A review of the Afghanistan media assessment: Opportunities and challenges for peacebuilding

In the very vivid media sphere of Afghanistan, there is no depth. Recently, before finishing my book on Afghanistan, I tried to interview a few people inside and outside the country. Every time I got in touch with people in the media industry, they would ask me which radio or TV station I represented. The main and effective means of communication in Afghanistan are extraordinarily oral. By “extraordinarily,” however, I am admitting the same condition for other nations, but positing a much higher level of being oral for Afghanistan’s media and culture.

In this context, there are so many articles and programs on the Afghan media. Yet few proceed to carry out an extensive, unbiased academic study to give a clear picture of what is happening within the Afghan media sector. Thus, the Afghan Media Assessment report may be the most reliable survey of the Afghan media since Seraj al Akhbar was published a hundred years ago. I can even think that sometimes the Afghan authorities refer to this report when making a decision in the national media.

The study has been carried out in 2009 and 2010. First author Eran Fraenkel is an expert and instructor in metrics and evaluation. The report states that he has done numerous jobs in the media. Its first co-author is Emrys Shoemaker, a specialist in development and strategic communications. He has worked with various United Nations and government agencies, as well as international and local non-governmental organizations, throughout the Middle East. And finally, the third author is Sheldon Himelfarb, USIP Associate Vice President and Executive Director of the Innovation Center for Media, Conflict, and Peacebuilding. Although the report says that they are very experienced in their jobs, unfortunately, their Internet profiles are poor and their contacts are hardly found on the Internet. With some existing contact details, I tried to contact them, but the contacts were invalid or they didn’t reply to me. I also left a voicemail for the authors at the Innovation Center for Media, Conflict and Peacebuilding, but got no response.

The reason for contacting the authors and sponsors was that I wanted to get more details about how that work was carried out, as it currently has some methodological problems and ambiguities, which I am going to describe.

The first problem of this study is sampling. Sampling is important indeed, and when it comes to doing research in Afghanistan, it is even more important for any researcher to design a well-structured sampling strategy. This study does not provide any table of details about the respondents. In a society like Afghanistan, different samples in different districts of the same city will respond differently and sometimes in opposite ways. Currently and without these details, it is difficult to review the methodology of the report.

The second problem is regarding the methodology for analyzing raw data, here, in-depth interviews. Did you just categorize them? Or did you try to design a framework within which the pieces come together to help create the big picture? Here again, any judgment is almost impossible.

The third problem is with respect to local colleagues. In Afghanistan, there is a fragile agreement between the ethnic groups not to provoke each other. Yet in this rivalry, few dare to remain impartial. People can be academics, but at the same time they are discursive soldiers of their ethnicity. In this sphere, foreign researchers will often be seduced by local colleagues to benefit a certain group. When foreign researchers are Westerners, it becomes even more important for local colleagues to win over their hearts and minds. They know how the texts are important in the West and how the reports can affect policies that directly and indirectly affect ethnicities in Afghanistan. So a small change in the team of field workers will culminate in totally different results.

The fourth problem also concerns local colleagues. The large amount of work on this report was done primarily by Afghan colleagues. Where are their names? Ethically, the names of all investigators must appear in the report. Yes, they’ve already been paid well, but that’s not enough.

The fifth problem of this work is the lack of sufficient contextual knowledge about the object of study: the culture and media of Afghanistan. There are many cases. I bring this for your review:

Many of the respondents, both in Outside the media sector, he indicated his own perception and that of the general public of Iran’s negative impact on the Afghan media landscape. Iran’s influence was said to range from financially supporting sympathetic Afghan media (described as “Shia” media), to opening cultural centers that distribute videos and other pro-Iranian materials, to sending printed materials and Iranian transmission to Afghans living in border areas. (page 11).

Here the authors fail to realize that most of the Iranian cultural influence in Afghanistan is not political. Historically, Iranians and Afghans share many cultural traits, and because cultures have geographical continuity, with the help of new communication technologies, exchanges have accelerated. Another reason for the zeal for Iranian cultural products is their value. Undoubtedly, Iranian cultural products are much closer to what is known as “high art”, compared to Indian and Pakistani cultural products. So discipline defines how it is received in Afghanistan and by whom. The final reason for the Iranian cultural influence in Afghanistan is the Persian language. This is the main language of the people in Afghanistan and people enjoy more the programs that are produced with their language. Also, the Persian language is very accessible as it is the language of many elegant writers and poets.

In my experience, the Iranian political system has a very ineffective presence in the cultural sphere of Afghanistan. When I was in Afghanistan, I couldn’t find anyone who could tell me that he had referred to Iranian cultural representation once.

Let’s look at another example of poor knowledge of the social context:

Respondents commented that educated Afghans, particularly those returning from voluntary or involuntary time abroad, often face hostility as purveyors of foreign ideas. Instead of being welcomed back to their communities with applause for their educational achievements, returnees often carry the label khariji (foreigner) (page 14).

More than any other ethnic group in society, the Hazaras experience such discrimination. For other ethnic groups, the situation is much better. As an example, Kabul University accepts many professors who have spent most of their lives abroad, but in most cases rejects Hazaras.

The sixth problem is the value of the findings. Yes, a huge job was done. But if an Afghan media and communication scholar were asked the same question, he or she would have provided the same answers without spending tens of thousands of dollars!

And finally, despite many shortcomings and problems, most of the report’s claims and findings are true, to the best of my knowledge of the media and the people of Afghanistan. The authors should again thank their Afghan colleagues for doing such a good job. And Afghanistan should thank the author for doing such extensive historical work. I expect the same study to be replicated soon, considering my points.