Posts
"Saudi Arabia doesn’t have a regime, it has “leadership.” Unlike adversary governments, often seen in need of “regime change,” the Saudi government merely requires “reform”—and a bold new “reformer,” of the sort championed by the likes of the Guardian and New York Times."
Corporate
Media Paints Power-Grabbing Saudi Dictator as Visionary ‘Reformer’
5
20
November, 2017
Written by Anti-Media
News Desk
(FAIR) — Two
weeks ago, Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman carried out a
brutal crackdown on his political opponents, arresting dozens of
high-ranking relatives, kidnapping the prime minister of Lebanon, and
seeing eight of his political rivals die in a convenient helicopter
crash.
The “consolidation of power” by the de facto Saudi ruler comes as
his government ramps
up its siege of Yemen and
gets even closer to its US sponsor, thanks to a Trump’s dopey love
affair with—and direct
assistance of—the
regime.
The
cynical plan has been met, in some
media quarters,
with condemnation, but for many in the Western press, Mohammed’s
self-serving power grab is the action of a bold “reformer,” a
roguish bad boy doing the messy but essential work of “reforming”
the kingdom—the “anti-corruption” pretext of the purge largely
repeated without qualification. The most prominent sources for this
spin were two major newspapers, the New
York Times and Guardian:
- Guardian (11/5/17): “Royal Purge Sends Shockwaves Through Saudi Arabia’s Elites: Move Consolidates Power of Prince Mohammed Bin Salman as He Attempts to Reform Kingdom’s Economy and Society”
- Guardian (11/5/17) : “Saudi Arrests Show Crown Prince Is a Risk-Taker With a Zeal for Reform: Mohammed Bin Salman Is Confronting Some of the Kingdom’s Richest and Most Powerful Men in His Anti-Corruption Drive—but Is He Taking on Too Much Too Fast?”
- Guardian (11/6/17): “Oil Price Rises to Two-Year High After Saudi Arabia Purge: Markets Push Price Up to $62 a Barrel After Anti-Corruption Purge by Billionaire Crown Prince Who Backs Prolonging Oil Production Curbs”
- Guardian (11/7/17): “‘This Is a Revolution’: Saudis Absorb Crown Prince’s Rush to Reform: Consolidation of Power in Mohammed Bin Salman’s Hands Has Upended All Aspects of Society, Including Previously Untouchable Ultra-Elite”
While
the text of the Times articles
was far more skeptical about Mohammed’s motives, the Guardian’s
(11/5/17)
initial coverage of the bloody purge—not just the headlines—was
written in breathless press release tones:
“Saudi Arabia’s leadership has pulled off its boldest move yet to consolidate power around its young crown prince, Mohammed bin Salman, arresting 11 senior princes, one of the country’s richest men and scores of former ministers in what it billed as a corruption purge.
The move sidelined at least 20 senior figures, among them outspoken billionaire, Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, sending shockwaves through the ranks of the kingdom’s elites, who had long viewed senior royals as immune.”
Lot
of glowing prose to unpack here. Longtime Mideast correspondent
Martin Chulov began by referring to “Saudi Arabia’s leadership,”
which is a nice, sterile way of referencing the country’s unelected
hereditary king and crown prince. Then he pivoted into marketing
pablum about “bold moves” and “consolidating power,” before
unironically framing the purge as an “anti-corruption” gesture
designed to stick it to the “kingdom’s elites.” One could come
away from reading this lead with the impression that the billionaire
aristocrat was a populist folk hero in the vein of Robin Hood or John
Dillinger. The thrilling profile continued:
“Prince Mohammed will oversee the corruption commission, adding to his already formidable list of responsibilities, including his role as Defense minister and champion of the economic transformation, dubbed Vision 2030, that aims to revolutionize most aspects of Saudi life within 12 years.
Prince Mohammed told the Guardian last month that the kingdom had been “not normal” for the past 30 years and pledged to return Saudi Arabia to moderate Islam.”
While
the author had a “to
be sure”
paragraph, citing “others” calling it a “naked attempt to weed
out dissent,” the overall thrust of the article was that a roguish
billionaire Boy King was earnestly seeking “reform” and opposing
“elites.”
A
follow-up piece (11/7/17)
took flattering coverage to new extremes. The dispatch, again by
Chulov, cited nothing but anonymous Saudi court hanger-ons and a
Gulf-funded talking head from the NATO-aligned Atlantic
Council think tank.
The article, “‘This Is a Revolution’:
Saudis Absorb Crown Prince’s Rush to Reform,” was populated with
blind quotes from such adversarial voices as a “senior minister,”
“a senior Saudi official,” a “senior figure,” a “senior
Saudi businessman” and “veteran business leaders.” (Evidently
no junior officials or rookie business leaders were available for
comment.)
The
article painted the “consolidation of power” by Mohammed as an
inevitability with broad support—using the dubious “reform”
narrative without irony. With Guardian editors
again painting Mohammed as a populist hero by insisting he “upended”
“previously untouchable ultra-elite,” one is left to wonder why
they don’t consider the absolute-monarch-in-waiting—who just
bought a
$590 million yacht—part of the “ultra elite.” It’s a curious
framing that reeks more of PR than journalism.
This
was a trope one could see emerging over the past few months. Similar
“bold reformer” frames were used in New
York Times editorials
(“The Young and Brash Saudi Crown Prince,” 6/23/17)
and straight reporting (“Saudi Arabia’s Grand Plan to Move Beyond
Oil: Big Goals, Bigger Hurdles,” 10/24/17).
Everything’s new and exciting. The brutal, routine functions of the
Saudi state are seen as laws of nature—and those in charge of it
are the reformers of the very oppression they initially authored.
A Guardian editorial
on November
7 was
critical of the government, calling it “regressive” and Mohammed
“belligerent,” but ultimately rested on “both sides” framing
of recent events. The only meaningfully critical coverage of Saudi
Arabia coming from the Guardian since
the purge has been in two articles (11/12/17, 11/16/17),
both in the context of Saudi Arabia’s war on Yemen. Neither
mentioned bin Salman, and both stressed how the Saudis are responding
in earnest to international pleas to stop their mass-murdering
blockade of the Arab world’s poorest country.
Per
usual, the Guardian reserves
the label “regime” for Official Enemies like Syria and North
Korea;
Saudi Arabia doesn’t have a regime, it has “leadership.” Unlike
adversary governments, often seen in need of “regime change,” the
Saudi government merely requires “reform”—and a bold new
“reformer,” of the sort championed by the likes of
the Guardian and New
York Times.
IN YEMEN’S “60 MINUTES” MOMENT, NO MENTION THAT THE U.S. IS FUELING THE CONFLICT
SAUDI
ARABIA’S YEARS-LONG blockade
and bombing campaign in Yemen has gotten very little coverage in the
United States, even as the extreme food and fuel shortages have
developed into one of the world’s worst humanitarian crises.
Now,
as the Saudi noose on Yemen tightens — leaving 7 million people
facing starvation and another 1 million infected with cholera — the
war is having its moment in the media spotlight.
On
Sunday, “60
Minutes” aired
a 13-minute segment on the war’s devastating humanitarian toll. The
program featured imagery of starving children and interviews with
displaced people, all obtained after Saudi Arabia blocked “60
Minutes” from entering the country.
“You
keep going like you’re going, there’s not going to be anybody
left,” David Beasley, executive director of the World Food Program,
told CBS’s Scott Pelley. “All the children are going to be dead.”
Coverage
on such a high-profile program is frequently enough to get
politicians to pay attention to an issue, and the “60 Minutes”
feature comes amid a growing debate about the U.S. role in the war.
Just last week, the House of Representatives voted to
say that Congress has not authorized American military support for
the Saudi-led coalition.
Still,
the program did not once mention that Saudi Arabia is a U.S.
ally, and that U.S. support is essential for the Saudi campaign to
continue.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.