Iraq’s volatile politics, punctuated by a hard-fought national election and protracted negotiations over a new government, dominated the headlines in 2010.

IWPR Iraq senior media adviser Hiwa Osman analyses the performance of Iraq’s party-driven media over the last 12 months.

How would you assess the Iraqi news media’s coverage of politics this year, and how would you compare it with coverage of the parliamentary election in January 2005?

I would say that the coverage was a reflection of politics itself. The media is split along the same political lines that exist in today’s Iraq: sectarian, ethnic, pro- and anti-government. Most media outlets are backed by political parties, and covered events from their own perspective.

This hurt Iraqi citizens, because in order to get a complete picture, you need to rely on more than one news outlet. The media in Iraq still has not made the transition to become a service provider rather than a mouthpiece and a propaganda tool.

That said, there has been some improvement - the coverage was slightly more mature than in 2005. In 2005, the outlets were not as diverse and there were fewer of them, especially television stations. The bias back in 2005 was much clearer and more blatant.

The Iraqi media covers politics almost exclusively, ignoring most other news besides sports. Why do you think this is?

Most media is funded by political parties, not the private sector, and our most powerful political parties still carry their legacy from the past. They were born as opposition or revolutionary groups and used their media outlets as propaganda tools against the regime. While the regime is long gone, their philosophy – that the media should serve party rather than public interests - remains unchanged.

For them, media is a tool in their political campaigns, agendas and aspirations. As a result, the media only concentrates on politics, and the parties think they’re getting their money’s worth by funding coverage of their news. Of course, promoting a party’s agenda provokes a reaction from rival party media, so we end up with non-stop political coverage.

As a result, we end up with uninformed citizens. For example, several months ago a toddler died while in a day-care centre in Erbil. A child’s death in a day-care during office hours raises 100 questions that only the media can raise,www.ekurd.netand they need to provide answers for the public. The media didn’t cover the case at all. I only found out through a friend who lived close to the school. The media should have investigated the case and interviewed the education and health authorities.

This aspect of non-political reporting is being touched on slightly by the online community and social networking. Just the other day, an IWPR journalist posted a picture online of an electricity pole that was placed right in the middle of the street.

But news organisations barely use social media. Why?

Internet penetration in Iraq is very low - although even with this very low internet penetration, something like 90 per cent of internet users in Iraq access social media.
But social media hasn’t found an identity in Iraq yet. In some countries, it’s used to report; in others it’s used to organise, mobilise; in other places it’s just for networking and entertainment. Iraqis simply haven’t figured out how social media can be used here.
However, quite a lot of parliamentary candidates did try to use social media this year, especially in Kurdistan where the penetration is higher.

Polls indicate that Iraqis do not trust the media. What can Iraqi news organisations do to build their credibility with the public?

First of all, they should separate news from opinion. This is a symptom of a partisan media because political parties believe the media’s role is to air their views.
Editors also need to apply professional news judgement by choosing stories that impact on the public, rather than just running stories about leaders’ meetings and press conferences where nothing substantial is said. This would be a step towards having a media that functions as a service provider as opposed to a propaganda tool.
The other thing that can be done is to encourage the private sector to invest in media. If it is an honest investment, and isn’t just a business front for a political party, the media will be in a better position to serve the public.

Iraq’s next election is slated for the spring of 2011, when citizens in Iraqi Kurdistan will vote for local representatives. What lessons can the Kurdish media learn from the coverage of the 2010 parliamentary elections, and how can they better serve the public?

It is unlikely that the media in Iraqi Kurdistan changed anyone’s mind about who they wanted to vote for in the last election. The challenge for them this time is to influence voters by better informing them.
The only way they can do this is if they act as good information service providers. They can still have their opinion section, but they should separate this from the news. The biggest lesson that they can learn is that they should strive to provide quality information, as opposed to being a propaganda tool.
Having said all this, it’s unfair to place the blame entirely on the media. A country’s media is a reflection of its politics, and Iraqi politics are currently divisive and brutal. And in order to create an environment conducive to professional, free and responsible media, legislation is required guaranteeing both the right of information to the public and guaranteeing freedom of expression.
The right to freedom of expression and the press is enshrined in the Iraqi constitution, with the caveat that it “does not violate public order and morality”. In order to create an environment conducive to professional, free and responsible media, we need legislation.

Federalists, Separatists & Unionists

Once again, the people of Kurdistan have realized that neither the media nor those who raised a brouhaha over President Barzani’s statement about self-determination seem to have understood or want to understand what the new Iraq is about.

Barzani has been under fire for publicly stating that Kurds have a right to self-determination, an argument that is not new. He was simply repeating a long-held Kurdish position on self-determination.

This should not have shocked anyone — but the exaggerated, critical response to Barzani’s statement shows that the new reality of Iraq is not accepted by everyone.

Rights are inherent in the Iraqi constitution, and the country is clearly a voluntary union of its people.

The preamble of the constitution states: “We the people of Iraq of all components and shades have taken upon ourselves to decide freely and with our choice to unite our future and to take lessons from yesterday for tomorrow, to draft … this lasting constitution.”

Unless this fundamental principle is understood and appreciated by anyone involved in Iraq, proper decisions can never be made about the future of this country.

The irony here is that critics of Barzani’s statement have fiercely opposed suppressing other rights and liberties in other parts of Iraq, including banning alcohol from the capital, out of their “conviction” for human rights.

Instead of worrying about the future of the country, the guardians of Iraq’s unity should focus on the theocracy that is emerging. They, along with their neighbors and allies,www.ekurd.netshould concentrate more on the real dangers: the acts of religious extremists and fascists who are moving Iraq toward tyranny and extremism. Signs of religious bigotry are rising and attempts to drive Iraq back into the dark ages are underway.

The new Iraq is being partitioned and the Kurds are not the ones responsible. Islamic radicals are dividing society along religious and sectarian lines.

Barzani’s leadership in brokering a deal between the various parties to form a national government needs to be recognized. In any other country, a man who played a strategic role in bringing together Iraq’s notoriously fractured parties and leaders would not be considered a threat.

In fact, stating that his region has the right to self-determination should be encouraging and positive, given that the Kurds are exercising their right through remaining within Iraq. They are choosing to be a part of this country.

Still, the Kurds should ask themselves why this statement created such a storm. Was it badly timed, even though it came shortly after Barzani’s national initiative?

Or are the Kurds unable to make their case to Baghdad and the outside world? Do they need a more aggressive campaign to explain who the Kurds are? Or do they need to review their relations with their allies?

Regardless of the answers to these questions, the reality is that once again, the Kurds are being accused of wanting to partition Iraq.

The Kurds should seize this opportunity to clearly state that as Iraqis, they want to be part of the free and modern world – and so should the rest of Iraq.

The values of equality, human rights and freedoms are what keep Iraq together, and they are all enshrined in the constitution.

The last sentence of the constitution’s preamble states: “The adherence to this constitution preserves for Iraq its free union, its people, its land and its sovereignty.”

Detracting from these values would split Iraq, not the Kurds.

A zero-sum game for America

The role of the US in Iraq is becoming less and less relevant, and this is not because of the onslaught of Wikileaks.
Washington’s recent failed attempts to form Iraq’s next government show less interest in the details of Baghdad politics and more concern with finishing what they have at hand.
The eye of the US is mostly on their withdrawal as opposed to the future of the region. Given the fact that this is President Barack Obama’s first term, it is understandable that he is already planning his election campaign and working on gathering numbers and achievement for his re-election bid.
A colleague of mine who is an expert of US policy in the Middle East said that over the next two years, it is best to expect nothing from Obama.
The White House will have a quiet year ahead and will only focus on achievements to boost the campaign in the year that follows.
If this happens, the US will be less and less relevant in Iraq and the region. Other players like Iran, Saudi Arabia and Turkey will take over. The continued disengagement of the US in Iraq would certainly be at the expense of the US’s status and prestige in the region.
As things stand, the US does not scare anyone anymore. In fact, it is much easier to attack the US than most of our neighbors. If you attack the US, they come after you to see what you want. If you attack the others,www.ekurd.netthey come after you and make sure you don’t do it again.
If you are friend of America, they ask you to make concessions. If you are a foe, you are rewarded.
In this respect, some in the US think that if they pull out of Iraq they will have more influence. They are wrong.
The gap the US leaves behind would have to be filled with a functioning state able to respond to various threats and challenges, as well as being strong enough to stand on its own.
Looking at the events of the past year and the challenges that lay ahead, Iraq certainly does not fit this definition of a functioning state.
By all measures, Iraq will not be ready by the time the US forces withdraw in 2011 to withstand external challenges and regional actors will increasingly interfere.
The US disengagement would be the start of real failure and Iraq would slip into the hands of America’s enemies and pseudo allies – both of which are making sure that the US image in their media remains abominable. This factor is contributing to the rise of Islamic extremism in the Middle East.
For the US to withdraw, they need to leave behind a functioning state and a political process that is able to defend itself and stand alone.
What we see on the streets of Baghdad and TV screens does not suggest at all that Iraq is capable of doing so.
The way the Iraqi government is configured is a recipe for dysfunction. Bringing together opposing parties in the same room is a good start for reconciliation, but not for rebuilding a country.
The new Council for Strategic Policies, for example, will only add another bureaucratic layer to the already byzantine political and governmental processes.
The key challenge for all of us is to separate divisive politics from the management of affairs of state.
This is done by strengthening Iraq’s public service sector and working strongly to promote good governance, transparency, anti-corruption, strong media and national reconciliation.
To be blunt, most Iraqis still need of America’s help. We still badly need Washington to help separate politics from governance.
The less politicized our public service and other state institutions become, the more ready they will be take over when the US pulls out.

On Our Media

Last weekend, I conducted a training course for the staff of an emerging Kurdish TV station that says it wants to uphold the values of strong, professional journalism.
News judgment was heavily emphasized in the course. This skill is fundamental for professional journalists and builds a news outlet’s credibility as well as its audience. For those not familiar with the concept, news judgment involves prioritizing the most important news by placing it at the top of a story and running the most important news items in a publication or newscast first.
After a number of discussions, we studied several TV news bulletins on the same day. All of the stations are owned by political parties. The bulletins highlighted the key defect and crippled nature of political party media.
In one of the exercises, I asked the journalists to reorder news items based on the impact it had on the public, and to estimate the number of people affected by the story.
The result was that we turned the original bulletin upside down! Instead of running a story about a leader’s (rather dull and non-newsworthy) official meetings first, as the party media had done, we prioritized stories about mobile petrol stations closing and explosions in Talafar and Jalawla.
For another exercise, we watched bulletins from two party-run TV stations and were able to predict exactly what a third party-affiliated station would run. The stations’ news line-ups were entirely based on the political stance of the parties that own them.
A quick analysis of the stories and issues that news outlets choose to report shows that the coverage is reflective of Iraqi’s divisive politics: pro-government media praises official initiatives while anti-government media is critical. At the end of the day, our media tailgates our politics.
But in every society, the number of people who are interested in politics is much smaller than those who are not. Our media unfortunately caters to politicians and political junkies, and fails to give the public information they need for their daily lives.
Many of my western journalist colleagues have observed that our media has not yet transitioned from acting as a political party’s revolutionary mouthpiece to serving as a mirror of a society that is working to rebuild itself.
Particularly in this delicate phase, the news media should reflect our society and should gauge our progress. So far, this has not occurred. We need to follow stories from multiple news organizations to get a complete picture of what is happening in our country, because most have their own agenda that does not reflect the entire truth.
We still don’t have a single trustworthy news source. This is mainly because our media is either owned by wealthy political parties that are focused on broadcasting their views to the public (as well as the daily schedule of its leaders); or by not-so-wealthy media owners whose outlets primarily criticize the political parties and publish items that the parties won’t.
The result is that neither of the two provides the full picture. In many ways, both operate in the same way but with different content.
This deadlock will not break until one decides to fundamentally shift toward independence. This requires a wealthy investor who wants to change the landscape of media and to serve as the leading news source for the public. Such an investment would be profitable,www.ekurd.netgiven that there is a huge untapped market for credible information. Advertising dollars would follow. If this model were applied, the party media would be left behind as it would be too late for them to catch up.
The other avenue is for the political parties to overhaul their current media policies. This can be done by prioritizing the public’s need for information above the party’s desire to inform the public of its leaders’ meetings.
This is done by separating news from propaganda, i.e. the news division of any media outlet should be completely independent from other departments. It should be managed by professional journalists who are not even members of the party, who prioritize public’s right to know.
It is clear that there is a huge news and information gap in our society. Whoever fills this gap by creating a trustworthy news outlet will reap the benefits –the investors will profit and the political parties will win votes.