As noted here before, the most comprehensiveive coverage of Gaza came from Al Jazeera's English-language station. While international reporters were barred by Israel from freely entering Gaza during the fighting, Al Jazeera had its Gaza correspondents on-the-ground.
And Americans apparently took notice.
According to the Associated Press, Al Jazeera English saw a 600 percent jump in its on-line viewership, and 60 percent of that growth came from people watching in the United States.
The station is only available in three small cable stations in the US, so most people who want to watch it from America have to go on the Internet.
"Gaza ... was a breakthrough opportunity to make an impact with people who are less aware of Al Jazeera than we'd like," said Tony Burman, managing director of the English-language channel in Qatar.
Meanwhile... Israel's Supreme Court finally got around to ruling, one week after the major Israeli military strikes came to a halt, that Israel has to let journalists into Gaza unless there are "dire circumstances of concrete danger" that require the border to be closed.
The ruling came too late for journalists to cover the fighting itself. But Gaza is now saturated with reporters who are flooding the area to tell the stories.
And there are many, many stories. The full picture is just beginning to emerge, so stay tuned.
Considering that Israel is now saying it will protect all soldiers and commanders from prosecution for war crimes, we are coming to a better understanding of why journalists were barred from Gaza. I truly believe there is a massive attempt at a cover up happening and whether the Israeli government likes it or not, they're not going to get away with it.
Posted by: Julia Hurley | January 25, 2009 at 07:34 PM
You are such an idiot.
Is this what the AP is saying. What exactly is the AP? I know what it stands for but what I mean is you act like it is some a single autonomous oracle of wisdom but the truth is that it is just a bunch of people who get together and write about their biases.
Truth is Americans didn't know there was a war going on in Gaza. No, no kidding. Come visit America and walk down any American street and you will find few people who would even know what you were talking about if you said "Gaza War."
So, how coould America be watching about the Gaza War on al Jazeera when they didn't even know there was one going on?
So, this article is on its face false.
Posted by: Gent | January 25, 2009 at 10:43 PM
By the way, if I was you I would be worrying about your job. The Seattle PI just has gone out of business and many other papers are near collapse themselves.
As this global depression worsens this trend is only going to continue.
I have a good way that McClatchy Newspapers can save money. They can close down your Jerusalem Bureau and get their news about the region from an Al Jazeera service instead. This outsourcing could save the company lots of money.
Sure that means you are going to be out of work, but such a fan you are of al Jazeera you shouldn't mind.
Posted by: Gent | January 25, 2009 at 10:51 PM
This is getting spun by the Israeli government now,see
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1232643746482&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
Branding foreign journalists "spoiled crybabies" unwilling to make "a little effort" to get into Gaza during Operation Cast Lead, Government Press Office head Danny Seaman denied Sunday there had been any ban on their entry into the Strip during the battle.
Posted by: izzybee | January 26, 2009 at 06:27 AM
I think it's good to question journalists. Hopefully it helps to keep them honest. The watchdogs need a watchdog too!
But knee-jerk sarcasm about all MSM journalists (or all those from a particular news org) seems about as helpful as knee-jerk support for Hamas.
It makes me want to see how credible Gent's claims are.
Let's see.... is it on its face false or on its face plausible that Al Jazeera saw a 600% increase on the Internet, with 60% of that coming from the USA?
Well, 13% of the population in the Middle East watches Al Jazeeera (http://www.allied-media.com/aljazeera/JAZdemog.html).
There are about 41 million Internet users in the Middle East (http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats5.htm).
If 13% of those in the Middle East watch Al Jazeera on TV, let's assume (plausibly, I'd argue) that the same percent watches Al Jazeera on line. (Maybe different people, but the same percent.) So I'd estimate that about 5.3 million Internet users in the Middle East browse to Al Jazeera. (If someone else has a better number I'm happy to use it.)
Based on that, a 600% jump would be an increase of about 31.8 million. 60% of that is 19 million.
So based on the above, AP is claiming that Al Jazeera garnered about 19 million more Internet viewers from the USA during the recent conflict.
To put that number into perspective, there are about 250 million Internet users in the USA (http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats2.htm).
19 million extra viewers is 7.6% of the 250 million Internet users in the USA (and 6.2% of the total US population.)
So, what is AP claiming? They're claiming that 7.6% of US Internet viewers were encouraged to watch Al-Jazeera for the first time during the recent conflict.
I accept that most Americans know little about Gaza. Maybe more than 90% couldn't care less. But I'm not sure that makes it "on its face false" that less than 10% of the Internet users in the USA were encouraged to watch Al Jazeera for the first time. To me, AP's claim seems plausible, or at least worth considering.
It's plausible especially when we remember that people might not have started watching Al Jazeera out of interest in the conflict. For example, certain US demographics are attracted to video footage of carnage of any kind.
I went to the original AP article and found that it also cites figures from Alexa, the Web tracking organization. (The original article can be found here: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090124/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_jazeera_s_breakthrough)
Alexa's figures show that the number of unique visitors to Al Jazeera in January were 300% of what they were just before the recent conflict (http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details/english.aljazeera.net/homepage).
If each of these new viewers visited the site 2 or 3 times a day during the conflict, and if the 600% figure refers to overall traffic rather than unique viewers, AP's claim seems to be in the right ballpark.
Even if we do not want to buy the figures I've compiled above, Alexia's figures also support the more general claim that the Gaza conflict encouraged people to visit the Al Jazeera site more than the sites of MSM sites. Al Jazeera's worldwide traffic ranking went from about 800 just before the conflict to about 250 during the conflict. And compare Al Jazeera's reach figures to those of CNN's figures, which showed little or no increase during the conflict, except around inauguration time(http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details/cnn.com).
In other words, unless we're suspicious of Hamas sympathizers running Alexia ;-), I'm not sure we want to reject AP's reporting out of hand, just because of a (probably correct) belief that many in the USA aren't interested in the conflict.
Like I said, I'm open to the idea that journalists can be biased. Anyone can be biased. Maybe some of the assumptions and sources I've used above are biased--I'm open to that, too.
But I think those who tout themselves as BS detectors and protectors of the truth do a disservice to themselves and their watchdog function when they adopt a strategy that makes them at least as vulnerable to the criticisms they're raising about others.
It's like the penny-loafer-wearing Hamas militant that Nissenbaum described in a previous post. When someone makes emotional and self-interested claims that seem unsubstantiated and motivated by something other than just trying to get to the truth, you eventually start listening just for entertainment value, if at all.
Posted by: Xema | January 29, 2009 at 07:31 PM