Role of local media Wednesday, 09 March 2011 01:18

In light of all of the twists and turns sweeping the surrounding region, and under the horizon of rapid media development, lines of communication are wide open with sounds and images to bring the printed word to life. Rather than the same themes of openness and freedom taking hold of local media, the opposite is occurring. The scope of censorship is getting broader and broader, turning into a gap full of delays, deterioration, and decreasing reliability.

Under these circumstances, in order for a local newspaper to be successful, the pens of the most powerful local writers are repelled and replaced with crime news, entertainment, and racy images to substitute for sales. It is just cause to reflect on the direction that the press will stoop to without timely remedies.

There is no objection to the government appointing editors of their choice, but there are standards required for this choice. The most important standards are flexibility, awareness, self-confidence, and the ability to manage a newspaper consisting of different writers, and varying ideas and trends objectively. It is vital that editors present information in a way that may not necessarily represent their personal views, and do not craft it to protect their immunity from accountability. Fear from the weight of responsibility has no place in this business.

These aren’t editors of daily newsletters discussing community issues, nor are they editing government gazettes. Newspaper editors must be bold and receptive to change and evolution, not clinging to their chairs, robotically trumpeting the same facts and decisions over and over again. Even government ministries need to change, adapt to developments, and take risks to catch up with the accelerating pace of evolution. All is for the sake of reaping the best benefits and at least keeping pace with the times.

In recent months, controversial local issues raised by some writers have surfaced that were promptly nipped by editors. It is as though they are preserving existing conditions by burying controversial topics. But is that really the case? By censoring articles, are editors able to kill the issues and eradicate them from the minds of the writers and the people they are relevant to?

How do revolutions arise? How did the poems of Ahmed Najim and the voice of Al-Sheikh Imam and Abla Balbaa emerge? When they were barred from official media, detained, and arrested several times, the streets embraced them. Their memory has been preserved and lives on not only in their countries alone but in the entire Arab world, and was the inspiration for the rebellions! How can their activities be stopped or missed? In 1981, after the platform accident and Mubarak assumed power, he released Egyptian intellectuals, political activists and opponents who were in prison. He then took on some reforms which were compatible with that point in time. After that, there was no longer any real impact or need for their dissent. And that is how the art of revolutions responds to crises, harassment, stalking, and silencing. That is how rebellions fade away and dissolve into everyday life when information reflects reality and copes with it.

Frankly, if an uprising were to take place by our local writers it would mainly be because of such editors-in-chief, who, with their self-determined censorship, do not stand with or support them. We are not just waiting for them to do away with it completely, rather we are calling for their support and solidarity with us on their self-interested censorship first and then on that of the state. We are asking for them to exert pressure on behalf of their editorial role, their writers, and ethical standards of their professions. It is editors’ leading role to devote to a local press that backs its citizens and their legitimate right of free expression.

As writers, we expect editors-in-chief to protect and defend us - not to report us or question our intentions. But if they do not trust us, then how can they support and defend us or adopt our positions? Without a shadow of a doubt, we writers take full responsibility of every word that we write and its consequences. Editors have a choice in using their roles either to transform their newspapers into fields of solidarity and faith in the written word, or to rigidly muffle bold views. In the latter choice, editors are knighting themselves as guardians of the gate and believing that they are the only patriotic ones serving the state’s interests and protecting it from everyone else.

Editors should know that they are hurting the state when writers tire from suppression and rebel, looking for alternative environments that are more welcoming for expression. How long will writers continue to surrender to editors’ control and interventions, leaving them to decide the fate of their writing and the essence of their thoughts?

Our beloved nation demands revaluation in dealing with local writers, giving them the esteem that they deserve, protecting them from attack, rejection, and suspicion of their intentions.

Editors are not more patriotic than writers to protect the country from them. There are standards that we all know and refuse to allow anyone to touch, such as respecting the rights of others and not stifling or muffling them. Writing is a weapon that if not used responsibly will cause injury to others, and we know that. Without transparency, how will local writers learn and grow? How will they feel confident and responsible? How will the injustice and oppression be lifted from them when they are silenced them from discussing domestic issues at home? How will facts be clarified when they are blacked out from dissemination and discussion?

Simply put, the solution to preserving society and the country is to provide freedom of expression and trust in the writer who is a national savior to the community. By presenting their opinions to the public, writers raise issues that are naturally balanced by responses from the external environment.

One of the issues that has been muffled from the pens of writers, and caused a deep rift that cannot be mended, is the debate surrounding the Advisory Council. The issue lies between those who are for the postponement and those call for it to be reviewed. The state proposed the idea of an elected Advisory Council, raising awareness of the possibility, and promising it to the people. Then, the state established the Supreme Committee for Elections, and planted it in the minds of the people. Now, dialogue surrounding the issue is being prevented. How is that possible? It is just dialogue; a little give and take, one opinion and another. Is the censorship of articles and prevention of dissent aligned with the principles of democratic rights? Is it possible to digest, accept, and find convincing explanations for that behaviour? No, there is no justification for it.

All that writers want is to debate, think aloud, and deliver their voices to the position of power who has never refused to listen to the views of his people and has called for lifting censorship and freedom of expression in his speeches and instructions.

Let people discuss, debate, and engage in dialogue. This is their country, too. Do not leave them to eat one another alive with accusations back and forth. They have nothing to do with this election, they are only paying the price of your attack on dissenting views.

With an awareness of recent developments in the region, we do not want a difficult obstruction appearing in our local press. Quickly it will rumble below the surface, simmering until the long silence explodes.

We want more freedom. Different groups in the country, with their various interests, conditions, and balances will instill equilibrium in the country. Suppressing a particular group will not help as it will only energize an explosion beneath the surface.

| More...