Saudi Payments for Foreign Journalists

In a column published in the Saudi daily Al-Watan, columnist Abdallah Nasser Al-Fawzan criticizes Saudi payments given to foreign journalists in order to write pro-Saudi media reports. The following are excerpts from the column:(1)

"For quite some time I have been hearing rumors that we [the Saudis] are paying journalists in Arab and non-Arab capitals, and that these payments are not in the hundreds of thousands but in the millions. I did not believe it, because first of all it was in complete contradiction to our ethics, our values and dignity, our self-respect, and our reverence to our nation and country. Secondly, I found nothing in the publications abroad about the Kingdom [of Saudi Arabia] that justified such practices. [In fact] there has been an Arab regime that used to pay [journalists], and that was manifested clearly in media publications about it. For example, we remember the media festivals organized by Arab media outfits [to hail] this regime and we remember the odd propaganda efforts on its behalf. But when it comes to comparing ourselves with that regime we deserve epic poems of praise ... because we find no evidence to the [bribery] rumors. Furthermore, sometimes we are the target of organized media attacks and we do need support, but no one comes forward to speak up for us, which gives the impression that we don't pay anyone.

"Such was my impression, and that is why the rumors did not sink in and did not leave me any reason for further contemplation. But the rumors persisted, and two days ago I was surprised by a trustworthy Saudi journalist and a media personality with considerable credence, Mr. Turki Al-Sudairi, editor-in-chief of the Saudi daily Al-Riyadh, who published an article that changed my mind about the rumors I heard, and made me reconsider them seriously."

"In his regular column 'Meeting,' published last Monday(2)... he talked about our dire need for a home-grown strong and honest media, free of domestic and social shackles, able to stand up to other provocative and destructive media, rather than having to rely on crippled and suppliant foreign media... Mr. Al-Sudairi went on to say that: 'Having a crippled and suppliant media cannot benefit us,' and he added even more bluntly that 'we have had the most bizarre relationship with newspapers in other Arab countries ... which to this time receive annual payments and subsidies, although they are insignificant in their own countries, let alone in the Arab world...'"

"I said at the beginning of this article that for various reasons I used to dismiss what I heard about paying Arab journalists... And although I do not support such payments under any circumstances, it would [be safe to] assume that they were given in exchange for taking certain positions and for defending us from attacks. However, this did not happen. On the contrary, the opposite has sometimes occurred.

"Mr. Al-Sudairi confirms that payments were made, but why haven't we seen the desired effect? Mr. Al-Sudairi provided a heartbreaking answer in his article. He said that those who receive payments from us 'do not write one word to refute Western media campaigns, as if the payments are made to prevent them [too] from writing against us ... i.e. they are the price of their silence.

"So, the problem is far worse than just making annual payments to Arab journalists, because these payments are the 'price of silence...

"Finally Mr. Al-Sudairi said that those who receive bribes to spare us their harm do not have the ability to harm us with their words or to safeguard us with their silence. In the words of Mr. Al-Sudairi himself: 'They are insignificant ingrates ... and some of them even use pseudonyms to publish articles against us.' What a shame... What a tragedy...

"I thank Mr. Turki Al-Sudairi for his obvious patriotic concern and I join him in condemning this sorry affair, and urge everyone to support him. If we are paying the price, as he said, to insignificant ingrate journalists who consider them a price for their silence, and still publish articles against us using pseudonyms, then the matter is truly scandalous and calls for investigation and proper remedies, not just for the end of the payments."

Endnotes: 1 Al-Watan (Saudi Arabia), January 14, 2004. 2 Al-Riyadh (Saudi Arabia), January 12, 2004.

CAIR: Distorting the Truth, Again

On February 11, 2004, the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) issued an “Action Alert” calling on President Bush and other political and religious leaders to repudiate remarks by Rep.
Peter King (R-NY) claiming that the vast majority of American Muslim community leaders are "an enemy living amongst us" and that "no (American) Muslims" cooperate in the war on terror. (King
serves on the Select Committee on Homeland Security and the International Relations Committee.)

Rep. King was incorrect to say that no Muslims have come forward to help in the war on terror. It is interesting, however, that no record exists of any Muslim coming forward at the behest
of an Islamic religious “leader”.

Sadly, it's all too possible that Muslims who do publicly assist in the war on terror cannot expect to be welcomed back into their mosque, nor expect protection from a
militant-Islamist religious leadership.

Mr. Stephen Schwartz, director, Islam and Democracy Program at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies had this to say at the Kyl committee* hearings:

“At the present time, Shia and other non-Wahhabi Muslim community leaders estimate that 80 percent of American mosques are under Wahhabi control. This does not mean 80 percent of American
Muslims support Wahhabism, although the main Wahhabi ideological agency in America, the so-called Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) has claimed that some 70 percent of American
Muslims want Wahhabi teaching in their mosques. This is a claim we consider unfounded.”

Schwartz, a respected expert on militant Islam reports that 80% of American mosques are under Wahhabi control - a figure that was originally tallied by Sheikh Muhammad Hisham
Kabbani in 1999.

CAIR claims that 70% of American Muslims want the bigoted, hateful, terrorism-encouraging Wahhabist Cleric preaching and providing instruction on Islam in American
mosques.

Who is the bigger threat to Americans, Congessman Peter King or the so-called “Muslim civil-rights” organization that publicly supports militant Wahhabi-Islam?

Anti-CAIR (ACAIR) predicts that the mainstream press will give a pass to CAIR and not challenge the ridiculous statements made in CAIRs so-called "Action Alert".

We ask our readers: “How come your local newspaper missed this story?”

*(Senator Jon Kyl, R-AZ chaired hearings on “Terrorism: Growing Wahhabi Influence in the United States” on June 26, 2003, before the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on
Terrorism, Technology and Homeland Security.)

ACAIR is pleased to answer any questions from the public and press.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.