Rupert Murdoch's purchase of a tiny (9%) stake in Rotana, the media empire run by the Saudi prince, Alwaleed bin Talal, has stirred up some predictable paranoia in Egypt. His move is viewed "not only with suspicion but as signalling the decline of Arab film and art heritage," according to Agence France Presse.

It's all a plot, apparently, "to thaw frosty Arab views of Israel".
"Murdoch will enter every Arab home to impose normalisation" of ties with Israel, Egyptian film critic Ola al-Shafei tells AFP, adding that it's "a defeat for the Arab film and art heritage".

Scriptwriter Osama Anwar Okasha is also quoted as saying that Murdoch's stake in Rotana is a "Trojan horse" designed to stealthily penetrate Arab culture.

Having once worked for Murdoch (and been sacked by him), I would be the last person to describe him as a benign influence. But let's keep this in proportion. Over the years, authoritarian regimes and religious fanatics have done far more damage to Arab films, art, media and culture in general than Murdoch is ever likely to do. And it's still going on. In an article yesterday, Jack Shenkerdescribed how Gulf money is allowing Egypt to churn out more films than in the past – though they have to conform to the "35 rules" of piety laid down by their financial backers.

Portraying Murdoch as a single-minded crusader for Israel on the basis of his Fox News channel and some newspapers in the United States really misses the point of what he is all about. His own views on most things (apart from sex) seem well to the political right but his only real interest is making money and to that end he does whatever he thinks will go down well in any particular market.

Unlike Fox News in the US, his Sky News channel in Britain is well respected and generally fair in its Middle East coverage. His daily papers in Britain, the Times and the Sun, are broadly pro-Israel but not stridently so. The Times reflects the attitudes of Britain's upper-middle classes while the Sun reflects those of the lower classes. 

It was Murdoch's Sunday Times, incidentally, that first exposedIsrael's nuclear weapons programme, thanks to Mordechai Vanunu (who was abducted and jailed by the Israelis as a result).

Murdoch's recent speech to the Abu Dhabi Media Summit (which I discussed last week) made a strong economic case for freedom of expression in the Middle East. Obviously he has business motives for saying that, but if he wants to use his own money to lure Arab governments away from the ludicrous restrictions they impose on the media, would it necessarily be such a bad thing?

The hysteria directed against Murdoch in Egypt is in striking contrast to the way Egyptians and other Arabs have taken to the American-made film, Avatar. Far from regarding it as a threat to their culture, many see it as a metaphor for their struggles. Palestinian demonstrators, for example, have made the connection by painting themselves blue. 

Writing for Murdoch's Fox News website, James Pinkerton
described Avatar as "left-wing, anti-corporate and anti-imperialist". He wrote: 

"There are even some indirect digs at George W Bush and Operation Iraqi Freedom. A left-leaning Hollywood movie: no surprise there. So Third Worlders will eat it up. The Iranians, for example, should love Avatar – if, of course, their government would let them see it, which surely won’t happen."

So who is the left-wing, anti-corporate, anti-imperialist mogul who, on the latest estimates, expects to make $400 million out of Avatar? Stand up, Rupert Murdoch!