this is what journalists should do. if they do not allow us to report from there, it does not look balanced, because of the lack of their voice pm we have never stopped the service there. it was their choice. now, it is their choice. the iraqi government' has takena stance. we are continuing to be one of the most -- the biggest coverage in iraq. ok, we may have many leaders. the other side is not allowing us. as you know for four years now, we are not allowed to cover in iraq because of the government

policy there. . back. >> a.m. media. what pressure has been put on a al-jazeera for is coverage in images of death, collateral damage and suffering and since is beginning has al-jazeera changed its editorial policy or changed its editorial policy or practice in that regard to? >> in 2000, 2004 and july 2004 al-jazeera launched its code of ethics and conduct which was a few months of deliberation, and that was launched actually in a forum hosted more than 150 journalists. we do have very clear rules on issues related to a graphic scenes. we do not for example show close

shots of fragmented the limbs and bodies and so on and so forth. and we do have also the standards of reporting complex in order not to go far against our own sensitive audience, however, we also do show images of war and destruction and people who die. maybe these are not to gross shaw's, we do not want to pick up certain images with who was unfortunately sometimes things have been aired one of our reporting was live on air and we were confronted by certain images that were deleted immediately after the first time it was shown live. the philosophy of al-jazeera, you should it show what destruction is all about otherwise you will cover up the ideas of war, but when you show it to show it with stability so

you don't go ace jimmy to the other side. >> this gentleman. >> you are doing a great job, we are live on the show. >> i wondered if you comment on the film control room, do think it is a fair portrayal of al-jazeera, did you participate in making it obviously and carry -- cover you're tehran? >> we did not participate in is, of course, during the war. and has introduced certain aspects that was seen by foreign journalists who came to al-jazeera and some of the people at that time saw al-jazeera as something flat box, they don't understand, they imagine journalists with long beards and the anchor woman with has cars trying to support polygamy and unfortunately that was an image because if you listen to what would have to say about us it was difficult to

imagine a newsroom of people like every other news from doing business like any other news from so control room had that perspective about al-jazeera and, naturally and is spent a good time in the news from projecting that. do i feel that it does represent al-jazeera as the philosophy or journalism? i am not sure but i can say it does introduce something different and, the state's of evidence that had been at that time. >> i have a question about whether you have reached out to schools, high schools, colleges and if so, other teachers who want to show your sine watching a particular show or a particular issue or is the resistance and that you are showing? and they need to learn was how the government wants them to learn and not be confused by

fax? connects you meet in the states? >> in arab countries. >> the reach out, to have relationships with the schools, department of education i guess or individual schools where -- i guess i'm asking multiple questions -- reaching out and whether a wear? >> actually i was a al-jazeera definitely space to i audience from every source of age however also al-jazeera launched association with the foundation, al-jazeera children, which is supposed to targets children and introduce educational programs to them. the foundation and al-jazeera participated in forming and founding the children and we do try to prove projects we have in mind to speak merely to people

especially children and youth either through the screen and by the way al-jazeera is not one channel. by the end of this year we will have 14 channels so we have it channels from sports to life and other channels as well that are under construction at this point in time so, yes, we do targets this sector of the audience through certain kinds of programs and opportunities. >> [inaudible] >> the community and i think we don't have a specialty channel, but we do engaged them in discussion about prices and education in the arab world and the problems that are facing, and have some kind of discussion that but i cannot say we have specialized directed channelling toward a this education. >> let me ask, head of the bureau in washington is here and

i'm lucky enough to be on the al-jazeera english section and sometimes i'm on al-jazeera arabic and it's interesting because you walk around in an arab airport and people sit on to that guy, but i have noticed your al-jazeera arabic content is largely completely separate from al-jazeera inglis contents. what are the pluses and minuses of that and do i have the right to present? >> actually we do have a al-jazeera error by targeting the audience in particular where ever they are in the world and talk to them all over the world. arabic and english is speaking to english-speaking people and i understand that the arab world prior to use of the news would be different because eventually the issues are related to their life and some of the regards al-jazeera as religious because do have certain needs especially because of the lack also of the other challenges and our country

and controlling government challenges, however, we decided from the beginning that al-jazeera arabic and al-jazeera inglis would have the same reporting, but we would not have a one, news from the. and the priorities for al-jazeera arabic would be different from al-jazeera english and the same rules as same understanding of journalism and we have intensive discussion of ways between the two teams, we have one share the institution and most of our of yours talk to each other not only integrated with a two other but again we do not have a al-jazeera english as translation of it al-jazeera arabic and i think that is much more wise to have because in al-jazeera english at this moment has succeeded in two of the three years to do something different and to conquer new territories. we have audience in every 140 million households all over

the world and from south africa to rush of we have gained a lot of popularity in the audience to make thank you. yes, sir. >> hi, two quick questions. number one, & sp1 it yemen just got into some hot water with somebody from reporting in the south continue to elaborate a little bit on where those threats came from and what is going on there? and number two, in terms of u.s. media either printing on television who do think is the most successful in reporting on the middle east? with u.s. news outlet either printing our television is the most of cecil and reporting on the middle east? >> you are putting me in trouble. first of all, in yemen unfortunately we have faced difficulty with the government, so the opposition and

fortunately our reporters or attacks in the south from some angry mobs and they were demanding that they go immediately and that led to some kind of attack against them and one of our journalists was injured. on the other hand, we have received threats from the government's because they feel that what we brought to bear from al-jazeera is inciting violence in the south so we have it pressure from both parties. of course, of the people in general are much more friendly than the government's but at that particular incident you are referring to it was actually found some angry people who attacked al-jazeera and a letter from the government and they came out demanding some presenting other ruling party demanding from the parliament to issue a decision to close down al-jazeera. >> is that still pending? >> now we are continuing and so far we are still working with a

lot of restraint, said, it is not really our correspondents and people go to the country and go where they like. some of the images are confiscated and some of these are not allowed to be broadcast so we still to face problems in yemen, but to go back to the second question. i cannot be -- i cannot pick one particular blogging, is difficult and actually a few other blogging sites i feel, a lot of people are really brilliant and they are reporting the malaise in particular not certain kinds of thinking. and also i look at somebody who is -- of course cnn is available and we look at it in new york times as well as so we have a

different sources in the state's chemical new take this loss question from the gentleman i see through the lights. other. >> their? >> thank you, foreign service institute. two related questions, one is whether you like it or not you are part of a their of the cold war that is happening right now where there is a lot of the images on difference signs. eight you are understood to be on the insides and i don't sense you intensity, but what is your feeling about that? related to another question, are you going to have pepsi and coke or you need is other or do feel like it is a real fight for of the fall of the era populace? >> absolutely wonderful question. >> to start with, we have adopted the reporting about the

middle east, we are a tv station that has made me cover the the dynamics of this society on figures of governments and people who have already been in that tough position. we have never had a friendly relationship with governments, however, we have with people so that was sometimes we are accused we are populists and i say we are not. i argue with politics in the middle east have not been in press conferences and happening in meeting rooms. without understanding that people -- the fabric of this society and without embedding yourself to the public and listening carefully to what everybody has to say, meeting with the people and allowing them to spring from various walks of life, i think we cannot reflect middle east and i did play. some others would prefer to be

more on the side of what government say and what governments do because of fortunately it is not actually supporting governments. government officials of al-jazeera but we do see ourselves and tv station that is focusing on the center or is just repeating what politicians are talking about with certain governments. this is al-jazeera and i don't want to talk about anyone else. >> before i bring this to a close, and ask you a question, is to adjourn at work in your achievements and successes, what would you say is the biggest deficits, the thing that al-jazeera is in getting right quite read that you and your management of the network i really apply yourselves to the as you thank you got to overcome? >> two major challenges we have pointed out in our strategy, the first one is to reach out to more youth and this is what we are attempting to do very soon.

i think what everyone is talking about this, we would like to go ahead and see something different. sometimes, politics are followed up to a certain age. the second issue is more attractive and integrating new media. they should go beyond traditional means. duwaik to do that as well. well in our programming segments. >> and just want to say i am thrilled the u.s. government finally came to its senses and guys in the visa to come here. i will be blogging later in the week and i did my own and with what i'm allowed to share about the important meetings that wadah khanfar and his teams are having in the u.s. government, is one of them to have access and not have access and is very

clear and i can say this without you having to say is that looking at the itinerary whether the meetings go well or not there are good meetings and it seems to me that at least the obama administration is trying to push resets and we will see what happens here it is a great pleasure and privilege to have in washington. you're a speaking of foreign relations letter in new york but thank you so much, thank you. [applause] >> in a few moments, former president bill clinton talks about preventing childhood obesity. in about 45 minutes, chairman barney frank speaks at the national press club. after that, president obama, secretary of state clinton and should -- treasury secretary guyana thoughts about u.s.-china

relations. >> on washington journal tomorrow morning, we will look at the debate over health care with maryland gerber sarah fini republican jeff blake and republican john larsen -- a democrat john larsen and then we will speak with gary half hour with the institute of national economics. washington journal is live on c- span every day at 7:00 a.m. eastern. >> tomorrow, the senate judiciary committee votes on the nomination of judge sonia salemme your -- judge sonia sotomayor.

tour the home of the highest court. >> alice he's been funded? >> publicly funded? >> donations, maybe? i have no idea. >> government? >> c-span gets its money through the taxes. >> federal funding? >> how is c-span funded? america's cable companies created it as a public service. no government mandate, no government money >> now, former president clinton on preventing childhood obesity. he spoke at a conference hosted by the centers for disease control. this is about 45 minutes. thank you, very much. thank you. thank you. thank you. thank you.

thank you, very much. ladies and gentlemen, thank you for being here and for inviting me. i want to thank -- i was reminded when the doctor said that i had a foundation in new york, his former home town, i was kidding him backstage that hillary and i, as you know, the daughter will very proud of and she loved the private -- left the private sector and went back to graduate school in public health. one of the things that she hoped to do was to spend the summer working in new york city for the doctor and another person he

ripped out of his department, there to make new york the most successful city in the country. i say that because this whole issue of public health, we're here to speak about childhood obesity and it has become an obsession of mine. i want to say, in general, it is a public health issue that cannot be done entirely within the confines of a medical office and you do not want to be. and, it seems to me, in that way, the childhood obesity

problem is a microcosm of the holding that we need to be thinking about, here with health care reform. i did not come here to give a talk about it. it is beyond my pay grade. i do not have to think about it. except that all of these debates actually, the always give aid and comfort to the status quo who are spending more money doing this than any system in history. the truth is, we have to change the delivery system a lot of things in america this is the delivery system issue. cultural issues require us to

have a broader definition of the liver. that is what you are all here. you are part of america's attempt to we imagine how we take on our challenges in an interdependent world we are all crashing against one another. the divorce is not an option. it is entirely too unstable and to unequal and because of climate change, completely a sustainable. in a world like that, you have to build new and interesting partnerships to build up the positive forces and reduce the negative forces of interdependence. that is the context in which we bring up this issue.

ireland has a national campaign against it. india has a national campaign against it. they have the world's most interesting by because they are chongqing it rapidly in favor of western fast-food in urban areas where people are too busy to prepare all that lovely food at home and they have limited amounts of disposable income. the other night, i went to the annual fundraiser at the food bank. it is wonderful. they are terrific. they were honoring my friend, jon bon jovi. i went by and try to support them because the food bank has lost quite a lot of money as you might imagine because of the collapse of so many wall street

institutions and that the huge number of people. in they say we may have more people that are short of food because of this economic collapse. the ultimate irony of that struck me because we have more people who are at risk of childhood obesity in new york city did how can that be? because of the way instability and inequality play out in modern society. the children at risk of being hungry and are on the knife edge. lekarr of >> it has had enough opportunity to get from world areas to cities and from one neighborhood to another but can

barely pay their bills and they have kids and they have a limited in come there are all kinds of other regions, but the big numbers are coming out of these huge social changes. i say that because i am very grateful that you have recognized the alliance for health new generations to day. i am profoundly grateful to the people who are running the program, including our executive director. and just a cut runs are healthy school program. i am grateful to the foundation, without which we would not be here.

it is really important to see the social and economic context of this. because, if we want to change this, we have to change what goes on a home and in the community and in the neighborhood and and in the schools. we have to give people a national information and the pressures that have made this and the number one public health problem in the company -- in the country. they have a shorter life span than their parents. i used to regularly say that a nine year-old a wrench to a young woman who had worked at

hillary's campaign. she said she had just seen a nine year-old girl and washington d.c.. you can no longer refer to as adult onset diabetes. that is the setting for all this. but i think there's a lot of reason to hope next week, we are going to have our annual program. just a will talk more about that. we are now working in 5000 schools. they're reaching many children.

every year, we have a hundred and 14 around the table. we are seeing if we can tie them as specifically as possible. they seem to be making good progress this seemed to be successful in involving large numbers of parents. we did a show with rich away. the recognized to mothers. they have basically gone to out and raised enough money to

provide exercise opportunities at their schools. we are beginning to change the culture. we do not want to be naive about this. california was one of our best opportunities because arnold schwarzenegger thought this was a good idea and agreed to work with me in a bipartisan fashion. back when i had money, they started hiring physical education teachers again and pay for equipment to go into schools. i saw things in ordinary schools that i have not seen in decades i do not think that we can not the knowledge that. i believe it is important to say that the help the school's

program has been a great success -- to help the school's program has been a great success. we need a change in the cultural attitudes. students go home and get their parents involved. they have generational efforts. none of it would be possible without the foundation. we hope to expand rather dramatically. i want to talk a little bit more about the of the things that we do. according to the figures released today, of the city

costs an estimated $147 billion a year in health-care costs. i personally believe that as conservative. that is direct, not indirect. most of our analyses indicated that the medicaid program alone had over 20% of its costs generated by died be this. that included top one and tied to, but that is what you can control. that is a terrific number. they're having this huge debate in congress. there are people that do not understand that we spend 60% of

our income on medical. canada is at 11. france and germany are about 10. both of their systems are regularly rated better than ours. the only one under 10 is the u.k. because most of them all work for the government. those of you that it -- they get government sellers, even there, they modernize the system. and we know that it takes 10% of your gross domestic product to run a first-class health system.

all of our competitors have been able to do that. we have to spend 16.5 to leave people insured and get health outcomes that are worse. all the naysayers say that this is only for to make it worse and more expensive as if they are totally blameless for this wonderful mona lisa system that we have now. to be fair to them, and the green eye shade world of washington d.c., we swing at a lot of nats while we're on camels. people cannot understand me in fact of certain assumptions, and

one of them is this. i say that because the difference in what we spend in canada is about $800 billion a year in today's dollars. it is well over what it costs to provide insurance to every man and woman and child without insurance. mckinsey and co. did two studies on this it actually breaks them where the cost differentials are and what the likely consequences on quality are. it really does not go to the heart of cultural behavioral systems that produce problems like the child abuse to the problem. if you just look at this, it is

roughly 20% of the differential. if we could get rid of it, it would be more than we needed to cover everybody. this is something that you should all think about. the most important thing is to give these kids the future. it is important to see in the context of this debate that is unfolding in washington. for a long time, top of we were making progress because the administration was making a good case that we needed to finance care and needed to set up care networks. the people started producing the

articles that said this may not save us very much money because we're going to be spending but they took care of people who would not have gotten sick anyway. and then people who are at risk, their primary prevention will cost a lot of money and you are going to spend primary and preventive care on some people to keep only 2% of them from getting really sick. we may not make money on this. give me a break. i say that -- [applause] it is kind of fun when you are not in any more, you just set up in the peanut gallery. [laughter] i can see who the baseball manager is sending up to bat and what they are trying to do to get them to strike up.

it really matters what happens here. it matters whether we it save this generation of kids and it matters whether we save our country's health system and because i believe that we cannot make an affordable universal health plan without a more effective public health program that includes more and more people, i want this to work. let's go back to the primary prevention thing. last year, the trust for america's health said that if we invested $10 a person per year on community-based programs with proven results, to increase physical activity and prevent smoking, we could save the country more than $16 billion

per year. that is a return of $5.60. avoiding future heart attacks, strokes, diabetes and some kinds of cancer. and just general debility. it sounds like a pretty good deal to me. when all these people get sick, we are going to pay for it, what we? it is not true that all prevention winds up costing you more money. this prevention will save more than five times what it costs. i think it is important that all of you know this. you need to go back into the field armed with this.

we have all of these assumptions, but the biggest one you have got to fight among the citizenry at large is that we spend more than anyone else and we should have the best health- care system in the world. that must mean that nobody has to wait. it is almost impossible to break these things down. it is really important that you have simple things like this that you can say to explain to people why you have to do the stuff in the schools and why you have got to do all these things. and what your government should give us health care reform. i think it is really important. >> let me just say just a couple of more words about what we do. most of the time i was in politics, i was in the debates that i see going on in washington today.

where the ceo says that this is way more expensive than you thought. the people pushing for reform would fall into the trap and say that the things that we really need to do is change the delivery system but we cannot get credit for that. it would drive health providers of the law and it would give us back into the soup again. this is something we all need to be thinking about. so, most of the debates, you see it now in the health-care debate. you saw in the stimulus debate earlier. the debate to questions. what are you going to do? and how much are you going to spend on it?

there is relatively little time spent on the third question, which, i take it is why dr. friedman was asked to assume his current position and why the rest of us who know about his work in new york were thrilled when he agreed to do it because he answer the third question. however much money you have got to spend on whatever it is you're going to do, how do you propose to turn your good intentions into positive changes? the how question matters more than the how much question. not because money but when it does not matter, but that to get more money for your trying to do. if you answer the how question and demonstrable ways, you are more likely to get adequate levels of investment. when most of the word wars go

back and forth about how and how much, how do you intend to make positive change matter? that is what our help the school's program does. we have done some other things i would like to talk about because i do not believe there is a chance that we can solve these problems unless we do it in the homes and the school's in the communities. we are trying to turn the titanic around before it hits the ice berg. it is very much worth the effort. so, let me just say a few words about the other things we have tried to do. first, we try to go into all these places. we have an advisory board of 25

terrific young people that tell us whether these programs are born to have any impact at all of their generation. it is true that sometimes we find that what we are absolutely sure they will respond to, they do not. sometimes they respond to things that we do not think there will because all people, when they get older underestimate the intelligence of the young and whether they're paying attention are not. these young people have done a great job for us. we now have a by kids for kids movement. but personally in role in our effort to say that they will exercise more an attempt to persuade their peers to do the

same ratio re -- the same ratio. and, we work this with her and i do not have any data but i know that the show is highly rated and a lot of people watch the shows were we recognize what the mother is in the schools were doing in the carolinas and indiana. we made agreements with the beverage industry and the snack- food industry to reduce the caloric content of the products that they sell in school than the missions.

i really learned a lot about this when i got into this. i went to a really big high school. i had about 325 people in my senior class and we have one bindi machine in the whole school. -- a vending machine in the whole school. i can only tell you that the agreements we have reached have been pretty impressive. this has led to a 58% reduction in court content in the beverage that -- in the beverages that going to the school's. snack foods are about 41%.

it is less, but still not insubstantial. we just made an agreement with a school and -- school food provider that serves 6000 schools with meals, to join us in the beverage and snack food agreement. we also finally made a real important breakthrough that deals directly with this health care reform issue. i want you to think about this when i describe it and ask yourself whether it would be a good or bad thing if this were part of health-care reform. would it save money or not? these are the vexing questions that the congressional budget office has to come to terms with. for all the people that like the way it is, they say it will not say the money. the alliance for health your

generation announced iraq -- our alliance health initiative, a collaborative effort with the national medical association's and employers to offer comprehensive health benefits these are the first times that these groups have joined together. they want preventive care available on a broad scale. that is a fancy way to save a promise to enroll more people every year. to systematically add to the science base, that is, i do not mean anything i have said so far to be at all frivolous about the challenge that the budget office has. but just to say that it would be

hard to spend more money and do less with it than we do. we are trying. all of the signers of this agreement their first big company is pepsico. the houston independent school district, here is what they have all agreed to do. they have agreed to offer for

visits with a primary care practitioner a year with four visits to a dietician a year for children of covered parents' ages 3-18. this would just be through the just part of children and youth. we now have almost a million kids in the last five months. within the next couple of years, so, i am not sure we can get there, but we are working at it and it is really impressive.

the first and i want to do is thank the insurers and the importers that are part of this this is really important. all of you can do something about this. that is why we are here, right? >> dorner want you to lobby for health care reform? of course i do. kila want you to say that in the end, these actions will make this a better country? of course i did.

keep in mind, most of us don't have a vote in congress. all we can do this lovely, but we should spend most of the ton actually answering the how question as we can. i have a big climate change project and i want all the way to sweeten the other day to give a speech and all of these -- tony blair was there and the great nobel prize winner was there. they were giving these passionate speeches about what should be in the new climate change agreement. it would be considered in copenhagen. unfortunately, they ask me to close the meeting because i said that i love -- i love what they said and i agree with everything they said. i have nothing to add to it. i came all the way over here to

tell you that unless you're born to copenhagen and you have a role there, or you have a vote in your local legislative body, you should stop coming to these meetings and go home and do something. we are going to be tested by whether we do things that change people's lives. [applause] i don't feel that way about you because we have not been doing this like we have been doing it in a climate change for a decade and the person running the local building retrofit program is likely to have the spirit we are just getting into this. i want you to keep sending people to meetings until we get more of a knowledge base.

[laughter] let's think about the things that still need to be done we could better integrate obesity prevention movement by adding body mass index measurement tool existed performance standards for well care visits. a couple of states have done already. why should we just do that? why would we benefit from having more data? why shouldn't obesity be recognized as a stand-alone condition to qualify for effective treatments for reimbursement, more broadly, not just for the insurance plan that i mentioned. why shouldn't we take this of the city problem as a warning

that we need to do a better job in america of considering held in all facets of our life. that this is not just about -- we need to examine this. we will actually start building houses again one day in america. i wish we had a national building code on clean energy and i would like to consider the impact of new developments on the public health. we need to consider the impact of new school buildings on the public health. so, we need to work this into every aspect so that it is not just educators, it is community leaders and food and beverage people. i will give you another rig example.

why shouldn't some of the stimulus money be given out the humor of -- communities that should be set aside for this in the cities that have big issues? why shouldn't some of the stimulus money for capital projects be spent on the development of city parks and tourism divisions that would directly in power poor neighborhoods and poor groups to access exercise facilities to help to combat this? why shouldn't this be part of the calculus as we go forward with capital investments in every state in the country. i know it may be hard to believe because we only get bad news about state budgets, but the truth is, it cut the crisis that

states like my stay face by about 50%. if you got this money, why shouldn't it have to be invested in creating this in urban areas. in what about areas where there is a lot of obesity? do we really know whether it is possible to ordaz any kind of affirmative health opportunities? do they have access to the same level of information? do they have access to the same kind of exercise programs?

there have been a lot of thought there has been a lot of research. these are the most vulnerable. that is a constant diet and a consular level of activity. the vulnerability of obesity and as other consequences are broadly shared. do we really understand how much harder it is of for them? is there something we should do that is in response to that? >> i think that these fangs are

really important. i spend my life trying to answer these questions around the world. we provide the lowest cost madison in the world. all we did was change the business model. it is now high volume absolutely certain payment business. 2 million people are staying alive on these contracts. it was an answer to the how question. i think this is harder because it goes right to the core of everything from the way we organize society to the way people that are just over the knife edge and have to manage

their own budgets. everything that is going on in people's lives and to our bodies react to this stuff that we can afford to take off the shelves. so, we were all raised to believe in some way or another that i examined life is not worth living. we have to examine all our lives if we have to examine the lives of our family and neighbors who are trying to keep body and soul together that they do not have time to examine their lives without some help. this is a deeply challenging and difficult thing. it is our number one public health problem and a test of whether we're really committed to go forward together.

you can do this. nobody can do it alone. therefore, will have to think about all the questions and how we can answer them. thank you, very much. . .

>> over new america foundation's

web site. i've been hopeful of having wadah khanfar in our program series for quite a long time. he is one of the most interesting journalists that's been covering the middle east in sort of new and direct ways. and before i even get into the question of al-jazeera and al-jazeera's growth, its growth in the u.s. market. recently al-jazeera english has gone 24-hour, 24/7 on important cable networks around the united states, but it's one of these phenomenons where you've seen emerge in a rapidly short period of time a major global sprawling news network. i was just recently in israel, recently in athens, greece, and you see al-jazeera everywhere. and i think at the time when i became interested before the iraq war, the u.s. government would commend al-jazeera as the sort of growth of civil society and great of expression in the region, but then you began to notice as well that a lot of governments were uncomfortable

with al-jazeera whether it was saudi arabia, israel, what later became the united states, and to some degree i do think it is the role of think tanks and proadvantage tours and journalism writers to eventually bite the hand that feeds them. you've got to walk a balance between reporting, dealing with things coming in, and i've been fascinated and impressed by the growth. and i'm one of the people in the united states who has long been supportive of al-jazeera's activities around the world and in the united states and had been disturbed by the discrimination that has been written about in terms of giving access to al-jazeera and others. but let me tell you a few things about wadah khanfar. wadah khanfar is managing directer of the al-jazeera network. in doha he was, interestingly, head of the baghdad bureau in 2003. luckily not in the office when it was bombed. there was a controversy at one

point where george bush in a discussion with tony blair allegedly joked about and talked about bombing thal ya al-jazeers office, and i at the time was fascinated by the revelations of this and wrote quite a bit about it. mr. khanfar wrote a great piece saying, mr. bush, why are you trying to bomb me or along those lines. some of you who follow our activities will remember the man who was active in this and who was in london. the u.s. government talk at any level, joking or not joking, about bombing a news bureau of the arab world's largest news network. so we're at a new point. wadah khanfar has been trying to come to the united states every once in a while and has had visa challenges ever since this piece in the guardian. and, luckily, i think the obama administration is pushing reset with al-jazeera, pushing reset

with wadah khanfar, he's here in washington, and we have a rare and useful opportunity to hear from him about how running the al-jazeera network matters, why it matters, where it's going and how he looks as an analyst and as a newsman as well as many of the challenges that exist in the middle east today. so it's a great pleasure for me to introduce wadah khanfar. i look forward to his presentation and then we'll have a discussion. so, please, welcome wadah khanfar. [applause] >> >> thank you very much for this introduction. normally people say this is the directer general of the most controversial channel in the world, you know? so luckily, you have not introduced me like that. actually, i don't know why the controversy. and looking back atal al-jazeera which started in 19 # 6 -- 1996. from 1996 until 2001, al-jazeera was regarded as the foremost of freedom of expression and

democracy, and we were celebrated actually by many circuits including the american administration at that time. in 2001 things have changed dramatically and immediately because al-jazeera had the only bureau in afghanistan when the events of september took place, and al-jazeera continued to report, the same professional standards that existed before 2001 actually were post-september, but we were faced at that moment in time by great criticism in many western sectors and many governments including mr. rumsfeld who in many of his press conferences mentioned al-jazeera. you know, we tried to correct, we tried to write to him and to send messages that al-jazeera never, never shown any, any frame of big gotting.

he continued to talk about al-jazeera. al-jazeera has never, ever broadcast anything -- [inaudible] and always used to play major role in defending journalists, especially those who have been kidnapped and tried to introduce something on the screen that might lead to their release. and we talk very open and frank situation and position on issues related to kidnapping and especially civilians and journalists. anyway, that's not the point. the point is during the last eight years from 2001, now we are in 2009, i would like just to look back and say media failed people in general. i think a lot of news channels, broadcasting corporations and journalists did follow the official line on issues related

to the middle east, iraq and afghanistan in particular. a lot of people were overwhelmed by patriotic feeling, and for a while they brushed professional standards aside, and they started, you know, defending official policies of government. i understand that journalists are great and brave when it comes to issues related to domestic politics, but on foreign politics a lot of news corporations followed the same line that spokesmen and women and that military and politicians actually introduced regarding the middle east. and, therefore, we were in front of new type, huge one where journalists who like to take a side, where journalists are introducing the news with analysts and commentary that undermines balance and objectivity. al-jazeera did not do that. we continued with the same philosophy and professional

standards that we had before 2001. the opinion and the other opinion. the opinion and the other within was the motto that al-jazeera launched in 2006, in 1996. the other opinion is important for us to listen to not because we like to sympathize with, not because we would like to defend, but because once we listen to the other opinion, i will be able to better judge the situation. i cannot understand the sociopolitical, you know, dynamics in the middle east if i only listen to those who i like or those who stand pro, you know, certain kind of policies. it will make wrong judgment if i only listen to one kind of thought, you know? and this is why, i think, a lot of mistakes regarding iraq and afghanistan, political decisions that were made in washington emerged from the fact that people wanted only to listen to one voice, that they didn't want

to listen to variety of voices, they didn't want to accept diversity within the middle east. because what we see today was actually spoken about eight years ago, but it didn't reach here because most of the western media didn't want these voices to appear on the screens. and it will appear. it will be as a marginal condemned kind of analysis, you know? so this is why we resorted to much more simplified understanding. we reduced the complexity of history for thousands of years in iraq into a slogan, removing saddam hussein, englishing democracy. and -- establishing democracy. if you question it, you are not with us, you are against us. so there was some kind of atmosphere actually that led to regard al-jazeera as something from the other camp, you know?

against us. and we are hearing, started to hear from washington and from london and from many other governments in the part of the alliance, we started hearing them talking about al-jazeera as the cause for destabilization in iraq and inciting violence in iraq. what happened to us actually when we were in baghdad? i was the bureau chief. one of our correspondents was killed. few were injured. twenty were detained in guantanamo, in -- were detained in abu ghraib prison. some of them were tortured. we did speak about the torturing that was taking place in abu ghraib long time before any other western media spoke about it. it was not taken seriously even by journalists because they thought, you know, these guys are just propagating certain kind of propaganda against the

americans. it was not at all. our journalists were tortured in abu ghraib, and until today the bombing of our office in baghdad and in kabul, we did not receive any result of any investigation or any apology as if the matter did not happen, and it continued as, you know, something normal. of course, for our audience and for our journalists and for the entire arab world, it was not normal because people were killed. i think i don't know if you have witnessed that, but the amount of sympathy, anger and frustration that day was unbelievable, you know? why i'm saying so, i'm saying so because i'm not saying, you know, we are the only people who got it right, but we tried our best to act as journalists, not politicians. we did not want to take sides. in a moment of time when everyone was asked to take sides, and if you don't take side, it means that you are against the good people, and you

are pro the evil people. i think we did not look at ourselves as judges of who was good and who was bad. we wanted to analyze, to understand, to report. we were not given that opportunity, but we continued with all this kind of difficulties, and today i stand in front of you and say that most of the issues that we reported about in iraq and afghanistan during the last eight years i can say and i argue that nothing was proven wrong since then. and i think a lot of people from the fallujah when we argued that there are certain weapons used, you know, and that was the night later on we discovered it was right. the killing of civilians in afghanistan, now everyone talks about. the torture in abu ghraib, everyone talks about it. we were the first to raise these issues. we are not anti-american, and i'm sorry to say so because, unfortunately, a lot of people would like to see al-jazeera

takes anti-american light. i don't think the arabs or muslims are anti-american. i think the arabs and the muslims love the american venues, they love the ideas that this country stood for: democracy, freedom of expression, liberty, all these kind of issues. we love it. al-jazeera itself was a result of a western technique. when we started in 1996, 70 of our journalists and editors who actually founded al-jazeera came from bbc originally. the last four interviews in al-jazeera arabic came from bbc. so we did express this philosophy, and we're supposed to be part of this thinking and these values that all of us love and appreciate. so i don't think people are anti-american in the region, i think that people were anti anti certain policies and structures that were implemented without

proper consideration. beside that, i don't think that really there is american sentiment when it comes to the ideals of the values and the people in the united states of america. and that was what al-jazeera was trying to do. yes, we have a lot of anger and frustration. our region is going through huge trust formation. we are hosting eight zones and hot spots, the most complicated in the world. .. >> tyhhe victims of these wars are the audience. al jazeera speech to the people who are affected by all of us.

this leads to frustration and anger, and this will be protracted in a moment of time, and it is not because we want to make this big. we cannot afford to have that on the screen, because this is happening for the audience. in a day where we go without a headline, that there is no suicide bombing and there has not been an attack, unfortunately this is the reality. we are seeing these kinds of issues and as journalists, we cannot hide this. say it is magnificent. it is not magnificent. and still continue to have we had a lot of difficulties in these kind of issues. how are we moving ahead? where are we going from now? mr. obama, did a great speech

and he did end of the great speech in cairo. and the amount of response was overwhelming in the arab world. people fall for the first time they have a choice. they have new vision in front of them. before, they used to have no choice. they were asked either to take a side with me or against me. and now they have someone who is, franca, would like to hear your voice is. who would like to extend a hand. we are not anti-muslims. we're not anti-arabs. that was magnificent, beautiful. following the opinion, that created a window of opportunity for dialogue. of course, there are people who would argue that this is magnificent speech, but in reality nothing has changed.

some others will defend and say, you know, let us wait and see. you cannot demand from the man to change things overnight as this is a complicated change that will take place. but at least there is a debate of discussion. what does that mean for us? it means that there is an opportunity of healing, not only the relationship between the united states of america and the arab, but also healing the wounds from inside, inside. during the last eight years we have seen rising conflict, between hamas, we have seen domestic problems in darfur or. we have seen rising tension in yemen. we have seen war in somalia. people are killing each other in pakistan. all of that is happening. it is not between the muslims and the americans here it is

within. the crisis is now actually fragmenting. is deepening to an extent that we are in need for a time of the. we are in need for sorting out these problems to see what is left, otherwise day after day we are seeing casualties. and that would be very difficult and complicated to deal with if we do not open new chapter of relationship between the americans administration and the muslim world. so there is a need for us also, and a lot of people who have been harmed by these kind of difference are not americans. we know that we don't want to continue living our lives and our children's lives in the shadow of killing and civil wars and conflicts. that is not the choice for a human being eventually has to

live his life and look forward to a much more peaceful life for his children. media can play a major role of bridging the gap. but what kind of media? media that takes cooperation. media that can simplify think, refuse it, check point and a list of slogans. media that understands the social and cultural societies. media that knows the history, because history in the arab world is very important. it is a huge issue. it is a very big. it is not something that has happened in the past. we can forget about. it continues to, you know, create new ideas, creates an atmosphere of thinking for all of us. and unfortunately, more and more journalists are bent on the

media to understand the competent conflict that has taken place over the last thousand years. the next day they are on experts, analysts of the great conflicts that have been taking place for centuries. that is not the choice for media to be informative and to be excellent and understanding for the audience. we are not empowering people. we are giving people some data, fragmented ones that do not really create talents, you know. it doesn't create a local, you know, understanding. the middle east, i look at the news. and i have been watching news during the last few days here. if you look at the middle east as the blackbox, people are killing people. everything is going wrong. you know, if i were an american

i would say i don't care about. these guys are crazy. i think they are humans. they are not aliens. they would also love to live their lives, you know, like americans would like to live their lives ear we are like anyone else. we have children. we have a life. we would like to go back and enjoy our life and enjoy peace, but there are issues that are happening. and unfortunately, the important factor is very important. the fragmentation that is taking place in the region was a result of many things, but the most important one was intervention without consideration to the interest of the people themselves. so that is something that should be looked at. it is not because we are crazy and make suicide bombing. it is not. it is because there are -- we are very complicated situation. since the first world war, this

region did not see. it did not. supported by the west sometimes for certain metal interest. these regimes were undermined people do not see that the other is presented. they see them as puppets rather than leaders who have vision. so therefore much more balanced paradigm thinking. they would like to see something that would preserve them. this is why pro-arab nationalism emerged and islamic movement merge and a lot of people emerge that kind of feeling that is a collective mind in the region. after the collapse of the empire we are now having fiftysomething states. and that keeps changing, you know, because sometimes there is

separation. journalist should look at it carefully. to continue covering the region the way that we are covering, we are not serving the audience, neither are we serving political leadership or analysts. we are giving them or misleading and sometimes. it may be wrong decisions. i wonder if we really cover the middle east as we are to cover a. would we have a liberal system? what we as journalists be able to introduce knowledge about what is happening that could really lead to something that might not have created this kind of violence? that we have to go through all the discovery at this moment in time in iraq and afghanistan. have journalists really been open to other avenues and indifferent to all kind of

society factors and try to introduce understanding. we do not do that. this is why became partners with politicians. i do not accept politicians to lead the way for journalists. that is wrong. that has never been. during the last eight years it is the case. politicians have drove in the editorial lines for a lot of us, and that should cease to exist actually and we should start fresh. there is the possibility that we have in front of our audience. anyway, al-jazeera today we are lucky that people can see us here in washington, because we are available. and for years nowwe are here. you know, a lot of rumors were created about al-jazeera. i think now people can see for themselves or judge for themselves. we demand for the people to see al-jazeera and judges. judge us.

it is on the screen. go watch it and see if what algeria's broadcasting something that you really has knowledge and give you with proper understanding. that choice, i did it for everyone. thank you very much. [applause] of course, my microphone is not working. >> thank you so much for your outline and stimulating comments. time magazine, another publication that radially said you are one of the great arab leaders envision in the region, and i am interested in just posting this first question to

you. when i am on al-jazeera shows i am often compared with clerics or scholars or other people from the region, you know, i do do see a different world views. there is a lot of doubt about the united states, even while there is fascination about obama there is doubt about his ability to achieve things. so as a leader, with visions in the region, what advice would you give up a barack obama, u.s. government, with what it's objectors are around the region to try to overcome some of those doubts? what are the measuring sticks, the benchmarks that your world needs to see to take the united states more seriously? >> i think i warn against the micro involvement in the region. i have seen that people are trying to revisit the policy, the strategy. they are just beating about things, not the overall. i think the region is important for american, for many reasons. one of them we have rising powers now in the world, and the

americans have to understand who could they deal with. the problem is if we were put in use just enhancing the data without looking at the overall picture, we might even be looking at things that we would not achieve much. people have, you know, they really appreciate the speech or the speeches. a lot of things have happened here. it was really something great. however, that might not continue forever because people have left to see something underground. we don't want to be caught again and semantics. on issues that are lesser to palestine, palestine and iraq. we need something important and something with substance. and that's what i would say at this. >> right now i was just over discussing at a conference in

europe israel palestine issues and settlements being a large part. i would be interest did in any thoughts you have on settlement. but one of the things that seems to be clear is that many, not all, but many arab muslims don't believe the united states is a fair broker, and less they see israel pay a cost or if they see some negative for israel. and likewise, israel in terms of talking about the very term pro-israel almost requires there to be a zero-sum loss for air of interest. did you see, does the network promote the notion, or do you see developing anywhere in the arab world a notion that you can have a win-win solution that is not based upon one side getting a tilt from the united states and ultimately leads to a cost to the other? this is one of the biggest issues that perplexes me. >> we can take the issue, we can forever argue about the issue of

settlement and then we can be caught in details. how many meters they extended, how many houses were built, so on and so forth are without looking at the big picture. the big picture says who are we, but the palestinians is not out of this process. if you take the amount of suffering and the amount of economic crisis, and the fragmentation of the west bank and the siege on gaza, these are not give a magnificent picture about what a peaceful situation should be. i think, you know, people are negotiating for how many years now. things are not getting much better. there is not delivery, number one. second, people do not feel that this course is actually moving towards something that could really be materialized, as if the process itself has become the package, not the piece cookware talking about the process. the process should continue.

the process for what? the process for us to lead. that something solid does not exist. people have lack of vision in describing what exactly is the process should lead to, as if politics. politicians are not brave enough to confront this cause so they would like to pastime just to fragmenting and speaking about what it is, and that is a problem. yes, i argue to people in the region, including that most would argue that we did something that could be workable, something that could be beautiful. everyone wants a balance of power. the most extremist through the region would see the news and understand that things are changing. and they do change. sometimes we look at those as aliens who do not understand anything and they are just one way or another. i think that is wrong.

al-jazeera has been doing for the last, you know, 13 years in introducing all opinions, and i think the politicians should look at all openings, with everyone, speaking to everyone. all people who are influential should be, you know, included in discussion. that will be to something, but if you feel that people are excluded, i don't think that there would be part of any peace process. >> thank. let me open the floor. >> thank you very much for your presentation. did you meet or would you meet with any american officials, and if so who and why? and second part,. >> i didn't plant that. >> focuses about algeria played in the identity, the feeling of being arab.

any political movement in history to contend a single air, do you agree and if so was it the intention of al-jazeera? >> my visit was to speak at this form and@@@@@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and to communicate with our colleagues at the broadcast center. we have the largest broadcast center -- and i am is supposed to speak with some journalists. we're in the process of the meetings. and regarding al-jazeera. we have never thought of ourselves as a political or ideological movement. we have never thought of ourselves as a reform movement. tractors based on

universally accepted practice, you know, provision of standards. however, if i interpret what you are saying, just to be clear, it was not us who demanded that position. it was not algeria that were to be the voice of the arabs. it happen that there was vacuum, this trust between the public and governments. and people who areooking for something to symbolically represent them, maybe they come to algeria as the voice of, you know, independent of government that really could do something. so the vacuum led to the status that al-jazeera is enjoying as the entity who is coherent. people who watch the headlines, and that may lead to certain priorities as well in their minds, understand the region. but we have never really

introduced ourselves as players within the region. we want to act only as journalists thank you. >> sorry? [inaudible] >> we have many officials in the white house, and we hope very soon to see some. >> i will be blogging about it later in the week. this gentleman right here in the microphone, please. >> i am a political analyst. in the arab american community, and american muslim community. short comment, any question. i am here is the press on your hand to say you are filling a void, a needed void onward, onward. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> my question is we are community is concerned these

days about something that the american administration seeking peace in the middle east seems to be promoting, which is normalizing a relations between or asking for normalizing relations between arab countries and israel. where the arab initiative is to do that after israel abide by relinquishing. your information and opinion. thank you. >> again, as i said, you know, i'm afraid that people will concentrate on the issue. and people had hope and they still have some hope that what is happening in washington will lead to a change. and this is an opportunity and will not be for ever, you know, deliver is important on these issues. so far, what we are seeing, there is no, i would say a lot

of people and journalists at least in al-jazeera would argue that they don't see very much of change, you know. what we see is magnificent discourse, but without action. and we are going through same stories we have been living through the last 30 or 40 years regarding the peace process. regarding the naturalization issue of israel, in my opinion that will never materialize that might change the region. >> right here in the middle. >> i want to know what the reaction has been to your reporting on iran and whether there's any type of plans to have al-jazeera. [inaudible] >> first of all, we didn't report the elections of the iran as many other networks for both

arabic and english news. >> will you put under the same restrictions? >> and eventually, immediately after the elections finished that same day, our reporters were asked to confirmed, and of course we continue to report through our field which has iranians working in iraq. unfortunately, i would say the story we still face on the story in iran. agile, images that were sent to judicious and we were not allowed. and that was a problem. and we did like many others. on twitter on covering images. however, we have an excellent network within iraq from various groups covering the information that we may not be a good tool,

that is regarding iran. in principle, al-jazeera actually is brainstorming the idea of expansion in general. i mean, we would likely have al-jazeera english now, but we would like in the future maybe to concentrate on certain other languages and mainly in the region, but i cannot say that we have a definite decision on that issue. >> i wonder first how, you know, i follow al-jazeera very closely. i think you are very biased in reporting about when it comes to iran and syria, and hezbollah. you are pro than. you don't have even a second opinion allowed to appear on the issue. most of the time you are dished.

>> let's get to the question. >> second, why this bias? why do you take all over the world to opinions except when it comes to these three issues? secondly, how can you sustain yourselves if, you know, you are establishment is zero, you have only the advertising, how can you sustain yourself? >> interesting questions. >> number one, the issue of iran. up i of course, disagree with you. that is not true entirely. we have taken very clear coverage on the issue of iran. we monitored minute by minute. if you would like to say we are biased to other networks that cover the story of iraq, it is up to. but when it comes to us, when we have conservatives, we have to balance them at the same time on the same news politick. five minutes, five minutes. that is an establishment that we follow.

unfortunately, others do that. some people did, they have taken again on the issue of iran, i have seen some kind of coverage in other media where people have, you know, just supporting one way of thinking. we cannot afford to do so. that would be a departure from our norm. the gardens of what we think of conservatives, for example. we have a choice. our relationship with iran was never a relationship between a tv relationship. twice, the first time al-jazeera was close because we did report about the only coverage of the arab minority, or the people that iranians in the south was in al-jazeera. and a huge protest against al-jazeera. and then the second time it happened when we did start

reporting about certain kind of conflicts in the inner society. and again, our deal was close in the 96 for one year. so our relationship with iranian government is not the most smooth but that did not lead us to take a stance against the iranian process, pro-muslim with more coverage. some people will judge us because they want us to take the same whereby okay, we are pro-muslim reformist. that is not the way we do things. when it comes to other issues like syria, our relationship with syria has never been the most smoothest and there will be many times we were a month to tv stations that gave coverage inside syria and outside you. just two weeks ago, he was classified as the arch enemy and he was on our tv for one hour. and many other leaders --

[inaudible] >> i don't imagine any leader from the syrian opposition or any human abuse, that was not covered by al-jazeera. again, as i said we do not play a role of being the campaigners for certain opposition groups in order to wage war against the government that that is not our position. that is not what the cantu and will report about the good but they cannot ask us to be the campaigners against the region. >> i happened to notice what al-jazeera anchorman was arrested in syria. and so, you know. but in any case, yes. right here. no, i'm sorry. we have rules. [inaudible] >> okay. >> is not a secret al-jazeera was sponsored and funded by government, you know.

but, you know, my choice i would say that we are not very keen that commercializing al-jazeera. especially news channel. why? advertising in the region is controlled by government. they will not put ads on al-jazeera and as we have good relationship with government. we have to be friendly with all arab governments in the region. and that would be the end of al-jazeera as we know it. so therefore, we do not accept to be, you know, fully to put commercial standards. the agreement that we have has been respected for the last 13 years. it does not dictate the policy of al-jazeera. qatar has benefited from us because it has hosted al-jazeera and al jara is also in the connection because it really made that are obvious on the international and region scene,

but that does not mean that al-jazeera took a line or to be the spokesperson of their politics. that is not the tool. if it wasn't true we would have never been accepted by the arab audience as the resource because many other channels in the region were established with billions of dollars, much more than what they spent on al-jazeera but they could not really match al-jazeera and its political and popular because they always continue to be the mouth of certain governments. that was a red line that we did not support. clas. . i have a special knowledge, for the people -- and i remember al-

jazeera since you began. living in the middle east in hearing the coverage that is here, and hearing the language -- it was very hard to get the real news. i want to commend you on the service that you provide for the world community. my question is, at the momen do you have foreign journalists working on your staff? foreign journalists -- and which countries are they from? and what is the editorial policy regarding their coverage of the news? >> fang kia. >> we have actually the most diverse newsroom. we have about 53 nationalities working for our newsroom. from a vague arab world and all

over the world, from america and britain, from latin america, asia, wherever you go, our recruitment policy is to look at the journalists themselves regardless of nationality, religion, culture, whatever the case because and by the way such kind of diversity in a newsroom is difficult to streamline in a certain direction. if there is a conspiracy established that would like to impose to bring all these people, diversity in al-jazeera is actually an assurance in that we are independent because every journalists that joins al-jazeera was never pressured at all and we have people from all walks of life with us. never never dictated to them how they should be otherwise we would have been.

>> the gentleman with his hand up. i'm blinded by the allies like plant -- can pricier but that's the right guy. >> i have a question, you mentioned in that based on al-jazeera cove2e@@ @ @ @ @ @ @ and not want your children to grow up in the shadow of guns, but i see things like the birthday celebration for the terrorist from lebanon, and the glorification of this kind of thing, and i want to know how you can balance that with what you have said today? >> in issues related to the concept of terrorism, we have a difficulty of understanding and of dealing with certain issues. regarding terrorism has not been clarified percolate especially the

definition of who is a terraced into is not. this is why the policy of al-jazeera since the beginning was not to use the word terrorism unless it is qualified, the so-called terrorists. so-called terrorism. if we would like to take certain standards in describing who is a terrorist and is not we will be judges so via our arrive describing things as it is, we do say terrorist movement and we say the name of the movement. we don't say terrorists, we said the name of the leader and a group they are leading simply. so if you come to the region, the issue of terrorism is littoral. a lot of people who remains for some people may not think there are terrorists and they will go into huge arguments. we as a media argumentative not think we should go into that discussion, we describe the

story as it is without getting involved in giving judgment. is politically and i feel much better to distance ourselves from men's and by the way we are not in the only network for media organization in the world that seized from -- stops using the word terrorists so there are relative stories that we can cover and could look sometimes like the issues of promoting or not promoting. we were accused of promoting some of the day's end that was not the truth, we did cover some of the speeches as we cover every other incidents and newsworthy issue that happened in the region based on certain professional standards. and we think that it is our duty to do so. a lot of people argued especially in the west that once you are promoting the terrace ideas and so forth, we thought it is not true. professional standards say that there is evidence when someone's

basic is news and recover its but that does not mean we support and sometimes in did a brief have this kind of discourse because it would be followed by analysis have followed by a lot of discussion and a lot of people would have been doubtful about the issues we are teaching people to be rational in stories like that and speeches like that and allow them to have some kind of time to complete think about this so-called terrorist or that so-called terrorist. >> this gentleman here. >> thank you, center for american progress. though the obama administration has recently engaged with the syrians and brushed the possibility of engaging with the iranians its stance on an engagement with hamas has pretty much mirrored that of the prison administration. do you think the time to engage has come and is this intangibles of the arab public sphere is

looking for? and if you could time in as well tim and thank you, i like to say in journal i feel and that's wish to speak to all. i will give due from al-jazeera, when we started in 1996 arab media did not oppose the israeli as and took a stand because they think that hosting them is normalization and al-jazeera was the first tv stations to allow them on the screen including officials, military and including analysts. we were condemned at that time because this is not practical, we were going against the arabs. when i stand in electro in cairo orç any other cabinet in the ab world as a media issue dow be confronted with issues. i think as a journalist and someone who has been in this reason that we need to talk to everyone.

simply, and i think in order to talk to everyone you need also to think of them as someone who could a all unchanged and people do change. when you put someone on the screen regardless of how extremis is a, when you put them on the screen he behaves this way end of this course becomes more modern and general and i have in my mind is something that i say all is that the camel has in effect on extremists and many other people because it leads them to be a little more rational in their thinking because they are not to breezing in their corners for their converse. they're reaching for the public and to sound a little more reasonable soul is talking to the people and allowing them to speak is important. in media and in politics. >> since you ask me to make a quick comments, i am probably

quite publicly aligned him with brent scowcroft and the number of other people, carla hills, even a paul volcker and others have not called for the united states necessarily to buy latter linkage with hamas right away but to end the isolation of hamas and the penalties and other allies of the french come to mind in particular. my view is in the political terrain in the region want to allow one not to enjoy deal with this sort of -- it doesn't mean you abuse bad behavior's but not to have engaged and to me doesn't make sense in terms of driving our policy for the so i do believe in ending the isolation of a hamas. of me say one thing about the obama administration, the folks that matter in making these are struggling over this themselves and a lot is going on right now this week as we speak. some have come from the center of american progress, folks want to try to make others have

illegitimacy and looking like winners because they have been so undermined whether israeli governments or the u.s. and various points, the legitimacy and credibility has been undermined so they're trying to show the negotiations in moderate players can be winners and deliver positive public as to their people. my problem is in the current environment i call that the two much too late strategy. and fundamentally it depends upon it you not taking into account at all was has happened and of the bush administration and how that group collapsed in terms of legitimacy in the eyes of their people so i don't know dealing with hamas is not a quick fix anything by not finding a way to look at its probably continues the incrementalism and inertia that has been preventing any sort of leave for the and i believe there is no incremental his way to sell many contending issues and you've got to begin in a

very nixonian way, began imagining things to change the way prominent facial forces take us and that requires statistically it's something is the same pride impossible today but you've got to begin thinking about a different vision so i am definitely in danger. this gentleman here. i also want to ask, fox news, cnn, bbc, all have moved into the blogger arena and i am a blotter and you see anderson cooper has his blogging and other people, are you guys excited -- i should know this but i haven't seen is on al-jazeera inglis sides, are you promoting bloggers, do you have the al-jazeera routers that are bloggers? how does blogging fit into your media awareness? >> actually new media in particular for us is an opportunity and al-jazeera it is known in the region that is a tv station that defends the brokers because most of them come from

difficult racemes, some were arrested and some of the blogs were deleted and so on. always we hold them for that and encourage this and we have a lot of the most active use of the new media and the region and encouraged a lot of this. there is a free web sites that al-jazeera supported from the beginning call the al-jazeera talk, regarded now as the most popular blogging side in the arab world and is open for journalists and the public a man. it is not associated with al-jazeera because what is written there is not necessarily a representation of al-jazeera, it is for people to say they want to say but it is definitely an opportunity for al-jazeera. al-jazeera talk to, bill in itself has a website by the way one of the most popular in the arab world and al-jazeera inglis, we are in a process now of delivering our blogging

within those sites so very soon we are going to have integrated in al-jazeera english. >> thank you. >> i wanted to ask if a source of the anti shia movements in the al-jazeera and especially in iraq and who love and on, what is the source? is your policy? second part of a question regarding the saudi relationship, you talked about the opinions and the fact that you don't receive instructions from the politicians but everybody knows and arab media and not sure about the americans falling the saudis relations, you don't support saudia arabia, you don't derive any critics. your coverage actually is given much softer than the saudi press is also where is that sort of

come from? from the top premier or --? >> is adjusting u.s. and that we have a t i sentiments, exactly so we are up to indicia erebus. and then i can listen to a lot ofhings and what is interesting about al-jazeera it has created so much diversity of opinion about itself that we are not i think we have been criticized by all kinds of people. you said that we are anti shia and arabic world, not in the iraq. you say that we are proa shia and pro -- >> it looks like you are doing your job. >> of course, i say that but we are not and a lot of people working in our news from our shia and a lot are associated through shia and i myself when i was in baghdad i did not

actually know who was shia and sunni and later i was educated. when he decided to have a the sectarian government's council we started discovering who is sunni and shia. the issue of saudi arabia, in the past is not allow us to cover within the saudi arabia said the only source we have at that time was opposition people in certain places right now at this time we are allowed to cover within saudi arabia. with a relationship it is enhancing and at least now we are borrowing through actual reporting in saudi arabia and this is what the region should do. if they do not allow us to report from there opportunity is sometimes are not balanced because of the lack of of their voice. we have never stopped the saudis

from reporting. it was their choice not to deal with us and it is their choice to be discreet. at this moment in time the iraqis do not agree, the iraqi government has taken a stand against al-jazeera and not allowing themselves to appear on al-jazeera but we are continuing to be one of the most mass coverage in the rack. we may have many official leaders but not because we would like to introduce many opposition leaders because of the other side is not allowing us to have a view. we are not allowed to cover within iraq because of the government's of a al-jazeera. >> in the very back. >> a.m. media. what pressure has been put on a al-jazeera for is coverage in images of death, collateral damage and suffering and since is beginning has al-jazeera

changed its editorial policy or practice in that regard to? >> in covering violence. >> in 2000, 2004 and july 2004 al-jazeera launched its code of ethics and conduct which was a few months of deliberation, and that was launched actually in a forum hosted more than 150 journalists. we do have very clear rules on issues related to a graphic scenes. we do not for example show close shots of fragmented the limbs and bodies and so on and so forth. and we do have also the standards of reporting complex in order not to go far against our own sensitive audience