Al Ahram Weekly, by Azza Radwan Sedky
The proliferation of media has brought tremendous change in social awareness, but has also led to distortions and fear, writes Azza Radwan Sedky
In the 1960s and 1970s, Egypt basically had two main TV channels (Channel One and Channel Two), two main radio channels (Al-Kahera and Sout Al-Arab) and two major newspapers (Al-Ahram and Al-Akhbar).
The landline — that black stationary device with a lengthy cord — was the basic means of communication. Most Egyptians didn’t even have landlines and paid 1.5 piastres to call from the nearest candy and cigarette kiosk. As for speaking to the outside world, it was a different ballgame altogether.
It meant sitting for an hour or two at the Central, then getting into a stall to speedily speak for the pricey allotted three minutes and quickly bid your family member goodbye as the operator hung up on you. This while snail mail, as we call it today, delivered written messages to loved ones around the world.
Life was different: slow-paced, noiseless and private.
Today, communication moves at a different pace. With satellites came thousands of TV and radio channels: the good, the mediocre and the affiliated. Though reading books is becoming more of a luxury, dozens of newspapers, some declaring allegiance to certain political groups, adorn newsstands. One doesn’t necessarily have to buy these newspapers. Online access is free. Also, with the Internet came a multitude of options: 24/7 news and, more often than not, nonessential and unnecessary information.
As there are almost more mobiles than there are Egyptians, the landline is slowly becoming obsolete. And to reach the outside world, with a slight finger movement on a smart phone, the caller views the other side across vast lands and oceans, and all free, too.
Life is different: fast-paced, overwhelming and public.
The positive element in all of this is indeed accessibility: news reaches us faster. And since the current speed and communication methods are here to stay, if not to get even faster and better, it is up to us as Egyptians to handle them appropriately and to gain instead of losing from accessibility.
As history tells us, it sometimes takes decades for the real story to surface. Today, in seconds, several underlying angles beget the real story, the concept of taking time to digest gone by the wayside. Consequently, the story and its ripple effect span the globe.
“Breaking,” a new word, lets us know that this story is still unfolding. From there the story moves across the various levels of communication. At the other far end, on Facebook and Twitter, anyone and everyone can and will comment. “Exclusive” is another new word that gives the story an edge in the current competitive environment.
Today, crises befall our beloved country regularly, and before we can put a crisis to rest another one emerges. Immediately, and to beat competition, talk shows analyse, newspapers dissect and social media befuddles. The poor layperson is blinded and deafened as the informed and uninformed offer opinions and make conclusions. The Doctors Syndicate’s protest, the shooting of the taxi driver Mohamed Ali, and the torture and murder of Giulio Regeni, the Italian PhD student, are all cases in point.
One can hardly pronounce a person dead and say, “Rest in peace,” before the deceased’s merits and demerits are probed into, condemning and hailing him simultaneously. Former UN secretary-general and Egyptian diplomat Boutros Boutros-Ghali and prominent journalist Mohamed Hassanein Heikal are two cases in point.
Once, certain topics were taboo and never discussed openly. It is not clear whether it was out of courtesy, culture or prohibition that a president’s health and his family’s goings and comings, for instance, were hardly mentioned in standard media. With freedom of speech reaching an ultimate level, nothing is sacred anymore. The second appearance of First Lady Intisar during President Abdel-Fattah Al-Sisi’s formal speech to parliament was followed with a chain of yay and nay — is another case in point.
Today, nothing is censored; to speak out is a right. This is a positive change, but Egyptians need to pause, take a deep breath and assimilate carefully before they sound the alarm with each story. They should wait for official announcements, avoid making aggravating conclusions, and be smart about the whole media presence.
They also need to question the validity of all messages that cross their path: the good and the bad. A photo of a policeman guarding protestors was manipulated to fit several demonstrations. The only difference was in the sign that the protestor behind the policeman carried: the sign once breathed life into Morsi’s return, another time degraded the police force and, finally, incited doctors. Photoshop is a very dangerous tool. The innocent need to be aware of this.
Quotes can be taken out of context to mean the opposite and in the process wreak havoc. “I detest Cairo,” is not the same as, “I detest Cairo during sandstorms.” Words such as “allege” or “claim” are there to confuse. “The police allege that it was a mistake” implies that the police are lying. “He claims innocence” speaks to his deception. In all this, objectivity isn’t the name of the game, but intentional distortion is.
Brainwashing is also a successful tool for manipulation. The mere repetition of an idea, whether it is necessary or not, leaves its mark on the innocent. When Western media repeat “President Morsi, the first civilian president,” or “President Morsi, the first democratically elected leader” over and over again, the world at large succumbs to the theory that ex-president Morsi, since he is the first civilian president after all, is best for Egypt.
Some believe that criticism pays. It does, but only to an extent. If negative criticism persists, it backfires. And by highlighting the negative and dimming the positive Egyptians are left perturbed and worried. More importantly, by ridiculing or making fun of the good, nothing remains sacred. Media, across the board, should recognise this and act accordingly.
As for the Egyptians themselves, they should take media in general with a grain of salt. They should realise that as crises continue to befall Egypt and get discussed and brought to the fore, it doesn’t mean that each crisis will inspire or instigate a revolution. They need not worry: two revolutions in a span of two years is good enough.
Now let’s move on and build with what we have.
Comments