‘Journalism’ in service of the revolution: A quick guide to Middle Eastern media - Explainer

Last week, renowned Al Jazeera commentator Jamal Rayyan posted a picture on his X account showing a summit of Arab leaders, alongside the rhetorical question “Why this silence? Are there Jews ruling among you?”

The blatant antisemitism expressed by an important anchor at the Qatari-run channel is subject for another discussion as published by The Jerusalem Post. However, astute users online noted and pointed out amusedly and ironically that the picture posted by Rayyan featured all Arab leaders except for one – the Qatari Emir. Rayyan’s supreme boss is apparently too perfect to be subject to any form of criticism.

What is media?

Media in democracies is one of many features in an array of checks and balances whose main role is to hold the authorities accountable. It’s a mechanism that, if applied correctly, can help expose corruption, deter elected officials from misusing their power, amplify otherwise silenced voices, and offer a free market of ideas.

Partisan and loyalist media exists in the Western world, of course. All commentators are entitled to their opinions and many bring them out openly. There are certainly entire channels and media conglomerates who view their role as promoting a certain agenda or opinion (and in some familiar cases, a certain candidate, regardless of their agenda or opinion).

However, there is a great difference between partisanship and the act of serving as a mouthpiece for a dictatorship. A simple test exists: Is this media outlet able to criticize the political and social leaders of its movement freely? And on the national level – are the views propagated by this media outlet monolithic, or is there room for criticism?

This newspaper, for instance, proudly supports the Zionist vision of a Jewish state ever since its very inception in 1932. It will probably not espouse exclusive interviews with leaders of terrorist organizations or platform antisemitic discourse. However, unlike media outlets in non-democracies, this newspaper is not committed to parroting talking points of a government or party and can offer its criticism and thoughts freely.

This is not true for non-democracies. On the national level, dictatorships own entire media arrays whose job is to push their leaders’ agendas. Such is the case with Qatar, which owns the aforementioned media giant, Al Jazeera. According to former employees in the channel, a direct line connects between the royal court and the chief producer’s office. This facilitates the royal family, who owns both Al Jazeera and the country of Qatar, the act of steering their desired messages and creating their wanted narratives. In simpler terms, this media channel is a governmental agent acting on behalf of another nation.

This explains why the US Department of Justice ordered Al Jazeera’s subsidiary, AJ+, to enlist as a foreign agent under the FARA Act in 2020, an act which AJ+ has been flouting so far. AJ+, just like Al Jazeera, is regarded by the DOJ and should be regarded by the people, not as an independent media outlet, but as an influence attempt controlled by a foreign government; in this case, the same government that lavishly hosts the Hamas leadership. In fact, Al Jazeera is so aligned with Sinwar’s gangs, that the channel immediately silences Palestinian voices which criticize Hamas live on air and publishes “exclusive” content filmed and edited by Hamas’s militia, the Izzadin al-Qassam Brigade, before any other outlet.

The local media arena

The local arena is similar in that every Palestinian or Lebanese faction and organization boasts its own outlets, including on TV, radio, social media, and the internet. These outlets parrot their respective faction’s talking points and spread their own narratives and propaganda. For instance, Hamas owns the Shehab agency and Al-Aqsa channel, the Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) owns Filasteen Al-Youm, and Hezbollah boasts its affiliated Al-Manar and Al-Mayadeen websites. Notedly, these outlets exist on top of formal releases and outlets that carry the names of the factions, not instead of them.

Media literacy in the Middle East is crucial. One example happened only this week, when Palestinian outlet Al-Hadaf published and then quickly deleted an article lauding Bisan Owda, a member of the PFLP terrorist organization, for her so-called “resistance journalism.” Owda is currently facing campaigns to rescind her Emmy nomination due to her role in the terror group, while Emmy officials claimed that her current membership in the PFLP “could not be corroborated.” A crowd well immersed in the politics of Palestinian media outlets would immediately notice that Al-Hadaf was founded by the PFLP and serves as its mouthpiece until this day, providing further circumstantial evidence for Owda’s current affiliation.

This kind of literacy also helps in identifying the orientation of events and conferences. For instance, a Palestinian conference in Europe that claims to represent the Palestinian people as a whole, but whose stage is adorned with microphones belonging only to Al Jazeera, Al-Aqsa and Filasteen Al-Youm. To most Middle Easterners immersed in the media clash, this scene signals in an obvious manner that this is a pro-Hamas event supported by the PIJ; and this should also be clear to everyone watching the event.

Another important issue in the local media array is the psychological warfare dimension. For many organizations, their respective channels and oriented media outlets also operate as platforms to carry out psyops and spread narratives that they would not necessarily want to propagate using their names.

Such was the case with the Hamas-adjacent channel “Gaza Now,” which just a couple of days ago alleged that the terrorist organization “released Qaid Farhan Alkadi on its own volition since they arrested him by mistake.” Putting aside the 10-month-long “mistake” and the other Muslims still being held underground, this message is important in that it can then be parroted by Hamas sympathizers online, clearing Hamas of this ridiculous claim, but also providing the terror group with moral support and coverage.

As former British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak pointed out in a moment of clarity earlier during this war, just as we don’t take the Kremlin’s media as gospel truth, so too must we not take Hamas or the other factions for their word on their affiliated and supporting media outlets. This holds true for casualty numbers, already proven to be irrelevant; as well as for so-called ‘hostage deal offers’ and other psychological terror videos.

Finally, what many of us must internalize is that, while the media’s role in democracies is to protect citizens from the authorities – non-democracies use them to protect the authorities from citizens. Just like Jamal Rayyan ostensibly strived to protect the beloved Emir from virtual harm.