Revolution Live: Broadcasting Fury

Image_edited.jpg

This article was prepared by LevantX Lebanon Desk contributors Louay Faour and Toufick Najjar.

A reflection of the country’s pluralism and divisions, the Lebanese broadcasting scene has long been known to be diverse, and without a doubt the most daring in the Arab world. The divisions in the country, which have existed even before its very founding as a state over a hundred years ago, have been particularly apparent across all television stations since the October 17 revolution began; once again fractioning public opinion over the question that has plagued us for decades: which Lebanon do we want?

During most of the revolution, all Lebanese stations have been present at some point or another. However, given the variety of outlets, the choice for objective coverage is tough. As is human nature, most would prefer to tune in to stations aligned with their political beliefs. However, after keeping an eye on both the news and social media, protestors and onlookers quickly realized that social media was the only objective source that constantly and incessantly relayed the events happening in the country. People all over Lebanon, and later the world, watched the revolution through Instagram stories, tweets, WhatsApp videos, and Facebook posts.

People watched the revolution unfiltered, uncensored, and without political agenda. Social media became a reliable source of news and Lebanese media was heavily criticized by the revolutionary movement for abandoning their core purpose of reporting from the ground after they deemed it not important to cover it anymore.

In the beginning, mainstream media platforms were working around the clock to broadcast the protests, but often, channels tailored information to match their political agendas. When analyzing Lebanese television stations and their different stances on the demonstrations, which have seen varying degrees of momentum since inception, it is easy in most cases to guess their political affiliations, thus their political bias. Some media outlets that became notable for their coverage of the protests are MTV, Al-Jadeed, OTV, and Al-Manar. These channels are widely watched by different audiences, and even the terminology used to describe the events has varied, with some calling it a “revolution”, others an “intifada” (uprising), and some merely “protests”.

One TV station was dominantly anti-protests, Free Patriotic Movement’s channel OTV. The station, funded by the political party of Lebanon’s current president, actively avoided the protests in the initial phase. Protests up and down the country were ignored in the channel’s broadcasts as if nothing was happening. Several weeks later, reporters from the station went to the protests. The questions and rhetoric employed by the journalists sought to impose blame on the protesters through antagonistic questioning to the point of conflict between the two sides. As all of this was streaming on social platforms, it created hatred towards the station amongst the revolutionary movement. The station continued to broadcast the protests, but the channel had no recognizable representation on the streets. Why? They had to report the events without showing the logo of the station on their microphone due to the hostilities, but protesters still recognized them, and they weren’t hostile towards them, but viral videos online continued to show the altercations between the protesters and the journalists that they had blacklisted, sometimes refusing to speak to them. In the spirit of free speech, which we all seek to preserve in the country, is it fair to treat such journalists this way?

Television stations that have taken a more supportive approach of the unprecedented national uprising, and have been largely non-sectarian, are MTV, LBC, and Al-Jadeed. MTV was originally launched in 1991 but shut down by Syrian occupation forces in 2002, then relaunched in 2009. From day one, MTV has extensively covered the demonstrations from north to south, broadcasting the nation's fury and acting as a mouthpiece for activists demanding change and exposing corruption. MTV has also been subject to many attacks on the ground. Thugs affiliated to Hezbollah, the Amal Movement have on several occasions attacked the MTV crew, accusing them of carrying an agenda against the moqawame “the resistance against Israel”.

The Free Patriotic Movement announced on August 23rd, 2020 that they will be officially boycotting MTV, as they see the TV network as part of a political campaign targeting Michel Aoun and Gebran Bassil, the party's founder, and current leader respectively. Bassil has accused his opponents of “character assassination”. Free Patriotic Movement supporters have also harassed MTV reporters during their coverage of the protests. Although MTV has never disclosed this, Lebanese public opinion is that the channel leans closer to the Christian Lebanese Forces party, a recognized political rival of the FPM and Hezbollah.

Al-Jadeed, on the other hand, is wary of criticizing Hezbollah. Its narrative is very much in support of what they consider the “resistance” and the regional axis it belongs to. Nevertheless, the station has, like MTV, been a platform for activists and politicians alike, for members of society who are both pro- and anti-revolution. A presenter on the show, Riad Kobeissi, has challenged high-ranking officials in Lebanon and has brought to light many corruption files involving people from across the political spectrum, which in turn has put his life at risk.

Like MTV, Al-Jadeed has been attacked countless times by thugs affiliated to different parties. Supporters of Nabih Berri’s Amal Movement, Saad Hariri’s Future Movement, and Hezbollah have not only harassed Al-Jadeed’s crew members on the ground but have also caused damage to Al-Jadeed’s building in Beirut. Despite this, activists have criticized both channels for allowing airtime to politicians and other prominent figures from the political establishment. Their belief is that thirty years, or fifteen for some, was more than enough time to prove that they are worthy of running a country, which still suffers from daily power cuts and the third-highest debt-to-GDP ratio in the world.

DISCLAIMER: Most national broadcasters discussed in this piece have defended themselves publicly with the position that they are open to all sides, and reflect this with their talk show guests, in line with the complexity of Lebanon’s society and political system.

Previous
Previous

From Lebanon to Mexico: Creating a Diaspora

Next
Next

A Codependent Economy: The Lebanese Diaspora Story