The group is somwhere between a public service that translates Arabic, et al, news into other languages – all the way to the epicenter of some big conspiracy we’ve all heard of, contingent upon why you ask.
One thing I’ve noticed, IMO very important, is that the quality of the translations or the accuracy of MEMRI is not questioned by its critics. They tend to allege that there are political motivations behind making what is public, eh, more public?
If they don’t mistranslate or fictionalize (point to be debated, among others) what’s wrong with MEMRI?
My .02, some people have an idealized view of the Islamic world, expecially the PA. This dose of reality is just too much to maintain the romanticized view of the oppressed Palestinian yearning to breathe free. Since the information is apparently accurate, the next “logical” (predictable) step is to attack the source of the information.
OTOH, maybe there are substantial factual criticisms I am unaware of. That’s why I posted here. I know some of you have opinions about MEMRI, yet a search (by me) turned up nothing.
Sadly, I can find SDMB stuff better by using Google. [hangs head]
“One thing I’ve noticed, IMO very important, is that the quality of the translations or the accuracy of MEMRI is not questioned by its critics.”
Where did you get this? One knowledgable poster, Collounsbury, who says the opposite:
"MEMRI is absolutely not a good source of English langauge Arab news.
I will be very frank. Considering the amount of translation they do, the relative quality of the work (i.e. the translating), the skewed nature of the translations and the selection I have come to believe that MEMRI is a state-backed propaganda effort. "
“That, I don’t know a good translation source. MEMRI gives you an idea of the fringes, the NY POST end of commentary – however the translations I have come to feel always take the worst possible spin. That sometimes is valid, but as noted, I now believe this site to not to be what it purports to be.”
I have no way of evaluating the quality of MEMRI’s translation myself but I see no reason to doubt Collounsbury’s assessment of it.
“Other scholars don’t agree.”
Can you give me some examples of these scholars? I just looked at a list of positive comments posted at MEMRI and it was mostly from the pro-Israel usual suspects: Weekly Standard, National Review etc.
As for the Guardian I doubt either the writer or the editor know Arabic or have tried to evaluate the translation quality so they focussed on other things which are interesting in themselves btw. Note also the “so far as I know”.
As for Collounsbury I have read enough of his posts on the ME to trust his knowledge and judgement on the matter. YMMV.
Considering that MEMRI’s co-founder and president is a former Israeli military intelligence officer and counter-terrorism advisor, you might check for signs of bias. That, and if you look at the list of endorsements from their webpage, you may also notice a certain right-wing trend…
Well, according to the link provided by Beagle, as well as this one, the main criticisms of MEMRI appear to be their selection of the most inflaming and Arab-derogatory articles possible.
Entirely consistent with the quote from Collounsbury, btw.
Forgot: under one of the links I saw a comment contributed to Bernard Lewis.
I don’t agree with everything he ever has written or with every single one of his interpretations and views. In several cases I even completely disagree.
But he isn’t known to be an idiot and shouldn’t be known as such. He very rightfully is known to be among the most famous Western experts in the field.
So I am rather - very much - convinced that you would have a whole other impression of that particular comment made by Lewis, if they wouldn’t have shortened it into one single sentence that sounds very convenient to them. If he ever wrote a comment about that organisation. I don’t know… But then, I don’t know everything
Salaam. A
I found this quote from the end of the Guardian article cited to bein interesting:
In other words, the Guardian article questioning the accuracy of MEMRI, itself contained more than one inaccuracy.
Additionally, from the linked article:
IIRC, Saudi newspapers are subject to government censorship. Thus, for the article MEMRI highlighted (it regarded the blood libel about Jews), the article did have some form of government approval, in that it passed government censors.
It would seem that MEMRI is at least as reliable a source as the Guardian - possibly more so.
I like MEMRI since it links to articles by some of the saner Arab writers (many of whom are not necessarily “pro-American”), who write about reconciliation and liberalization, thus helping to disprove the idea that the Arabs are bloodthirsty, Jew-hating, conspiracy-theory freaks.
It’s also nice to hear from Arab liberals who want to actually RESOLVE the Israeli-Palestinian conflict so that Arabs can address all the other stuff that plagues their society (read the UN Development Report for more info), whereas the intelligentsia, the clerics, the dictators, and the nationalists want to keep the conflict smoldering so they don’t have to address these other issues (to which they don’t have any good answers).
And, it brings to light some of the horseshit that passes for discourse in that part of the world, crap that serves only to whip up hatred and suspicion. MEMRI makes it harder for people like Arafat to preach peace in English and war in Arabic and get away with it.
I think I vote for “public service,” in that it helps English-speakers understand the nature of the Arab media, but obviously shouldn’t be the be-all, end-all source of information.
– From the December 26 posting (MEMRI)
Stuff like this, should it get out, might shake some European intellectuals out of their decades-long slumber under the US security umbrella.
Not to disappoint you, and not even commenting on the “report” you quoted…
But Europeans, and thus also “European intellectuals” live closer to the region then US’ers maybe are aware of. In fact: we share our history. And we are very much aware of “eachother”.
There is absolutely no need at all for an agenda driven organisation like MEMRI for those “European intellectuals” to “get it out”.
I think on the contrary that the US - and especially its clumsy president and government - is in great need for the “European intellectuals” and their knowledge in order to be able to finally gain some insight in a region and civilisation they are extremely ignorant about because it is extremely alien to them.
Now, might we deal with what the power brokers in the region actually have to say when their mouth parts move? Or, should I listen to more European intellectual flatulence on the subject?
I’m kinda torn as to how useful MEMRI is- on one hand they’re translating documents and speeches that no one else will, but OTOH a lot of what they translate seems to be the worst of the worst, the equivalent of translating Chick tracts into Arabic. Most people I’ve heard from have said that the translations are fairly accurate but their choice of source materials leaves a lot to be desired. I think this was most of the basis for Collunsbury’s statement that “MEMRI is absolutely not a good source of English langauge Arab news.”- you don’t get any sort of balanced picture.
No, MEMRI alone is no more balanced then say, the Daily Worker.
But using MEMRI and comparing the Arabic statements of say, Yasser Arafat to his English statements can be quite revealing. His complete refusal to condemn terrorism in Arabic should tell you something. All those comdemnations are issued for our benefit, not to tell his own people anything. In Arabic, he’s urging them on to greater efforts and has been since the 60s.
"Most surprising of all is that while Whitaker spends 1,700 words attacking Memri as a “mysterious organization” and its “air of secrecy,” he has forgotten to tell Guardian readers of his own secrets. For in addition to his work as Middle East editor of The Guardian, Whitaker also runs the anti-Israel, website Arab Gateway
(http://www.al-bab.com).
Arab Gateway lists viciously anti-Israel “associate sites,” such as that of the spuriously-named “Council for the Advancement of Arab-British Understanding” (http://www.caabu.org).
Whitaker’s site has pages about non-Arab minorities in the Middle East, such as Berbers and Kurds – but no page on Jews. The site’s section on “maps” lists a “country map of Palestine” (we didn’t know Palestine was a country), but upon clicking the link it takes you to a file at the Univ. of Texas archives with a slightly different name: “israel_map.jpg”.
Unless someone can convince me that the articles are forgeries or otherwise fakes (and the Guardian article itself says they are authentic), why should I care what motivates their publication - any more than I should care that the Guardian hires a guy who is so clearly biased himself?
That line of attack is pure smear and bullshit - on both sides. So the best thing to do is ignore it.
So, I wonder - is there any legitimate reason for not believing what I read on that site?
No there is not. But only if you could also have acces to and are able to read and interprete the Arabic version.
Give me a text, no matter which, and I can “translate” it into one that sounds completely different while it has every single point of the original in it.
And in additon to that, it is quite easy to focus - and by your selective choices forcibly bring under the attention of the readers - on a certain aspect of any society and play it as if you give the readers insight in the whole.
I can give you racist and hate talk coming out of any society and I can make you believe very easily that this represents the societies mindset, if you have no acces to the language and to the society itself by yourself.
Any child can do that. And it is what MEMRI focusses on.
