Cross-linguistic media usage and attitude in the United Arab Emirates

This study, examining the relationship between different language user groups and media behavior, breaks new ground in the UAE. Emanating from a public-private consortium comprising Zayed University, the International Advertising Association, Dubai, and Dubai-based Pan Arab Research Center (PARC), partner of the Gallup organization, this research considers media usage and attitudes of individuals from different language user groups living in the UAE. The survey differentiated different language user groups in the UAE contextualizing national varieties according to the ‘Three Circles Model’ instituted by Kachru (1982 and ff.). Uncharacteristically, the tables shown in this study first take cognizance of Language User Groups relating to Arabic(s), followed by the Outer, then the Expanding and finally the Inner Circle Users of Englishes. In addition, bearing in mind the existence of different varieties similar to ‘Englishes’ might pertain to more than English language varieties, the terms “Arabics”, “Hindis”, “Urdus” and “Malayalams” are introduced. Analysis shows that media usage patterns and media penetration are tied to language background. People from particular language backgrounds use different media for the same information – ‘Al Jazeera’ is the primary source for breaking news among Users of Arabics, whereas it is ‘BBC World’ for Users of Englishes. Language facility and the perceived value of various languages vary across different linguistic groups. For example, in this Arabic speaking country, 20–32% of the Inner-Circle English Users and Outer-Circle Indian English Users agree with the statement that understanding Arabic was “not important at all”. © 2009 ALC Press, Inc

Can Arabs Represent America? The Performativity of U.S-Arab Mediated Public Diplomacy

America, with its Voice of America radio and its short-wave sister stations that pierced through the thick Iron Curtain until it disintegrated in the late 1980s, found itself voiceless in countering the narrative of those who perpetrated the 9/11 attacks in 2001. Using the Cold War communication as its model, the U.S. government launched Alhurra TV in spring 2004 in order to reach out to Arabs. Perpetually underperforming, there was a sudden change in Alhurra’s top American leadership in the summer of 2017. Evaluated by its new president as having been producing ‘garbage,’ about one-half of its staff were dismissed and replaced with new staff who were expected to be ideologically ‘more aggressive’ and able to make Alhurra ‘more American’—the two components he believes to be a prerequisite for recapturing lost audiences. While there is no shortage of reasons for Alhurra’s failure, explanations based on established theorization are in short supply. Given the intentionality of the communication and given the contestation over the purpose of the U.S.-Arab mediated public diplomacy, the thesis adopts Max Weber’s social action theorization for exploring both the meaning Alhurra Arab journalists attribute to their mission and who their perceived audiences are. The study found complete disharmony in the Alhurra Arab journalists’ interpretations of their mission and their audiences. A comparable lack of cohesiveness in Alhurra’s perceived mission and audiences is also evident in its top American management. Realizing that the explanation of Alhurra’s failure may go beyond the mere actions of its Arab frontline communicators, a Max Weber conceptualization of ideal type, an ideal type mediated public diplomacy was constructed that took into consideration micro and macro conditions that secure successful mediation. Built into this ideal type is the conceptualization of performativity of both the sender and frontline communicator in terms of their credibility and legitimacy in the eyes of the receivers. All conditions of Cold War communication by the US demonstrate a perfect correspondence with those of the ideal type. East European émigrés, whether coming from those already settled in the US or from the constant flow of dissidents, acted as legitimate speakers and representors on behalf of both America and its ideals, as well as their audiences behind the Iron Curtain who yearned for those ideals. American policy towards the Communist Block was consistent and did not undermine its claims for espousing democratic ideals. By contrast, virtually none of the ideal type conditions are present in the US-Arab mediated public diplomacy. Aside from the incoherent meaning of all involved in the communication process and the confusion as to who their target audiences are, Arab communicators hired by Alhurra neither see their role as representing America and promoting its ideals, nor as representing or speaking on behalf of any Arab segments. Rather, these communicators see their performativity as dependent on fulfilling Alhurra’s mission statement of providing objective reporting of news and information. Hence, given a choice between the journalistic representation of the news and its ideological component, they totally distance themselves from the latter. Should America claim that it is promoting secularism and democratic ideals, its past and current polices in the region undermine this claim. While it was once convenient for America to support Islamists in pursuit of defeating Soviet Russia in Afghanistan, it continues to support authoritarian Arab regimes in defiance of claims to spread democracy. In addition, America itself has been undergoing a serious ontological transformation since the election of Donald Trump, which may defy representation by its own communicators, let alone by Alhurra Arab journalists with little or no first-hand experience. Arabs hoping to represent America under such conditions are bound to find themselves working in contradictory scenarios that undermine their performativity