The following article, by Arab Media Watch adviser Guy Gabriel, was published by Al Quds Al Arabi on 9 February 2010, and by Al Hayat on 12 February.

The Al Quds Al Arabi article, in Arabic, can be found at:

http://tinyurl.com/y8lrzmo

The Al Hayat article, also in Arabic, can be found at:

http://international.daralhayat.com/internationalarticle/107743

The English version is below.

Until very recently, only Mauritania among the Arab countries attracted less attention in the British media than Yemen. Not any more: since 25 December 2009, Yemen is mentioned more than any other Arab country except Iraq. The past month alone has seen greater media interest in Yemen than the entire previous year.

Although news moves in cycles and some in the media will lose interest, Yemen has now made an unwelcome, and for the foreseeable future, permanent entry into the Western media landscape, with 2010 certain to be a year of greater interest than ever before.

The threat from Yemen

When looking at how Yemen is represented in the media, the language and context provided are all-important. Many of the words being used to describe the significance of the failed Detroit plot have been in use in a particular context for almost a decade: 'War on Terror,' Guantanamo, Al Qaeda.

In fact, a number of newspapers have suggested that the decade ended as it started - under attack from Al Qaeda - thereby drawing the events of 9/11 into the current focus on Yemen. This then gives a sense of timelessness, removing the need for specific detail as readers think they are dealing with a familiar subject.

In addition, some suggest, without any substantiation, that this time there is something "more extreme" about this 'new' generation of Yemeni Al Qaeda.

In fact, the perceived threat is not always restricted to Yemen alone; virtually every country from Mauritania to Pakistan is mentioned as having some sort of nefarious connection to, or unspecified complicity in, transnational jihadism, whether it is as unintentional host or deeper involvement.

A few European countries are also mentioned in this regard, including the UK and Germany, and parts of the coverage have focused on Britons who are said to have trained in camps in Yemen.

The main problem lies in communicating a reasonable sense of proportion to the threat and what to do about it, which has always been a huge stumbling block in the 'War on Terror.'

The need for calm analysis

The precise relationship between Yemen and Al Qaeda is of great interest, and consequently, so is the precise relationship between Yemen and the West. It is common to see such descriptions as "safe haven", "breeding ground", "major stronghold" that is "awash with al-Qaeda terrorists" who are allowed to flourish in "ungoverned spaces."

The reader, on hearing such key words, immediately realises what he or she is supposed to think: danger, although no one can be more specific.

While few in the West disregard the possibility that danger to Western interests - as typified by an attempt to down an airplane over US soil - can originate in some capacity on Yemeni territory, some in the media adopt the 'shoot first, ask questions later' approach, and take a more extreme line in their assessments than others.

Two such examples: Yemen "appears to be a land with an excessive capacity for violence" (Daily Express), and Yemen "is weak, and the country is deeply divided, tribalistic and violent" (Daily Telegraph).

At the same time, it is important to make three main points. Firstly, not all Western media coverage is like this. Among the more cogent analysts, the need for communication and dialogue is seen as the priority, both out of principle and pragmatic necessity.

Secondly, there is virtually no appetite in the media for any troops on the ground in a manner that would resemble Iraq or Afghanistan.

Thirdly, in the coverage, particularly when trying to evaluate the threat level, speculation is always far greater than evidence, with near-hysteria often resulting, often making the same points: ancestral home of Osama bin Laden, nearly 100 Yemenis still in Guantanamo, and "failing state." This often has the effect of multiplying the capacity of Al Qaeda, and its potential to inflict harm.

What the coverage tells Western readers about Yemen

Yemen is seen through the prism of terrorist threat, so the reader could be forgiven for concluding that it is only Al Qaeda in its international dimension that makes Yemen of any interest to Western audiences.

Yemen becomes a place where all the fears and attributes associated with Al Qaeda in the Western public mind, whether rightly or wrongly, have found something solid around which to coalesce. Too much of this type of reporting has the effect of justifying to many readers, who have no other information sources, that Yemen rightly is to be feared, with nothing that can be done about it.

In many cases, the ideology and spark for jihadism is thought to be inherent in the country, particularly in the tribal areas, which then infuses the people, even visitors such as the Nigerian accused of the failed Detroit plot.

Yemen is sometimes labelled simply a "sympathetic environment," which is open to quite wide interpretation - ranging from 'mountainous' to 'ungoverned spaces' to 'complicit government.' This ignores the myriad factors and opportunism that often combine to provide a favourable environment.

The Western media spotlight only focuses very weakly on the local factors that influence such groups, including poverty and corruption. The editorial line is generally interested in why the West is involved, and much less interested in the country caught in the crossfire. Extremism is thought to be much more commonly accepted than in reality, and readers hear very little about other sections of Yemeni society.

Despite considerations such as the Houthi rebellion in the far north, and the ongoing dispute with southern secessionists, it is assumed in the West that top priority should automatically go to fighting Al Qaeda, and suspicion arises if the zeal with which Al Qaeda is opposed by the West is not matched in Yemeni public statements. Increasingly, it now is.

The 'either with us or against us' logic of the 'War on Terror' suffuses the coverage, and Yemenis caring about their local or national disputes or conflicts - or even just opposing the West in a political sense - are very easily conflated with transnational jihadism, as typified by Al Qaeda. Identity is made to appear fixed, not fluid as in reality.

What the coverage tells the Arab world about the West's approach

There are three main lessons to draw from this kind of coverage. Firstly, there is a huge gap in understanding the dynamics of Yemen. Secondly, Western interest, from the level of the media down, appears reactionary. Thirdly, the information flows are asymmetric, with very little Yemeni input in the media narrative. 

To approach the Al Qaeda problem in isolation and to the exclusion of other issues - which is what significant parts of Western media coverage is doing - has the effect of confirming to audiences in the Arab world that intentions towards Yemen are predominantly hostile. All of Yemen is painted as a threat, and there is little space for differentiation, dialogue, or to analyse common ground.

However, generally the West views Yemen as an ally (one "we can do business with") in the 'War on Terror,' often meaning that the person, institution or country in question marks a point of focus where Western interests intersect. However, in this case, questioned commitment is also an issue for some.

There is plenty of focus on Western policy towards Yemen, which is all said to be supportive of President Salih. This has two main effects. Firstly, foreign backing makes Salih seem incapable of effective rule. Secondly, Yemen runs the risk of having its legitimacy as a state conferred on them by Western endorsement, something certain to negatively impact the government's domestic legitimacy in the eyes of its citizens.