By Salama A Salama Listen to the media uproar that unfolds on television talk shows and you'd think that journalists are trying to find a way out of a major crisis. You'd think that the press is examining the constitutional amendments that are soon to influence the country's political future. The truth is more mundane. The ongoing debate is nothing but an endless mulling over issues democratic countries had settled a long time ago. The debate is about the right of the press to criticise and uncover information about the lives, actions and wealth of senior officials, including the head of state. When standards and democratic traditions are missing, it is easy for criticism to turn into slander, and difference into treason. The community of journalists has been divided into camps. One camp does nothing but sing the government's praises. Another is piling accusations upon allegations. In the middle, objectivity is lost. Editors of the semi- official newspapers held a meeting and issued a statement exonerating themselves and blaming everyone else. Not to be outdone, editors of the independent press held a meeting and accused government press editors of trying to undermine them. The battle was heated, and the public watched bewildered. Some people say that journalists needlessly use profanities, which is true and regrettable. And yet again, freedom of expression and opinion is the mainstay of democracy. Both are non-negotiable. Freedom of expression has been won through the struggle of generations of journalists, and no one can take it away. Sure, freedom comes with certain duties. For example, we must ensure that journalists are using freedom to protect the public interest, not to make personal gains. And we need to ensure that certain people do not use accusations of libel to repress free expression. Our democracy is still frail, and we need to make sure that justice is done. Egyptian society has changed much. Young people talk to their parents and superiors at work in a manner that was once considered bold. Average citizens want to debate matters of public policy and question certain actions by top officials. In other countries of the world, that would be considered normal. In most democracies, it is acceptable to probe the private lives and financial practices of top officials. People go into the public domain with the knowledge that their personal lives will come under close scrutiny. There is nothing wrong with that. But some people in this country want things to remain as before. Some people in this country want the public and the press to treat the government as a benevolent and venerable father. Others disagree. This is why you see confrontations around you everywhere. This is why you find many quarrelling over this particular point, from schools to families, from the press to the judiciary. Times are changing. I fail to understand the recent uproar over what some people call "excessive criticism of the president". President Hosni Mubarak, I have no doubt, understands and tolerates the changes that have happened in this society. Besides, we have legal ways of keeping journalists accountable. We have codes and laws. We have a syndicate that is knowledgeable about professional standards. So let's stop grabbing each other's collar. The syndicate can be called upon to assert itself. Politicians should keep out of the foray. Times have changed and the boundaries of acceptable language have also changed. Perhaps it is time our politicians take note of that and stop calling everything libel.
