 |
Al-Ahram Weekly 13 - 19 July 2000 Issue No. 490 
|
||
Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 |
| ||
|
Al-Ahram Weekly 13 - 19 July 2000 Issue No. 490
|
||
| Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 |
| ||
Egypt Focus International Economy Opinion Interview Culture Features Travel Living Sports Profile People Time Out Chronicles Cartoons Letters Sniper press
By Salama Ahmed Salama
Perhaps the margin of freedom in Egyptian journalism has widened enough to produce critical views that uncover defects and errors un-ettered. But this margin has been used in the worst possible way to serve a journalism of incitement, and without any serious attempt to investigate the issues at hand, remain objective or advance a comprehensive perspective that takes into account developments that have freed human beings from the dominant track the revolution or the regime had imposed for so long.
Some writers release articles as they would bloodhounds -- blindfolded, sniffing out the prey from afar -- without bothering to search for the truth. It is very easy for an opponent of the political power structure to become an opponent of the nation and the people. Journalism then turns away from considerations of truth and accuracy, to focus instead on settling scores and reiterating reports that serve only to agitate public opinion.
Some research centres, human rights organisations, associations formed to save the environment, protect women's rights, oppose globalisation, promote peace or fight racism depend solely on voluntary work, while others rely on a combination of local and foreign funding sources like governments, parliaments and international organisations. The majority undertake activities that involve highly qualified, full-time specialists with a high degree of efficiency and an ability to contact and coordinate worldwide networks.
In Egypt we have known such activities on a far broader scale than many imagine. Virtually every activity, whether private, partially or completely state-sponsored, is supported by foreign grants or loans. All funds are subject to priorities and agendas agreed upon between donor and recipient after extensive investigation of the activity to be undertaken, whether collecting garbage or encouraging the private sector. The list of American grants given to Egyptian businessmen, when it was submitted to the People's Assembly, caused a hubbub that was immediately hushed up. And it would be stupid of people to think that the many political activities encouraging cooperation with Israel or other foreign powers were organised without the state's approval.
Sometimes these organisations engage in corrupt behaviour or operate at cross-purposes with the timing and arrangement preferred by the government, subverting the official orientation; sometimes they expose practices that the government would rather keep hidden. Immediately an ill wind begins to blow, uprooting rights and obligations and ignoring vested interests, resorting to repressive measures that consistently prove far more detrimental to Egypt's reputation than an intellectual position or a financial arrangement -- more detrimental, too, than the intervention of a foreign party whose presence irritates nationalist sensitivities.
A good deal of nonsense is reiterated concerning classified information and reports sold to foreign powers, when everyone knows that the communications revolution and globalisation have affected everything from the banking sector to Islamism, party platforms and voter turnout. These do not constitute classified information worth buying and selling. Everything is available on the Internet. The grants and agreements, furthermore, are based on precise statistics, which the government does not hide from the public.
These issues should be tackled by the media in the coverage of the accusations levelled against Saadeddin Ibrahim and the Ibn Khaldun Centre. The media should also think twice before resorting to incitement, a singularly outdated method of appealing to readers. Most probably, many -- including this writer -- do not support the opinions propagated by the Ibn Khaldun Centre, its method of cooperating with numerous foreign organisations with whose intentions one may not be entirely comfortable, and the reports it publishes, some of which may be said to disregard objectivity and balanced judgement. But none of this justifies an impetuous, emotional attack in which indictment precedes investigation and the verdict of public opinion precedes the rule of law. Indeed, once we concede such an approach, we effectively abort freedom and place the noose around our own necks.
