Western Resistance

« Dubai: TV To Screen Muslim Bomber's Marriage To Heavenly Virgin | | France: Islamists Linked With Al Qaeda Threaten Terror »

September 14, 2006

Saudi Arabia: Muslims Urged To Buy And Influence World's Media

News from Arab News and also Reuters (with a hat tip to LGF) states that the 57-nation Organisation of Islamic Conference (OIC) has been meeting in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. The meeting was formally opened yesterday by Crown Prince Sultan.

The members at the meeting suggested that after the 9/11 attacks, Islam became "vilified" in the media, and a radical solution was suggested by OIC secretary general Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu (pictured). He said: "We need to come up with a joint action to face up to the challenges of our time, especially with the rise of hate crimes and Islamophobia in the West and the confusion resulting from the unfortunate mixing up of Islam with terrorism."

"Muslim investors must invest in the large media institutions of the world, which generally make considerable profits, so that they have the ability to affect their policies via their administrative boards. This would benefit us in terms of correcting the image of Islam worldwide."

Saudi journalists approved the measure. Khaled Batarfi managing editor of al-Madinah, a Jeddah-based newspaper said: "The suggestion has come a little late in the day, but as they say it is never too late to mend."

In the University of Oregon in 1999, Batarfi had identified Islam's perennial scapegoats, "Jews" as having bought stakes in US media outlets "methodically and with the specific purpose of shaping US opinion in favor of Israeli policies." This was in his student dissertation, apparently.

Batarfi suggested that there should be English versions of Al-Jazeera and Al-Arabiya TV.

Faiza Ambah, a Saudi journalist said that the West generally regards Islamic media as "state-run publicity tools", (which in most cases they are). She said: "We need to turn our media outlets into credible sources of information. Once we do that we will automatically be heard by the outside world."

One un-named Western journalist based in Riyadh even suggested that though he agreed with the idea, "it shouldn't have been announced publicly. It will only alarm the other side and create unnecessary friction. It should have been done rather discreetly." Someone who obviously values "freedom of the press", then?

Saudi Prince Alwaleed ibn Talal owns 5.46 percent of Rupert Murdoch's media conglomerate News Corp. This group includes Fox News, a media outlet not seen as "Muslim friendly".

The unnamed Western dhimmi journalist said: "Despite Prince Alwaleed's stake in Fox, nothing has stopped its rabid anti-Arab and anti-Muslim tirade which is such a shame."

This week, the Saudi Culture and Information Minister Iyad Madani had attacked the state of Arab and Muslim media. He said: "In Bosnia, in Nigeria, in Mindanao, did any of the Arab or Islamic media people go there? Our media establishments lack fieldwork. I don't mean any offense, but coming to attend this press conference and reporting about it in the newspaper tomorrow is the easiest thing. The difficult part is to go to Mindanao to cover a major catastrophe."

The Egyptian Information Minister Anas el-Feki said to the OIC delegates: "The fierce attack on Islam in the five years since the September 11 attacks has forced us into a defensive position on our faith and understanding of our tolerant religion. Now more than ever we need a new Islamic media message that reaches all parts of the world."

The whole notion of Saudi princes trying to influence organs of the world's media is sickening. The Saudis are already promoting their religion through the establishment of mosques, and by promoting their lickspittles such as CAIR in the US. When freedom of religion is forbidden in their own nation, and they still try to promote their religion and politics in other nations, moves to invade organs of the press are hypocritical.

A Saudi editor like Batarfi is an anti-semite. His brand of bigotry may sell newspapers in Saudi Arabia, but Western readers are already media-savvy and would not tolerate his sort of journalism. Even when our press do not tell us the whole truth, or skirt around sensitive areas, we are aware of it.

The issue over the Danish cartoons highlighted the differences between Western notions of freedom (even though most Western media were too cowardly to reproduce the images) and the totalitarianism of Muslim attitudes. And back in January, the cartoon issue was taken up by Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, who said that the OIC would "ask the UN general assembly to pass a resolution banning attacks on religious beliefs."

Our Western media outlets only exist because of "freedom of speech". Such a notion is unheard of in most Muslim countries. God forbid that more Saudi or Iranian propaganda should be shoved in front of us, dressed up as objective truth.

Posted by Giraldus Cambrensis at September 14, 2006 9:00 PM

Comments

Posted by: DP111 at September 16, 2006 5:24 PM

Posted by: margaritha at September 16, 2006 6:52 PM

Post a comment