Egypt's Media Blunders

New Article Submission

Thank you for your interest in Jadaliyya. We welcome all submissions. The most significant requirement is for Jadaliyya submissions to be analytically compelling and offer a perspective or argument that has not been covered at length either on Jadaliyya or elsewhere. Because of the volume of submissions, well-written pieces are prioritized. Length is flexible, 1000 to 2500 words is the average range. However, we will accept longer pieces. Once submitted, several members of the editorial committee will review your piece and one of them will inform you of the decision.
Author Details
Article Details
Select Countries
Select Keywords
Select Topics
Only RTF, Word, and Pages documents accepted.

Recommended image size: 762x800 px

Location of each image should be indicated in the text of the article via a square bracket caption that includes: (1) a description of the image; (2) the photographer/designer and source of the image. Please note we only use images you as the author have the right to use, which usually means those of your own creation or those published under Creative Commons. Alternatively, you need specific permission from the copyright holder.
Please read the Release Form and provide an electronic signature [your full name] below to confirm that you accept its terms
Required
Hyperlink words in your article if they refer to links on the internet. We encourage more, rather than less, links (try to avoid footnotes—embed them as hyperlinks if possible)

Article added successfully.

Pages Menu BETA
Jul 13, 2013 Egypt
[A pro-Morsi rally in Cairo this week. Photo by Hussein Malla/AP] [A pro-Morsi rally in Cairo this week. Photo by Hussein Malla/AP]

Egypt's Media Blunders

By : Adel Iskandar

The unfolding political tumult in Egypt over the past ten days has not only captured headlines worldwide, it has taken its toll on journalism and reporting as well. While much of the international media turned their attention away from the country over the past year and assumed democracy was marching along, trouble was brewing in the Arab World`s most populous nation. 

Starting in November 2012, when President Mohamed Morsi of the Muslim Brotherhood released a draconian, dictatorial constitutional decree that gave him absolute immunity and power and then rammed through a non-consensual constitution, Egypt has been extremely polarized. This was most evident in the country`s media. With a Muslim Brotherhood minister of information in the driver`s seat, state media struggled to stay neutral given the longtime institutional animosity toward the Islamist group and anger at the government`s heavy-handed editorializing. Private stations and independent newspapers drifted into two distinct camps, pro- and anti-Morsi. The former were primarily religious and Islamist outfits, some directly belonging to the Muslim Brotherhood like Misr25 and others ideologically aligned with them such as Al-Naas, Al-Hafeth, and others. The anti-Morsi media are a hodgepodge of outlets with different interests and objectives as well as opaque funding streams. Transnational private stations like Al-Jazeera Arabic, Al-Jazeera Mubashir Misr (Live Egypt), and Al-Arabiya also took sides, with the Al-Jazeeras anchoring their support for Morsi and the Brotherhood and the Saudi Al-Arabiya siding with the then-president`s opponents.

In this polarized environment, journalistic professionalism went out of the window as each camp drummed up support for its side and demonized the other. One group of partisan media pushed for protests against Morsi, the other called for rallies to defend Morsi. Much of this happened outside of international media purview. It all reached a crescendo on 30 June, the day when millions of Egyptians spilled into the streets across the country calling for early presidential elections and Morsi`s ouster. With international media looking the other way, CNN and other stations were caught off guard when protests erupted in Egypt and they scrambled to explain why so many Egyptians were calling for the downfall of an elected leader. In an attempt to explain this and to showcase both sides of the story, they ended up disproportionately representing the pro-Morsi perspective in the face of what was obviously a massive revolutionary uprising. Egyptians tired of Morsi`s rule saw this coverage as pro-Brotherhood propaganda and directed their ire toward the station and other Western networks. This was aggravated further when the military stepped in to remove Morsi, seen by millions of Egyptians as a popular decision, despite their deep concern about the military. CNN and other American news media immediately shifted their prism to declare this a coup, overlooking the colossal street mobilization that preceded it. This further grounded the widespread frustration with the coverage in Egypt.

Al-Jazeera`s Arabic-language programming also became a casualty of the Egyptian protest movement. With its glowing coverage of the pro-Morsi rallies and strong criticism and dismissal of the opposition protests, the network found itself on a collision course with both the overwhelming popular will and the post-Morsi military authorities. Some of the station`s most prominent anchors joined the pro-Morsi rallies as if members of this political camp. In videos leaked online, veteran Al-Jazeera journalist Ahmed Mansour is shown rallying the pro-Morsi camp and assisting them in devising ways to improve their media message for the Egyptian public and global audiences. The blurring of journalism and political messaging that was visible to most Egyptians throughout the station`s coverage in much of the last year reached a feverish pitch as Muslim Brotherhood officials used Al-Jazeera as a platform to threaten escalation against the military and describing anti-Morsi protesters as infidels, seculars, Mubarakites, etc. So when the military removed Morsi, Al-Jazeera and the other pro-Brotherhood networks became the first media targets. Five Islamist stations were shut and Al-Jazeera had staff briefly arrested by the military. While a troubling and ominous development for freedom of the press in Egypt, it was surprisingly met by applause from many Egyptians who accused the stations of sowing sedition and sectarianism in the country. Today Al-Jazeera Mubasher Misr is back on air in Egypt and with a live twenty-four hour feed from the pro-Morsi protests.

One the other hand, private anti-Brotherhood networks have had their fair share of problematic coverage. Their demonization of Islamists, dismissal of the pro-Morsi rallies, and growing dehumanization of other Egyptians is becoming characteristic. Many such media came out squarely on the side of the military when fifty pro-Morsi protesters were killed in front of the Presidential Guards by the armed forces. Failing to acknowledge wrongdoing on the part of the military, some have gone as far as drumming up xenophobia against non-Egyptians, Palestinians, and Syrians for their alleged support of Morsi. Some respected news personalities and journalists have come out and distanced themselves from this polarization and called for full investigations against the violation and detention of journalists, irrespective of their political alignment and affiliations.

While it is expected that most of the stations shut down by the military will return in some iteration given their wide audience base and popularity (and some already have), it remains to be seen how they will cater to the shifting contours of political power in the country. In the aftermath of Mubarak`s removal, Egyptian media enjoyed a widening margin of freedom. However, this freedom quickly led to two encampments--either watchdog or lapdog for those in power. This trend has been consistent throughout the time of the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces, Morsi`s presidency, and now in this transitional period. The most urgent need now is for a professional journalistic code of ethics drafted by independent civilian organizations such as the Journalists` Syndicate, the National Coalition for the Freedom of Media, civil society organizations, advocates of free press, and scholars of media without military involvement, intrusion, or oversight. If this can be accomplished alongside the inclusion of clauses into the soon-to-be amended constitution that protect journalists, Egypt`s media could be looking forward to better days ahead. Anything less than these protections and standards promises to further aggrave an already volatile and combustible media environment.

[This article was originally published on the Committee for the Protection of Journalists blog]
Tags

  • ALSO BY THIS AUTHOR

    • Quick Thoughts: Adel Iskandar on Al Jazeera’s New Digital Channel

      Quick Thoughts: Adel Iskandar on Al Jazeera’s New Digital Channel

      On 23 February 2021, Politico broke the news that Al Jazeera was launching a right-leaning American digital news outlet called Rightly. The outlet’s first program “Right Now with Stephen Kent” is an opinion-led interview program reflecting libertarian perspectives on American politics. In response to the launch, over one hundred Al Jazeera staff members penned an open letter condemning the move as antithetical to Al Jazeera’s mission and values. Cat Haseman, MA Arab Studies candidate at Georgetown University and Jadaliyya copyeditor, interviewed Adel Iskandar, media professor at Simon Fraser University and author of Al-Jazeera: The Story Of The Network That Is Rattling Governments And Redefining Modern Journalism, to get a better understanding of recent developments and the debates about Rightly that have unfolded across social media in recent weeks.

    • In Memoriam: A Coptic Eucharist

      In Memoriam: A Coptic Eucharist
      The previous day, shortly after they had sipped the wine symbolic of the blood of Christ and in remembrance of the Holy Communion, an explosion tore through the church leaving the their blood in smal

    • The Meme-ing of Revolution: Creativity, Folklore, and the Dislocation of Power in Egypt

      The Meme-ing of Revolution: Creativity, Folklore, and the Dislocation of Power in Egypt
      It was 20 January 2011, just five days before a major protest called for by many youth and opposition groups in Egypt, when Ali came across a hilarious image on Facebook. One of his friends had share
Jan 9, 2012 Lebanon
Maya Mikdashi By :
Maya Mikdashi

American Elections Watch 1: Rick Santorum and The Dangers of Theocracy

One day after returning to the United States after a trip to Lebanon, I watched the latest Republican Presidential Primary Debate. Unsurprisingly, Iran loomed large in questions related to foreign policy. One by one (with the exception of Ron Paul) the candidates repeated President Obama`s demand that Iran not block access to the Strait of Hormuz and allow the shipping of oil across this strategic waterway. Watching them, I was reminded of Israel`s demand that Lebanon not exploit its own water resources in 2001-2002. Israel`s position was basically that Lebanon`s sovereign decisions over the management of Lebanese water resources was a cause for war. In an area where water is increasingly the most valuable resource, Israel could not risk the possibility that its water rich neighbor might disrupt Israel`s ability to access Lebanese water resources through acts of occupation, underground piping, or unmitigated (because the Lebanese government has been negligent in exploiting its own water resources) river flow. In 2012, the United States has adopted a similar attitude towards Iran, even though the legal question of sovereignty over the Strait of Hormuz is much more complicated and involves international maritime law in addition to Omani and Iranian claims of sovereignty. But still, US posturing towards Iran is reminiscent of Israeli posturing towards Lebanon. It goes something like this: while the US retains the right to impose sanctions on Iran and continuously threaten war over its alleged pursuit of a nuclear weapon, Iran should not dare to assume that it can demand the removal of US warships from its shores and, more importantly, should not dream of retaliating in any way to punitive sanctions imposed on it. One can almost hear Team America`s animated crew breaking into song . . . “America . . . Fuck Yeah!”

During the debate in New Hampshire, Rick Santorum offered a concise answer as to why a nuclear Iran would not be tolerated and why the United States-the only state in the world that has actually used nuclear weapons, as it did when it dropped them on the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki- should go to war over this issue. Comparing Iran to other nuclear countries that the United States has learned to “tolerate” and “live with” such as Pakistan and North Korea, Santorum offered this succinct nugget of wisdom: Iran is a theocracy. Coming from a man who has stated that Intelligent Design should be taught in schools, that President Obama is a secular fanatic, that the United States is witnessing a war on religion, and that God designed men and women in order to reproduce and thus marriage should be only procreative (and thus heterosexual and “fertile”), Santorum`s conflation of “theocracy” with “irrationality” seemed odd. But of course, that is not what he was saying. When Santorum said that Iran was a theocracy what he meant is that Iran is an Islamic theocracy, and thus its leaders are irrational, violent, and apparently (In Santorum`s eyes) martyrdom junkies. Because Iran is an Islamic theocracy, it cannot be “trusted” by the United States to have nuclear weapons. Apparently, settler colonial states such as Israel (whose claim to “liberal “secularism” is tenuous at best), totalitarian states such as North Korea, or unstable states such as Pakistan (which the United States regularly bombs via drones and that is currently falling apart because, as Santorum stated, it does not know how to behave without a “strong” America) do not cause the same radioactive anxiety. In Santorum`s opinion, a nuclear Iran would not view the cold war logic of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) as a deterrent. Instead, the nation of Iran would rush to die under American or Israeli nuclear bombs because martyrdom is a religious (not national, Santorum was quick to state, perhaps realizing that martyrdom for nation is an ideal woven into the tapestry of American ideology) imperative. Santorum`s views on Iran can be seen one hour and two minutes into the debate.

When it comes to Islam, religion is scary, violent and irrational, says the American Presidential candidate who is largely running on his “faith based” convictions. This contradiction is not surprising, given that in the United States fundamentalist Christians regularly and without irony cite the danger that American muslims pose-fifth column style- to American secularism. After all, recently Christian fundamentalist groups succeeded in pressuring advertisers to abandon a reality show that (tediously) chronicled the lives of “American Muslims” living in Detroit. The great sin committed by these American Muslims was that they were too damn normal. Instead of plotting to inject sharia law into the United States Constitution, they were busy shopping at mid-western malls. Instead of marrying four women at a time and vacationing at Al-Qaeda training camps in (nuclear, but not troublingly so) Pakistan, these “American Muslims” were eating (halal) hotdogs and worrying about the mortgages on their homes and the rising costs of college tuition. Fundamentalist Christians watched this boring consumer driven normalcy with horror and deduced that it must be a plot to make Islam appear compatible with American secularism. The real aim of the show, these Christian fundamentalists (who Rick Santorum banks on for political and financial support) reasoned, was to make Islam appear “normal” and a viable religious option for American citizens. Thus the reality show “All American Muslim” was revealed to be a sinister attempt at Islamic proselytizing. This in a country where Christian proselytizing is almost unavoidable. From television to subways to doorbell rings to presidential debates to busses to street corners and dinner tables-there is always someone in America who wants to share the “good news” with a stranger. Faced with such a blatant, and common, double standard, we should continue to ask “If Muslim proselytizers threaten our secular paradise, why do Christian proselytizers not threaten our secular paradise?”

As the United States Presidential Elections kick into gear, we can expect the Middle East to take pride of place in questions pertaining to foreign policy. Already, Newt Gingrich who, if you forgot, has a PhD in history, has decided for all of us, once and for all, that the Palestinians alone in this world of nations are an invented people. Palestinians are not only a fraudulent people, Gingrich has taught us, they are terrorists as well. Candidates stumble over each other in a race to come up with more creative ways to pledge America`s undying support for Israel. Iran is the big baddie with much too much facial hair and weird hats. America is held hostage to Muslim and Arab oil, and must become “energy efficient” in order to free itself from the unsavory political relationships that come with such dependancy. Candidates will continue to argue over whether or not President Obama should have or should not have withdrawn US troops from Iraq, but no one will bring up the reality that the US occupation of Iraq is anything but over. But despite the interest that the Middle East will invite in the coming election cycle, there are a few questions that we can confidently assume will not be asked or addressed. Here are a few predictions. We welcome additional questions from readers.

Question: What is the difference between Christian Fundamentalism and Muslim Fundamentalism? Which is the greater “threat” to American secularism, and why?

Question: The United States` strongest Arab ally is Saudi Arabia, an Islamic theocracy and authoritarian monarchy which (falsely) cites Islamic law to prohibit women from driving cars, voting, but has recently (yay!) allowed women to sell underwear to other women. In addition, Saudi Arabia has been fanning the flames of sectarianism across the region, is the main center of financial and moral support for Al-Qaeda and is studying ways to “obtain” (the Saudi way, just buy it) a nuclear weapon-all as part and parcel of a not so cold war with Iran. Given these facts, how do you respond to critics that doubt the United States` stated goals of promoting democracy, human rights, women`s rights, and “moderate” (whatever that is) Islam?

Question: Israel has nuclear weapons and has threatened to use them in the past. True or false?

Question: How are Rick Santorum`s views on homosexuality (or the Christian right`s views more generally) different than President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad`s or King Abdullah`s? Can you help us tease out the differences when all three have said that as long as homosexuals do not engage in homosexual sex, it`s all good?

Question: Is the special relationship between the United States and Israel more special because they are both settler colonies, or is something else going on?