picture of the week.
if al-akhbar newspaper is going to be given credit for anything - and there is quite a bit it can be given credit for - it is the silently funny pictures it seems to have on their front-page.
posted by Lazarus, 10:13 PM
7 Comments:
I beg to differ!!
Click Me!!!
By
Blacksmith Jade, at 10:11 AM
al-akhbar? credit?
By
R, at 12:59 PM
well lazarus,
first a disclaimer. If we agree that papers like al-mustaqbal lack the professionalism of reporting without major bias (keeping in mind that some bias is ok as long as it does not act as institutionalized propaganda), then we have to agree that papers like ad-diyar for example serve a similar role.
Lets take a look at some of al-akhbar's headlines today:
هل يدفع عباس اليوم بالفلسطينيين نحو الهاوية؟
دمشق لواشنطن: مستعدّون للتعاون... وحذار الفوضى
Also, here is the conclusion from Joseph Smeha's op ed de jour:
لبنانيو السلطة شركاء في محاصرة هنيّة لمجرد أنهم شركاء في محاصرة المقاومة في لبنان. لا دخل للمذهبية في ذلك، لا من قريب ولا من بعيد. ولا صدقيّة لهذا الخلط بين حصار نصر الله (أو الرغبة في ذلك) وبين التفجّع على المصير البائس للشعب الفلسطيني.
كما يحصل هناك يحصل هنا. يحسن عند الانحراف رفع منسوب اللغط القوموي. لا تستطيع «القوات اللبنانية» فعل ذلك لذا يتولّاه «المستقبل» في حلّته الجديدة
Basically, he concludes that the government in Lebanon is partly responsible for the siege in Gaza and the West Bank...
C'mon all argumetns of objectivity and bias aside, the conclusions are ridiculous... and the examples abound.
By
R, at 6:06 PM
r,
personally, i don't think addiyar is a newspaper. however, charles ayoub is entertaining to read every now and then.
as with almost all newspapers in lebanon (and this is true worldwide, but i'd rather keep this in a local context), al-akhbar has its political slant and ties (partly vis a vis funding) and its ideological bent, which is a function of its editor and writers. in addition, criticism of al-akhbar, as is the case with annahar or al-balad or assafir, is justified; this does not mean however that using such criticisms to blanket any possible "benefits" - for lack of a better word - is fair, as it is reductionalist.
in general, i don't view newspapers only as a source of information, since there are other competitive sources that also provide similar information. another benefit of newspapers is as a source of intellectual development in terms of current events. if you agree with the gist of a certain editorial / opinion piece, then the claims (which are hopefully accompanied with arguments) will help update / bolster / change your own view of things. on the other hand, if such a piece contains elements you completely disagree with, then you should be able to deconstruct the assumptions used in the piece in order to strengthen your arguments. if al-akhbar does that to you, then that is one "benefit" of having it around.
another "benefit" of al-akhbar (and this is the case with assafir at times, though it oscillates depending on its funding status) is that it provides another view of the picture. you may claim that it is hezbollah's view, but even if that is completely true, i don't see why that is a problem as it is a view you don't receive via other more mainstream papers. it at least allows you to see aspects of various issues in more than one-dimension by providing an alternate viewpoint. does this mean it manufactures stories? that may be the case, but as of yet, i haven't seen explicit evidence as such; some of the more contentious topics i have been able to personally verify.
this is not to say that i advocate only reading al-akhbar, because it is lacking in many regards, but i also don't advocate reading only annahar, or only assafir, or only naharnet, etc. (for a light example of "media manipulation" just take a look of these pictures i posted a while back).
with regards to the specific examples you mention in your comment: i'm not sure i understand what the problem was with the two headlines, other then the way they were possibly framed (which reflects al-akhbar's ideological bent). with regards to j. samaha, this goes back to the first point i made. to elaborate on that slightly, i don't view conclusions as the most important part of an article. more important questions (in my view of course) are how did person X reach such a conclusion? what were his arguments? what were the assumptions he used? where were his arguments logically fallible? if it was for the most part infallible, then do i disagree with his assumptions? etc.
By
Lazarus, at 1:29 AM
Hey Laz,
Ok, I had a very lengthy argument replying to you in detail, but the new blogger got me again when I signed in with my old account...
So in (not so) short, my reply can be summed up as follows. (Apologies in advance as it was a much more carefully phrased reply before):
1- People in Lebanon generally read or are influneced most by the paper that they think represents the point of view that appeals to them. Usually they are driven by ideological or sectarian motives.
2- While the conclusions of an opinion piece might not be important for someone who is capable of rising above the subjectivity/bias of the piece and of deconstructing it, the layman in general cannot. So for example, can't you imagine a Lebanese person easily arguing that the Siniora government is responsible for the siege in Palestine and is therefore 7okoomet feltman or 3ameele or ...
3- I think that people like Semaha (or Asaad or the late Tueni) should be expected to live up to certain standards. For example, causality. In other words, you can lay down certain assumptions that are correct (the earth is round) and then make a conclusion that is completely unbased on your assumptions (the lebanese government is responsible for the siege...).
4- I singled out Al-akhbar because I don't think that as the new kid on the block it has been able to rise up to the challenge of offering a new point of view that you couldn't get by going through the existing collection.
5- This is just my point of view, and I chose to criticize al-akhbar on your blog because you have praised them more than once already and not criticized them at all.
By
R, at 2:48 AM
6- You hit the nail on the head when you mentioned funding. This is something I hold against Lebanese papers and media in general as they act as mouthpieces to whoever pays them and like the rest of the country do not operate as an institution or a corporate entity. This applies the most (i feel) to assafir and almustaqbal as well as to al-akhbar.
My impression is that annahar is slightly more professional eventhough it has its obvious biases...
Again, just my opinion...
By
R, at 2:51 AM
r,
you are correct that i haven't criticized them here yet - i have done so on another blog, since one of the issues i have is it's adherance to ideology, and its blind eye towards certain events. i will admit that i had higher expections of al-akhbar, but i am giving it time to find its voice. that may be a bad call on my side ... however, there are things that al-akhbar has covered that others have not (or if they have, in much less detail), and these include (from the top of my head) the marjeyoun tea party fiasco, lebanese prisoners in syrian jails, michel kilo ... it may also be the case that i have praised al-akhbar because of their criticism of the powers that be, since i agree with the notion that media, in addition to just reporting news, should provide such criticism.
in addition, some people may think al-akhbar has a unique voice simply because it has been able to bring back ziad rahbani ...
now, obviously i can't speak for al-akhbar, but it has been the case in the past that two of those in al-akhbar (one of whom is j. samaha) had issues with assafir because of attempts to financially change their views. although this does not mean that they will not be bought in the future, this may be the reason i am still giving them the benefit of the doubt.
and what is up with the new blogger?? quite a few people have had issues! good thing i'm not usually an early adopter ...
By
Lazarus, at 11:42 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home