MTV, LBC: Geagea Media Façades

By Jawad Rahaal

Sheikh Abdul Razzaq el-Asmar was horrifyingly martyred in daylight in Tripoli. The bullets and grenades used belonged to militants of obvious political and creedal affiliations. 

There malice is of two types: a political one and an ideological hatred against all rivals. Meanwhile, certain media outlets agitated this malice by inflaming souls and irritating tempers in a bloody critical moment.
The biased "March 14" media were the example, especially "Future TV", "MTV", "LBC", and "al-Arabiyya". Regardless of people's lives, these channels quite boldly did so.
As blatancy characterized these media, they did not refer or mention Sheikh el-Asmar's martyrdom. Nor did they make a declaration on it or even a simple post-mortem.

"LBC" host Marcel Ghanem as well as his "MTV" counterpart, Walid Abboud, and others were busy provoking against certain political sides blatantly- whether in Lebanon or abroad.
However, LBC and its host's despicability were more obvious than the objectivity of MTV and its presenter.
In parallel, one could clearly see that both channels were competing to please a certain political side. On air, the competitors were so eager to "win the prize or praise", even on behalf of martyrs like Sheikh el-Asmar or others... The channels cared not. Blatant media went unrestricted.
May Chidiac was chosen to go on air although that did not sound preferable to "March 14" leaders in times of political dispute. Chidiac's speech was so inconsiderate and provocative that even impartial political observers were aggravated. Her speech left no room for rational moments and made an unpleasant display. So choosing Chidiac at that critical moment was meant to arouse provocation and grudge.

Similarly. Sheikh Ahmad al-Asir's "job" was as "important" as Chidiac's. A few days earlier, al-Asir delivered an inconsiderate, nasty speech, violating the sanctities of other sects and boldly provoking his audience to fight. Strangely enough, Pierre Daher's channel broadcasted al-Asir's full speech on Sunday. Then, he was given much time to speak as Marcel Ghanem made his episode. Thereon, it is more probable that the audience realized Ghanem, Chidiac, and al-Asir were three façades making one speech. Ghanem's despicable media show and political "sense" was part of the performance of this absolutely ridiculous troika! The show was too repulsive for many viewers that they couldn't keep watching it.
Moreover, the few minutes MP Hassan Fadlallah made it on air did not change the show's provocative conduct. The rational statement Fadlallah made was "washed" - right away- by the episode's organization whirlwind: Fadlallah's statements was directly followed by al-Asir's crazy call. While the uneasy al-Asir offended others and swore at them, Ghanem's and Chidiac's gestures revealed their content.

Violating sanctities, Marcel Ghanem, "LBC", and "MTV" offended the feelings of millions of people of different sects. The episode was meant to get a ridiculous, an offensive, and a provocative person to insult others' sanctities. One could ascertain that Ghanem and Chidiac enjoyed their time as their uneasy guest offended the Resistance Leader His Eminence Sayyed Nasrallah and the Shiite leaders.
Well, they could have felt free to express their feelings at home; But not on air. The intended swearing and offenses were part of "LBC's" media policy. "LBC's" shows demonstrated the grudge of the local and foreign funders, director, and hosts.

Such provocations clearly offended the law. The very show, others, and other channels contributed to Sheikh al-Asmar's martyrdom in Tripoli. Yet, Ghanem, Abboud, and others didn't care about bloodshed.
"MTV", too, hosted the uneasy guest on the same night. Apparently, there was a black chamber assigning the required speech and sending the guests to both channels, which were competing medially but accordant politically.
Provocation against Syria's Lebanese allies, Shiites in Lebanon and abroad, and the Christian, Sunni, and Druze Resistance allies was obvious. Had there been a responsible state applying all laws and referring to just judiciary, these media would have been charged for all consequences of their provocative acts.

Had there been a fully responsible state, the Resistance wouldn't have had to send "Ayoub" drone to watch the "Israeli" entity. Had this state existed, it would have prohibited the enemy's war planes and surveillance drones from violating our airspace and sovereignty. This is the real question.
Yet, hosting General Michel Aoun, Marcel Ghanem tried to conceal the effect of "Israeli" violations. Ghanem even faked things up when he asked General Aoun why His Eminence Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah hadn't related launching "Ayoub" drone to the "Israeli" violations. Ghanem made his question after the Resistance Leader's statement that very night made it clear the enemy had so far violated the Lebanese airspace over 20,000 times.

Neither was it the first time for "LBC" to offend the Resistance commanders, Shiite leaders, and others, nor would it be the last. That is, "LBC" has had political, financial, and probably other kinds of "commitments" with local, regional, and international sides.
Worse, these media hosts were turncoats; the Resistance's technical, military, and scientific accomplishment didn't move their "patriotic" or "national" feelings. They were rather concerned about the feelings of Benjamin Netanyahu and the enemy commanders. Apparently, the Resistance's coup made "our" media hosts demonstrate features of resentment; they went uneasy as the Zionist commanders and their US sponsors went uneasy.
Thereon, neither Ghanem nor the former and current journalists of Geagea's militia could ever be pleased with the Resistance's aerial accomplishment. They could never help themselves doing otherwise. Perhaps enjoying listening to offenses against the Resistance Leader, intending to make others offend His Eminence, and accusing Hizbullah of assassinations and wreckage is part of Ghanem's, Chidiac's, Abboud's, and many others' psychological development.

So the matter is way more serious than the fake, temporary pretention as to facing "Israel's" greed. Such compliments could only be made in controllable political moments; whereas in critical times, the actual stance gets exposed.
Is it a mere political matter? Certainly it isn't. Having never cared about the enemy's aircraft violating their country's airspace, these journalists are emotionally attached to their earlier years of political development. Perhaps they still live in the 80s, when Ghanem presented "Kalam Mas'oul" (Literally: "Responsible Talk") via Geagea's radio channel "Libnan el-Horr" (Literally: "Free Lebanon"). Ghanem and the other journalists have regarded the "Israeli" aircraft as their allies'. Geagea's "Lebanese Forces" would then be very pleased as the aircraft bombarded the "counter western" regions.
Subconsciously, the current Geagea followers and their journalists regard the enemy's aircraft as their allies; whereas the Resistance's aircraft "violate" the airspace of their former "Israeli" ally and bring about harm to "Israel". At such tense moments, Geagea and his mobs reveal their actual stance: "Israel" is "not" an enemy. Their "enemy" is the Resistance and its allies reaching Tehran!

Hereupon, provocation against the Resistance and its allies is the organized scheme of Geagea's media façades. They only differ from Samir Geagea in the sense of political and personal competition, as well as running the properties of the unraveled "Lebanese Forces". But their "principles" as well as their ideological and political "education" do not differ.

So, they can be called "Geagean media façades" as they belong to the same school. Some like Marcel Ghanem, Walid Abboud, and others can't keep pretending "Israel" is their enemy. Their real characters showed up in critical times. That's why it sounded "normal" as they provoked people against the Resistance and made no comments on the "Israeli" violations, greed, or threats in any of their shows. Deep inside, they have never realized "Israel" as an enemy.
The "Geagean media façades" do not care about the Sunni martyrs like they pretend, but rather they exploit them. They do not seek vengeance for the martyrdom of Abdul Razzaq el-Asmar, Sheikh Abdul Wahid, or even Wissam el-Hassan. The Geagean media façades are exploiting their martyrdom to incite strife among Sunnis, also among Sunnis and Shiites.
Did Geagea's "Lebanese Forces" respect Christians' martyrdom in the first place? So how can they respect the martyrdom of Sunnis or Shiites?! Did the criminal chief or organization killing Rashid Karami respect the Lebanese's lives?!

All in all, there is one actual stance of Geagean political and media façades: inciting strife and slaughter among people. Neither Shiites nor Sunnis are their allies.

Source: al-Intiqad, Translated and Edited by moqawama.org