CJR: Dave Marash: Why I Quit

The Water Cooler

Dave Marash: Why I Quit

The veteran newsman says Al Jazeera English’s mission changed

By Brent Cunningham Fri 4 Apr 2008 11:26 AM

In February 2006, David Marash, a veteran correspondent (and substitute host) for ABC’s Nightline, raised eyebrows in the U.S. journalism world when he took a job as the Washington anchor for Al Jazeera English, the new sister channel of the Arabic-language news operation in Qatar. For American viewers, Marash brought instant credibility to the new channel, even as it struggled to find a cable outlet that would agree to put it on the air. Eyebrows rose again last week when Marash announced that he was quitting Al Jazeera English because of what he considered anti-American bias in the channel’s coverage. CJR’s Brent Cunningham spoke with Marash yesterday.

Brent Cunningham: Would you elaborate on your decision to quit?

David Marash: It’s been a gradual process, and defining it all, is that with corporate encouragement, over the first two years of the channel’s existence, I have made myself effectively the American face of the channel and vouched for its credibility and value. And over the last seventeen months there have been several changes at the channel which put things on the air that, frankly, I could not vouch for. If I had just been another employee I might have just dropped my head and let it all wash over, because it is the nature of our business that every place you work occasionally does things that embarrass you. But I felt an extra measure of responsibility.

Now, as anchor, I was in position to vouch for at least half of the material that went on air because I got to speak it and I could edit it on the fly if I felt that there were any inaccuracies or imbalances in it. But when the proposal was made that I leave the anchor chair [he was informed of this in December and his last day as anchor was March 13] and become a sort of heavy correspondent, I knew that I would never be able to have the kind of editorial input or control that would put me in a position to honestly vouch for anything. Furthermore, when I was taken off that meant that there were zero American accents in any of the presenter roles at Al Jazeera. And it occurred to me that this was just one part of a series of decisions that diminished editorial input from the United States. It got to the point where I feel that in a globe where Al Jazeera sets a very, very high reporting standard, and a very, very high standard for both numerical and qualitative and authentic staffing, that the United States was becoming a serious exception to their role, and a place where the journalism did not measure up to the standards that were set almost everywhere else by Al Jazeera English’s very fine reporting.

BC: What are some examples of the kinds of stories that made you uncomfortable?

DM: There was a series entitled “Poverty in America” which, in the first place, was done in a way that illustrates some of the infrastructural problems that disturbed me greatly. The idea of a series about poverty in America was broached by the planning desk in Doha. The specifics of the plan were so stereotypical and shallow that the planning desk in Washington said that we think this is a very bad idea and recommend against it and won’t do it. And so the planning desk in Doha literally sneaked a production team into the United States without letting anyone in the American news desk know, and they went off and shot a four-part series that was execrable. That was essentially, if I may say so, here a poor, there a poor, everywhere a poor poor.

Now, there is poverty in America, and there is a very wide gulf between rich and poor in America and that is a trend for which there are stories to be reported. But this series reported nothing beyond the stereotype and the mere fact that there were homeless people living on the street in Baltimore, for example. Well, were they there as a consequence of mental illness that was not properly cared for because of a generation of a policy of de-institutionalization? Al Jazeera didn’t know because they didn’t ask. Frankly they didn’t know enough to ask. It was enough for them to show poor people living in wretched conditions in a prosperous American city and decry it. Then they went to South Carolina and found a town that—I know this is going to shock you, Brent—had very rich people and, on the other side of the railroad tracks, very poor people. And the wretchedness of the poor people’s living conditions was enumerated. In fact this memorable question and answer exchange occurred:

Q: What’s it like to live with rats in your home? A: Bad. [laughs]

The economic divide is a story and the reasons why, over a long period of time in this South Carolina town there should be very little transmigration across the line between rich and poor, is a story. The sources of wealth of the rich may be a story. The lack of opportunities for the poor may be a story. But again, you gotta report all these things. This series merely named them in a very accusatory way. This to me is the very quintessence of what television news should not be doing. And by the way is not the kind of reporting you see very much elsewhere on Al Jazeera English.

1 | 2 | 3

Comments

Shiv Kumar

Fri 4 Apr 2008 01:10 PM

Looks like the boot is on the other foot when a non-Western country tries to view America from its own perspective.

As a journalist from India, I see this kind of reporting every day from Western media outlets. You guys cannot wait to juxtapose the elephant on Mumbai' s streets with Ratan Tata who just bought Jaguar and Land Rover and Corus earlier.

The same shallow journalism Dave complains about is thrown up every day by the Western television and print outlets that 'cover' India. The handful of local journalists who tried to educate their bosses at headquarters were often given the short shrift.

It happened in the past and is happening now. So please don't crib when the Arabs are giving the Americans a dose of their own medicine. Now the Arabs have what the Americans did in the past - money - and you can expect them to force the piper to play their tune.

Henk

Fri 4 Apr 2008 01:45 PM

I can see the problem. Al Jazeera America was becoming Americanized, so obviously quality was deteriorating. I don't know where Mr. Marash is going to find another job in the US that doesn't have the same credibility issues, but I guess he has every right to try. I wonder if he ever got any pressure from any of the many right-wing groups in this country?.

arcane

Fri 4 Apr 2008 05:54 PM

When the story of Dave Marash's departure from AJE first broke, it didn't mention (or, if it did, I totally missed it)the fact that he had lost his anchor chair; hence it left me wondering what the REAL reason might have been, especially as I had long lamented the [unsurprising] absence of AJE on on broacast or cable here in the US.

Thank you, CJR, for this clarifying interview; it wraps up the story very neatly. Now, if someone could only tell me why WBZ dropped Bob Lobel.

Deane Pradzinski

Sat 5 Apr 2008 06:17 PM

It sounds like the N.Y.Times bought out Al Jazeera!

John Lee Pedimore

Wed 9 Apr 2008 11:53 AM

Al Jazeera has no choice in the matter,if they report the wrong view they will be murdered by thier own peace loving viewers.They can't even handle a simple cartoon for god's sake.

You wont see riots in the streets of America over this "poverty" report,no matter what it says.In arab countries free speech is a defence,in America free speech is a God given right.

JLP

Moroccan

Sun 13 Apr 2008 06:03 PM

I second the views of Kumar and I'd like to add that if Indians feel that they are misrepresented in US mainstream media, then they have not seen anything.

What I read about Arabs or Muslims in general in US mainstream media is not shallow journalism (I wish it was just that), it is racism, bigtory and contempt. Most if all journalists or reporters who are assigned to report on the Middle East do not even speak the local languages. That's how bad it is.

We have become the negros of America from the last century or centuries.

If Al-Jazeera wanted to mimic the standards of bigotry of US mainstream media against Arabs or Muslims, then they would have blamed the poverty issues in America on Christianity and then went on to generalize about every other Chrisian out there in the world.

David Marash does not seem to read/watch the Washingon Post, the New York Times or CNN to see for himself the almost daily Arab/Muslim bashing that is printed and broadcast by all these mainstream media outlets.

What David Marash found biased is a standard practice of Al-Jazeera when it covers internal Arab affairs and I don't see anything wrong with it. Like all countries, the US has some issues and Al-Jazeera never suggested it had to do with the faith Americans believe in, their skin color, or that their most cherished and sincere beliefs are evil and promote hatred and violence (as you know, we Muslims are all victim of our own religious beliefs and it is why the US invasion of Iraq didn't work!).

David Marash is not willing to accept that and I say it is too bad.

Al-Jazeera is the voice of the people and I hope it stays that way.

robinofsactown

Tue 15 Apr 2008 03:36 AM

Too bad- I enjoyed his election coverage. I have been watching al jazeera english free for months- now sudden;y it is unavailable- I guess I'll have to watch them in segments at YouTube. Anyone else suddenly want to go?

ksharma

Fri 18 Apr 2008 09:07 AM

I agree with Shiv Kumar, not just because I too am an Indian journalist, but because I have seen the unprofessional manner in which many stories on India are done by Western journalists. There is a formula that is applied, with contrasts between rich and poor, a repetition of well-known and recognizable cliches, and a short-cut language that is comforting for their readers. I find European and British journalists are more nuanced in their reporting and of course, there are honorable exceptions amongst American reporters. But by and large, perhaps because of the style adopted by American reporters, news from countries like India is slotted into a predictable format. Perhaps Mr Marash never realized that the same formula could be applied to reports about his country.

Every news organisation has a regional perspective. So why should we surprised that Al Jazeera has such a perspective and yet remains thoroughly professional. Surely, no one terms the best of the US press unprofessional just because it has a distinctly American perspective.

jbroadside

Sat 19 Apr 2008 05:26 PM

I can see the usual anti-American perspectives filtering in the comments here to distract from what Dave Marash was trying to say. Does it even occur to you defenders of what AJE is doing that Dave Marash is holding up AJE to its own professed standards? If AJE wanted to be an English-language version of its mother channel, with a view on world events that was distinctly Arabic-centered, then it should have come out and said so. Plenty of networks offer a regional-based view of the world, and no one would have held it against AJE to do so. But it was AJE that was professing to adhere to an international worldview that in reality did not exist. Networks in the U.S. make no bones about the fact that yes, the audience they serve is American, and thus their reporting is flavored with an American perspective. AJE claimed to be something it was and that it isn't, Dave Marash called them on it, and you guys try to change the subject while ignoring the substance of this interview.

Oh, and this little tidbit by Moroccan?:

"We have become the negros of America from the last century or centuries."

That has to be the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard in quite a while, aside from every word that comes out of George Bush's mouth. A statement like that can only be reflective of one of the most uninformed viewpoints I've ever seen. To compare Arabs to the way African-Americans were treated in the U.S. for centuries (up to and including even now) is the mark of a deranged personality. And by the way Moroccan, if you are so concerned about "negros," how about speaking out against the current slave trade in black people occurring in the Muslim world, particularly in Africa (especially in Sudan)? You know, the slave trade currently being run by ARABS??

Educate yourself for a change: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_modern_Africa

Post a comment

We ask our readers to express opinions in a manner respectful to the readers and writers of CJR. Criticism of ideas is strongly encouraged, but personal, ad hominem attack will result in deletion of posted comments and, after one repeat violation, banning of the individual user. CJR reserves the right to edit or delete, for reasons of content, comments submitted to CJR. We also ask users to please keep posts to the topic at hand; those wandering far afield or appearing to be spam may be deleted. Please read the complete comment policy and full legal disclaimer.

Name: Email Address:

URL: Remember personal info?

Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)