Al-Haqiqa Al-Dawlia “Fact International”

Al-Haqiqa Al-Dawlia is a bilingual Arabic-English weekly newspaper published here in Jordan, and possibly in other Middle Eastern countries. Unlike the name suggests, “Fact International” provides few facts to its readers. It reads more like a U.S. tabloid newspaper than a professional piece of somewhat objective journalism. Not only is the content of the newspaper on a whole construed but it projects itself as being “alternative analytical media.” What that is suppose to mean is that it is presenting the perspective of the 'other,' when in reality it is only presenting the perspective of the owner. Today our group had a meeting with the owner and the editor-in-chief for the Arabic portion where the owner described the operation and content of the newspaper as superior to other Arab media such as Al-Jazeera, Al-Arabiya, or Al-Dustoor due to the nature of Al-Haqiqa's funding. He informed us that all of these other Arab media were tied to a financial backing, the government, or someone else and these media sources were not completely free to present information that goes against the beliefs of their supporters. What he failed to realize is that by making this argument he only hurt his own case because he indirectly stated that Al-Haqiqa is not backed by a large group of individuals or financiers but by a select few. That puts the paper in a less favorable light because it shows only the ideas of a select few individuals presented as 'fact'.
The meeting was fascinating. It started out as an explanation for the paper's existence, the goals and aims of the paper, and quickly digressed into rantings of his personal political views that went to the extreme and logically did not fit in with his previous claims. For example, at one point he talked about the importance of freedom of speech and the need to have it, but then talks about how freedom of speech can impose itself on others such as the Danish cartoons and that type of speech should be stopped because it is insulting and inflammatory. I found that interesting because many of his articles are insulting and inflammatory but he doesn't recognize it. He even went so far as to quote chapters from an international agreement, chapters 18, 19, and 20 from what he called the International Agreement on Basic Freedoms and Human Rights. I don't even know if that actually exists but if it does his quoting of it and claim that we must adhere to it also hurt his case. Here he claims that someone cannot publish something that is inflammatory or leads to war or strife or anything like it, but then he calls for the “extermination of the state of Israel,” the “uprooting of its people, nicely,” their “not having a place in the Middle East because they are not Arab and it is obvious from looking at them.” So, what I get from this is he wants the western world to restrict its speech because of how he reads an international agreement, but then he ignores another international body, the United Nations, which recognizes the existence of the state of Israel. The logic doesn't hold up.
By the end of the meeting a number of students had gotten fed up with his rantings, where he called George Bush, “a blood thirsty, blood sucker,” and talked about the U.S. military and U.S. values as only being those of rape, pillage, and murder. I'll admit I was frustrated and angry at his rantings, but I didn't see standing up and walking out as a solution that would get us anywhere. I though surely additional dialog would help to present additional viewpoints, point out where we were coming from in comparison to him, etc. Unfortunately, this proved to be unrealistic. Some people's opinions are so set that you can't get them to change, despite their claim to objectivity and need for dialog. I said a few things trying to explain the perspective we were coming from and others did as well. In fact, some presented some very clear explanation of how he was hurting his own cause by publishing such blatantly false stories and making such inflammatory comments as he did to our group. The problem is he just looks at it and said, “I'm sorry if I offended anyone, but those are my views and I have a right to my views and to express them.” Which, he is correct, he does, but it again only hurts him when he then says others don't have a right to express their views on subjects that offend him. He said a lot of things, some made sense, but once he started ranting on all of the things that he was frustrated with and took exceptions, like Abu Ghraib, and presented them as the mainstream ideas of America that is when he lost any credibility and when he lost the ears of a group of American students who otherwise would have been more understanding because of the nature of our program and our studies. He ostracized a key group of individuals because he failed to adhere to his own statements about the need for frank dialog and understanding between east and west. In the end, it turned out to be a comedy show for some, an insult to others, and a confusing look into how a select group of Middle Easterners think. I'm just glad he is not the majority voice being published and the majority voice being accepted, and I hope that continues to be the case. If those with the extremist views ever have their ideas pitched as the mainstream and implemented the world is going to get far more violent and experience far more suffering than we witness today. I hope and pray that day never comes. We need more moderates, we need more people who are willing to listen, who are willing to try to understand, and who are willing to make compromises on what is acceptable. Where are the moderate voices? Why aren't they the focus of discussion instead of the extremists? Without them, we are in a very bad place.