Arabic talk shows - Hard Talk

PV VIVEKANAND
ARAB television talk shows that were a magnet for Arabs when they were launched a few years ago have now turned into boring shouting matches that lack objectivity or focus, with the audience prompted to switch to other channels, participants in a round-table debate here agreed on Wednesday.
The need of the day to improve the shows is to bring in more professionalism in terms of research and background material in order to enlighten the audience and link them to the issue being discussed, they said.
Equally important is a sense of purpose for talk shows rather than a goal of "bashing" people, said Tim Sebastian, who hosts the celebrated "Hard Talk" show of the British Broadcasting Corporation.
The general consensus at the one-hour discussion —"Western and Arabic TV Talk shows: Differences and Similarities — on the sidelines of Arab Media Summit 2003 was that Arab satellite channels like Al Jazeera started off with an impact and offering a forum for Arabs to express their opinion and highlight Arab causes and viewpoints. The channels assumed more prominence with their coverage of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, but the talk shows declined in quality and content, according to the participants, most of whom were highly critical of Al Jazeera in particular.
The main complaint that was heard was that Arab television talk shows tend to be have less substance and are more oriented towards pleasing the audience through highly-charged debate.
At the same time, it was also observed that Arab television talks shows have not yet reached a level where they could be compared to the mature productions of the West as yet.
It was also debated whether Arabs interviewed on Western programmes like "hard talk" had sufficient mastery of English or suffered from lack of ability to be articulate self.
Commenting on complaints that many Arab figures participating in talk shows and interviews on Western television tend to leave wrong ideas and impression, Khaled Al Maeena, editor-in-chief of Arab News, made an emphatic point that those who do not think they qualify to take part should stay away from such shows because they end up giving wrong impressions and ideas. This is particularly applicable for senior government officials, he said.
Any personality who accepts an invitation to a talk show or interview should do his or homework and should prepare self to answer questions with authority, he said.
"Anyone who respects himself and is not qualified to speak on tv, should not go on air — whatever tv that is," said Maeena.
Also discussed was self-censorship by hosts — something that Sebastian said he never exercised in his 27 years with the BBC — and the need for television channels to ensure that their staff are not persecuted as a result of criticism on air.
According to Sebastian, "politics is a performing art" and "part of the interviewee's job is communication."
It is very important that every talk show should produce "new ideas.... new information" and this what makes successful talk shows, he said.
Western talk shows like his programme, he said, are not public relations exercises or entertainment. It is part of the democratic process where politicians and government leaders are held accountable in public.
He said research into the issues to be raised during the show or interview is an integral part of the professional approach; so is an post-event analysis of what it produced.
"Nobody gives anything to a journalist as a right. He has to go out and get it," he said.
"Rights evolve because people keep pushing for their freedom and what they want. One of the ways is through the TV," he said.
Sebastian said that he felt there is more openness from Middle Eastern governments, but there is also more self-censorship in the media.
"You have to keep pushing the boundaries. We have a right to hold our leadership to account because they affect our lives. It doesn't matter if you ruffle a few ministerial feathers, these are issues of life and death for many people," he said.
"For the purpose of the interviews, I take the opposing point of view because it is not very interesting to sit opposite and agree," he said.