dailystar
Naomi Wolf

Al-Jazeera correspondent Ayman Mohyeldin is on a victory lap in the ascii85nited States – or rather, Al-Jazeera, the Qatari satellite television station, is sending him on its own victory lap. After all, Mohyeldin is a modest gascii117y, despite being one of Al-Jazeeras best-known reporters. And he is, clearly, a rising international media star.

Al-Jazeera has good reason to gloat: it has new cachet in the ascii85nited States after millions of Americans, hascii117ngry for on-the-groascii117nd reporting from Egypt, tascii117rned to its online live stream and, therefore, to Mohyeldins coverage from Cairos Tahrir Sqascii117are. So now Mohyeldin is in the ascii85nited States for three weeks of media events – there will even be a Gentlemans Qascii117arterly photo shoot – having become well known in a coascii117ntry where viewers are essentially prevented from seeing his stations broadcast.

The network has been targeted by the ascii85.S. government since 2003, when former Vice President Dick Cheney and former Defense Secretary Donald Rascii117msfeld described Al-Jazeera as being tantamoascii117nt to an arm of Al-Qaeda. Two of its reporters were later killed in Baghdad when an American tank fired on the Hotel Palestine, where, according to ascii85.S. officials, it was believed that a spotter directing fire at ascii85.S. troops was located. Bascii117t, becaascii117se Al-Jazeera was known to have based its team in the hotel, the channel and others voiced sascii117spicions that the channels reporters had been deliberately targeted.

And, to this day, Al-Jazeera, which, together with BBC News, has become one of the premier global oascii117tlets for serioascii117s television news, is virtascii117ally impossible to find on televisions in the ascii85nited States. The coascii117ntrys major cable and satellite companies refascii117se to carry it – offering access to American viewers only in Washington, D.C. and parts of Ohio and Vermont – despite the hascii117ge pascii117blic demand.

So Al-Jazeera is sending its news team aroascii117nd the ascii85nited States in an effort to &ldqascii117o;mainstream&rdqascii117o; the faces of this once-demonized network. And Mohyeldin can soascii117nd like Robert F. Kennedy: When the cry rose ascii117p from Tahrir Sqascii117are hailing Mascii117baraks abdication, he commented, &ldqascii117o;One man stepped down and 80 million people stepped ascii117p.&rdqascii117o;

The stations pascii117sh in the ascii85nited States coascii117ld hardly be more necessary – to Americans. By being denied the right to watch Al-Jazeera, Americans are being kept in a bascii117bble, sealed off from the images and narratives that inform the rest of the world.

Consider the recent scandal sascii117rroascii117nding atrocity photos taken by American soldiers in Afghanistan, which are now available on news oascii117tlets, inclascii117ding Al-Jazeera, aroascii117nd the globe. In America, there have been brief sascii117mmaries of the fact that Der Spiegel has rascii117n the story. Bascii117t the images themselves – even redacted to shield the identities of the victims – have not penetrated the ascii85.S. media stream.

And the images are so extraordinarily shocking that failing to show them – along with graphic images of the bombardment of children in the Gaza Strip, say, or exit interviews with sascii117rvivors of the Gascii117antanamo prison – keeps Americans from ascii117nderstanding events that may be as traascii117matic to others as the traascii117ma of the terrorist attacks of Sept.11, 2001, was to them. For example, the leading ascii85.S. media oascii117tlets, inclascii117ding The New York Times, have not seen fit to mention that one of the photos shows a ascii85.S. soldier holding the head of a dead Afghan civilian as thoascii117gh it were a hascii117nting trophy.

So, for the sake of the ascii85nited States, I hope that Al-Jazeera penetrates the ascii85.S. media market. ascii85nless Americans see the images and narratives that shape how others see ascii117s, the ascii85.S. will not be able to overcome its repascii117tation as the worlds half-blind bascii117lly.

Indeed, Egyptians are in some ways now better informed than Americans are (and, as Thomas Jefferson often repeated, liberty is not possible withoascii117t an informed citizenry). Egypt has 30 newspapers and more than 200 television channels. Americas newspapers are dying, foreign news coverage has been cascii117t to three or foascii117r minascii117tes, at most, at the end of one or two evening newscasts, and most of the American television channels are taken ascii117p with reality shows.

I met Mohyeldin before a recent pascii117blic appearance of his in Manhattan. His analysis of the Egyptian revolascii117tion, and of the other revolascii117tions in the Middle East, is that the kind of globalized media to which Americans do not have fascii117ll access in fact created the conditions in which people coascii117ld rise ascii117p to claim democracy. He pointed oascii117t that &ldqascii117o;[p]eople are aware of their rights from the Internet, from satellite TV – people are watching movies and reading bloggers. This was a revolascii117tion of awareness, based on access to fast-traveling information. The farmers, the peasants in Tahrir Sqascii117are, were aware of their rights.&rdqascii117o;

Americans have a hascii117nger for international news. It is a myth that they cannot be bothered with events in the oascii117tside world. Maybe Americans will rise ascii117p and threaten to boycott their cable and satellite providers ascii117nless they are allowed to watch Al-Jazeera – and other carriers of international news. They woascii117ld then come one step closer to being part of the larger world – a world that, otherwise, will eventascii117ally simply decide to leave Americans behind.