Aljazeera use of the word martyr - shahid

Use of the word martyr / shahid

I just watched an interview with Al Jazeera's director Wadah Khanfar, where the issue of the word used by Al Jazeera for suicide terrorists came up. It was a bit confusing, so I won't add it to the article, but here's what I understood: The word used is often mistranslated as 'martyr', but that is a misconception. The word that is used in Arabic (and that they use) is 'amaliyya fida'iyya', not 'ishtishhadiyya'. Then he went on to say that the word they use is 'shahid', which is also used by other Arab stations and is a neutral word, meaning someone who died under abnormal circumstances (it is used for all sorts of people, irrespective of, for example, religion). Because I was confused over the 'exact' meaning of these words and which word they use when, I looked here, but there's no info on it, so could someone who knows add it? Given the controversy about how Al Jazeera deals with terrorism, this seems like a relevant topic.

I am not a regular user of Wikipedia, so I hope this turns out right. I wanted to say that indeed Al Jazeera's use of the words shahid (martyr) and other vocabulary related to the root (Arabic vocabulary is ordered around root stems), such as Istashhada, are clearly indicative of bias. For example, when reporting today, March 6, 2008, on the shootings in an Israeli seminary they use the verb "to die" to describe what happened to the Israeli seminarians: وذكرت خدمة زاكا الإسرائيلية للطوارئ أن ثمانية أشخاص على الأقل قتلوا في هذا الهجوم بينما أصيب نحو ثلاثين شخصا. In the same article, a little further down, they say that a Palestinian was "martyred" in an air raid by the Israeli occupation: وفي وقت سابق اليوم استشهد فلسطيني وأصيب آخر في غارة جوية للاحتلال الإسرائيلي في جباليا شمال قطاع غزة، بينما قتل جندي إسرائيلي وجرح ثلاثة آخرون

In both instances death occurred at the hands of armed individuals, and indeed in the case of the seminary shootings, the targeting of civilians is beyond any doubt. Yet Al-Jazeera would never say that Israelis or Jews, or American soldiers, were martyred (Istashhada). And indeed it would sound strange for a muslim to use it to describe the death of a non-muslim (though we must remember that not all Arabs are muslim). Having said that, the term is not neutral, just as it is not in English, and they could just as easily have written, to maintain neutrality, that the Palestinians were "killed." Other Arabic news organizations do use this more neutral term. The use of the term in the Palestinian conflict by an Arab news organization is understandable to some degree, though it still shows a bias, yet it is also used, or has been used in the past, to show sympathy towards insurgents in Iraq and in other areas. What is interesting, and would make a wonderful graduate study, is how Jazeera's terminology has shifted in their Iraq coverage given how they feel about the insurgency at a given time. Yet that would take more time to delve into than I have right now.

What is perhaps confusing for some, is that Al-Jazeera English seems relatively unbiased. Indeed it is far more professional in this regard. Another great project would be to translate the coverage in Arabic and then compare it to the story on the English language Jazeera site. Perhaps I will do that on another night to show how vast the difference is. Yet if you have access to Al-Jazeera via satellite TV, even if you don't understand Arabic, it suffices to watch their own commercials for the channel (US soldiers in dark sunglasses pointing rifles at children, with dark music in the background, and so on) to detect the station's obvious bias.

This is perhaps the greatest fault of this article, is that it really doesn't do this point justice. Al-Jazeera is at least as anti-American (and anti-Israeli, but that is a given) as FOX news is pro-American, and I would even say it is a bit more so, and even less professional in the way it flaunts this bias. I would think any neutral observer who understands Arabic would admit to this, and indeed most educated Arabs that I know do admit it. But the article seems to also present this bias in rather equivocal terms.

You state that Al Jazeera was "anti-Israeli", and that that was "a given". Do you have any evidence to back up that assertion? I can think of the following reasons which would suggest to me that that is not the case:

* High-ranking Israelis are on the record stating that Al Jazeera was less biased against Israel than both the BBC and CNN. To quote:

Head of the Government Press Office Daniel Seaman expressed his satisfaction with the efforts of Al-Jazeera in Israel, despite the limited airtime and occasional mistranslation of Israeli spokespeople, saying that they're fairer to Israel than CNN or BBC.

"I have only the utmost respect for Al-Jazeera in Israel. They've tried their best to be fair, and even if I disagreed with their coverage at times, it was not one-sided. Given their audience, they show the Arab side, the Palestinian side of the conflict, but they also present Israel's side."

* It is correct that not all Israelis share such a positive view of Al Jazeera. To quote further:

The Foreign Ministry's spokeswoman Atira Oron, however, is wholly more critical of Al-Jazeera's news coverage, disagreeing that it is less biased than CNN and BBC, citing the example that during the Lebanon War, CNN and BBC went into Israeli bomb shelters, unlike Al-Jazeera.

Oron also said that Al-Jazeera emphasizes Arab casualties while exaggerating Israeli "threats" and "naturally" assumes Israel is to blame in Israeli-Arab conflicts.

"But this bias is diminishing," Oron continued, saying that the channel's reports "are careful to show the Israeli side, even if it isn't given that much time."

* However, when Al Jazeera English went on the air, yes Israel dropped BBC World off their service and started broadcasting Al Jazeera English instead. It was reported that a reason behind the inclusion of Al Jazeera English and the exclusion of BBC World by the Israeli satellite TV provider was a perception that the BBC was biased against Israel. [3]

* I don't really know Arabic, so my knowledge of the Arabic Al Jazeera channel is second-hand, but I personally watched Al Jazeera English the day they started broadcasting in 2006. On that day, Al Jazeera English had on the air both Ismail Haniya and Shimon Perez (not simultaneously though; presumably neither would have agreed to that). Mr. Perez congratulated Al Jazeera English on their launch and stated: "Maybe in English we can talk peace." It is correct that Al Jazeera does put enemies of Israel on the air. However, Al Jazeera also puts friends of Israel on the air -- unlike many Arab national broadcasters, who for decades never put Israeli politicians on. Al Jazeera's stance does seem intermittently rather critical, but not anti-Israeli to me.

* Shimon Perez was also given a tour of Al Jazeera English's Doha, Qatar-based broadcasting centre. If I recall correctly, I saw that in PBS FRONTLINE/World News War "War of ideas", which, by the way, is an excellent documentary. Watch it. (While you're at it, watch the entire News War series.)

I appreciate your willingness to counter my statement, and perhaps it was a bit too cavalier in the way it was made. But I stand by it none the less. And it seems that the Israeli government does, too, as is evidenced by their decision to boycott the station recently (March 12th, 2008), for its coverage of the conflict in the Gaza strip. Again, I think there are major differences between the English and the Arabic versions of Al Jazeera. At the end of the day, a news station will cater to its audience.

You cited an article above (http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Politics/9877.htm) containing the comments of several Israeli officials. However, in that article, I find the paraphrasing and direct citation of the professor in communications, Prof. Weimann, to be the most accurate.

(Begin excerpt) "the dominant homegrown critics of Middle Eastern regimes happen to be Islamic fundamentalists, not democratic reformers, and while the reformers do get air time, the fundamentalists get much, much more. This can be defended as sound journalism - giving proportional weight to differing views - but it also serves the political ideology of Al Jazeera - and Qatar - which is Islamism. [...] Thus, Al Jazeera embodies something that is believed in the West to be a contradiction, an impossibility - democratic Islamism," reported the Jerusalem Post, explaining the theories of Haifa University communications Prof. Gabriel Weimann. Weimann asserts that Al-Jazeera's bias is "pan-Arabic, pan-Islamic. It serves the Muslim world community. It certainly tends toward an anti-Western, anti-American, anti-Israeli view in its depiction of clashes between the West and the Islamic world. It clearly takes the Muslim side, the Palestinian side in those clashes." (End excerpt)

The bias described by Prof. Weimann is clear on Al Jazeera's web site (as it is on the Arabic television station, but that is harder to cite). As an example of this, let me include the photo and introductory paragraph of an article about American Imperialism which has been featured prominently on the left hand side of their web site's main page for some time now. (I was unable to get the photo to embed, but it bolsters my point as much if not more so than the text. If anyone could figure out how to present the photo here I would be very grateful. Here is the link to both the article and the photo

Here is the title and first paragraph of the article along with my translation:

الولايات المتحدة والإمبريالية

عبد الوهاب المسيرى يتصور البعض أن قيام الولايات المتحدة بغزو أفغانستان والعراق ودعم الدولة الصهيونية وعدم الاكتراث بالشرعية الدولية وتأليب دول العالم ودول الخليج ضد إيران، أمور استثنائية، لأن الولايات المتحدة بلد ديمقراطي لا علاقة له بالاستعمار، ولكن الملاحظ المدقق سيرى أن هذه ليست مجرد أحداث متفرقة بل هي جزء من نمط إمبريالي بدأ مع بداية تاريخ الولايات المتحدة، يتلخص في عبارة واحدة: رفض الآخر وتوظيفه في خدمة المصالح المادية أو إبادته إن قاوم.

Here is the translation:

(Begin Excerpt) The United States and Imperialism

(By) Abd alwahhab almsiri

Some imagine that the United States' conquest of Afghanistan and Iraq, support of the Zionist State, lack of adherence to international law, and inflaming the nations of the world and the nations of the Gulf against Iran are exceptional matters, since the United States is a democratic country with no relation to imperialism. However, a keen observer sees that these are not only isolated incidents but actually an imperialistic manner (outlook, tendency, policy?) which began with the beginning of the history of the United States, and which can be summed up in one phrase: a refusal of the other, and employment of the other in the service of material interests; or the destruction of the other should he resist. (End Excerpt)

I don't contend that the above is not a valid viewpoint, certainly it can be bolstered by some factual evidence, which the article goes on to present. Yet it is still a viewpoint, and one which, for better or for worse, is clearly anti-Amiercan. There is nothing on the website to counterbalance this sort of bias. There is no article that makes the opposite case, that the United States has only exceptionally engaged in imperialistic behavior, and has done so only after much debate and hesitation. I am not saying that this is true, either, but it is a viewpoint, and one which does not find expression on the Arabic Al Jazeera. In fact, there is little if anything which is presented on Al Jazeera which might be said to defend American policies, politics, or viewpoints. Certainly there are guests on talk shows, but they are usually engaged in a debate not only with the person presenting the opposite, anti-American viewpoint, but often, and somewhat humorously, by the show host himself, who almost invariably sides with the anti-American guest. There is little to no 'unqualified defense of the US or Israel, in other words. By no means is there enough "pro-American" to counter the predominantly anti-American bias on the site. The same is true of the station (and web site's) treatment of Israel and Israelis.

Again, I do not maintain that Al Jazeera is wrong for holding the views that it does. But that is not really what is under discussion here. Rather, it is whether the station is unbiased, fair, or balanced in its reporting.

I appreciate the fact that you cleaned up the formatting of my article last time (by indenting it), please feel free to do so again. I apologize that I am not more versed in how to use Wikipedia, but I will try to learn. —Preceding unsigned comment added by

In response to 84.169.170.37: I would challenge you to name a single mainstream American or, for that matter, British news outlet that would have an article like the one you quoted from the Al Jazeera website. Yet it is a perfectly valid viewpoint that is held by a not-insignificant number of people. Isn't that evidence of bias? Isnt it striking that there is never an "unqualified" attack on the US in any mainstream US / British media outlet (I'm not referring to radical or alternative media), just as you claim there is no "unqualified" defense of the US on AJ? Yet I suspect we will not find the New York Times or the BBC wikipedia pages referring to that fact.

There are two points I would like to make. First, the fact is that, by the standards you are applying - which are perfectly valid in principle, don't get me wrong - practically every mainstream media outlet anywhere in the world would fail. All media outlets have a point of view, they only differ in the degree that they allow variations on that point of view. BY that standard, from my limited knowledge, Al Jazeera is as good or better than most prestigious / mainstream US / UK media outlets (the New York Times is an excellent example). If Prof. Weinman thinks that Al Jazeera is the voice of "democratic Islamism" (which is a dubious view), arguably the NYT is the voice of "liberal imperialism." This does not diminish the value of either Al Jazeera or the NYT.

Secondly, why are we adopting the position that one's attitude to the US is the measure of all things? As important if not more important is AJ's perceived position on other controversies involving its viewership, such as reforms in Iran, the Algerian issues talked about in the article, Musharraf in Pakistan, etc. The current article does a good job of covering all these issues without getting bogged down in just one controversy. To write a section on AJ's supposed anti-American bias would be like adding one to the NYT (forgive the example yet again) page on its ostensible anti-Palestinian bias, or anti-Mugabe bias, or anti-Saudi bias, etc. Would we see that as legitimate?