If Arabs and the countries from which they come are inaccurately portrayed in the American media, then the same can be said of depiction of the US in the Arab press. Why, for example, is there a license in the mainstream American press to trash Arabs in articles that simply would not be published if they involved members of another ethnic group? And why does coverage by US journalists who are in the Middle East, and are experiencing the situation first hand, depict a world so different from the one created by columnists writing for the same newspapers?

At the same time, the image of an omnipotent and monolithic US government that is presented to readers and viewers in the Middle East is far from the much more complex truth. Where are Arab journalists going wrong?

Mirror Images in the Media was the subject of a round-table discussion at the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee convention last week, which brought together veteran Arab and American journalists, including among others Thomas Friedman of the New York Times; Hisham Melhem, Washington Bureau Chief for As-Safir; and Raghida Dergham, Senior Diplomatic Correspondent for Al-Hayat newspaper.

"People feel freer to express negative views of Arabs in times of crisis," said Barbara Slavin of USA Today, "and it's becoming an increasing concern to those of us who have been covering the region for years as news reporters."

While all the panelists agreed that the American media was putting fewer resources into coverage of international affairs than it did in the past and the quality of coverage has, therefore, been compromised, Melhem argued that the real difficulty lay in the opinion pages of mainstream papers where editors and columnists have free reign to discredit Arabs and Islam.

"We don't have a problem with the honorable men and women covering situation from the Middle East because some of them do an excellent job," said Melhem. "Our problem is with editorials and columns in the Los Angeles Times, the New York Times and the Washington Post where those who are writing have an agenda when they talk about Arabs and know exactly what they're doing." It is precisely this fundamental lack of fairness when it comes to the depiction of the Arab world that Arabs find so surprising, argued Dergham.

"The problem is that these are the images of Arabs that have been adopted by policy-makers and the American media takes its cue from the policy-makers, and not the public," said Dergham.

For Hussein Ibish, ADC Communications Director and the panel's moderator, this inability to comprehend the Arab perspective amounts to "something close to blindness and prevents us from engaging in a real relationship with the Arab world." But while US media representations of the situation in the Middle East are simplistic and often misleading, newspapers and broadcasters in the Arab world are equally guilty of superficial coverage of America. "The way the US is depicted shows that they (Arab media) have no idea that there are limitations to power in this country," continued Ibish. "There is just this one-dimensional and monolithic caricature where American policy is almost like the will of God."

Melhem agreed, arguing that misleading the Arab public into thinking that American influence in the region is comprehensive and unchangeable is "not doing a service to our people." "I want to tell my readers that America's support for Israel is not the result of a Jewish conspiracy," said Melhem. "People need to understand that in the US, special interest groups have lots of power in influencing voters and you get a small group of people whose influence is not commensurate with their number. There's no conspiracy? there's a political game and they're very good at playing it."

It's not only that there are very few Arab correspondents in the United States? and those who do come are posted in Washington? nor the fact that once they get here rookie Arab journalists are hard-pressed to properly cover such a multifarious society, but the problem often occurs with editors who have little knowledge of the United States.

"There are editors in the Arab world who are writing about the US or editing articles on it who are totally ignorant of this country," Melhem explained. "Some of them have never even been here". The results are often stupid diatribes directed at `the empire' rather than a true reflection of the politics of this country." But if both sides are guilty of missing a huge part of the picture in their coverage, there is no question that the resulting influence on public opinion is much greater when CNN or the New York Times depicts a negative view of the Arab world than when an Arab editorial distorts the motivation behind US policy in the region.

Friedman, a former correspondent in Beirut and Jerusalem, was politely chided by some members of the panel for his commentary on the Palestinian intifada. His alleged about-face from an objective journalist reporting from the Middle East, to a columnist who is seen as refusing to recognize the Arab point of view, did not bode well with the group.

"I came here today because I care about what you all think," Friedman told a clearly disapproving audience. "I am no longer a reporter. I'm now paid not to report news, but to have a subjective opinion. My opinion on this issue has not changed since I started working in the Middle East. "I believe in a two-state solution with a shared Jerusalem because the Jewish people won't be happy in Israel until the Palestinians are happy in Palestine."

Gentle protests from the floor during the question-and-answer session that followed the discussion, were proof that the audience was not entirely satisfied with Friedman's answer.

The comment that elicited the most enthusiastic applause came from Christopher Hitchens, who writes for Vanity Fair and who demonstrated a more subtle understanding of the mistrust felt by the Arab public of the American media. "The objection is at the assumption that the US is an impartial mediator," said Hitchens. "The US is, in fact, the patron of Israel and it is the financier of the occupation. It's also the profiteer because it sells arms to both sides. And it continues to help Israel, which would otherwise have had to negotiate and end the occupation much earlier."

The only point all members of the panel agreed on was their condemnation of the recent indictment of Raghida Dergham by the Lebanese military tribunal for taking part in a public discussion that included a former Israeli official.

"It is unacceptable and represents a hostile act on part of the Lebanese government against a press that enjoys a 150-year tradition of free expression," said Melhem. "We have to be honest and bold, exposing the negative aspects of US foreign policy in the region and at the same time criticizing regimes in the Arab world when needed."