مشاهدات -
عصمت الموسوي
رقابـــــة رئيـــــس التحــــرير
وضع تقرير الحريات الصحفية في الوطن العربي والذي اعده اتحاد الصحفيين العرب مؤخرا وضع رقابة رئيس التحرير في الصحفية على رأس كل انواع الرقابات التي يخضع لها الصحفيون في كل الارض العربية، ورأى انها الاوسع ممارسة وانتشارا وتكرارا والاكثر اثارة للجدل في نطاق العمل الصحفي العربي الذي يخضع له ٨٢ الف صحفي عربي في ٤٧٦٢ مؤسسة صحفية، وجاءت البحرين ضمن عدد من الدول العربية المبتلية بهذا النوع من الرقابة، فإذا فلت الصحفي العربي والبحريني من رقابة التشريعات الضاغطة والمعلومات المتكتم عليها والوزارات التي تمنع دخول الصحف والصحفيين الى مقارها تطبيقا لمبدأ »وتعاونوا على قضاء حوائجكم بالكتمان« وكأن مؤسسات الدولة شركات او مزارع خاصة. ا
واذا اجتاز الصحفي حواجز ونقاط التفتيش التي يضعها اعداء الصحافة والمتربصين بالحريات والكارهين للكشف والعلانية والشفافية والمصارحة في كل هذه الطرق غير المعبدة للصحافة في الشوارع العربية.واذا »فلتر« الصحفي مادته عبر مصفي جهازه الاستخباراتي الذاتي، فإن هناك سلطة اشد تنتظره داخل صحيفته، وتختلف مسمياتها من صحيفة لأخرى، الرقيب هو الاسم الاكثر شيوعا، وهو شخص موثوق الجانب رسميا كان في السابق يحضر آخر الليل ويتواجد في المطبعة فقط يمتلك صلاحيات في التصرف وفق اوامر عليا واضحة ومحدد. ا
لقراءة بقية مقال الهاشمية في صحيفة الأيام 19 يونيو 2006
10 comments:
Haha
Been there, done that!
Sadly the situation is more complex than the Hashimiya refers to and here's the take of another Hashimiya on the same issue:
I agree with Esmat that the censorship policies of the editor-in-chiefs of papers in magical Arabia strangle and dilute a lot of stories and even perhaps portray an incorrect picture to readers.
However, the issue is more complicated when you take into consideration that we (journalists/editors/columnists) are self-censored to begin with, especially when it comes to touchy issues.
Allow me, as an insider, if you may, to run by you a common scenario, in our papers:
As a journalist, I would tone down my story and add a twist to it, which will make it more acceptable to the news editor, who would be the first person to read the article.
The news editor, in turn, would dilute the potentially damaging story, cutting out anything the self-censored journalist may have slipped into the copy to suit the paper's policies and the whims of the editor-in-chief.
Then the 'sensitive' story goes to the editor-in-chief's desk, who may use his own judgement to either publish or kill the story.
If the story is to be published, the top-notch editor would be risking a show down with authorities the next morning but would be scoring brownie points with his journalists and news editor. It is important for any editor-in-chief to appear strong and in charge of his own decisions.
Secretly and away from prying eyes, he may seek 'advice' on whether to carry the story or not even after agreeing to run it and may then hold it for a day or two, depending on what else is going on.
If he decides to kill the story, then our enterprising editorial team may challenge his decision, take back the story, rewrite and re-edit it, until is looks and sounds nothing like it originally was.
Only once all and each of our strictly abided to self-censorship criteria are fulfilled, does the story make the headlines.
Not surprisingly enough and despite all this care and sensitivity in handling the story, all hell breaks loose once it is finally published.
The authorities are angry, the source is mad, everyone calls for beheading everyone else and life continues as normal as we write and rewrite the truth as we see it and as we think the authorities would like to see it.. regardless of what it really is.. for in reality the truth is merely a matter of perception.
I find your account just as fascinating as Esmat's. And frightening.
It appears that the way things work do not allow one to become 'senior' enough, or 'indispensible' enough to say no to the practice and refuse to play the game. This is sad.
Is there no way to break the viscious circle? "The authorities are angry, the source is mad, everyone calls for beheading everyone else and life continues as normal....".
In the best of worlds, someone would dare to say no..., basta..., kefaya..
Come to think of it, I must be grateful that I managed to take another track to earn my living.
_______________
And yes, SBG, it is nice to hear from you.
For what it's worth, I've been told recently to "carry on, don't look back, and if anyone harasses you, then all I need is place a call"
And I believe him and also know that he has the influence to make things happen, and I think I am correct in assuming that the same goes to all bloggers as well.
Good luck Mahmood!
We all have nothing to lose by listening to promises given to us by people of influence who can make things happen.
The question is can they really deliver? I believe that sometimes, but only sometimes, they do. Often they fail.
I remember that that King Hamad, HIMSELF, signed a paper in view of people and TV cameras promising this and that. In fact many this and that. He failed to deliver any of of those undertakings.
If King Hamad cannot keep any of his promises why should his underlings live up to theirs?
During the past years, I learnt that there is a long way to go between listening to our officials and actually trusting them or trusting that they will or can deliver.
Unfortunately, I learnt also that one could lose a great deal if one trusts a chronic liar. Alas!
يفوتك من الكذاب صدقٌ كثير
In order not to sound too negative, and just in case things have improved during the past few weeks beyond my imagination, please, Mahmood, give the fellow a call every other week to remind him of his promise to you.
SBG, your blog has 'refused' to publish a comment I posted. Will try again tomorrow!
AbuRasool
AbuRasool, God knows I'm as skeptical as you are, but I still hold on to the hope that all is not lost, and if people at least listen, the message MUST sink in sooner or later... otherwise, it is a bigger disaster for them, than it is to me.
Do they listen? It has been demonstrated on an (efficiency oriented) occasion, one hopes that they also listen and act on bigger things.
July 12th, for instance, was promised that something will get done to limit Batelco's damage to internet usage in Bahrain....
Although I have expressed my doubts I continue to welcome any step, however small, towards a real change. I sincerely wish you luck! I agree with your point that if they should start to listen. And that once they started listening, the message would sink in sooner or later. And I agree that otherwise a bigger disaster for them, than it is to all of us ordinary people.
I wish they listen. Alas! They will not. They prefer to listen to deafening messsages that power and control of national wealth emit.
Pessoptimism is a healthy state of mind during these uncertain times in Bahraini history. AbuRasool
8:44 PM
Mahmood! Forgive my digression. It overshadowed the central point in your post, "... I've been told recently '...if anyone harasses you, then all I need is place a call '".
This is a textbook example of what any autocrat would say. “Come, as individuals, to me, personally, and I will deal with all your problems"... "Forget anything you may have learnt about constitutions, rule of law, and citizenship rights, I, your own benevolent autocrat will save us from the excesses of my underlings and henchmen".
Let me reiterate a point I made while we discussed contributions made by the post-NUC generation, including Nasser Al-Yousif. One of their great contributions was forming associations, clubs and networks in various fields (i.e. civil society actors, to use a modern lingo), partly, to escape similar calls: 'come to me with your problems...’
Autocrats, however benevolent or malevolent they are, hate institutions. They prefer the personal touch whether it is offered with a smile or a whip.
Having said this, I stilll hope he remembers his word to you, Mahmood, and keep it.
إلحق الكذاب إلى باب بيته
AbuRasool
Although AbuRasool has doubts about whether certain individuals will stick to their promises when push comes to shove, I am more concerned about why one needs only to "place a phone call" to get themselves out of trouble. It suggests that even those individuals in power have little faith in the system or in institutions, and rather see themselves as "the system" that the people need to resort to.
oops... sorry for replicating what you pointed out in your last comment AbuRasool. I didn't refresh the cache of the page, so that comment didn't come up! Anyway, it's good to know I'm not alone in thinking about that point :)
Post a Comment