Ibrahim Al-Jabin
Syrians have not previously been accustomed to working in an environment governed by a law that regulates relations among the various components of society. The rules that prevailed during the eras of authoritarian rule and revolution were entirely different from those envisioned by anyone seeking to establish full and protected media freedom for journalists, while also safeguarding the rights of those covered by the press in its written, audio, visual and digital forms.
Just as the press during the revolutionary period included those determined to document the crimes of the former regime and the militias it supported by every possible means, there were also consistently firm voices warning against being drawn into unverified propaganda and baseless accusations. Documentation is the first principle of journalistic professionalism and one of the most essential requirements for the credibility of journalistic content. Political propaganda, meanwhile, often prevailed—a phenomenon understandable and legitimate within the discourse of an oppositional revolutionary movement that had principled, political and moral grounds for rejecting injustice, dictatorship and the corruption, abuses and massacres associated with them.
In the new era, some continued to believe that they were still operating according to the same rules they had grown accustomed to during the years of revolution. While their passionate rejection of any form of deviation may be legitimate, they fail to recognise that every journalistic account they publish must also be supported by evidence possessing sufficient legal standing to substantiate their claims.
The conflation of political opinion with critical content has increased as the Syrian state has advanced in its development, expanded its projects and diversified its domestic and foreign engagements. Journalists have increasingly assumed the right to present their personal opinions as Syrian citizens on matters that have little to do with citizenship rights, but rather concern the credibility of an argument, the strength of its foundations and its ability to withstand scrutiny against the facts.
What kind of free press do we want in the new Syria? This is more than just a question. It is a broad project that has occupied people’s thoughts from the moment of liberation until the writing of these lines. Between those two moments, Syrians have had to confront a succession of ongoing challenges. Every morning, as the sun rises over Damascus, Syrians wake up to scandals and allegations whose authors present them as having uncovered the ultimate truth and being on the verge of bringing down one official or another—or as having finally discovered the true direction of the new Syrian state.
We have repeatedly heard from the directors of media organisations critical of the situation in Syria that the Syrian government must learn to accept the existence of another voice: an opposing and dissenting voice, rather than one that merely supports and endorses it. This is correct. Yet the fundamental question of what kind of press we want has one straightforward answer: adherence to the law. International professional standards require that every claim be supported by corroborating evidence.
Accordingly, a press that seeks to provide critical scrutiny must become accustomed to presenting documentary evidence. Before that, however, it must recognise that it is dealing with a state, not a group; with institutions, not organisations, factions, movements or political parties. Its counterpart in critical debate is an official entity that is expected to take action in response to issues raised by the press, rather than remain silent, dismiss criticism or ignore it.
Just as state-owned media should not simply echo every government decision, but should monitor those decisions, support positive measures and criticise negative ones, it also bears the responsibility of setting an example of respect for the principle that the state stands above petty disputes and polemics. The state should not become a party to a feud with one media outlet or another. Instead, it should use its institutional weight to promote measured and responsible discourse, without allowing the work of government to be reduced to the level of activists or small charitable organisations. Its sovereign standing and legal authority must be preserved within the framework of the state.
Within this framework, the conscientious reader may ask: Is anyone immune from scrutiny in an era of free journalism in the new Syria? The answer, in short, is no. Protection is guaranteed by the law, professional conscience and recognition of the state. These three elements must never be separated in public discourse; otherwise, that discourse risks descending into incitement, confusion and the manipulation of public opinion.
Conversely, is there a guarantee that the free press can address whatever issues it chooses? Again, the answer is yes. That guarantee lies in a strong state and institutions established and protected by law, which safeguard freedom of expression. Consequently, undermining state institutions and attempting to diminish their standing and legitimacy by reducing them from state authorities to adversaries in a passing journalistic investigation undermines the very guarantee that protects a free press. In doing so, the press ends up striking directly at its own interests.
Such a relationship between the different parties engaged in constructive social contestation should be founded on mutual respect for the legitimacy of each. It must also recognise that the press is indeed the fourth estate. Yet, precisely because it is a form of power, it must exercise that power responsibly and within limits, just as the executive branch cannot operate without the constraints imposed by law.
Neither the state nor society is any longer governed by an ideological authority, as was the case under Ba’ath rule. Instead, the space for disagreement between them must be managed through a framework of established standards that requires no reinvention of the wheel. The law, meanwhile, awaits the legislative transformation now being led by the People’s Assembly, covering all areas of expertise and fields of activity. It is unreasonable for the Assad regime to fall while its laws continue to govern Syrians after its demise.
But what should be done when the battle today revolves around futile attempts to strip the state, the government and even the People’s Assembly itself of their legitimacy? And how can journalism truly be free of its own internal constraints, shaped by various motives that direct its discourse and determine its objectives before the first words of an article are even written or an idea aimed at exposing certain phenomena is formulated?
This is a path that may prove lengthy and waste further time. Yet it can be shortened through a modest but essential measure: a shared level of awareness among all those who influence public opinion, people’s daily lives and their future.
Source: Al-Thawra Syrian Newspaper
