Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Akamai but not Yours: The Censorship of Al-Jazeera
Although a boycott by U.S. technology service providers will not be an insurmountable problem for Al-Jazeera, it may soon lead to real censorship in the form of direct and aggressive Bush Administration mandates. Al-Jazeera on the Internet has become an immense problem for members of the Bush administration who would like to shape the content, presentation and messages of U.S. policy through Arab channels as thoroughly as they do in the mainstream U.S. media outlets. In the near future, Al-Jazeera could be accused of giving aid and comfort to America’s enemies, prompting a ban on ISP’s carrying Al-Jazeera news to U.S. audiences as part of a comprehensive “Homeland Defense” program or new “Patriot Act II” law. Vendors that can provide “content denial and service prevention” technology may unfortunately find a new growth market.
Although the Internet was designed as a robust network able to sustain even nuclear attacks, Al-Jazeera is infinitely more vulnerable.
Although the Internet was designed as a robust network able to sustain even nuclear attacks, Al-Jazeera is infinitely more vulnerable.
Akamai Technologies Inc., which briefly provided services to the Al-Jazeera Arabic news network, suddenly canceled its contract on Wednesday, April 2, 2003. Al-Jazeera had experienced exponential growth in web traffic and was in the midst of launching an English language news website. Akamai has more than 13,000 content distribution servers worldwide that store and deliver data on behalf of clients. This brings Internet content closer to the “edge of the network” and relieves bandwidth bottlenecks for heavily trafficked client content.
Akamai released an ambiguous statement which did little to reveal why the financially strapped company chose to forgo desperately needed revenue. "Akamai worked briefly this week with Al-Jazeera to understand the issues they are having distributing their Web sites. We ultimately decided not to continue a customer relationship with Al-Jazeera, and we are not going to be providing them our services," Al-Jazeera also attempted to build awareness and traffic to the new English site by ad placement buys on Yahoo! and AOL, but was again rejected. Akamai has “Akamized” CNN, MSNBC and Yahoo! content as a paid service provider. The New York Stock Exchange has also confirmed that it revoked al-Jazeera's broadcasting privileges from the floor of the exchange.
What is behind the sudden corporate boycott of Al-Jazeera? The Al-Jazeera television network is considered by many to be the CNN of the Arab world. The 24-hour Arabic language news channel reaches 30 to 40 million people in the Middle East and many more across Europe and the U.S. via satellite.
Al-Jazeera has been vilified in the United States with an allegedly pervasive “anti-American” bias. Among the specific charges leveled at Al Jazeera are:
Broadcasting Osama bin Laden interviews and tapes – Al-Jazeera has repeatedly obtained and rebroadcast uncut footage and taped interviews with Osama bin Laden taken before and after 9/11. Critics believe that repeating this footage during the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan put the Al-Qaeda leader on “equal footing” with U.S. president Bush on the “Arab Street”.
Graphic Footage of Civilian, U.S. British Force Casualties and POWs Video of POWs and dead in the U.S. media is usually taken from a distance and reserved exclusively for enemy forces. By broadcasting the dead and POWs of both sides as well as civilians killed in the war in Iraq, Al-Jazeera has come under the U.S. charge of violating the UN Geneva Conventions.
Critical view of the United States and Israel – Al-Jazeera has routinely discussed subjects that are taboo in the mainstream western media. Referring to Palestinian suicide bombers as “martyrs”, Al Jazeera has broadcast graphic and repetitive footage of the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict in a way western governments find inflammatory. Al-Jazeera is frank and matter-of-fact about the influence of the Pro-Israel lobby in the United States and how this contributes to U.S. policies feeding the ongoing violence in the Middle East. This is territory that advertising and member supported public media in the United States are unable to traverse without incurring the wrath of these massive and influential lobbies and their organized members.
Al-Jazeera’s Internet infrastructure has been partially “off the target grid”, unlike its physical facilities which can either be shut down under diplomatic pressure or, as has been done in the past (and on April 8, 2003 in Baghdad) simply bombed or attacked with missiles. Hence, U.S. corporate service providers have been under immense political pressure by the Bush Administration and special interest groups to terminate service and isolate Al-Jazeera English language Internet services. Al-Jazeera was tolerated when it was “Arabs talking to Arabs”. Now, Al-Jazeera’s servers have been repeatedly brought down by unknown groups deploying massive, costly, and continual denial of service attacks since launching news in English.
Analysis
Al-Jazeera was launched in 1997 and sustained by a US $137 million grant from the Emir of Qatar. Qatari foreign minister Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim bin Jabr Al Thani, a cousin of the emir, owns 35 percent of the channel. Al-Jazeera is staffed by many former BBC journalists and represents such a dramatic break from “state run television as the voice of government” in the Arab world that it has garnered criticism across every frequency of the Arab political spectrum.
The Jordanian press also accused Al-Jazeera of courting the favor of Israel and suggested that the Qatari leaders were helping the United States attack Iraq. Al-Jazeera broadcast a talk show in which Saudi dissidents lambasted the royal family, and also telecast a documentary about the founder of Saudi Arabia which the royal family considered insulting. The Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) has also complained about Al-Jazeera's coverage, arguing that it is violating a GCC code of conduct that bans cross-border media attacks.
Although continuing problems exist at Al-Jazeera such as providing contextual information in the case of Bin Laden tapes, and balance on the question of Qatar coverage, one factor is clear: with criticism this widespread, Al-Jazeera’s form of journalism must be doing something right.
The broad, though quiet, corporate boycott of Al-Jazeera by established U.S. interest groups must be understood for their unintended messages:
U.S. Media Self-Censorship is Generating Demand for Alternatives U.S. viewers are turning to the Internet and away from “flag waving” and “patriotic” news desk coverage that soft-pedals the harsh realities of the war on Iraq. Al-Jazeera is filling a void for immediate, hard and “undigested” news that differs from CNN in that it is not always looped through an editor’s desk at corporate headquarters.
Al-Jazeera was the #1 Lycos search engine term for the week ending March 29, 2003. U.S. news networks should interpret this as a quantified message that American viewers are growing weary of U.S. network “happy news” on the Middle East interpreted and delivered by chaotic legions of reporters with little cultural perspective or regional knowledge parachuted into the Middle East in times of war.
“Dot-Con” or “Neo-Con” the Public is the Loser In evaluating the Akamai rebuff, it is instructive to consider Akamai Technologies Inc. itself as a case study and metaphor for the true danger of media censorship, interest groups, and “happy news”.
Akamai was a darling of the dot-com stock bubble. Akamai’s original business model anticipated geometric and continual demand growth. While insiders walked away with hundreds of millions of dollars from the venture capital run-up and IPO hype about the company, its stock value plummeted from a high of over US $300 per share in January of 2000 to less than $2.00 today.
Private sector punditry and “news” on behalf of insider stakeholders before Akamai’s fall is eerily reminiscent of what is happening now between the Neocons, news consumers, and the Middle East. Recent revelations about Richard Perle show a potential conflict of interest as he maneuvered both as Defense Policy Board Chairman architect for war in the Middle East and salesman for Trireme homeland defense venture capital services.
Financially hemorrhaging Akamai is evidence that special purpose “news” produced to serve the interests of an elite or insider few, invariably violates the rights of the many. Now Akamai is casting about for new “distributed computing” business models and faced with serving actual (not projected) enterprise and government demand for services. Unhelpfully, potential Akamai sales to other international news networks that are critical of Bush Administration policies may also be in jeopardy. In contrast, demand for alternative Middle East news will continue to grow as other content distribution networks step in to serve and enable Al-Jazeera’s future business technology needs.
The Risk of Censorship Although a boycott by U.S. technology service providers will not be an insurmountable problem for Al-Jazeera, it may soon lead to real censorship in the form of direct and aggressive Bush Administration mandates. Al-Jazeera on the Internet has become an immense problem for members of the Bush administration who would like to shape the content, presentation and messages of U.S. policy through Arab channels as thoroughly as they do in the mainstream U.S. media outlets. In the near future, Al-Jazeera could be accused of giving aid and comfort to America’s enemies, prompting a ban on ISP’s carrying Al-Jazeera news to U.S. audiences as part of a comprehensive “Homeland Defense” program or new “Patriot Act II” law. Vendors that can provide “content denial and service prevention” technology may unfortunately find a new growth market.
Although the Internet was designed as a robust network able to sustain even nuclear attacks, Al-Jazeera is infinitely more vulnerable
Akamai released an ambiguous statement which did little to reveal why the financially strapped company chose to forgo desperately needed revenue. "Akamai worked briefly this week with Al-Jazeera to understand the issues they are having distributing their Web sites. We ultimately decided not to continue a customer relationship with Al-Jazeera, and we are not going to be providing them our services," Al-Jazeera also attempted to build awareness and traffic to the new English site by ad placement buys on Yahoo! and AOL, but was again rejected. Akamai has “Akamized” CNN, MSNBC and Yahoo! content as a paid service provider. The New York Stock Exchange has also confirmed that it revoked al-Jazeera's broadcasting privileges from the floor of the exchange.
What is behind the sudden corporate boycott of Al-Jazeera? The Al-Jazeera television network is considered by many to be the CNN of the Arab world. The 24-hour Arabic language news channel reaches 30 to 40 million people in the Middle East and many more across Europe and the U.S. via satellite.
Al-Jazeera has been vilified in the United States with an allegedly pervasive “anti-American” bias. Among the specific charges leveled at Al Jazeera are:
Broadcasting Osama bin Laden interviews and tapes – Al-Jazeera has repeatedly obtained and rebroadcast uncut footage and taped interviews with Osama bin Laden taken before and after 9/11. Critics believe that repeating this footage during the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan put the Al-Qaeda leader on “equal footing” with U.S. president Bush on the “Arab Street”.
Graphic Footage of Civilian, U.S. British Force Casualties and POWs Video of POWs and dead in the U.S. media is usually taken from a distance and reserved exclusively for enemy forces. By broadcasting the dead and POWs of both sides as well as civilians killed in the war in Iraq, Al-Jazeera has come under the U.S. charge of violating the UN Geneva Conventions.
Critical view of the United States and Israel – Al-Jazeera has routinely discussed subjects that are taboo in the mainstream western media. Referring to Palestinian suicide bombers as “martyrs”, Al Jazeera has broadcast graphic and repetitive footage of the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict in a way western governments find inflammatory. Al-Jazeera is frank and matter-of-fact about the influence of the Pro-Israel lobby in the United States and how this contributes to U.S. policies feeding the ongoing violence in the Middle East. This is territory that advertising and member supported public media in the United States are unable to traverse without incurring the wrath of these massive and influential lobbies and their organized members.
Al-Jazeera’s Internet infrastructure has been partially “off the target grid”, unlike its physical facilities which can either be shut down under diplomatic pressure or, as has been done in the past (and on April 8, 2003 in Baghdad) simply bombed or attacked with missiles. Hence, U.S. corporate service providers have been under immense political pressure by the Bush Administration and special interest groups to terminate service and isolate Al-Jazeera English language Internet services. Al-Jazeera was tolerated when it was “Arabs talking to Arabs”. Now, Al-Jazeera’s servers have been repeatedly brought down by unknown groups deploying massive, costly, and continual denial of service attacks since launching news in English.
Analysis
Al-Jazeera was launched in 1997 and sustained by a US $137 million grant from the Emir of Qatar. Qatari foreign minister Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim bin Jabr Al Thani, a cousin of the emir, owns 35 percent of the channel. Al-Jazeera is staffed by many former BBC journalists and represents such a dramatic break from “state run television as the voice of government” in the Arab world that it has garnered criticism across every frequency of the Arab political spectrum.
The Jordanian press also accused Al-Jazeera of courting the favor of Israel and suggested that the Qatari leaders were helping the United States attack Iraq. Al-Jazeera broadcast a talk show in which Saudi dissidents lambasted the royal family, and also telecast a documentary about the founder of Saudi Arabia which the royal family considered insulting. The Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) has also complained about Al-Jazeera's coverage, arguing that it is violating a GCC code of conduct that bans cross-border media attacks.
Although continuing problems exist at Al-Jazeera such as providing contextual information in the case of Bin Laden tapes, and balance on the question of Qatar coverage, one factor is clear: with criticism this widespread, Al-Jazeera’s form of journalism must be doing something right.
The broad, though quiet, corporate boycott of Al-Jazeera by established U.S. interest groups must be understood for their unintended messages:
U.S. Media Self-Censorship is Generating Demand for Alternatives U.S. viewers are turning to the Internet and away from “flag waving” and “patriotic” news desk coverage that soft-pedals the harsh realities of the war on Iraq. Al-Jazeera is filling a void for immediate, hard and “undigested” news that differs from CNN in that it is not always looped through an editor’s desk at corporate headquarters.
Al-Jazeera was the #1 Lycos search engine term for the week ending March 29, 2003. U.S. news networks should interpret this as a quantified message that American viewers are growing weary of U.S. network “happy news” on the Middle East interpreted and delivered by chaotic legions of reporters with little cultural perspective or regional knowledge parachuted into the Middle East in times of war.
“Dot-Con” or “Neo-Con” the Public is the Loser In evaluating the Akamai rebuff, it is instructive to consider Akamai Technologies Inc. itself as a case study and metaphor for the true danger of media censorship, interest groups, and “happy news”.
Akamai was a darling of the dot-com stock bubble. Akamai’s original business model anticipated geometric and continual demand growth. While insiders walked away with hundreds of millions of dollars from the venture capital run-up and IPO hype about the company, its stock value plummeted from a high of over US $300 per share in January of 2000 to less than $2.00 today.
Private sector punditry and “news” on behalf of insider stakeholders before Akamai’s fall is eerily reminiscent of what is happening now between the Neocons, news consumers, and the Middle East. Recent revelations about Richard Perle show a potential conflict of interest as he maneuvered both as Defense Policy Board Chairman architect for war in the Middle East and salesman for Trireme homeland defense venture capital services.
Financially hemorrhaging Akamai is evidence that special purpose “news” produced to serve the interests of an elite or insider few, invariably violates the rights of the many. Now Akamai is casting about for new “distributed computing” business models and faced with serving actual (not projected) enterprise and government demand for services. Unhelpfully, potential Akamai sales to other international news networks that are critical of Bush Administration policies may also be in jeopardy. In contrast, demand for alternative Middle East news will continue to grow as other content distribution networks step in to serve and enable Al-Jazeera’s future business technology needs.
The Risk of Censorship Although a boycott by U.S. technology service providers will not be an insurmountable problem for Al-Jazeera, it may soon lead to real censorship in the form of direct and aggressive Bush Administration mandates. Al-Jazeera on the Internet has become an immense problem for members of the Bush administration who would like to shape the content, presentation and messages of U.S. policy through Arab channels as thoroughly as they do in the mainstream U.S. media outlets. In the near future, Al-Jazeera could be accused of giving aid and comfort to America’s enemies, prompting a ban on ISP’s carrying Al-Jazeera news to U.S. audiences as part of a comprehensive “Homeland Defense” program or new “Patriot Act II” law. Vendors that can provide “content denial and service prevention” technology may unfortunately find a new growth market.
Although the Internet was designed as a robust network able to sustain even nuclear attacks, Al-Jazeera is infinitely more vulnerable
For more information:
http://www.irmep.org
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
Do you guys do *any* research at all? I thought it was cool to demand corporations with concience. Or is that only when they agree with your cause?
Akami has no legal obligation to deal with these al-jazeera, and considering their apparent ties with OBL, and this little fact:
"On September 11, 2001, Akamai lost Danny Lewin aboard the American Airlines flight that crashed into the World Trade Center in New York. Although a year has passed, Danny's spirit and energy remains strong in all of us at Akamai. His vision continues to guide us as we carry on his commitment to Akamai's success. "
it's not at all surprising that they would pass on the "dirty" money.
http://www.akamai.com/en/html/about/management_dl.html
Akami has no legal obligation to deal with these al-jazeera, and considering their apparent ties with OBL, and this little fact:
"On September 11, 2001, Akamai lost Danny Lewin aboard the American Airlines flight that crashed into the World Trade Center in New York. Although a year has passed, Danny's spirit and energy remains strong in all of us at Akamai. His vision continues to guide us as we carry on his commitment to Akamai's success. "
it's not at all surprising that they would pass on the "dirty" money.
http://www.akamai.com/en/html/about/management_dl.html
Al Jazeera has played Osama bin Laden's tapes. As well they should - they're news. Showing one frame from a tape and quoting what the US government says they say - that's news US-style.
But Al Jazeera doesn't have links with bin Laden, so it's silly to call their money "dirty".
But Al Jazeera doesn't have links with bin Laden, so it's silly to call their money "dirty".
No. A company may certainly choose with whom it wishes to do business.
Not only showing bin Laden statements, but refusing to show, covering up, and denying the existence of the now-famous bin Laden confession. Remember, when CNN broke the story, al Jazeera cut all business ties with them. Is this the same type of "censorship" that is alleged here?
Research? Yes, that's the point.
An Akamai founder on the plane has absolutely nothing to do with this issue. Al-Jazeera is a news network, with no involvement in the 9/11 attacks, although many interests in the U.S. would certainly like to pin 9/11 on *every* Arab.
Akamai needs to think a little bit more about an important set of constituents that got the shaft: shareholders.
An Akamai founder on the plane has absolutely nothing to do with this issue. Al-Jazeera is a news network, with no involvement in the 9/11 attacks, although many interests in the U.S. would certainly like to pin 9/11 on *every* Arab.
Akamai needs to think a little bit more about an important set of constituents that got the shaft: shareholders.
'those guys'?
is that like 'you people'?
(why ask)
your racism, jingoism, provincialism, xenophobia and abysmal education are showing
(that's just like 'you guys', ooh, it feels good to be mean)
signed,
a white american, but one of 'those guys'
(don't trouble too much, you'll get it, eventually, one way or another)
is that like 'you people'?
(why ask)
your racism, jingoism, provincialism, xenophobia and abysmal education are showing
(that's just like 'you guys', ooh, it feels good to be mean)
signed,
a white american, but one of 'those guys'
(don't trouble too much, you'll get it, eventually, one way or another)
DaTruth 's comments are typical of someone whose country is going through a period of near fascism.
Akamai are out of order. Speech is (was) free in the U.S., as is (was... actually was never) the economy. Contracts are NOT supposed to be subject to political scrutiny in the free market - why do you think the U.S. objects to the EU's restrictions on GMOs? Because they are "political".
What happens when cable companies refuse to carry content because it is disagreeable? The content providers can take them to court.
As John Stuart Mill said in ON Liberty, the greatest threat is not government tyranny, because at least you can see it. Rather the greatest threat is social tyranny, which is more or less invisable to most, yet crushes the soul more severely.
In a democracy we ARE allowed to criticise the government, and to hear voices of those who criticise our government.
What sort of "democracy" and "liberty" are you guys fighting to defend?
Akamai are out of order. Speech is (was) free in the U.S., as is (was... actually was never) the economy. Contracts are NOT supposed to be subject to political scrutiny in the free market - why do you think the U.S. objects to the EU's restrictions on GMOs? Because they are "political".
What happens when cable companies refuse to carry content because it is disagreeable? The content providers can take them to court.
As John Stuart Mill said in ON Liberty, the greatest threat is not government tyranny, because at least you can see it. Rather the greatest threat is social tyranny, which is more or less invisable to most, yet crushes the soul more severely.
In a democracy we ARE allowed to criticise the government, and to hear voices of those who criticise our government.
What sort of "democracy" and "liberty" are you guys fighting to defend?
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$230.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network