyone talking about it, and then by that time, its late
afternoon and time to go home" (Dowd, 2003).
Some articles blamed what they perceived as a dismal level of
industrialization in many Arab countries. An article quoted a foreign
affairs scholar saying: "…When you switch to promoting democracy in
the Arab world, you discover that countries that can't make a light
bulb are not exactly ready to jump into the international economy"
(Sanger, 2003). Oil dependency was considered another impediment:
"Ousting Saddam is necessary to promoting the spread of democracy in
the Middle East, but it won't be sufficient, it won't stick, without
the Middle Eastern states kicking their oil dependency and without us
kicking ours" (Friedman, 2002b). Few articles also highlighted the
financial burden of the operations: "Implementing the new world
vision Bush has discussed recently will require still more money. An
ongoing presence in the Middle East beyond Iraq will soak up
additional billions…" (Madrick, 2003).
While the New York Times gave voice to the hurdles America will face
in promoting democracy in Iraq, it did not mention problems that a
democratic Iraq may face. The articles are framed in a way that
American promotion of democracy appears to be the solution to all
problems plaguing the Middle East. However, Jervis (2003) raises some
important questions concerning the democracy project. He asks if a
post-democratic Iraq will be stable, if it will recognize Israel and
if it will give up all claims to Kuwaiti territory? The New York
Times articles do not address these concerns. A few articles do
mention the possibility of Islamic fundamentalists coming to power in
democratic Iraq but not much is debated about the problems in a
democratic Iraq. Further, while the media framing emphasizes the need
to overcome the impediments to democracy, the articles do not
question American unilateralism. There is little argument that
democracy promotion in the Middle East can only be a multilateral effort.
Israel-Palestine conflict frame: This frame deals with stories
framed around the Israel-Palestine conflict. While several articles
highlighted the importance of U.S. role in resolving the
Israeli-Palestine dispute, not all linked the Israel-Palestine issue
to the project of American promotion of democracy in the region. In
fact, several articles were critical of the linking of the two
issues. For instance, an article mentions that the "Palestinians have
been experts at seducing the Arab world into postponing its future
until all emotive issues of Palestine are resolved" (Friedman,
2002c). Other articles lamented that the Palestinian issue was linked
to democracy promotion in the Middle East. For instance, an editorial
made the argument that "Mr. Bush's dream of transformed Middle East
is not going anywhere as long as the Arab world is obsessed with the
plight of Palestinians" (Editorial desk, 2003). Emphasizing the need
for the U.S. to resolve the Israeli-Palestine dispute, another
article pointed out that not implementing the two state-solution will
end up in the Arabs disengaging from the peace process and the Iraq
war being "interpreted as U.S. move to make the Middle East safe for
Mr. Sharon's housing settlements" (Friedman, 2003a) Yet another
article stated: "The Palestinian question is now, for the Arab and
Muslim world – and for many Europeans – the litmus test of whether
the Bush administration means what it says about liberating and
democratizing the Middle East rather than occupying and colonizing
it" (Ash, 2003).
An article with a Cairo dateline criticized Arab leaders for not
effectively participating in the peace process. The article referred
to constructs such as "Arab nation" without problematizing them. The
article defined that the Arab nation as "the collective term for the
region that stretches from Casablanca to Baghdad" and blamed it for
never being a "patron" of the Middle East process (Tyler,
2002). Several articles praised Bush for his Mideast policy,
declared on June 24, 2002, involving demand for "free and fair
elections" in Palestine. Bush's demand for Arafat's ouster was
praised in many articles. For instance, here is how an article put
it: "There is an elephant in the room named Yasir Arafat. The Israeli
government wants to drive him away. The Arabs say work with him
because no one else in the room matters. The administration seems to
be choosing a third approach – proceed as if the elephant were not
there. Even if that sounds hard to imagine, it strikes us as best of
some bad alternatives" (Editorial desk, 2002).
While it is important for the media to take a stand against any form
of militancy in the Israel-Palestine conflict, the New York Times
articles with Israel-Palestine frames did not highlight contested
definitions of militancy. For instance, the Bush administration
decided to name Hizbollah and Hamas as terrorist organizations on
October 31, 2001 (Henry, 2002). However, it is also a fact that not
everybody in the Arab world views them as terrorist organizations:
"Most Lebanese and other Arabs view Hizbollah paramilitary forces as
freedom fighters, not terrorists. So also Hamas, created with the
encouragement of Israel in the mid-1980s as a counterforce to Yasser
Arafat's PLO, is perceived by most Christian and Muslim Middle
Easterners as a national liberation organization rather than a
terrorist cult" (Henry, 2002).
Further, articles with Israel-Palestine frames were often limited to
coverage of meetings among leaders, declarations of Bush's policies
and response of Israeli and Arab leaders to those policies. Very few
articles carried voices of ordinary Palestinians. An article written
from the Jabaliya refugee camp in the Gaza Strip was an exception
(Bennet, March 10). Overall, there was little debate over American
policy on the Israeli-Palestine conflict. One of the exceptions was
an editorial that mentioned faults in the policy. It argued that
Bush's "highly personal condemnation of Yasir Arafat implies that the
Palestinians should select their leaders in keeping with American and
Israeli preferences" (Brezezinski, 2002b). Another article made the
argument that "President Bush's exhortation to them to choose
democracy, when they live under siege, has struck many Palestinians
as a cruel joke. His overt support for Ariel Sharon struck as
betrayal" (Schmemann, 2002). An article called for balance in talks
about Israel: "Americans are right to support Israel's right to exist
in peace, but criticism of Israeli policies should not be stifled by
Christian visions of Armageddon, right-wing zealotry or memories of
the culture wars in Brooklyn. This would not be good for American,
and it is certainly not good for Jews" (Buruma, 2003).
Arab resentment frame: This frame deals with the Arab distrust of
American policy in the Middle East. Articles with Arab resentment
frames voiced Arab opinion of American policy, but they did not
question the intentions of the American democracy promotion project.
Arab resentment of American designs in the Middle East was framed as
another obstacle that the United States has to address in the process
of democracy promotion in the region. Meanwhile, the faith in
America's honorable intentions in the region remained intact. The
articles did not encourage a debate on the merits and flaws of
American foreign policy. Most of the articles with Arab resentment
frames were news articles with international datelines such as Cairo,
Damascus, Riyadh, Ankara etc. Though these articles voiced Arab
grievances, absence of many editorials with Arab resentment frames
ensured that the grievances did not lead to a debate about the
soundness of American policy on the Middle East. Though the news
articles mentioned tough questions about American intentions, human
rights record of the United States etc. posed by Arab activists,
academics and ordinary people, the reporters did not ask the same
questions to the American leaders. The Arab grievances did not make
it as questions for the American administration.
A few days after 9/11, President Bush declared that those who hate
the United States, hate "our freedoms, our freedom of religion, our
freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other" (Sciolino,
2001). The articles in the New York Times also mentioned various
reasons for Arab resentment against the United States. An article
argued, "But many, perhaps most, suspect the war is just to grab oil
and to castrate the one country that remained a potential threat to
Israel" (MacFarquhar, 2003b). Though this article voiced the Arab
mood, it did not question American intention or policy. The article
ended with a question: "So the key question is whether the U.S. can
rule 23 million Iraqis and move them to a new form of government…"
Again, the feasibility of the project was questioned, not the project
itself or the intention behind it.
Another article with a Cairo dateline mentioned an Egyptian
intellectual voicing Arab frustration: "When speaking of President
Bush and his administration, Mr. Aboulmagd uses words like
narrow-minded, pathological, obstinate and simplistic … Such language
from a man of Mr. Aboulmagd's stature is a warning sign of the deep
distress that has seized the Arab elite, those who preach moderation
in the face of rising Islamic radicalism and embrace liberalism over
the tired slogans of Arab nationalism" (Sachs, 2003). An article
written from Damascus also pointed out that some of the resentment
comes from perceived U.S. threat to Islam: "…The suspicion that U.S.
is embarking on a modern crusade against Islam tends to overwhelm
other considerations" (MacFarquhar, 2003a). The article also mentions
other reasons for Arab resentment. "Much of the doubt comes from the
perceived double standard in American foreign policy in the Middle
East. Washington pushed the invasion of Iraq on the grounds that Iraq
was flouting U.N. resolutions to disarm, Arabs point out repeatedly,
while doing nothing tangible about similar resolutions demanding
Israeli withdrawal from occupied Palestinian lands."
Another article highlighted that American people and cultural and
material products are received well in the Arab world in contrast to
the criticism directed at American foreign policy. Few articles
suggested ways to deal with the resentment.
Finally, results show that though several articles criticized Bush's
personal style of functioning, they did not question American
intervention in the Middle East or the objective of promoting
democracy in the Middle East. In fact, very few articles challenged
American foreign policy in the Middle East from a historical
perspective. Articles were limited to comments on Bush's perceived
ignorance, arrogance, and style of governance. For instance, an
article criticized Bush's use of religious language in political
speeches (Lears, 2003). Another article stated: "When the Bushes get
into the bunker, democracy operates the way they like. It is not
messy and cacophonous. It is orderly and symphonic. There are
sheriffs and outlaws, patriots and madmen, good and evil, Churchills
and Hitlers" (Dowd, 2002b). Several articles criticized Bush for not
promoting democracy in countries with friendly dictators such as
Saudi Arabia. Other articles advised Bush to have a clear and focused
policy on the Middle East. An article commented: "Indeed, the
randomness of American rhetoric on the Middle East is becoming its
most distinctive pattern" (Indyk, 2002).
As mentioned above, very few articles challenged American
intervention in the region. Here are the exceptions. An article with
a headline "Why are we in Iraq? (And Liberia? And Afghanistan?)"
stated, "American foreign policy largely consists of doctrines about
when and where to intervene in other people's countries" (Ignatieff,
2003b). The article took a historical perspective and pointed out
that "regime change is as old a story as American foreign policy, as
is unilateralism." Another article by the same author, who is the
director of the Carr Center at the Kennedy School of Government,
Harvard University, referred to America's military and economic
prowess and its imperial designs "…Yet what word but 'empire'
describes the awesome thing that America is becoming?" (Ignatieff,
2003a). A couple of articles compared American intervention with
intervention in Latin America.
Arab News coverage
Arab News coverage of the American objective of promoting democracy
in the Middle East was embedded with the following frames: Resist
imposed reforms; the Israel-Palestine conflict frame; and, the hidden
agenda frame. Most of the coverage was marked with a general distrust
of U.S. policy. Arab News coverage showed suspicion of American
intentions behind their democracy promotion project. Unlike the New
York Times, they did not believe in the noble intentions declared by
the United States for intervening in the region. Even as the article
criticized the United States, they did not question their own
government. In stories embedded with Resist imposed reforms frame,
the need for urgent political reforms in Middle Eastern countries was
censored by omission. The Arab News articles did not ask questions or
demand answers about reforms from the Saudi government. Their silence
on the issue may be attributed to strict laws restricting press
criticism of the government. The few articles that emphasized need
for reforms were mainly limited to articles by the foreign press,
which were published in the Arab News. The framing of the Arab News
articles depicted a sense of urgency and alarm that America would
impose its will on the Arab countries unless the Arabs united and
resisted American designs on the region. Further, the Arab News made
the resolution of the Israel-Palestine conflict a condition for
reforms and democracy promotion in the Middle East. Stories with
Israel-Palestine frames criticized US policy and focused on the
sufferings of Palestinians. Arab News framing of the American
democracy promotion objective referred to hidden agendas of the U.S.
such as a quest to control oil resources, to protect and promote
Israeli interests in the region and America's perceived anti-Islamic
objectives.
Resist imposed reforms frame: Stories embedded with these frames
highlighted the importance of resisting reforms "imposed" by the U.S.
to safeguard the national sovereignty of the Arab countries. The
articles emphasized that reforms must come from within. Many articles
highlighted the need for introducing reforms that are compatible with
Islam. For instance, in an article with an Amman dateline quoted the
Jordanian foreign minister saying, "Any reforms that are achieved
must come from inside the region and be based on our Arab Islamic
civilization and our Islamic religion" (Agencies, 2004). He was
responding to the American Greater Middle East Initiative. The
article further mentioned that Egypt and Saudi Arabia have criticized
the Initiative as they fear that Washington wanted to impose its
"cultural model" on the region. Hence, the articles were framed in a
way that they aroused fear that the United States was about to impose
something undesirable and alien on the region. An article warned that
American methods of promoting democracy in the Middle East could lead
"us (Saudis) to hell. Ask the Afghans and the Iraqis. By now, they
know better" (Batarfi, 2004).
Several articles called for united Arab resistance to
America-imposed reforms. An article questioned: "Why can't one stop
the West from imposing its will? Why don't we have collective power?"
(Lamb, 2003). Another article emphasized the need for Gulf
Cooperation Council to strengthen itself. An article described the
U.S. desire to reshape the Middle East as "arrogant" and
"frighteningly naïve" (Zogby, 2003). The Arab News emphasized the
need for reforms generated by the Arab people. An article stated that
"modernization and reform must fulfill people's needs and be
compatible with their 'Arab identity' (Ghafour, 2004b).
Resisting imposed reforms was also accompanied by simultaneous
bashing of U.S. democracy. Articles referred to the erosion of
political and civil liberties in the United States and the need for
reforms in the country. Some articles pointed out the unsuitability
in the American form of democracy for the Arab region. An article
debated various definitions of democracy from a historical and
cross-national perspective and pointed out that while European
democracy was generally based on "Western moral and material
principles," Asian democracies emphasized "ruling by consensus over
individual rights" (Batarfi, 2004). The article argued that some form
of representative government, instead of democracy, should be the
goal of Arab countries. A Saudi royal family member and governor of
the Saudi Arabian Investment and Authority was quoted saying:
"There's been a lot of talk by the U.S. of democracy in developing
countries but some cultures cannot be like yours" (Ferguson, 2002).
While the articles highlighted that democratic reforms in the Middle
East should come from within and be compatible with Islam, none of
the articles mentioned any specific measures toward such a goal. The
Arab News did not elaborate the repressive conditions prevailing in
the kingdom or the grievances of the people. An article that
included an interview with Dr. Abdullah Omar Naseef, former
vice-chairman of the Shoura Council and secretary general of the
Muslim World League for 10 years, quoted him saying that Shoura
Council elections should take place according to Islamic law.
However, he did not say when Shoura elections will take place or any
other detail about such an election. Instead, he emphasized that the
"lack of willingness to follow God's guidance" and the dearth of good
leadership as major problems facing Muslims. He called on Muslim
unity (Ghafour, 2004a).
While the articles in the Arab News rarely voiced a need for reforms
in the region, a few articles by the foreign press that were
published in the newspaper did mention the need for reforms. In an
Agence France Presse article that was published in the Arab News, a
Saudi political analyst was quoted saying: "Domestic reform is the
first defense line. Citizens must feel they have a say in their own
future. Reforms can be called democracy or political participation,
but they have to be carried out" (Hasan, 2003). An Arab News article
with a Paris dateline dismissed the argument that Arabs should reject
democracy because it is at variance with Arab and Islamic traditions.
Instead, it argued that "traditions could no longer be regarded as
sufficient ground for rejecting values and practices adopted by a
majority of mankind as the norm" (Taheri, 2004).
Israel-Palestine conflict frame: The Arab News framed the
Israel-Palestine conflict around two central aspects: suffering of
Palestinians and criticism of the perceived pro-Israel policies of
the United States. The articles in the Arab News took a humanitarian
approach to the conflict unlike the New York Times that focused more
on U.S. role in negotiations and response of Arab and Israeli leaders
to American policies. However, the articles in the Arab News also
waged a simultaneous war of words against American policies on the
issue. Many articles had emotional overtones and linked the issue of
American policy of promoting democracy in the Middle East with the
need for resolution of the Israel-Palestine dispute, making the
latter a condition for achieving the former. An article stated "Solve
the Palestine issue and you have a hope of solving all sorts of other
issues rending the relations between the Muslims and the West"
(Hamilton, 2004). Another article argued that "preaching democracy is
no substitute for a sustained effort to bring about a just settlement
over Palestine" (Mazower, 2003). The Arab News argued that the
Israel-Palestine conflict was the central issue of the region. An
article put the problem in the following words: "The core of the
Middle East rage is the Palestinian problem: and America will be
forever guilty for delegating others to cool fires by killing
children, demolishing houses, bulldozing farms and uprooting trees"
(Kayal, 2004).
An article framed around the suffering of Palestinians pointed out
that "There are three and half million Palestinians whose lives,
livelihood, in fact, their very homeland as a livable space fit for
human habitation, have been subjected to merciless onslaught of
Israel's military machine…" (Emam, May 5). Another article criticized
America for giving more value to Israeli life than to the life of a
Palestinian (El Kawa, 2002). It argued that Palestinians were willing
to die for freedom. Articles described what they perceived as
"appalling conditions" of Palestinian life, referring to the lack of
sustainable sources of income, access to healthcare, education etc.
An article criticized America for ignoring the "real Palestinian
situation on the ground" comprising a "destroyed economy, devastated
infrastructure, a near military occupation, and with all of this,
heightened anger and despair" (Zogby, 2002).
Several articles voiced what they considered were historical
grievances against Israel and the United States: "Since its 1967
victory, made possible by Washington's hardware, which transformed
its army posture from defensive to offensive, Israel has functioned
as an American laboratory in conventional urban and asymmetric
warfare" (Bishara, 2003). The article carried a headline "Mounting
Israelization of American society." The article further questioned
why "America now views the Middle East through Israel's eyes, and
why, since 9/11, it has adopted an apocalyptic Israeli vision of an
irredeemable world that 'hates us.'" At times, criticism of the Bush
administration became virulent. An article stated: "Why, I wonder,
doesn't Mr. Bush let Ariel Sharon run the White House press bureau?
Not only would it be more honest – we would at least be hearing the
voice of Israel first hand – but it would spare the American
president the ignominy of parroting everything he is told by
Israelis" (Fisk, 2002a). There was only one article that was an
exception to this overall stand of castigating America for the
Israel-Palestine conflict. It challenged allowing the Palestinian
issue to shadow relations with the United States (Al-Sowayegh, 2003).
Hidden agenda frame: Many articles framed the American intention to
promote democracy in the Middle East as a strategy to distract
international attention from its hidden agendas in the region such as
quest for oil, diverting attention from Israel-Palestine conflict,
desire for cultural imperialism, neo-colonial ambitions and perceived
anti-Islamic objectives. The frame highlighted U.S. arrogance and
ruthlessness, and attacked perceived double standards in U.S. policy
on the Middle East. An article stated: "At the heart of America's
misguided policy is the destruction of Islam's fundamental social
fabric, the traditional family" (Whalen, 2004). Thus, media framing
promoted a sense of fear and apprehension about the intentions of the
United States in the region. Several articles pointed out that
America's intention was to control the world's oil resources and its
supply as the real reason behind the democracy promotion rhetoric. An
article stated: "Starting with Iraq, America's aim is to control the
world's oil supplies, with the ultimate objective of separating oil
policies from political issues…This policy has little regard for
friendship or human rights, or even freedom and democracy" (Kayal,
2004). Thus, the Arab News, unlike the New York Times, did not take
the American intention of democracy promotion at face value.
Several articles highlighted that the US campaign for democracy was
meant to distract attention from the Israel-Palestine conflict. An
article with a headline "Israel behind Bush's drive for Middle East
democracy" quoted a state-owned Egyptian daily that "US President
George Bush 's drive for democracy in the Middle East was an
Israeli-inspired idea aimed at countries hostile to Israel"
(Agencies, 2003). Another article argued that America's campaign for
democracy was aimed at "disintegration of Middle Eastern countries in
order to protect Israel" (Tahsin, 2003). Further, articles pointed
out that the democracy campaign was aimed at establishing an American
empire. Thus, there were headlines such as "Overbearing soul of a new
empire revealing itself" (Murray, 2003). Another article pointed out
that the democracy campaign was aimed at establishing Christendom
(Fatani, 2003).
Thus, the United States was often portrayed as hypocritical and
unreliable. Its actions, both domestic and international, were
perceived as different from the ideals it proclaimed. The U.S. was
portrayed as insincere in its democratization initiative due to its
long standing policy of support to friendly dictators who were
considered beneficial to U.S. strategic interest. For instance, an
article questioned why U.S. supported Saddam Hussein's "viciousness
and war crimes" if it supports democracy in the Middle East (Fisk,
2003). Another article pointed out that U.S. friendship with Pakistan
was proof of American hypocrisy (Cornwell, 2003). Further emphasizing
American hypocrisy in foreign policy, an article stated: "The current
American elite is the Third Reich of our times, although this
distinction ought not to let us forget that they have merely
accelerated more than half a century of unrelenting American state
terrorism - from the atom bombs dropped cynically on Japan as a
signal of their new power to the dozens of countries invaded,
directly or by proxy, to destroy democracy wherever it collided with
American 'interests' such as voracious appetite for the world's
resources" (Pilger, 2003).
An article mocked American attempts to betters its image in the Arab
world by launching T.V. channels without "identifying the real cause
of the intense hatred for the U.S." (Tash, 2002). Several articles
also criticized the nature of American democracy and even lambasted
the American media. An article referred to the "cowardly, idle,
spineless way in which American journalists are lobotomizing their
stories from the Middle East" (Fisk, 2002b). Another media article
referred to the American media as a "spin stenographer" (Khan, 2002).
Discussion
The New York Times and the Arab News framed the American policy of
promoting democracy in the Middle East from different perspectives.
While the New York Times did not challenge American intentions in the
Middle East and accepted its democracy promotion objective, the Arab
News referred to hidden agendas of the American administration such
as its desire to control international oil flow, diverting attention
from the Israel-Palestine conflict, its neo-colonial ambitions and
perceived anti-Islamic objectives as the primary reason behind
American intervention. Unlike the New York Times, the Arab News
framing of the issue showed a deep distrust of American foreign
policy. The differences in framing of the issue by the two newspapers
is highlighted in the types of frames they used. While the New York
Times carried articles with "Teach Arabs Democracy" frames, the Arab
News responded with "Resist imposed reforms" frames. While the New
York Times highlighted impediments to democracy promotion in the Arab
world, the Arab News emphasized the lack of credibility of the United
States and its hidden agenda in the region. Thus, each newspaper
seems to have framed the democracy promotion project from the
perspective of its own national interest. This finding reflects
Said's argument that the framework of national interest is often used
in covering international events (1994). The articles both in the New
York Times and the Arab News appear self-congratulatory when
referring to their own policies and hostile and derogatory when
referring to the "other's" intentions.
Further, while several articles in the New York Times questioned the
linking of the Israel-Palestine conflict to the overall promotion of
democracy in the Middle East, almost all articles with
Israel-Palestine frames in the Arab News argued that there can be no
reforms in the Middle East without resolution of the Israel-Palestine
conflict. Unlike the Arab News, the New York Times did not frame the
resolution of the Israel-Palestine conflict as a condition to
introducing democracy in other Middle Eastern countries. While the
Arab News framed the Israel-Palestine conflict in terms of suffering
of Palestinians and vehemently criticized pro-Israel policies of the
United States, the New York Times often limited coverage to policies
proposed by the American administration, negotiations and criticism
of Arab leaders for lack of effective participation in the peace
process. However, both the New York Times and the Arab News
emphasized that the United States should play an important role in
resolving the Israel-Palestine conflict. Missing from the New York
Times coverage of the Israel-Palestine conflict were voices of
ordinary Palestinians.
Several articles in the New York Times, especially those embedded
with "Teach Arabs Democracy" and "Democracy Impediments" frames were
seeped in Orientalist discourse. Thus, the Middle East and the
"Arabs" were often portrayed as problem areas and problem people that
need Western assistance. Said (1994) argues that Orientals are
"rarely seen or looked at; they were seen though, analyzed not as
citizens, or even people, but as problems to be solved or confined…"
(p.207). Further, the Middle East is expected to imitate the West
(Said, 1994). If the Arabs decide to go "unexpected ways,"
Orientalists may consider this as proof of their "incorrigibility"
(Said, 1994, p.321). Thus, many articles in the New York Times
exhibited a missionary zeal on part of the American administrators
and troops "to roll up their sleeves" and rescue the Middle East from
its problems. Such an approach made it the "duty and responsibility"
of the United States to intervene in the Middle East.
Many articles in the New York Times made a generalized reference to
"Arabs" who were lumped together as a collective personality in many
of the articles. There was little reference to specific societies,
their political economy and culture. Reference to Arabs in
Orientalist texts often have an "aura of apartness, definiteness, and
collective self-consistency such as to wipe out any traces of
individual Arabs with narratable life histories" (Said, 1994, p.229).
In the New York Times, the Arab family was depicted as unchanging and
marriages between cousins was highlighted. But the Arab family is not
a monolithic institution. It has been adapting itself to social,
economic and political changes (Tucker, 1993). Roach (1995) argues
that news stories often reflect journalists' own cultural
assumptions. Further, the articles in the New York Times made little
reference to the historical experiences of various societies in the
Middle East, differences in traditional and cultural practices of
Muslims in the region. Instead, the Middle East was portrayed as a
region that posed a threat to the West. Reference was made to the
"Arab nation" as if such an identity were unproblematic and
uncontested. There was little reference to state-society relations in
the Middle East.
Very few articles in the New York Times questioned American
intervention in the region, its intentions or the overall policy of
democracy promotion in the region. The New York Times did not really
challenge American unilateralism. Its coverage did not contest
definitions of constructs and concepts floated by the Bush
administration. For instance, Henry (2002) argues that the contest
over defining a network as either "terrorist" or "freedom fighting"
is a political rather than a semantic struggle. Such contested
definitions were not highlighted in the New York Times. In fact, the
New York Times framing of the American policy of democracy promotion
did not exhibit an oppositional or even an independent critical
consciousness of the issue. Many scholars who explain the making of
news within a sociological perspective point out that it is the
"routines" of "objective" journalism that force journalists to rely
on administrative sources (Hallin, 1986; Tuchman,1978; Gans, 1979;
Shoemaker & Reese, 1995) . Paletz and Entman (1981) suggest that one
of the reasons foreign policy coverage rarely challenges the
administration's intentions is because of media's dependence on elite
sources of news, who "tend to agree on goals, to disagree
intermittently only on tactics" (p.215). Roach (1995) further adds
that the elite sources assume that the "diplomatic aims of the United
States are honorable and that its corporate investments must be
protected" (p.29). He argues that the result of media dependence on
"expert opinion to explain world events is virtual consensus on a
limited, narrow perspective and the exclusion of alternative
interpretations" (p.29). One of the underlying factors why articles
in the New York Times did not come up with alternative viewpoints is
because news works as a "legitimating ideology" (Tuchman, 1978). It
legitimates the prevailing definitions by limiting access to certain
ideas. Thus, news is presented in a decontextualized
and dehistoricized format (Tuchman, 1978).
The few New York Times articles that brought up alternative
viewpoints were overshadowed by the dominant discourses that
constructed the Middle East as the primary "Other". While editorials
in the New York Times indexed a range of elite discourses, they did
not include oppositional or alternative discourses. They did not take
a historical perspective to show the flaws in American foreign
policy. Thus, the New York Times did not question the primary
definitions of the democracy promotion objective that were set by the
administration. In fact, coverage of American policy of promoting
democracy in the Middle East seems to fall within what Daniel Hallin
(1986) calls the journalists' "sphere of legitimate controversy"
where debate takes place only within legitimate boundaries. Thus,
only the feasibility and strategies of the democracy promotion
project were debated whereas the overall assumptions of the project
were left uncontested and alternative definitions were not included.
As Hall et al (1978) have pointed out that media stand in "structured
subordination" to the primary definers of news. It is the
administration that set the limits of the debate on the democracy
promotion policy.
It was no different in the Arab News where journalists did not
include discussions on how democratic governance should be introduced
in Saudi Arabia, or the Middle East. Such discussions, whenever
mentioned, were often limited to pronouncements by political and
religious leaders that all reforms must come from within and be in
accordance with Islamic laws and principles. There was little
mention of specific changes, need for reforms etc. In case of the
Saudi Arabia, the reasons for such limited coverage may be attributed
to the overt government restrictions. Ottaway (2003) in her study of
the reaction of the Arab press to the American policy of promoting
democracy in the Middle East came up with similar findings that the
Arab press did not discuss how democratic changes could be
introduced. Ottaway (2003) attributed this omission to the
restrictions imposed on the Arab press, especially in repressive
regimes. Thus, while journalists in the Arab press were free to
criticize the United States as they pleased, they did not have the
liberty to discuss need for reforms in their own political systems
(Ottaway, 2003). Ottaway (2003) also points out that some Arab
writers appeared to be "caught between a nationalism that pushed them
to reject foreign pressure and the knowledge, that, without pressure,
the governments were not likely to change" (p.13).
One of the primary reasons why the articles in the Arab News did not
include the tough questions for the administration may be the Saudi
media policy statement and national security law that prohibits
"dissemination of criticism" against the Saudi government (Country
reports, 2004). The media policy statement urges journalists "to
uphold Islam, oppose atheism, promote Arab interests" (Country
reports, 2004). According to the country reports filed by the Bureau
of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor headed by Assistant Secretary
of State Lorne W. Craner, the Saudi government "removed" the editor
of Al Watan newspaper in 2003, for publishing articles critical of
the religious establishment. However, the report also claims that the
Saudi government is now more open to media coverage than in the past.
In a break from the past, the report states that the Saudi government
permitted domestic newspapers to "release stories about the country
that were based on stories in the foreign press." The government
allowed reporting on previously taboo subjects such as political,
economic, educational reform, women's rights, corruption and religion.
Furthermore, Arab News framing of the American policy of democracy
promotion in the Middle East was characterized by a general suspicion
of the United States. Not one article gave credibility to the
possible link of terrorism and lack of democracy in the region that
the American administration repeatedly emphasized. Instead, most
articles referred to hidden agendas of the United States and its lack
of credibility in the region. The distrust of the United States as
reflected in the Arab News framing of American policy on the Middle
East is confirmed by poll findings. A survey report released by the
Pew Research Center in March 2004, states that discontent with
America and its policies has intensified a year after the Iraq war.
This survey was conducted from late February to early March in the
United States and eight other countries including Britain, France,
Germany, Russia, Turkey, Morocco, Jordan and Pakistan. According to
the report, majorities in all four Muslim nations surveyed "doubt the
sincerity of the war on terrorism. Instead, most, say it is an effort
to control Middle East oil and to dominate the world" (Pew Research,
2004). The report also highlighted that overwhelming majorities in
Jordan and Morocco and half of Pakistanis believe suicide attacks
against Americans and other Westerners are justifiable. This
widespread distrust of US policies dominates Arab News framing of the issue.
Finally, it would be incomplete to conclude this study without
examining whose views the Arab News represents. Does it represent the
Saudi government's views? Does it represent public opinion or elite
opinion? Or, does it speak for the religious clerics? Ottaway (2003)
in her analysis of how the Arab press covers American democracy
promotion policy in the Middle East points out that it is difficult
to specifically answer what the Arab press represents as many of the
newspapers are published under repressive regimes. However, she
argues that there is "enough information from disparate sources to
conclude that this outpouring of articles hostile to the United
States and to the Bush administration's talk of democracy promotion
in the Middle East should not be dismissed as unrepresentative or
inconsequential" (p.6). She refers to several public opinion surveys
that show the widespread distrust against the United States in many
Arab countries. The Pew Research Center survey report (2004)
mentioned above also shows similar trends. Thus, though it may not be
easy to exactly identify whose opinions the Arab News represents, it
is beyond doubt that that the hostility toward American policies on
the Middle East as reflected in its articles are indicative of a
popular mood as evidenced in the poll findings.
Further, the Arab News framing of the Israel-Palestine conflict as
central to peace in the Middle East has also been confirmed in poll
findings. According to a Zogby International poll released April 11,
2002, "incredibly low marks were given everywhere for American policy
toward the Arab nations and the Palestinians." The summary report of
the poll findings, based on face-to-face interviews in five Arab
nations – Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Kuwait, and the U.A.E. and in
three non-Arab Muslim nations – Pakistan, Iran and Indonesia, further
added that "those polled in every country except Iran" said they
would "overwhelmingly react more favorably toward the U.S. if it
'were to apply pressure to ensure the creation of an independent
Palestinian state"' (Zogby International, 2002). Scholars and policy
analysts have also reiterated the importance of the Israel-Palestine
issue of promoting reforms in the Middle East. For instance, Brumberg
(2002), in his address to the US House of Representatives, argues
that "unless the Bush administration demonstrates in word and
especially in deed that it is fully committed to democracy and
self-determination in both Israel and Palestine as it claims to be
committed to democracy and self-determination in Iraq, the U.S. may
win the battle but lose the war" (p.3). Thus, as evidenced in the
framing of articles on resentment against US policies and the
Israel-Palestine conflict, the coverage and framing of American
policy on the Middle East in the Arab News cannot be dismissed as
totally unrepresentative of trends in public opinion in Saudi Arabia
and the Arab world.
However, this study suffers from certain limitations. It compared the
framing of American declarations of democracy promotion in the Middle
East in The New York Times with the framing in the Arab News, the
oldest English language daily of Saudi Arabia. Comparing it to an
Arabic language daily may have highlighted more distinct differences.
Further, this study did not examine news articles and editorials
separately due to difficulties in categorizing articles published in
the Arab News. Studying news articles and editorials separately may
highlight more effectively how frames are manifested in more indirect
ways in the news articles than in the editorials. Finally, this study
only examined how the press frames the issue. It did not compare the
media agenda with the public agenda. Future studies can examine if
the dominant frames emphasized by the American and the Saudi press
translate into public opinion in the respective countries.
To conclude, the New York Times and the Arab News framed the American
declarations of democracy promotion in the Middle East from different
perspectives. While the New York Times assumed the intrinsic
rightness of the democracy promotion project and did not challenge
American intentions in the region, the Arab News referred to hidden
agendas of the United States behind such a project. The need for
urgent political reforms in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and in the
Middle East was censored by omission in the Arab News. Instead, the
Arab News made the resolution of the Israel-Palestine conflict an
important condition for reforms in the Middle East, also making it a
litmus test for determining U.S. intentions in the region.
Bibliography
Al-Sowayegh, A.A. (2003, December 21). While dealing with US, look
beyond Palestine. Arab News. Retrieved March 31, 2004, from h
Agencies (2003, November 9). Israel behind Bush's drive for ME
democracy. Arab News. Retrieved March 31, 2004, from h
Agencies, (2004, March 3). Jordan tells US envoy reform cannot be
imposed. Arab News. Retrieved March 31, 2004, from h
Anderson, L. (1995) Peace and democracy in the Middle East: The
constraints of soft budgets. Journal of International Affairs, 49
(1), p. 25 – 45.
Asali, Z. (2002) Arab-American perceptions of US policy toward the
Middle East. Middle East Policy, IX (2).
Ash, T.G (2003, April 27). The way we live now: 4-27-2003, How the
west can be one. New York Times. p.13, section 6.
Banerjee, N. (2003, May 13). Aftereffects: The news media; Iraqis
race to fill void in journalism. New York Times, p.15A.
Bantimaroudis, P & Ban H. (2001). Covering the crisis in Somalia:
Framing choices in The New York Times and The Manchester Guardian. In
Reese, S.D., Gandy, O.H., Grant, A.E. (eds.) Framing Public Life.
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Barber, R & Weir T. (2002). Vietnam to Desert Storm: Topics, sources
change. Newspaper Research Journal, 23.
Batarfi, (2004, 22 February). Democracy for Arabs? Thanks, but… Arab
News. Retrieved March 31, 2004, from h
Bennet, J. (2002, March 10). Mideast turmoil: Palestinians; In camps,
Arabs cling to dream of long ago. New York Times. p.22, section 1.
Bernstein, (2003, March 23). The world: Hyper power; The new agenda:
Go it alone. Remake the world. New York Times. p.1, section 4.
Berry, N. (1990). Foreign policy and the press: An analysis of The
New York Times' coverage of US foreign policy. Westport. CT: Greenwood Press.
Berry, N. (2003, September 7). PR helpless when the fault lies with
the product. Arab News. Retrieved March 31, 2004, from h
Bishara, M. (2003, February 5). Mounting Israelization of American
society. Arab News. Retrieved March 31, 2004, from h
Brezezinski, Z. (2002a, September 1). Confronting anti-American
grievances. New York Times, p. 9. section 4
Brezezinski, Z. (2002b, April 7). Moral duty, national interest. New
York Times. p. 15, section 4.
Brumberg, D (2002, October 8). Arab Public Opinion and US Foreign
Policy: A complex encounter" Testimony prepared for the Subcommittee
on Government reform of the committee on government reform, U.S.
House of Representatives. Retrieved April 22, 2004, from h
Buruma, I. (2003, August 31). How to talk about Israel, New York
Times, p.28, section 6.
Bush presses for peace in the Middle East. Remarks by President at
University of Carolina on May 9, 2003. Retrieved March 6, 2004, from h
Brooks, D. (2003a, November 4). A burden too heavy to put down. New
York Times. p.25A.
Brooks, D. (2003b, October 7). Iraq's founding moments. New York Times. p.27A.
Carothers, T. (2003). Promoting democracy and fighting terror.
Foreign Affairs, 82 (1).
Chanin, C. & Gause, G. III (2003) 'U.S.-Saudi relations: Bump in the
road or end of the road?' Middle East Policy, X (4). 116 – 125.
Cornwell, R. (2003, December 23). Historians may remember 2003 as a
hinge year, Arab News. Retrieved March 31, 2004, from h
Country Reports on Human Rights Practices (2004, February 25).
Released by the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor. US
Department of State. Retrieved May 1, 2004, from h.
Darnton, R. (1975). Writing news and telling stories (ed.) Daedalus
104, p.175 -194
Dowd, M. (2002a, 28 August). I'm with Dick! Let's make war. New York
Times. p. 19A.
Dowd, M. (2002b, September 15). W.'s conflicts of interest. New York
Times. p. 15, section 4.
Dowd, M. (2003, September 3). Empire of novices. New York Times. p. 19A.
Editorial desk (2002, June 18). What to do with Yasir Arafat. New
York Times, p.22A
Editorial desk (2003, May 25). The President's Mideast Vision, New
York Times. p. 8, section 4.
El Kawa, K. G. (2002, April 16). Wake up America! Arab News.
Retrieved March 31, 2004, from h
Emam, H. (2002, May 5). Globalization of American democracy. Arab
News. Retrieved March 31, 2004, from h
Fatani, A. (2003, May 11). It's culture change in Iraq. Arab News.
Retrieved March 31, 2004, from h
Ferguson, (2002, November 13). War no solution to Mideast crisis.
Arab News. Retrieved March 31, 2004, h
Fisk, R. (2002a, June 26). Bush insulted Palestinians and enraged
leadership of Arab world. Arab News. Retrieved March 31, 2004, from h
Fisk, R. (2002b, April 21). Fear and learning in America – Part I.
Arab News. Retrieved March 31, 2004, from h
Fisk, R. (2003, November 9). Did the West try to promote democracy in
the Middle East. Arab News. Retrieved March 31, 2004, from h
Friedman, T. (2002a, July 3). Arabs at the crossroads. New York Times. p.23A.
Friedman, T. (2002b, October 20). Drilling for freedom. New York
Times. p.11, section 4.
Friedman, T. (2002c, May 1). The hidden victims. New York Times. p.25A
Friedman, T. (2003a, May 11). Fathers & Sons, New York Times, p. 13, section 4
Friedman, T. (2003b, January 22). Thinking about Iraq (I). New York
Times. p.21A.
Foreign desk (2002, June 25). Mideast turmoil: The president's words
of warning: "Things must change in the Middle East." New York Times. p.10A
Gans, H. J. (1979). Deciding what's news: A study of CBS Evening
news, NBC nightly news, Newsweek and Time. NY: Pantheon Press.
Ghafour, P.K.A. (2004a, March 28). Naseef calls for global campaign
to strengthen Ummah. Arab News. Retrieved March 31, 2004, from h
Ghafour, P.K.A. (2004b, March 2). No reforms under foreign pressure.
Arab News. Retrieved March 31, 2004, from h
Ghanem, S. (1996). Media coverage of crime and public opinion: An
exploration of the second level of agenda setting. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation. University of Texas at Austin.
Hackett, R. (1993). Engulfed: Peace protest and America's press
during the Gulf War (Occasional Paper) Center for War, Peace and News
Press, N.Y.U
Hall, S, Critcher, C., Jefferson, T., Clarke, J., & Roberts, B.
(1978). Policing the crisis: Mugging the state, and law and order.
London: MacMillan.
Hall, S. (1979). Culture, media and the 'Ideological Effect'" In
Curran, J, Gurevitch, M., and Woollacott, J. (eds.) Mass
Communication and Society. Sage.
Hall, S. (1982). The rediscovery of ideology. In Gurevitch, M.,
Bennett, T., Curran, J. and Woollacott, J. (ed.) Culture, society,
and the media. Methuen: London and NY. p. 56-90.
Hallin, D. (1986). The uncensored war: The media and Vietnam.
Berkley: University of California Press
Hamilton, A. (2004, March 28). Europeans can certainly do something
about Israel. Arab News. Retrieved March 31, 2004, from h
Hasan, O. (2003, April 15). GCC asks itself: To be or not to be? Arab
News. Retrieved March 31, 2004, from h
Hawthorne, A. (2003) Can the United States promote democracy in the
Middle East? Current History, 102 (660).
Henry, C (2002). Security's Rhetoric. Northwestern Journal of
International Affairs IV. 27-31.
Herman, E. S & Chomsky, N (1988). Manufacturing consent. Pantheon Books.
Hertog J.K. & McLeod D.M. (2001) A multi-perspectival approach to
framing analysis. In RF
Hopple, G. (1982). International news coverage in two elite
newspapers. Journal of Communication, 32, 61-74.
Indyk, M. (2002, August 11). A white house in search of a policy. New
York Times, p. 13, section 4
Ignatieff, M. (2003a, January 5). The American Empire, New York
Times, p.22, section 6
Ignatieff, M. (2003b, September 7). Why are we in Iraq? (And Liberia?
And Afghanistan? New York Times, p. 38, section 6
Jasperson A. E. & El-Kikhia (2003). CNN and al Jazeera's media
coverage of America's war in Afghanistan. In Norris, P. Kern, M. &
Just, M. (ed). Framing terrorism: The news media, and government and
the public. Routledge: NY and London.
Jervis, R. (2003). Understanding the Bush doctrine. Political Science
Quarterly. 118 (3).
Kamrava, M. & Mora, O. Frank (1998). Civil society and
democratization in comparative perspective: Latin America and the
Middle East. Third World Quarterly. 19 (5). 893-916.
Kayal, A.D. (2004, February 22). US Policy of Expediency and Control
of oil. Arab News. Retrieved March 31, 2004, from h
Khan, N. (2002, February 10). View from America, Arab News. Retrieved
March 31, 2004, from h
Kechichian, J. A. (2003). Testing the Saudi 'Will to Power':
Challenges confronting Prince Abdallah. Middle East Policy, X (4), 100 – 115.
Lamb, D. (2003, April 16). Anger, disillusionment palpable in Arab
world. Arab News. Retrieved March 31, 2004, from h
Lears, J. (2003, March 11). How a war became a crusade. New York Times. p. 25A)
Lee, M. A., & Devitt T. (1991). Gulf War coverage: Censorship begins
at home. Newspaper Research Journal.
Lule, J. (2002) Myth and terror on the editorial Page: The New York
Times responds to Sept. 11. Journalism Quarterly, 79, 275 – 294.
MacFarquhar, N. (2003a, March 26). A nation at war: The Arab world;
Even some of Hussein's Arab foes take a certain pride in his fight,
New York Times, p.1A
MacFarquhar, N. (2003b, April 13). The world; Humiliation and rage
stalk the Arab world, New York Times, p.1, section 4
Madrick, (2003, April 6) The Iraqi time bomb. New York Times. p.48, section 6.
Mazower, M. 23 Nov. 2003). Democracy in the Mideast won't serve US
interests. Arab News. Retrieved March 31, 2004, from h
Murray, A. (2003, July 2). Overbearing soul of a new empire revealing
itself. Arab News. Retrieved March 31, 2004, from h
Muscati, S. A. (2002) "Arab/Muslim 'Otherness': The role of racial
constructions in the Gulf War and the continuing crisis with Iraq"
Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs, 22 (1).
National Security Strategy of the United States. Retrieved March 6,
2004, from h.
Norris, P., Kern, M., Just, M. (2003) Framing terrorism: The news
media, government and the public. Routledge.
Ottaway, M. S. (2003). Promoting democracy in the Middle East.
Carnegie Endowment Working Paper no. 35. Retrieved April 1, 2003, from h
Paletz, D. L. & Entman, R.M. (1981). Media power politics. New York:
Free Press.
Pew Research Center for the People and Press (2004, March 16). A year
after Iraq war: Mistrust of America in Europe even higher, Muslim
anger persists. Retrieved May 4, 2004 at h
Pilger J. (2003, February 11). Tony Blair is a coward. Arab News.
Retrieved March 31, 2004 from h
Pollack, J. (2003, December). Anti-Americanism in contemporary Saudi
Arabia. Middle East Review of International Affairs, 7 (4).
President Bush Presses for Peace in the Middle East. (2003). Remarks
by the President in Commencement Address at the University of South
Carolina. Retrieved May 3, 2004 from h
RM.
RffC1 4
RF
RDJ) dN.
R( C,KT
RA (dmM
Rubin, E. (2004, March 7). The Jihadi who kept asking why. New York
Times. p.34, section 6.
Rusciano, F. (2003) Framing world opinion in the elite press. In
Norris, P., Kern, M., & Just, M. Framing terrorism: The news media,
government and the public.
Routledge.
Sachs, S. (2003, April 8). A nation at war: Cairo; Egyptian
intellectual speaks of Arab world's despair; New York Times, p 1B
Sachs, S. (2004, March 7). Iraq navigates between Islam and
democracy. New York Times. p.3, section 4.
Said, E. (1994) Orientalism. Vintage Books.
Said, E. (1997.) Covering Islam: How the press and the experts
determine how we see the rest of the world, Pantheon Books, N.Y.
Sanger, D. E. (2003, Dec. 7). The world; While America sells
security, China is buying its dollars. New York Times. p. 3, section 4.
Schmemann, S. (2002, July 14) The world; Palestinian voices: A deep
despair. New York Times. p. 16, section 4.
Sciolino, E. (2001, September 23). Aftermath: Invaders; Who hates the
U.S.? Who loves it? New York Times, p.1, section 4.
Shaw, M. (1996) Civil society and press in global crises:
Representing distant violence, N.Y.
Shoemaker, P.J. & Reese, S.D. (1995). Mediating the message: Theories
of influence on mass media content. NY: Longman.
Simes, D. (2003). America's imperial dilemma. Foreign Affairs, 82 (6).
Tahsin, H. (2003, November 4). The West's fake democracy, Arab News.
Retrieved March 31, 2004, from h
Taheri, A. (2004, March 24). The Arab 'yes, but' might draw a Western
'yes, but.' Arab News. Retrieved March 31, 2004, from h
Tankard, J., Hendrickson, L., Silberman, J., Bliss, K., & Ghanem, S.,
(1991). Media frames: Approaches to conceptualization and
measurement. Paper presented to the Association for Education in
Journalism and Mass Communication, Boston.
Tash, A.Q. (2002, May 19) Wooing the Arabs with electronic media.
Arab News. Retrieved March 31, 2004, from h
Taylor, P. (2004, January 21). US seeks to engage EU in Mideast
democracy drive, Arab News. Retrieved March 31, 2004, from h
Tierney, J. (2003a, December. 21). Rebuilding Iraq Is . . . Nothing a
few middle-class guys couldn't solve. New York Times, p.48, section 6.
Tierney, J. (2003b, September 28). The struggle for Iraq: Traditions;
Iraqi family ties complicate American efforts for change. New York
Times. p. 1, section 1.
Tuchman, G. (1978). Making News: A Study in the Construction of
Reality. New York: The Free Press.
Tucker, J. (1993). The Arab family in history: "Otherness" and the
study of the family. In Tucker, J. (Ed.). Arab women: old boundaries,
new frontiers. Indiana University Press.
Tyler, P. E. (2002, June 2). Letter from the Middle East; Arab
showplace? Could it be the West Bank? New York Times. p. 4A.
US State Department, Middle East Partnership Initiative. Retrieved
May 1, 2004, from h
Weisman, S. (2002. December 13). U.S. Delay on Proposal For Mideast
Irks Allies, New York Times, p. 6A.
Weisman, S. (2003, November 9). The world; … And in Iraq, trying to
plant a seed. New York Times. p. 1, section 4.
Weisman, S. and MacFarquhar, N. (2004) U.S. plan for Mideast reform
draws ire of Arab leaders. New York Times. p.3A.
Whalen, S. (2004, March 7). America's enemy in Iraq: Why this
confusion about identity? Arab News. Retrieved March 31, 2004, from h
White House, (2002, September). The National Security Strategy of the
United States. Washington, DC. Retrieved April 20, 2004, from h
Zanoyan, V. (2003). Time for making historic decisions in the Middle
East. Middle East Policy, X (1)
Zogby International (2002, April 11) The 10-nation "Impressions of
America" poll. Retrieved April 29, 2004, from h
Zogby, J, (2002, July 10). A further reaction to President Bush's
speech. Arab News. Retrieved March 31, 2004, from h
Zogby, J. (2003, January 15). An imperial war in not inevitable. Arab
News. Retrieved March 31, 2004, from h
|
