Will a new TV station with a Aounist perspective be good or bad for Lebanon?
I read today a post by my friend Kais who all but thrashes OTV, the proposed TV station that will promulgate a Aounist world view to Lebanese audiences all over the world.
Kais is not exactly a fan as his post clearly shows, but the topic sparks a wider debate: How healthy is it for every party to have its own media outlets?
The classic democratic argument has always been one of laissez-faire. You basically let everyone say whatever they want, and the rational voter will then, after listening to all the points of view, make up her mind and let her choice be known in the ballot box. Neat isn’t it?
Unfortunately, as the Information age has shown us, we did’nt turn out to be homo-rationalus after all; we have our views of the world and we like to listen to what like-minded people have to say. In a landmark article in the New York Times, The Age of Political Segregation, David Brooks observes:
Once you’ve joined a side, the information age makes it easier for you to surround yourself with people like yourself. And if there is one thing we have learned over the past generation, it’s that we are really into self-validation.
We don’t only want radio programs and Web sites from members of our side — we want to live near people like ourselves. Information age workers aren’t tied down to a mine, a port or a factory. They have more opportunities to shop for a place to live, and they tend to cluster in places where people share their cultural aesthetic and, as it turns out, political values. So every place becomes more like itself, and the cultural divides between places become stark. The information age was supposed to make distance dead, but because of clustering, geography becomes more important.
David Brooks was writing about Liberal Vs. Conservative America, but as we all know, this applies very well to Lebanon. On the same topic, Cate Malek writes about the important concept of Escalation:
escalation is a psychological process that causes the parties involved in a conflict to use more and more extreme measures to try to “beat” their opponents. Escalation begins when one party believes the other party has deliberately provoked them. They retaliate, setting off a vicious cycle. As a conflict escalates, the disputants begin to stereotype each other. They cut off communication with the other side and begin to associate only with their own side. The lack of communication contributes to increased misunderstandings and distrust of the other side.
Was Kais escalating? Some people will say: No, Aoun’s TV will indeed be “…stinky for the country, which would have to deal with his toxic political waste matter, caused by a chronic diarrhea of the mouth.”
But now the other side will escalate in response, and now they have a TV station. So, is that a good thing or a bad thing?
| Print: 
The beirut spring is a blog that is interested in Lebanese society and its politics. It started in February 2005 after the assassination of Prime Minister Rafik Hariri
March 23rd, 2006 at 1:00 pm
Kais is a very angry man who “thrashes” anyone who so much as smiles at HA or shakes the hand of Nasrallah.
Aoun is surrounded by clever prople and understands the logic of power.
He also understands the power of the media and its monopolization in Lebanon by political forces that have by and large excluded his message.
While I am not a fan of Aoun and his militarism , I support his right to have his own media like the other warlords. The real question is who will subsidize this media.
Issam
March 23rd, 2006 at 1:42 pm
Kais and most of those who responded to his post have failed to make a distinction between two very important issues:(a) The right to start a new TV station and (b) Quality of the proposed programing.
It is of the utmost importance for a valid position in any field of endeavour to be internally consistent. If I support a free elections then I am committed to abide by the results of said elections irrespective of the affiliation of the victors. The same principal applies in this case. Once one is for a free press, and I do not now anyone who is not, then I must be for a free press for everyone. But this does not mean that I have to agree with the positions of all the media outlets and I should not expect all outlets to take the same positions on all issues. Biodiversity is not virtous in the ecosystem only. It is a sign of a healthy and vibrant economy.
The idea whether it is healthy to allow political parties to own media outlets a canard. What is to prevent a major supporter then of owning a media outlet and espousing the same philosophy as the party in question. A society is run for the benefit of its citizens. They are the ones who are to have the final say. Sophisticated, well informed and educated consumers will not tune in to biased news except for “self validation” and in that case no amount of objectivity will help change their mind.
The description, Mustapha, of the David Brooks column as a “landmark article” is clearly not an objective one. The reality is that it was the usual 500-600 word weekly column. It is nothing more than one columnists opinion.
Back to OTV. The Aounists, just like anybody else, have the right to own a TV stationas long as they comply with the current laws of the land. I do not intend to make them my major source of information but I will judge that after I the product is out. Even if the product turns out to be as bad as I suspect it will be I do not fear for the health of democracy when a different point of view is expressed. Actually I welcome it.
March 23rd, 2006 at 2:04 pm
If all the other major political groups are allowed to have TV stations and it is okay, then why not the FPM? If you are going to bash the FPM about it, then do so for the rest of the political groups.
March 23rd, 2006 at 3:04 pm
I welcome Aon to have his TV station starting hala’tniyee!
-FGA
March 23rd, 2006 at 3:08 pm
The number one hit on Aon’s TV will be a version of “cops”, starring none other than Edgar Ma’alouf who will be stopped and insulted by random people while driving on official visits because he likes oranges and mangos.
Bad boys, bad boys, whatcha gonna do, whatcha gonna do when they come for you.
-FGA
March 23rd, 2006 at 3:21 pm
It’s their sacred right . Okay , i’m with the aounists having their own tv station . Why ? so they can get on with their mediocre propaganda , so that everyone sees aoun as a demagogue , a man that only sees political chairs , a man with fake program , a man that talks the talk and never gets on with it , ah it’s a source of entertainment , since they’ll be accusing everyone of everything that happened to this country and that nobody is doing anything about it , what about them ?
March 23rd, 2006 at 6:20 pm
I don’t think you need to have a TV Station to have power in Lebanon. Look at Jumblatt. On the other hand it is definitely a disadvantage when a party does not have its own station. Unfortunately we do not have an impartial TV Station in the country.
Another problem is if the Politician starts watching only his TV Station that will not help either :-)
March 23rd, 2006 at 6:59 pm
Why not more lebanese tv stations? The current ones are full of useless programs and beautiful ditzy young women!
I say more…who doesnt?
March 23rd, 2006 at 7:16 pm
I totally agree with anon 6:59. I want more, more nonesence. I love nonsence.
Who doesn’t?
March 23rd, 2006 at 8:33 pm
in the current situation, because of the media linked to political lines of their owners, it s true that aoun needs a tv to expose his idea, but i guess it s more a symptom of a current situation that was rooted by the LBC first during the war, then by the future etc… that came after the war and were politically oriented.
people who reject now this diversity without rejecting in the same time the other political oriented medias crap, they are brainwashed, they dont see the dangerous mixture btw the powers in this country
we have 4 power.
executive
legislative
judiciary
and the media
in lebanon the executive, the legislative and the medias are linked.
the medias are therefore not independant but somehow state controled.
we are not in a democratie but in an oligarchy and anyone who dares not to see that is blind.
and i m sorry to say i m feeling pity for thoses journalists or so called journalists that are working without being able to express their own independant opinion but have to reflect the opinion of those they are working for. they are participating to the system of control and to the restraining system of private liberties and opinion as manipulating their viewers.
as long we re inside that system and as far as orange tv will be in the opposition, in the name of diversity i think we should welcome it. if it is showing a point of view not linked to the political line of aoun we need to support more it as a matter of free independant media.
as far as it ll be independant of all the other medias somehow state controled we need to support this initiative.
and i guess we need to wait to see what ll happen and to judge it live
March 23rd, 2006 at 9:34 pm
I usually log on to the URL openlebanon.com and look at the top 10 entries or so. I have never scrolled down to the bottom of the page. I just did a few minutes ago and lo and behold , to my surprise what do I see: Jump to: and then a very selective list of radio stations:
Radio Charity
Radio Sawa
Radio liban Libre
Voix de Liban
Notice the irony, the current dialogue concerns objective , responsible and profesional journalistic standards when the same URL that carries the gate into the blog is one that is nothing but!!! Where is the consistency and where are these standards. The Blogs should demand that the Jump to become an equal opportunity gate or at a minimum less biased by adding BBC, Radio Monacoetc…
March 23rd, 2006 at 10:06 pm
Why do you keep quoting david Brooks? No offense, but the guy us a hack.
March 24th, 2006 at 8:33 pm
Moustapha, this is totally off topic but I value your opinion :-)
How would you explain the Forbes thingy mentionned on TV a couple of days ago?
About Hariri always reporting a fortune of about 4 Billion Dollars then after his death it turned out to be well over 16 billions ?
Thanks salaf.
Pat
March 25th, 2006 at 4:17 am
I am dumbfounded at the interest in the Harriri fortune and some of the childish accusations and statements that are being banded about.
The Forbes list is not very accurate to start with. It is based on their own independent research and not what an individual “reports”. No one besides Trump and his ilk is interested in letting the world know what is their wealth. The Ikea founder was not added to the list until a few years ago although he has always been one of the wealthiest in the world. Forbes has a staff whose only responsibilities is to uncover the approximate wealth of the richest people. They arrive at their figures independently.
The increase that most people are interested in $4 billion to $16 billion in one year is very logical. It would have been illogical had this not been the case. The market value of the Solidere shares On the Lebanese bourse have tripled and the Saudi Equities are in the midst of one of the largest equity bubbles. It dwarfs the Nasdaq climb of the late 1990s. Saudi Oger is one of the premiere companies of the world and its Oger Telecom has grown by leaps and bounds.
March 25th, 2006 at 8:25 am
haha we are talking a 400% increase. If the lebanese market was that strong we would have seen greater investment in the market.
March 25th, 2006 at 9:45 am
@ ghassan
when he died he was said to have 3.7 billions against 5 billions when he was appointed as prime minister the first time, one year after his family is having 16.7 billions
when i m investing on stocks that are making 400% increase
i m willing to face some risks
but i would never put all my wealth into theses stocks
besides that when i m doing so, i m having huge wins but also sometimes huge losses
about oger telecom
as i m saying on another blog, i know people that were competing sometimes on some markets against the telecom company of hariri mainly in europe and east europe
i can just say that they wre gaining markets, but not in the clean way
@ pat
hm well seems u and i are commenting the same blogs :s
March 25th, 2006 at 9:48 am
“The Ikea founder was not added to the list until a few years ago although he has always been one of the wealthiest in the world.”
i think it was due because the company shares were not very liquid at that time,
but considering this, it s even worst in the middle east.
March 25th, 2006 at 10:29 am
Ghassan,
I don’t know why others are interested but I can tell you why I am. I always thought the Hariris didn’t need to be corrupt ie make money illegally by abusing their position. The new numbers make me question my beleifs.
Regarding your response.
I don’t buy the solidere issue at all (the numbers are just too small), The Saoudi Equities and Oger earnings I am not vmuch familiar with the numbers so that’s possible
The inaccuracy of the forbes list also makes lots of sense too.
However, it bothers me allot when you say “No one besides Trump and his ilk is interested in letting the world know what is their wealth.”
I my view it is a duty of anyone who assumes such a high public office position to let the world know what is his wealth before and after and I would find it very shady *if* they are actively trying to hide the number.
Especially ina country where you clain your oppnonents are corrupt and you are clean.
I donnow, the issue has left me a bit disillisionned.
Pat
PS: frencheagle, I don’t like cross-posting off-topic stuff but I just wanted diverse opinions on this issue.
And Mustapha still waiting for your take on the issue
March 25th, 2006 at 4:08 pm
I wish that you would all stop this nonsense to casting silly,unsupported and spurious accusations.
The facts are simple and cannot be negated by wishful thinking.
Markets are irrational. You dont have to agree that Google is worth over $100 billion but that is the market capitalization of its share on the NYSE.
The market price of Solidere wnt from just over $3 in 2002-2003 to a high ofaround 4@4 late last year. These are the facts.
Saudi Oger on the other hand presents a problem because it is a totally private company. It is owned lock stock and barrel by the Harriri family. But in the world of finance we have ways of imputing value when markets do not exist for the asset in question In this case the valuation yardstick is the market capitalization of Saudi Telecom. The irrational Saudi markets ,as a result of the tremendous liquidity, has placed a valuation on Saudi Telecom that is larger than the combined valuation of:
British Telecom
At&t
South Korea Tel
South Africa Telekom SA
Forbes has no choice in this case but to assign a valuation to Saudi Oger based on the valuation of Saudi Telecom. Makets do correct, and the Saudi market has lost over 30% of its value so far this year .Some think that the correction has barely started. Next year is a different story. Saudi Oger might have gone public, gone bankrupt or even doubled in size. The markets will decide and the idle speculation about what other people are worth is a waste of time and energy.
March 25th, 2006 at 7:55 pm
Jeez, I come to my blog and there’s a whole new off-topic conversation taking place in the comments section!
Anyway Pat, to give you my point of view, let me start with an anecdote:
Once Rafic Hariri (RIP) was having a press conference, and a curious journalist asked him about his fortune: “How much are you worth?”
The then-Prime Minister ignored the question, but the persistent asked the question again after a few minutes: “how much are you worth?”
Hariri then smiled and answered: Do you mean right now or when you asked me the first time?
It is perhaps an injustice to some that capitalism makes the rich richer and the poor poorer, but Hariri never hid the fact that he was getting richer by the minute.
Now of course, the rest is simply a matter of trust. A billionaire is always an easy target for embezzlment-related criticism (just ask Michel Aoun), but I personally trust that Hariri didn’t “steal” money from the Lebanese (as seductive a sound-bite this can be), and believe me, If Hariri did indeed steal, he has no shortage of ennemies that would be more than glad to expose him with facts, not just with speculation.
March 25th, 2006 at 8:25 pm
mustapha,
I guess eventually every one of us decides what to beleive regardless of the numbers and their meaning (or lack of).
About your last paragraph, the problem is, unless there is an official inquiry EVERYTHING people say is speculation.
I know from personnal experience, specifically the buying of voices during the elections, I have no idea how widespread it was but at least on the low scale level i witnessed it personnaly, and yet no one was able to prove it and it was only speculations. I know these are completely different topics but I am only trying to illustrate the “fact vs speculations” issue.
Anyways, all this is completely off topic and it was my fault for opening the subject.
Fa a3tazer rasmyan.
Pat
March 27th, 2006 at 1:13 pm
@ ghassan
“Markets are irrational. You dont have to agree that Google is worth over $100 billion but that is the market capitalization of its share on the NYSE.”
the case of google or any high tech business is a little bit aside from the market:
they are using very little capital but having a high return on capital and therefore the old ways to assess a value to it is not so relevent.
the new tech are usually basing their values on the promissing return in the future, based on research, strategy etc… and not on the current capital issues
and we dont have high tech companies here to face such problem to assess a value to it, but all style companies with a capital, assets etc… more then everything.
however the middle east markets are underdevelopped and speculative and therefore the investors do not i guess use the right measure to assess the value of a firm especially when it comes to see the IBIT etc… that are usually forget for fiscal reasons.
when it comes to telecom business it s the same as well, it s a high tech related business and usually its valuation is made through assigning a value to the costumers they are having under contract.
the problem with saudi orger etc…is that in the way they obtained some markets especially in east europe and marocco, it wasnt so clean and most of the time by the way (and the funny thing) where competing against dalloul companies (the husband of one of hariri’s daughter.)
the illegal practices i heard from some sources that are related to financial people (which are non lebanese but international bankers) about the way the markets were gained are really funny but in the same time so sad for the reputation of a “honest business man” making politics
“I personally trust that Hariri didn’t “steal” money from the Lebanese (”
yeah sure he got it from outside to start with…
anyway i never heard about a honest guy who became billionnaires