|
By
Nabil Dajani
(A draft of this paper was presented at
the New Media in the Middle East International Conference for
Contemporary Middle East Studies at the University of Southern
Denmark in November 2005.)
The Republic of Lebanon
is a curious, small state situated in a politically unstable
region. Currently subjected to confused and complex national
political circumstances following a long and costly civil war,
Lebanon is a state suffering from contradictions as a country
characterized by extreme pluralism as well as deep and complex
sectarian divisions.
The Lebanese media, and particularly television, reflect and
reinforce the characteristics and contradictions of Lebanon’s
political and tribal confessional society. Television has both
helped maintain the divisions that exist within the society
and contributed to the alienation of the average individual.
Indeed, inasmuch as Lebanese television typically appeals to
individual sects and ethnic groups within the country, it helps
to sustain the condition of sectarian and ethnic division.
Unlike in all other
Arab countries, television in Lebanon was introduced by business
executives and not by the government. Lebanese television began
with two private commercial television stations that were licensed
by the government. Both had links to foreign companies. The
first station was backed by the French communication network
(Sofirad), and the second by a US network (ABC). During the
Lebanese civil war, both companies came to the verge of bankruptcy
and appealed to the government for help. The government merged
the two ailing television institutions into a new company, in
which the government provided liquidity by purchasing 50 percent
of its shares.
When the civil war
escalated, weakening the central government, some of the warring
factions established their own pirate television stations. By
the end of the civil war, some ten pirate stations were broadcasting
with 36 others planning to go on the air. This situation generated
public debate and consequently, in 1994, the parliament passed
an audio-visual law organizing broadcasting in the country.
At present, six licensed
television stations are on the air. All operate as both terrestrial
and satellite broadcasters. These are: The Lebanese Broadcasting
Company International (LBCI, formerly LBC), which speaks for
the Maronite Christians and represents the views of the right
wing Lebanese Forces; Future Television, which addresses the
Sunni Moslems and is owned by the family of former prime minister
Rafiq Hariri; The National Broadcasting Network (NBN), representing
one faction of Shi'ite Muslims and owned by the family and supporters
of the speaker of the parliament; Al Manar, organ of the Shi'i
Islamic Hezbollah Party; New Television (NTV), which began as
an organ of the Communist Party, but is presently owned by opposition
politicians; and finally, Tele Liban, which is managed by a
board appointed by the government.
Television dominates
the flow of information in Lebanon. According to recent figures
by an authoritative study, about 65 percent of Lebanese adults
view two to four hours per day, and about 82 percent of the
population views television on a daily basis, while 95 percent
watch television, but not regularly.(1) The majority of viewers
(71 percent) watch television during prime time (7-10 p.m.),
which is the time of the main news programs, as well as news
talk shows. It is estimated that the average household in Lebanon
has two television sets. Television content is distributed mostly
via terrestrial broadcasting. In 2003, terrestrial television
penetration was at approximately 99 percent of all households.
Cable television penetration is among the highest in the world,
and is estimated to be as high as 79 percent of all households.(2)
A large share of
Lebanese television programming consists of political news programs,
which are the most viewed genre. Television news is usually
self-consciously very serious, but pays more attention to domestic
politics than to issues of public service. For all stations,
any television coverage of "social distress" is perceived
to be negative, in the sense that the presentation of information
about hardships is intended to expose “the other group,”
and not oriented toward public service. An example is television’s
coverage of the economic crisis in the early 1990s, when many
stations overstated the threat of a financial crisis, leading
to the resignation of the government and a huge depreciation
of Lebanese currency.
Because of the high degree of politicization of Lebanese society,
current political events are covered in a way that supports
the views of each television station with no respect for professional
codes and ethics. An early published version of the report by
the UN international commission to investigate the assassination
of Rafiq Hariri noted that “certain Lebanese media had
the unfortunate and constant tendency to spread rumors, nurture
speculation, offer information as facts without prior checking
and at times use materials obtained under dubious circumstances
from sources that had been briefed by the Commission, thereby
creating distress and anxiety among the public at large.”
A study of the content
of television news shows that political figures, who are the
main sponsors of television stations, also are the main actors
in a relatively high percentage of the local news items. "Sects"
are the main actors of another small but significant group of
local news items. This reflects the political environment in
Lebanon, which is torn by sectarian grievances.
The following sample
of the first fifteen minutes of the evening news on Tuesday,
October 11th, 2005 on the six national Lebanese television stations
provides a clear picture of the agenda of each.
The government-managed
Tele Liban led their broadcast by highlighting three important
political issues: First, that the Syrian PM has ignored repeated
telephone calls by the Lebanese counterpart; secondly, the safety
precautions taken by UN establishments and their employees in
Lebanon; and thirdly, the question of disarming Palestinian
refugees in Lebanon.
The top news report
was the meeting between Saad Al Hariri, the Lebanese majority
leader and son of the assassinated former Lebanese Premier,
with the Maronite Patriarch in Rome. The second news item reported
the call by the Lebanese president for freedom and the strengthening
of the judiciary system. This was followed by a report about
the return of the Lebanese Speaker of Parliament from an official
visit to an Arab country. The activities of the Lebanese Prime
Minister were then hurriedly reported. In fact, the entire news
report on Tele Liban was rather hurried and brief.
Future Television,
organ of the family of the assassinated former Prime Minister
Hariri, began with the usual short editorial after announcing
that the day was the 240th after the assassination of Hariri.
The anchorwoman, in her blue memorial ribbon and Hariri pin,
then announced that “all eyes are on Mehlis’ report.”
The second item in the editorial was that Syrian newspapers
have criticized the report and have dedicated several pages
to attacking MP Saad Al Hariri and the Lebanese Prime Minister.
The report played up the Syrian Prime Minister’s refusal
to answer three calls from the Lebanese PM as well as an official
Syrian statement declaring that “France and the US now
run Lebanon” and that “Red hell will open on Lebanon
if they pursue this path.”
Another five minutes were then spent on MP Hariri’s 45-minute
retreat with Lebanese Maronite Patriarch, after which MP Hariri
issued a statement acknowledging the Patriarch’s importance
in seizing what he called “Lebanon’s golden opportunity.”
Al Hariri also emphasized the importance of Mehlis’ report
in bringing justice to his father’s assassination, and
gave details about his plans for the next few days. The blue-ribbonned
anchorwoman subsequently reported the visit of a high US official
and the US ambassador to a pro-Hezbollah Lebanese minister.
The anti-Syrian organ
of the Maronite Lebanese forces, LBC, began with the tense relationship
between Syria and the impending Mehlis report. Over five minutes
of air time was dedicated to Syrian newspapers’ condemnation
of Saad Al Hariri and the Lebanese Premier, as well as the Syrian
denunciation of the Mehlis report and the US. This last statement
was repeated twice (by the anchorwoman whose pin paid tribute
to a smiling May Chidiac, another LBC anchorwoman, who was the
victim of a terrorist attack). The visit of a high US official
to Lebanon was the second item. The return of the Speaker of
the Parliament from an official visit to an Arab country also
was reported, with emphasis on the fact that he denounced US
claims of Syrian interference in Lebanon. LBC reported (in far
from positive tones) the Speaker’s claim that Syria in
fact supports Lebanon, and that the responsibility for the Hariri
assassination falls on an “unknown third party.”
NBN, the channel
of the Speaker of the Parliament, led with a report about the
latter’s return, and read the statement he issued regarding
the Mehlis mission. Following that was the President’s
call for independence of the judiciary system. The third item
was a brief account of progress made by the Mehlis report, and
immediately after, the threat of the bird flu. NBN then covered
Condoleeza Rice’s announcement that Syria was en route
to isolating itself diplomatically.
New TV, a station
opposing MP Hariri and supporting the pro-Syrian President,
began the news with an unmistakably skeptical statement announcing
that as the Lebanese await the results of Mehlis’ report,
Mehlis himself has relocated to the port city of Larnaka, Cyprus,
citing security reasons. This report was followed by an item
about the arrival of a high US official and Lebanese Minister
of Justice’s approval of Mehlis’ work. New TV was
the only station to report a congratulatory letter sent by the
President to the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency
for winning the 2005 Nobel Prize for peace. This was followed
by a report on Speaker of Parliament’s return and statements.
Only then was MP Hariri’s visit to Rome mentioned.
The Shi'i Al Manar
TV, organ of Hezbollah, began with a critical account of Saad
Al Hariri’s whereabouts and views. They then reported
Israeli planes had violated the Southern Lebanese air space.
Al Manar TV cited a Syrian newspaper as saying that “it
is clear that Lebanon and Syria are the targets of a grand plot
and that the UN probe is led astray by false testimony.”
The next items were those of the President, the US high official’s
visit, and the return of the Speaker of Parliament. Al Manar
was the only station that night to report that the US detention
center in Guantanamo Bay had ordered the release of an Egyptian
man crippled by torture.
Lebanese television today is encountering a multi-faceted crisis
that is perhaps more serious than any crisis faced by other
Lebanese institutions. Lebanon does enjoy relatively more freedom
from government institutions than many Third World countries.
However, this freedom has thus far not been transformed into
a productive democratic practice, and effective accountability
is not possible. In the absence of a properly functioning central
government, the tribal sectarian authorities dominate the management
of the country’s affairs, including the operation of the
media. Consequently, Lebanon does not have a free press.
Additionally, the
imposition of entertainment values on the profession of journalism
by television’s commercial management has prompted this
medium to focus on scandals, fabricated sources, fictional events
and the overall tabloidization of mainstream news. Wealth, power,
and sectarianism are intertwined intimately in the Lebanese
media, and facts often play no mediating role. As a result,
Lebanon faces a media muddle that facilitates meddling by foreign
elements and citizens remain ignorant of how their political
affairs are handled. Because of their ignorance, they are powerless.
Consequently, we are today witnessing in Lebanon a media situation
that in fact contributes to the re-feudalization of the public
sphere.
The Lebanese situation
is characterized by a lack of balance in the way television
handles the three basic forces that operate on this sector and
interact within it. These forces are 1) the interest of the
public sector; 2) the interest of the tribal and sectarian-dominated
institutions of the state; and 3) the interests of the private
sector. While we observe that state institutions and many private
sector institutions influence and operate television channels
to serve their interests, we note the absence of the public
interest in television content. What we find today in Lebanese
television is a distinct imbalance between public interest and
the interest of the political, financial and economic forces
in the country. While the free flow of accurate knowledge is
essential for a well-informed people, we find that the public
sphere has been grossly distorted and “restructured”
by today’s television.
Together with the
inability of the state to implement or even draft communication
plans and policies founded on public interest, this lack of
balance has allowed Lebanese television institutions to advocate
conflicting values and identities that further divide the population
politically as well as socially. Unrestrained television channels
are crowded with political leaks, void of professional ethics,
and pay little attention to covering basic public concerns,
while political dogma and cheap entertainment dominates their
content. While people are indeed agitated by television news,
they nevertheless no longer trust the news media as it has become
clear that this medium is a resource controlled by a select
few and that there is virtually no genuine exchange of ideas
in television’s sphere. Clearly, the purpose of television
news is not to inform the Lebanese people or serve the public
interest. One need only to examine what is not on television
news: corruption cases, the enormous financial public debt,
and a long list of other serious public issues that require
urgent discussion and resolution by the Lebanese people.
The Lebanese mass media generally do not take into consideration
their accountability to the people. While television falls under
the jurisdiction of a relatively reasonable audiovisual law,
it operates independent of and beyond the authority of government,
as different stations are guaranteed protection by powerful
tribal and sectarian authorities. Television’s news divisions
advance the larger agenda of these authorities, of which they
are a small part. They have less independent judgment, more
vulnerability to influence by their sponsors, and more dependence
on sectarian sources and groups similar to them. Consequently,
hate-promoters fill the Lebanese airwaves and journalistic public
interest standards are doomed.
What is lacking is
not only the reliable communication of information but also
the ability of the Lebanese media, and particularly television,
to contribute information directly to the flow of socially and
politically constructive ideas. What we see in Lebanon is a
social system that gives opportunities and advantages to people
on the basis of their wealth and seniority within a tribal-sectarian
system. The concentration of control over this powerful one-way
medium by a select few who are driven by narrow interests carries
with it the potential for damaging the democratic process.
Lebanese media pay
little attention to the development of genuine dialogue between
the ruler and the public on the one hand, and among the people
themselves on the other. The media sector is dominated by a
market mentality that gives little thought to social responsibility.
As a consequence, there is confusion between the freedom of
the media to inform the people, their freedom to propagate tribal-sectarian
dogma, and their freedom to seek material profit. The
problematic nature of television and other mass media in Lebanon
lies in a flawed visualization of the meaning of freedom.
It does not lie in the issue of censorship or lack of a free
media environment. This distorted visualization of freedom plays
into the hands of private interests that both override and overwhelm
social responsibility. Censorship is no longer the most useful
lens through which to focus on the subject of freedom of expression.
A better means of focusing on freedom of expression is the subject
of human rights, particularly the right of the individual to
communicate in order to improve the quality of her or his life
and to practice true democracy.
True democracy requires
the active participation of citizens in public debate as well
as involvement in decisions that concern public affairs. Freedom
of expression by the media does not bring about democracy except
when access to all media channels is made possible
for all Lebanese groups. True democracy cannot be achieved
when the media serve as advocates, limiting access to some factions
and denying it to others.
Television institutions
cannot guarantee their freedom unless they agree to be held
accountable for their role in defending the rights of citizens.
Their ethical right to freedom of expression must be indelibly
tied to their acceptance of this accountability. Their legal
right for this freedom may not be denied as long as they continue
to fulfill their ethical role towards society. The moral right
of television to freedom of expression has to be linked to its
accountability.
Nabil Dajani is a professor in the department
of Social and Behavioral Sciences at the American University
in Beirut.
[printer
friendly version]
|