Monday, May 03, 2004

You want a solution? Change the channel - it's all propaganda and lies." This is how Brigadier General Mark Kimmitt, US military spokesman in Iraq, responded to questions prompted by images broadcast by Arab television channels. Gen Kimmit's words echoed the increasing nervousness of US officials towards the Arabic satellite TV networks, which they sometimes dub "the anti-coalition media".

But, as witnessed when disturbing pictures of US soldiers torturing and humiliating naked Iraqi prisoners were broadcast first on American TV and then around the world, the US administration is finding it ever more difficult to control the flow of - and damage from - such images. Its rapid counter offensive to defuse the devastating impact of the pictures demonstrates Washington's acute awareness of the media's power over the war in Iraq. In the UK, the Blair government was also swift to condemn charges of British military abuse of prisoners arising from similarly disturbing pictures - despite doubts about their authenticity.

Official criticism of media coverage of a conflict is not new. Governments often accuse broadcasters that transmit gruesome images of making an already complicated situation even worse. US officials have recently intensified their criticism of leading Arabic-language news channels, including al-Jazeera and al-Arabiya, for "inciting violence" in Iraq. They see the graphic portrayals of devastation and casualties, watched by millions of Arab viewers, as fanning anti-US sentiment.

The formal complaint by Colin Powell, US secretary of state, to his Qatari counterpart about al-Jazeera's coverage of US troops highlights Washington's growing concern.

Essentially, the Bush administration is fighting two battles - one on the ground, the other on the airwaves. Neither seems to be going the way Paul Bremer, Iraq's US administrator, and his bosses in Washington would have liked.

Acknowledging the potency of the news footage, US officials are clearly seeking to discredit the networks that show it. These networks, in turn, accuse the US military of trying to intimidate them.

During the recent standoff in Falluja, John Abizaid, the top US military commander in Iraq, slammed Arabic-language networks for suggesting US troops were targeting Iraqi civilians. Accused of false and inflammatory reporting, al-Jazeera's TV crew was asked to leave the besieged city. But when civilians are caught in fierce fighting, can any media really be expected to look the other way?

The relationship between US officialdom and the new breed of increasingly independent Arabic channels has been marred, to say the least, by a series of incidents starting in November 2001, when US forces in Afghanistan bombed al-Jazeera's Kabul bureau, they say mistakenly. The killing or injuring since of various Arab - and western - members of the media by US bombs or bullets has undoubtedly fuelled anger in the Islamic world, but it has also strengthened the networks' resolve to cover the realities in Iraq - whatever the cost. With the latest satellite technology, even small networks such as al-Manar, run by the Hizbollah fundamentalist group. Abu Dhabi TV and LBC have drawn significant viewers with their active presence on the ground. This has increased the kind of daily coverage US officials call "vicious and inaccurate". Broadcasts of al-Qaeda's threats against the US on some of these TV networks have exacerbated US anger.

To counter the flow of "bad news" on Arabic-language channels, the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq launched the al-Iraqiyah TV station in Baghdad. However, it has been criticised for biased news coverage and has failed to attract many Iraqi viewers.

With satellite dishes sprouting all over the Islamic world, the US administration recently established its own Arabic-language network, al-Hurra ("The Free One"). Broadcasting from Washington, this network was never likely to capture Arab TV audiences accustomed to tuning in to al-Jazeera or al-Arabiya for 24-hour news coverage they feel reflects their sentiments. Indeed, while graphic TV images stir up anger and antagonism, they also deepen the sense of despair and frustration among Arabs and, inevitably, trigger more violence and breed terrorism. But do images of mutilated corpses generate the hostility faced by US-led troops in Iraq, as Gen Kimmitt appears to suggest, or do they merely reflect it?

While some channels focus on US casualties, and others on Iraqi casualties, the net message is that something is going terribly wrong in this "war of liberation".

Growing US anxiety about news coverage from Iraq explains Mr Bremer's ill-fated decision to close down al-Hawza, a marginal newspaper controlled by Moqtada al-Sadr, the young and fiery Shia rebel leader. The closure triggered the recent violence in the Shia-dominated regions and, overnight, transformed Mr Sadr from a minor religious figure into a political force.

Whether Iraq is "Bush's Vietnam" or not, telling viewers to "change the channel" will certainly not fix America's problem. The daily reporting of events highlights the absence of a clear US strategy beyond George W. Bush's mantra that America "will stay the course". It also demonstrates the disconnection between the reality on the ground and the Pentagon's continued assertions that the situation is "under control". So grave a political misjudgment is Washington's policy in Iraq that it begs the question: "Which channel are you watching, Gen Kimmitt?"

The writer is an Arabic-language television news anchor for al-Hayat/LBC based in London

By GHIDA FAKHRY

Copyright The Financial Times Ltd 2004. Privacy policy.