The issues exposed by the video resurfaced in the two subsequent working group sessions and again in the concluding plenary session discussion of the conference. One working session looked at European media and how they report the Muslim world. The second session concentrated on the Arab world’s media. The Concluding Plenary was turned into as a panel discussion to draw conclusions from the day’s work.

The principal points raised by participants:

Self-censorship – Where is the line between self-censorship and editorial line? This was one of the questions posed in the context of European reporting. Viewed by several participants as inevitable and often politically expedient and/or in the interests of national security, one participant warned that in Europe self-censorship was becoming dangerously excessive. Several participants insisted that freedom of speech was paramount, and that self-censorship or restraint, as had occurred for example over the publication of the Danish cartoons, risked opening the door to political exploitation of events.
In the Arab world, where media remained largely in the hands of governments or countries’ rulers, self-censorship had to be seen as an essential safeguard against arbitrary dismissal or closure. Indeed one participant explained that Middle Eastern media were expected to act as a conveyor belt of authorised information rather than to analyse and explain issues. Another argued however that Middle Eastern media were constantly pushing the limits a little further, and by doing so, were gradually but fundamentally transforming the public arenas in which they operated. While Arab media was often criticised in the West, Arab participants felt the context in which they operated was not fully recognised at times and the courage of so many journalists across the Arab world that have been imprisoned or worse went unnoticed and unreported.   Questions were raised about whether pan-Arab channels were more immune to interference with some Arab participants asserting that pan-Arab media were no less at risk than national media, at least in so far as they depended on the good will of the rulers of those countries which sponsored them. Others insisted that channels such as Al Jazeera and Al Arabiya had secured greater freedom with openings to wider horizons. Their effect had been a democratising one. But were they making enough of their opportunities or had they, in certain cases, succumbed to populist pressures?

Public opinion – Views differed about the impact and influence of the Arab Street on media coverage of the Middle East. There were many different ‘Arab Streets’. Their ability to influence the media was further weakened by the absence of democracy. This meant that public opinion lacked legitimacy and diminished its power over the media. Several participants warned against assuming that there was a silent majority of moderates in the Islamic world, whose views went underreported. Some speakers insisted that moderation was absent from the Middle East scene. It was also claimed that Western media had little interest in moderate Islam and were always in search of radicals and extremists.

Cultural divide – Transnational media and internet bloggers - also better education - may gradually serve to narrow the cultural divide so often reflected in news reporting. But for now news coverage continued to reflect the culture and historic memory to which the media belong. It was argued that the Arab media inevitably reflected a world where Western countries were still viewed through the prism of colonisation and exploitation. At the same time there was also admiration – and envy – for the West’s technological progress.

Power and influence – Arab participants were divided about the power of their media to influence decision-makers. In the absence of democratic structures, the media deserved to be the ‘second estate,’ which governments could not ignore. A case was made that transnational 24 - hour news coverage was bound to have an important impact which even the most authoritarian Middle East regimes could not ignore. By way of contrast other speakers warned that the major networks could not afford to ignore the heavy hand of authority. They could not afford to campaign for greater freedoms and constitutional reform. Even where corruption or torture had been exposed in the Arab media it had made no impact on the ruling elites.

News Coverage – In their coverage of Middle East affairs Arab and European media focussed mainly on three issues: Arab-Israel relations, Iraq and regional issues. The editor of an independent newspaper in Jordan made a powerful case for diversifying coverage and giving more space to local events and communal issues. This would strengthen their credibility and legitimacy. European media were urged to broaden their coverage of Islamic minorities in Europe.

Professionalism in the Arab media – Effective reporting was severely handicapped by the shortage of well-trained journalists. This was not sufficiently appreciated by critics of the Arab media.

Non-Arab networks broadcasting in the Middle East –  Several participants threw down the gauntlet to Western news organisations: Why were the UK, US, Russia, Germany, France all spending huge sums on developing TV channels in Arabic and aimed at Middle East audiences? Was it propaganda, and promotion of national political and commercial interests; or was it an attempt to open new horizons to viewers and listeners in the Middle East and convey a more accurate picture of other cultures? More likely the  channels originating outside the Middle East were designed to serve both purposes. While there was little overt criticism of program content, there was a strong feeling among Arab participants that at least some of the money spent on these external services should be diverted towards training more Arab journalists. There were specific complaints that the BBC had recruited journalists from the Arab networks to work on its own new Arabic TV service.