Media disgrace

By Salama A Salama

---

Some major political groups and figures emerged empty- handed from the recent elections, though they were not the only losers. The media, having failed to adopt objective standards of neutrality, also lost. The media -- and here I include state-run enterprises as well as the vast majority of independent newspapers -- consistently failed to provide the public with the facts they needed to make an informed choice. In short, the media failed to deliver.

It is sad to see the state using writers and journalists as pawns. It is also sad to watch as the media sides with the ruling party for no other reason than the fact that it is in control. It was appalling to watch as leading journalists abandoned any attempt to inform and enlighten. In the process they turned their back on democracy and abandoned any pretence at defending freedom of expression. Many journalists reported the erroneous stories. Many more took sides with the government during debates and public appearances. If anything, this provided the public with enough reason to post a protest vote against the National Democratic Party, out of disillusionment and disappointment.

State-run television services provided more varied coverage of the elections than the press but after 50 years of being told what to do the habit of singing the praises of the ruling party is deeply engrained in the national media. The opposition parties received mostly negative coverage and independents went unnoticed though they were a major part of campaign.

True, state-run television dedicated a channel to election news but its level of professionalism left much to be desired. The viewers were not informed about the progress of the voting process, or the names of candidates, or details of the clashes and confrontations that were taking place in and around polling stations. The Interior Ministry spokesman refused to admit that any irregularities had taken place at polling stations, preferring to give the impression that everything was progressing smoothly. Indeed, had it not been for regional satellite stations and independent newspapers the widespread acts of violence would have gone unreported.

State TV contended itself with repeating Interior Ministry statements, as did the national press. This selective reporting made independent papers look far more professional than their state-owned competitors and as a result their circulation soared. Similarly, regional and independent channels out-performed Egyptian TV.

The official media regularly showed itself to be more concerned with covering up, rather than covering, the news. It was as if we were back in the 1960s. What is even more alarming is that many television and news agency reporters who tried to cover the news objectively were assaulted. They were physically attacked and their cameras smashed. Even women journalists were attacked. Such transgressions were duly reported by rights groups monitoring the elections, when the rights groups were not actively prevented from doing their job.

Neutrality was treated with disdain. Had it not been for the independent media -- two Egyptian television stations, some Arab stations, one or two independent papers -- the elections might as well have been held under totalitarian rule. Yet despite the restrictions some reliable coverage appeared. This is an achievement, and one that is going to leave its mark. Without an independent and powerful media to keep the nation informed the political process will remain open to abuse. Journalists are our frontline of defence against irregularities.