The problem in the Middle East, said John Alterman, director of the Middle East Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, D.C., is that the region has been too stable for the last 20 or 30 years.
The region’s governments, leaders and societies have remained the same over the last few decades, allowing censorship and propaganda to flourish.
The advent of so-called “new media,” though, is changing the Middle East at a rapid pace, he said.
Alterman, speaking in the Brad Skinner Memorial lecture series Thursday night, said one of the most influential forms of new media is satellite television.
Any person with a satellite can point it in the right direction and immediately receive more than 200 channels, compared with the few channels previously available that were mainly controlled by the government.
“It used to be that the mass media gave the government control over what people saw and heard,” Alterman said.
This is no longer the case.
People in the Middle East can watch music, sports and even “Mad About You,” he said.
More importantly, satellite television allows viewers to see news from other countries.
Another development that has changed the Middle East indirectly is the Internet. In most Middle Eastern countries, about 5 percent of the population has access to the Internet.
This 5 percent also has access to what Alterman called “stupid 1970s technologies,” like phones, photocopiers and fax machines.
The Internet empowers a few individuals to inform the rest of the populace through low tech media. As a result, said Alterman, “the information people get is the information they want to get, not what information their government wants them to get.”
These new forms of media swamp people with information that is increasingly discordant with their governments’ messages, making it more difficult for governments to practice censorship.
“In Syria, three or four years ago, you could pick up a newspaper and it would look like a paper doll, with big pieces cut out of it. They can’t do that anymore. It’s stupid, and everyone gets the information anyway,” Alterman said.
These new forms of communication can also be dangerous.
Alterman pointed to Osama bin Laden’s videos as a creation of the media. “He’s skilled at using the media for presenting images and talking with a tone not of anger, but of resignation: This is the ineluctable conclusion, this is the only response.”
As the United States becomes more involved with Arab media, particularly in Iraq, there are a number of ideas to consider, Alterman said.
“We need to respect the fact that more freedom in the Arab world may mean more anti American invective rather than less,” he said.
In order to counter these anti-American sentiments, said Alterman, the United States needs to understand the audience and do research similar to market research performed in this country. Rather than asking Arabs, “Do you like Osama bin Laden, yes or no?” questions like “Who do you listen to, who do you respect?” will allow the United States to create meaningful programming and spark dialogue in the region about itself.
“As you show texture to what is only a caricature in people’s minds, you are creating the possibility of understanding and positive change,” Alterman said.
“We’re not powerless in all this,” Alterman concluded. “Arab media, the creation of all this information out there, provides opportunities for us to counter that [anti American] invective directly and to put our own ideas out there. This is a remarkable opportunity.”