Saudi media, mostly owned or controlled by royal princes, has a large supply of mercenary journalists in reserve. These are often non-Saudi Arabs who have seen the light, discovered the joys of an absolute tribal monarchy, and shifted their ideology toward extolling the virtues of said tribal absolute monarchy. They are supposed to lend outside credibility to whatever the newspaper has to say.

I have selected an article from the Saudi newspaper Asharq Alawsat, one of several candidates for what I have in mind, written by someone named Ghassan al-Imam. Here is an abridged example of such groveling huat journalisme: (the italics in parentheses are my own comments):

“I have always said that the Moslem Brotherhood (such as Hamas) are not qualified to build a democratic and cooperative relationship (such as exists in Saudi Arabia and other Arab states?) with other political forces, once they have taken political control (surprise, surprise). I want to continue talking of the Arabhood of Saudi Arabia (another surprise, give the word ‘Arabia’ in the name), and the necessity of facing up to the fierce foreign and alien (referring to both the USA and Iran) assault on the Arab nation, whether in the call for jihad or in the name of American calls for democratic reform….

“I am not presenting here some propaganda for the Saudi policy, but I am presenting an explanatory vision of the history of the Saudi state through three centuries (try seventy five years). My vision differs from the traditional visions, with the goal of correcting deliberate distortions that are done to a historic Arab state. These are also done from outside by groups that take sanctuary overseas (could they do that in Riyadh, par exemple, without getting their heads chopped off?)

“Several years ago, I explained the history of the Saudi State in a series of articles, on these very same pages. I was shocked to discover that Arabs, and many Saudis, do not know this epic, struggling history (he uses the term ni’dhali, which implies fighting for freedom and justice, or perhaps the right to strike). However, an individual effort is not adequate. We need for historians, academicians, and thinkers (but no booty kissers?) to present a modern vision of the ‘Saudi Project’ to future generations (and how do you present a modern vision of a tribal absolute monarchy-theocracy?).

“The Saudi state had the aim of unification from the outset…...the Saudi family used its alliance with the faith deliberately to promote unity among the tribes….as a precursor to modernizing them (what a sneaky thing to do)…..

“The nineteenth century was a fierce fiery Saudi struggle for liberation, and some Saudi rulers paid a high price for it (so, we do have a Nelson Mandela al-Saud somewhere).

“King Abdulaziz was a visionary, who bided his time wisely for thirty years, before declaring his unified state (of course first he had to defeat and take over such autonomous regions as the birthplace of Islam Hijaz and oil-rich al-A’hsaa, but these are mere details) , and when he did declare his project o Arab unity, he gave the country the name of Arabia (very decent of him, and I thought that has been its name since before Islam, as in Arabia Deserta. He also gave the country his own family name).

“King Abdulaziz’ vision was even socialist, as when he established a cooperative farm (was this on the model of a Soviet Kolkhuz, or an early Zionist Kibbutz? Was the King inspired by Joseph Stalin, Vladimir Jabotinsky, or Ben Gurion? Alas, the writer does not say.) ……”
Such groveling nonsense has been a hallmark of a lot of the media in the Gulf, particularly the Saudi media.
Cheers
Mohammed